Allowed

The Chairman, Rajadhani Institute of v. University of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2011WP(C)/16485/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the University's refusal to grant affiliation for MBA courses due to lack of proper consideration. The petitioner was directed to have the matter reconsidered by the Syndicate without being restrained by previous observations.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 quashed; respondents directed to place matter before Syndicate for fresh decision within 6 weeks.

The Chairman, Rajadhani Institute of Vs University… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 16485 of 2011 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE CHAIRMAN, RAJADHANI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY RAJADHANI HILLS, NAGAROOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 102.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.MATHEW K. SIMON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 803.

¶11

2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695 803.

¶12

R,R1-2 BY SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR R,R1&2 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY. R BY SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 16485 of 2011 (I)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶17

P1 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7-2-2010 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶18

P2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23-8-2010 ISSUED BY THE AICTE

¶19

P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11-10-2010 ISSUED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

¶20

P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-12-2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶21

P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18-3-2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶22

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

SMM

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶28

--------------------------------WP(C) No. 16485 OF 2011

¶29

Dated this the 7^th day of December , 2011

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The Chairman of an educational institution running B. Tech Course is approaching this court on a second round of litigation with respect to refusal to grant affiliation by the respondent University, for the new courses in MBA. The petitioner applied for affiliation for new courses, B.Tech in Electrical, Electronics and MBA, with respect to the academic year 2010-11. Through Ext.P1 it was informed that the Syndicate in its meeting held on 25-02-2010 had resolved to grant NOC for B. Tech in Electrical and Electronics Course. In Ext. P1 it was also stated that, “Also in general practice University will sanction new courses to a newly started college after examining the academic results of the first batch of students after completing the respective initially

¶32

WP(C) No. 16485 OF 2011

¶33

¶34

sanctioned.” According to the petitioner, the All India Counsel for Technical Education (AICTE) had granted approval for the Courses both in B. Tech in Electrical and Electronics and in MBA, by virtue of Ext.P2, dated 23-082010. The petitioner there upon submitted Ext.P3 representation before the Registrar of the University requesting to consider the application for granting permission/affiliation for starting MBA course during the academic year 2011-12. Since such representation was not considered, the petitioner approached this court in W.P.(C) NO. 36387/10. This court observed that the University had not applied its mind to the request of the petitioner to grant affiliation for the MBA Course. Hence through Ext.P4 judgment, the second respondent was directed to consider Ext.P3 (Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.36387 of 2010 and to pass orders dealing with the request of the petitioner for affiliation of MBA course. A decision in this regard was directed to be taken within a period of 4

¶35

WP(C) No. 16485 OF 2011 3

¶36

weeks from the date of production of the said judgment. However, it was clarified that the petitioner had undertaken that even if affiliation is granted they are not proposing to admit students for the academic year 2010-11. Ext.P5 is the decision taken pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P4 judgment . In Ext.P5, the Registrar had intimated the petitioner that it was decided to confirm the earlier decision of the Syndicate, taken on 25-02-2010, considering report of the local enquiry conducted as envisaged under Statute 8 of Chapter 24 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 which didn't recommend for the proposal for starting MBA Course.

¶37

2. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 contending that it does not reflect any application of mind by the concerned authority. Referring to Statute 7 and 8 of chapter 24 of the KUFS 1977, it is contended that, the Syndicate had already taken a decision to proceed with consideration of the application by directing the local

¶38

WP(C) No. 16485 OF 2011 4

¶39

enquiry as contemplated in statute 7. In such case the Syndicate ought to have taken a decision as contemplated under Statue 9 of Chapter 24, considering the report of the local enquiry and other aspects which are relevant. In other words, the refusal for granting affiliation stating the reasons that the report of the enquiry has not recommended the proposal, is unsustainable is the contention. Going by the provisions of the first Statute no such recommendation is necessary. It is contended that Section 23(1) of Kerala University Act, 1974 prescribes that the Syndicate has to grant affiliation to institutions in accordance with the terms and conditions of such valuation prescribed in the Act and the Statutes. Since, the Act or the Statutes does not require recommendation of any other authority, it was for the Syndicate to have an independent appraisal of the application and to take a decision. It is further contended that inspite of directions issued by this court

¶40

WP(C) No. 16485 OF 2011

¶41

¶42

in Ext. P4 judgment, the respondent University had not mentioned any valid reasons for non granting of the affiliation.

¶43

In the counter affidavit of the respondents it is stated that, the local enquiry conducted by the University under Statute 8 of Chapter 24 has not recommended for affiliation of MBA course. It is further stated that going by the Statute 1 of Chapter 24,the application submitted in the previous year will be deemed to be valid for the next academic year, only if the University has made its favourable recommendations. Therefore, in the case at hand the application for MBA course submitted by the petitioner for the previous academic year cannot be considered. Hence, it is contended that, at present there is no application for affiliation submitted by the petitioner with approval from AICTE, for the academic year 2011-2012.

¶44

Considering the facts and circumstances and

¶45

WP(C) No. 16485 OF 2011 6

¶46

rival contentions, I am of the view that Ext.P5 does not reflect any proper consideration of the matter by the syndicate, even after specific directions issued by this court in Ext. P4 judgment. In Ext.P1, there is no specific mention about any rejection of the application for affiliation for MBA course. This court while dealing with the matter had observed that the stand taken in Ext.P1 order is sustainable. But considering such stand this court observed that there is no satisfactory proof to the effect that the University had applied its mind with respect to the request for granting affiliation to MBA course. Hence the directions in Ext. P4 was issued . That being so the University was not justified in taking a further decision merely reiterating its earlier decision, taken on 25-2-2010. On the other hand, a fresh consideration taking note of all relevant aspects depending upon policy of the University,ought to have been done, subject to the statutory requirements and

¶47

WP(C) No. 16485 OF 2011 7

¶48

other relevant factors. Further, I find force in the argument that affiliation does not require

¶49

recommendation of the authority conducting local enquiry. Going by the statute it is for the Syndicate to take an independent decision considering. There is a controversy as to whether no objection from the Government is a pre-requisite for considering the application. However, as observed above, I am satisfied that there was no proper consideration of the matter, as reflected in Ext.P5. I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the Syndicate is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter, taking note of the circumstances prevailing as on today. It is specifically pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that subsequent to the decision of the Syndicate taken on 25-2-2010, the AICTE had granted recognition for the MBA course. That is also a matter which need be considered. Since it is revealed

¶50

WP(C) No. 16485 OF 2011 8

¶51

that, even if affiliation is granted no students can be admitted for the academic year 2011-12, it will be sufficient if the University takes a decision at the earliest possible facilitating admission of students for the coming academic year, if such affiliation is granted.

¶52

Therefore , the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P5 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to place the matter for consideration of the syndicate. The application for affiliation of MBA course submitted by the petitioner will be considered untrammelled by any of the observation contained in Ext.P1 or P5, taking note of the present situation prevailing . Such decision shall be taken as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of copy of this judgment.

¶53

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶54

smm

¶55

WP(C) No. 16485 OF 2011 9

¶56

WP(C) No. 16485 OF 2011 10

The Chairman, Rajadhani Institute of v. University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman, Rajadhani Institute of v. University of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Secretary, Industries Department Vs I.F.C.I

K.Rajalakshmi Amma Vs the Tahasildar

Krishna Swamy Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

Poomangalam Grama Panchayath Vs the Tribunal for Local Self Govt

Balachandran & Another Vs the District Collector,Alappuzha & Anr.

The K.S.R.T.C Vs the Rta, Kottayam