Allowed

The Principal,Hahajubilee Training Colle v. University of Calicut and Another

Kerala HC20 Oct 2011WP(C)/6887/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala held that Section 68A of Calicut University Act, 1975 reserves admission and selection in self-financing colleges to Government regulations. Consequently, University regulations cannot apply, and an order denying students examination access was quashed with a direction to regularize admissions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer to quash the order denying examination appearance and direct the University to regularize admissions and issue mark lists within six weeks allowed.

The Principal,Hahajubilee Training Colle Vs… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 6887 of 2010(I)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------------

¶9

THE PRINCIPAL,MAHAJUBILEE TRAINING COLLEGE MULLOORKARA, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

tss

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.6887/2010

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30.9.2009 IN WPC. 16086/09 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶22

P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26.10.2009 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶24

P4:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 24.11.2009 TO THE – DO-

¶25

P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24.11.2009 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P6:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 4.2.2010 FROM THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P7:- COPY OF THE DECLARATION ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶29

R1(a):- COPY OF THE REGULATIONS TO M.ED. (REGULAR) SEMESTER COURSE. R1(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DT.D 3.11.2006.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶34

....................................................... W.P.(C).6887/2010

¶35

Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2011

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Petitioner is a Self Financing Engineering College affiliated to the first respondent University. The writ petition concerns the admission of students for the academic year 2009-10 to M.Ed Course in the petitioner's College. On the basis that the admissions made were not in compliance with Ext.R1(a) regulations framed by the University governing admissions to M.Ed Courses, to the extent that the petitioner did not comply with the admission procedure, the University issued Ext.P6 stating that the students are not entitled to appear for the University Examinations. It was there upon, this writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P6 and to direct the University to permit the students in the petitioner's College to appear for the Examinations.

¶38

The writ petition was admitted and in I.A.5360/2010, this Court passed order dated 16.4.2010 directing the University to receive the examination fee from the students admitted in the academic year 2009-10 and to permit them to appear for the examinations. Accordingly the students appeared in the

¶39

W.P.(C).6887/2010

¶40

¶41

Examinations. However in compliance with the order of this Court results were not declared. Subsequently, the petitioner College filed I.A.15090/2010 in which order dated 31.5.2011 was passed, directing the University to declare the results also. Accordingly, that also was done. Therefore, now what remains is that the mark list should be issued by the University and the petitioner seeks a direction to that effect.

¶42

The learned counsel for the University resists the prayer of the petitioner relying on clause 3 of Ext.R1(a) which regulates the admission procedure to M.Ed Courses. This regulation is one framed by the University, and clause 3 of the said Regulation provides that all eligible applicants will have to undergo an Entrance Examination conducted by the Controller of Examinations by the University and that the selection of candidates should be based on such an exercise. Although the petitioner has no case that they have admitted students in compliance with the said Regulations, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner relies on Section 68A of the Calicut University Act, 1975, which reads thus:-

¶43

Special provisions in respect of unaided colleges :- Notwithstanding anything contained

¶44

W.P.(C).6887/2010

¶45

¶46

in this Act or the Statutes, Ordinances, regulations, rules, bye-laws, or orders, -

¶47

(a).the scales of pay and other conditions of services of the teaching and non teaching staff of unaided colleges; and

¶48

(b).the admission and selection, and fees payable by, students in such colleges,

¶49

shall be determined, from time to time, by the Government on the basis of the recommendations of a Committee constituted by the Government consisting of -

¶50

(i).one of the Vice-Chancellors of Universities in the State, nominated by the Government;

¶51

(ii).the Secretary to Government, higher education Department (who shall be the convenor of the committee); and (iii).the Director of Collegiate education.

¶52

A reading of Section 68A shows that by virtue of clause (b) thereof, notwithstanding the Regulations framed by the University, the admission and selection of candidates in the unaided colleges shall be regulated only by Regulations framed by the Government

¶53

W.P.(C).6887/2010

¶54

¶55

on the basis of recommendations of the Committee to be constituted by the Government. If that be so, Ext.R1(a) Regulations framed by the University, could not have any application to the petitioner College, it being a Self Financing College. Therefore, the University could not have placed reliance on Ext.R1(a) and refused permission to the students to appear for the examinations in question. Consequently Ext.P6 is illegal.

¶56

In that view of the matter, quashing Ext.P6, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the University shall regularize the admission of the students of the M.Ed Course in the petitioner College, admitted during the academic year 2009-10 and issue mark lists.

¶57

This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶58

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶59

mrcs

¶60

The words “ Engineering College ” occurring in the first line of paragraph 1 of the judgment dated 20.10.2011 in W.P.(C). No.6887/2010 are corrected and substituted as “ Training College ” as per order dated 02/11/2011 in I.A.17468/2011 in W.P.(C). 6887/2010.

The Principal,Hahajubilee Training Colle v. University of Calicut and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal,Hahajubilee Training Colle v. University of Calicut and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St.Mary'S Jacobite Syrian Church Vs the District Collector, Collectorate

Reshma T.B. and Others Vs the Principal and Chief Superintendent&

Alex L.Abraham Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Saritha V.K. Vs K.C. Satheesan

Shammy Thilakan Vs Sreekumar and Others

Tomy Sebastian Vs C.M. Thomas