Dismissed

Ahalia Foundation Eye Hospital v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jul 2013WA/2140/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the reduction of B.Sc. Optometry seats from 40 to 30 in a self-financing college. While noting the previous order allowed 40 seats erroneously, the Court held that it could not interfere with the State's policy decision or undertaking to allocate only 30 seats across approved institutions.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed without costs.

Ahalia Foundation Eye Hospital Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2013/4TH SRAVANA, 1935

¶7

W.A.No.2140 of 2012

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No.20541/2012, DATED 06-11-2012, OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶9

APPELLANT/ PETITIONER:-

¶10

AHALIA FOUNDATION EYE HOSPITAL, ELIPPARA, KOZHIPPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY A.G.AJITH PRASAD,

¶11

TRUSTEE, AHALIA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶13

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT:-

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 024, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.SREEKUMAR.

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶20

W.A.No.2140 of 2012

¶21

Dated this, the 26^th day of July, 2013

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

K.Vinod Chandran,J.

¶24

The appellant, running a self financing college and inter alia imparting a course in B.Sc. Optometry, is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge which upheld the decision of reduction of seat for the aforementioned course from 40 to 30. It is not disputed that the appellant, when commencing the above course, was allowed an intake of 40 students for the aforementioned course and the University also had granted affiliation. However, on sanction being sought for in the present academic year, viz., 2012-13, the intake was reduced to 30. It is the contention of the appellant that since the intake was fixed at 40 after verification of the infrastructure and facilities provided in the college, the reduction is without any basis and leads to arbitrariness.

¶25

The Government has filed a counter affidavit contending that B.Sc. Optometry is a para medical course conducted within the State by three Government approved institutions; one by the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology,

¶26

W.A.No.2140 of 2012

¶27

¶28

Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and two by self financing colleges. The appellant is one of the self financing colleges and the other is Al-Salama Eye Hospital Limited, Perinthalmanna. It is pointed out that the other self financing college had been before this Court contending that there was discrimination in so far as 40 sets were allotted to the appellant while only 30 was allotted to the said institution. The Government had resisted the said writ, contending that there was a policy decision taken by the Government on the advise of the Director of Medical Education that only 30 seats need be permitted for the aforementioned para medical course and that the grant of 40 seats to the appellant was only by way of mistake. In such circumstance, it was contended that the omission would be rectified and a learned Single Judge of this Court has accepted the same and dismissed the writ petition. The State contends that it is bound by the undertaking given by it in the aforesaid case.

¶29

We do not think that Exhibit P10 judgment rendered in the case of another institution, that too without the appellant in the party array, can stand against the appellant; nor can the State contend that it is bound by the submissions made before the learned Single Judge in that judgment. However, we notice that the State has declared its policy of allotting only 30 seats to each

¶30

W.A.No.2140 of 2012

¶31

¶32

of the Colleges, being three in number; that too at the advise of the Director of Medical Education. We are afraid that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to meddle with the policy decisions of the State; nor can this Court sit in appeal over such decision or substitute its view over that of the Government. In such circumstances, we are afraid, there are no good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶33

The Writ Appeal is dismissed, however without costs.

¶34

vku/

¶35

Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶36

( true copy )

Ahalia Foundation Eye Hospital v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahalia Foundation Eye Hospital v. State 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

Sukumar N Oommen Vs Dr.I Vijaya Kumar

M.K.S.Earth Movers, Rep. by Its Propriet Vs Tahsildar, Ponnani and Others

The State of Kerala Vs Padmini

Siddique Vs State of Kerala

Nithya Gopinath Vs University of Kerala

Ajantha K Vs State of Kerala