Writ petition allowed. Single judge directed the college authorities to permit an NRI-quota student to change her branch from IT to CSE during the first year without demanding extra fees, ruling the management’s refusal arbitrary.
Direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to change branch from IT to CSE course forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2014/13TH CHAITHRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 1871 of 2014 (H)
PETITIONER :
BASHEENA A.P, AGED 19 YEARS, D/O. A.P.ABDUL BASHEER, 'MASKAN', MUZHAPPILANGAD-670 662, NEAR MOIDU BRIDGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DIRECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (KERALA)(CAPE) FIRST FLOOR, CO-OPERATIVE BANK TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
2. THE PRINCIPAL,
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 1871 of 2014 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
W.P.(C).No.1871 of 2014
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by a student, who has been admitted to B.Tech course under the NRI quota in Information Technology (IT) in the College of Engineering, Thalassery under the control of first respondent. It depicts the peculiar facts wherein a student, who has been admitted under NRI quota seeks to change the stream of her branch from IT to CSE branch under NRI quota, after admissions are over. She made a request as per Ext.P1 on 27/07/2013 and received a reply as per Ext.P3 from the first respondent-Co-operative Academy of Professional Education (Kerala) [for short, the “CAPE”], stating that branch change or college transfer as per clause 5.3 of Ext.P4 prospectus for admission to B.Tech courses under NRI quota cannot be allowed. Challenging Ext.P3 this writ petition is filed.
W.P.(C).No.1871/2014
-:2:-
the institutions under the CAPE is governed by Ext.P4 prospectus. There is no doubt to the fact that change of branch from IT to CSE will not affect the continuation of the studies, as the syllabus for both the streams is common for the first academic year. The first academic year is yet to be completed.
“Those who have taken admission to B.Tech courses under NRI quota shall not be permitted to change Branch or College under any circumstances. They will not be eligible for seeking admission under any other quota subject to the provisions contained in Clause 14 of the Prospectus.”
W.P.(C).No.1871/2014
-:3:-
under which NRI students may leave the college, on being allotted with a seat under the merit quota or management quota, by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (CEE). Therefore, the question is whether the request made by the petitioner would attract first limb of clause 5.3. The request of a student if does not come under the second limb of clause 5.3, it does not lead to a conclusion that it would come within the first limb of clause 5.3. It does not say anything about a situation when a seat is vacant and none could be admitted for such a seat and still, a management is helpless to act upon the request made by a candidate. This question, therefore thus needs to be addressed from different perspectives, namely, with reference to the power of the management and the interest of the students. The institution has the power to exercise the same for the similar kind mentioned in clause 14. This power is so endowed with institutions with right to administer and manage the institution as established through the various pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and intended to subserve the interest of the student. Thus, it is essentially a power coupled with duty. On failure to exercise such power, it will amount to infringe the right of the student. See for support on power coupled with duty, Julius v.Lord Bishop of Oxford [(1880) 5AC 214] , Anns and others
W.P.(C).No.1871/2014
-:4:-
v. London Borough of Merton [(1977) 2 All ER 492] and Commissioner
of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16].
building. The scheme of regulations or the provisions under the prospectus of the University is intended to subserve the best interest of the students. The best interest of the principles is infact, an active embodiment of the dynamic integration of the right of the students within the scheme of education to enable the students to come out successfully in career in which they aspired or intended. The benefits therefore, envisioned for the students cannot be given a go-bye when provisions under the prospectus are silent. What could be the criteria for the management to accommodate such requests, if made by any students after the admission process is over. This Court is of the view that the following principles should be borne in mind which are illustrative and not exhaustive. This exercise is only intended to weed out arbitrariness of the action.
i. Whether the students need can be accommodated within the
scheme of regulations or statutory provisions;
ii. Whether the need of the students would militate against any existing provisions or University regulations;
W.P.(C).No.1871/2014
-:5:-
iii. Whether the need of the students would impinge the rights
of the other students or that of the management.
being allowed to continue in CSE as the syllabus for IT and CSE is common for the first year. The request of the petitioner will not militate against any existing provisions or regulations as the University regulations are not against making any such changes as the first year examinations are yet to be completed. The rights of the management or other students are also not involved. The rights of the management, if any, on account of subsequent changes are reflected in Clause 14 of the Ext.P4. That right is intended to safeguard the management on account of the vacancy due to change of branch or leaving the college by a student, who has been admitted under NRI quota. Clause 14 is intended to recoup any loss being suffered by the Management. In this case, the request made by the petitioner to change the branch within the NRI quota and on account of such change, no loss can be attributed to be suffered by the Management. The fees payable by the petitioner in the branch now studying IT and for the CSE entire the course is one and the same.
W.P.(C).No.1871/2014
-:6:-
submitted that if in case this Court is allowing the claim of the petitioner, she may be directed to pay separate fees for the branch to which she seeks change. This stand of the first respondent is against their argument based on clause 5.3 of Ext.P4 As I already discussed, clause 5.3 and the clause 14 would not apply on the facts of the case. The claim of the petitioner must be considered as part of best interest principles as there are no provisions that would govern the issue. The provisions, therefore, should be constructed so as to make larger system envisioned on education. Accordingly, this writ petition is to be allowed.
In the result, the There shall be a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to change branch to CSE course forthwith.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the management can refuse a student’s request to change branch from IT to CSE during the first academic year when seats are vacant under the same quota.
Whether Clause 5.3 of the prospectus prohibiting branch changes applies when no loss or rights of others are impacted by the change.
Whether the management has a duty to accommodate the student’s request given the common syllabus for the first year.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Julius v.Lord Bishop of OxfordReferred¶43
_Julius v.Lord Bishop of Oxford_ [(1880) 5AC 214]
Anns and others v. London Borough of MertonReferred¶43
_Anns and others v. London Borough of Merton_ [(1977) 2 All ER 492]
Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas BhanjiReferred¶47
_Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji_ [AIR 1952 SC 16] · Who else cites this
Basheena A.P
The Director, Co-operative Academy of Professional Education (Kerala)
The Principal, College of Engineering Thalassery
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Parties & counsel