Dismissed

Mahatma Gandhi University v. Principal, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences

Kerala HC25 Nov 2016RP/941/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the review petition filed by Mahatma Gandhi University against a judgment admitting the Principal's locus standi. The Court held that the Principal's act was valid and found no error apparent on the face of the record regarding the timeline for the Board of Studies' decision.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was rejected; no costs awarded.

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs Principal, Rajagiri… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 941 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.22824/2016 DATED 29-07-2016.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC :

¶8

1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 365.

¶9

2. REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 365.

¶10

3. VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 365.

¶11

BY SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR SC, ADVS. SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC.

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC :

¶13

PRINCIPAL, RAJAGIRI COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O., KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 039.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM.

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶18

Review Petition No.941 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 22824 of 2016 (C)

¶19

Dated: 25^th November, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University has three contentions in the review petition; one on locus standi, the other on alternate remedy and the last on facts.

¶22

The question of locus standi is raised on the ground that the Principal has filed the writ petition, while the University First Statutes provides for the Manager to make the application for affiliation and also for recognition of an authorised institution. The next issue raised is on the ground of alternate remedy.

¶23

Review Petition No.941 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 22824 of 2016 (C)

¶24

-2-

¶25

These were grounds available to the University at the time of disposal of the writ petition, which were not taken up. It does not really matter whether the Manager or the Principal filed the writ petition, since it can always be taken as the Principal having filed it on behalf of the Institution. Their interests are not, in any manner, conflicting and the Principal is equally aggrieved, being the Head of the Institution. What assumes significance is the fact that the contentions raised, by both the petitioner and the respondent University, were considered elaborately and declarations made in the judgment; which cannot now be upset on technical grounds of locus standi or alternate remedy; that too in a review filed.

¶26

The next ground, on facts taken, is stated to be an error apparent on the face of the record since, it is submitted that Ext.P3 was replied to by Annexure II and

¶27

Review Petition No.941 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 22824 of 2016 (C)

¶28

-3-

¶29

Annexure II speaks of a letter dated 28.03.2016 of the Principal of the College, which was placed before the Board of Studies on 13.04.2016; thus, within the 30 days' period, even going by the declaration made by this Court.

¶30

A reading of the facts, as dilated upon from paragraph 17 onward, would not substantiate the above contention. The first communication was on 18.11.2015 by Ext.P3, which was found to have been considered by the Board of Studies on 15.12.2015 within the 30 days' period. It was specifically noticed that B.Com. Model-I (Finance and Taxation) and B.Com. Model-II (Vocational Finance and Taxation) were only the courses which are relevant for consideration in the writ petition. This is so, since, even going by the decision of the Board of Studies on 15.12.2015, there was no decision taken on the course in BBA, for which the deeming provision was

¶31

-4-

¶32

Review Petition No.941 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 22824 of 2016 (C)

¶33

found to be applicable. For the two courses in Psychology, the Board of Studies had made some recommendations, which was accepted by the University. Hence, it was found that there was no impediment for the approval of B.Sc. (Psychology) and M.Sc.(Psychology). What remained was B.Com Model-I and B.Com Model-II.

¶34

The decision of the Board of Studies on 15.12.2015 was taken into account by the petitioner College and accepted by Ext.P8 dated 18.02.2016. The

¶35

Board of Studies had then to take a decision on the acceptance within 30 days, i.e. on or before 20.03.2016. Reliance placed on the first referred letter in Annexure II, dated 28.03.2016, hence, is not relevant. The University does not dispute the Institution having submitted Ext.P8 dated 18.02.2016. It is not stated as to when the said communication was received in the

¶36

Review Petition No.941 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 22824 of 2016 (C)

¶37

-5-

¶38

University. Even if a margin is provided for the receipt of the communication, the meeting of the Board of Studies on 13.04.2016 is far outside the limit of 30 days. This Court does not find any error apparent on the discussions on facts also.

¶39

The only conclusion is that the review sought for is not tenable and the review petition would stand rejected. No Costs.

¶40

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

jjj 25/11/16

Mahatma Gandhi University v. Principal, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahatma Gandhi University v. Principal, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences

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

Dr. M Sreekumar Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

N.P.Jayan and Others Vs Kottayam Municipality and Others

Joffy.T.O. Vs State of Kerala and Others

S.Arumugham Vs Municipal Council Ktym,Rep: by Chairman

Geetha M. Vs the Kulukallur Grama Panchayath

Jaya Murali Vs State of Kerala