Dismissed

The Principal (the Dean) v. Shireen M.T

Kerala HC22 Mar 2017WA/493/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal by a medical college against a single-judge order upholding students' right to MBBS certificates. The court held that the bond agreement's retention clause applied only to admission certificates subject to compensation for non-service, not earned MBBS certificates.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision that students are entitled to their MBBS certificates.

The Principal (the Dean) Vs Shireen M.T — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶4

& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/1ST CHAITHRA, 1939

¶6

WA. NO.493 OF 2017 () IN WP(C).1275/2017

¶7

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.1275/2017 DATED 20-02-2017.)

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE PRINCIPAL (THE DEAN), MES MEDICAL COLLEGE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPARAMBA, PALACHODU P.O, KOLATHUR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 338.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

¶11

SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.J.RAMKUMAR SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

¶13

SHIREEN M.T., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. KUNHI MOIDEENKUTTY M.T., MUNDATHODE HOUSE, NADAKKAVU, TANUR P.O., MALAPPPURAM-676 302.

¶14

NIMA T., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. MOHANDAS T.T., THENGUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, MANGATTIRI P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 105.

¶15

AHAMMED SADIK G., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. SAIDALAVI HAJI CHOKLY, MUKKOTTIL CHOKLY HOUSE, VARAPPARA, PARAMBIL PEEDIKA P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 317.

¶16

AHAMMED THAMEEM M.P., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. M.P HUSSAIN, JASMINE DALE HOUSE, PARAPPANPOYIL P.O, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 573.

¶17

ANTO JOSE, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. JOSE T.I., THALAKKOTTUR HOUSE, NHAMANGHAT P.O., THRISSUR-679 563.

¶18

ANUMOL JAI JOSEPH, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. JOSEPH M.T., MADATHIPURATH HOUSE, KOOMANTHODE P.O., KARIKKOTTAKARY, KANNUR-670 704.

¶19

...2/-

¶20

:2:

¶21

WA. NO.493 OF 2017 ()

¶22

ASHNA PULICKAL ASGAR, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. ASGAR P.A, SURABHI, KUTTAYI P.O, ASHANPPADI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 562.

¶23

CINDA S. UKKEN, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. SHAJI J. UKKEN, UKKEN HOUSE, VELLIKULAM ROAD, CHALAKKUDY P.O., THRISSUR-680 307.

¶24

SHARANYA S, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. SASIDHARAN T., PATTATH HOUSE, THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY-670 103.

¶25

FARSEENA M.P., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. BANGALATH MARIYUMMA, POOVATHIKANDI HOUSE, PATHANAPURAM, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM-673 639.

¶26

FEMITHA K.P., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.ABOOBACKER, KALLARIPARAMBATH HOUSE, NOCHAD P.O, CALICUT-673 614.

¶27

FENAZ A., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL FATHAH, FENAZ COTTAGE, KARAMCODE P.O., KOLLAM - 691 579.

¶28

HASHMI S., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. SIRAJUDDEEN S THOPPIL HOUSE, PALLICKAL P.O., KOTTARAKARA-691 566.

¶29

JAMSHED AHAMAD ANSARI, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. AZIMUDDIN ANSARI, BAITHUL HAJARA HOUSE, KUTHUKALLE, KALLAI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 003.

¶30

JAYAVIDYA M.S, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. SANJEEV B.S., 'PRANAVAM', ANAKUZHIKARA, KUTTIKATOOR P.O, CALICUT-673 008.

¶31

JESLIN MUHAMMED, AGED 25 YEARS, PATHARIMATTATHIL HOUSE, P.O PAIPRA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686 673.

¶32

LUBAIBA VAYAL PEEDEYAKKAL, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. V.P. ABOOBACKER, V.P VILLA, VALLIKUNNU P.O., KADALUNDI NAGARAM, MALAPPURAM-673 314.

¶33

LULUA SAFAR, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. SARAFULLA. E, P.V. HOUSE, M.C. PARAMB, P.O. PARAPPIL, FRANCIS ROAD, CALICUT-673 001.

¶34

MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA M.C., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. BEERAN HAJI, MATTUMMAL HOUSE, CHILAVIL MANNARAKKAL, VALLATHUR P.O., ADRESSERY, MALAPPURAM-676 106.

¶35

MOHAMMED IRSHAD P.M., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED ASHRAF P.M., PLAMOOTIL HOUSE, NEERKUNNAM, VANDANAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 005

¶36

...3/-

¶37

WA. NO.493 OF 2017 ()

¶38

:3:

¶39

MUHSINA K.M., AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. MUHAMMEDALI K.M., MEKKAT HOUSE, KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY P.O, MALAPPURAM-673 638.

¶40

NASREEN K., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. SAINUDEEN K, ANUGRAGA, KATTUMUNDA EAST, NADUVATH P.O, MALAPPURAM-679 328.

¶41

NASREEN T., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. ABDULLA T, THACHAMPATTA HOUSE, VETTATHUR P.O, VIA MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM-679 326.

¶42

SABITH E.K., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA, EZHUKALARIYIL HOUSE, PARAPPANPOYIL POST, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 573.

¶43

SAHLA A.S., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL LATHEEF P.P., ERIYAT BISMI HOUSE, VILLAGE OFFICE ROAD, MORAYUR P.O, MALAPPURAM-673 642.

¶44

SAHLA HASSAN, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. HASSAN T.M., HOUSE NO 5, GREEN LINE VILLAS, K.T GOPALAN ROAD, KOTTOOLI P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 016.

¶45

SAID BAKRY K.V., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.V SAIDALAVI HAJI, KULANGARA VEETIL HOUSE, P.O PUDUPPALLI, MALAPPURAM-676 102

¶46

SANJANA K.I., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. K.K ISMAIL, KODENCHERY HOUSE P.O., PERINGOTTUKARA, THRISSUR-680 565.

¶47

SHAFEEK M., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. UMMER M., MANGALATH HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., ALANALLUR, PALAKKAD-678 601.

¶48

SHARI S KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. SHOBHANA T., HOLY BHAVAN, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, KAZHAKUTTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 582.

¶49

THEERTHA RAJESJ., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. K.R RAJESH KUMAR, KUREEKATTIL HOUSE, NARANGANAM WEST P.O., KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 642.

¶50

YASMINE M.M., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. M.A MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, MURUKUDI HOUSE, MOOLANKAVU P.O, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD 673 592.

¶51

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 691 001.

¶52

KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, . THRISSUR-680 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶53

WA. NO.493 OF 2017 ()

¶54

:4:

¶55

R1-R32 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR R33 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.TEKCHAND R34 BY SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,SC,

¶56

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶57

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J.

¶58

& ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶59

- - - - W.A. No.493 of 2017

¶60

- - - - Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2017

¶61

JUDGMENT

¶62

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶63

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.2.2017 passed in W.P(C) No.1275 of 2017 by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby, the writ petition filed by the 32 private respondents, who were students, has been allowed. The dispute essentially was with regard to release of documents/ certificates which were submitted at the time of admission as also the MBBS certificate which they had earned by completion of the said course. They were being withheld by the management of the college.

¶64

The learned single Judge, after due notice and hearing the parties, held that action of the management of the college in withholding the certificates of the writ petitioners was not in accordance with law, as the college had no such authority. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the third respondent to the writ petition has come up in this appeal.

¶65

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for the State and learned counsel for the

¶66

WA.493/17

¶67

-:2:-

¶68

private contesting respondents/students, and with their consent, we dispose of this appeal at this stage itself.

¶69

The primary question that arises for consideration is whether clause (8) of Exhibit P5, being an agreement executed between the parents of the students and the management of the college, authorises the management to retain the certificates submitted at the time of admission or the MBBS certificate earned by them upon completion of the course.

¶70

On behalf of the college, the appellant, it is submitted that colleges are authorised by the Government to take bonds from the students and their guardians, including bond for compulsory rural service. As per the bond, if a student upon completion of MBBS course does not perform rural service, they have the authority to withhold the certificates to enforce service.

¶71

To the contrary, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that even if clause (8) is read, such singular result, as urged by the appellant, does not emanate.

¶72

We would first refer to clauses (8), (9) and (10) of Exhibit P5 agreement, which read thus:

¶73

“8. The certificates submitted by the candidate at the time of admission will be released to the candidate only after the successful completion of one year compulsory employment or on payment of the compensation as prescribed below.

¶74

-:3:-

¶75

WA.493/17

¶76

The Student hereby undertake and agree to pay a sum of Rs.13 lakhs, reducing the actual amount of tuition fee already paid by the student for the whole academic course.

¶77

If the candidate does not want to be bound for compulsory employment the student shall pay the amount specified above as compensation to the Medical College Management and if the Student failed to do so the Parent/Guardian named as (2) in this agreement shall be liable to pay the same and if not done so it shall be recovered from him of his properties movable or immovable.”

¶78

On a simple reading, clause (8) which learned counsel for the appellant concedes as the only source of authority to withhold the MBBS certificate, in our opinion, cannot be accepted on the face of it. This clause clearly stipulates that it deals with certificates submitted by the candidates “ at the time of admission ”. The MBBS certificate is not a certificate deposited at the time of admission. Rather, it is earned upon completion of the course. Thus, this clause does not contemplate any such withholding of MBBS certificate. This answers the main question. The subsidiary question is with regard to other certificates which are submitted at the time of admission. If we once again refer to the clause aforesaid and read it in the light of what is stated in clauses (9) and (10), clause (8) clearly provides a contingency that the authorities are entitled to withhold certificates submitted

¶79

WA.493/17

¶80

-:4:-

¶81

for non-performance of one year compulsory employment. But, it is an option built therein with regard to the payment of compensation as prescribed in clauses (9) and (10). Thus, to say that the management has absolute right to withhold all the certificates till completion of one year of compulsory service is not correct.

¶82

We are in agreement with the learned single Judge whereby, the learned single Judge having referred to the prospectus, Government order and the agreement entered into between the management and the Government held that the clause of withholding the certificates is not contemplated by either of them. What is contemplated is only a monetary compensation for non-performance of one year of compulsory employment. This position stands abundantly clear from a combined reading of clauses (8), (9) and (10) as well. Thus, we find no reason to take a different view in the matter.

¶83

Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶84

Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶85

Sd/Antony Dominic, Judge

¶86

krj.22/3

The Principal (the Dean) v. Shireen M.T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal (the Dean) v. Shireen M.T

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

P.Balarajan Nambiar Vs Union of India

K J Vasudevan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Vs Secretary to Government

A.Abdul Rasheed Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs M/S Western India Plywoods Ltd.

G Mohandas Vs the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation