Dismissed

John Thomas v. the Director of Technical Education

Kerala HC11 Jul 2018WA/661/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenging rejection of proposal to set up a Government Polytechnic. Court found Government made efforts to cure AICTE deficiencies but rejections continued. Held no scope for Court intervention; appeal dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

John Thomas Vs the Director of Technical Education — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶6

WA.No. 661 of 2018 IN WPC. 33146/2017

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.33146/2017 DATED 1.12.2017

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER

¶9

JOHN THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. K. C. THOMAS, KOCHUKOYIKKAL HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O., HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR

¶11

SRI.P.SHAMMI NAVAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶13

1. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PADMAVILASOM STREET, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶14

2. ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110067.

¶15

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEKCHAND R2 BY SRI.JAYKAR K.S., SC, AICTE

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

SCL.

¶19

HRISHIKESH ROY, Ag.CJ &

¶20

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶21

W.A. No.661 of 2018

¶22

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2018

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag.CJ.

¶25

The writ petitioner was representing the Haripad Constituency before the District Panchayath and he is a member of the Syndicate Committee of the University of Kerala. When the State of Kerala sanctioned a Government Polytechnic in the Haripad Constituency, the petitioner took the initiative to make sure that the Institute gets the required approval and become functional. But since there was delay in establishment of the Government Polytechnic, the aggrieved party had approached this Court.

¶26

The learned Judge took note of the fact that there was rejection of the proposal to set up the Polytechnic, by the Director of Technical Education under Ext.P2. But it was further observed that an application would be made for the next academic year.

¶27

Heard Sri.M.R.Arun Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant, who was the writ petitioner. When this writ petition was listed last on 25.6.2018, the Government Pleader was asked to bring on record the subsequent developments, pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The statement filed by the

¶28

W.A. No.661 of 2018

¶29

-2-

¶30

1^st respondent on 3.7.2018 reveals that the matter was considered for the subsequent years. But it came to be rejected by the competent Authority, on account of the deficiencies noted in the proposal.

¶31

For appreciation of the shortcomings, the paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the statement is extracted below.

¶32

“ ----------------------------------------------------------------------

¶33

It is submitted that during the academic year 201617, the Special Officer, Government Polytechnic Harippad had submitted application for AICTE approval. The AICTE Expert Committee visited the institution on 21.04.2017 and furnished a report on 24.04.2017. The report pointed out certain deficiencies and requested to present the necessary documents at the AICTE Headquarters, New Delhi. One of the requisite pointed out by the AICTE was that a declaration in the form of an affidavit to the effect that the proposed Polytechnic College Harippad in Alappuzha District under the Department of Technical Education is being established with the ownership of the State. Further an undertaking was sought to the effect that all arrangements like hiring/ existing temporary accommodations, minimum infrastructure required including certain lab/equipment, staff/faculty will be made available from the mentor institutions and also a declaration to the effect that the institution will be housed at permanent location within 2 years. The Special Officer obtained the required documents from the Government and also occupancy certificate of the institution and submitted the same to AICTE on 27.04,2017. However, the AICTE had sent a final letter of rejection dated 30,04.2017. It is pertinent to mention that most of the defects specified in the rejection letter could have been rectified only after starting of the institution.

¶34

It is submitted that, the Special Officer, Government Polytéchnic College, Harippad had again sought approval for the academic year 2018-19 after rectifying almost all deficiencies pointed out by the AICTE in its rejection letter dated 30.04.2017 for the year 2017-18. Thereupon the AICTE has pointed out certain other deficiencies in the building plan and site plan and directed to attend for

¶35

scrutiny on 25.02.2018 after rectifying the defects. The

¶36

W.A. No.661 of 2018

¶37

-3-

¶38

scrutiny was conducted on 25.02.2018 wherein the AICTE approved the building plan and site plan. Strangely, the approval was again rejected for want of approval certificate from the concerned Panchayat Secretary.

¶39

Again on 21.03.2018, the Special Officer submitted certificate from the Panchayat Secretary, but the application was approval was rejected pointing out that the classroom of the existing building cannot accommodate 60 students. The above deficiency has not been pointed out in any of the prior scrutinies or in the report of the Expert Committee of the AlCTE on earlier occasions. It is also pertinent to point out that the administrative sanction for the construction of new building for the Government Polytechnic College, Harippad by utilizing MLA Fund has been submitted to Public Works Department and the Public Works Department has taken steps for inviting the tender for construction of the building. From the above facts, it is clear that all effective steps have been taken by the department and on the Government level for rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the AICTE. However, the AICTE has refused approval on the one premises or the other. There is no inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 3 as contented by the Appellant. It is therefore humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Appeal with costs.

¶40

-------------------------------------------------------------------------”

¶41

The quoted statements shows that the Government had approached

¶42

the AICTE, for approval for setting up the Government Polytechnic, Haripad, but the proposals were found to be deficient and was thus rejected on more than one occasion.

¶43

Faced with the above situation, there is little scope for the court's intervention. It is really for the Government to assess their position and decide whether they are in a position to cure the deficiencies in order to secure the sanction of the AICTE for setting up the Government Polytechnic. In such circumstances, it would not be correct for the Court to issue any direction. The writ appeal is thus

¶44

W.A. No.661 of 2018

¶45

-4-

¶46

found devoid of merits and the same is dismissed with the observation that, if the Government wishes to apply for fresh approval of AICTE for the next academic year, they are at liberty to do so.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

HRISHIKESH ROY Acting Chief Justice

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶51

Judge

¶52

Scl/11.07.2018

John Thomas v. the Director of Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

John Thomas v. the Director of Technical Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs the Director, M. Dit Polytechnic College

State of Kerala Vs Vadakkekkara Hindu Madha Dharma Paripalana Sabha

State of Kerala Vs M.G.M.Polytechnic College, Pampakuda

Shiju Sekhar Vs Saju George

M/S. Marymatha Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

L.Anil Kumar Vs Sanjay M Kaul IAS