Dismissed

Thejus College of Architecture v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2018WP(C)/23858/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-allotment of students to additional sanctioned seats in an Architecture course. The court held that AICTE approval is mandatory under the AICTE Act definition of Technical Education, despite Council of Architecture sanctions. Consequently, the writ petition failed and was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it failed on merits.

Thejus College of Architecture Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶5

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶6

WP(C).No. 23858 of 2018

¶7

PETITIONER(S)

¶8

THEJUS COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE, VELLARAKKAD, THRISSUR - 680584, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, K. KUNHIKRISHNAN, S/O. K. KUNHAMBU NAIR.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PADMA VILASAM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695023.

¶14

3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION,

¶15

KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR,

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶17

4. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THRISSUR - CALICUT ROAD, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673635, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶18

5. THE SYNDICATE, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THRISSUR - CALICUT ROAD, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673635.

¶19

6. COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE, INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, CORE 6A, 1ST FLOOR, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003.

¶20

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

R BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

kkj

¶24

WP(C).No. 23858 of 2018 (F)

¶25

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER COLLEGE DATED 18.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.06.2016.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL FOR ADDITIONAL INTAKE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER COLLEGE DATED 11.07.2017.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 25412/2017 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 06.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL FOR 80 SEATS FOR BACHELOR OF ARCHITECTURE (FIVE YEAR) COURSE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.05.2018.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AFFILIATION OF ADDITIONAL SEATS IN THE EXISTING COURSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 22.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF AFFILIATION FEES DATED 06.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.05.2018.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE ARCHITECTURE COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION DATED 15.05.2018.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

PA TO JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN & SHIRCY V., JJ.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.23858 of 2018

¶34

Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2018

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Surendra Mohan, J.

¶37

The petitioner, a College of Architecture is before us complaining that no allotment of students have been made to 40 additional seats sanctioned to the College, for B.Arch. five year course by the Council of Architecture, the 6^th respondent herein. The college was started in the year 2014-15 with an intake of 40 students. The College is affiliated to the 4^th respondent University. The University has also approved the additional intake of 40 students sanctioned by the 6^th respondent. Since the college has got the approval of the 6^th respondent, it is contended that, the action of respondents 1 to 3 in not allotting students to the petitioner college is not justifiable. A further direction to respondents 4 and 5 to grant affiliation to the increased intake of 40 seats is also sought.

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

W.P.(C) No.23858 of 2018

¶40

According to the counsel for the petitioner, the 6^th respondent Council of Architecture is the regulatory body insofar as a Degree course in Architecture is concerned. Since the said authority has already sanctioned an additional intake of 40 seats, the other authorities including respondents 1 to 3 and 4 and 5 are bound to accord the necessary permission for the purpose of admitting the additional number of students. It is also contended that, the last date for completing the process of admission being 15.08.2018, it is necessary to issue urgent interim orders directing the required action to be taken in the matter.

¶41

The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are opposed by the Special Government Pleader who represents respondents 1 to 3. According to the said respondents, students have not been allotted to the additional seats for the reason that, the petitioner has not obtained a letter of approval from the All India Council for

¶42

-:3:-

¶43

W.P.(C) No.23858 of 2018

¶44

Technical Education (AICTE for short). The learned Special Government Pleader places reliance on the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the AICTE Act for short) to contend that, such a letter of approval is necessary before a course in Architecture could be conducted by any college. The learned counsel also points out that, in the absence of such a letter of approval, students who pass out of the petitioner college would be faced with a situation where their degrees would not be recognised by the AICTE. It is also contended that, if letter of approval is produced, students would be allotted to the additionally sanctioned seats also. We have heard Advocate P.C.Sasidharan who appears for respondents 4 and 5 also.

¶45

The AICTE Act provides for the proper planning and coordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country, as discernible from its Preamble. Section 2(g) and (h) of the AICTE Act being

¶46

-:4:-

¶47

W.P.(C) No.23858 of 2018

¶48

relevant in the context, is extracted hereunder.

¶49

“(g) “Technical education” means programmes of education, research and training in engineering technology, architecture , town planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other programme or areas as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare;

¶50

(h)Technical institution” means an institution, not being a University, which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions;”(Emphasis supplied)

¶51

It is clear from the a perusal of the definition of “technical education” that education, research and training in Architecture also comes within the scope of the said definition. Therefore, the contention that is put forward by the counsel for the petitioner that it is for the 6^th respondent alone to regulate the courses with respect to Architecture cannot be accepted. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader is only that, though the 6^th respondent

¶52

-:5:-

¶53

W.P.(C) No.23858 of 2018

¶54

has sanctioned the additional seats, a letter of approval from the AICTE also would have to be obtained before students could be allotted to the additional seats. We find that, the stand of respondents 1 to 3 is fully justified in view of the definition of the expression “Technical Education” referred to above.

¶55

The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of a Single bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 22.11.2012 in W.P.(C) No.23792 of 2012 in support of his contention that no permission from the AICTE is necessary insofar as the conduct of a course in Architecture is concerned. We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on two decisions of the Bombay High Court, which we have not been able to peruse. However, what is evident from a perusal of the judgment made available to us is that, the learned Single judge has not referred to or considered the scope of the definition contained in Section 2(g) of the

¶56

-:6:-

¶57

W.P.(C) No.23858 of 2018

¶58

AICTE Act. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the said decisions have laid down the law on the point, correctly. We however notice from the said judgment itself that, the Bombay decisions are pending in appeal before the Apex Court.

¶59

In view of the clear statutory provision that makes the AICTE Act applicable to the study of Architecture also, we are not satisfied that the claim of the petitioner could be accepted.

¶60

In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶63

Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE

¶64

kkj

Thejus College of Architecture v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thejus College of Architecture 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Local Monitoring Committee Vs Sathish. B

The Director Vs the Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges

Kmct College of Engineering Vs Junaid

Adakkudi Subair Vs the Director of Public Instruction

Riya R Ebenezer Vs Union of India

Justin .L. Vs State of Kerala