Disposed

Foundation of Restoration of Natinal Values v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2018WP(C)/6472/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged university ordinance amendments removing credit requirements for semester progression. The court adjourned the matter, granting three months for the State to decide the petitioner's representation after consulting experts.

What did the court decide?

Three months time granted for the State to take a final decision on the petitioner's representation, to be reached after consulting experts in the field.

Foundation of Restoration of Natinal Values Vs the… — Education and Admissions | 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶6

WP(C).No. 6472 of 2018

¶7

PETITIONER(S)

¶8

THE FOUNDATION FOR RESTORATION OF NATIONAL VALUES, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT M75, GREATER KAILASH 1, NEW DELHI-110048, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. E. SREEDHARAN, PRESENTLY RESIDING @ PERUMBAYIL HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD ROAD, PONANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679577.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON SRI.K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

¶13

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

THE HONOURABLE CHANCELLOR AND GOVERNOR OF KERALA,

¶15

(APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY), RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

THE VICE CHANCELLOR,

¶17

APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,

¶18

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695016.

¶19

APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695016, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶20

ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110070.

¶21

WP(C).No. 6472 of 2018

¶22

REGIONAL OFFICE OF ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695016, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE.

¶23

R1BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, COUNSEL FOR THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES IN KERALA

¶24

R3 & 4 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, KTU R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAYKAR K.S., SC, AICTE

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).No. 6472 of 2018 (S)

¶27

PPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶29

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DMRC/PON/FRNV/13 DATED 12.01.2018.

¶30

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER OF DR. KUNCHERIA P. ISAAC, 1ST VICE CHANCELLOR OF KTU.

¶31

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE FOR BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY OF THE KTU.

¶32

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2016 IN W.P.C NO.26477/2016.

¶33

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA ITEM NO. AC-008-006 OF THE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE OF THE KTU DATED 29.04.2017.

¶34

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE FOR B.TECH/B TECH (HONS) OF THE KTU.

¶35

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 09.11.2017.

¶36

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

sou.

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ & C.T. Ravikumar, J

¶42

------------------------------------------------W.P(C). No. 6472 of 2018 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2018

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ

¶45

A registered society is the petitioner here and they are concerned with the diminishing quality of engineering education, brought about through the Ext.P6 amendments, whereby the credit requirement to proceed to the next semester, for the 2^nd , 3^rd , 5^th and 7^th semesters, have been done away with. Earlier, under Ext.P3 ordinance issued by the Kerala Technological University, for a student to proceed to the next semester, certain minimum cumulative credit was required to be secured. But under the impugned Ext.P6 amendment to the ordinance, major relaxation is made and thus the quality of education is seriously compromised.

¶46

In the above context, the petitioners had addressed a representation dated 12.1.2018 (Ext.P1) to the Governor requesting for steps to not to dilute the minimum credit requirement, by referring to the observation of this Court in the judgment dated 8.12.2016 in W.P(C). No.26477 of 2016, where the learned Judge observed that amendment should not affect the standard of education.

¶47

W.P(C).6472/18

¶48

¶49

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri. K. Anand contends that such amendment, which will result in deterioration of quality of engineering education, should not be brought in by the University. He submits further that the interest of the public as also the Institution would be better served, if proper academic standards are maintained.

¶50

In the above context, the learned counsel Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy appearing for the Kerala Technological University submits that the University is also concerned with maintenance of requisite standards of education. He refers to the meeting dated 9.11.2017 (Ext.P7) convened by the Minister for Education with the University Authorities and also representatives of the Political Parties (Students Wing), where decision on reduction of credit for movement to the next semester was taken. The counsel further submits that the University is also in the process to notify the first statute, which will govern the curriculum and the standards.

¶51

Ext.P1 representation is not yet decided and the learned Government Pleader Sri. Aravindakumar Babu submits that this is currently under consideration of the Government, where opinion of the experts in the field will have to be taken into account.

¶52

The State of Kerala is well-known for its excellence in education and nothing in our view should be done, which will sully the positive image of the State. Such concern was also voiced by this Court when the judgment dated 8.12.2016 in W.P(C). 26477 of 20126, was rendered.

¶53

W.P(C).6472/18

¶54

¶55

From the submission made across the Bar, we can reasonably expect that a bona fide decision is going to be taken by the State, in response to Ext.P1 representation filed by the petitioner and accordingly, we permit such decision to be taken in the best interest of the students and the University. As the process will involve consultation with experts in the field, three months time is granted for a final decision on the representation. It is made clear that the decision of the authorities can also be through statutory enactment. It is ordered accordingly.

¶56

Sd/C.T. Ravikumar, Judge

¶57

sou.

Foundation of Restoration of Natinal Values v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Foundation of Restoration of Natinal Values v. the State of Kerala

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

Sr.Ranjana Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Joseph Peter Vs Dr. S. Karthikeyan IAS

N.D.Joseph Vs a.Y.Varghese

Subaida Vs v.a.Abdul Latheef