Disposed

The Administrator v. the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Kerala HC10 Nov 2020WP(C)/1552/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a letter conditioning affiliation on an Essentiality Certificate. The Court found the petitioner's application for B.Sc. Optometry affiliation was under consideration by the University. It directed the University to decide the application on merits without delay, dispensing with the certificate requirement, within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the University to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner's application for affiliation of B.Sc. Optometry Course within three weeks, without insisting on the Essentiality Certificate.

The Administrator Vs the Kerala University of Health… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1552 OF 2020(T)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

THE ADMINISTRATOR DR. MAR THOMAS INSTITUTE OF OPTHALMOLOGY AND RESEARCH CENTRE, PALLICKAL P.O. KATTANAM, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT 690 503.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.THOMAS GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. TRICHUR 680 596.

¶11

2 THE REGISTRAR, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. TRICHUR 680 596.

¶12

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.

¶13

R1-2 BY SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES R3 BY SRI M.A.ASIF-SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

-2-

¶16

WP(C).No.1552 OF 2020(T)

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, who is the Administrator of Dr. Mar Thoma Institute of Ophthalmology & Research Centre, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 letter dated 16.01.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent University, insofar as it imposed a condition that the petitioner should produce the Essentiality Certificate of the State Government for considering the application for affiliation. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Statute 391(7) & (8) of Chapter XXI of the Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statutes is illegal and hit by Article 13 of the Constitution of India. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent University to consider the application made by the petitioner for affiliation of B.Sc. Optometry Course, without insisting on the Essentiality Certificate by the State Government, so as to enable the petitioner to effect admissions from the academic year 202021 onwards.

¶19

-3-

¶20

WP(C).No.1552 OF 2020(T)

¶21

On 21.01.2020, when this writ petition came up for

¶22

admission, the learned Standing Counsel took notice for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader took notice for the 3^rd respondent.

¶23

On 25.08.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration along with connected matters, this Court passed the following order;

¶24

“The petitioners established Pharmacy Colleges to offer B.Pharm Course. These colleges are existing colleges. They applied for continuation of affiliation with the University. That was not considered by the University for the reason that the petitioners failed to produce Essentiality Certificate from the State Government.

¶25

The learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that there are certain amendments carried out to the University Statute in regard to the insistence of production of Essentiality Certificate from the Government. It is also submitted that in the place of Essentiality Certificate, the request is now only in regard to obtaining an opinion of the Government. It is further submitted that the Chancellor had assented for such amendment.

¶26

Taking note of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners' continuation of

¶27

-4-

¶28

WP(C).No.1552 OF 2020(T)

¶29

affiliation shall be considered on merits without insisting the production of Essentiality Certificate from the State Government. The University shall pass appropriate orders without any delay.”

¶30

Thereafter, on 28.09.2020, when the matter came

¶31

up for further consideration along with connected cases, this Court passed the following order;

¶32

“The learned Senior Counsel/the learned counsel for the petitioner institutions would submit that the University is yet to take a final decision on the application for continuation of affiliation made by the respective institutions, despite the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 25.08.2020. Since admission process is going on, an early disposal on those applications is highly essential.

¶33

The learned Standing Counsel for the University would submit that some more time is required for taking a decision on those applications and that, the University shall take an appropriate decision on or before 12.10.2020.”

¶34

A statement has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶35

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the University representing

¶36

-5-

¶37

WP(C).No.1552 OF 2020(T)

¶38

respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶39

During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for the University would submit that the application made by the petitioner for grant of affiliation for B.Sc. Optometry Course is now under consideration of the 1^st respondent University and that, the University shall take an appropriate decision on that application, without any further delay.

¶40

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the University has already conducted an inspection and that, as instructed by the University, the list of faculties has already been furnished, two weeks ago.

¶41

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of recording the fact that the application made by the petitioner for affiliation of B.Sc. Optometry Course is under consideration of the 1^st respondent University and by directing the University to take an appropriate decision on that application, strictly in

¶42

WP(C).No.1552 OF 2020(T)

¶43

-6-

¶44

accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶47

AV/10/11

¶48

-7-

¶49

WP(C).No.1552 OF 2020(T)

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.7.2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 31.12.2015 FORWARDING THE APPLICATION FOR AFFILIATION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAT OF THE PRESCRIBED APPLICATION FOR STATING NEW COLLEGE/ COURSE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 18.1.2018 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FIRST STATUTES. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.1.2020 TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.7.2019 IN WA. 1485/2019 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

The Administrator v. the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Administrator v. the Kerala University of Health 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

Krishna Kumar.M.R Vs N.Ravikumar

Sreekuttan C.S. Vs Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)

P.Sundaran Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Vasumathy Vs the District Collector

The Chief Executive Trustee, Lissie Medical and Educational Institutions Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Prime College of Pharmacy Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences