Dismissed

Akhila Bharathiya Vidyarthi Parishid v. the Government of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2020WP(C)/22459/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged government orders sanctioning courses in private aided colleges and related UGC scheme benefits as violative of constitutional mandates. The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition, holding that quashing orders issued seven years prior would cause serious prejudice and noting non-joinder of necessary parties.

What the court decided

AI extract

Akhila Bharathiya Vidyarthi Parishid Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.22459 OF 2014(S)

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 AKHILA BHARATHIYA VIDYARTHI PARISHID RASHTRACHETHANA, PULLEPPADY, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE SECRETARY DR. ARUN B.R.

¶10

2 VIDHYABHYASA SAMRAKHNA SAMITHI "MADHAVA KRIPA", JANASEVASAMITHI, CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS CO-ORDINATOR (SAMYOJAKAN) SHRI. A.VINOD, AZHAKATHU HOUSE, KUTTATHI, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 ISSAC C.I. RETD. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, S/O. ITTYAVIRA, CHAVANICKAMANNIL, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, VADAVATHOOR P.O., 686 010, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.ASHA BABU SMT.AMMU CHARLES SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN) SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.G.RENJITH

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (C), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN-673 635, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

3 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM, UNIVESITY P.O., PIN673 635, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

4 THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

W.P.(C). No. 22459 of 2014

¶19

-2-

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY CGC R2 BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERSITY SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 22459/2014

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2020.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

S. Manikumar, CJ

¶27

The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

¶28

To call for the records leading to Exts.P1 to P3 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶29

To issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from implementing Exts.P1 to P3 as they are patently illegal and violative of the constitutional mandates and the statutory provisions of the Calicut University Act and the statutes framed thereunder.

¶30

To declare that the orders impugned in this writ petition are violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

To declare that even after delinking of the Pre-degree course form the University, continuing to grant benefits in that scheme only to certain sections of the teaching and non-teaching staff is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and liable to be declared so.

¶32

A perusal of the materials available on record shows

¶33

that the Government have issued Ext.P1 order bearing No. G.O.P No. 615/13 dated 12.09.2013 sanctioning different

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 22459/2014 : 4 :

¶35

courses in 148 private colleges of various Universities. Ext.P2 order bearing No. G.O.(Ms.) No. 85/2014/H. Edn. dated 21.02.2014 is for extending UGC scheme benefits to Arabic College teachers and for fixation, placement and appointment of Arabic College teachers under the UGC scheme and Ext.P3 order bearing U.O. No. 8050/2014/Admn dated 14.08.2014 is granting affiliation to newly sanctioned aided courses to aided Oriental Colleges. The said orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

¶36

Pending disposal of the writ petition, the petitioners have filed I.A. No. 13175 of 2014 for impleading only 7 colleges. Except the University of Calicut, the other Universities which granted affiliation to the newly started courses in the Aided Arts and Science Colleges in the State have not been impleaded.

¶37

Sum and substance of the contention of the petitioners is that the Government have no authority to sanction additional courses in the Aided Colleges. We are not in agreement with the said contention.

¶38

In the writ petition, the petitioners have not arrayed

¶39

the necessary parties namely respective aided

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 22459/2014

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

Colleges/Universities. If any order is passed behind their back, interests of the private aided colleges would be affected. The writ petition has to be dismissed for non-joiner of necessary parties also.

¶43

Courses have been sanctioned in the year 2013. Now 7 years have elapsed. Students would have been admitted to different courses in the various colleges affiliated to the concerned Universities and would be pursuing the same. At this length of time, quashing sanction orders issued in the year 2013 and the consequential orders would cause serious prejudice. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶44

sd/-

¶45

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶46

sd/-

¶47

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 22459/2014

¶50

: 6 :

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER (MS)NO. 615/13/H.EDN DT. 12-9-2013 BY R1. EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO. 85/2014/H.EDN. DT. 21-2-2014 ISSUED BY R1. EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF ORDER U.O.NO. 8050/2014/ADMN. DT. 14-8-2014 ISSUED BY R3.

¶54

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶55

/True Copy/

¶56

PS to Judge.

¶57

Akhila Bharathiya Vidyarthi Parishid v. the Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Akhila Bharathiya Vidyarthi Parishid v. the Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johnson M.M. Vs the Regional Transport Authority

K.a.Narayanan Vs Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat

Neelakanton M.N Vs B.Andrew Prabhu

Samastha Nair Samajam (Sns), Vs State of Kerala

The Central Board of Secondary Education, Vs Prapanch S.(Minor)

Sheelu Reji, Vs Kerala State Enviornmental Impact Assessment Authority