Dismissed

The Principal, Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre v. Kerala University of Health Sciences

Kerala HC5 Jan 2021WP(C)/26923/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Continuation of provisional BDS affiliation was refused for major faculty and clinical-facility deficiencies. The Court declined interference with the University's expert assessment, rejected claims for affiliation and inclusion in centralised allotment, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Principal, Century International Institute of… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE PRINCIPAL, CENTURY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE, POINACHI, KASARAGODE -671541.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ALEX GEORGE (CHAMAPPARAYIL) SHRI.EBEE ANTONY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRICHUR-680596.

¶11

2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶12

3 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶13

R1 BY SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY R2-R3 BY SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY -SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner is the Principal of a Self-financing Dental

¶19

College, namely, Century International Institute of Dental Science & Research Centre, conducting BDS course with an annual intake of 100 seats, on the strength of the Letter of Permission granted by the Central Government, based on the recommendation made by the Dental Council of India, and the provisional affiliation granted by the 1^st respondent Kerala University of Health Sciences. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 order dated 04.05.2020 of the 1^st respondent University, whereby the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation for BDS course for the academic year 202021, stands rejected. Seeking reconsideration of the decision taken in Ext.P10 order, the petitioner filed Ext.P11 appeal dated 20.09.2020 before the Vice Chancellor of the 1^st respondent University. By Ext.P12 communication dated 27.11.2020 of the 1^st respondent University, the petitioner was informed that the request made in Ext.P11 cannot be considered favourably since the application for continuation of provisional affiliation was rejected based on grave deficiencies found in the petitioner's college during

¶20

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M) 3

¶21

two inspections conducted. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the college is entitled to have admission for BDS course for the academic year 2020-21 or in the alternative, a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent University to issue continuation of affiliation for BDS course, for the academic year 2020-21; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to include the name of the petitioner's college in centralised allotment process for admission to BDS course, for the year 2020-21 itself.

¶22

On 04.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent University sought time to get instructions.

¶23

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent University and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.

¶25

The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P10 order dated 04.05.2020 of the 1^st respondent University, whereby

¶26

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M) 4

¶27

the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation to the petitioner's college for conducting BDS course, for the academic year 2020-21, stands rejected for the reasons stated therein.

¶28

The document marked as Ext.P1 is the notification dated 14.10.2015 of the Central Government granting recognition to BDS degree awarded by the 1^st respondent University in the petitioner's college with 100 seats, if granted on or after 04.03.2015. The document marked as Ext.P2 is an order dated 30.09.2020 of the 1^st respondent University, whereby the petitioner's college has been granted continuation of provisional affiliation for BDS course for the academic year 2019-20, with an annual intake of 100 seats. The petitioner applied for continuation of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2020-21. The University issued Ext.P3 letter dated 10.01.2020 requiring the petitioner to produce clearance certificate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and licence from Chemmanad Grama Panchayat for running the college. The petitioner submitted a reply stating that the petitioner has already made arrangement for collection and disposal of bio-medical waste with the Indian Medical Association Goes Eco Friendly (IMAGE), as evidenced by Ext.P5 letter of affiliation dated 14.12.2019 and that

¶29

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶30

¶31

the application with the Pollution Control Board is pending. The document marked as Ext.P6 is a receipt dated 16.09.2010 issued by Chemmanad Grama Panchayat accepting registration fee and the document marked as Ext.P7 is the consent to operate dated 15.02.2020 issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, which is valid upto 31.10.2024.

¶32

For granting continuation of provisional affiliation, the Inspection Commission of the University inspected the petitioner's college and submitted a report dated 05.12.2019, which was placed before the Scrutiny Committee. On verification of the report of the Inspection Commission, the Scrutiny Committee pointed out the following deficiencies in its report dated 07.01.2020;

¶33

The Principal was on leave on the day of inspection without transferring charge to Vice Principal.

¶34

Five faculty were on leave on the day of inspection.

¶35

Four faculty were on unauthorised absent.

¶36

Deficiency of one Reader in the department of OMFS.

¶37

The Clinical Requirements like Dental extractions and RCT were not done according to the requirement.

¶38

No proper documentation of details of attendance, valuation duty and satellite clinic.

¶39

Further the college has not submitted renewed MoU with

¶40

District Hospital, Kanghangad for the year 2020-21.

¶41

By Ext.P8 communication dated 22.01.2020, the

¶42

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶43

¶44

petitioner was informed about the deficiencies pointed out by the Scrutiny Committee and also that, in view of the deficiencies the application for continuation of provisional affiliation cannot be considered favourably. In order to reconsider the application for continuation of provisional affiliation, the petitioner was required to submit compliance report rectifying the above deficiencies, along with affidavit in stamp paper worth Rs.200/- to the effect that the deficiencies noted by the Scrutiny Committee are rectified.

¶45

On receipt of Ext.P8, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 compliance report dated 04.02.2020, along with necessary documents. On receipt of Ext.P9, the University deputed an Inspection Commission to inspect the petitioner's college. The Inspection Commission inspected the petitioner's college and submitted a report dated 05.03.2020, which was placed before the Scrutiny Committee. On verification of the report of the Inspection Commission, the Scrutiny Committee pointed out the following deficiencies in its report dated 18.03.2020;

¶46

a. The faculty status on the day of inspection was mentioned that 6 Medical staff and 8 Dental staff were on leave. Apart from this 3 faculty were on duty leave for theory paper valuation at KUHS Headquarters and one reader in the Dept. of Orthodontics was absent (on long leave). On scrutinising

¶47

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶48

¶49

the supporting documents submitted it is noted that:

¶50

i. Of the 6 Medical staff on leave, the leave application of only 3 were sanctioned by Principal.

¶51

ii. Among the 3 Dental staff on valuation duty (as reported by the college), only 1 person Dr.Avinash, Dept of Orthodontics had attended valuation duty at KUHS on 05.03.2020. The other 2 persons Dr.Ranjith Madavan (Periodontics) and Dr.Anush (Oral Medicine & Radiology) had not attended valuation duty on the day of inspection as per University records.

¶52

iii. It was also noticed that one of the staff Dr.Shahanas (Conservative Dentistry) whose sanctioned leave application submitted had signed in the attendance sheet.

¶53

iv. Dr.Sajay Bhat, Reader in the Dept of Orthodontics was not present on the day of previous inspection as well as on the day of current inspection. It was reported by the college that he is on long leave. But no substitute has been arranged so far.

¶54

b. Satellite Clinics:

¶55

No satellite clinic facilities are provided by the college which is against the norms of KUHS as well as that of DCI. This deficiency was pointed out during the previous inspection also.

¶56

c. Student Feedback:

¶57

d. On interaction with students, the inspection team has reported that there is malpractices in the conduct of university examinations. They also mentioned that proper checking of students before entering examination hall is not done. Besides they have complained that the stipend given to the interns is not as per KUHS norms.

¶58

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶59

¶60

e. Hence there is total shortage of 10 Dental and 6 Medical staff on the day of inspection. This amount to 16 out of 92 that is around 17%. The shortage of one reader in the Dept of Orthodontics mentioned in the previous inspection is still not rectified.

¶61

The report of the Scrutiny Committee was placed before the Governing Council and the Governing Council vide decision No.59.38 dated 25.04.2020 decided to reject the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2020-21 considering major deficiencies. The Vice Chancellor of the University accorded sanction to implement the decision of the Governing Council to reject the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2020-21 based on major deficiencies. Based on the said decision, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P10 order dated 04.05.2020 rejecting the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation for the academic year 202021.

¶62

The petitioner submitted Ext.P11 appeal dated 20.09.2020 before the Vice Chancellor of the University. The 1^st respondent by Ext.P12 communication dated 27.11.2020 informed the petitioner that the request made in Ext.P11 cannot be

¶63

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶64

¶65

considered favourably since the application for continuation of provisional affiliation was rejected based on grave deficiencies found in the petitioner's college during two inspections conducted.

¶66

The stand taken in the statement filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent University is that, the University conducts inspection in institutions through its Inspectors to assess the facilities available and takes a decision on the basis of report of the Scrutiny Committee. In the case of the petitioner's institution, inspection was conducted on 05.12.2019 and the defects noted in the report of the Scrutiny Committee were intimated to the petitioner. After submission of compliance report, verification was done on 05.03.2020 by conducting another inspection and based on the defects noted in the report of the Scrutiny Committee the University took a decision to reject the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation and issued Ext.P10 order dated 04.04.2020. Though notice was issued to the petitioner intimating the deficiencies noted by the Scrutiny Committee, no earnest effort was taken to rectify the same, apart from submitting Ext.P9 compliance report. It is settled law that compliance of the conditions on paper alone is not sufficient to consider the application. The 1^st respondent would point out that

¶67

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶68

¶69

the petitioner has not raised any serious objections to the findings in the report, but contends that the University is not competent to decide the question of affiliation. Recognition and affiliation are distinct and different. Recognition is granted by the statutory council or the respective government, whereas grant of affiliation is within the competence of the examining body. In the case of dental courses, the apex body is the Dental Council of India.

¶70

One of the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P8 is that no satellite clinic facilities are provided by the college. In Ext.P9 compliance report, the petitioner has stated that the college is in the process of establishing new satellite clinic and will be fully compliant with the University requirement. In the inspection conducted after the submission of Ext.P9 compliance report it was noticed that no satellite facilities are provided by the college. The Scrutiny Committee in its report dated 18.03.2020 noticed that no satellite facilities are provided by the college, which is against the norms of the University as well as that of the Dental Council of India. In the inspection conducted on 05.12.2019 and in the inspection conducted on 05.03.2020 after submission of Ext.P9 compliance report, deficiency in faculties was noticed by the Inspectors and that deficiency was also noted in the report of the

¶71

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶72

¶73

Scrutiny Committee dated 07.01.2020 and 18.03.2020, as evidenced by Exts.P8 and P10.

¶74

In Ext.P10, it is stated that, on interaction with students, the inspection team has reported that there are malpractices in the conduct of university examinations. They also mentioned that proper checking of students before entering examination hall is not done. Besides they have complained that the stipend given to the interns is not as per the University norms. The said allegations made by the students, cannot be the basis for rejection of the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to furnish explanation. A reading of Ext.P10 order would show that the decision taken by the University to reject the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation, for the academic year 2020-21, is based on the deficiencies pointed out in the report of the Scrutiny Committee and not on the above allegations by the students.

¶75

As already noticed, the rejection of the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation is based on the deficiencies noted in the reports of the Inspection Commission and the Scrutiny Committee. Based on the aforesaid deficiencies, a decision has been taken by the Governing Council to

¶76

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶77

¶78

reject the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2020-21. As can be seen from Ext.P10 order dated 04.05.2020, the Vice Chancellor has already accorded sanction to implement the decision of the Governing Council.

¶79

In Medical Council of India v. The Principal, KMCT Medical College [(2018) 9 SCC 766] it was contended before the Apex Court that the inspection was not properly conducted. Repelling the said contention, the Apex Court held as follows;

¶80

“15. We do not deem it necessary to deal with the submission made on behalf of the College regarding the inspection not being properly conducted. This Court has repeatedly said that a decision taken by the Union of India on the basis of a recommendation of an expert body regarding the inadequacy of facilities in medical colleges cannot be interfered with lightly. Interference is permissible only when the colleges demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perversity or mala fide. [See : Manohar Lal Sharma v. Medical Council of India (2013) 10 SCC 60 and Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (2016) 11 SCC 530 ]. As no case is made out by the College for interference with the inspection report, we decline the request of Mr. Sibal for remand of the matter to the High Court.”

¶81

The deficiencies noted in the report of the Scrutiny

¶82

Committee, which have already been referred to in Ext.P10 order of the 1^st respondent are serious in nature. It is based on those

¶83

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶84

¶85

deficiencies, the University has rejected the request made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2020-21. Any interference on the finding of the 1^st respondent University on those deficiencies, which are based on the inspection report of the experts in the field, is legally permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only when the petitioner demonstrate jurisdictional errors, ex facie perverse or mala fide. In the instant case, in the absence of any vitiating circumstances, no interference is warranted on the findings in Ext.P10 order on the deficiencies pointed out in the report of the Scrutiny Committee.

¶86

In Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka [(1998) 6 SCC 131] , while dealing with the admission made in excess of intake capacity fixed by the Council, the Apex Court held that, a medical student requires gruelling study and that can be done only if proper facilities are available in a medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have to be competent enough that when a medical student comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The country does not want half-baked medical professionals coming out of medical colleges when they do not have full facilities of

¶87

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶88

¶89

teaching and were not exposed to patients and their ailments

¶90

during the course of their study.

¶91

In K.S. Bhoir v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 10

¶92

SCC 264] the Apex Court held that sub-section (1) of Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is a substantive provision in itself and begins with non obstante clause ‘notwithstanding anything contained in the Act’, it means there is a prohibition in the matter of an increase in the admission capacity in a medical college unless previous permission of the Central Government is obtained in accordance with the recommendation of the Medical Council of India. The entire scheme of Section 10A of the Act has to be read in consonance with other sub-sections to further the object behind the amending Act. The object being to achieve the highest standard of medical education. The said objective can be achieved only by ensuring that a medical college has the requisite infrastructure to impart medical education. The object of amending Sections 10A, 10B and 10C was for a specific purpose of controlling and restricting unchecked and unregulated mushroom growth of medical colleges without requisite infrastructure resulting in decline in the maintenance of highest standard of education. The highest standard of medical education is only possible when the

¶93

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶94

¶95

requirement of provisions of Section 10A and the Regulations are complied with. It has been experienced that, unless there is required infrastructure available in the medical college, the standard of medical education has declined. Unless an institution can provide complete and full facilities for training to each student who is admitted in various disciplines, the medical education would remain incomplete and the medical college would be turning out half-baked doctors which, in turn, would adversely affect the health of the public in general.

¶96

In Medical Council of India v. Chairman, S.R. Educational and Charitable Trust [2018 SCC OnLine SC 2276 : 2018 (4) KLT SN 70] the Apex Court held that, considering the deficiencies [i.e., lack of patients, teaching faculty, sufficient number of surgical procedures, etc.], permitting an unequipped medical college to impart medical education without proper infrastructure and faculty would be against the efficacious medical education. Patients serve as the object of teaching. By such an approach ultimately the interest of the society would suffer. Half-baked doctors cannot be left loose on society like drones and parasites to deal with the life of patients in the absence of proper educational training. It would be dangerous and against the right to

¶97

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶98

¶99

life itself, in case unequipped medical colleges are permitted to impart substandard medical education without proper facilities and infrastructure. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that, as per clause (a) of the proviso to Regulation 8(1) of the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999, as amended by the Medical Council of India Establishment of Medical College (Amendment) Regulations, 2010, in respect of colleges in the stage upto II renewal (i.e., admission of third batch) if it is observed during any regular inspection of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is less than 60%, such an institute will not be considered for renewal of permission in that academic year.

¶100

In Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre v. Kerala University of Health and Allied Sciences

¶101

[2011 (4) KHC 333] , the question that came up for consideration before a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)Nos.24933 of 2011 and 26443 of 2011 was as to whether Kerala University of Health Sciences is supposed to act just as a 'rubber stamp' in the matter of granting affiliation to institutions invoking the power under Section 50 or 53 of the Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, 2010, once approval is granted in respect of the courses and

¶102

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶103

¶104

infrastructure by Indian Nursing Council and Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council. Relying on two Full Bench decisions of this Court in Vikram Sarabhai Educational Trust & B.Ed College v. University of Calicut [2008 (2) KHC 647] and K. Velayudhan Memorial Trust [2010 (3) KHC 23] it was contended that the University does not have any power or authority to decline affiliation in respect of B.Sc Nursing course or Post Basic B.Sc Nursing course sanctioned by Nursing Council or reduce the intake by stipulating some or other norms of their choice.

¶105

In Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical

¶106

Centre this Court found considerable force in the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the University that the decision rendered by the Full Bench is not an authority to hold that affiliation to be given by the University is only an empty formality or that once sanction is given by the State Council as aforesaid, affiliation to be given by the University is automatic. There is no such declaration of law in the decision rendered by the Full Bench referring to the relevant provisions of the University Act/Statute or as to the relative rights and liberties of the University in relation to

¶107

the powers and authority of the Indian Nursing Council/Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council. In Upasana College of Nursing v.

¶108

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶109

¶110

Kerala University for Health and Allied Sciences [2010 (4)

¶111

KHC 224] it was held that, granting of affiliation by the University is not an automatic exercise once sanction/permission is obtained from Indian Nursing Council/ Kerala Nurses & Midwives Council. Interference was declined and the writ petitions preferred by the concerned institutions were dismissed as devoid of any merit. The matter was taken up in appeal by the aggrieved institutions. After detailed hearing, the Division Bench, vide judgment dated 13.10.2010 in W.A.No.1715 of 2010 and connected cases, held that the process of affiliation was never automatic. The grant of affiliation is not an empty formality by the University. The University which awards the degree certificates can always ensure that students undergo the proper course study in an eligible institution in accordance with the curriculum prescribed by the University. Further, referring to the relevant provisions under the Calicut University Act and the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in University of Calicut v. Amala Institute of Medical Sciences [2009 (2) KHC 71] that the University is having ample power to inspect the college seeking affiliation and that the institution is bound to furnish any information called for in this regard. It has

¶112

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶113

¶114

also been held that, if there is any serious deficiency in the manner of running the college, the University can definitely take action against the college and 'dis-affiliate' it; the power to dis-affiliate being corollary to the power to affiliate and that the University is vested with the power to conduct necessary inspection and to satisfy itself as to the availability of infrastructure and such other aspects. As the primary function of the University is to guarantee quality education, maintaining/ regulating academic standards of the affiliated institutions, it is open for the University to prescribe conditions for recognition of the institutions, which is not in conflict with the norms prescribed by the INC under the Central Act. As such, the contention of the petitioners that the respondent University is bound to 'sign on the dotted lines' for granting affiliation, the petitioners having obtained sanction/approval from the Central/State Council, is wrong and unfounded.

¶115

In K.V.M. Trust v. Kerala University of Health &

¶116

Allied Sciences [2011 (4) KHC 948] [W.A.No.1528 of 2011 arising out of W.P.(C)No.26443 of 2011] the appellant contended, inter alia , that once the Indian Nursing Council and the State Nurses and Midwives Council accorded permission for the intake of 50 students, the respondent University has no authority to restrict

¶117

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M) 20

¶118

the intake to a lesser number. The Division Bench, relying on the decisions in Amala Institute of Medical Sciences [2009 (2) KHC 71] and Upasana College of Nursing [2010 (4) KHC 224] and also the Regulations of the Indian Nursing Council held that the permission accorded by the Indian Nursing Council is basing upon a prima facie satisfaction of the availability of the infrastructure facilities and it is for the State Council to accord its permission as well as the respondent University to conduct inspection and satisfy the availability of the infrastructure facilities for running the course before granting affiliation. Therefore, the Division Bench upheld the finding of the learned Single Judge that granting affiliation is not an empty formality.

¶119

In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State

¶120

of U.P. [2013 (2) SCC 617] the Apex Court, in the context of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 held that, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a condition precedent to running of the courses by the Institute. If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position to commence the relevant academic courses. There is a possibility of some conflict between a University Act or Ordinance relating to affiliation with the provisions

¶121

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶122

¶123

of the Central Act. In such cases, the matter is squarely answered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya [(2006) 9 SCC 1] where the Court stated that after coming into operation of the Central Act, the operation of the University Act would be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges. It also observed that provision of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges and conditions for grant of continuation of such affiliation by university would remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the university for grant and continuation of affiliation must be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and particularly in terms of Section 14(3)(a), the NCTE is required to grant or refuse recognition to an institute. It has been empowered to impose such conditions as it may consider fit and proper keeping in view the legislative intent and object in mind. In terms of Section 14(6) of the Act, the examining body shall grant affiliation to the institute where recognition has been granted. In other words, granting recognition is the basic requirement for grant of affiliation. It cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere formality

¶124

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶125

¶126

on the part of the examining body. It is the requirement of law that affiliation should be granted by the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind. Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct meaning and consequences. In the case of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2011) 4 SCC 527] it was held that the purpose of recognition and affiliation is different. In the context of the Act, affiliation enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in public examinations conducted by the examining body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diploma and certificates. On the other hand, recognition is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teaching education. The Court also emphasised that the affiliating body/examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by the NCTE while granting recognition. The examining body can impose conditions in relation to its own requirements. These aspects are (a) eligibility of students for admission; (b) conduct of examinations; (c) the manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed; and (d) to see that the conditions imposed by the NCTE are complied with. Despite the

¶127

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶128

¶129

fact that recognition itself covers the larger precepts of affiliation, still the affiliating body is not to grant affiliation automatically but must exercise its discretion fairly and transparently while ensuring that conditions of the law of the university and the functions of the affiliating body should be complementary to the recognition of NCTE and ought not to be in derogation thereto.

¶130

In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that this Court, in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with a decision taken by the University, which is an expert body, in refusing consent of continuation of provisional affiliation for a dental college, only when compelling circumstances warranting interference in such an order is made out. As held by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, which were rendered in the context of provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which are pari materia with the provisions under the Dentist Act, 1948 a dental college has to be equipped with necessary infrastructure, faculty, clinical materials, etc. in order to ensure that a dental student is getting ample opportunity to undergo medical education, as per the curriculum prescribed by the University and also the central agency, i.e., the Dental Council of

¶131

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶132

¶133

India. Unless a dental college can provide complete and full facilities for training to each student who is admitted to that college, the medical education would remain incomplete and the college would be turning out half-baked doctors which, in turn, would adversely affect the health of the public in general.

¶134

Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the case of medical and dental colleges, the Central Government has to issue Letter of Permission to admit students every year, till the college gets recognition. Once the college is recognised no Letter of Permission from the Central Government is required. Therefore, in respect of a medical college or dental college which gets recognition of the Central Government, the University cannot confine its affiliation to each academic year, by granting provisional affiliation to the course, instead of granting affiliation to the college.

¶135

The learned Standing Counsel for the University would contend that the Regulations issued by the Dental Council in the case of dental courses are by exercising the powers under Entry 66 of List I, of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, whereas the University is a creation of the State under Entry 25 of List III. Therefore, the area of operation of the Regulations of the

¶136

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶137

¶138

Dental Council of India and that of the University are different. There is no conflict or repugnancy in the Regulations of the Dental Council of India and that of the University. The learned Standing Counsel for the University would point out that, in the writ petition, the petitioner has not stated as to how the University norms is in conflict with the norms of the Dental Council of India. The petitioner has no case that the affiliation granted by the University to the petitioner's college is permanent. The University granted provisional affiliation for a particular period, which is being extended on the expiry of that period. For grant of extension of such provisional affiliation, the University adopts the same norms which are applied for grant of affiliation. Though the word used is continuation of affiliation, the same is granted on the basis of a fresh application and it is a fresh grant of affiliation for the relevant period.

¶139

As already noticed, by Ext.P2 order dated 30.09.2020 of the 1^st respondent University, based on the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation, granted continuation of provisional affiliation to the petitioner's college for BDS course, for the academic year 2019-20, with an annual intake of 100 seats. Seeking continuation of provisional affiliation for the

¶140

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶141

¶142

academic year 2020-21, the petitioner submitted application, as stated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. Based on that application the 1^st respondent University considered the question of continuation of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2020-21 and passed Ext.P10 order dated 04.05.2020. When the request made in that application is one for continuation of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2020-21, in a writ petition filed challenging Ext.P10 order, the petitioner cannot raise a contention that once recognition is granted by the Central Government, there is no scope for continuation of provisional affiliation by the 1^st respondent University for each academic year.

¶143

Other than the challenge made against Ext.P10 order dated 04.05.2020 of the 1^st respondent University, the further reliefs sought for are for a declaration that the college is entitled to have admission for BDS course for the academic year 2020-21; or in the alternative, a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent University to issue continuation of affiliation for BDS course, for the academic year 2020-21; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to include the name of the petitioner's college in centralised allotment process for admission to BDS course, for the

¶144

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶145

¶146

year 2020-21 itself.

¶147

As can be seen from Ext.P10 order dated 04.05.2020, the application made by the petitioner for continuation of provisional affiliation stands rejected on account of various deficiencies noted in the report of the Scrutiny Committee. As already noticed hereinbefore one of the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P8 is that no satellite clinic facilities are provided by the college. Even after submission of Ext.P9 compliance report the very same deficiency was noted by the Scrutiny Committee in its report dated 18.03.2020, as evidenced by Ext.P10 order dated 04.05.2020. In the said order shortage of faculties is also noticed. When the deficiencies noted in Ext.P10 are major deficiencies, the petitioner's college, which is not having complete and full facilities for training as per the relevant Regulations, cannot be permitted to impart medical education, since such a college would be turning out halfbaked dentists, which, in turn, would adversely affect the health of the public in general. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the declaratory relief and also the alternative relief sought for in this writ petition.

¶148

In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to

¶149

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶150

¶151

direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

¶152

In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, no mandamus can be issued directing the 1^st respondent University to grant continuation of affiliation or to direct the 3^rd respondent to include the name of the petitioner's college for centralised allotment process for allotting students for BDS course, for the academic year 2020-21, since no mandamus can be issued to direct an authority to do something contrary to law.

¶153

In the result, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

W.P.(C)No.26923 OF 2020(M)

¶159

¶160

APPENDIX

¶161

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶162

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY 14.10.201 TO THE GO	OF THE 5 ISSUED VERNMENT	NOTIFICATION DATED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE THE 1ST	ORDER DATED 30.9.2019 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE THE 1ST	LETTER DATED 10.1.2020 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED	OF THE TO THE	REPLY DATED 22.1.2020 PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY FROM THE ECOFRIENT	OF THE INDIAN M LY.	LETTER DATED 14.12.2019 EDICAL ASSOCIATION GOES
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY FEE FOR R	OF RECE EGISTRAT	IPT DATED 16.9.2010 OF ION OF DENTAL COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF KERALA	OF THE STATE P	CONSENT DATED 12.2.2020 OLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE THE 1ST	LETTER DATED 22.1.2020 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY 4.2.2020	OF THE WITH ANN	COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED EXURES.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE THE 1ST	ORDER DATED 4.5.2020 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY FROM THE	OF THE PETITION	APPEAL DATED 20.9.2020 ER.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY	OF THE	ORDER DATED 27.11.2020
	ISSUED FR	OM THE 1	ST RESPONDENT.

The Principal, Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre v. Kerala University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Principal, Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre v. Kerala University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaji P.K. Vs the District Police Chief

Manoj Kumar K Pillai Vs State Bank of India

Mayil Swamy. N Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Moorthy M Vs the District Collector

Kirankumar Vs State of Kerala

Upedra Prasad @ Upendran Vs the Superintendent of Police (Rural)