Partly allowed

The Principal, v. the University of Calicut

Kerala HC19 Oct 2022WA/1312/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revised M.Sc Clinical Psychology syllabus was upheld for subsequent semesters, while completed examinations, results and certificates under the old syllabus were protected. The University's lead appeal was partly allowed; its interim-order appeals and the college's appeals were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside interference with the revised syllabus for second semester onwards of the 2020–2022 and 2021–2023 batches; preserved completed examinations, results and certificates.

The Principal, Vs the University of Calicut — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶9

WA NO. 1707 OF 2020

¶10

JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2020 IN WP(C) 21238/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶11

KERALA

¶12

APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶13

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

¶14

2 THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF STUDIES, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY (P.G.), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P. O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635.

¶15

3 THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P. O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶17

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 22:

¶18

1 THE PRINCIPAL,

¶19

PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, TRICHUR – 680 301.

¶20

2 THE MANAGER ,

¶21

PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, TRICHUR – 680 301.

¶22

3 AARATHY S., KOLLARA AARABHI, KOLLARA HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA – 680 026.

¶23

4 AISHA NOWRIN, VELLALIL HOUSE, KANNAMPALLY BHAGOM, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA – 690 502.

¶24

5 ALEENA BABU, PEREPPADAN HOUSE, MELOOR P.O., CHALAKUDY – 680 311.

¶25

6 ANJALY VARGHESE, AMBAZHAKKADAN HOUSE, PUDUKKAD P.O., PIN – 680 301.

¶26

7 ANNU MARIA KURIAKOSE, CHULLIKKAL HOUSE, LIC ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM – 679 322.

¶27

8 APARNA A., AYIRANIYIL HOUSE, HOUSE, KIZHUPARAMBA P.O., AREEKODE - 673639.

¶28

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

9 APARNNA SREE ASOK, POOVAKKULATHU HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686 634.

¶31

10 ARAFA K.A., KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA BEACH P.O., THRISSUR – 680 566.

¶32

11 ATHIRA R.KUMAR, PEECHAMBILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM P.O.,ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 572.

¶33

12 FABEEHA SAMEER, KORATIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUMPURA, KARANCHIRA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 702.

¶34

13 DILSHA A.D., AINIKKAL HOUSE, VARAKKARA, VARANDARAPPILLY P.O., PIN680 303.

¶35

14 DITTY ANN JOHNS, POTTANANIYIL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686 578.

¶36

15 DYUTHY S. CHANDRAN, MANNARAKKAL HOUSE, PARAPPANPOYIL P.O., THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE – 673 573.

¶37

16 MALASREE KRISHNA, THADATHIL HOUSE, KALPATHUR P.O., MEPPAYUR VIA., PIN – 673 524.

¶38

17 MERIN ANNA MATHEW, SANTHIPURATH HOUSE, THACHAMPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 593.

¶39

18 MUBEERA J.M., BISMILLA NIVAS HOUSE, KADMATH ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶40

19 NAVEENA V., SUPRIYA HOUSE, PUTHIYARA, PUTHIYARA P.O., CALICUT - 4.

¶41

20 POOJA P.V., AAYILYAM HOUSE, NARUKARA P.O., ALUKKAL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM – 676 122.

¶42

21 VISWAKARMAPRAJISHA PRAKASH, VARIATHVALAPPIL HOUSE, VATTAMKULAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 679 578. BY ADVS. R1 & R2 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) R1 & R2 BY SMT.NISHA GEORGE

¶43

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WA. NOS. 1559, 1594 & 1597 of 2021 & 1312, 1323 & 1324 of 2022, THE COURT ON 19.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶45

: 3 :

¶46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶47

PRESENT

¶48

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶49

¶50

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶51

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶52

WA NO. 1559 OF 2021

¶53

ORDER DATED 07.10.2021 IN WP(C) 21520/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶54

KERALA

¶55

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶56

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635. REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

¶57

2 THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF STUDIES, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY (P.G.),UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.

¶58

3 THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O.,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.

¶59

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

¶60

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶61

1 THE PRINCIPAL, PRAJYOTHI NIKETAN COLLEGE,PUDUKAD,TRICHUR-680 301.

¶62

2 THE MANAGER, PRAJYOTHI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, TRICHUR-680 301.

¶63

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022,

¶64

ALONG WITH WA.1707/2020 AND BATCH, THE COURT ON 19.10.2022

¶65

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶66

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶67

: 4 :

¶68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶69

PRESENT

¶70

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶71

¶72

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶73

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶74

WA NO. 1594 OF 2021

¶75

ORDER DATED 18.11.2021 WP(C) 21395/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶76

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶77

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 635, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

¶78

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

¶79

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

¶80

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶81

THE PRINCIPAL,

¶82

PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE,, PUDUKAD, TRICHUR 680 301.

¶83

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1707/2020 AND BATCH, THE COURT ON 19.10.2022 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶84

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶85

: 5 :

¶86

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶87

PRESENT

¶88

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶89

¶90

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶91

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶92

WA NO. 1597 OF 2021

¶93

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2021 IN WP(C) 17310/2021 OF HIGH

¶94

COURT OF KERALA

¶95

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

¶96

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT THENHIPALAM P.O.MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635,

¶97

REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

¶98

2 THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF STUDIES, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY (P.G.) UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O.MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 635.

¶99

BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶100

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶101

1 THE PRINCIPAL

¶102

PRAJYOTHI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, TRICHUR-680 301.

¶103

2 THE MANAGER,

¶104

PRAJYOTHI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, TRICHUR-680 301.

¶105

3 ADDL.R3. ANU.P.PAULY AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. P.L. PAULY, PALLISSERY HOUSE, NEDUMBAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN: 680 310.

¶106

4 ADDL.R4.APARNA THILAKAN AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. P.V. THILAKAN, PUTHIYAMADATHIL HOUSE, THRIKKUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN: 680 306.

¶107

5 ADDL.R5. MEENAKSHI.V. AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. VIJAYAKUMAR B., ASWATHY HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN: 683 542.

¶108

6 ADDL.R6. SNEHA MARIA SUNNY AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. SUNNY VARGHESE, NAMBIAPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶109

VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN : 686 670.

¶110

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 6 :

¶111

7 ADDL.R7. SHADA NADEEM P. SHADA NADEEM P., AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. NADEEM M., KENZ, IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN: 670 593. 8 ADDL.R8. ANSHIDA RINSI P.. AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. ALI P., PARAMBATT HOUSE, PUTHANATHANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 552. (ADDL. R3 TO R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.10.2022 IN I.A. NO. 2 OF 2022) BY ADVS. RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR MAYA M.

¶112

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1707/2020 AND BATCH, THE COURT ON 19.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶113

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶114

: 7 :

¶115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶116

PRESENT

¶117

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶118

¶119

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶120

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶121

WA NO. 1312 OF 2022

¶122

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2022 IN WP(C) 21520/2020 OF HIGH

¶123

COURT OF KERALA

¶124

APPELLANTS/PETITONERS IN W.P.©:

¶125

1 THE PRINCIPAL, PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, TRICHUR – 680 301.

¶126

2 THE MANAGER, PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, TRICHUR – 680 301. BY ADVS. SRI. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT. NISHA GEORGE

¶127

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.©:

¶128

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT THENHIPALAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 635, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.

¶129

2 THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF STUDIES IN M.SC. CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 635.

¶130

3 THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 635. BY ADVS.

¶131

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

¶132

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1707/2020 AND BATCH, THE COURT ON 19.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶133

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶134

: 8 :

¶135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶136

PRESENT

¶137

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶138

¶139

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶140

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶141

WA NO. 1323 OF 2022

¶142

JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2022 IN WP(C) 17310/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶143

KERALA

¶144

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C):

¶145

1 THE PRINCIPAL, PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR - 680 301.

¶146

2 THE MANAGER PRAJYOTT NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR - 680 301. BY ADVS.

¶147

GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)

¶148

NISHA GEORGE

¶149

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C):

¶150

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635.

¶151

2 THE CHAIRMAN BOARD OF STUDIES, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY (P.G.), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635.

¶152

3 ADDL.R3 POOJA P.V. POOJA P.V., 2 (6), AAYILAM HOUSE, NARUKARA P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM - 676 122.

¶153

4 ADDL.R4 AISHA NOWRIN VELLAYIL HOUSE, KANAMPALLY BHAGOM, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 502.

¶154

5 ADDL.R5 MERIN ANNA MATHEW SANTHIPURATH HOUSE, THACHANPARA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 593.

¶155

6 ADDL.R6 AARATHY S.KOLLARA AARABHI, KOLLARA HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O., THRISSUR - 680 026.

¶156

7 ADDL.R7 ALEENA BABU PEREPPADAN HOUSE, MELOOR P.O., CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR - 680 311.

¶157

8 ADDL.R8-MALASREE KRISHNA

¶158

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶159

: 9 :

¶160

THADATHIL HOUSE, KALPATHUR P.O., MEPPAYUR VIA, KOZHIKODE - 673 524.

¶161

9 ADDL.R9 NAVEENA V. SUPRIYA HOUSE, PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673 004.

¶162

10 VISWAKARMA PAJISHA PRAKASH VISWAKARM PRAJISHA PRAKASH, VARIATHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, VATTAMKULAM P.O., MALAPPURAM- 679 578.

¶163

11 ADDL.R11 ANJALY VARGHESE ACHINGADAN HOUSE, ERAVU P.O., THRISSUR - 680 620.

¶164

12 ADDL.R12 ANNU MARIA KURIAKOSE CHULLIKKAL HOUSE, LIC ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 322.

¶165

13 ADDL R13 ARAFA K.A. KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA BEACH P.O., THRISSUR - 680 566.

¶166

14 ADDL.R14 ATHIRA R.KUMAR PEECHAMPILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM - 683 572.

¶167

15 ADDL.R15 DITTY ANN JOHNS POTTANANIYIL HOUSE, EDAMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 578.

¶168

16 ADDL.R16 MUBEERA J.M. BISMILLA NIVAS, KADMATH ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP - 682 556.

¶169

17 ADDL.R17 APARNA A. AYIRANIYIL HOUSE, KIZHPARAMBA P.O., AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM - 673 369.

¶170

18 ADDL R18 FABEEHA SAMEER KORATIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUMPURA, KARANCHIRA P.O., THRISSUR - 680 702.

¶171

19 ADDL.R19 DILSHA A.O. AINIKKAL HOUSE, VARAKKARA, VARANDRAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR - 680 303.

¶172

20 ADDL.R20 DYUTHY S.CHANDRAN MANNARAKKAL HOUSE, PARAPPANPOYIL P.O., THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673 573.

¶173

21 ADDL.R21 ANU P.PAULY AGED 24 YEARS D/O.P.L.PAULY, PALLISSERY HOUSE, NEDUMBAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 310.

¶174

22 APARNA THILAKAN AGED 22 YEARS D/O.P.V.THILAKAN, PUTHIYAMADATHIL HOUSE, THRIKKUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 306.

¶175

23 ADDL.R23 MEENAKSHI V. AGED 21 YEARS D/O.VIJAYAKUMAR B., ASWATHY HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 542.

¶176

24 ADDL.R24 SNEHA MARIA SUNNY AGED 21 YEARS D/O.SUNNY VARGHESE, NAMBIAPARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶177

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 10 :

¶178

VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 670.

¶179

25 ADDL.R25 SHADA NADEEM P. D/O.NADEEM M., KENZ, IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 593.

¶180

26 ADDL.R26 ANSHIDA RINSI P. AGED 22 YEARS

¶181

D/O.ALI P., PARAMBATT HOUSE, PUTHANATHANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 552.

¶182

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1707/2020 AND BATCH, THE COURT ON 19.10.2022

¶183

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶184

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶185

: 11 :

¶186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶187

PRESENT

¶188

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶189

¶190

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶191

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶192

WA NO. 1324 OF 2022

¶193

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2022 IN WP(C) 21395/2021 OF HIGH

¶194

COURT OF KERALA

¶195

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P.©:

¶196

THE PRINCIPAL, PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, THRISSUR - 680 301. BY ADVS. SRI. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT. NISHA GEORGE

¶197

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.©:

¶198

1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635.

¶199

2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635.

¶200

SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

¶201

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.09.2022, ALONG WITH WA.1707/2020 AND BATCH, THE COURT ON 19.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶202

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶203

: 12 :

¶204

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2022.

¶205

JUDGMENT

¶206

(Batch I: W.A. Nos. 1707 of 2020 & 1559, 1594 & 1597 of 2021 & Batch II: W.A. Nos. 1312, 1323 & 1324 of 2022]

¶207

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶208

Batch I writ appeals are filed by the University of Calicut and its officials challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 16.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 21238 of 2019; the interim order in W.P(C) No. 21520 of 2020 dated 07.10.2021; and the common interim order in W.P. (C) Nos 21395 of 2021 and 17310 of 2021 dated 18.11.2021.

¶209

Batch II writ appeals are filed by Prajyoti Niketan College and its manager—petitioners in the writ petitions, and the respondents in the appeal filed by the University, challenging the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27.07.2022 in W.P.(C) Nos. 21520, 17310 and 21395 of 2021 respectively. At the outset, it is made clear that the students of the 2019- 2021 batch have already participated in the examinations and obtained the certificates, on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court at various stages, and therefore, we do not propose to disturb the same in any manner.

¶210

The subject matter of the writ appeals are closely

¶211

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 13 :

¶212

intertwined and therefore, with the agreement of the parties, we have heard them together and propose to dispose of the appeals through this common judgment. W. A. No. 1707 of 2020 is taken as the lead case, and exhibits are referred to as in the said case, which would even decide the fate of the other cases.

¶213

As per the judgment leading to W.A.No. 1707 of 2020, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the aforesaid college vide judgment dated 16.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 21238 of 2019 and issued the following directions:

¶214

“38. This Court, after taking note of the above circumstances, holds that Exts.P18 and P22 can be set aside and are accordingly set aside. Keeping in view the judgment in Ext.P9, the college is permitted to continue the content and syllabus approved by the University prior to Ext.P18 and P22 till revision of content and syllabus are finalized as per applicable law. The Ist and 2nd respondents are given liberty to set in motion the steps warranted for reconstitution of BoS or revision of content and syllabus for M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) as the case may be for petitioner college before commencement of next academic year and inform all the concerned in this behalf. The point is answered accordingly.

¶215

For the above reasons and discussion the writ petition is ordered as indicated above. No order as to costs.”

¶216

In the interim order dated 07.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No. 21520 of 2020, leading to Writ Appeal No. 1559 of 2021, a

¶217

learned single Judge of this Court directed the University to apprise the date of declaration of results, failing which the Controller of Examinations was directed to appear in the court to

¶218

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 14 :

¶219

give explanation, and the said writ petition was posted along with W.P.(C) No. 17310 of 2014. Later, the learned single Judge has passed a common order dated 18.11.2021 in the aforesaid two writ petitions directing the appellant University to declare the students' results and further directing that the petitioner college should have undertaken the test as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶220

In the common judgment leading to W.A. Nos. 1312, 1323 and 1324 of 2022, the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions vide judgment dated 27.07.2022 holding as follows, and which would give an insight to the entire subject matter of the captioned appeals :

¶221

To state compendiously, the University brought out syllabus for all the four semesters of M.Sc. Clinical Psychology Course in the year 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “2012 Syllabus” for short); and they then chose to modify the same as regards the First Semester of the said course, through order dated 24/07/2019 available on records as Ext.P22 in W.P(C)No.17310/2021. This was challenged by the College through W.P.(C)No.21238/2019, in which, there was an initial interim order granted to the effect that the College will continue with the “2012 Syllabus” even for the First Semester; and a final judgment was subsequently delivered on 16/03/2020, setting aside the revised syllabus. The judgment in W.P.

¶222

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶223

: 15 :

¶224

(C)No.21238/2019 was delivered on 16/03/2020; but the University did not file any appeal against it until 16/12/2020, on which date, Writ Appeal No.1707/2020 was registered. Thereafter, until 22/10/2021, no interim order was issued by the learned Division Bench; but through an order of the said date, the judgment of the learned Judge was stayed.

¶225

In the meanwhile, three batches of students were admitted and were pursuing their course, namely those for the years 2019-2021; 2020-2022 and 2021-2023.

¶226

As far as the students of the 2019-2021 batch is concerned, it is uncontested and admitted by the University that they were allowed to complete their course based on the “2012 Syllabus” and that they have already been issued with the Degree Certificates and the other relevant citations.

¶227

Therefore, the controversy presently revolves around the students who were admitted by the College for the academic years, 2020-2022 and 2021-2023.

¶228

As already said above, the First Semester syllabus of the course was sought to be altered by the University through order dated 24/07/2019. This was set aside by a learned Judge on 16/03/2020, but which judgment was stayed by a learned Division Bench only on 22/10/2021. However, by then, admittedly, the students of 2020-2022 and 2021-2023 batches had already been admitted.

¶229

Obviously, therefore, the First Semesters of the afore said batches can only be governed by the “2012 Syllabus”, because that was the one which could have been followed at the time when they were admitted – the judgment of the learned Single Judge having been stayed only on 21/02/2021. 9. That being so said, controversy

¶230

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶231

: 16 :

¶232

subsists as to the syllabus for the second, third and fourth semesters of the batches in question. This is because, the University, thereafter, revised the syllabus for those semesters also, through order dated 06/12/2019; and this has been challenged by the College in W.P. (C)No.17310/2021, producing it as Ext.P26. They have, adscitiously in the said writ petition, challenged the constitution of the Broad of Studies of the University. However, it is conceded that the above said revised syllabus approved by the University, for the second, third and fourth semesters, has not been stayed by this Court at any point of time, until today.

¶233

The University vehemently maintains that if the matter is viewed in the afore perspective, all controversy projected in these three cases would come to an end because the students of the afore two Batches can write the First Semester examination based on the “2012 Syllabus”; while the subsequent semesters will have to be cleared by them as per the syllabus revised by the University through order dated 24/07/2019. They explain that this is because the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.21238/2019 was confined to the revision of the First Semester syllabus alone and that it cannot, therefore, automatically have any reflection upon the subsequent revision done by the University of the syllabus for the second, third and fourth semesters, through order dated 24/07/2019.

¶234

I, therefore, asked Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan – learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases, whether the students of the batches 2020-2022 and 2021-2023 would be willing to take their examinations for

¶235

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶236

: 17 :

¶237

the second, third and fourth semesters in the revised syllabus. He responded saying that since the University is maintaining adamance to this Court to fake an apposite decision as afore and since the students are suffering immensably, he leaves it.

¶238

Sri.Ranjith Thampan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Krishnakumar – learned counsel for some students who have impleaded themselves in these writ petitions, affirmed that the students of the 2019-2021 Batch do not require any relief, since they have already obtained their certificates, but that, as regards the students of 2020-2022 and 2021-2023 batches, they have been left high and dry without any examinations being conducted until today, though they have completed their courses.

¶239

I must say that what is of primary and acme priority for this Court in the protection to the future of the students. The 2020-2022 and 2021-2023 Batches have not been allowed to take even on examination yet, all because of the imbroglio caused by the disputes between the College and the University. Since my further elapse of time would cause the students irreparable detriment, I again turned to Sri.P.C.Sasidharan asking him if the University can offer any lenitude to them.

¶240

However, the response of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan was firmly that the University will allow the students of the afore two batches only to write first semester examination under the “Syllabus 2011”; while the second, third and fourth Semesters will have to be written by them following the revised syllabus of the University dated 24/07/2019. He added that if the students are so agreeable, then steps in this regard will be immediately taken.

¶241

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶242

: 18 :

¶243

The position adopted by the University so being inflexible and since any delay will cause the students very distress in future, I am of the view that this Court will have t now adopt a middle path approach. This is more so because, pendency of this writ petition and even further prosecution of the same would obtain no real benefits to the students but they will be put to detriment.

¶244

Resultantly, I order these writ petitions with the following directions:

¶245

(a) The University will immediately take steps to notify and conduct the First Semester examinations of 2020-2022 and 2021-2023 batches of students, pursuing Clinical Psychology in “Prajyoti Niketan College”, following the “2012 syllabus” and this shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶246

(b) As regards the examinations for the second, third and fourth semesters of the afore two batches are concerned, the University will notify and conduct the same based on revised syllabus approved by them through order dated 24/07/2019 without any avoidable delay after the First Semester examinations are completed or simultaneous there to, subject to sufficient time being granted to the students to prepare.

¶247

I leave liberty to any of the parties in these cases to seek any further clarifications, if it becomes so warranted in future; in which event, the Registry will list it appropriately for orders.

¶248

To be spoken to on 03/08/2022:

¶249

These matters have been listed today for being spoken to at the request of Sri.George Poonthottam,

¶250

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶251

: 19 :

¶252

learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Ann Maria Francis – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Sri.George Poonthottam submitted that there is absolutely no reason for the University to insist that the students of 2020-2022 and 2021-2023 Batches be directed to take examinations in the new syllabus as far as semesters 2, 3 and 4 are concerned because, in the case of 2019-2021 Batch, they were allowed to take the examinations in the 2012 syllabus. He argued that the University has voluntarily done this even without obtaining interim orders from this Court, as far as that batch is concerned and hence, that it will be inequitable to ask the subsequent two batches to write the 2nd, 3rd and 4th semesters under the new syllabus, which, according to the University, was brought in in the year 2019 itself. He then pointed out that there is a large difference in the marking and grading mechanisms under the 2012 and 2019 syllabus as far as 2nd, 3rd and 4th semesters are concerned; and therefore, that if the directions afore are implemented, the students would be put to irreparable prejudice.

¶253

Sri.Ranjith Thampan – learned Senior Counsel appearing for the students, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.George Poonthottam, saying that this is a case where the University ought to have shown magnanimity, rather than putting the students to peril because, by asking them to write examinations of the first semester under the 2012 syllabus and rest of the semesters in the 2019 syllabus, their future will be jeopardized. He argued, as earlier submitted by Sri.George Poonthottam, that when the University allowed 2019-2021 Batch to write all semesters under the 2012 syllabus even without any orders from this Court, it is inequitable to ask the subsequent batches to

¶254

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶255

: 20 :

¶256

write 2nd, 3rd and 4th semesters in the subsequent syllabus. He concluded saying that, as far as the future batches are concerned, certainly, the new syllabus may apply; but not with respect to the students who are admitted in the years 2020 and 2021.

¶257

Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the University, vehemently opposed the afore submissions saying that the University will not permit any student of 2020-2022 and 2021-2023 Batches to write 2nd, 3rd and 4th semesters under the 2019 syllabus. He argued that the 2019-2021 batch of students were allowed to write examinations and to complete the course under the 2012 syllabus only on account of interim orders of this Court. 5. As I have already indited in the afore judgment, the directions therein are only on account of the vehemence shown by the University. Since the students of 2020-2022 and 2021- 2023 Batches have not taken any semester examinations until now, I thought it better to offer them some hope, so that they can do so at least under the new syllabus, since the University takes the inflexible stand that they will not permit them to do so in any other manner. Certainly, had the University shown some indulgence or magnanimity, this Court would have been empowered to allow the students of 2020-2022 and 2021-2023 Batches to write semesters 2, 3 and 4 under the 2012 syllabus.

¶258

However, since the University opposes this with very vehemence they have at their command, I am left without any other option but to confirm the afore directions and to leave the students to their fate, as much as this Court would have wanted them to allow the opportunity of writing the examinations under the 2012 syllabus.”

¶259

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶260

: 21 :

¶261

The foundational issue of the writ appeals are common in nature in respect of the decision taken by the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology, University of Calicut held on 02.07.2019 and the order bearing U. O. No. 9775/2019/Admin dated 24.07.2019 issued by the University, which are impugned in W.P.(C) No. 21238 of 2019 leading to W.A. No. 1707 of 2020, as Exhibits P18 and P22 dated 09.07.2019 and 24.07.2019 respectively.

¶262

On a perusal of Exhibit P18 minutes of meeting of the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology (PG), it is clear that the Board of Studies discussed the syllabus for M.Sc Clinical Psychology from 2019 admission onwards as per the new regulations and also the content and scheme, and the full syllabus for the first semester, including the core courses, practical, and the ability enhancement course, and was finalised and approved.

¶263

As per Exhibit P22, the syllabus of M.Sc Clinical Psychology Programme for affiliated colleges under CBCSS PG Regulations 2019 was implemented with effect from 2019 admission onwards. The said order reads thus:

¶264

“ UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT Abstract

¶265

General and Academic- Faculty of Science- Syllabus of MSc Clinical Psychology Programme for affiliated colleges under CBCSS PG Regulations 2019 with effect

¶266

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶267

: 22 :

¶268

from 2019 Admission onwards-Semester 1- Implemented - orders issued.

¶269

G & A-IV-J

¶270

U.O.No. 9775/2019/Admn Dated, Calicut University P.O 24.07.22019

¶271

Read:- 1. U.O.No. 4487/2019/Admn dated 26.03.2019

¶272

Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology (PG) held on 02.07.2019

¶273

Remarks of Dean, Faculty of Science dated 22.07.2019

¶274

ORDER

¶275

The Regulations for Choice Based Credit and Semester System for Post Graduate (PG) Curriculum-2019 (CBCSS PG Regulations 2019) for all PG Programmes under CBCSS for Affiliated Colleges and SDE/Private Registration w.e.f. 2019 admission has been implemented vide paper read first above.

¶276

The meeting Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology (PG) held on 02.07.2019 has approved the Scheme and Syllabus of first semester for MSc Clinical Psychology Programme in tune with the new CBCSS PG Regulations with effect from 2019 Admission onwards, vide paper read second above.

¶277

The Dean, Faculty of Science has approved the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology (PG) held on 02.07.2019, vide paper read third above.

¶278

Under these circumstances, considering the urgency, the Vice Chancellor has accorded sanction to implement the Scheme and Syllabus of first semester for MSc Clinical Psychology Programme in accordance-with-new-CBCSS.PG Regulations 2019, for affiliated colleges in the University with effect from 2019 Admission onwards, subject to ratification by the Academic Council.

¶279

The Scheme and Syllabus of first semester for M SC Clinical Psychology Programme for affiliated colleges in accordance with CBCSS PG Regulations 2019, is therefore implemented in the University with effect from 2019 Admission onwards.

¶280

Orders are issued accordingly. (Syllabus appended)

¶281

Biju George K Assistant Registrar”

¶282

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 23 :

¶283

The writ petitioner college and the manager have challenged the minutes of the Board and the order of the University specified above basically contending that as per Statute 31 of Chapter 3 of the Calicut University (Constitution of Faculties and Boards of Studies) First Statutes, 1976 ('University First Statute, 1976' for short), the quorum for a meeting of any Board shall be simple majority of the strength of the Board; and that in case there is no quorum for any meeting, the agenda shall be discussed by the members present, and the minutes of the discussion shall be circulated among the members with the agenda for approval and final minutes shall be prepared by the Chairman and forwarded to the Registrar of the University. According to the writ petitioners, in the instant case, the quorum for the meeting held on 02.07.2019 was 3 out of the total of 9 members, thereby lacking the prescribed quorum for the meeting and that even though the statute provides for obtaining assent by circulation, the said effort was also defeated when 4 of the 9 members varied with the decision taken on 02.07.2019 showing their dissent.

¶284

It is also contended that the procedure required under the statute was violated by the Board of Studies and therefore, the decision taken by the Board of Studies on 02.07.2019 is an

¶285

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 24 :

¶286

illegal decision by a minority board, and accordingly, the same is only to be ignored. It is further contended that the powers conferred on the Vice Chancellor under the Act is not to short circuit all the requirements of law and therefore, Exhibit P22 order is bad in law. Various other contentions were also raised with respect to the constitution of the Board of Studies for M.Sc Clinical Psychology; and that there were no experts in the Board of Studies so as to finalise the revised syllabus for Clinical Psychology. Therefore, according to the college and the manager, the constitution of the Board of Studies for M.Sc Clinical Psychology was in violation of statute 25 of Chapter 3 of the University First Statute, 1976, which stipulates that no person shall be appointed as a Member of a Board, unless he is a teacher of or has particular knowledge in the subject or one of the subjects with which the Board is concerned.

¶287

It is further submitted that 5 of the members of the reconstituted Board were members of the Board of Studies of M.Sc Psychology, which has nothing to do with the Clinical Psychology and it would go to show that vide Exhibit P12 order of reconstitution, the University has paved a way for the desolation of the Board of Studies for M.Sc Clinical Psychology and its merging with the M.Sc Psychology, Board of Studies. Therefore,

¶288

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 25 :

¶289

according to the college and the manager, Exhibit P12 order dated 05.07.2017 constituting the Board of Studies and Exhibit P18 decision purported to be taken by the said Board is illegal and nonest in the eyes of the law.

¶290

That apart, it is contended that as per statute 29(1) of Chapter 3 of the University First Statute, 1976, Boards of Studies should meet at least once in a year. Further, as per statute 17 of Chapter 2 of the University First Statute, 1976, every Faculty should consider, at its annual meeting, the recommendations made by the Board of Studies comprised in the Faculty regarding textbooks and syllabi and recommend the test-books as syllabi for the courses and examinations relating to the subject assigned to that Faculty. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the college and the management was that in the instant case, even after two years of constitution of new Board, vide Exhibit P12 order, no meetings of the Board were held. Therefore, the Board of Studies confirmed as per Exhibit P12 order had lapsed on expiry of one year of its formation, and the same ought to have been reconstituted. Various other contentions in respect of Exhibit P18 minutes of meeting of the Board of Studies are raised, stating that the agenda of syllabus was thrusted upon the college all of a sudden, without adequate study of the same and prejudiced the admissions made by the college to M.Sc Clinical

¶291

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 26 :

¶292

Psychology.

¶293

It is also contended that as per Exhibit P22 order dated 24.07.2019, the University is trying to implement a new syllabus in the midway of an academic year after completing 37 days of the first semester and consequent to which the schedule of practicals and labs were re-arranged in such a way that the students had to attend the practicals of all subjects that were not even taught to them. According to them, the approach of the University to the whole issue is practically impossible, and it creates chaos in the conduct of the courses in colleges, with the students bearing the brunt.

¶294

That apart, it was contended that with the end of first semester scheduled on 31^st October, the first Semester examination had to be conducted in the first week of November, and therefore, if the new syllabus is implemented, the entire semester will be lost and the academic calendar will be in disarray.

¶295

The appellant University had filed a detailed counter affidavit in the writ petition refuting the allegations and the claims and demands made by the College and the Manager; and among other things stating that as per University Order dated 11.01.2002, the University Order dated 20.10.2002 has been

¶296

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 27 :

¶297

corrected by according sanction to the writ petitioner college to start M.Sc Clinical Psychology instead of M.Sc Psychology, and that as per the University Order dated 04.11.2006, permanent affiliation has been granted to M.Sc. Clinical Psychology with an intake of ten students from the academic year 2006-2007 onwards.

¶298

It is also stated that the Academic Bodies of the University, like Board of Studies and Academic Council, has the liberty to prepare/modify a syllabus of a programme after following the academic procedures for approval even without the request from the stakeholders. Further, the Board of Studies is the academic body of the University comprising of subject experts and they are competent to recommend any change in syllabus, courses, equivalency to any course etc. However, the Academic Council only has the powers to accept, reject or amend any modifications suggested by the Board.

¶299

It was also submitted that as per the University Order referred to above, M.Sc Clinical Psychology of the University was recognised as equivalent to MA Psychology and M.Sc Psychology courses of the University for the purpose of higher studies and implementation of the same was approved by the Vice Chancellor, subject to ratification by the Academic Council. But,

¶300

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 28 :

¶301

while considering the matter, Academic Council has resolved to keep the order in abeyance and to refer the matter back to the Board of Studies concerned; and the University Order dated 19.03.2009 has been issued accordingly.

¶302

It is further stated that the Board of Studies held on 03.11.2009 resolved to ratify the recommendation to equate M.Sc Clinical Psychology to M.Sc/MA Psychology of the University and recommended to modify the syllabus to a common pattern as that of M.Sc course of the University of Calicut.

¶303

But, since there was dissent on those items, decisions could not be implemented and hence, a note to the Board of Studies dated 16.12.2009 was issued for reconsidering the items and the Board of Studies of 02.07.2010 again endorsed the resolution of the meeting of Board of Studies held on 03.11.2009. Later, the Vice Chancellor, exercising the power of the Academic Council, approved the minutes subject to ratification by the Academic Council, who vide item No. IIIa-48, ratified the same. It was further submitted that the then University Order dated 08.12.2010 has been approved implementing the recommendation to make M.Sc Clinical Psychology of University of Calicut as equivalent to the M.Sc/MA Psychology of the University.

¶304

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶305

: 29 :

¶306

That apart, it is stated that on the introduction of Credit Semester System PG in affiliated colleges, the scheme and syllabus of M.Sc programme in Psychology was reconstructed and implemented as per University Order dated 07.08.2010, and the same has been forwarded to all affiliated colleges. The Board of Studies has suggested two streams with 4 courses each in the core subject and an academic institution was given the liberty to select one stream at a time or two courses each from both streams, stream 1 is Clinical Psychology.

¶307

So also, according to the University, the Vice Chancellor is vested with powers under Section 10(13) of Chapter 3 of the Calicut University Act, 1975 (‘Act, 1975’ for short) to issue any orders, subject to ratification by the appropriate body. Therefore, it was contended that on the introduction of the Credit Semester system PG in affiliated colleges, the syllabus of M.Sc programmes in Psychology was restructured and the same was implemented as per University Order dated 07.08.2010. Further, as per the decision dated 03.04.2011, the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology (PG) has been reconstituted in the year 2011.

¶308

Accordingly, the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology, at its meeting held on 29.02.2012, resolved to approve the syllabus of the M.Sc programme in Clinical

¶309

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 30 :

¶310

Psychology under Credit Semester PG and considering the exigencies, the Vice Chancellor has approved the minutes of meeting of the Board of Studies, subject to ratification by the Academic Council and accordingly, the University Order dated 06.03.2012 has been issued implementing the syllabus of M.Sc Clinical Psychology programme with effect from 2012 admission.

¶311

According to the University, the University has taken time bound action for the reconstitution of the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology. It is further stated that the meeting of the syndicate held on 10.11.2014 considered the reconstitution of the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology and resolved to constitute a sub-committee of the syndicate and the decision of the syndicate was implemented as per University Order dated 20.11.2014, and finally based on the decision of the meeting of the syndicate held on 27.06.2017, the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology was reconstituted on 05.07.2017.

¶312

The further contention of the University is that as per statute 25, Chapter 3 of the First Statute, 1976, no person shall be appointed as a Member of a Board, unless he is a teacher of or has special knowledge in the subject or one of the subjects with which the Board is concerned. The sum and substance of the contention of the University with regard to the contention

¶313

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 31 :

¶314

advanced by the petitioner college was that the Board of Studies was constituted by the syndicate after considering the above provision and satisfying that the persons appointed as members of the Board are having the above qualification.

¶315

It was also pointed out that the syndicate considered the complaint dated 19.07.2017 submitted by the petitioner college at its meeting held on 19.08.2017 and resolved to refer the complaint to the sub Committee of the Syndicate. It is also stated that the decision of the syndicate was implemented as per University Order dated 30.08.2017 and the sub committee has not made any remarks against the reconstitution of the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology.

¶316

It was also the case of the University that Exhibit P14 produced by the petitioner college dated 26.03.2019 is not a Government Order, but the regulations for the Choice Based Semester System for Post Graduate Programmes of affiliated colleges and SDE/Private Registration (CBCSS PG Regulations 2019) in the University of Calicut implemented with effect from 2019 vide University Order dated 26.03.2019. Therefore, it is submitted that after implementation of the same, steps were taken by the University to revise the syllabi of various PG programmes and to convene the meeting of various Board of

¶317

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶318

: 32 :

¶319

Studies.

¶320

It was further submitted that, even though as per clause 29(1) of Chapter 3 of the University First Statutes, 1976, the Board of Studies shall meet once in a year, as there was no agenda for the meeting of Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology (PG), the meeting has not been convened till the year 2019. However, on receipt of the letter from the Chairman, the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology (PG), to convene the meeting of Board of Studies on 02.07.2019, sent meeting notices to some of the members on 28.06.2019, and to the remaining members on 29.06.2019; and the meeting of the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology (PG) was convened on 02.07.2019 as requested by the Chairman to finalise the revision of the M.Sc Clinical Psychology syllabus as per the new PG Regulations, which had difficulty for implementation and intimation was communicated to all members through email/phone. But, three out of 9 members were present and hence, the meeting lacked the required quorum.

¶321

Therefore, it is submitted that as per statute 31 of Chapter 3 of the University First Statute, 1976, in case there is no quorum for any meeting, the agenda shall be discussed by the members present and the minutes of discussion shall be

¶322

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 33 :

¶323

circulated among members with the agenda for approval, and the final minutes shall be prepared by the Chairman and forwarded to the Registrar. Therefore, according to the University, the minutes of meeting held on 02.07.2019 was circulated among the members as per the procedure prescribed and when the minutes were circulated, two members of the Board informed their dissent but failed to satisfy any reason for the same. It is further contended that while forwarding the assent/dissent on the minutes from 5 members of the Board, the Chairman clarified that the suggestions of the members, if valid, can be incorporated in the further meeting, if they are present, as the syllabus of the first semester has only been finalised initially.

¶324

Since the minutes was approved by the majority of the members and the Dean, Faculty of Science, the same was approved by Vice Chancellor exercising the powers of Academic Council, and the syllabus of the first semester of M.Sc Clinical Psychology programme was implemented as per University Order dated 24.07.2019 and the same has further been modified by University Order No. 17056/2019/Admn dated 06.12.2019 incorporating the syllabus for all semesters of M.Sc Clinical Psychology programme for affiliated colleges in accordance with CBCSS PG Regulations, 2019.

¶325

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶326

: 34 :

¶327

It was also the case of the University that the Board of Studies can be reconstituted only after the expiry of its term of three years; and the suggestion from the petitioner College regarding the inclusion of a specialist teacher in Clinical Psychology in the Board can be considered at the time of reconstitution of the present Board, on expiry of its term, if so found necessary. Therefore, the ultimate submission of the University was that the syllabus of all PG Programmes of the affiliated colleges, including M.Sc Clinical Psychology, have to be revised with effect from 2019 admissions in tune with the new PG Regulations. So also, it was contended that no program shall be run under the earlier Regulations as new Regulations have come into force. Therefore, according to the University, even though a slight delay occurred in the finalisation of the revised syllabus as per the new PG regulations, 2019, implementation of the same is unavoidable and all the colleges affiliated to the University is to adhere to implement the new regulations and syllabus approved by the University and therefore, the petitioner college cannot remain as an exception for the same.

¶328

The writ petitioner college has filed a reply affidavit refuting the contentions of the University and reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition.

¶329

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶330

: 35 :

¶331

The learned single Judge, after taking into account the rival submissions, has allowed the said writ petition basically finding that there was no appropriate decision by the Board of Studies in accordance with the procedure contemplated for the purpose as per the University First Statute, 1976.

¶332

It was after rendering the aforesaid findings that Exhibit P18 minutes of the Board of Studies and P22 order of the University, introducing the syllabus for M.Sc Clinical Psychology from the year 2019, was interfered with and quashed.

¶333

The paramount contention advanced by the University in its appeals is that the entire findings, observations and the directions issued by the learned single Judge is erroneous and faulty, since the learned single Judge has not appropriately comprehended the ambit and scope of the contentions raised by the appellant.

¶334

It is also the contention of the University that the issue is purely an academic matter, and the academic bodies of the University has made appropriate regulations which is part of legislative functions; and the Board of Studies had made recommendation for the revised syllabus for the courses which is in the realm of a legislature, after due consideration.

¶335

That apart, it is contended that the learned single

¶336

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 36 :

¶337

Judge examined the issue, as if the adjudication is with reference to an executive decision or an executive order of the University. But, it is not so. The prescription of a syllabus for a course is in the realm of legislation and purely an academic matter. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned single Judge ought not to have found that there is lack of fairness in making the legislation.

¶338

The further contention of the University is that the findings of the learned single Judge regarding the quorum, applying the general principle, is erroneous, since the specific quorum is prescribed in the Statute, 1976 itself. Therefore, according to the University, when the issue with respect to the quorum is specifically provided in the statute as discussed above, the learned single Judge was not right in entering into a general finding with respect to the quorum for an ordinary meeting. It was the further contention of the University that when the available members of the Board of Studies have taken a decision and when the same was prepared by the Chairman and forwarded the Minutes of the Registrar for circulation of the other members and secured their opinion, the learned single Judge was not right in entering into the findings in the judgment that there is no procedural fairness and lack of fairplay in the decision

¶339

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 37 :

¶340

taken, which finding is unsustainable and against the provisions of the University First Statute, 1976.

¶341

According to the University, the writ petitioner college is only an affiliated college and it is not at liberty to raise a contention regarding the syllabus and since the course leading to award of degree to be conducted in a college should be in accordance with the syllabus prescribed by the University as per Regulations; and the college cannot be hard to say that it is not bound to follow the syllabus. It is also pointed out that the facts and figures projected by the University in its detailed counter affidavit with respect to the constitution of the Board of Studies in the meeting held and the decision taken by circulation were not seriously taken into account by the learned single Judge and therefore, interference is required to the judgment of the learned single Judge with respect to the findings and the decision taken. It is also submitted that the Vice Chancellor is vested with ample powers under the Act, 1975 to issue any orders subject to the ratification of the academic council; and therefore, when the academic council has ratified the decision of the Vice Chancellor, the decision can only be said to be taken by the Academic Council by the procedure contemplated under law.

¶342

It is also contended that it is not the petitioner college

¶343

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 38 :

¶344

alone which is conducting the M.Sc Clinical Psychology and therefore, the degree in the same nomenclature with two syllabus cannot be granted by the University. That apart, it is contended that the petitioner college cannot conduct courses as per the old syllabus which is based on the regulation not existing; and if the old syllabus is to be followed, the University would be compelled to take two different streams of examinations for the same course which would cause serious prejudice to the University. In the above backdrop, the appellant University seeks reversal of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 16.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 21238 of 2019; and also seeks to set aside the interim orders in the appeals preferred against them.

¶345

The petitioner college has filed a counter affidavit in the writ appeal and certain documents were also produced to substantiate the contentions raised in the writ petition as well as the appeal by filing I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in W.A. No. 1707 of 2020. So also, in view of the contentions raised by the petitioner college in the writ appeal that new scheme and syllabus of M.Sc Clinical Psychology was not forwarded to the petitioner college, the University has produced the print out of the gmail evidencing despatch of the scheme and syllabus to the college affiliated to the University as Annexure A1(b) dated 06.12.2019.

¶346

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶347

: 39 :

¶348

So also, Annexure A1(c) e-mail dated 09.05.2022 is produced to establish that the revised syllabus with effect from 2022 was also forwarded to the affiliated colleges. That apart, Annexure A1(d) screenshot of the University's official website is also produced to show that the new syllabus is available on the official website of the University as well.

¶349

Insofar as the interim orders under challenge in W.A. Nos. 1559 and 1594 of 2021 and 1597 of 2021 are concerned, when the petitioner college has sought for a direction to the University to conduct all examinations in M.Sc Clinical Psychology for the students of the petitioner college as per 2012 syllabus pending disposal of the writ petition, apparently as per the directions issued by the learned single Judge, examination was conducted and thereafter, the college has sought for declaration of the results which was allowed by the learned single Judge.

¶350

Anyhow, the writ petitions leading the said writ appeals were finally disposed of as per the common judgment dated 27.07.2022 by the learned single Judge which is extracted above; however, insofar as the participation of students in the firstsemester examination with the syllabus of 2012 for the batch 2019-2021 is concerned, the learned single Judge has confirmed the interim orders, which enabled the students to write the

¶351

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶352

: 40 :

¶353

examinations.

¶354

Insofar as W.A. Nos. 1312, 1323 and 1324 of 2022 filed by the College and the Manager regarding the syllabus for the subsequent period of the course in question are concerned, it is contended that since Clinical Psychology as a subject was different from Psychology, the syllabus of the said course was entirely different. It is further contended that when W.P.(C) No. 21238 of 2019 was disposed of by the learned single Judge allowing the appellant college to continue with the syllabus approved by the previous Board of Studies and directed the University to set in motion the steps warranted for reconstitution of the Board of Studies for revision of content and syllabus for the M.Sc Clinical Psychology for the petitioner college before the commencement of the next academic year, the learned single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the college unmindful of the directions contained in the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 21238 of 2019.

¶355

Various other contentions are raised basically relying upon the findings rendered in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.21238 of 2019 dated 16.03.2020. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the College and the manager is that interference is required to the common judgment of the learned

¶356

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 41 :

¶357

single Judge dated 27.07.2022. But the fact remains, the students of the 2020- 2021 and 2021- 2023 batches of the writ petitioner college have participated in the first semester examinations with the 2012 syllabus, and apparently, results are also declared.

¶358

We have heard the learned counsel for the University and its officials Sri. P.C Sasidharan and the learned Senior Advocate Sri.George Poonthottam assisted by Smt.Nisha George for the college and the manager, and perused the pleadings and material on record.

¶359

The learned counsel for the University advanced arguments on the basis of the deliberations made above and also relying upon the provisions of the Act, 1975. The term ‘affiliated college’ is defined under Section 2(2) of Act, 1975 to mean a College affiliated to the University in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Statues and in which instruction is provided in accordance with the provisions of the statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. ‘College’ is defined under Section 2(7) of the Act, 1975 to mean an institution maintained by, or affiliated to, the University, in which instruction is provided in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations.

¶360

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶361

: 42 :

¶362

So also, Section 2(14) defines the term ‘prescribed’ to mean prescribed by the Act or the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations, rules or bye-laws made thereunder. Section 25 of the Act, 1975 deals with the powers and duties of the Academic Council. Among other powers, clause (iii) thereto empowers the Academic Council to prescribe the courses of studies in the institutions maintained by, or affiliated to, the University.

¶363

Likewise, Section 28 of the Act, 1975 deals with the Boards of Studies and the proviso thereto specifies that the postgraduate studies in each subject may have separate Board of Studies; and sub-Section (2) specifies that the constitution and powers of the Boards of Studies shall be prescribed by the Statutes. It is important to note that sub Section (3) of Section 28 stipulates that members of Boards of studies shall hold office for a period of three years from the date of their entering into office.

¶364

Therefore, on an analysis of the aforesaid provisions, it is categoric and clear that there are clear cut powers vested with the University and its organisational setups to tackle the situation concerning prescribing the course of studies.

¶365

Now, we come to Section 38 of the Act, 1975 dealing

¶366

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 43 :

¶367

with Regulations providing for all the matters prescribed thereunder which inter alia includes- (a) the courses of studies and the conduct of examinations; and (b) the admission of students to the various courses of study and to the examinations.

¶368

Section 39 of the Act, 1975 deals with the procedure for making Regulations and sub-Section (1) thereto stipulates that all Regulations made under the Act shall have effect from such date as the Academic Council may direct but every Regulation so made shall be laid before the Senate during its next succeeding meeting. Sub-Section (2) makes it clear that subject to the provisions of sub-Section (1), the procedure to be followed in making, amending or repealing Regulations shall be prescribed by the Statutes. It is true, as per Section 41 of the Act, 1975, all Statutes, Ordinance and Regulations made under the Act shall be published in the Gazette. 54. Dealing with Section 41 of the Act, 1975 is relevant, since the learned Senior counsel for the appellants/writ petitioner college submitted that the regulations so made by the Academic Council is not published in the Gazette and therefore, the Regulations prescribing a new syllabus by the Academic Council in accordance with the ratification made to the orders of the Vice Chancellor is not a valid regulation having not published in a gazette. First of all, we may observe that the said

¶369

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 44 :

¶370

contention was not raised in the writ petition. Secondly, the learned Standing Counsel for the University has submitted that the University has produced evidence before this Court to show that the new syllabus was forwarded to all the colleges by e-mail and the new syllabus was available in the web site of the University, and therefore, in view of the publication of the new syllabus in public domain, the petitioner college cannot be hard to contend that the Regulation is not published in the Gazette, since the requirement of publication is only for the knowledge of all concerned. We are also of the view that, given technological advancements, the said contention may not have any force at all.

¶371

Statute 20 of the First Statutes, 1976 thereto deals with the constitution of the Boards of Studies, which is substantially similar to Section 28 of the Act, 1976. Statute 28 deals with the power of Board of Studies, which inter alia specifies at clause (iii) as follows:

¶372

“to make recommendations in regard to course of study and examinations in the subject with which it deals.”

¶373

Therefore, it is quite clear and evident that Exhibit P18 minutes of the meeting of the Board of studies produced in W.P. (C) No. 21238 of 2019 dated 16.03.2020 was a recommendation made to the Academic Council and it cannot be said to be a

¶374

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 45 :

¶375

Regulation made by the University without the approval of the Academic Council; and in its nonavailability, by the Vice Chancellor and subsequent ratification by the Academic Council. Therefore, the findings rendered by the learned single Judge absolutely relying upon the decision taken by the Board of Studies may not be the correct approach to sort out the issue raised by the rival parties, because the said aspect was put forth by the University in its counter affidavit filed in the writ petition and has explained the developments that have taken place consequent to the recommendations made by the Board of Studies and which finally culminated in Exhibit P22 order of the University issued by the Assistant Registrar.

¶376

That apart, Statute 29 of the University First Statute, 1976 deals with the meetings of the Board of Studies and clause (1) thereto specifies that Board of Studies shall ordinarily meet once in a year; but the Vice Chancellor may direct additional meetings to be held as and when necessary. It is quite clear and evident from the counter affidavit filed by the University before the writ court that the Board of Studies was reconstituted on 05.07.2017 as per the decision of the meeting of the syndicate held on 27.06.2017 which has a tenure of 3 years, by virtue of Section 28(3) of the Act, 1976.

¶377

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶378

: 46 :

¶379

It is true, Statute 29 of the University First Statute, 1976 states that the Board of Studies shall ordinarily meet once a year. But, when the period of three years tenure is fixed for the Board of Studies, it cannot be said that when a meeting was not constituted within one year of the constitution of the Board, the Board has ceased to be in force. But, as per clause (2) of Statute 29 of the University First Statute, 1976, meetings of a Board of Studies shall be convened by the Registrar at such time as may be necessary or on the written request of not less than one-third of the members serving on the Board at the time. Statute 30 empowers the Chairman to preside at the meeting of the Board and in the absence of the Chairman, the members present are vested with powers to elect a Chairman for the meeting.

¶380

Statute 31 deals with quorum and it specifies that the quorum for a meeting of any Board shall be a simple majority of the strength of the Board, fractions, if any, being ignored. However, the second limb thereto clearly stipulates that in case there is no quorum for any meeting, the agenda shall be discussed by the members present and the minutes of the discussion shall be circulated among members with the agenda for approval and the final minutes shall be prepared by the Chairman and forwarded to the Registrar.

¶381

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 47 :

¶382

The procedure discussed above has a close nexus with the contention advanced by the University in its counter affidavit before the learned single Judge explaining the procedure that had taken place with respect to Exhibit P18 minutes drawn by the Board of Studies and the consequential approach adopted in contemplation of Statute 31 as above.

¶383

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances insofar as Exhibit P18 minutes of Board of Studies is concerned and correlating the same with the provisions of the Act, 1975 and the First Statute 1976 discussed above, we are of the clear opinion that the procedure adopted by the University in respect of the conduct of the meeting of the Board of Studies was in accordance with law. It is also quite clear and evident from the documents produced in the W.A. No. 1707 of 2020 filed by the University that the scheme and the syllabus was despatched to the colleges affiliated to the University on 16.12.2019 and 09.05.2012, as is evident from Annexure A1(b) produced along with an application in the writ appeal.

¶384

In that view of the matter, we are of the undoubted opinion that interference is required to the findings rendered by the learned single Judge insofar as Exhibit P18 minutes is concerned. Insofar as the findings rendered by the learned single

¶385

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 48 :

¶386

Judge with respect to Exhibit P22 order of the University is concerned, a reference to Section 10 of the Act, 1975 would make the situation more clear. Section 10 deals with Vice Chancellor and sub-Section (8) specifies that the Vice-chancellor shall be the principal academic and executive officer of the University.

¶387

Sub-Section (9) of Section 10 specifies that the Vicechancellor shall be the Chairman of the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council, the Students’ Council and the Finance Committee and shall be entitled to be present at and to address any meeting of any authority of the University, but shall not be entitled to vote there at unless he is a member of the authority concerned. Sub-section (11) of Section 10 stipulates that it shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure that the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, the Regulations, the rules and the bye-laws are faithfully observed and carried out, and he shall have all powers necessary for this purpose.

¶388

Sub-section 13 of Section 10 empowers the Vice Chancellor when the Syndicate or the Academic Council is not in session, if the Vice-Chancellor is satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring him to take immediate action involving the exercise of any power vested in the Syndicate or the Academic

¶389

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 49 :

¶390

Council by or under the Act, the Vice-chancellor may take such action as he deems fit; and shall, at the next session of the Syndicate or the Academic council, as the case may be, report the action taken by him to that authority for such action as it may consider necessary.

¶391

Therefore, the stand adopted by the University was that since the introduction of the new syllabus was emergent and since the academic council was not in session, the Vice Chancellor exercised the power subject to ratification of the Academic Council and has issued the Regulations. From the counter affidavit filed by the University before the writ court, it was quite clear and evident that the Academic Council later ratified the action taken by the Vice Chancellor in the matter of issuance of the new syllabus as per the recommendation made by the Board of Studies in question. Therefore, in our view, when clear cut procedures are prescribed for dealing with any particular situation and it was exercised so by the authority under the Act, 1975, it can only be said to be a valid and legal action in terms of the law.

¶392

Considering the issue raised by the writ petitioner against Exhibit P18 recommendation made by the Board of Studies and Exhibit P22 order issued by the University, we are of the clear and considered opinion that the contentions advanced

¶393

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 50 :

¶394

by the writ petitioners have no legal force, given the specific provisions contained under the laws discussed above, and the action taken by the University by the same.

¶395

Therefore, we are of the definite opinion that interference is required to the findings rendered by the learned single Judge to Exhibit P22 order also issued by the University prescribing the new syllabus. Therefore, we set aside the findings in the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 16.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 21238 of 2019 to the extent it interferes with the second semester onwards of 2020-2022 and 2021- 2023 batches of the students of the writ petitioner college. Insofar as the examination conducted by the University with the Syllabus of 2012 for the first semester examination, on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court as referred to above, the results declared, and the certificates issued, are concerned , we are of the view that no interference is required.

¶396

As we have pointed out above, insofar as writ appeals filed by the college are concerned, they are with reference to the new syllabus prescribed by the University for the subsequent academic years and other consequential orders passed thereto. Since we find that the action of the University prescribing the new syllabus is valid and in accordance with law, no interference is

¶397

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 51 :

¶398

required to the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27.02.2022 in W.P.(C) Nos. 21520 of 2020, 21395 of 2021 and 1323 of 2022, except the interest of the students protected as above. It is also relevant and important to note that the University has not preferred any appeal against the common judgment dated 27.07.2022. To put it otherwise since the students of the petitioner college have participated in the first semester examinations as said above, with the 2012 syllabus on the basis of the interim order passed by the learned single Judge as referred to above and the results are published, the University is not entitled to insist the students of the petitioner College to write the examinations already undertaken, again with the syllabus of 2019.

¶399

We place on record that all the other colleges affiliated with Calicut University conducting M.Sc Clinical Psychology courses have followed the 2019 syllabus without any objection and reservation to the recommendation made by the Board of Studies, a decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor and ratified by the Academic Council; and consequently to Exhibit P22 order passed by the University. Before we part with the judgment, we also wish to place on record the submission made by learned Senior Counsel Sri Ranjit Thampan appeared for the students in

¶400

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶401

: 52 :

¶402

the writ petitions that the students want the examinations to be conducted at the earliest with either of the syllabus.

¶403

Accordingly, W.A.No. 1707 of 2020 filed by the

¶404

University of Calicut and its officials is partly allowed.

¶405

Having rendered the findings as above, W.A. Nos.1597, 1559 and 1594 of 2021 filed by the University challenging the interim orders dated 07.10.2021 and the common interim order dated 18.11.2021 would stand dismissed. So also, in view of the findings made above, W.A. Nos. 1312, 1323 and 1324 of 2022 filed by the writ petitioner college and the manager also would stand dismissed.

¶406

sd/- S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶407

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶408

¶409

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶410

: 53 :

¶411

APPELLANTS’ ANNEX	APPENDIX OF WA 1707/2020 URES:
ANNEXURE A1(a)	LETTER ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICULT TO THE PRINCIPAL, PRAJYOTHI NIKETHAN COLLEGE DATED 17.05.2022.
ANNEXURE A1(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF STUDIES HELD ON 27.11.2019.
Annexure A1(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY NOTE U.O. No.17056/2019/ADMN. DATED 06/12/2019
Annexure A1(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MINUTES OF THE ACADIC COUNCIL DATED 01/10/2020 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
Annexure A1(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER No.10337/2020/ADMIN ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 06/11/2020.

¶412

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:

¶413

ANNEXURE R2(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING U.O. NO. 17056/2019/ADMN. DATED 06.12.2019 WITHOUT ENCLOSURES, ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE R2(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR/ORDER NO.51017/DOA- ASST-5/2020/ADMN DATED 06.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE R2(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O. NO. 13135/2020/ADMN DATED 30.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, WITHOUT ENCLOSURES.
ANNEXURE R2(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO/COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 19.08.2020.
ANNEXURE R2(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO. 8651/2020/ADMN DATED 28.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE R2(f)	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.C) NO. 21520/2020 DATED 30.10.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE R2(g)	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.C) NO. 21520/2020 DATED 24.11.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE R2(h)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO. 304/2021/PB DATED 04.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE R2(i)	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL, PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE TO THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, DATED 04.05.2021.
ANNEXURE R2((j)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY VIA EMAIL SENT BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, TO THE PRINCIPAL, PRAYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE, DATED 07.05.2021.
ANNEXURE R2k)	TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.© NO. 21238/2019 DATED 05.08.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE R2(l)	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.© NO. 21395

¶414

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch

¶415

: 54 :

¶416

	OF 2021 DATED 07.10.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE R2(m)	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.© NO. 21520/2020 DATED 07.10.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE R2(n)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE NO. 40026/CDC-D2/2013/CU DATED 24.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY BEFORE THE SYNDICATE.
ANNEXURE R2(o)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY U.O. NO. 7493/2022/ADMN DATED 24.03.2022 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R2(p)	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 05.04.2022 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

True Copy

PS To Judge.

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 55 :

¶421

APPENDIX OF WA 1559/2021

¶422

APPELLANTS’ ANNEXURES:

¶423

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED SYLLABUS PUBLISHED ON 06/12/2019.

¶424

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES : NIL

True Copy

PS To Judge.

W.A. No. 1707/2020 & batch : 56 :

¶429

APPENDIX OF W.A.NO. 1597 OF 2021

¶430

APPELLANTS’ ANNEXURES: NIL

¶431

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:

¶432

ANNEXURE R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

¶433

CALICUT NO.GA IV/2/9441/2011 DATED 06.03.2012.

¶434

True Copy

¶435

PS To Judge.

¶436

The Principal, v. the University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal, v. the University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaja Kasthuri Ayurve Medical College Vs the Kerala State Human Rights Commission

P.v.Balakrishnan Vs District Collector

Arshid K.L. Vs State of Kerala

The Authorized Officer Vs Jayesh Vijayan

The Principal, Prajyoti Niketan College Vs the University of Calicut

The Principal, Prajyoti Niketan College, Vs the University of Calicut