Dismissed

Dr. M.K.Sreedhar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2023WP(C)/10904/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an impugned Government Order validating weekend M.Tech degrees obtained by polytechnic faculty for AICTE pay and promotion. The Court dismissed the writ, holding the decision was based on an expert committee report, constituted principles of natural justice, and was a special one-time exemption.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Dr. M.K.Sreedhar Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 10904 OF 2019

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

DR. M.K.SREEDHAR AMARJIOTHIS,VENGANOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695523. BY ADVS. RAGHUL SUDHEESH SMT.J.LAKSHMI SRI.J.VISHNU DEVARAJ

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

3 FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO FINANCE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

4 DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PADMAVILASOM STREET,FORT.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695023.

¶14

5 VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶15

6 UNION OF INIDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT,SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶16

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

¶17

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019 -2-

¶18

8 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034. 9 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686560. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.HARISH- SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY SRI.MANU S., DSG OF INDIA SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V, SC, AICTE

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶21

-3-

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Murali Purushothaman, J.

¶24

Petitioner, a retired Associate Professor of Chemistry, University College, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this public interest writ petition challenging Ext. P13 Government Order, viz., G. O. (Ms) No. 29/2019/HEDN dated 12.02.2019.

¶25

According to the petitioner, in 2013, the Higher Education Department decided to implement the AICTE scheme for pay and other benefits to qualified teaching faculties such as Lecturers, Head of Departments (HOD) and Principals in Government and Aided Polytechnic Colleges in the State. The minimum qualification and experience for teaching posts in Polytechnic institutions were revised in 2014 as per AICTE norms and Masters Degree in Engineering/Technology was made mandatory for obtaining higher pay scale and for promotion to the post of Head of Department/Principal.

¶26

According to the petitioner, many Lecturers, Head of Departments and Principals working in various Government and Aided Polytechnic Colleges in Kerala, obtained weekend Master's Degree in Engineering/Technology from various Universities outside Kerala,

¶27

-4-

¶28

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶29

knowing that these Degrees were not approved by the AICTE, for obtaining AICTE scale of pay and for promotion to the post of Head of Department/Principal. By submitting the weekend Master's Degree certificates, these teachers also managed to obtain eligibility certificates from the Universities in Kerala for M. Tech (Regular) Courses.

¶30

Petitioner states that, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has conducted an investigation and found the allegations of obtaining weekend Master's degree for the purpose of getting AICTE pay scale and promotion to be true, and has recommended action against those teachers. Based on the findings of the investigation, the Government constituted a Committee to submit a comprehensive report after hearing all affected and aggrieved persons. The Committee submitted Ext. P11 report on 22.02.2017. However, since no action was taken, the petitioner filed W. P. (C) No. 23061 of 2018 before this Court seeking to direct the Chief Secretary to take action on the basis of Ext. P9 Quick Verification Report submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. This Court, vide Ext. P12 judgment dated 13.07.2018, directed the Government to take a final decision on the report furnished by the Committee. Further, this Court held: “As the Government action may entail consequences for the stakeholders, a hearing should be afforded

¶31

-5-

¶32

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶33

but the final decision must be taken expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment”.

¶34

Pursuant to the direction of this Court in Ext. P12 judgment, the Higher Education Department issued Ext. P13 G.O.(Ms) No. 29/2019/HEDN dated 12.02.2019, validating the weekend M. Tech Degrees obtained by the faculties in Polytechnic colleges, and making them valid qualification to be placed in the AICTE pay scale, and also making them eligible for promotion. The petitioner states that this was based on Ext. P11 Report submitted by the Committee constituted as per Ext. P10 Government Order.

¶35

The petitioner contends that the action taken by the Higher

¶36

Education Department on the issue is sheer abuse of power to safeguard people, who have fraudulently obtained AICTE pay scale on the basis of weekend M. Tech Degrees, which are not approved by the AICTE. The petitioner also contends that the stand taken by the Higher Education Department will lead to erosion of academic standards in Technical Education (Diploma Stream) in the State, and will further cause a situation where ineligible persons take illegal money from the State exchequer.

¶37

-6-

¶38

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶39

The University of Kerala, the 8^th respondent, has filed a statement in the writ petition wherein it is stated that as per the regulations of the University of Kerala relating to recognition of Examinations and Degrees of other Universities, the M. Tech. Degree in Computer and Information Technology (weekend) conducted directly by the University Department of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (Centre for Information Technology and Engineering) was recognized by the University up to 2011 admission. Later, as per the decision of the Academic Council in its meeting held on 07.05.2012, it was decided that M. Tech. Degree in Computer and Information Technology (weekend) conducted directly by the University Department of MS University need not be recognized from 2012. It is further stated that the final decision on the recognition and de-recognition of courses awarded by other Universities is vested with the Academic Council after thorough examination by the concerned Chairman, Board of Studies and Dean, Faculty.

¶40

Director of Technical Education, the 4^th respondent, has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition contending that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University & Another v. AICTE & Others [(2001) 8 SCC 676] , the definition of

¶41

-7-

¶42

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶43

Technical Institution under AICTE Act excludes a “University” and since the power of grant of approval for starting new “technical institution” and for introduction of new courses or programmes under Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act would not cover a University, but only a technical institution. Therefore, the acquisition of M. Tech / ME degree awarded by Universities through the weekend mode of study is not illegal for the reason that the courses conducted by the Universities do not have AICTE approval.

¶44

It is further stated therein that the Government have decided to validate the M. Tech / ME degree qualification acquired by faculties of Polytechnic Colleges through weekend mode as a valid qualification for AICTE pay fixation/CAS placement and promotion after constituting a Committee consisting of experts in the field. The Committee has gone into the clarification issued by the Research Institution & Faculty Development - AICTE that RIFD is in no way concerned with the information on acceptability or of a qualification for appointment and that it is for the concerned State/Central Government to decide on the acceptability or otherwise of a Degree for recruitment of a faculty. Thereupon, the committee has given its findings/opinion which the Government had acted upon. Thus, it is clear that the Government did

¶45

-8-

¶46

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶47

not act whimsically or impulsively to grant benefits to those facilities having M. Tech (weekend mode). On the other hand, the Government appointed experts in the field and took a considered decision bearing in mind the experience faculties have gained over the years as teaching professionals.

¶48

Referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajastan v. Latha Ram [(2002) 6 SCC 252] and Bihar PSC & Others v. Ramani & Others - [(2007) 5 SCC 519] , 4^th respondent also contended that in academic matters regarding equivalence of University degrees/programmes, it is purely within the domain of experts appointed by the Universities, to consider the question of equivalence of recognition of particular Degree, programme, course etc. for pursuing higher education for employment.

¶49

A statement has been filed on behalf of the AICTE, the 7^th respondent, stating that as per AICTE rules and regulations and precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, the technical institutions other than Universities could conduct technical courses only with the approval of AICTE. The AICTE had granted permission to conduct M.Tech degree for KMB College of Engineering, Perumbavoor and

¶50

-9-

¶51

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶52

Musliar College of Engineering and Technology, Pathanamthitta, in Kerala. Similarly, recognitions were given to various institutions outside the State of Kerala as well. It is further stated that as per the policy laid down by AICTE, there are two types of programs — Regular Programs and Open & Distance Learning/Online (ODL) programs. In Regular programs, classes may be held in face-to-face mode and in the normal day timings, such as first shift, second shift, evening shift, part-time, weekend etc. If the classes are held and the students physically attend the classes, it is a Regular program. In ODL/Online programs, the students attend the classes through receipt of study materials in PDF files/books/notes/video lectures etc. and prior announced interactive sessions are held once in a while to address the difficulties faced by the students. The AICTE has issued a public notice clarifying the types of programs based on the mode of conduct of classes by order dated 13.08.2020. It is also stated that AICTE had given approval for conducting M. Tech. Course as a regular course in the above two private colleges in Kerala. As per AICTE norms, part-time courses are meant only for working professionals having minimum of 2 years full time work experience.

¶53

We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

¶54

-10-

¶55

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶56

Inviting the attention of this Court to the RTI reply of the AICTE dated 07.07.2015, Mr. Raghul Sudheesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the AICTE does not grant approval for the weekend courses and that Ext. P13 order cannot be sustained as the same will lead to erosion of academic standards in Technical Education in the State.

¶57

The relevant portion of Ext. P13 G.O. (Ms) No. 29/2019/HEDN dated 12.02.2019 impugned in the writ petition, reads

¶58

thus:-

¶59

“11. Government have examined the matter in detail and observed that if any of the Universities in Kerala has granted equivalency/eligibility certificate for the degrees obtained through Week-end mode of Education those can be considered at par with degrees secured through Regular mode of Education in view of the following:

¶60

1.The mode of study is not seen insisted in the Government order read as 6^th paper above.

¶61

In the Annexure II of the Government Order read as 6^th paper above, in the qualification prescribed for the Lecturers in Engineering/Technology, the modality of study is not seen mentioned.

¶62

AICTE as per letter read as 19^th paper above, has clarified that AICTE does not accord approval to M.Tech degree courses conducted by re-arranging the regular class timings in

¶63

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶64

-11-

¶65

weekends and holidays and as such cannot grant ex-post facto approval. AICTE has again commented that eventhough M.Tech courses conducted through week-end classes cannot be accorded AICTE approval. Government of Kerala may take appropriate decision with regard to the recruitment and promotion of the faculty who obtained M.Tech through weekend classes.

¶66

AICTE clarified that University Department etc. are not required to take AICTE approval for conducting B.Tech/M.Tech Programme.

¶67

In Judgment read as 1^st paper above, the Supreme Court of India held that Universities do not require prior approval of AICTE to commence a new course and programme in Technical Education.

¶68

Vide Government Order read as 6^th paper above Government have instructed that in cases of all degrees where equivalency has been issued by any one of the Universities in Kerala, can be placed under AICTE scheme.

¶69

University of Kerala vide certificate read as 3^rd paper above has issued a certificate to the effect that the MTech. Degree in Computer and Information Technology (Regular) of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli is recognized by the University for higher studies and employment. The recognition of the Degree/Examination does not preclude the eligibility conditions prescribed in the regulations for admission to higher studies or for employment. MG University has also issued eligibility certificate read as 4^th

¶70

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶71

-12-

¶72

paper above for the same.

¶73

The duration/syllabus/examination/week-end mode is same as that of Regular course.

¶74

9.As per Government Order read as 15^th paper above, the M.Tech degree (Regular) of MS University was ordered to be treated as sufficient qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor in Engineering Colleges by Kerala Public Service Commission.

¶75

National institutes like IIT's, NIT's, ISRO etc have recognised this course as a qualification for pursuing research programme.

¶76

In the enquiry report submitted as per letter read as 14^th paper above, the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau recommends that the petitioners are eligible for AICTE pay scale on the very aspect that they have completed the Courses well before the implementation of AICTE norms and has acquired equivalency certificate in tune with the Government letter that favours approval of the Course, if Kerala University has given equivalency certificate.

¶77

The faculty who had completed M.Tech from MS University in week-end mode has been given placement as Assistant Professor in TKM Engineering College.

¶78

In the circumstances, Government are pleased to order that the findings No. 1, 2 & 3 of the Committee constituted as per Government Order read as 12^th paper above is implemented with immediate effect. The M.Tech/ME degree awarded by Universities

¶79

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶80

-13-

¶81

through week-end mode of studies to faculties of Polytechnic Colleges in the State shall be treated as a valid qualification for AICTE pay fixation/CAS placement and promotion only, as a special case, subject to the following conditions:-

¶82

The NOC issued by the authority concerned including those from Aided Polytechnic Colleges should be produced before the Director of Technical Education.

¶83

Equivalency/Eligibility certificate from any of the Universities in Kerala specifying the name of the incumbent and the course including the year of study and modality of the course should be submitted before Director of Technical Education.

¶84

Those faculties who acquired M.Tech/ME degree from Vinayaka Mission's University shall produce Certificate of Validation of Degree by appearing in the UGC Special Theory and practical examination.

¶85

MTech/ME degree conducted by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Thirunelveli in week-end mode, only up to the academic year 2011, shall be treated as valid.

¶86

Faculties possessing MTech/ME degree, MS Engineering. Visveswaraiah Technological University, Belgaum, ME(Modular), NITTR, Chandigarh, EASA College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore, IGNOU Centre, Rajagiri, SRM University and Anna University off-campus shall also be given AICTE placement after DTE verifying AICTE approval for the courses.

¶87

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶88

-14-

¶89

Discrepancies regarding fixation of AICTE pay will be taken up separately.

¶90

The cases of those who secured MTech (week-end) from KMP College, Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust, Kothamangalam and Musaliar College and awarded by Mahatma Gandhi University shall also be as treated as valid.

¶91

All the above validation shall be treated as one time exemption as a special case, based on the principles of natural justice and to safeguard the quality of Technical Education (Diploma Stream).

¶92

In this context, reference can be made to the decision in

¶93

Bharathidasan University & Another v. AICTE & Others [(2001) 8

¶94

SCC 676] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶95

“10. ……….All these vitally important aspects go to show that the AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an Authority either superior to or supervise and control the Universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such Universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of its Departments or Units. A careful scanning through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the Universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby sub- serve the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any

¶96

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶97

-15-

¶98

sanctions by itself, except submitting a Report to the UGC for appropriate action. The conscious and deliberate omission to enact any such provision in the AICTE Act in respect of Universities is not only a positive indicator but should be also one of the determining factors in adjudging the status, role and activities of AICTE vis-à-vis Universities and the activities and functioning of its departments and units……

¶99

The AICTE cannot, in our view, make any regulation in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, notwithstanding sub-section (1), which though no doubt enables such regulations being made generally to carry out the purposes of the Act, when such power is circumscribed by the specific limitation engrafted therein to ensure them to be not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules. So far as the question of granting approval, leave alone prior or post, Section 10(1)(k) specifically confines the limits of such power of AICTE only to be exercised vis-à-vis technical institutions, as defined in the Act and not generally. When the language is specific, unambiguous and positive, the same cannot be over-looked to give an expansive meaning under the pretext of a purposive construction to perpetuate an ideological object and aim, which also, having regard to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the AICTE Act, are not warranted or justified. Therefore, the regulation insofar as it compels the universities to seek for and obtain prior approval and not to start any new department or course or programme in technical education (Regulation 4) and empower itself to withdraw such approval, in a given case of contravention of the regulations (Regulation 12) are

¶100

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶101

-16-

¶102

directly opposed to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 10(1)(k) of the Act and consequently void and unenforceable.

¶103

The fact that the regulations may have the force of law or when made have to be laid down before the legislature concerned do not confer any more sanctity or immunity as though they are statutory provisions themselves. Consequently, when the power to make regulations are confined to certain limits and made to flow in a well defined canal within stipulated banks, those actually made or shown and found to be not made within its confines but outside them, the courts are bound to ignore them when the question of their enforcement arise and the mere fact that there was no specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires, particularly when the party in sufferance is a respondent to the lis or proceedings cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lack. It would, therefore, be a myth to state that regulations made under Section 23 of the Act have Constitutional and legal status, even unmindful of the fact that anyone or more of them are found to be not consistent with specific provisions of the Act itself. Thus, the regulations in question, which the AICTE could not have made so as to bind universities/UGC within the confines of the powers conferred upon it, cannot be enforced against or bind an University in the matter of any necessity to seek prior approval to commence a new department or course and programme in technical education in any university or any of its departments and constituent institutions.”

¶104

The stand taken by the University is that whatever be the

¶105

-17-

¶106

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶107

program and curriculum for a regular course, the same is being applied to the weekend course also. It is for the University to decide whether the weekend course can be made equal with the regular courses.

¶108

Moreover, Mr. Thomas Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University, has submitted that the Academic Council of the University in its meeting held on 07.05.2012, decided not to recognize the M. Tech. Degree in Computer and Information Technology (weekend) conducted directly by the University Department of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University from 2012. Therefore, the course is not continuing. Up to 2011, the weekend courses offered by the said University were recognised.

¶109

In Ext. P12 judgment, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, had directed the Government to take a final decision on Ext. P11 report submitted by the Committee headed by the Director of Technical Education. This Court also observed that as the Government action may entail consequences for the stakeholders, a hearing should be afforded to them. Pursuant to Ext. P12 judgment, Government has taken Ext. P13 decision.

¶110

In this writ petition impugning Ext. P13 order, the petitioner

¶111

-18-

¶112

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶113

has not impleaded the stakeholders. Though an impleading petition was filed by the petitioner as I. A. No. 1 of 2019 to implead certain associations as additional respondents in the writ petition stating that the lecturers who got the benefits of the Government Order are members of any of those associations, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 02.12.2019. According to the petitioner, there are about 300 persons who got the benefit of Ext. P13 Government Order. However, none of them are made parties to the writ petition. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the challenge to Ext. P13 cannot be maintained without the stakeholders in the party array.

¶114

19.Ext. P13 decision to treat M. Tech/ME degree awarded through weekend mode of study from different universities as valid qualifications has been taken by the Government based on Ext. P11 Report submitted by the Committee of experts constituted as per Ext. P10 Government Order. The validation has been made subject to the conditions stipulated therein. The order also states that the validation shall be treated as one time exemption as a special case, based on the principles of natural justice. Ext. P13 decision taken on the basis of recommendations in Ext. P11 report of the Committee after hearing all stakeholders cannot lightly be interfered with by this Court. This Court

¶115

-19-

¶116

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶117

will not interfere with the decision of the Expert Committee regarding the validation/recognition of a particular programme or course. We also take note of the fact that the weekend course is not continuing after 2012 and that Ext. P13 order states that validation is to be treated as one time exemption. We do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶118

Writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶119

Sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶120

Sd/-

¶121

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶122

spc/

¶123

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶124

-20-

¶125

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10904/2019

¶126

PETITIONER EXHI	BITS
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.48/92/H.EDN.DATED 17.03.1992.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF AICTE (PAY SCALES,SERVICE CONDITIONS AND
	QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE TEACHERS AND OTHER
	ACEDEMIC STAFF IN TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS(DIPLOMA)REGULATIONS,2010)DAT ED 05.03.2010
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF G.O. (MS)NO.210/2013/H.EDN.DATED 30.05.2013
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O.
	(MS)NO.75/2014/FIN.DATED 20.02.2014
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF KERALA TECHNICAL EDUCATION
	SERVICE (AMENDMENT)SPECIAL RULES,2010 PUBLISHED AS PER G.O.
	(P)NO.366/2010/H.EDN.DATED 08.11.2010.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF RTI REPY F.N.SRO/RTI/2015/84/2365 DATED 07.07.2015 FROM REGIONAL OFFICER,SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE OF AICTE
EXHIBIT P7	LETTER NO.37792/L3/14/H.EDN DATED 3.12.2015.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF REGULATIONS,CURRICULUM,SCHEME AND
	SYLLABUS (WITH EFFECT FROM 2005-2006 AND AFTERWARDS)OF MANONMANIAM SUNDARANAR
	UNIVERSITY,TIRUNELVELI FOR M.TECH.IN COMPUTER AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY- (CBCS)(FULL-TIME/WEEK-END (4 SEMESTERS).
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF QUICK VETIFICATION REPORT IN QV-09/2015/SIU-1 DATED 20.01.2016.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.3492/2016/HEDN DATED 22.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF COMMITTE REPORT NO.AICTE-RC- 2/34646/16/DTE DATED 22.02.2017.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C)23061/2018 DATED 13TH DAY OF JULY,2018.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS)NO.29/2019./HEDN DATED 12.02.2019
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF AICTE APPROVAL PROCESS HANDBOOK 2019-20
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 26.02.2019

¶127

W. P. (C) No. 10904 of 2019

¶128

-21-

¶129

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY RECEIVED FROM UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 26.03.2019. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED 26.02.2019 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY RECEIVED FROM MAHATMA GANDHI UNNIVERSITY DATED 13.03.2019 EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO RECOGNITION OF EXAMINATIONS AND DEGREES OF OTHER UNIVERSITIES FORMULATED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R7(a) A true copy of the Order No. F.Ne.:AICTE/AB/ Academic/2020-21 dated 13.08.2020 issued by the 7th respondent.

Dr. M.K.Sreedhar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M.K.Sreedhar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.N. Mukundan Vs State of Kerala

Thampi Subramaniyan Vs the Chairman Secretary

Jose.v.T. @ Joseph Vadakkan Vs Union of India

Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Tom Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs Union of India