Kerala High Court
Lourdes Matha Catholic Education ... vs University Of Kerala on 5 October, 2009
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23046 of 2009(A)
1. LOURDES MATHA CATHOLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :05/10/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No.23046 of 2009-A
------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.Rajagopalan Nair, the learned standing counsel appearing for the University of Kerala.
2. The petitioner is the educational agency of the Lourdes Matha College of Science and Technology, a college affiliated to the University of Kerala. It was established about seven years back. During the year 2008-09, the petitioner applied to the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE for short) for approval to increase the intake of students for the B.Tech degree courses in Electronics & Communication Engineering and Computer Science Engineering. These are courses in respect of which the petitioner college has affiliation from the University of Kerala. Along with the application for approval submitted to the AICTE, the petitioner also applied to the University of Kerala seeking affiliation for the new batches in the aforesaid two branches of Engineering. The Syndicate of the University that met on 31.1.2009 considered the petitioner's application for affiliation and resolved not to recommend the courses on the ground that arrangements made for the conduct of the courses were not found satisfactory. The said decision W.P(C) No.23046 of 2009-A 2 was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P2 letter dated 19.3.2009.
3. Shortly thereafter, the AICTE which is the authority competent to approve the introduction of additional courses/batches in the existing four courses in Engineering, considered the petitioner's application and granted approval for enhanced intake of students for the B.Tech degree courses in Electronics and Communication Engineering and Computer Science Engineering. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P3 letter dated 24.6.2009. The AICTE also directed that all facilities including additional buildings and faculty should be made available before the commencement of the next academic session. It was also stated that random surprise inspection will be made to verify the facilities and that if the institute is found to be deficient in fulfilling the norms and standards of AICTE, appropriate action would be initiated by the council. The Syndicate of the University of Kerala that met on 29.4.2009, even before Ext.P3 letter was issued, resolved to reject the petitioner's application for affiliation for the additional batches on the ground that required infrastructural facilities do not exist. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P4 letter dated 17.7.2009. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant affiliation for the additional batches for the B.Tech. W.P(C) No.23046 of 2009-A 3 degree courses in Electronics and Communication Engineering and Computer Science Engineering for the academic year 2008-09. The petitioner contends that as the AICTE has granted approval, the University cannot deny affiliation. Reliance is placed on various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court in support of this contention. The University has filed a counter affidavit contending that the Syndicate of the University appointed an Inspection Commission to conduct a local enquiry by inspecting the infrastructure and instructional facilities available in the college and on such inspection it was found that there is dearth of infrastructure for the additional courses and that no faculty is also available. A copy of the report of inspection is produced as Ext.R1
(a). It is contended that as no infrastructure facilities exist even as per the norms of AICTE, the petitioner cannot seek affiliation for the additional batches.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Ext.R1(a) inspection is report dated 31.1.2009. It was thereafter that based on the project report submitted by the petitioner, the AICTE granted approval for additional batches subject to the condition that the requisite infrastructure facilities are provided and required number of teachers appointed. The University has no case that after 31.1.2009, any further inspection was conducted W.P(C) No.23046 of 2009-A 4 before commencement of the current academic year. They have also no case that after Ext.P3 letter was sent by the AICTE, the management has not provided facilities or appointed the requisite number of teachers. In other words, apart from the observations in the report prepared after inspection on 31.1.2009, there is no material before this Court to even prima-facie hold that the conditions imposed by the AICTE have not been fulfilled. A Full Bench of this Court has in Vikram Sarabhat E. Trust & B.Ed College V. University of Calicut (2008(2) KLT 1027), after an elaborate analysis of the case law on the point held that once the competent authority namely the AICTE grants approval based on the finding that College has necessary infrastructural facilities, the University has no power or authority to decline affiliation on ground of lack of infrastructural facilities. The Apex Court has in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner & Secretary to Government (2000(5) (SCC) 231) held that once the AICTE grants approval if there is any default on the part of the college in complying with the conditions imposed for grant of approval, the only remedy for the University is to bring those facts to the notice of the AICTE so that the latter could take appropriate action.
5. In the instant case, apart from Ext.P1(a) report which discloses only the state of affairs as on 31.1.2009, there is no material to even remotely suggest that the conditions stipulated by the AICTE have W.P(C) No.23046 of 2009-A 5 not been complied with. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court and this Court, the University cannot contend that the petitioner is not entitled to affiliation for the additional batches sanctioned by the A.I.C.T.E as per Ext.P3. I accordingly allow this writ petition, quash Ext.P4 and direct the University of Kerala to grant affiliation for the additional batches in the B.Tech degree courses in Electronics and Communication Engineering and Computer Science Engineering. Necessary orders in that regard shall be issued within ten days from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before the Registrar, University of Kerala. If the Syndicate of the University is not in session or is not likely to meet during the said period, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Kerala shall in exercise of the power conferred on him under Section 10(13) of the Kerala University Act 1975, issue necessary orders granting affiliation and thereafter place it before the Syndicate for ratification. The Syndicate of the University shall having due regard to the fact the Vice Chancellor has exercised the power of the Syndicate pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, ratify his decision.
The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN
ab JUDGE
//True Copy//