Kerala High Court
The Principal vs The University Of Calicut on 16 March, 2020
Author: S.V.Bhatti
Bench: S.V.Bhatti
WPC No21238 of 2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.21238 OF 2019(D)
PETITIONERS:
1 THE PRINCIPAL
PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, TRICHUR -
680301.
2 THE MANAGER
PRAJYOTI NIKETAN COLLEGE, PUDUKAD, TRICHUR -
680301.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.J.VISHNU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
THENHIPALAM P. O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
2 THE CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF STUDIES, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY (P.G.),
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P. O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635.
3 THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM P. O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635.
4 ADDL.AARATHY S KOLLARA
AARABHI, KOLLARA HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O., THRISSUR -
680026
5 ADDL.R5. AISHA NOWRIN,
VELLALIL HOUSE, KANNAMPALLY BHAGOM, KAYAMKULAM
P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690502.
6 ADDL.R6. ALEENA BABU,
PEREPPADAN HOUSE, MELOOR P.O., CHALAKUDY - 680311.
WPC No21238 of 2019 2
7 ADDL.R7. ANJALY VARGHESE,
AMBAZHAKKADAN HOUSE, PUDUKKAD P.O., PIN - 680301.
8 ADDL.R8. ANNU MARIA KURIAKOSE,
CHULLIKKAL HOUSE, LIC ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA P.O.,
MALAPPURAM - 679322.
9 ADDL.R9. APARNA A.,
AYIRANIYIL HOUSE,KIZHUPARAMBA P.O., AREEKODE -
673639.
10 ADDL.R10. APARNNA SREE ASOK,
POOVAKKULATHU HOUSE, VELIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT - 686634.
11 ADDL.R11.ARAFA K.A.,
KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTIKA BEACH P.O.,
THRISSUR - 680566.
12 ADDL.R12. ATHIRA R.KUMAR,
PEECHAMBILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM P.O.,ANGAMALY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683572.
13 ADDL.R13. FABEEHA SAMEER,
KORATIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUMPURA, KARANCHIRA P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680702.
14 ADDL.R14.DILSHA A.D.,
AINIKKAL HOUSE, VARAKKARA, VARANDARAPPILLY P.O. -
680303.
15 ADDL.R15. DITTY ANN JOHNS,
POTTANANIYIL HOUSE, EDAMATTOMP.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT - 686578.
16 ADDL.R16. DYUTHY S. CHANDRAN,
MANNARAKKAL HOUSE, PARAPPANPOYIL P.O.,
THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE - 673573
17 ADDL.R17. MALASREE KRISHNA,
THADATHIL HOUSE, KALPATHUR P.O., MEPPAYUR VIA.,
PIN - 673524.
18 ADDL.R18. MERIN ANNA MATHEW,
SANTHIPURATH HOUSE, THACHAMPARA P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT - 678593.
19 ADDL.R19. MUBEERA J.M.,
BISMILLA NIVAS HOUSE, KADMATH ISLAND,
WPC No21238 of 2019 3
U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP.
20 ADDL.R20. NAVEENA V.,
SUPRIYA HOUSE, PUTHIYARA, PUTHIYARA P.O.,
CALICUT - 4.
21 ADDL.R21.POOJA P.V.,
AAYILYAM HOUSE, NARUKARA P.O., ALUKKAL, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM - 676122.
22 ADDL.R22. VISWAKARMAPRAJISHA PRAKASH,
VARIATHVALAPPIL HOUSE, VATTAMKULAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679578.
R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY
R4 BY ADV. ELVIN PETER P.J.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.GANESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03-03-2020, THE COURT ON 16-03-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.21238 of 2019 4
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of March 2020 Heard learned Senior Counsel George Poonthottam for petitioners, Mr.P.C.Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for Calicut University and Mr.Elvin Peter for respondents 4 to 22.
2. The Principal, Prajyothi Nikethan College, Pudukkad, Thrissur and the Manager Prajyothi Niketan College, Pudukkad Thrissur are the petitioners for short "College".
3. Petitioners in the instant Writ Petition pray for a series of reliefs and all reliefs prayed for, are not reproduced in the judgment. Briefly stated the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P12 whereunder Board of Studies in M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) has been allegedly constituted contrary to the Calicut University (Constitution of Faculties and Boards of Studies) First Statutes, 1976; pray to quash the decision taken by respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Exts.P18 and P22 as illegal; that the MSc Clinical Psychology course content, syllabus etc. as contained in Ext.P11 remains operational WPC No21238 of 2019 5 viz-a-viz College and without reference to the decisions in Exts.P18 and P21, the college is allowed to continue with Ext.P11 course content and syllabus in M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) for the academic year/semester 2019-2020.
4. Prajyothi Nikethan College/the College is affiliated to the University of Calicut (for short 'the University). The College was established in the year 1994. The College, it is stated, is functioning from 1995 onwards. The present writ petition concerns one of the PG Courses i.e. MSc Psychology (Holistic Clinic)conducted by the College. The Government through Ext.P1 dated 27.3.2001 sanctioned establishing M.Sc Psychology (Holistic Clinic) PG Course by the college. Ext.P2 dated 20.10.2001 is the affiliation granted by the University (for short M.Sc). Ext.P2 states that the course is sanctioned by University is M.Sc (Psychology). Through Ext.P3 dated 11.1.2002 the University, on the representation made by the College, corrected the sanctioned course for which affiliation was granted as M.Sc Clinical Psychology. The College claims that M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) course imparted by it is not a routine course for WPC No21238 of 2019 6 which affiliation is granted by the University to any other affiliated college. Therefore the Board of Studies of the University approved separate syllabus for MSc Clinical Psychology, PG Course conducted by the College. The respondent University through Ext.P6 resolution of Board of Studies dated 3.11.2009 changed the course content and syllabus of MSc Psychology offered by the College. Ext.P6, further in so far as MSc Clinical Psychology is concerned, resolved as follows:
"3(b) The board discussed the present pattern and syllabi of M.Sc Clinical Psychology and recommended to modify it and change into the syllabi common pattern of M.Sc courses of University of Calicut. The Chairman is entrusted to frame course pattern, prepare the syllabi, in consultation with experts, do allocation of papers for preparation of the draft and submit before the next board of studies meeting of Psychology (PG). The board resolved to continue the recommendation for recognition and equivalency of the course (M.Sc Clinical Psychology) only after implementing such changes/modification from the next academic year onwards (2010 admission).
3(c) M.Sc Applied Psychology as well as M.Sc Applied Psychology Choice Based Credit Semester System Pattern of Unviersity of Calicut have been equated to M.Sc/MA Psychology of University sof Calicut."
5. The University through Ext.P7 approved the minutes of WPC No21238 of 2019 7 the meeting dated 2.7.2010 and the decision of the academic council dated 15.11.2010 and granted sanction for implementing the proposed equation of MSc Clinical Psychology with M.Sc/M.A. Psychology for which PG Degrees are conferred by the University. WP(C) Nos.35555 of 2010, 3919 of 2011 and 16032 of 2011 are filed questioning viz-a-viz the resolution/orders passed on the college read with M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) by the University. The WP's have been heard and disposed of by common judgment dated 11.7.2011 in Ext.P9. The operative portion of the judgment is relied on with considerable force by the college to challenge the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. At the outset relevant portion of the judgment is excerpted:
"Although the petitioners as well as the students have several contentions on the merits of the controversy and the University is also trying to justify what they have done, I do not think it necessary to go into those issues for the disposal of these cases. Admittedly, the proceedings resulting in Ext.P14 order, substantially affects the rights of the College as well as the Students undergoing the course in question. The change was introduced, without issuing notice to the College or students and they were also not given any opportunity to make their representations in the matter. Thus in issuing Ext.P14 natural justice was not WPC No21238 of 2019 8 complied with. since the University has no case that the principles of natural justice was complied with. I quash Ext.P14 and dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions.
10. If the University wants to equate M.Sc. Clinical Psychology to M.Sc/M.A. as stated in Ext.P14 order referred to above and change the syllabi thereof, the University shall issue notice to the college, affording them an opportunity to make their representations in the matter and thereafter pass a fresh order indicating their decision and communicate the same to the College.
11. Having regard to Ext.P15 order, it is directed that until the aforesaid process is completed and a decision is taken the petitioner College will be permitted to conduct the course of M.Sc. Clinical Psychology and the examinations thereof will also be held by the University.
In the light of the above directions no separate orders are called for in WPC No.35555/10 and 3919/10 which will also stand disposed of in the light of the judgment in WPC 16032/2011."
6. The case of college is that in the above background the college continued to impart M.Sc Clinical Psychology with the course content and syllabus approved by the Board of Studies of the University at the inception of the course. The University through Ext.P12 dated 5.7.2017 constituted/reconstituted Board of Studies as per the list enclosed therein including the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology. The Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology consists of the following academicians: WPC No21238 of 2019 9
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY (PG) Sl. Name Designation and Address No. 1 Dr.K.Manikandan Professor and Head of (Chairman) Department of Psychology, University of Calicut.
2 Dr.C Jayan Former Professor, Departmetn of Psychology, University of Calicut 3 Dr.Monsy Edward Associate Professor, Prajyothi Nikethan College, Thrissur Mob:9847248898 4 Dr.Baby Shari P.A. Associate Professor, Departmetn of Psychology, University of Calicut 5 Dr.Sukanya Menon Assistant Professor, Prajyothinikethan College, Thrissur, Mob 9495422530 6 Mrs.Shiji Joseph Assistant Professor, Govt.Womens' College, Thiruvananthapuram Mob: 9447391643 7 Dr.Harshajan Pazhayattil Clinical Psychologist, Prajothi Nikethan 8 Dr. Vidya Department of Psychology, UC Raveendranathan College, Aluva 9 Dr.Neelima Ranjith Department of Psychology, UC College, Aluva
7. The petitioner through Ext.P13 submitted to the Vice Chancellor of the University, requested for reconstitution of PG WPC No21238 of 2019 10 Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology. One of the objections i.e. inaction on the part of University, is without considering and deciding the objections pointed out in Ext.P13 representation, the Board of Studies in MSc Clinical Psychology is allowed to remain in place. Through Ext.P14 order dated 26.3.2019 the University accorded sanction to implement the regulations for Choice Based Credit Semester System for Post Graduate Programmes of affiliated Colleges and SDE/Private Registration (for short CBCSS for PG Programmes) with effect from 2019 admissions.
7.1 The University sent Ext.P16 notice dated 28.6.2019 to members of Board of Studies including faculty from the college on the proposed meeting of the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology scheduled to be held at 11 a.m. on 2.7.2019. The grievance of petitioners against Ext.P16 is that Ext.P16 is issued after Ext.P15 dated 13.6.2019 whereunder campus allotment of students to college was completed. Petitioner through Ext.P17 communication objected to the proposed meeting of Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology at such short notice etc. Briefly WPC No21238 of 2019 11 stated the college objected to convening meeting on 2.7.2019; information on meeting is not sent to all the members of the Board including Dr.Fr.Harshajan Pazhayattil; sufficient time as per statutes is not given to study the agenda material proposed for deliberation in meeting dated 2.7.2019. The College informed its inability to attend the meeting scheduled on 2.7.2019. The Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology has gone ahead with the agenda item scheduled for consideration at 10.30 a.m. on 2.7.2019 and the meeting was attended by Dr.K.Manikandan, Chairman Dr.Baby Shari and Professor Dr.C.Jayan. The attendance of three members does not satisfy the requirement of quorum which is simple majority of members. The College points out that in Ext.P16 the meeting of Board of Studies is scheduled to be held at 11 a.m. on 2.7.2019, but as per the minutes of meeting dated 2.7.2019 as evidenced by Ext.P18 the meeting started at 10.30 a.m. and concluded at 2 p.m. and the agenda item, course content and syllabus in M.Sc Clinical Psychology has been approved through circulation. The course content finally approved by the University is evidenced through Exts.P18 WPC No21238 of 2019 12 to P22. The decision of Board of Studies dated 2.7.2019 is circulated to the members through communication dated 9.7.2019 for comments, approval, disapproval etc. as the case may be. As a final step as per extant procedure the views of Chairman of Board of Studies is approved by the University resulting in the communication impugned in the Writ Petition. The petitioner, aggrieved by the decisions in Exts.P18 and P22 filed the instant Writ Petition.
8. The University through Ext.P19 dated 10.7.2019 replying to Ext.P17 representation of College declined the request of college for reconstitution of Board of Studies in M.Sc Clinical Psychology. The College through Ext.P20 lodged its protest on all the decisions taken from the time of constitution of Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology, finalisation of course content and syllabus. Ext.P22 is the course content approved by the Board of Studies for M.Sc Clinical Psychology for semester-I from 2019 academic year onwards. Hence the writ petition.
9. The college contends that the resolution in Ext.P18 of Board of Studies is contrary to Statute 31 Chapter III of First WPC No21238 of 2019 13 Statute, 1976, because the quorum for meeting of any Board shall be simple majority of the strength of the Board. In the meeting held on 2.7.2019 three members out of nine members attended, the views of four members were at variance with the resolution dated 2.7.2019. The views or modifications ought to have been deliberated in a subsequent meeting held in this behalf by the Board of Studies instead of overruling positive suggestions given by the members and proceeding to finalise the syllabus for I st semester of M.Sc (Clinical Psychology).
10. It is further stated that the meeting scheduled on 2.7.2019 was not conducted after duly serving notice on all the members of the Board. The second petitioner who is a member of the Board was not served notice of scheduled meeting of Board of Studies at 11 a.m. on 2.7.2019. The 2nd and 3rd respondents have not issued atleast 7 days advance notice together with material on the agenda item proposing revision of content and syllabus of M.Sc (Clinical Psychology). The notice of meeting is issued within sufficient time to the members and due deliberation on the proposed revision of syllabus is defeated. WPC No21238 of 2019 14 The petitioner alleges that two Board members from U.C. College, Aluva have not attended the meeting and the meeting dated 2.7.2019 is without quorum. In continuation of the above objection, it is further contended that the course content and syllabus now accepted by the Board of Studies, stated briefly, is not complete and half baked syllabus has been introduced. The thrust and content of course content is finalized by the experts of Clinical Psychology. The members who participated in the meeting dated 2.7.2019 are University teachers with no knowledge in Clinical Psychology, but finalized the course content and the syllabus are revised by them. The differential treatment in considering the syllabus for M.Sc Clinical Psychology and other courses is also discernible by appreciating, viz. when it comes to M.Sc Clinical Psychology Semester-I without inputs from experts or academicians teaching Clinical Psychology, the syllabus has been approved. But in the same meeting with regard to other courses coming under the purview of the Board for subsequent semesters it was resolved for obtaining opinion of experts on changes and modification of WPC No21238 of 2019 15 syllabus for instruction by the college.
11. According to petitioner, the syllabus for MSc Clinical Psychology is introduced through Ext.P22 without having the input or opinion of experts in Clinical Psychology. In other words, the members who attended the meeting dated 2.7.2019 are not experts in Clinical Psychology and the syllabus now finalized by them taught by the only College having PG M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) course. The representation made in Ext.P13 ought to have been considered and the Board of Studies constituted in Ext.P12 order dated 5.7.2017 should have been duly reconstituted in accordance with the statutes of the University. The requirement of statute 29(1) Chapter III of Ist statutes, 1976 i.e. to meet atleast once in an year is not complied with by the present Board of Studies constituted in Ext.P14. The college has permanent affiliation, sanctioned approval from Govt. etc. for MSc Clinical Psychology. The college never requested for change of course content or syllabus as the changing trends better known to the college. The University never forwarded a proposal on the reconstitution of Board of WPC No21238 of 2019 16 Studies for syndicate to examine. The decision now taken after the academic year 2019-2020 has commenced and is illegal and arbitrary. The University could treat change of syllabus as a matter of little importance for the University but for a college exclusively teaching Clinical Psychology and for the students taking instruction in M.Sc Clinical Psychology after they are admitted into the course is a serious concern including imparting studies in the changed course and content. The College attempted to demonstrate that implementing Exts.P18 and P22 is at variance with the course content and syllabus approved for the previous academic years and the changes now brought in is not in line with the common judgment in Ext.P9. The College does not intend this Court to sit as a court of appeal and decide on the suitability of one syllabus to the content now accepted by the University. In short the grievance of college in this behalf is that Ext.P9 is not taken note of while revising the syllabus; that the syllabus is revised after the semester commenced; the procedure followed from 28.6.2019 till 9.7.2019 is arbitrary, illegal, requirement of quorum in multi member WPC No21238 of 2019 17 Board is defeated; Board of Studies without studying to the required extent the proposed syllabus/content ought not to impose syllabus on the only college imparting M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) course to the other. The College prays for setting aside Exts.P18 and P22.
12. The first respondent filed statement and opposes the writ prayer in all fours. The first respondent does not dispute the introductory details on establishment, affiliation etc., stated by the College. The first respondent refers to a few decisions taken by the University between 03.11.2009 and 07.08.2010 and also the filing of writ petition in this Court. But these are not very essential for disposing of the W.P.(c) and therefore not adverted to in the judgment. The circumstances leading to filing of W.P.(C) No. 35555 of 2010 and the judgment in Ext.P9 are not disputed. The statement however is silent on the consequential steps taken pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment. The circumstances which led to the filing of W.P.(C.) No. 35555/2010 and connected cases, resulting in Ext.P9 judgment are borne out by Ext.P9. This Court for the disposal of W.P(C) is concerned WPC No21238 of 2019 18 with the re-constitution of Board of Studies through Ext. P14, issuance of notice in Ext.P16 for revision meeting on 2.7.2019 and the decision taken by the Board of Studies in the meeting held on 02.07.2019 in Ext.P18, thereby the content and syllabus in M.Sc Clinical Psychology are finalised. Therefore, the reply of the respondent in this behalf to the extent required is adverted to.
13. The present Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology was re-constituted on 05.07.2017. The re- constitution of Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology conforms to Statute 25 Chapter III of Calicut University First Statutes, 1976. The Syndicate in the meeting held on 19.08.2017 considered Ext.P13 complaint dated 19.07.2017, and referred the complaint to sub-committee of Syndicate. On the outcome of deliberation of the sub-committee on the complaint of college as to the composition of Board of Studies or later on by the Syndicate, reply in Paragraph 14 reads thus:-
"14. It is submitted that the decision of WPC No21238 of 2019 19 the Syndicate was implemented vide U.O. Dated 30.08.2017. The sub-committee has not made any remarks against the reconstitution of the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology."
14. It is not clear from the statement of first respondent whether the complaint in Ext.P13 is closed by the sub-committee or by the Syndicate. Be that as it may, the University through Ext.P14 implemented the regulations for Choice Based Credit Semester System for Post Graduate Programmes of affiliated colleges and SDE/Private Registration (CBCSS PG Regulations, 2019) with effect from 2019. The University does not dispute the obligation to conduct the meeting of Board of Studies once in a year in terms of Clause 29(1) Chapter III of Statutes 1976. But for not conducting the meeting of Board of Studies in so far as Clinical Psychology is concerned, it is explained by stating that there is no agenda for consideration in the meeting of Board of Studies in M.Sc. Clinical Psychology. The statement filed by the first WPC No21238 of 2019 20 respondent refers to the notice dated 28.06.2019, proposing to have the meeting of Board of Studies on 02.07.2019. The notice is dispatched to a few members on 28.06.2019 and a few members on 29.06.2019. Thereafter, statement refers to the meeting convened on 02.07.2019 and further decision taken to circulate the decision to the members of Clinical Psychology Board for approval/disapproval etc. The statement relies on Clause 31 Chapter III of Statutes 1976, which provides for a situation where the meeting is conducted without quorum. According to said Clause, the minutes of the discussion could be circulated to members with the agenda for approval etc. Accordingly, the minutes of meeting held on 02.07.2019 was circulated to the members as per applicable Rule. Two members of the Board informed their dissent, but failed to specify a reason for the dissent. While forwarding, the assent/dissent on the minutes by five members of the Board, the chairman clarified that the suggestions of members, if valid, can be incorporated in WPC No21238 of 2019 21 further meetings, if these members are present, as the syllabus of first semester alone has been finalised initially. Therefore, the minutes of meeting dated 02.07.2019 are approved by the majority members of Board and thereafter the Dean, Faculty of Science, the Vice Chancellor exercising powers of Academic Council. The syllabus of first semester of M.Sc. Clinical Psychology was implemented through U.O. dated 24.07.2019. The University feels that there is time and scope for incorporating suggestions of members, who have expressed the dissent in the subsequent semesters. The re-constitution of Board of Studies arises after completion of three years for which the present Board is constituted. The suggestion of petitioner/College to include Expert in Clinical Psychology in the Board could be considered while re-constituting the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology on the expiry of the term for which the present Board was constituted. The reply in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the statement are excerpted to appreciate the urgency shown WPC No21238 of 2019 22 by the University in pushing through the decision taken on 02.07.2019.
"20. It is submitted that the syllabus of all PG Programmes of the affiliated colleges, including MSc CP, have to be revised with effect from 2019 admissions in tune with the new PG Regulations. No Programme shall be run under the earlier Regulations as the new Regulations has been in force. Hence even though slight delay occurred in the finalisation of the revised syllabus, mandatory as per new PG Regulations 2019, the implementation of the same is unavoidable and the all the colleges affiliated to the University is adhere to implement the new regulations and Syllabus approved by the University and the Prajyoti Niketan College has no exemption for the same.
(emphasis supplied)
21. It is submitted that the petitioners have not made out any factual or legal grounds for the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and the writ petition is one liable to be dismissed, that too with costs."WPC No21238 of 2019 23
During the course of hearing with a view to appreciating the procedure followed by the University in finalising the first semester syllabus of M.Sc. Clinical Psychology, the record on the subject was directed to be produced from the University. The note file dated 04.07.2019 in File No. 107152/GA-IV-J2/2015/ADM is produced. Xerox copies produced by the University are perused and are kept in sealed cover.
15. The pleadings of Additional Respondents 4 to 22 are not adverted to as the lis in the fact or law is between the college and the University and these respondents have come on record to pray a supportive role to the cause canvassed by the College.
16. Senior Adv. Sri. George Poonthottam, argues that Exts.P18 and P22 assailed in the writ petition are ex facie illegal, reflect arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction by the University particularly the second respondent. The exercise now undertaken by second respondent is revision of syllabus. The college as a matter of right, keeping in WPC No21238 of 2019 24 view judgment in Ext.P9, is entitled to notice from second respondent. The revision of syllabus was hastened up after commencement of 2019-20 1st semester to keep pace with CBCSS PG Regulations now implemented by the University. The petitioner College has got approval for establishing M.Sc. Clinical Psychology, which is a unique and innovative course conducted by the college. The University granted affiliation to M.Sc. (Clinical Psychology). The University when tried to disturb the content, syllabus, nomenclature of M.Sc. (Clinical Psychology), writ petitions were filed in this Court resulting in judgment dated 11.07.2011 in Ext. P9. The said judgment which recognises the right of the college to impart M.Sc (Clinical Psychology), has bearing on the proposed syllabus/change of syllabus in this PG Programme. The college is not put on notice by the University on any of the revisions proposed through impugned syllabus. The objection raised by the College are either kept aside or overlooked for unexplained WPC No21238 of 2019 25 reasons. The respondent University acknowledges the objection of college on the constitution of Board of Studies in M.Sc. Clinical Psychology and on the showing of respondents, matter was placed before the Syndicate, a sub-committee was constituted. The statement filed is silent on the meetings held by the sub-committee or whether a report is forwarded on the qualification or otherwise of members of Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology. Therefore what is brought on record is taken up but not taken to logical end. In the statement filed on the latest representation given by the petitioner, it is stated that the necessity to include Expert in Clinical Psychology could be considered in the next re-constitution of Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology. Therefore, the argument he develops is that the Board of Studies now dealing with Clinical Psychology is without specialist/experts in Clinical Psychology. The decisions taken by the Board of Studies cannot have the same sanctity and primacy attached to the decisions taken by a WPC No21238 of 2019 26 Board with specialist/experts in the field. Therefore, examining holistically the sequence of events from 28.06.2019 till 24.07.2019, results in appreciating the arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction by the second respondent. He further argues that the college in the present Writ Petition is not availing the remedy of appeal by filing the present Writ Petition, on the academic content resulting from the decision taken in Exts.P18 and P22. The University to claim primacy on the view taken in academically intertwined with procedural matters must conform to the basic proceedings in this behalf, i.e. the Board of Studies is duly constituted with sufficient representation of experts in the subject programme. The course content is revised by convening a meeting which satisfies the reasonableness of approach and purpose of meeting by the member of Board of Studies. The statement filed by 1st respondent is silent on service of notice on a few members of Board of Studies. The notice proposes to commence the meeting at 11.A.M. on WPC No21238 of 2019 27 02.07.2019, but the meeting commenced on 10.30. A.M. on 02.07.2019 with three members. The exercise to change the syllabus after the commencement of semester 2019-20 is illegal. According to him, the University cannot refer to Clause 31 of Chapter III of Statutes 1976 and contend that the majority have agreed to the decision on 02.07.2019 and the decision of Board of Studies is binding on college. The arbitrariness in the process of finalisation of content and syllabus in M.Sc. Clinical Psycology is questioned in the present writ petition. He adds caveat that this Court may not possess sufficient expertise or knowledge in Clinical Psychology subjects or decide the content or syllabus for M.Sc. Clinical Psychology. The College accepts that, it is the Board of Studies and thereafter, the Academic Council to decide the content/syllabus of a course for which degree is conferred by the University. But these two statutory authorities when act fairly, objectively and legally claim that primacy to their resolution/decision is available. In the case on hand decision of minority WPC No21238 of 2019 28 members present is elevated to the view of majority and all options are shut out to the College. Therefore, on the ground of procedural impropriety from the stage of moving the syllabus revision till revision of syllabus is accepted on 24.07.2019 are vitiated and hence liable to be set aside. He lastly aragues that since the time Board of Studies is constituted in Ext.P14 not even one meeting has taken place and the only meeting is scheduled after the academic year has commenced. The Board of Studies did not move for two academic years and when it acts, it acts arbitrarily. He prays for setting aside of Exts. P18 and P22 and for other reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.
17. Adv. Sri. Elvin Peter adopts the submissions made by the College.
18. Adv. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan invites the attention of the Court to the copies of note file submitted by the University and argues that in terms of Ext.P12 dated 05.07.2017, Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology is re- constituted. The Board consists of 9 members. The notice WPC No21238 of 2019 29 dated 28.06.2019 is sent to the members. Three members have attended the meeting held on 02.07.2019 and by circulation of minutes, agenda item for assent or dissent, the views are received and finally the Vice Chancellor has accepted the decision dated 2.7.2019 taken by Board of Studies . This Court in exercise of its judicial review ought not to examine the suitability or otherwise of revision of syllabus now adopted by the University. These matters are lying in the exclusive realm of academicians/University. The petitioner cannot dictate to University to continue to grant affiliation to a particular course or subject, but the College with a view to continue to have affiliation of the University ought to impart training in one or the other programmes recognised by the University. The majority of Board of Studies since has accepted the resolution dated 02.07.2019, the Vice Chancellor accepted, the resolution in Ext.P18 and decision in Exts.P18 and P22 were issued. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the Writ Petition challenges a pure and simple academic or education policy WPC No21238 of 2019 30 matter of the University. He, for the said preposition, relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in University Grants Commission and Another v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) 1.
19. I have perused the record and taken note of the rival contentions canvased by the College and the University. In the considered view of this Court the following issue arises for consideration:
Whether the resolution of 2nd respondent and as approved by 1st respondent resulting in Exts.P18 and P22 are valid, legal and conform to the procedure of Calicut University Act and Statutes of the University.
20. Let me first advert to the contention of respondents 1 & 2 which is more in the nature of extent of judicial review in matters of this nature before taking up for deliberation the other grounds urged by the College.
21. Advocate P.C. Sasidharan argued that the preparation and finalisation of content and syllabus of a program including M.Sc Clinical Psychology are well within the jurisdiction of University. The University is guided by the Calicut University 1 2013 (10) SCC 519 WPC No21238 of 2019 31 Act, Statutes and Ordinances adopted in this behalf from time to time. The Board of Studies is one of the authorities of the University under Section 16 of Act 1975. The Board of Studies is constituted under Section 28 of the University Act. In the case on hand, the Board of Studies in Clinical Psychology was constituted through Ext.P12 order dated 05.07.2017. The Board of Studies consists of academicians with experience and expertise in Psychology and related matters thereto. Therefore, the College as well as this Court in examining the decision taken by the Board of Studies, resulting in approved content and syllabus for a course, ought to give due consideration or weight to the view of experts and not interfere with the decision except for strong and very convincing grounds. That the case on hand presents hardly a ground warranting detailed examination by this Court.
22. Further the issue before the Board of Studies is primarily an academic issue, therefore this Court ought to be slow in interdicting the decisions taken by the Board of Studies, Academic Council etc. There is difference between an WPC No21238 of 2019 32 administrative decision and educational policy/academic issue, the Court ought not to interfere with the educational policy matters. In support of the above contention he relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar)2 :
"In academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the University. For attaining the said standards, it is open to the UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the 2 (2013) 10 SCC (para 31) WPC No21238 of 2019 33 opinion of the Experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
Therefore, he argues that without further examination on the challenge to Exts.P18 and P22 resulting in approved content and syllabus for Ist semester by the 2 nd respondent, by taking note of the preliminary objection of respondents 1 and 2, the writ petition ought to be dismissed.
23. He further argues that impugned decisions are compliant with statutory requirement in the sense, the ex post facto views received from members of Board, cures the lack of quorum on 02.07.2019. The Vice Chancellor has the power of academic council to grant final approval and it has been done objectively by Vice Chancellor. The College being affiliated to the University can't insist upon practices or procedures as per the convenience of the College. The College for the purpose of getting Degree to the students studying in the College must follow what is prescribed by the University and not impose the WPC No21238 of 2019 34 views of College on the University.
24. Per contra, Mr. George Poonthottam replies that the College is firstly aggrieved by the procedure followed by 2 nd respondent while approving the content and the syllabus of M.Sc. Clinical Psychology. He differentiates between pure and simple academic issue or educational policy and the procedure followed by the Statutory authority while approving the course content. The former enjoys if properly executed/framed the primacy of opinion and the courts unless strong case is made out will not interfere with such decision. Where as the procedural prevarication resulting in prejudice to an affiliated college is well within the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India. If the view canvassed by the University is accepted, the college as a victim of procedural unfairness would be rendered remedyless. According to him, for the purpose of enjoying primacy on the view taken by the Board of Studies and to suggest to the Court to sparingly exercise the power of judicial review, the steps initiated by the 2nd respondent leading from the convening of WPC No21238 of 2019 35 meeting till conclusion of agenda must be reasonable and fair. A procedure followed by Board ought not to push through syllabus decided by three members who attend the meeting dated 02.07.2019 of Board of Studies. The procedure followed by 2nd respondent in issuing notice to a few of members of Board of Studies, not giving sufficient time to study the content and syllabus of the subject under revision, are not in the realm of pure and simple academic issues. These aspects are within the scope of procedural fairness and objectivity with which the issue of finalization of content and syllabus are undertaken by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the College is not juxtaposing the content and syllabus implemented by the College prior to Ext.P18 and the content and syllabus now accepted through Exts.P18 and P22 before this Court, pray for deciding the desirability or suitability of one syllabus to the other. He fairly states that such exercise is not normally undertaken by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The challenge in the case on hand is on the arbitrary, illegal and perfunctory manner in which the content and the WPC No21238 of 2019 36 syllabus of MSc. Clinical Psychology Semester-I, have been approved and imposed on the College. Therefore the preliminary objection is without merit and liable to be rejected.
25. I have taken note of the rival contentions on the preliminary objection about the extent to which the Court ought to undertake judicial review. At the outset it is observed that the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court on the scope of interference with pure and simple academic matters which are in the realm of subject specialists and experts, is no more res integra. This Court is in agreement with the contention of the University that on academic issues, as a matter of course, judicial review is not undertaken except for patent irregularities and illegalities established by a party. But to contend that in the name of preventing judicial review on the ground of academic policy etc. the contentions must satisfy the core issue, namely whether the point for consideration is an academic issue or on the contrary a procedural illegality and irregularity. In the instances falling WPC No21238 of 2019 37 under the former this Court would certainly, as and when a case is presented, examine whether judicial review is warranted, if so to what extent. But in the case on hand, as is evident from the statement filed by the respondent and the record produced in this behalf, a few avoidable procedural lapses are discerned and whether these procedural lapses have finally resulted in finalizing the content and the syllabus in M.Sc. Clinical Psychology imparted by the College. After carefully perusing the materials and the contentions, this Court is of the view that the judicial review of decisions in Ext.P18 and P22 ought not to be declined by accepting the objection put forward by the University because this Court is not dwelling into the core content of syllabus finalized by Ist and 2nd respondents, but would be examining the procedural path followed by Ist and 2nd respondents from the stage Ext.P9 judgment. Therefore, the first or preliminary objection raised by the University is without merit and rejected.
26. Ext.P9 is the judgment between inter-parties, this Court while deciding the nature and extent of right held by WPC No21238 of 2019 38 the college viz-a-viz M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) in Ext.P9 judgment has set aside Ext.P14 impugned in WPC No.35555 of 2010 directed University to issue notice to college, afford opportunity and take a decision on the purposes referred therein. It is further held that till a decision on the lines indicated therein is taken college is permitted to conduct the course of M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) and examinations to the course are held by the University for M.Sc (Clinical Psychology). The statement filed by Ist respondent does not throw at least little light on this factual side of the matter. From a plain reading of Ext.P9, it can be held that the college is entitled to notice opportunity of hearing etc., before a change in M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) could be introduced. To the limited extent of revision of syllabus of M.Sc (Clinical Psychology) the University ought to have issued notice to college and then proceeded in the finalization of content and syllabus. The right of College at least for hearing before changes to existing course are made, is recognized by Ext.P9 judgment. The above discussion is kept in my view while WPC No21238 of 2019 39 appreciating other contentions raised by the parties.
27. It is contended by the College that as per the orders issued by the Government and affiliation granted by the University the petitioner is the only College which has been imparting instruction in M.Sc. Clinical Psychology. No doubt, this subject course content and the syllabus are approved by the University. Treating Clinical Psychology on par, similar to Psychology in all aspects, may not be fully right. According to College, Clinical Psychology is a further new branch evolving in the immediate past. The 2 nd respondent ought not to rush through to finalize the proposed revision of M.Sc. Clinical Psychology syllabus without convening the meeting of Board of Studies, at least by giving reasonable time and notice to members to attend the meeting of Board of Studies. On 26.06.2019 the request for convening meeting of Board of Studies was moved by 2nd respondent. Notices to the members were dispatched on 28th and 29th of June 2019. Admittedly, notices are not sent to all the members. The content of the proposed revision it is alleged firstly is not WPC No21238 of 2019 40 made available to the College and the members representing the College, in Board of Studies and to the members to whom the material is dispatched may not have had the time to study the course material in a short span of two or three days. The decisions of Board of Studies ought not to be mechanical. The whole exercise commencing from Ext.P16 notice dated 28.06.2019 till communication in Ext.P22 dated 24.07.2019 are arbitrary and liable to be set aside. For reasons not disclosed in the minutes of meeting dated 02.07.2019, the agenda deliberated was restricted to Ist semester. In other words the broad agenda item to revise syllabus is reduced to considering syllabus for one semester.
28. It is further contended that the agenda item refers to revision of M.Sc. Clinical Psychology to mean that the content and syllabus of two year Post Graduate course of M.Sc. Clinical Psychology could be discussed in the Board of Studies meeting. The members who attended the meeting on 02.07.2019 approved the syllabus for one semester, but recorded that a few other aspects of syllabus are sent to WPC No21238 of 2019 41 experts for comment and opinion. There is no quorum in the meeting held on 02.07.2019. The procedure followed for obtaining approval of members ex post facto is also illegal and resolution of Board of Studies is rendered more mechanical without metal or material. Therefore, the College prays for setting aside Exts.P18 and P22.
29. Mr.P.C.Sasidharan argues that the procedural fairness complained by the College is unavailable in the peculiar facts of this case. According to him, the quorum is simple majority of members of the Board. The Board presently has nine members. Simple majority is five members. He admits that on 02.07.2019 three members attended the meeting. The Statute provides for circulating the material with agenda item for assent or dissent to other members and secure the views of members who were absent. In the case on hand, such procedure was followed and the views expressed by the College are in the minority and therefore content and syllabus for M.Sc. Clinical Psychology 1 st semester had been approved by the University.
WPC No21238 of 2019 42
30. After taking note of the rival contentions namely whether the preceding steps taken prior to 02.07.2019 are vitiated or not and if so, what would be the effect and impact on the decision taken in meeting dated 02.07.2019. With a view to appreciating the dates and events taking place in this short period, this Court prefers to excerpt the notings from file moved by 1st and 2nd respondents in this behalf, which reads thus:
"Note #97 Dhanya A.M., GA-IV-J2, 04-Jul-2019 02:34 PM Please see the letter from the Principal, Prajyothi Nikethan College, Pudukkad regarding the irregularity in convening meeting of BoS in Clinical Psychology PG on 02.07.2019. In the letter, it is informed that the communication for the meeting of BoS in Clinical Psychology PG, has not sent all the members and sufficient time is not given to study the serious agenda of the meeting. Hence it is requested to reconstitute a regular BoS for Clinical Psychology with proper intimation of the Board meeting.
It may be noted that the Chairman, BoS in Clinical Psychology PG requested on 26.06.2019 to convene the meeting on 02.07.2019 and as per the orders of VC, the meeting notice has been sent to some members of the Board on 28.06.2019 and to the remaining members on 29.06.2019. The reconstitution of the Boards of Studies is dealt with GA I F Section.
Hence for orders on further action in this regard.WPC No21238 of 2019 43
Note #98 Sunil C.N. - IV - J - SO, 04-Jul-2019 04.21 PM Notes detailed above may be seen. The following may be noted:
1. Chairman, BoS in Clinical Psychology PG requested on 26.06.2019 to convene the meeting on 02.07.2019 and as per the orders of VC, the meeting notice has been sent to some members of the Board on 28.06.2019 and to the remaining members on 29.06.2019.
2. The reconstitution of the Board of Studies is not coming under the purview of this section. The works related to the same are dealt with GA I F Section.
Note #99 Biju George K, GA-IV-AR, 04-Jul-2019 05:00 PM Notes pre-paras may be seen. As requested by the Chairman, the meeting of the BoS in Clinical Psychology was convened on 02.07.2019 for considering the matter of revision of M.Sc. Clinical Psychology syllabus. Now it has been informed from Prajoyti Niketan College as a complaint that two teachers of the college, who are in the Board and also Dr.Fr.Harshajan Pazhayattil, founder Director of the college, who is also included in the Board, could not attend the meeting as the same was convened without giving sufficient time and proper information and therefore requesting to reconstitute the Board with proper intimation of the Board meeting.
(emphasis added) In this regard it may be noted that the BoS meeting was convened on 02.07.2019 as requested by the Chairman and intimation was communicated to all members through mail/phone. Since the meeting did not have the required quorum, the minutes will be circulated among all the members of the Board for their approval as provided in the Statutes. If a member has any disapproval on any of the decisions of the Board, which was convened without WPC No21238 of 2019 44 quorum, he/she has the opportunity to raise the same when the minutes are circulated and the final minutes will be prepared by the Chairman after considering such remarks also. Therefore, since the meeting of the BoS in Clinical Psychology held on 02.07.2019 did not have the required quorum, the members of the Board associated with Prajyoti Niketan College who did not attend the meeting, has still got opportunity to offer their remarks on the agenda, when the minutes are circulated. Hence for orders whether any action is need on the complaint.
Note #100 Ajitha P.P., GA-IV-DR, 04-Jul-2019 06:03 PM Discuss.
Note #101 Dhanya A.M., GA-iV-J2 06-Jul-2019 02:48 PM Discussed with JR.
The file is resubmitting for specific orders. Note #102 Ajitha P.P., GA-IV-DR, 06-Jul-2019 04:23 PM Note Para #99 may be seen, The Principal, Prajyothi Nikethan College, Pudukkad, 3 BoS members of Clinical Psychology and certain other staff of the College has forwarded a letter, regarding the irregularity in convening meeting of BoS in Clinical Psychology PG on 2.7.2019. In the letter it is stated that the communication for the meeting of BoS in Clinical Psychology PG, has not sent all the members and sufficient time is not given to study the serious agenda of the meeting. Hence it is requested to reconstitute a regular BoS for Clinical Psychology with proper intimation of the Board meeting. In this regard it may be noted that on receipt of the letter from the Chairman for convene the meeting, meeting notice has been sent to some members of the Board on 28.06.2019 and to the WPC No21238 of 2019 45 remaining members on 29.06.2019. One of the BoS member Dr.Fr.Harshjan Pazhayattil's personal email id is not available with sn, so they sent meeting notice in college email and contacted him over phone and informed the same. He then and there informed them about the inconvenience and raised demands mentioned in the letter. They complained that sufficient time is not given to study the serious agenda of the meeting. But it is to be noted that there is only a single agenda that is preparation of the Syllabus of Msc Clinical Psy.syllabus, which is offered only at Prajyothi Nikethan College. The discussions of the agenda is to be carried out in the BoS meeting with active participation and not in the college. The meeting of the BoS in Clinical Psychology was convened on 02.07.2019, since the meeting did not have the required quorum, the minutes will be circulated among all the members of the Board for their approval as provided in the Statutes. If a member has any disapproval on any of the decisions of the Board, which was convened without quorum, he/she has the opportunity to raise the same when the minutes are circulated and the final minutes will be prepared by the Chairman after considering such remarks also.
Further the BoS in Clinical Psychology was constituted on 5/7/2017 and which has a tenure upto 4/7/2020. Hence their demand for reconstitution of the BoS is not practical. The delay and objections from the part of the BoS members from Prajyothi Nikethan College will adversely affect them in the conduct of classes in tune with new syllabus. Same may be informed to the Principal as a reply to the letter."
31. Through Ext.P11 the respondent University implemented CPCSS Post Graduate Regulations 2019. The 2 nd WPC No21238 of 2019 46 respondent, after commencement of the 1st semester, served Ext.P16 notice dated 28.6.2019 proposing to convene meeting on 02.07.2019. Ext.P17 is the reply sent by the College. In the reply, the College has clearly stated the objections available in this behalf for convening the meeting at such short and unrealistic time schedule to finalize such serious proposal of revision of syllabus for M.Sc. Clinical Psychology instructed by college. The 2nd respondent did not reply to Ext.P17 but forwarded the minutes of the meeting held on 02.07.2019 for assent/dissent on the minutes, as evidenced by Ext.P18. The meeting was convened half an hour ahead of the time than what is stated in Ext.P16 intimation. The members present have finally approved the content and syllabus of 1 st semester M.Sc. Clinical Psychology and at the same point Board felt desirable to take expert's views before finalising syllabus for other semesters. The argument i.e., the syllabus might and ought to be finalized with active participation of experts/specialists of the subject, of petitioner on this circumstance appears to be tenable.
WPC No21238 of 2019 47
32. First and foremost this Court from the above two dates and events, together with the reply given in paragraph no.20 of the statement filed by respondents, is constrained to observe that a decision is first taken to go ahead with the syllabus suggested for approval in the meeting scheduled on 02.07.2019, in as much as the 1st semester has already commenced for the academic year 2019-20. The Board of Studies is taking steps for finalising the content and the syllabus after the semester has commenced. The College has specifically averred that notice is not sent to all the members of Board of Studies. In the statement filed by Ist respondent no reply is given on whether the statement in Writ Petition is correct or not. In the note file produced by 1 st and 2nd respondents it is evident that the 2 nd respondent did not have the personal e-mail id of one of the members of Board of Studies and the said member it is replied that he was contacted through the College and the said member expressed his difficulty to attend the meeting therefore no notice was sent to him.
WPC No21238 of 2019 48
33. The quorum has purpose and meaning in meetings conducted by a body of individuals. The quorum ensures minimum majority of members in the meeting for having legitimacy to the view taken as that of the view taken by the majority of the Board. In Corpus Juris Secondum Vol LXXIV Quorum has been defined as under.
In Corpus Juris Secondum, Volume LXXIV 'quorum' has been described as under:
"...................... The word "quorum", now in common use, is from Latin, and has come to signify such a number of the officers or members of anybody as is competent by law or constitution to transact business; such a number of an assembly as is competent to transact its business; such a number of the members of any body as is, when duly assembled, legally competent to transact business; such a number of a body as is competent to transact business in the absence of the other member. The quorum of a body is an absolute majority of it unless the authority by which the body was created fixes it at a different number. The idea of a 'quorum' is that when that required number of persons goes into a session as a body the votes of a majority thereof are sufficient for binding action. Thus, the word quorum" implies a meeting, and the action must be group action, not merely action of a particular number of members as individuals." [As cited in Than Singh v State of M.P., AIR 2005 MP 170, 188, para 38]
34. The regulations provide for quorum for the meeting WPC No21238 of 2019 49 and in the absence of quorum the alternate procedure to get quorum by circulation is also provided. The alternative of getting quorum by circulating is not invited by failing to follow steps viz reasonable notice circulation of content etc, by the university. The few xerox copies produced as the file on the subject certainly is not convincing to accept that sufficient time and notices are furnished to members of Board and the members failed to turn up for the meeting. Being a Board of Studies, due deliberation on proposed revision of content and syllabus is desirable. But shall not be a decision arrived and informed to interested and disinterested persons of the Board. The college is the interested person in the outcome of proposed revision. Though no clause or provision is brought to my notice either by the College or the University to show that minimum period required for issuing notice for convening the meeting, that does not mean that the notice can be sent according to the convenience of 2 nd respondent. It would certainly be a different consideration, if the date of meeting of Board of Studies is decided with the prior consent WPC No21238 of 2019 50 of the majority members. It is entirely different, if the 2 nd respondent according to his convenience decides to go forward with convening the meeting and intends to finalize the agenda item of Board of Studies by circulation to the members. The steps taken by 1 st and 2nd respondents for convening the meeting to revise the content and syllabus of M.Sc. Clinical Psychology are not conforming to the requirement of fair procedure and these steps fail on objectivity.
35. Procedural fairness, objectivity etc. being part of fair play are decided on case to case basis and appreciated from the perspective of normal human conduct and expectation. These are not hard and fast moulded rules. The Board of Studies is one of the statutory authorities under Section 16 of the University Act. Its decisions finally result in implementation of course, content, syllabus, duration etc. of a programme/course to which affiliation is granted by the University. An authority conferred with a responsibility, duty and function must act, discharge its functions and duties WPC No21238 of 2019 51 commensurate to the position atoned to it by the statute under which it is established. Its decisions enjoy in the hierarchy of administration in a University certain element of righteousness. The 2nd respondent cannot be allowed to contend that it can follow its own or brief procedure and once the procedure is followed, the procedure and the decision taken by the 2nd respondent both are free from judicial review. The contention of 2nd respondent if is accepted, the same amounts to excluding judicial review on limited grounds of arbitrariness to the decisions of the Board of Studies created under the Act. After taking note of the events commencing from 26.06.2019 till 24.07.2019, the Court is persuaded and convinced to hold that Exts.P18 and P22 suffer from arbitrariness, improper procedure, unfairness and do not conform to the procedural fairness.
36. It may also be noted that the College through Ext.P13 objected to the composition of Board of Studies as made in Ext.P12, particularly on the ground that the experts in Clinical Psychology are not either sufficiently included or not included WPC No21238 of 2019 52 at all. The Syndicate after taking note of the objections, recommended the matter to sub-committee to decide on the objections raised by the College. The statement filed by the University refers to sub-committee not making a recommendation in this behalf. The reply as could be understood in the present scenario does not close the issue pointed out by the College in Ext.P13. The statement filed by 1st and 2nd respondents refers to considering inclusion of Clinical Psychologists or more number of Clinical Psychologists in the Board of Studies of University in Clinical Psychology while it is reconstituted. The 1 st and 2nd respondents without adverting to the issues at the earliest point of time have allowed the matters to remain static and by taking note of introduction of CBCSS for the academic year 2019-20 ought not to take a decision and call upon everyone to follow the decision. The decision by Board of Studies gains primacy or legitimacy not only because of the final view expressed by the Chairman but also by open deliberation and discussions by the experts in the field while finalizing the WPC No21238 of 2019 53 content and syllabus of a course in the sense the term 'quorum' is understood.
37. Yet another circumstance that needs consideration is notice of meeting was communicated to revise the content for M.Sc. Clinical Psychology i.e., full course. The members who attended the meeting confined the decision only to one semester. The reason is that the semester has already commenced. The Board of Studies ought to introspect whether it is desirable for the Board of Studies to make recommendations for change of content and syllabus after the admissions into the course are finalized. These are steps expected to be undertaken by academicians before the commencement of academic year, but not after the academic year is commenced.
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 WPC No21238 of 2019 54 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.
For the above reasons and discussion the writ petition is ordered as indicated above. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
S.V.BHATTI JUDGE css/DCS/jjj WPC No21238 of 2019 55 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTIONING ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 27.03.2001 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF AFFILIATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 20.10.2001 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF UNIVERSITY DATED 11.01.2002 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT AFFILIATION TO M.SC CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, DATED 04.11.2006.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 20.08.2010.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF STUDIES OF CALICUT UNIVERSITY HELD ON 03.11.2009 WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 09.11.2009.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 08.12.2010 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.35555/2010 DATED 03.01.2011.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.3919/2011 DATED 11.07.2011.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 03.04.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 06.03.2012.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR DATED 19.07.2017.
WPC No21238 of 2019 56EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 26.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DIRECTING COMMENCEMENT OF CLASSES, DATED 13.06.2019.. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 28.06.2019..
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER COLLEGE TO THE UNIVERSITY DATED 29.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 09.07.2019 ALONG WITH MINUTES AND DRAFT SYLLABUS OF MSC CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE UNIVERSITY, DATED 10.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE DISSENT NOTE SENT BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE UNIVERSITY DATED 12.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 2012 SYLLABUS AND THE REVISED SYLLABUS OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSITY DATED 24.07.2019 WITH ENCLOSURES.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO RTI QUERY WITH ATTACHMENT ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 09.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO TRI QUERY WITH ATTACHMENTS ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED 14.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS IN THE 2017 BOARD OF STUDIES IN MSC CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, WITH THEIR SPECIALIZATIONS.
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE PREPARED BY DR.
FR.HARSHAJAN PAZHAYATTIL, THE MANAGER OF THE COLLEGE EXPLAINING THE UNIQUENESSOF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY AD APPLIED PASYCHOLOGY. WPC No21238 of 2019 57 EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.11/2019/H AND FWD DATED 22.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.