Kannur Dental College vs Kerala University Of Health Sciences & Ors.

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.

The petitioner’s College was established in the year 2005-2006, with a sanctioned intake of 50 seats for Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS). The Central Government has also issued its Letter of Permission (LOP) on the recommendation of the Dental Council of India (DCI). As per DCI regulations, this LOP must be renewed every year until the first batch of students passes out. The DCI grants this renewal after an annual inspection and recommends it to the Central Government. This renewal was done every year. On the first batch passing out, the Central Government granted the College “recognition”. It is submitted that only a recognised College can apply for enhancement of intake and for additional courses. Once recognised, no further LOP is required, nor is there any annual inspection by the DCI, is the submission. However, for Self-Financing Colleges, the University grants affiliation only for a year and gives “continuation” of affiliation every year after inspection.

It is submitted that the College got its first recognition by the Central Government on the recommendation of the DCI in the year 2012, and the College applied for enhancing the intake capacity for BDS, which was enhanced from 50 to 100 in 2012. The College also received recognition for this enhanced intake in 2017, as per the further submission. A few P.G. Courses (MDS) were sanctioned in 2012, and one additional course was also sanctioned in 2013, as per the submission. The P.G. Courses started in 2012 were also recognised in 2016, and the additional course started in 2013 was also recognised in 2018, as submitted. Thereafter, the affiliation by the University was being renewed every year till 2024-25, as submitted by the petitioner.

When it was not renewed for the year 2025-26, the College approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 26519/2025. At that time, the allotment process by the Commissioner was in progress, is the submission. Accordingly, this Court intervened and granted an Interim Order on 01/08/2025 to include the College in the allotment process. Against the interim order, the Commissioner for Entrance Examination filed Writ Appeal number 1912/2025. While the Division Bench was considering the appeal, the University renewed the affiliation for the academic year 2025-26, as evident from Ext.P1. This renewal of affiliation was for BDS and MDS together.

The University had started an “accreditation” process recently is the submission. The College was granted accreditation with an A+ grade in 2024, as evident from Exhibit P2 - Certificate of Accreditation, is the further submission. The accreditation was granted on the recommendation of the “Quality Assurance Monitoring Committee,” and this accreditation is valid up to 16.01.2027, is the submission. In 2024 itself, the University recognised the College as a “Doctoral Research Centre,” and Ext. P3 is produced for the same. It is also submitted that the DCI had conducted its routine inspection in 2023 and a Joint Inspection for BDS and MDS together on 5^th and 6^th of April 2023. The petitioner states that the DCI did not note any deficiency, and the status report given by the DCI is produced as Exhibit-P4.

The petitioner applied for continuation of affiliation for 2026-27 on 12.09.2025. After 6 months, the University conducted an inspection on 05.03.2026. Certain deficiencies were pointed out as per Ext.P5 letter, and according to the petitioner, the deficiencies noted by inspectors were not relevant or specific. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a compliance report on stamp paper, as evidenced by Ext.P6, addressing all the deficiencies. Ext.P7 is the staff/faculty list, which was produced along with the Ext.P6 compliance report as Annexure-1. Therefore, it is submitted that the College has all required staff to conduct the courses. The University FEP number is also mentioned in the list is the submission. It is further submitted that these staff were present in the College and this was not observed by the inspectors. Thereafter, the University appointed the very same inspectors to conduct a compliance inspection. The said inspection was conducted on 07.07.2026. Even after the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations notified admissions for MBBS & BDS, the University has not passed any orders on continuation of affiliation.

On 19.08.2026, the University issued a ‘show cause’ notice as evident by Ext.P8 and the petitioner gave a detailed compliance report on 24.08.2026. Thereafter, the University directed the College to pay an inspection fee of Rs.22,500/-. That was paid by the College immediately is the submission. Though the inspection fee was remitted as directed, the University did not conduct any inspection, nor did it pass any orders on continuation of affiliation, is the further submission. Ext.P1 is the University order granting continuation of affiliation for the academic year 2025-26. The academic year 2026-27 for BDS started on 15.09.2026, as evident from Ext.P9 is the submission. In such a situation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C). No.32015/2026. This Court posted the case to 29.09.2026, directing the University to complete the inspection and produce the Inspection report before this Court, and Ext.P10 is the interim order. When the writ petition came up for consideration on the next posting date, the Standing Counsel for the University submitted that it was difficult to conduct an inspection within such a short time and that it did not propose to conduct any inspection; therefore, the case was posted for hearing to 05.10.2026. However, according to the petitioner, the University conducted an inspection on 01.10.2026, and the case came up for consideration again on 05.10.2026; on that day, the learned Counsel for the University submitted that the inspection report is being processed and requested that the matter be posted on 07.10.2026. On that day, they again sought an adjournment, and it was posted to 13.10.2026. On that day, the Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the Scrutiny Committee rejected the petitioner’s application. This Court recorded the same as evident from Ext. P11 order. Subsequently, when the matter came up for consideration on 16.10.2026, the Standing Counsel for the University made available a copy of the University's order, as evident from Ext. P12, rejecting the extension of affiliation for 2026-27. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

Heard Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam, the learned Senior Counsel who is instructed to appear for the petitioner in this case, and Sri. P.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel who is instructed to appear for the University. I also heard the standing counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

The Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued the matter in detail. The Senior Counsel submitted that on a perusal of the Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, 2010 (for short, the Act 2010) and the Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statutes 2013 (for short, Statutes), it is clear that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to issue the Ext.P12 order. The Senior Counsel also submitted that once this Court has found that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to reject the affiliation application, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Jubilee Mission Medical College & Research Institute v. University of Calicut and others [2008 (4) KLT 966], which says that, if the University does not take a decision in the matter of either continuance of affiliation or confirmation of affiliation before the period of expiry of the period of affiliation, then the provisional affiliation must be treated as having been extended for one more year. Hence, it is submitted that the prayers in this writ petition should be allowed.

On the other hand, the Senior Counsel appearing for the University submitted that the principle laid down by this Court in Jubilee Mission Medical College’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case and it is a case in which there was provisional affiliation and in this case, there is only conditional affiliation as per Ext.P1. The Senior Counsel fairly submitted that, if a strict interpretation of the provisions of the Act 2010 and the Statutes is adopted, the Registrar may not have jurisdiction to pass orders in the affiliation application. But the Senior Counsel submitted that the competent authority, namely the Governing Council, will consider the affiliation immediately.

This Court considered the contention of the petitioner and the University. Section 51(4) of the Act 2010 says that the rules and procedure for affiliation of a college to the University shall be as prescribed by the Statutes. Section 53(1) of the Act 2010 says that an affiliated college or recognised institution may apply for continuation of affiliation or recognition for the courses of study for which affiliation or recognition was granted, ordinarily six months before the date of expiry of such affiliation or recognition. It is also stated that the University shall follow the procedure prescribed in the Statutes, so far as applicable, for grant of continuation of affiliation. Section 12(7) of the Act 2010 says that if there are reasonable grounds for the Vice-Chancellor to believe that there is an emergency which requires immediate action to be taken, he shall take such action as he thinks necessary, and shall at the earliest opportunity, report in writing the grounds for the emergency and the action taken by him to such authority or body which, in the ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter. It also says that if a difference arises between the Vice-Chancellor and the authority on the existence of such an emergency, the action taken, or both, the matter shall be referred to the Chancellor, whose decision shall be final. Therefore, in an emergency situation, the Vice-Chancellor has certain powers as per Section 12(7) of the Act 2010.

Section 23 of the Act 2010 deals with the powers of the Governing Council. Section 23(v) provides that the Governing Council may affiliate medical institutions in accordance with the terms and conditions of such affiliation provided by the Act 2010 and the Statutes. Therefore, the power to affiliate medical institutions is vested in the Governing Council, and the Vice-Chancellor, of course, has powers in certain emergency situations.

Admittedly, Ext.P12 is passed by the Registrar of the University. Whether the Registrar has got powers to pass orders in the affiliation application is the first question to be decided. Section 14 of the Act 2010 deals with the Registrar's powers. A reading of Section 14 shows that the Registrar has only administrative powers, not statutory powers. Ext. P13 is the amended Chapter XXI of the Statutes regarding college affiliation. Clause 2(3) of the Statutes sets out the general conditions colleges must satisfy for affiliation with the Governing Council. Clause 2(5) (vi) deals with the power of the Governing Council to grant affiliation. Clauses 2(5)(ix)(14), 2(5)(ix)(16) and 2(5)(ix)(19) deal with the manner in which the Governing Council has to act. Therefore, the affiliation application is to be considered by the Governing Council of the University, not by the Registrar.

The Senior Counsel appearing for the University fairly conceded that as per the Act 2010 and the Statutes, the Registrar has no power to consider the affiliation application. If that is the case, Ext.P12 is to be set aside.

What is the consequence of setting aside Ext.P12 is the next question to be decided. This Court in Jubilee Mission Medical College’s case (supra) observed like this in paragraph 22:

From the above it is clear that, if the University does not take a decision in the matter of either continuance of the provisional affiliation or confirmation of the affiliation before the expiry of the period of provisional affiliation, then the provisional affiliation must be treated as having been extended for one more year, rendering legitimacy to the affiliated institutions continuing to offer their courses in the same manner in which it was done during the previous year's provisional affiliation.

There is no dispute to the fact that if Ext.P12 is not in existence, the University has not taken any decision in the matter of either continuance of provisional affiliation or confirmation of affiliation before expiry of period of provisional affiliation, and then consequently the provisional affiliation must be treated as having been extended for one more year in the light of the principle laid down in Jubilee Mission Medical College’s case (supra). But the Senior Counsel appearing for the University submitted that the petitioner has not obtained any provisional affiliation and has only conditional affiliation; therefore, the principle laid down in Jubilee Mission Medical College’s case (supra) is not applicable. I cannot agree with the above proposition made by the Senior Counsel appearing for the University. The Senior Counsel for the University relied on Clause 2(5)(ix)(16), which is extracted hereunder:

The Senior Counsel submitted that the affiliation granted may also be conditional in the light of the above clause. Hence, it is submitted that Ext.P1 is only a conditional affiliation. However, the Senior Counsel for the University fairly conceded that, except for the indication in Clause 2(5)(ix)(16) of the Statutes, there is no other provision from which it can be seen that there is provisional affiliation and a conditional affiliation. If conditional affiliation is granted, the conditions to be fulfilled and the time fixed for fulfilment shall be specified in the order of the governing council granting the affiliation, and if the conditions are not fulfilled by the end of the fixed period, the affiliation shall cease automatically. If the conditions are fulfilled, as per the provisions, the governing council shall have the power to confirm the affiliation at the end of the period. The provision also states that, while seeking conditional affiliation, the educational agency/institution shall undertake that the loss suffered by students admitted to the institution, if affiliation is not granted, shall be compensated by the educational agency/institution.

Therefore, Clause 2(5)(ix)(16) of the Statutes only says about conditional affiliation for that academic year and the conditions are to be fulfilled during that academic year. That does not mean that a conditional affiliation is not a provisional affiliation. The conditional affiliation granted is also a provisional affiliation, especially when either in the Act, 2010 or in the Statutes, two types of affiliation are not specifically mentioned. Therefore, this Court has to conclude that the conditional affiliation granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 is also a provisional affiliation. If that is the case, the dictum laid down by this Court in Jubilee Mission Medical College’s case (supra) is squarely applicable here. Since Ext. P12 is non est because it is an order passed by an incompetent authority and the competent authority of the University has not taken any decision in the matter of either continuance of the provisional affiliation or confirmation of the affiliation before the expiry of the period of provisional affiliation, the provisional affiliation is to be treated as having been extended for one more year. Such a declaration can be passed in this case as prayed for. But, as per the tentative schedule prescribed for the BDS course, the admission process ends on 26.10.2026, and this Court cannot pass any order allowing the petitioner to admit students in this academic year.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed-in-part in the following manner:

Ext.P12 is set aside.

It is declared that the petitioner College has deemed continuation of affiliation for conducting the BDS Course with an intake of 100 seats for the academic year 2026-27 in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Jubilee Mission Medical College & Research Institute v. University of Calicut and others [2008 (4) KLT 966].

Since the admission process as per the tentative schedule for the BDS course for the academic year 2026-27 is over, the prayer of the petitioner to conduct fresh stray vacancy allotment to the petitioner’s college after inviting options for the same cannot be entertained; hence, that prayer is rejected.