Manager And Ors vs State Of Kerala And Ors

Since common issue is raised in these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.25502, 25670 and 25709 of 2020 are the Managers of Aided Arts and Science Colleges having affiliation with the

University of Kerala and the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26177 of 2020 is the Manager of an Arts and Science College having affiliation with the

M.G.University. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, mainly seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the 1st respondent State to grant administrative sanction to start new courses applied for by the respective managements, on the strength

of the recommendation made by the affiliating body. They are feeling aggrieved by non-inclusion of the courses in their respective institutions, in the

Government order dated 05.11.2020 granting administrative sanction, for the academic year 2020-21, for starting new courses in Government and

Aided College in the State.

On 02.12.2020, when these writ petitions came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions as to whether

the rejection of request made by the petitioner in the respective writ petitions for administrative sanction to start new courses, based on the

recommendation by the University, is supported by reasons and whether those reasons have already been communicated to the respective institutions.

Today, when these writ petitions are taken up for consideration, a statement on behalf of the 1st respondent is placed on record by the learned

Government Pleader. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that statement read thus;

“3. It is submitted that, the Government has to pay salaries of faculty at UGC approved levels in aided colleges. On an average each new

programme requires 3 to 5 new faculty posts. Hence Government cannot sanction new programmes in every college every year. In the budget speech

2020 Government had made its intention clear that 60 new generation programme would be sanctioned giving weightage to the NAAC score.

Universities had been asked to recommend programmes accordingly. However, Universities recommended programmes for all colleges, as they are

neither pay-master not incentivizing institutions based on quality parameters. Besides, many of the programmes recommended by the Kerala

University were not 5 year programmes like in other universities or new generation courses.

It is submitted that out of the 33 aided colleges recommended by the University of Kerala 21 colleges were accorded sanction to start innovative

new generation course. The Government taking into concern the financial implications in the first 5 years for payment under guest lecturers salary and

thereafter at UGC scale, necessity of maintain parity between universities, the regional imbalances or aided institutions and taking into consideration of

the recommendations of the University has decided on the programmes as per G.O.(MS)No.389/2020/HEdn. Dated 05.11.2020.â€​

Heard the learned Senior Counsel/the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader for the 1st

respondent State and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University.

In Malu M. and others v. State of Kerala and others [ILR 2015 (3) Ker. 869], this Court held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is

to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The recording of reasons by an administrative or quasi-judicial authority serves a

salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decisions making. It would apply

equally to all decisions made by such authority and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial

review. At the same time, it is not the requirement that, the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. What is necessary is

that, the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. Hence, it is an

essential requirement of the rule of law that, some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in the order passed by an administrative or quasi-judicial

authority.

During the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the reason for rejecting the request made by the petitioner in

the respective writ petitions for administrative sanction to start new courses in their Aided Arts and Science Colleges, during the academic year 2020-

21, are not disclosed in the Government order dated 05.11.2020. Those reasons are also not communicated to the petitioner in the respective writ

petitions. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the 1st respondent shall communicate those reasons within a time limit to be fixed by this

Court.

The learned Senior Counsel/the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions would submit that the petitioner in the respective

writ petitions may be given an opportunity of being heard, before taking a decision on their request for grant of administrative sanction to start the new

courses as applied for.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, these writ petitions are disposed of, leaving open the legal and

factual contentions raised by both sides, with the following directions;

i) On or before 15.12.2020, the 1st respondent shall communicate the petitioner in the respective writ petitions the reason for non-inclusion of their

courses, in respect of which administrative sanction was sought for, in the Government order dated 05.11.2020.

ii) The petitioner in the respective writ petitions shall submit their reply/explanation to the 1st respondent, on or before 19.12.2020.

iii) Thereafter, the 1st respondent shall conduct a personal hearing, with notice to the petitioner in the respective writ petitions, subject to COVID-19

restrictions, and take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law, on their request for grant of administrative sanction to start new courses

in the respective institutions.

iv) The decision so taken by the 1st respondent, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner in the respective writ

petitions, shall be communicated to them on or before 31.12.2020.