AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
The petitioner – “Pattayil Kunjukunju Memorial Charitable Trust”, alleges that the refusal of the 3rd respondent to grant them affiliation to conduct Diploma Courses in Technical Education is illegal and unlawful, particularly when the 4th respondent – All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), has already offered them recognition, through Ext.P6.
The petitioner thus prays that 2nd respondent be directed to include their College in the allotment process commencing on 20/08/2022, adverting to Ext.P6, so as to enable them to admit students and conduct the course.
The afore request of the petitioners, as made by the learned counsel – Sri.Rony Jose, was answered by Smt.Parvathy K. – learned Government Pleader, saying that if the 3rd respondent – Director of Technical Education has received Ext.P6, then he will certainly advert to the same and take a final decision on the grant of affiliation or otherwise to the petitioner. She added that, for this purpose, he requires certain additional inputs from other Authorities, including the Principal Secretary to Education; and that, therefore, some time will be required to culminate in apposite orders.
Sri.Sajith Kumar V. – learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent – AICTE, affirmed that Ext.P6 approval of the petitioner's College has already been forwarded to the Government.
Smt.Gouri Balagopal – learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent – University, submitted that her client has no role to play, because the grant of affiliation to Diploma Courses in Technical Education is squarely vested with the 3rd respondent.
When I consider the afore submissions, it is clear that petitioner cannot be put to prejudice merely because the 3rd respondent is taking time to consider their application for affiliation for Diploma Courses in Technical Education. This is more so because said Authority is the one vested with exclusive power to consider such and not the 5th respondent – University.
Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition in the following manner:
(a) The College of the petitioner will be included in the allotment process provisionally, with an information made available against their name that their affiliation is pending at the hands of the 3rd respondent.
(b) The 3rd respondent will consider the application of the petitioner for affiliation, adverting to Ext.P6; and issue appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(c) If, through the afore exercise, the Director of Technical Education finds in favour of the petitioner and grants them recognition, then the endorsement as ordered in direction (a) above will be deleted and students admitted; thus they being allowed to continue the course without any impediment in future, subject to all other requisites and qualifications being satisfied and complied with.