AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
St.Michael's College, Cherthala, along with their Manager, have filed this writ petition, impugning Exts.P11 and P12 orders of the University of Kerala, whereby, the request to permit them to continue with the Bachelor of Vocation (B.Voc) programme in the self-financing mode has been rejected.
Smt.Indu Susan Jacob – learned counsel for the petitioners, explained that her client started the B.Voc course under the applicable scheme of the University Grants Commission (UGC), through which they offered a grant of upto Rs.1.7 crores, but limiting it to a three year period. She explained that, after the afore mentioned three year period was over, the Government permitted the petitioners to continue with the course in the self-financing stream, as is evident from Exts.P8 and P9; but that when they applied to the University of Kerala for approval, it has been rejected through Exts.P11 and P12 saying that the course can be conducted only with the aid of the UGC under the afore mentioned scheme, and not under the self-financing stream. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that Exts.P11 and P12 be set aside and the University be directed to accede to the request of the petitioners to permit them to continue the B.Voc course in the self-financing stream.
On hearing Smt.Indu Susan Jacob as afore, I asked Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy – learned Standing counsel for the UGC, whether his client would continue to support the 1st
petitioner – College under the afore mentioned Scheme. His answer to this was 'no', explaining that under the aforesaid scheme, the College was given a one time grant, to cover the first Batch of students and no other. He submitted that after the said three year period, it is for the competent Authority – including the University, to decide in what manner the course has to be conducted, either in the aided stream or in the self-financing stream, as the case may be. He submitted that, therefore, his client has no further comment to make on the assertions of the petitioners.
Sri.Thomas Abraham – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University, on the other hand, submitted that the University has adopted a policy of not allowing B.Voc courses in the self-financing stream. He submitted that, therefore, the petitioners must continue the course, only under the aid of the UGC and in no other manner.
When I hear the leaned Standing Counsel for the University as afore, I must say upfront that I cannot understand the true purport of his submissions. This is because, when the UGC unambiguously says that the grant given by them to the College is a one time measure, to cover only the three years of the first batch, it is baffling that the University maintains that they will allow the course in question to continue only under such aid. When the UGC affirms that no such aid will be given after the first three year period, it prima facie, becomes untenable for the University to insist that the College will operate only under such aid ad infinitum. This is more so because, even going by the submissions of Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the benefits under the scheme was applicable only for a three year period; and thereafter, it is upto the College or the University to find resources to conduct the course further.
Obviously, therefore, the stand of the University, as reflected in Exts.P11 and P12, cannot appeal to this Court; and am certain that they require to be set aside.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Exts.P11 and P12; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the University to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, adverting to Exts.P8 and P9 orders of the Government; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I order the petitioners to mark appearance before the competent Secretary of the 1st respondent at 11.00 a.m. on 26/07/2022; on which date, said Authority will either hear them, or fix another convenient date for such purpose, but issue the resultant orders within the above fixed time frame.