AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J.—Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7th July, 2009 allowing W.P.(C) No. 31492 of 2007 filed by the writ petitioner/first respondent educational institution, the present writ appeal is filed by the University.
The writ petitioner is a College of Engineering and Technology which had obtained approval of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and University affiliation for B.Tech. in Electronics and Communication and Computer Science and Engineering, each for 60 students. While the courses were going on, the educational institution applied to AICTE as well as the University to grant permission to have an additional intake of 60 students. This application was filed in the year 2006-07. As per Ext.P1, the appellant University informed the educational institution that the University has considered its application for additional intake of 60 students and has recommended to the AICTE, the central body, and the Government of Kerala, but so far no approval of AICTE is received. Subsequently it was disclosed that AICTE, in fact, had approved the educational institution for the academic year 2007-08 to have the additional intake and in this regard Ext.P6 communication was issued for additional intake for the year 2007-08 subject to the condition that all the facilities should be made available before the commencement of the academic session. In the meanwhile, as per Ext.P4, when the Government informed the University that the increase in intake is not sanctioned as it is against the policy of the Government and especially when the University has not passed any order on the application for granting affiliation to the additional intake, the present writ petition came to be filed by the educational institution with the following prayers:
(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order or direction to quash Ext.P4.
(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the M.G. University to grant approval to the additional intake sanctioned to the petitioner''s college as notified in Ext.P2, ignoring Ext.P4 communication by the Government.
(iii) to grant such other reliefs as are just and proper in the nature of this case.
The University contested the matter, inter alia, contending that without obtaining approval of the University for the additional intake, the writ petitioner could not have admitted additional students for the year 2007-08. It is to be noted that this Court by order dated 2.11.2007 directed the University to inspect the facilities available for the additional intake in the institution. However, as no inspection was undertaken by the University, considering the plight of the students, after hearing the learned Counsel for the University, this Court by an interim order permitted the students to writ the examination. Thereafter when the matter was being heard, it was contended that the University had not received Ext.P6, the approval of the AICTE which was found to be incorrect and as the University itself slept over the matter and neither conducted the inspection nor gave approval, this Court by the impugned judgment has now directed the University to grant affiliation for the additional intake retrospectively, especially taking into consideration the fact that in the interregnum period the students were permitted to write the examination for the ensuing academic years and after announcement of the results they were permitted to continue their studies and similar number of students were admitted for the next academic year also.
In this appeal even before us, the same contention has been raised by Sri T.A. Shaji, learned Counsel appearing for the University, that the University had no occasion or opportunity to inspect the availability of the infrastructure for the additional intake of students and that the learned Single Judge has misread the pronouncement of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vikram Sarabhai E. Trust & B.Ed. v. University of Calicut 2008 (2) KLT 1027.
On the other hand, Sri Kurian George Kannamthanam, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/educational institution, submits that the action of the University in not granting affiliation to the present educational institution is also mala fide since in respect of a similarly placed institution which had sought for affiliation, similar direction was issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4585 of 2008 and it was complied with by the University without any murmur.
In our view, so far as the first contention is concerned, it is devoid of merits. At no point of time the University has made any attempt to inspect the availability of infrastructure and that is why the educational institution was forced to approach this Court. Even after filing the writ petition and taking into consideration the contention of the University, when this Court gave an opportunity, rather a direction to the University to inspect the college and submit a report, as long back as on 2.11.2007, the University slept over the matter and took no action. It is to be noted that after considering this inaction on the part of the University and after hearing its counsel, this Court permitted the additional students to attend the courses and writ examination. It is not as if a clash between only the University and the educational institution, but the fate of 120 additional students which is in balance. If the University does not take steps in time, they alone to be blamed and nobody else. Even otherwise, as laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Vikram Sarabhai case (supra) even though after the grant of permission by the AICTE, three courses were open to the University, namely approaching the AICTE or the central authority for cancellation of the approval granted by it as it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or it was also open to the University to challenge the same in the writ petition. Since none of these steps have been taken in the present case, as we have already noted, it is the inaction on the part of the University itself which has resulted in the present impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge issuing a mandamus to the University to grant affiliation, especially keeping in view the fact that the University was playing with the fate of the students because of its inaction. Even after considering the impugned judgment at length and hearing the learned Counsel, we find absolutely no merit in the writ appeal and the grounds raised are also devoid of merits. Hence we dismiss the writ appeal with the costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand).