The University of Calicut and The Vice Chancellor vs The Sahradaya College of Engineering

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.—We have heard Standing Counsel for the Appellant-University and Senior counsel Sri. Kurian George Kannanthanam appearing for Respondent-colleges.

The short question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing the Appellant-University to grant affiliation to the Respondent-colleges for the year 2009-2010 based on the Website information of the AICTE that approval is granted by them to these colleges. Counsel for the University contended that unless detailed order issued by the AICTE is available to University, University will not be able to decide the matter without delay. Senior counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that Website information is authentic and it is not the fault of the Respondents that the AICTE delays sending order to them. In the first place, what we feel is that AICTE while granting approval states the conditions under which approval is granted and in some cases they W. even direct corrective measures for making up deficiencies. Therefore, University is justified in demanding copy of the approval granted by AICTE. Both sides agree that it was the duty of the AICTE to send a copy of the proceeding of approval to the University and their failure has basically led to this problem. In any case in this case we do not think there is any need for us to consider the correctness of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the University to process the application based on Website information of the AICTE because admittedly Respondent-colleges got the original orders from AICTE and they have produced the same before the Appellant-University based on which application should be processed. In all cases of approval AICTE should send copies of the approvals directly and simultaneously to the Universities concerned for information and follow-up action for granting affiliation to the college concerned without any delay. The Appellant-University will forward a copy of this judgment to the AICTE for compliance in the future at least. We dispose of the Writ Appeals by directing the University to pass final orders for affiliation based on the AICTE''s approval produced by the Respondent-colleges without any delay.

Counsel for the University rightly pointed out that affiliation is not an empty formality and the University should be satisfied that the college has the facilities, both infrastructural and instructional, for granting affiliation and the University is free to consider the same in accordance with the AICTE norms. However, we make it clear that whatever is the deficiency noticed by the University, the college should be given time to set it right or make up the deficiency and conditional affiliation also can be granted, if so required. So much so, the direction of the learned Single Judge to grant affiliation as if it is a formality is vacated. Since these colleges have been enjoying affiliation from the University for the last six years, admissions already given and the examinations written by students will all be treated as regular, if affiliation is granted by the University. Respondent-colleges can also continue with admissions pending affiliation.

Writ Appeals are disposed of as above.