IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 24049 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MANAGER, ST.JOSEPH'S COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, MOOLAMATTAM, ARAKULAM P.O., IDUKKI BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP, TO THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TVM. 2. M.G.UNIVERSITY, REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).24049/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Manager of an unaided Self Financing College. The College has been recognized by the NCTE, for offering a course of B.P.Ed. Thereafter, the second respondent University also granted affiliation for the said course in 2006. Petitioner had even then sought for the approval of the University in respect of two other courses, Bachelor of Coaching and Training in Sports and Master of Physical Education. The application in this behalf was approved in early 2007. University processed the same and going by the counter affidavit of the University, views of the Government were also sought for. Petitioner was given a reply as Ext.P2 stating that the Syndicate Standing Committee on Affiliation has considered the application submitted by various colleges/agencies for starting new colleges and courses for the academic year 2008-09 and the Committee resolved to recommend to the Syndicate not to W.P.(C).24049/2008 2 consider the applications for the reasons mentioned therein, which reads as follows:- (a). The existing manpower available in the university cannot cope with the additional work consequent on the sanctioning of new unaided colleges/courses. (b). Lack of permanent teaching faculty for the conduct and evaluation of Examinations. (c). The increasing instances of irregular admissions in unaided institutions and also pending cases before the Hon'ble Courts. (d). At present, no specific provisions relating to the conduct of courses, admission of students, appointment of teachers etc relating to the unaided stream have been included in the Mahatma Gandhi University Act and Statutes. 2. The Syndicate Standing Committee on Affiliation took a decision as evidenced by Ext.P3, inter alia not to consider the applications for unaided colleges/unaided W.P.(C).24049/2008 3 courses for the academic year 2008-09 for the very same reasons as mentioned above. Petitioner submits that the reasons given in Ext.P3, not to consider the applications for affiliation on merits, are neither tenable nor sustainable. In fact, it is contended, the decision taken by the University demonstrates a discriminatory attitude in relation to the unaided institutions. Hence they challenge Exts.P2 and P3 in this writ petition and seek a further direction to the University to grant affiliation for the aforementioned Courses. 3. University has filed counter affidavit supporting its stand. Reference is also made to the University first statutes and necessity to obtain consent for the new course from the NCTE on the premise that original consent for the new course came from NCTE. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Reference is made to Ext.P8 communication issued under the Right to Information Act, wherein the petitioner has been informed by the Public Information Officer, NCTE, which reads as follows:- W.P.(C).24049/2008 4 “I am to refer to your letter dated 28.9.2008, received in this office on 29.9.2008, seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005 and to say that both the Master of Physical Education (MPE) course and the Bachelor of Coaching in Sports and Games course do not come under the purview of NCTE. You are therefore, requested to approach UGC in this regard.” 4. I heard Mr.George Poonthottam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.A.Shaji learned Standing Counsel for the University and learned Government Pleader. 5. It is admitted that the petitioner had sought for affiliation from the University in respect of the courses of Bachelor of Coaching and Training in Sports and Master of Physical Education in early 2007. If as a matter of fact, the facilities offered by the College have already been inspected and there is satisfaction recorded qua the course ought to be started, then it would have been appropriate, had the orders been passed earlier. The stand taken by the University that the applications from W.P.(C).24049/2008 5 unaided institutions for starting new courses in the academic year 2008-09 need not be considered, does not appear to be correct. Apparently, administrative difficulties seem to have been persuaded the Syndicate Standing Committee, to deny access on a blanket basis to the institutions. This is not a correct stand. Applications must be processed and applications must be dealt with on merits. If the administrative set up in the University requires further man power, it is upto the University to muster the same. If resources are to be mobilized then there are obviously ways and means on the part of the University to do so. 6. In the present case, it would be correct to proceed on the premise that two courses offered do not come within the purview of NCTE. If that be so, the University is entitled to proceed to consider the application filed by the petitioner for affiliation in respect of two new courses without reference to the NCTE. 7. In the result, Ext.P2 is quashed. There will be a direction to the second respondent to pass orders on the W.P.(C).24049/2008 6 petitioner's application for affiliation in relation to the courses of Bachelor of Coaching and Training in Sports and Master of Physical Education to be commenced during the academic year, 2008-09, as early as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from today. This shall be done with reference to the recommendations contained in Ext.P3. It is made clear that if the facilities offered by the petitioner have already been assessed to be satisfactory, then, obviously the lack of facilities should not form a ground for the decision to be taken by the University, as aforementioned. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs