IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 W.A.No.1731 of 2011 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C).19319/2011DATED 3.10.2011 .................... APPELLANTS (RESPONDENTS 5 & 6):- -------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.E.S PONNANI COLLEGE, PONNANI SOUTH P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- PIN- 679 586, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL 2. THE PRINCIPAL,M.E.S PONNANI COLLEGE, PONNANI SOUTH P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- PIN- 679 586. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENTS (PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ):- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HASHIR ABDULLA, HARSHA NIVAS, NEAR AISWARYA MOVIES, BIYYEM P.O., BIYYEM , PONNANI, MALAPPURAM-680 520 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT P.O., PIN 673 635 3. REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT P.O., PIN 673 635 4. A.C. KUNHIMON HAJI MEMORIAL I.C.A. COLLEGE, THOZHIYUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 680 520, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL 5. THE PRINCIPAL, A.C. KUNHIMON HAJI MEMORIAL I.C.A. COLLEGE, THOZHIYUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 680 520 R1 BY ADV. SRI. K.B. ARUNKUMAR R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. SANTHOSH MATHEW, R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.RAJITH BABU, THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.N.Ramachandran Nair & K.Vinod Chandran, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.A.No.1731 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this, the 14th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair,J.: The appellants have filed this Writ Appeal against the observations in the judgment that the University can initiate appropriate action against the appellant, if found necessary, for the withdrawal of the commitment given to the 1st respondent to admit him on transfer from another college. 2. We have heard counsel for the appellants, Standing Counsel for the University and also the counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. 1st respondent, student in the 4th respondent College, requested for a transfer to the appellant's College after completion of 1st year study in B.Com. Even though the appellants agreed for that transfer and the University approved the same, the appellants backed out because of the protest from other students of the College and also the decision of the Staff Council not to take the 1st respondent and another student who also submitted an application for transfer to the appellants' College. Even though the learned Single Judge upheld the appellants' decision to revoke their earlier decision to permit transfer of the 1st respondent to their college, the learned Single Judge made an observation that the University can take W.A.No.1731 of 2011 - 2 - appropriate action against the appellants, if it desires. It is against this observation that the appellants have filed this Writ Appeal. 4. During hearing, learned counsel for the University submitted that the University has not taken any decision to take action against the appellants. However, the appellants' concern is on the freedom given by the learned Single Judge for the University to proceed against the appellant-College for revoking the permission granted to the 1st respondent to join the appellant-College on transfer from 4th respondent. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were compelled to revoke the earlier decision because of protest by students, supported by Staff Council resolution. The counsel for the 1st respondent opposed the claim of the appellants by stating that other students have no right to protest against his transfer. 5. After hearing counsel appearing for all parties, we are inclined to uphold the stand of the appellants that if the peaceful atmosphere in the College is affected by transfer of a student from another college, certainly the management will be free to revoke such a transfer. No student has a right to get a transfer to a college under the same University; even though affiliated colleges under the same University should certainly accommodate students going on transfer from one college to another considering the convenience of the student and if a seat is available in the respective college to which transfer is sought. However, if the transfer of a W.A.No.1731 of 2011 - 3 - student will lead to protest from other students and for that reason the Staff Council advises the management not to precipitate with the problems in the college by transferring a student, then certainly the management can revoke their earlier decision and decline permission for transfer the applicant. In this case, the appellants are justified in revoking their earlier decision because besides protest from other students of the appellant-College, even the Staff Council advised the management against the induction of the 1st respondent. In this situation, we do not think, the University can take any action against the College, the appellants, who are only protecting the interest of the students and the teachers as a whole. In our view, the appellants are well within their rights to deny admission to a student, if they are satisfied that the same will lead trouble for their College. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent of deleting the impugned observations of the learned Single Judge. C.N.Ramachandran Nair Judge K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/-