IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22737 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGER, (E.K. KURIAN),ELIJAH INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, P.O.PONGANAMKAD, THRISSUR, PIN -680 028. 2. KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST, K.M.C.T. CAMPUS, KOZHIKODE, (REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, DR.K.M.NAVAS). 3. THE CHAIRMAN,(VIJAYAN NAIR), VEDAVYASA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PONNEMPADAM, KARADAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV.SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.MATHEW K. SIMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DIST., PIN- 676 635. 2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 673 635. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.22737/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/5/2007 FROM THE UNIVERSITY ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S COLLEGE. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/8/2010 ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY. P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14/7/2011 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S COLLEGE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22737 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, a communication issued by the 2nd respondent, informing the first petitioner that for admission to MBA Programme under Management quota in affiliated colleges, ASMIK score is not to be considered for the academic year 2011- 2012. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in view of Ext.P1 and also in terms of clause 3.7 of the MBA Regulations referred to in Ext.P3 it is permissible for the petitioners to make admission considering the score in the examination conducted by the Association of Self- Financing Management Institutions in Kerala(ASMIK). 3. However, the Standing Counsel for the respondent, University on instructions submits that clause 3.7 of the regulations require institutions like the W.P.(C) No. 22737 OF 2011 :2 : petitioners to inform the 2nd respondent and also the Deen faculty of Commerce and Management students about the entrance test that the institution shall use for ranking candidates for the management quota seats and that such intimation was not given by the petitioners. On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is that such intimations have been given and in fact communications relied on by the respondents in Ext.P3 itself were referred to substantiate this contention. 4. Be that as it may, according to the University the only objection is that intimation in terms of clause 3.7 of the Regulations was not given. Therefore, if the petitioners give fresh intimations, University can consider those intimations in the light of clause 3.7 of the Regulations and pass orders thereon so that admissions can be completed by the colleges without any further delay in the matter. W.P.(C) No. 22737 OF 2011 :3 : 5. Therefore I direct that it will be open to the petitioners to give intimations in terms of clause 3.7 of the Regulations and that if such intimations are received, the 2nd respondent should consider the same and orders thereon should be passed at any rate within 10 days from the date of receipt of the intimations along with a copy of this judgment. 6. While requiring the petitioners to make intimation as above, I also take note of the contention raised in the pleadings that the MBA Regulations itself are invalid and opposed to 68A of the Calicut University Act. In the nature of the order that I have passed, I have not gone into the merits of the contention raised by the petitioner and it is left open. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge