IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29778 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.C.T. TRAINING COLLEGE, MELMURI, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 514, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.K.P.ATTAKOYA THANGAL. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE IST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE-560 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. ADV. DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA,SC,NCTE FOR R2 SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. FOR R1 SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC NCTE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29778/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 29.10.2004. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GO(MS) NO.134/2005/H.EDN DT 1.9.2005. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.F.SRO/NCTE/2006-07/3659 DT 5.6.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.MCT/M.ED/85/07-08 DT 10.8.07. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR AFFILIATION OF M.ED COURSE DT 10.8.2007. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 6.11.2007 IN WPC NO.24811 OF 2007. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.F.SRO/NCTE/M.ED/2007-08/14511 DT 12.11.2007. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 13.11.2008 IN W.A.NO.2755 OF 2007. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 21.1.2009 IN COC NO.1732 OF 2008. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 28.5.2009 IN COC NO.1732 OF 2008. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GA1/D1/1368/96 (VOL.II) DT 7.4.2009. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 31.5.2010. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.F.SRO/NCTE/2010-2011/20569 DT 20.8.2010. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 22.9.2010 EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GA/1/G1/1368/96 (VOL-II) POL-II DT 18.9.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29778 OF 2010 (V) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Teacher Training College imparting courses for TTC, B.Ed and M.Ed. In this writ petition, the controversy is regarding the affiliation for enhanced intake capacity for the M.Ed Course. 2. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of the NCTE granting conditional recognition to the petitioner for starting M.Ed Course with a sanctioned intake of 25 seats. Petitioner made application to the respondent University for affiliation, which was declined. 3. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.24811/07. In the writ petition, after hearing the counsel for the University, this Court passed Ext.P6 interim order directing that the petitioner shall be granted affiliation for the M.Ed Course on a provisional basis. Against the said order, University filed WA No.2755/07. During the pendency of that writ appeal, by Ext.P7 order, NCTE granted permanent recognition to the petitioner's college. Subsequently, the writ appeal was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment leaving it open to the parties to WPC No.29778/10 :2 : agitate their claims in the writ petition. 4. Petitioner states that despite all the above, University did not comply with Ext.P6 interim order or grant affiliation to the College. Complaining of the above, they filed COC No.1732/08. By Ext.P9 order, finding that a prima facie case of contempt was made out, the case was referred to the Division Bench. At that stage, University issued Ext.P11 granting provisional affiliation to the petitioner's College, but however, restricting the intake to 18. In view of the above, the contempt petition was closed by Ext.P10 judgment, recording the apology offered on behalf of the respondent. 5. Petitioner submits that on expiry of the period of provisional affiliation, seeking provisional affiliation for the consequent years viz., 2008-09 and 2009-10, applications were submitted, and that the University did not pass orders or communicate the same to the petitioner. 6. While so, NCTE issued Ext.P13 enhancing the minimum intake in the college from 25 to 35, without creation of any additional infrastructural or instructional facilities. By this order, the petitioner was thus permitted to enhance its intake by 10 WPC No.29778/10 :3 : seats. In view of Ext.P13 order of the NCTE, petitioner wanted affiliation to the enhanced intake. 7. Going by the averments in para 20 of this writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that despite repeated requests, the University was unwilling to accept the prescribed application form or fee from the petitioner for admitting the students for the academic year 2010-11. It is stated that, finally the petitioner complained of the above and they were issued Ext.P15 directing the petitioner to submit the application with the requisite fee for the academic year 2011-12 and 2012-13. It is on receipt of Ext.P15, the writ petition is filed seeking to quash the same and to direct the University to accept the prescribed application and fee from the petitioner for granting affiliation for additional intake of students in the M.Ed Course in the petitioner's College for the academic year 2010-11. 8. Counsel for the petitioner contends that since the NCTE has granted its permanent recognition by Ext.P7 and issued Ext.P13 enhancing the intake from 25 to 35, University is bound to grant affiliation to the petitioner's College. In support, counsel also relied on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Vikram WPC No.29778/10 :4 : Sarabhai E.Trust & B.Ed College v. University of Calicut (2008(2) KLT 1027). 9. In the counter affidavit filed, the stand taken by the University is that the petitioner has not submitted any application whatsoever for increase of its intake in terms of the statutory provisions. It is stated that, an application in Form 4 and 5, as the case may be, along with the requisite fee is to be submitted by the College concerned before 31st of October. It is stated that, such an application has not been submitted within the time limit, and that, therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be granted. 10. As already seen, the grievance of the petitioner is that though they wanted to submit the application in the prescribed form and the fee to the University, University was unwilling to accept the same for the academic year 2010-11. There is no statement in the counter affidavit disputing the averment of the petitioner that they attempted to submit the application and that the same was declined. Therefore, I am inclined to think that, this is a case where the University was unjustified in refusing to accept the application form from the petitioner. WPC No.29778/10 :5 : 11. As far as the stand of the University that petitioner ought to have submitted his application for affiliation before 31st of October is concerned, this contention is fully answered against the University in the Full Bench judgment referred to above. Therefore, that contention is also not available to the University. 12. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to apply to the University for issuance of the application in the form prescribed by them, in which event, the same will be issued. It will be open to the petitioner to submit the same along with fee for extending the intake from 25 to 35 relying on Exts.P7 and P13 to the 1st respondent along with the required fee. It is directed that if such an application is made, the University shall accept the same and consider the said application and pass orders on the request of the petitioner for affiliation for the academic year 2010-11. 13. Such orders shall be passed at any rate within four weeks of the date of submission of the application and the fee. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp