IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 916 of 2009(M) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13360/2008 Dated 01/04/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1, 5 & 6 IN WPC ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN WPC ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SMITHA JOSE, VARIYANIYIL, KOOLARANHI P.O., CALICUT. 2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE COURSE CO-ORDINATOR, M.PHIL DEGREE IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- R.P.916/2009 in W.P.(C).13360/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 ORDER State has filed a review contending that relevant aspects were not brought to the notice of this Court when the matter was heard and judgment was pronounced. 2. Writ petitioners had applied for M.Phil Degree in Clinical Psychology offered by the School of Distance Education, Mahatma Gandhi University. A written test and interview was conducted. The course was contemplated as a direct programme of the School of Distance Education and the prospectus indicated that it was to be conducted in the Mental Health Centre at Thiruvananthapuram. The dispute arose when the Government did not provide the use of facilities in the Mental Health Centre to be availed by the University. In the meanwhile, 'in principle' approval had been granted by the Government. Course was started, but still a Memorandum of Understanding was not entered into between the Government and the University. The course had to be stopped and this was challenged in W.P.(C).31303/2007. R.P.916/09 2 3. University filed a counter affidavit pointing out that it has no objection against entering into a memorandum of Understanding. Government was directed to take a decision in the matter inter alia taking note of the stand taken by the University. The Superintendent of the Mental Health Centre appraised the Government as per Ext.P11 requesting for orders for granting permission to use the facilities in the Mental Health Centre for the conduct of the programme in question. It seems that the University then took a decision, in the wake of the uncertainty that prevailed as regards the availability of the resources in the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, to continue the course in the TMA Institute for Counseling, Amalagiri, Kottayam. This was challenged by the petitioner, in W.P.(C).4855/2008, which was disposed of under Ext.P12 judgment, requiring the Government to take a decision on Ext.P9. Government took a decision as per Ext.P13 observing that Government had granted an 'in principle' approval to use the facilities at Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. This was on condition that Memorandum of Understanding should be signed by the Government and the University. Conditions were not favourable and therefore, Government had proceeded to withdraw the approval. It was Ext.P13 which R.P.916/09 3 was challenged in the writ petition. 4. After taking note of the aforementioned facts, I had observed that the reasons in Ext.P13 do not seem to be convincing. I had also taken note of the specific attitude taken by the University in their counter affidavit and their willingness to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding. This Review Petition has been filed contending that the Government had already taken a decision deciding to withdraw the 'in principle' approval granted earlier and this decision was prevailing even at the time when this Court had delivered Ext.P12 judgment. It was further contended that at any rate, a prior approval of the rehabilitation council is necessary and that has not been obtained in this regard. 5. I had quashed Ext.P13 on the premise that the reasons given by the Government to withdraw the 'in principle' approval granted earlier for conducting a course in M.Phil in Clinical Psychology as a programme of the Distance Education, Mahatma Gandhi University, were not convincing. I had taken note of Ext.P11 recommendations made by the Superintendent of the Mental Health Centre, and the possible benefits that had accrued in favour of the in mates of the R.P.916/09 4 Mental Health Centre itself when the course was conducted. I had also taken note of the fact that the course was being offered by the University itself and not by an affiliated institution. 6. The judgment did not deal with the requirement or otherwise of a prior approval from the rehabilitation council for the conduct of the course in the Mental Health Centre. The judgment also did not deal with whether the Government or the University was responsible for a Memorandum of Understanding not having been finalised and drawn up as indicated in the prospectus to which the students had responded. But the State as also the University, which is an instrumentality of the State are expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner to see that ultimately the interests of the students are not prejudiced. I do not find any warrant to review the judgment in question. Subject to the above Review petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs