IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31163 of 2008(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BASELIOUS MARTHOMA MATHEWS II TRAINING COLLEGE, PULAMON PO., KOTTARAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL MR.ROY.G. BY ADV. MR.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- UNIVERSITY OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31163/2008 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) BY LETTER NO.12004/B3/95/H.EDN. DTD. 24/10/1995. EXT.P2: COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.AC.B1/2451/MISC/2002 DTD. 12/04/2002. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER NO.F./SRO/NCTE/98-99 DTD. 8/09/98. EXT.P4: COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 26/08/2004. EXT.P5: COPY OF RECEIPT NO.68145 DTD. 31/08/2004. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.47/2005/H.EDN. DTD. 27/04/2005. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER NO.F.SRO/NCTE/M.ED./2007-2008/3765 DTD. 6/06/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF LETTER NO.AC.F.V./14277/06 DTD. 30/05/06. EXT.P9: COPY OF LETTER NO.AC.F.B/14277/06 DTD. 21/06/06. EXT.P10: COPY OF LETTER N.AC.F.1.1/2006 DTD. 5/12/06. EXT.P11: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 16/06/2007. EXT.P12: COPY OF LETTER NO.AC.B.3/2007 DTD. 4/08/2007. EXT.P13: COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 23/08/2007. EXT.P14: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 27/02/2008 IN WPC.NO.32513 OF 2007. EXT.P15: COPY OF FRESH APPLICATION DTD. 9/11/2007. EXT.P16: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 1/07/2008 IN WPC.NO.32153 OF 2007. EXT.P17: COPY OF ORDER NO.AC.B3/23488/2008 DTD. 26/08/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31163 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Self-financing B.Ed College affiliated to the respondent University. It submitted Exhibit P4 application for affiliation for M Ed. Course. Exhibit P6 is the NOC issued by the Government and Exhibit P7 is the recognition granted by the NCTE. 2. According to the petitioner by Exhibit P8, in response to the request of the petitioner for a panel of subject experts, the University forwarded a panel of five subject experts. Availing of the service of one of the subject experts thus made available by the University for the appointments made the petitioner constituted a selection committee and selected and appointed seven teachers. Thereafter, the petitioner sought approval of the University for the appointments made and the University by Exhibit P10 informed the petitioner that the proposal for approval of the teachers mentioned therein for M.Ed courses at the petitioners college is under consideration of the University. 3. There was no progress either on Exhibit P4 application W.P.(C) No.31163/ 2008 2 for affiliation or on the request for approval made by the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P11, requesting to pass orders on their applications for affiliation and also for approval of the appointment of teaching faculties. 4. However, affiliation was rejected by Exhibit P12,which reads as follows: “Please refer to the subject cited. This is to inform you that as per the provisions contained in the Kerala University First Statutes 1977 the application for affiliation of a new course submitted for the academic year (2005-2006) cannot be considered for the academic year 2007-2008. Further, the statutorily prescribed last date for submitting an application for affiliation for the year 2007-2008 was August 31,2006. Hence, you may submit a fresh application in the prescribed format which can be had from this office for affiliation of M.Ed Course for the academic year 2008- 2009 within 31st August 2007. ” 5. In view of the stand taken in Exhibit P12, that the application ought to be made within the time specified in the W.P.(C) No.31163/ 2008 3 Chapter 24 of the University Statutes, petitioner states that they submitted ExhibitP13 application for affiliation for the academic year 2008-2009. Thereafter, they filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) No.32513 of 2007. Exhibit P14 is the counter affidavit filed by the university. A reading of Exhibit P14 shows that, according to the University the petitioner had not submitted any application for affiliation for the course during the year 2006- 2007 and 2007-2008 and that the University could not grant affiliation with retrospective effect. Proceeding further, the University states that they had received Exhibit P13 application for the year 2008-2009 and that the same will be considered. 6. The writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P16 judgment, taking note of the above stand of the University and directing the University to take a decision on Exhibit P13 for 2008-2009 and communicate the same to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In pursuance to the judgment, Exhibit P17 order is passed. The relevant portion of which reads as follows: “ I am to inform you that the Syndicate, University of Kerala vide reference cited (2), resolved not to grant W.P.(C) No.31163/ 2008 4 affiliation to the new M.Ed. Course in Baselious Marthoma Mathews II Training College, Kottarakkara due to the following deficiencies pointed out by the inspection Commission vide referenced cited(3). 1.Teaching faculty for M.Ed Degree course is not appointed as per the NCTE norms. 2.Library books are not adequate for M.Ed Course, Reference books, encyclopedias, text books, journals etc. available in the library are inadequate for M.Ed. students when admitted. No international journal is available in the library. 3. Independent staff room with adequate seating arrangements for teaching faculty of M.Ed Course is not done in this college. 4.Separate labs are not set up even for the B.Ed Course, Psychological tests seen in the Psychology lab are not sufficient for use of PG students. The laboratory requirements are not fulfilled for M.Ed course. ” 4. A reading of Exhibit P17 reveals that the reasons W.P.(C) No.31163/ 2008 5 stated therein are new ones, which were not stated by the University either in Exhibit P12 or in Exhibit P14 counter affidavit. It is challenging Exhibit P17 and for a direction to the respondent, University to grant affiliation as prayed for, this writ petition has been filed. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contends that their institution have already obtained recognition from NCTE, as per Exhibit P7 and therefore, the University is bound to grant affiliation, in view of the provisions contained in Section 14(6)(a) of the NCTE Act and judgment of the full bench of this Court in Vikram Sarabhai E. Trust & B.Ed. College Vs. University of Calicut [2008(2)KLT 1027]. 8. The University has filed a counter affidavit. According to the University on receipt of Exhibit P13 application made by the petitioner for the year 2008-2009, the Inspection Commission inspected the college of the petitioner and submitted Exhibit R1(a) report. It is stated that certain inadequates were noticed by the Inspection Commission and it was therefore, that application had to be rejected by Exhibit P17. Counsel for the University referring to Exhibit R1(a) report submitted by the W.P.(C) No.31163/ 2008 6 Inspection Commission, contends that the management neither presented the teaching faculty nor produced even their appointment letters/related certificates for verification before the Inspection Commission. 9. I am not impressed by the arguments of the Counsel for the University. This is primarily for the reason that the University itself had deputed subject experts for selection of the faculty in the M. Ed college as per Exhibit P10. Selection committee was accordingly constituted and that consisted of University's subject experts also. Selection Committee selected and made appointments and petitioner sought approval of the University for the appointments thus made. Considering the approval application made, University issued Exhibit P10 dated 5/12/2008 stating that approval is under consideration. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner made appointment was well known to the University. If that be so, there is no substance in the objections now raised that the petitioner had not produced teaching faculty before the Inspection commission or that the facility provided by the college was inadequate. Further, a full bench of this Court, in the judgment referred above, held that W.P.(C) No.31163/ 2008 7 where recognition has been granted by NCTE, the University is bound to grant affiliation Vide paragraph 11,13 and 15 of the Judgment. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that there is no justification for Exhibit P17 order declining affiliation to the petitioner and therefore, said order is quashed. The University shall grant affiliation sought for by the petitioner based on Exhibit P7 recognition granted by NCTE and orders shall be passed at any rate within 4 weeks of production of copy of this judgment. However, this shall be conditional that the college shall produce a list of persons who have been appointed as Principal and teaching faculty for the M.Ed. College. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm