IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 2857 of 2007 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.1833/2007 DATED 04/07/2007 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.M.G.JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER BENNY GERVACIS. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 & 5: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE MANAGER, MOUNT TABOUR TRANING COLLEGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHER EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SOUTHERN REGION, 1ST FLOOR, C.S.D BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, - R3, ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE - R1. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.2857 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J: The learned Single Judge found that students were admitted in the B.Ed Course as per the allocation made and as per the Common Entrance Examination and 220 is the students strength. At paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment it is stated as follows: “The Government has also admitted students in petitioner's institution from the merit list prepared on the basis of the Common Entrance Examination, accepting 220 as the student strength in the said institution. If that be the position, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in refusing to sanction sufficient staff strength in the institution.” The learned Single Judge found that 17 teachers are needed in consonance with the norms formulated by the NCTE. Therefore 17 teachers have to be appointed. Since judgment was not implemented, a contempt petition was filed. At that time, it was submitted that the judgment would be complied with. Thereafter a petition was filed for more time for implementing the judgment. W.A.NO.2857/07 . 2 Thereafter this writ appeal is filed. In the writ appeal, at the time of admission, 15 teachers were directed to be appointed and the 1st respondent was directed to file statement regarding sanctioned strength of students and number of vacancies. That was filed in the form of an affidavit along with I.A. Staff strength and students strength are shown in Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). 2. Considering the above view, We are of the opinion that no different view is possible other than that was taken by the learned Single Judge. We see no ground to differ from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We also note that submission of the appellants that the judgment will be implemented, then asking for time and then questioning the judgment is not complementary to a welfare State. The writ appeal is dismissed. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl W.A.NO.2857/07 . 3