IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7625 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE MANAGER, VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 660. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 660. 3. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, KERALA LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, TRIVANDRUM-01. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. MR. T. A. SHAJI R3 ADV. MR. MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 7625 OF 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a self financing Engineering College, affiliated to the first respondent University, had applied for affiliation for an additional Course of B.Tech, Civil Engineering, after obtaining necessary clearance from the AICTE. Since the matter was not considered in the positive, the petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) 36152 of 2010 leading to Ext. P1 verdict. Pursuant to the said judgment, the University considered the request and passed an order on 05.01.2011 granting affiliation, however, imposing a condition that the classes should be commenced only during the academic year 2011 - 12.. 2. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 790 of 2011, with a contention that, the petitioner did not intend to provide fresh admission to the students, but for transfer those, who were already admitted in the first year classes in other disciplines, but were ambitious to join B.Tech Civil Engineering and sought to modify the condition as to the commencement of classes, making the affiliation applicable to the current W.P. (C) No. 7625 of 2011 2 academic year as well. After hearing both the sides, the said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext. P3 verdict, paragraphs 3 & 4 of which reads as follows: 3. The Standing Counsel appearing for the University fairly submits that the University imposed the aforesaid condition to ensure that the minimum instructional classes are conducted by the college. It is submitted that since the academic year has already commenced, it will be possible, only if the classes are commenced from the academic year 2011 - 2010. It is submitted that the University could not have contemplated a situation where students already admitted are transferred at the time when Ext. P5 was issued and therefore, if the petitioner has such a case, it is open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the University so that the University will consider the request and take appropriate decision in the matter. 4. Admittedly, subjects taught for all first year B.Tech students, irrespective of the disciplines in which they are admitted, are common. Therefore, if as stated by the petitioner, students who have been already granted admission in other disciplines are desirous of changing their discipline to B.Tech (Civil), and if the petitioner confines admission only to such students, there should not be any difficulty in permitting the petitioner to commence classes this year itself. It take this view for the reason that if such permission is granted, it will not in any manner, affect the requirements of minimum instructional classes. In that view of the matter, prima facie, I see no reason why the petitioner should not be permitted to go ahead with classes this academic year itself on that basis . Be that as it may, fact remains that,t his situation could not have been contemplated by the University at the time when Ext. P5 order of affiliation was issued. W.P. (C) No. 7625 of 2011 3 3. Based on Ext. P3 judgment, the petitioner preferred Ext. P4 and P5 representations before the Registrar and Vice-chancellor of University. Ext. P6 reply was sent by the Registrar of University, pointing out that, the application preferred by the petitioner was defective and not in conformity with the directions contained in Ext. P3 judgment and instructed to file a fresh representation in compliance with the judgment. It was accordingly, that Ext. P7 representation was preferred, which is stated as pending. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court in view of the difficulty expressed from the part of the University in considering Ext. P7, since the Election Commission has announced the election in the due course. 5. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent University and the Election Commission as well. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that, the issue has attained finality as per Ext. P3 judgment dated 28.01.2011, giving appropriate directions to the University. The subsequent steps leading to Ext. P6 are only in the course of curing the defects. The petitioner has cured the defects and preferred Ext. P7 representation. As such the University is bound to give effect to Ext. P3 judgment by passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the University is W.P. (C) No. 7625 of 2011 4 directed to consider Ext. P7 and finalize the proceeding, as specified in Ext. P3 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd