IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 2311 OF 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24327/2009 Dated 05/10/2009 APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. THANAGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KOLLAM 691005, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN SHAHUL H. MUSALIAR. ADDL. R2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.10.2009) ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. 2311 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair,J. This writ appeal is filed by the Cochin University of Science & Technology, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the University to grant provisional recognition for the additional intake of students in the B.Tech. degree course in Electronics and Communication Engineering and also the newly introduced M.Tech degree course in VLSI and Embedded Systems in the first respondent's Engineering College. 2. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the university, Government Pleader appearing for the State and Mr. George Poonthottam, counsel appearing for the first respondent College. 3. It is conceded position that the statutory agency namely, the All India Council for Technical Education ( AICTE) , after inspection, was satisfied about the infrastructural and instructional facilities available with the first respondent for the increased intake capacity in B.Tech degree course in the subject stated above and for starting M.Tech. course in the subject above stated in the first respondent's college. Therefore, they granted approval for commencement of post-graduate course and also for WA 2311/2009 2 increase in the intake capacity in B.Tech course in the subject above stated. Even though the first respondent approached the University for recognition of post graduate course and for increased intake of students in B.Tech in the subject referred above, the University declined the same for the reason that NOC was not obtained from the Government, which, under the University Rule, is mandatory. Government Pleader appearing for the State produced before us a copy of the NOC granted by the Government for the post graduate course, which is for the academic year 2010-2011. We are told that separate NOC is issued for the increased intake of students in the B.Tech course in the subject above referred also for the next academic year. The University can not have any objection in granting recognition for the next academic year, that is, 2010-11, because NOC is already obtained. Therefore, the only question that arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether the approval granted by the Government for 2010-11 should be made effective for the current academic year 2009-2010. 4. Learned Single Judge considered the first respondent's entitlement for commencement of the courses for the academic year 2009-2010 and declared their eligibility. 5. We notice that the whole scheme for commencement of the new WA 2311/2009 3 courses and for increase in the number of students in existing courses is possible through the involvement of three agencies ie., the AICTE, the University and the Government. In our view, the most important requirement for an educational institution for commencement of new courses or for increase in the intake of students in the existing courses is the availability of facilities - both infrastructural and instructional. The statutory authority concerned with this, is the AICTE and once the AICTE, on inspection, is satisfied about the existence of the facilities in the College, then the balance left with the University is to grant affiliation for the additional course or for the increased in take of students in running courses. So far as the Government's role is concerned, it is only concerned with issue of NOC and what is clear from the NOC granted from the Government is that, in principle, Government has no objection in the first respondent starting a new course in Post Graduate degree and in increasing the intake of students in the B.Tech course concerned. If the policy of the Government is to grant NOC for 2010-2011, we see no reason why this benefit could not be extended for one year prior to that, for which the first respondent has applied for. Since the first respondent started the course, that too, after taking 50% of students from the select list prepared by the WA 2311/2009 4 Government for the B.Tech course, we see no reason why the first respondent could be declined recognition by the University for the course commenced in the academic year 2009-2010 and in our view, the Government should not have confined the grant of NOC for the next academic year. Instead it should have granted NOC from 2009-2010 onwards. 6. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring the eligibility of the first respondent to commence the course in Post Graduate decree and increase in the intake of students for the B.Tech course which is declined only on account of want of NOC by the Government for the academic year 2009-2010. Since we have found that the Government has granted recognition for the next academic year which, in our view, should apply for the academic year 2009-2010 as well, we uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge and declare that the NOC granted by the Government for both, that is for the additional course in M.Tech and also for the increased intake of students in the B Tech Courses is valid for 2009-2010 as well. However, we make it clear that the University is free to ask for NOC in terms of the rules as and when educational institutions apply for recognition for new courses or for WA 2311/2009 5 increase in number of students in the existing courses. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE).