IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16529 of 2011(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR.R. PRAKASH, S/O.P.K. RAGHAVAN, AGED 55 YEARS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ROGANIDANA, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 301. BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY, SRI.M.P.RAJU, SMT.ANNIE GEORGE. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 034. 2. THE DEPARTMENTAL DOCTORAL COMMITTEE- AYURVEDA, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 034. 3. DR.M.A. SHAJAHAN M.D.(AY.)PH.D., PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 16529 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).3999/10/H&FWD DATED 07/10/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AC.E1.B1.16273/2010 DATED 08/12/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE FEE RECEIPT DATED 03/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION (ALONG WITH THE SYNOPSIS) BEARING SERIAL NO.5144 DATED 03/01/2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04/01/2011. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 04/01/2011. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 04/01/2011 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF THE ETHICAL COMMITTEE FOR PH.D. IN AYURVEDA. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE REGULATIONS AS PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY IN ITS WEBSITE. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE PRINT OUT FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE UNIVERSITY REGARDING COURSES AND ADMISSION FOR RESEARCH REGISTRATIONS. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24/05/2011. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/07/2011. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES APPLYING FOR REGISTRATION FOR RESEARCH LEADING TO PH.D./M.SC. (ENGINEERING) BY RESEARCH DEGREE. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE AMENDMENT TO CLAUSE (7) OF THE REGULATIONS. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 16529 of 2011 M ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is a Post Graduate in Ayurveda and is an Associate Professor in the Government Ayurveda College at Thripunithura. Pursuant to a notification issued by the University, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for registration as a research student leading to Ph.D. Degree. That application of the petitioner was finally returned by Ext.P11 memo, pointing out three defects and requiring the petitioner to rectify the same. It is on receipt of Ext.P11, this writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash Ext.P11 and to direct the respondents to grant him registration as sought for by him. 2. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the petitioner has also filed his reply affidavit. I have heard the counsel appearing for both sides and considered their submissions. W.P.(C) No.16529/2011 : 2 : 3. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, challenge is against Ext.P11, by which, the application made by the petitioner for registration is returned, pointing out three defects. If the defects are found to be unsustainable or already cured, necessarily, the application made by the petitioner is liable to be considered by the Doctoral Committee. 4. The first defect pointed out in Ext.P11 is that the guide proposed by the petitioner has the maximum number of research scholars working under him and hence has no vacancy. It is directed that therefore, the petitioner has to select another recognised guide, obtain his consent and proforma and produce the same. The contention of the petitioner is that in Ext.P9 Regulations, it is provided that, once applications are received for registration, the applicants should be interviewed and only after the applicants are so interviewed, then and then alone can it be decided whether the research guide chosen has more than the prescribed W.P.(C) No.16529/2011 : 3 : number of research students. It is stated that interview has not been conducted so far and, therefore, the objection now raised is premature. Though the Regulations are not disputed by the respondents, in the counter affidavit filed, they say that the guide submitted a list of five research students and that the maximum number of students under the guide has been limited to 5. According to the respondents, it was therefore that they issued the memo calling upon the petitioner and the other students who have also nominated the third respondent as their guide to choose another guide. 5. As already seen, from Exts.P6 and P7, it appears that the petitioner chose the third respondent as his guide with his consent only. Be that as it may, the question whether the third respondent has more than the prescribed number of students can be determined only after research students are interviewed and selected. Therefore, at this stage, the fact that the petitioner has nominated the third respondent by itself, cannot render his application a defective one. W.P.(C) No.16529/2011 : 4 : Therefore, it is premature to say that the application of the petitioner is defective for that reason. 6. The second objection stated in Ext.P11 is that the petitioner should produce Facility Certificate from the Head of the Centre. This objection has been raised for the reason that the petitioner has indicated in the application that he proposes to conduct his research at the Government Ayurveda College, Thripunithura, whereas, according to the respondents, the only approved Research Centre is Government Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is, therefore, submitted that the Facility Certificate, which the petitioner should produce, should be from the approved Centre and that what is produced by the petitioner is insufficient. 7. Counsel for the petitioner now points out at the Bar that the petitioner has already obtained a Facility Certificate from the approved Centre on 31.08.2011 and that the same has been produced before the first respondent. If this be W.P.(C) No.16529/2011 : 5 : factually correct, the aforesaid objection raised viz., want of a Facility Certificate from an approved Centre, no longer survives and the application of the petitioner can be considered ignoring the said objection. 8. The third objection raised in Ext.P11 is that the petitioner should produce Ethical Committee Clearance Report. This objection has been raised by the respondents relying on Ext.R1(c), which is an amendment to Ext.P9 Regulations. The relevant portion of Ext.R1(c) reads thus:- “The registration for research will be granted only subject to the production of clearance from the Institution/ University Level Ethical Committee.” From this itself, it is obvious that the production of the Ethical Committee Clearance Report is necessary only prior to the grant of registration and not for maintaining an application for registration. If that be so, the third objection raised in Ext.P11 also is premature. 9. In that view of the matter, the application made by W.P.(C) No.16529/2011 : 6 : the petitioner is liable to be considered provided, as contended by the counsel, the Facility Certificate from an approved Institution has already been produced by him. 10. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the first respondent shall consider Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner, provided the Facility Certificate dated 31.08.2011, claimed to have been obtained by the petitioner from the approved research Centre, has been produced by him. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/20/09 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge