IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 36947 of 2009(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DR.AJAYIKUMAR BABU T.K., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.CHOYIKUTTY, THAVARAKATTIL HOUSE, MUDAKKALLOOR P.O., ATHOLY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. MR.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU MR.JAGAN GEORGE MR.K.A.NOUSHAD MR.P.G.PRAMOD MR.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON 19/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 36947 of 2009-K - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner who sought for admission/registration for Ph.D. in the quota of teachers from the affiliated colleges under the University of Calicut and aggrieved by the refusal of the University to grant admission as sought for, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts pleaded by the parties are the following: The petitioner is a Lecturer/Tutor in Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Kozhikode. He passed BHMS Degree examination from University of Calicut in the year 1992. He was appointed as a Tutor in Surgery in 1993 and is working as such in the said college. He passed M.D. in Homoeopathy from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad in the year 2006 which is evidenced by Ext.P1. 3. The petitioner sought to register his name for Ph.D. in Phsiology under Dr. E. Sreekumar who is given research guideship in Physiology in the Department of Life Sciences. By a notification published in October 2008, the University invited application for registration for M.Phil/Ph.D. According to the petitioner, the teachers of affiliated colleges need not wpc 36947/2009 2 appear for an entrance examination and Ext.P2 is the copy of the application and Ext.P4 is the consent letter of the Guide Dr. E. Sreekumar. Ext.P6 is the no objection certificate of the college where he is working. According to him, there were four seats for registration for Ph.D. in the Department of Life Sciences and he is the only teacher applied under the category of teachers. 4. Even though the petitioner had been awaiting for a positive reply in the matter and there was undue delay, he filed Ext.P7 representation dated 15.3.2009 to the first respondent, which was followed by Ext.P8 representation dated 20.10.2009. On coming to know from his enquiries that he is not being given registration, he has filed this writ petition. The main prayer is to direct the respondents to admit him for Ph.D. in the first respondent University. 5. Shri Babu Karukapadath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P2 Regulations and pointed out that as far as the petitioner is concerned, no entrance test is prescribed, going by clause 19 of Ext.P2. It is pointed out that the candidates like the petitioner is liable to be admitted automatically in the light of Chapter 8 of the Calicut University First Ordinance, 1978 which makes it clear that the part-time candidates are entitled to get registration for Ph.D. as a matter of right on wpc 36947/2009 3 having prescribed minimum educational qualifications. No candidate who applied in the part-time category was admitted/registered by the University in the Department of Life Sciences as per the notification issued in 2008. Therefore, the petitioner being the lone candidate, is entitled to be admitted to the course. 6. Shri P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that going by the averments in the counter affidavit, the petitioner is not entitled, as only one seat was available for Physiology, for which one Miss. Greeshma C. who got highest marks in the entrance examination, was granted admission. No other seat is vacant also to grant admission to the petitioner. 7. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3 is that the Research Council decision dated 25.11.2008 as item No.4, is a general decision to fill up 60% of the available seats from the eligible applicants as per the Ph.D. admission notification 2008 in all the subjects since facilities available on the Departments are limited. Three scholars were admitted in the Life Science Department where the petitioner was an applicant. Out of the three seats one seat was in Physiology specialization and the other two seats in Microbiology specialization. Ext.R1(a) is the copy of the minutes of the meeting of Research Council held on 25.11.2008. wpc 36947/2009 4 As per item No.5 of Ext.R1(a), it was decided to fill up 50% of the seats by full time research applicants in each subject and the other half was set apart for part time applicants. Since there was only one seat for Physiology Specialisation in Life Sciences Department, that was allotted to a full time applicant, viz. Miss Greeshma, who got 70% marks, which is the highest in the entrance examination. 8. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that for P.G. examination Miss. Greeshma has got 1st class with 72.5% marks where as the petitioner has got only second class in his P.G. Examination. It is further pointed out that Smt. Greeshma’s Specialisation at M.Sc. level is Physiology whereas the petitioner's specialization area is not Physiology at Master level. The petitioner has studied Physiology as a subject at the U.G. level only. 9. Clause 8 of Ext.P2 regulations provides that “the number of candidates to be admitted to the course in a Department shall be decided by the Department Council depending upon the number of supervising teachers in the Department and availability of seats.” It is clear from the minutes of the Research Council produced as Ext.R1(a) that a decision was taken to fill up 60% (156) on the basis of the notification 2008 and the remaining 104 seats will be filled up in July 2009. It is explained in the counter affidavit that this decision was taken in the light of the fact that the wpc 36947/2009 5 facilities in the Department are limited. It cannot be disputed that the same is a bonafide decision on the part of the University, especially since no malafides are alleged. The decision is taken by a responsible body of the University, viz. Research Council. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the said decision of the Research Council, evidenced by Ext.R1(a). Clause 13 of Ext.R1(a) provides for the distribution of fellowship in the first stage I n various teaching departments. 10. As evident from the counter affidavit, as far as Life Science is concerned, there was only one seat and the filling up of the said seat is only in tune with item No.5 of Ext.R1(a) that half of the seats will be set apart for full time research applicants and the other half for part time candidates. Therefore, the petitioner could not get admission since there was a full time applicant for the said seat who was having 72.5% marks in the P.G. examination and was the highest in the entrance examination. It cannot therefore be said that the admission granted to her is in any way illegal or arbitrary. Apart from that, the said candidate is not a party to this writ petition and therefore this Court cannot go into the validity of the admission also. 11. It is contended by Shri Babu Karukapadath that such admission is in violation of the Statutes. But in the light of the view taken already, I wpc 36947/2009 6 need not go into such questions, especially since she is not in the party array. Further, the decision of the academic bodies will have to be respected and this Court will not be justified in imposing its own view to that of the academic bodies or by sit in appeal over their decision. 12. Therefore, the direction sought for by the petitioner to grant admission to him, is not liable to be granted. It is evident from the pleadings in the writ petition itself that in the part time category, nobody has been appointed in the year 2008. As far as admission in 2009 is concerned, it is not clear whether the admission process is complete or not. It is open to the petitioner to apply, if a fresh notification is issued in the matter and if no fresh notification is required, the respondents will consider the claim of the petitioner for admission in the light of the application already submitted and in terms of the various decisions taken by the Research Council. Appropriate reply will be furnished to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) wpc 36947/2009 7 kav/