IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23556 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ASHOKAN. M.C., MANAGER, KERALA EDUCATIONAL TRUST COLLEGE OF TEACHER, EDUCATION, ULLIYERI P.O., KOYLANDI VIA, KOZHIKODE-673 323. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER, SRI.JACOB CHACKO. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DT., PIN- 673 635. 3. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, REGIONAL COMMITTEE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, PIN- 560 031. 4. MANAGER, CENTRAL COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, POONATH P.O., ADUVANNUR (VIA), KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673 614. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J. RAJASREE. R2 BY ADV. MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 23556 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/11/2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 28/07/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/07/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/07/2011 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J .............................................. W.P.(C).23556/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Manager of a B.Ed College. According to the petitioner, when his College was functioning at a rent premises, the second respondent initiated steps for cancellation of the affiliation. His grievance is that the same yardstick is not applied in so far as the fourth respondent is concerned. Petitioner alleges that he made Exts.P4 and P5 representations before respondents 2 and 3 and that even the representations are not attended to. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. The facts noticed above itself disclose that it is neither for the interest in the quality of eduction nor the interest of the students, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Be that as it may, if such a complaint has been received and is pending, it is for the authority to take appropriate action in the matter. With the above clarification, writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs