IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16413 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MANAGER KURIAKOSE ELIAS COLLEGE, MANNANAM. 2. PRINCIPAL KURIAKOSE ELIAS COLLEGE MANNANAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.G.UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR KOTTAYAM. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. DIRECTOR SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION M.G.UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. BY SC SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).16413/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.A Shaji, learned standing counsel appearing for the University. 2. Petitioners are the Manager and Principal of a college affiliated to M.G University. The college offers various courses. At the time of de-linking of Pre- degree courses, it was left with surplus of infrastructural facilities. This apparently was the situation in several other colleges. It therefore came about that the University was approached by many of these colleges for permission to start Off Campus centres offering either the courses which were already offered or new courses. Accordingly by Exhibit-P1 communication the university granted sanction to the affiliated colleges to start study centres in the following manner. W.P.(C).16413/2009 2 “With the experience of running several academic programmes through distance education mode, we are now planning to expand its wings to the affiliated colleges from this academic year onwards. With the delinking of Pre-degree courses, most of the affiliated colleges will have surplus infrastructure. Moreover, the existing infrastructure facilities are also under-utilised. Affiliated colleges will be permitted to start Study Centres to conduct the courses run by the School of Distance Education, including IT, Management, conventional and non-conventional courses, as per existing terms and conditions. Further details can be obtained from the Director, School of Distance Education (Tel.95481- 561743) or from the Joint Registrar, Self Financing Schools (95-481-595031). 3. Petitioners point out that the college had intimated the university of their intention to start a study centre of the University under the School of Distance Education referring to surplus infrastructure W.P.(C).16413/2009 3 facilities to run a good number of courses. The allotment of those courses was confirmed and accordingly petitioners entered into a Memorandum of Understanding. It is contended that the terms of the Memorandum would indicate that both the University and the College had in mind a long standing arrangement in the matter of running Off Campus centres. That is why the petitioners made capital investment to establish the off campus centre within the campus where colleges are being run. While so, Exhibit-P5 order has been issued by the M.G University referring to the decision of the Syndicate Sub Committee on Self Financing Institutions in the matter of re-formulation of the policy of the University on Off Campus Study Centres. Reference is made specific to clause 4 of Exhibit-P5 which reads as follows: “Colleges affiliated to this University shall not be permitted to run Off-campus Centres within its campus. The affiliated colleges, which had already started Off Campus W.P.(C).16413/2009 4 centres within its campus, shall be permitted to continue the courses till the completion of the present batches. If new admissions under the Off-Campus stream are to be made, they have to run the course outside the campus of the affiliated college” 4. It is contended that clause 4 of Exhibit-P5 visits the petitioners with serious difficulties. It is even otherwise arbitrary and irrational. Off-campus centres were permitted to be established in the campus where regular colleges are being run taking note of the fact that the otherwise existing infrastructural facilities would be rendered surplus and waste. That was approved in the wake of de-linking of Pre-degree courses. No complaints have been received from any quarters regarding the running of Off-campus centres utilising the existing facilities. 5. It is further contended that, at any rate, assuming that the University had re-formulated the W.P.(C).16413/2009 5 policy a much more reasonable time should have been afforded to shift the Off campus centres to different areas. The petitioners' are self financing institution and it will be seriously harmed in the management in its affairs, if it is compelled to render the existing facilities unnecessary and a waste and if they required to find out other areas having the same facility to offer Off- campus centres. These aspects have been highlighted in Exhibit-P7 representation submitted by the 2nd petitioner before the University. In effect the petitioners seek time, to shift the existing Off-campus centre to a different area. In other words, the petitioners have sought for deferring implementation of clause 4 of Exhibit-P5. 6. Having considered the averments in the writ petition and having heard the counsel on both sides, I am of the view that there is substance in the contention raised by the petitioners that a sudden change of policy, as contemplated by clause 4 of W.P.(C).16413/2009 6 Exhibit-P5 will seriously affect the functioning of Off- campus centres established by the petitioner. I also take note of the fact that Exhibit-P5 policy does not reveal any other overwhelming factor which should have persuaded the University to interdict the running of Off-campus centres with the existing facilities in spite of the fact that specific permission was granted in that regard in the year 2001. This is not to say that the University cannot formulate or change it's own policy. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Syndicate of the M.G. University to consider Exhibit-P7 with all earnestness and sincerity in the light of the observations made in the judgment and take a decision in the matter of deferring implementation of clause 4 of Exhibit-P5, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Implementation of clause 4 of Exhibit-P5 shall be kept in abeyance in so far the petitioners are W.P.(C).16413/2009 7 concerned till a decision is taken by the Syndicate of the University as aforementioned. A representative of the petitioners shall be heard by the Syndicate of the University before a final decision is taken in the matter. Petitioners shall be entitled to supplement Ext.P9 with a more comprehensive representation. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs