IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29184 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- LEAD COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT, DHONI, PALAKKAD - 678 009, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, THOMAS GEORGE.K. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERS FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29184/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/08/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 15/07/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION. EXHIBITP-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID COMMUNICATION DATED 22/10/2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-P5- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/09/2011 IN W.P(C)NO.22737/2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R1(a): PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULATIONS OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRTION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. ANNEXURE R1(b): PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA.IV/E3/633/05 DT 18.8.2010 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29184 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a College affiliated to the 1st respondent University, where with the approval of the AICTE, it is conducting MBA course with an intake of 120 students. It is stated that admission is granted on the basis of an entrance test conducted by the Association of Self Financing Management Institutions in Kerala. It is stated that the petitioner made request to the University to permit admission on the basis of the ranked list prepared in the entrance test thus conducted and that the University has issued Ext.P4 rejecting the request and directing the petitioner to consider only the aptitude tests held as per Clause 3.7 of the MBA Regulations for admission to MBA programme under the management quota for the academic year 2011-12. It is on receipt of Ext.P4 communication from the University, this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to admit students, who have secured the required ranking in the test conducted by the Association of Self Financing Management WPC No. 29184/11 :2 : Institutions in Kerala. There is a further prayer to declare that the MBA Regulations relied on in Ext.P4 are inapplicable to the petitioner's institution as far as the admissions to the management seats are concerned. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the University where they have produced as Annexure R1(a), the regulations framed by the University, which is known as Regulations of Master of Business Administration to be implemented w.e.f. 2009-10 batch admissions. In the Regulations, what is relied on is Clause 3.7, which reads as under; “3.7 The management quota seats shall be filled up after preparing a rank list based on MAT or any of the test approved by the University well in advance or the State Government. The private management institute shall inform the Registrar, University of Calicut and also the Dean, Faculty of Commerce and Management Studies about the Entrance test that the Institute shall use for ranking candidates for the management quota seats.” 3. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that framing of regulations governing the admission and selection and fees payable by the students in the Self Financing Colleges like the petitioner are beyond the power of the WPC No. 29184/11 :3 : University and that only the Government can prescribe regulations governing the same. 4. On the other hand, Standing counsel appearing for the University relied on Clause 9(f) of Chapter 23 of the Calicut University First Statutes, 1977 and contended that at the time of affiliation, the Management had given an undertaking to the University to carry out faithfully, the provisions of the University Act, Statutes, Ordinances, and Regulations and the directions issued by the University from time to time. 5. I have considered the submissions made. 6. Section 68A of the Calicut University Act reads thus; “68A. Special provisions in respect of unaided colleges- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations, rules, bye laws, or orders,- (a) the scales of pay and other conditions of service of the teaching and non-teaching staff of un- aided colleges; and (b) the admission and selection, and fees payable by, students in such colleges, shall be determined, from time to time, by the Government on the basis of the recommendations of a committee constituted by the Government consisting of - WPC No. 29184/11 :4 : (i) one of the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities in the state, nominated by the Government; (ii) the secretary to Government, Higher Education Department (who shall be the convenor of the committee); and (iii) the Director of Collegiate Education.] 7. Admittedly, the College in question is a Self Financing Unaided College. If that be so, having regard to the aforesaid provisions of the Act, in matters governing admission and fees payable to students by colleges like the petitioner can be determined only by the Government and that too on the basis of the recommendations of the committee constituted by the Government in the manner as provided in the Section. 8. Similar provision contained in Section 73A of the Mahatma Gandhi University came up for consideration before this Court in Mar Augusthinose College v. Mahatma Gandhi University (2011(3) KLT 373), where this Court has held that only the Government have power to frame regulations governing admission to Self Financing Colleges. This judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by dismissing WA No.1495/11 filed by the University. Therefore, the contention of WPC No. 29184/11 :5 : the petitioner that Annexure R1(a) cannot be of any application in so far as the management seats of the petitioner college are concerned has to be accepted. 9. In so far as Clause 9(f) of Chapter 23 of the University Statutes is concerned, the regulations or direction issued by the University has to be consistent with the parent Act and any instructions contrary thereto cannot be taken even if there is an undertaking furnished by the petitioner. In such circumstances, Ext.P4 has to be quashed and I do so. Writ petition is allowed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp