IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26825 of 2011(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MANAGER, NEW B.ED. COLLEGE, NELLIMOODU. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 524. BY SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SRI.V. MADHUSUDHANAN, SRI.T. ISSAC. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED SHAH. R2 BY ADV. MR.M. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 26825 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.29776/08. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.B-3/027653/2008 DATED 3.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.SRO/NCTE/2010-11/20789 DATED 27.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, BANGALORE. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.291/10-11 DATED 2.11.2010 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.11.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT.P4 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AC.B1/2/2011 DATED 8.6.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL OF THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 15.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY PROF.P.VISWANATHAN NAIR. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 15.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY DR.THERESA SUSAN. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AC.B1/NEW B.ED/2011-12 DATED 25.7.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.10/NBC/2010 DATED 9.8.2011 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.11/2011-12/NBC DATED NIL OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 26825 of 2011 C ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner is a Self Financing College affiliated to the second respondent University, where B.Ed and M.Ed courses are being conducted. In so far as this writ petition is concerned, all that is relevant to notice is that initially the petitioner was conducting M.Ed course with an intake of 25 students. However, consequent on the amendment of the Regulations of the NCTE, Ext.P3 order was issued increasing the petitioner's intake to 35. Thereupon, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application dated 01-11-2010 to the respondent University for affiliation of the additional intake. Thereupon, the expert team of the University conducted an inspection of the College and recommended affiliation. However, by Ext.P8 communication, the University called upon the petitioner to produce NOC from W.P.(C) No.26825/2011 : 2 : the State Government. In compliance of the said communication, petitioner submitted Ext.P9 request dated 09.08.2011 to the first respondent, seeking NOC for additional intake. However, there was no response from the State Government, as a result of this, the University has not taken any decision on Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the University to pass orders on Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner for affiliation without insisting on NOC from the State Government. 2. In several cases of this nature, it has been clarified by this Court that, obligation of the University is only to seek the views of the Government and there is no obligation either to await for the views or to obtain NOC from the State Government. 3. In such circumstances, the whole exercise emanating from Ext.P8 was unnecessary and the University should have taken a decision on Ext.P4 application based on W.P.(C) No.26825/2011 : 3 : the report submitted by its inspection team. This, the University shall do, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/12/10 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge