IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30890 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MADHAVAN FOUNDATION, ELIMALA, KOTTOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SANGEETH S.P. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD RESPONDENT: --------------- THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2007, THE COURT ON 02/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 30890 OF 2007 B ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is for directing the respondent to grant affiliation to the proposed Pushpageeth College for Teachers Education, Elimala, Kottoor for the academic year 2007-08. There is a further prayer to direct the respondent to grant temporary affiliation to the petitioner's College. 2. Petitioner submits that by Ext.P1, Government of Kerala had granted an NOC to it for establishing an Unaided Self Financing B.Ed Training College subject to affiliation of the University and approval of NCTE. Thereafter, petitioner approached NCTE, which granted conditional recognition by Ext.P2. Petitioner submits that in pursuance thereof appointments were made and Ext.P3 is the details of the staff thus appointed in the College. It is stated that thereafter, the WPC 30890/07 :2 : College has been established and it is fully ready to commence the course. Petitioner submits that they had submitted Ext.P4 with necessary details to the University requesting to grant affiliation for the year 2007-08 and as orders were not forthcoming, this writ petition has been filed. 3. University has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner has not given any application for affiliation for 2007-08. It is stated that petitioner had applied for affiliation for the year 2008-09 and that the said application will be considered before 31/12/2007. It is stated that after making an application for 2008-09, petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 letter to consider their application for the previous year viz. 2007-08. It is also the contention of the University that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of Ext.P2 conditional recognition. University submits that, in terms of Ext.P2, appointments to the faculty are to be made by a duly constituted selection committee consisting of representatives of the University. It is stated that this condition has not been complied with by the petitioner and if at all, any appointment has been made, it is in violation thereof. 4. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. In this reply, the WPC 30890/07 :3 : petitioner has not denied the averment of the University that they had applied for affiliation only for 2008-09 and not for 2007- 08. Dealing with the contention of the University that the petitioner has violated the terms of conditional recognition in making appointments, petitioner refers to Ext.P5, an order of the NCTE granting it conditional recognition. On this basis, petitioner would submit that the University's plea of the petitioner having violated the terms of Ext.P2 has no force. 5. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the University. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once NCTE has granted its recognition, it is not open to the University to decline affiliation. For this purpose, counsel made reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Maha Vidyalaya & Others (2006(9) SCC 1). It is true that the Apex Court has held that in the matter of Teacher Education, it is covered by the regulations framed by the NCTE and the University Regulations to the extend it is contrary to the regulations framed by the NCTE are invalid. In my view, such WPC 30890/07 :4 : issues do not arise for consideration in this case. What the petitioner now ask for is affiliation by the University, which is also a precondition for commencing the course. Necessarily, the affiliation could be granted only on an application submitted to the University. In this case, while the petitioner seeks affiliation for the year 2007-08 entirely relying on Ext.P4, University would on its part, submit that the petitioner had applied for affiliation only for 2008-09. In the reply affidavit filed, petitioner does not dispute his averment. 7. That apart, since the petitioner is relying on Ext.P4 as the application made for affiliation for the year 2007-08, a closer look at Ext.P4 is necessary. Ext.P4 is only a letter from the petitioner to the Registrar of the University. In Ext.P4, it is stated that they have been granted conditional recognition and that they have understood that the time for making application for affiliation for the year 2007-08 has already expired. Despite this, petitioner states that they have provided all facilities for starting a college and it will be a humanitarian consideration if they are considered for affiliation for 2007-08. On this basis, petitioner has requested the University “to issue the application WPC 30890/07 :5 : form for affiliation for the current year 2007-08”. 8. Therefore, Ext.P4 cannot be taken as an application for affiliation, but is only a request for issuing an application for affiliation for the year 2007-08. Evidently therefore what turns out is that the petitioner has not made any valid application to the University for affiliation for the year 2007-08. If that be the factual position, petitioner cannot, in the absence of a valid application to the University for affiliation for the year 2007-08, ask for affiliation. 9. In the result, I must hold that the petitioner is not entitled to a direction requiring the University to consider their case for affiliation for the year 2007-08. However, this will not exonerate the University from its obligation to consider the application made by the petitioner for 2008-09. Writ petition fails and is dismissed subject to the above observations. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp