IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18774 of 2008(I)
1. GIRIDEEPAM INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :29/07/2008
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
==================
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether
the petitioner – college is entitled to get affiliation for the
course of B.Com (Computer Applications), Master of
Business Administration (MBA), Master of Tourism
Administration (MTA), Master of Social Work (MSW) and
Master of Financial Administration (MFA) from the 1st
respondent – University. The petitioner applied for
affiliation of these courses for the year 2006-2007. Even
after a long time, since affiliation was not granted, the
petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C)No.4671 of
2008. In that writ petition the University took the
contention that as per the University statutes views of
Government has to be ascertained in the matter for which
the Government had been addressed which views are yet to
be received. After considering that contention, this court by
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 2 –
Ext.P9 judgment took the view that since a lot of time had
lapsed since the Government were addressed in the matter
it is not necessary to wait for the views of the Government
any more and the University was directed to consider the
applications for affiliation. Exts.P1 and P2 are the
applications for affiliation submitted by the petitioner for
the above courses. This court in Ext.P9 judgment directed
the University to consider those applications for grant of
affiliation and to take a decision in the matter within two
months from the date of production of a copy of the
judgment. Thereafter Ext.P10 order was passed, pursuant
to the directions in Ext.P9 judgment rejecting the
applications for affiliation on the following grounds:
(a) The existing manpower available on the
University cannot cope with the additional work
consequent on the sanctioning of new unaided
colleges/courses.
(b) Lack of permanent teaching faculty for the
conduct of evaluation of exams.
(c) The increasing instances of irregular admissions
in unaided institutions and also pending before the Hon’ble
Courts.”
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 3 –
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order in the writ
petition.
2. The petitioner first of all contend that by Ext.P4, the
very same University who have now issued Ext.P10 order,
had on 14.1.2008 recommended the said courses to the
Government of Kerala and sought the views of the
Government. Therefore, according to the petitioner the
University cannot now turn around and take a stand that
they will not grant affiliation. The counsel for the petitioner
would contend that at the time of issuing Ext.P4 they had no
objection whatsoever for affiliation of these courses,
subject to Government views in the matter. Now that this
court had by Ext.P9 judgment dispensed with the
Government views on the said recommendation and the
University cannot now take a different stand.
3. The petitioner would further point out that, that
recommendation itself was passed on the report of the
commission who inspected the petitioner’s college for the
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 4 –
facilities available and after completing all the formalities
prescribed under the University statutes for such affiliation.
4. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that
on the basis of an exactly identical direction of this court as
in Ext.P9 judgment, in the case of another college namely
JPM Arts & Science College, Labbakkada, Idukki, the very
same University had granted affiliation to a new college
itself in the unaided sector, by Ext.P11 order. The counsel
for the petitioner would contend that after granting
affiliation to a college itself in the unaided sector, the
University cannot be heard to contend that they will not
grant affiliation to the petitioner’s additional courses.
5. The counsel for the petitioner would also attack the
reasons mentioned in the impugned order for denying
affiliation as unsustainable. As far as the first reason is
concerned the Counsel for the petitioner would contend
that, as is clear from Ext.R1(b) University order itself, the
University itself had permitted affiliation to colleges and
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 5 –
courses in Government, Co-operative and aided sector. He
would submit that as far as man power is concerned there
cannot be any difference between Government/aided/
co-operative sector on the one hand and self financing
sector on the other. Regarding the second reason also he
would raise the very same contention. As far as the third
reason is concerned he would submit that the possibility of
malpractice by unscrupulous managements cannot be a
ground for denying affiliation to all. Regarding the fourth
reason mentioned in Ext.P10, the counsel for the petitioner
would point out that the same also appears to be hollow in
view of Exts.P12,P13 and P14, list of colleges which
themselves have been prepared on the basis of data
available in Ext.P15 diary published by the University itself.
He was pointed out that in Ext.P12, out of 28 colleges
offering course in B.Com (Computer Application), only three
are in the aided sector. In Ext.P13 out of 12 colleges
offering MTA course, all of them are in the unaided sector.
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 6 –
In Ext.P14 out of 20 colleges offering MBA course only
three are in the aided sector. Therefore, the petitioner
would contend that the 4th reason mentioned in Ext.P10 is
also without any basis. After referring to the decision of the
Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar’s case, Counsel would argue
that the said action of the University amounts to
discrimination, which is clearly prohibited as per the
Supreme Court judgment.
6. In answer to the contentions of the petitioner, the
Standing Counsel for the University would submit that
Ext.P10 order has been issued on very valid consideration
as stated in the order itself. He would contend that the
University is functioning with lots of constraints regarding
man power and therefore additional courses or colleges in
the self financing sector cannot be affiliated for want of
sufficient man power. He would submit that the case of
colleges and courses in the Government, aided and co-
operative sectors stands on a different footing since as per
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 7 –
Government policy they are bound to affiliate colleges and
courses which cannot be cited as discrimination as against
self financing colleges and courses. The same according to
him applies to the 2nd reason also. On the 3rd reason he
points out various instances of irregular admissions made
by self financing colleges in respect of which several writ
petitions are pending before this court and he would
therefore submit that the same is a very valid consideration
for denying affiliation to the courses now offered by the
petitioner for which they want affiliation. He supports the
4th reason mentioned in Ext.P10 also.
7. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
8. At the outset I must note that the courses which the
petitioner seeks affiliation of are new generation courses
having plenty of employment potential, in a State where
unemployment is ever increasing. I am of opinion that
conduct of such courses should be encouraged as far as
possible.
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 8 –
9. The petitioner has been fighting for affiliation for
this course from 2006-2007 onwards. All along the
University was taking the stand that they are awaiting the
views of the Government, which they are bound to obtain as
per the University statutes. Ext.P4 is the communication
issued by the University to the petitioner in this regard on
14.1.2008. It categorically states that the University had
considered the petitioner’s applications for affiliation and
recommended those courses to the Government of Kerala.
That recommendation was after an elaborate process of
verification of the infrastructural facilities, availability of
faculty etc. as contemplated under the University statutes
in respect of which no disputes are raised before me at all
by the University. At that time, their only objection was
want of views from the Government. Since nothing
happened for a long time the petitioner approached this
court by filing W.P.(C) No.4671/2008, in which this court
passed Ext.P9 judgment directing the University to consider
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 9 –
the applications for affiliation submitted by the petitioner
without waiting for the views of the Government. It is
pursuant to the said direction that impugned order has been
passed. From Ext.P11 order of the very same University, I
find that the JPM Arts & Science College, Labbakkada,
Idukki, had also obtained identical order from this court,
to pass orders on the application for affiliation of the new
college within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the judgment. Pursuant to that judgment only Ext.P11
order has been passed on 2.6.2008. While passing that
order the University had no reservation whatsoever in
granting affiliation and no reasons pointed out in the
impugned order were raised then. Of course the University
would contend that it is after passing Ext.P11 that Ext.R1(b)
order was passed by the University on 12.6.2008 and also
that they were forced to pass Ext.P11 order for fear of
action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Both arguments
do not appear very convincing. The judgment referred to in
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 10 –
Ext.P11 order was passed on 6.2.2008, Ext.P9 judgment in
the petitioner’s case was passed on 15.2.2008. The two
judgments were passed only 9 days apart. While passing
orders pursuant to identical judgments, I am at loss to
understand how the University could have issued two kinds
of orders namely Exts.P10 and P11. Of course, it is true
that between Ext.P11 and P10 there is a difference of 16
days and in between Ext.R1B(b)had come to be passed. But
it is to be noted that Ext.R1(b) order had been passed
pursuant to the minutes of the Syndicate Standing
Committee on affiliation held on 27.5.2008 which was
available to the University when passing Ext.P11 order also.
As such basically there was no essential difference between
the two colleges and therefore the differential treatment
meted out to the petitioner is clearly discriminatory. In so
far as, there was no direction to grant affiliation in the case
referred to in Ext.P11 the explanation that they granted
affiliation for fear of contempt action also appears to be
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 11 –
hollow.
10. In any event, I do not find any merit in the reasons
mentioned in Ext.P10 order. We are a developing nation
who aspires to go forward, not backwards or to stand still.
We can go forward in the education field only if the new
generation course come up to cater the educational needs
of the country. Educational needs cannot be disputed
because of the number of applicants available for such
course in respect of which there is no dispute. If a
University takes a stand that they have no sufficient
man-power to cater to additional courses, that would be a
totally negative attitude which cannot be countenanced in a
University whose very object is to take the educational
standards of this country forward. If there is not enough
man-power, it is the duty of the Government and the
University to see that appropriate man-power is provided in
the University for the educational needs of the state.
11. In any event as is evident from Ext.R1(b) there is
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 12 –
no prohibition for affiliation of colleges and courses in the
Government, Co-operative and aided sector. There cannot
be any dispute that for Government/Co-operative/aided
sector also, for additional colleges and courses, additional
man-power would be necessary. As far as additional
man-power is concerned there cannot be any difference
between Government/Co-operative/aided sector on the one
hand and self financing sector on the other hand.
Therefore, it is clearly spells out discrimination between
colleges in the Government/Co-operative/aided sector and
those in the self financing sector students studying in both
have to be treated equally. Therefore reasons (a) and (b)
mentioned in Ext.P10 are clearly not sufficient to reject the
applications for affiliation submitted by the petitioner.
12. The 3rd reason mentioned is the increasing
instances of irregular admissions in aided institutions in
respect of which cases are pending before this Court. The
fact that there are chances of irregularities that may be
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 13 –
committed by unscrupulous managements is no ground to
refuse to exercise statutory powers vested in the University
under the Mahatma Gandhi University Acts and Statutes.
Therefore without any further discussion on the same it can
be stated without any doubt that the 3rd reason is not a
reason at all. The 4th objection also does not appear to be
convincing in the wake of Exts.P12 to P15, which would go
to show that in very many colleges, identical courses are
being taught for which affiliation has been granted by the
very same University. Therefore without doubt the last
reason also cannot be upheld.
In the above circumstances, I have not doubt in my
mind that the reasons mentioned in Ext.P10 order for
denying affiliation to the courses for which the petitioner
has submitted applications is clearly discriminatory
unsustainable. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P10 order and
directed the respondents to grant affiliation to the courses
for which the petitioner has filed applications. Orders in
W.P(C)No.18774 of 2008 – 14 –
this regard shall be issued within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since
petitioner has been waiting from 2006-2007 onwards for
affiliation of the courses, I direct that the University shall
permit the petitioner to start the course from this year
onwards itself. The petitioner may start the process for
admitting students to those course in anticipation of the
grant of affiliation.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs