IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30913 of 2008(E)
1. SEETHI SAHIB CHARITABLE TRUST,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 30913 OF 2008 (E)
====================
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 and 2
to grant affiliation to the petitioner so as to enable them to commence
B.Ed course pursuant to Ext.P1 order, by which recognition has been
granted by the NCTE and for which Ext.P2 application has been made to
the University.
2. In WP(C) No.12851/08 filed by the petitioner, this Court has
already rendered Ext.P3 judgment directing that if Ext.P2 application has
been received by the University, orders thereon shall be passed. The
complaint in this writ petition is that despite this, orders were not passed.
3. It is seen that when this case came up for orders before this
Court on 26/11/2008, after hearing the submissions made by both sides,
this Court passed the following order.
Counsel for the University submits that the only aspect which
stands in the way of orders being passed on the petitioner’s
application for affiliation is relatable to the condition in Ext.P1
that the petitioner should have selected the requisite number
of qualified teachers. To avoid further controversy, the
petitioner shall file a list of persons already selected and
appointed as teachers in the college.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 2nd of
WPC 30913/08
:2 :
December, 2008 where in para 2, it has been stated as follows:
On 26.11.2008 this Court was pleased to direct the deponent to
produce the list of faculty members selected and appointed by the
petitioner institution as provided in the order granting recognition.
When the inspection team came to the college they gave oral
direction to furnish the list of faculty members. Accordingly,the list
was given to the University with a covering letter. Copy of the list
along with the covering letter is produced herewith and marked as
Ext.P4. Ext.P4 was given by hand at the university office on
13.11.2008. The officer, before whom the list was filed, verified
the records with the originals. Thereafter the petitioner was
allowed to take back the originals after giving photocopy.
However, with a view to further delay the process the University
gave another communication dt 22.11.2008 to produce the
originals of the certificates of faculty members appointed by the
institution. The communication was received on 29.11.2008. Copy
of the said communication is produced herewith and marked as
Ext.P5. On that basis the petitioner college again produced the
originals of the certificate on 1.12.2008 the next working day after
the receipt of Ext.P5.
5. In view of the above, according to the petitioner, the inadequacy
pointed out on behalf of the respondents on 26/11/2008 has been rectified.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the University
shall examine Ext.P4, the list submitted by the petitioner and pass orders of
affiliation, as submitted by them before this Court on 26/11/2008 within 4 weeks.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the University, who
shall carry out this direction without any further delay.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp