Ajmal Shah S A and Ajil G Krishna v. University of Kerala, Syndicate, and State of Kerala

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2016/6TH SRAVANA, 1938 WP(C).No. 22021 of 2016 (S) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------- 1. AJMAL SHAH S AGED 21, S/O. SHAFEEK. M, CHARTHOOR PANAYIL VEEDU, THRIPPILAZHIKOM P.O., KUNDRA, KOLLAM DIST. PIN-691509. 2. AJIL G. KRISHNA AGED 21, S/O. GOPALKRISHNA. K.N. AISWARYA, KIZHAVOOR, MUKATHALA P.O., KOLLAM DIST. PIN-691 577. BY ADVS.SRI.S.SAJU SRI.P.M.SHAMEER SRI.BOBBY LAL RESPONDENTS: -----------1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 034. 2. THE SYNDICATE, KERALA UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695034. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT, OF KERALA 3RD FLOOR, SECRETARIAT ANNEX, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-072016, THE COURT ON 28-07-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22021 of 2016 (S) ---------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ---------------------- - P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.03.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH 237 STUDENTS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, VICE CHANCELLOR KERALA UNIVERSITY. - P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.03.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE HIS EXCELLENCY, GOVERNOR OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PRELIMINARY MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE OF KERALA UNIVERSITY, HELD ON 14.12.2015. - P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL HELD ON 18.04.2016. - P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AC. A.II/I/23958/2016 DATED 31.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT KERALA UNIVERSITY. - P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE NO. P.R.105/2016 DATED 18.06.2016 ISSUED BY PRO OF 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. - P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.06.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON,BLE EDUCATION MINISTER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. - P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BACHELORS DEGREE CERTIFICATE AWARDED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY DATED 05.03.2016. TO 2ND PEITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS --------------------- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag.C.J.& ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ## **W.P.(C).No.22021 of 2016** = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of July, 2016 ## JUDGMENT ## **Anu Sivaraman,J.** 1. This writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the Kerala University to issue notification enabling private registration to Post Graduate Courses in subjects which do not require laboratory facilities in respect of the academic year 2015-16. Though the petitioners are students aspiring to register privately for the Post Graduate Courses under the University, they seek to espouse the cause of a large number of persons who are similarly situated. The writ petition was filed on 28.06.2016 with prayers to direct the University to implement Exhibit P4 decision of the Academic Council and to issue notification for private registration in Post Graduate Courses which do not require the use of laboratory for the year 20152016 forthwith and for allied reliefs. 2. Heard Sri.Saju S.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University. W.P.(C).No.22021/16 2 3.It is the contention in the writ petition that 237 students had submitted representations before the Vice Chancellor of the University and the Governor, seeking notification enabling their registration for Post Graduate Courses through private study during the academic year 2015-2016. It is submitted that the Syndicate of the University by its resolution dated 14.12.2015 resolved that UG/PG programs which do not require laboratory facilities should be offered through private registration. Thereafter, the Academic Council which met on 18.04.2016 also approved the recommendations of the Standing Committee and directed the evolving of uniform norms and framing the syllabus and scheme on annual pattern. It is stated that the Regulations for PG program under the annual pattern were approved by the University by Exhibit P4 proceedings dated 31.05.2016. However, the notification required for enabling private registration was not issued and therefore, the students are unable to register and appear for the examinations which would be conducted in September-October, 2016. It is contended that this will result in their loosing an academic W.P.(C).No.22021/16 3 year. Learned counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court reported in **Varun Saini v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University** [2014(12) SCALE 184] to contend that even in cases where the expiry of the academic year in question is pleaded, time fixed by the University for admissions can be extended, in larger public interest. 4. An affidavit was filed by the Registrar, University of Kerala stating that what is sought to be agitated is the private interest of the petitioners in the writ petition and a Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in the matter. It is further stated that private registration for P.G. courses has not been in existence in the University since 2002. Learner Support Centres started by the University were banned by the UGC and the University was constrained to pass orders discontinuing such centres and making arrangements for the students who were validly enrolled in those centres for completing their course of study and appearing for examinations. The petitioners, who are persons enrolled after the orders discontinuing such centres, are not entitled W.P.(C).No.22021/16 4 to any relief since such centres were unauthorised and there was no recognized course or scheme for private registration in the University at the time of their enrolling in the centres. A further affidavit is filed on 05.07.2016 stating that though Exhibit P4 was issued by the Academic Council on 31.05.2016, the academic year 2015-2016 ended on that date and the University could not have notified private registration in respect of the academic year. 5. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University would submit that a revised scheme of study had to be formulated and several steps as enumerated in the affidavit had to be taken before any notification is issued by the University. It is further submitted that it was not on account of any lethargy or deliberate delay on the part of the University that the decisions in the matter were delayed, but only due to the intervening elections to the Legislative Assembly and the orders passed by the Election Commission in this regard. It is further submitted that in view of the orders of the Election Commission, even the resolutions of W.P.(C).No.22021/16 5 the Syndicate and the Academic Council had not been given any publicity and therefore no legal right would accrue to the benefit of any student to contend that they had a legitimate expectation that they would be enabled to register privately for PG courses. It is pointed out that recognition of the degrees awarded and their equivalency cannot be assured if the requisite formalities are not complied with by the university. The decision of the Apex Court in **Kushum Lata v. Union of India** [AIR 2006 SC 2643] is relied upon to contend that where private interests of parties are involved, Public Interest Litigation would not be maintainable. 6.It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are aspirants for registration for private registration in case the University notifies the same in respect of the academic year 20152016. However, it is the contention of the petitioners that there are several persons who are similarly situated like them, who stand the risk of loosing the valuable year of their academic life, if the notification is not issued immediately. W.P.(C).No.22021/16 6 Exhibit P1 is a representation signed by 237 persons who are stated to be similarly situated. It is submitted that there are several more persons who would be similarly affected and it is in these circumstances that the writ petition is being filed as a PIL. We are of the view that the mere fact that the petitioners are also aspirants for private registration cannot disentitle them to take up a common cause of indeterminate numbers of students who are likely to be affected in case the University does not notify private registration for PG courses as sought for by them. This writ petition filed as a PIL is therefore maintainable as such. 7.It is clear from pleadings and materials on record that reintroduction of the course in English language and literature (Main) through private registration stream had been under consideration of the Syndicate from 13.08.2013. It was the matter of exclusion of English language and literature (Main) in the private registration notification dated 15.09.2015 which was placed before the Syndicate on 26.09.2015, 27.10.2015 and 23.11.2015. By Exhibit P2 W.P.(C).No.22021/16 7 minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 14.12.2015, it is seen that the Syndicate had resolved that UG/PG programs which do not require laboratory facilities should be offered through private registration mode. It is stated in Exhibit P3 that private registration for BA English language and literature was re-introduced for the academic year 2015-2016 itself. However, with regard to private registration to PG courses it is stated that the curriculum and scheme of PG courses had been re-structured incorporating continuous assessment marks and implementing of semesterisation. Syllabus and scheme of courses had therefore to be structured afresh in tune with the annual scheme mode for private registration. Prior concurrence of the Academic Council was required for private registration for PG courses and unified guide lines were to be framed by the Council. It is further stated that the Academic Council will have to approve syllabi and schemes of PG courses on the basis of specific recommendations from respective Boards of studies and faculties in compliance with unified guide lines. A detailed W.P.(C).No.22021/16 8 note was therefore put up before the Syndicate at its meeting held on 29.02.2016. The Syndicate resolved to place the matter before the special meeting of Academic Council on 11.03.2016, but the said meeting could not be conducted due to the directives of the State Election Commission. By order of the Election Commission dated 24.03.2016, the Academic Council was granted permission to consider the academic requirements of the modified scheme and syllabus for private registration on condition that no new courses shall be announced till completion of the election process. The Academic Council resolved to approve the recommendations for re-introducing private registration for PG Program and entrusted the standing committee to evolve uniform norms to deal with continuous evaluation and project work as well as to frame syllabus and scheme on annual pattern. Thereafter, by Exhibit P4 proceedings dated 31.05.2016, the Vice Chancellor under his emergency powers approved the Regulations for PG course under annual pattern feasible for private registration subject to reporting to the Academic Council. It is in the W.P.(C).No.22021/16 9 above factual matrix that the request for notification of the PG private registration for the year 2015-2016 is to be considered. 8.The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners applies to a case of extension of the time schedule for counselling for admission to technical courses for the year 2014-15. The Apex Court had fixed the time schedule for admission according to the AICTE Regulations, 1994. When the admission exercise was not completed within the time schedule fixed by the Apex Court, the University had issued a notification to provide a fresh round of counselling which was later withdrawn. When writ petitions were filed seeking extension of time schedule on the ground that more than 6000 seats were remaining vacant and there are thousands of students who are qualified in the common entrance test, the Apex Court had in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India issued orders extending the time limit so fixed as a measure 'to do complete justice and in larger W.P.(C).No.22021/16 10 public interest'. The said decision, therefore, cannot be a precedent for exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is clear that the decision for restoring private registration of PG programs was taken by the University Syndicate only on 14.12.2015. As on that date, there was no private PG program offered by the University. Steps had been taken to convene the Academic Council and to frame unified norms, syllabi and scheme of study for the course. The matter was placed before the Syndicate again on 26.02.2016 and was forwarded to the Academic Council. Even though the Academic Council which met on 18.04.2016 resolved to accept the recommendations of its standing committee and approved the proposal, further steps for revision of syllabus and scheme of study remained to be carried out by the standing committee in consultation with the respective Boards of studies and faculties. Exhibit P4 proceedings of the Vice Chancellor invoking the emergency provisions came to be issued on 31.05.2016 which was the last day of W.P.(C).No.22021/16 11 the academic year. Evidently, in the absence of an approved scheme of study, and in view of the fact that the academic year was at end, no steps could validly have been taken by the University for notifying the courses. Therefore, on a practical view of the matter, the course could not have been offered for the academic year in question by the University. This is more so in view of the fact that there was no private registration for PG courses from 2002 in the University and no person could have a right to any such registration. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prayer sought in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. sd/- ## **Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Acting Chief Justice** sd/- **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge