High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed
Christ Knowledge City, Mannoor v State of Kerala and Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.23770 of 2016 (U)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Vinod Chandran
- Judgment Date
- 2016-07-28
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petitions dismissed. No costs.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Christ Knowledge City, Mannoor, M.C Road, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam (a college established and administered by Christ Educational Trust)
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- The Director of Technical Education
- A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University
- The Commissioner for Entrance Examination
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • K.P. Dandapani (Sr.)
- • Millu Dandapani
Counsels for Respondents
- • P.M. Saneer
- • S. Krishnamoorthy
Case Synopsis & Summary
Christ Knowledge City, Mannoor, a self-financing college run by Christ Educational Trust, sought affiliation for new courses and for additional intake for the 2016-17 academic year in several AICTE-approved programs affiliated to APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and in one case to Calicut University. AICTE had granted approvals for the existing and new courses, while the University issued affiliation orders on 14 May 2016 denying the two proposed new courses and the extra seats. The petitioners argued that neither the University nor the Government could veto affiliation once AICTE had granted approval, citing Jaya Gokul Educational Trust and St. Joseph’s Hospital Trust to contend that government consent is not mandatory. They pointed to a related judgment in which the Court acknowledged a similar approach and urged the Court to compel affiliation to ensure merit-based admissions through CEE allotments. The respondents defended the University’s insistence on compliance with its norms, including infrastructure inspections and government consent where appropriate, and they noted the delay in approaching the Court, the absence of pre-approval inspections, and the risk to the admissions timetable. The High Court reviewed several writ petitions in tandem, recognized that AICTE approvals do not override university norms, and noted that the NOC/consent sequence in the present set of petitions differed from the earlier case relied upon by the petitioners. Ultimately, it held that no discretionary direction could compel the University to grant affiliation contrary to its norms, and dismissed all petitions, with no costs.
Provisions of Law Cited
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- A judgment should be understood in the light of the facts of that case and no more should be read into it than what it actually says (Meheboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (2) SCC 362)
- There is no such thing as judicial precedent on facts (Willie Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116)
- No Government consent is mandatory for affiliation where AICTE approvals exist (Jaya Gokul Educational Trust; St. Joseph’s Hospital Trust)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contended that AICTE approvals for the courses existed and the University could not withhold affiliation on the ground of Government consent or a separate NOC. They relied on Jaya Gokul Educational Trust and St. Joseph’s Hospital Trust to argue that government consent is not mandatory when AICTE has approved. They highlighted AICTE approvals (Exhibits P2-P3), the University’s provisional NOC steps, and argued that inspection by the University, if at all, should not defeat affiliation already granted in principle. They sought urgent directions to grant affiliation and permit admissions, including management seats under the CEE allotment to prevent loss of meritorious students.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that affiliation is a two-step process requiring AICTE approval, University endorsement, and, in some cases, Government consent. They emphasized the University’s right and duty to inspect infrastructure and ensure compliance with norms, and noted that the petitioners did not approach the University sufficiently early for inspection. They warned that allowing the petitions would frustrate the admission timetable and undermine merit-based admissions, and that the University’s norms must be respected rather than being overridden by a judicial directive.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government | (2000) 5 SCC 231 | Positive | Used to support the proposition that government consent is not mandatory for affiliation when AICTE approvals exist. |
| St. Joseph's Hospital Trust v. Kerala University of Health Sciences | 2012 (4) KLT 444 | Positive | Also cited to support the no-need-for-government-consent principle in presence of AICTE approval. |
| Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. | AIR 1956 SC 116 | Mentioned Only | Cited for the principle that precedent should be on questions of law, not on facts. |
| Meheboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra | (2004) 2 SCC 362 | Mentioned Only | Quoted regarding the reading of judgments and precedent on facts. |
| Parshavanath Charitable Trust and Others v. All India Council for Tech. Edu. and Others | (2013) (3) SCC 385 | Positive | Used to illustrate time frames for admission and the effect of approvals on affiliation. |
| W.P.(C) No.20871 of 2016 | W.P.(C) No.20871/2016 | Distinguished | The judgment relied on by the petitioners in that petition is distinguished on facts; differs because of lack of government consent in the present cases. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Christ Knowledge City, Mannoor v State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2016/6TH SRAVANA, 1938**
## **WP(C).No.23770 of 2016 (U)**
**---------------------------------**
## **PETITIONER(S):-**
**--------------**
**CHRIST KNOWLEDGE CITY, MANNOOR, M.C ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, AIRAPURAM P.O, ERNAKULAM 683 541,**
**A COLLEGE ESTABLISHED AND ADMINISTERED BY CHRIST EDUCATIONAL TRUST, 5/255, THENGODE POST, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ER. P.J.PAULOSE.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI.**
**RESPONDENT(S):-**
**---------------**
**1. STATE OF KERALA,**
**REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 001.**
**2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**
**3. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.**
**4. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANGEETH NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**
- **R1, R2 & R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.SANEER. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY.**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2016, ALONG WITH WP(C).23769/2016 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-07-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-**
## **WP(C).No.23770 of 2016 (U)**
## **--------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-------------------------**
**EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA VIDE G.O (MS)NO. 296/10/H.EDN DATED 13.9.10.**
**EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE APPROVAL FOR NEW INSTITUTE/INTEGRATED CAMPUS FROM THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2010-11 DATED 1.11.10 ISSUED BY AICTE.**
**EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2016-17 DATED 29.4.16 ISSUED BY AICTE.**
- **EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE AFFILIATION ORDER BEARING NO. KTU/A/593/2015 DATED 15.5.15.**
**EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.KTU/A/456/2016(1) DATED 28.3.16.**
**EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 7.5.16.**
**EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY DATED 12.5.16.**
**EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.5.16 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**
**EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF THE PAYMENT TRANSACTION RECEIPTS DATED 31.5.16 AND 1.6.16.**
**EXHIBIT P10. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.5.16.**
**EXHIBIT P11. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.7.16 IN WPC 20871/16.**
**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:------------------------NIL.**
**Vku/-**
**[ true copy ]**
## K. Vinod Chandran, J
W.P.(C) Nos.23770 of 2016-U, 23769 of 2016-U, 23823 of 2016-C, 23881 of 2016-I, 23882 of 2016-I & 23840 of 2016-D ---------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 28th day of July, 2016
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioners are Managements of Self-Financing Colleges affiliated to the 3rd respondent University. The petitioners had been carrying on various courses in engineering, as approved by the All India Council For Technical Education (AICTE) and affiliated to the Technological University and one to the Calicut University. In the present writ petitions the petitioners seek for affiliation of new courses and additional courses for the academic year 2016-17. The petitioners alleged that the denial of affiliation by the University, for reason of the consent of the Government not having been issued, cannot be countenanced for reason of the AICTE having granted approval for the above courses. Petitioners rely on _**Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Commissioner and Secretary to Government**_ **[(2000) 5 SCC 231]** and _**St Joseph's Hospital Trust Vs. Kerala University of Health Sciences**_ **[2012 (4) KLT 444]** to urge that neither the University nor the Government has
- 2 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
the power to insist upon a consent or NOC, from the Government, in the matter of affiliation of a technical course, when the apex body, the AICTE had granted approval. The petitioners also draw a factual similarity to the case decided by this Court, judgment of which is produced as Exhibit P11 in W.P.(C) No.23770 of 2016. The facts in each of the cases are to be noticed first.
2. In W.P.(C) No.23770 of 2016, the petitioner has obtained NOC to start a new educational institution in 2010 as per Exhibit P1. The approval of the AICTE is produced as Exhibit P2. For the present academic year, ie: 2016-17 the approval of the AICTE for the existing courses and the additional courses in Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture and Ship Building is produced as Exhibit P3 dated 29.04.2016. Exhibit P4 dated 15.05.2015 is the affiliation of the University for the earlier academic year. Exhibit P5 dated 28.03.2016, is a notification by which the University invited application for affiliation of courses in the present year. After affiliation by the AICTE, the petitioner had requested for a recommendation, so as to approach the Government for issuance of NOC by Exhibit P6 dated 07.05.2016. The provisional NOC dated 12.05.2016 issued by the University is
- 3 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
produced at Exhibit P7. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P8 order of affiliation dated 14.05.2016 which did not include the two additional courses aforementioned.
3. In W.P.(C) No.23840 of 2016, the petitioner seeks affiliation for a new course in Safety and Fire Engineering. The extension of approval for the existing courses and that of the additional course is produced as Exhibit P1 dated 26.04.2016. As in the earlier case the NOC issued by the University dated 04.05.2016 to approach the Government for sanction is produced at Exhibit P2, which is after the approval from the AICTE. The recommendation of the Director of Technical Education is produced at Exhibit P4 dated 10.05.2016.
4. In W.P. (C) No.23881 of 2016, the approval issued by the AICTE is produced Exhibit P2 which is dated 30.04.2016, which in addition to the existing courses approves a new course in Mechanical Engineering. However the said new course has not been granted affiliation by the University in Exhibit P3 dated 14.05.2016, impugned herein. There is no NOC issued by the University either before or after the approval by the AICTE.
5. In W.P.(C) No.23882 of 2016, the approval of the AICTE
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
- 4 -
for the existing and two new courses in Mechanical Engineering and Electrical and Electronics Engineering, granted as per Exhibit P5 dated 05.04.2016, was not affiliated fully by the University as is evident from Exhibit P7 order of affiliation issued on 14.05.2016, which excluded the new courses. There is no NOC issued by the University either before or after the approval by the AICTE.
6. In W.P. (C) No.23769 of 2016, the petitioner was before the AICTE seeking approval for an additional batch in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which was granted by Exhibit P1 dated 25.04.2016. The NOC issued by the University dated 07.05.2016, after the approval by the AICTE, for approaching the Government is produced at Exhibit P4 and the recommendation of the Director of Technical Education dated 10.05.2016 is produced at Exhibit P5.
7. W.P. (C) No. 23823 of 2016, is with respect to a course in Architecture, which is within the premise of the Council of Architecture,and the course is affiliated to the University of Calicut. The request for additional intake of 40 students in the five-year full-time course in Bachelor of Architecture was approved by the Council by Exhibit P1 dated 06.06.2016. The recommendation of the Director of
- 5 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
Technical Education is produced at Exhibit P3 dated 10.06.2016. The recommendation of the University to sanction such additional batch of 40 students is seen produced at Exhibit P4 dated 30.05.2016. However the University has not issued affiliation, is the grievance projected by the petitioner.
8. In the judgment relied on, rendered by myself, in W.P. (C) No.20871 of 2016, the affiliation was declined by the University only for reason of there being no sanction from the Government. This Court noticed that the application filed by the petitioner, before the AICTE for approval was with the consent of the Government and the Government had, either not responded or responded favourably to the AICTE; which is why the grant of approval was allowed by the AICTE. The University too had issued NOC prior to the approval by the AICTE on 02.03.2016. It is to be noticed that the facts differ insofar as the petitioners herein having not obtained a consent or even a NOC from the University, prior to the application for approval before the AICTE. The NOC issued by the University produced in the three cases in which the Technological University is a party, as specifically noticed above, was after the application for approval before the AICTE and
- 6 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
subsequent to the grant of approval by the AICTE, which NOC specifically indicated that the affiliation from the University could be considered only after following the rules and regulations in this regard, which according to the learned Standing Counsel for the University has to be understood as an inspection conducted in the college for verification of the infrastructure. Two of the petitioners under the Technological University have not approached the University at all.
9. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would also point out that the petitioner in the judgment relied on, was issued approval by the AICTE on 26.04.2016 and had applied for affiliation to the University on 15.04.2016; which dates are almost similar to the ones in the present writ petition and in such circumstance there is no warrant for this Court to take a different stand. At the outset it is to be noticed that at this point of time, the allotment to the various courses in the different colleges already affiliated to the University; which is undertaken on the basis of the rank obtained by the students in the Common Entrance Examination conducted by the State, is almost over. Originally there were three allotments notified, considering the fact that there would be students who would not take admission,
- 7 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
for some reason, _inter-alia_ for having been admitted to other institutions at the national level; and in such circumstance the option of an individual student for admission to more prestigious institutions within the State would have to be considered. As of now there is a fourth allotment proposed and it is at this juncture that the petitioners come forward with the above writ petition. The judgment relied on is also distinguishable for reason that the petitioner therein approached this Court at the time of the second allotment. The ground for delay urged therein and which found favour with this Court, was the attempt of the institution to execute an agreement with the Government, which the Government willingly acceded to.
10. In the present cases despite the petitioners having been issued with affiliation orders, declining the request for additional new courses and additional batches of existing courses on 14.05.2016 (in all the cases except the one concerned with Architecture), the delay stands unexplained; both for no reason having been put forward and the petitioners having waited all this while then the allotments to various courses in different Colleges were proceeded with by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination.
- 8 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
11. The delay also has to be examined in the context of the prospects for admission in the 4th allotment to the various courses which have been newly sanctioned or additionally approved in the present year. This court had called for and verified the allotment made by the CEE, in the previous academic year and the total intake sanctioned by the AICTE and the University. The learned Senior Counsel has provided a list which indicates the following:
|**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**College**|**Existing Courses**<br>**& Intake**<br>**permitted**|**Allotment/Admission**|**Allotment/Admission**|**Allotment/Admission**|**Allotment/Admission**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||||**Government/**<br>**CEE**<br>**Allotment**|**Management**|**NRI**|**Total**|
|1|Christ<br>Knowledge City<br>WP(C).<br>23770/16|Civil Engineering<br>(120)|7|70|0|**77**|
|||Computer Science<br>and Engineering<br>(120)|3|49|0|52|
|||Electronics and<br>Communication<br>Engineering (120)|3|20|0|23|
|||Applied<br>Electronics &<br>Instrumentation<br>(60)|0|0|0|0|
- 9 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
|**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**College**|**Existing Courses**<br>**& Intake**<br>**permitted**|**Allotment/Admission**|**Allotment/Admission**|**Allotment/Admission**|**Allotment/Admission**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||||**Government/**<br>**CEE**<br>**Allotment**|**Management**|**NRI**|**Total**|
|2|Eranadu<br>Knowledge City<br>WP(C).<br>23823/16|Civil Engineering<br>(60)|25|29|9|63|
|||Mechanical<br>Engineering (60)|18|38|6|62|
|||Computer Science<br>and Engineering<br>(60)|20|29|9|58|
|||Electronics and<br>Communication<br>Engineering (60)|16|23|6|39|
|3|Vidya Academy<br>WP(C).<br>23769/16|Civil Engineering<br>(120)|66|42|17|125|
|||Computer Science<br>and Engineering<br>(120)|63|41|40|114|
|||Electronics and<br>Communication<br>Engineering (120)|56|35|4|95|
|||Electrical and<br>Electronics<br>Engineering (60)|33|17|9|59|
|||Mechanical<br>Engineering (120)|66|41|18|125|
|||Production<br>Engineering (60|22|7|7|36|
- 10 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
|**Sl.**<br>**No.**|**College**|**Existing Courses**<br>**& Intake**<br>**permitted**|**Allotment/Admission**|**Allotment/Admission**|**Allotment/Admission**|**Allotment/Admission**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||||**Government/**<br>**CEE**<br>**Allotment**|**Management**|**NRI**|**Total**|
|4|Sree Buddha<br>College of<br>Engineering for<br>Women WP(C).<br>23881/16|Electronics and<br>Communication<br>Engineering (60)|1|8|6|15|
|||Electrical and<br>Electrical and<br>Electronics<br>Engineering (60)|0|0|0|0|
|||Civil Engineering<br>(60)|19|21|9|49|
|||Computer Science<br>and Engineering<br>(60)|3|19|3|25|
|5|UFK College of<br>Engineering and<br>Technology<br>WP(C).<br>23882/16|Mechanical<br>Engineering (60)|30|27|6|63|
|||Civil Engineering<br>(60)|27|27|9|63|
|||Computer Science<br>and Engineering<br>(60)|5|39|4|48|
|||Electrical and<br>Electronics<br>Engineering (60)|2|32|6|40|
|||Electronics and<br>Communication<br>Engineering (60)|3|20|3|26|
|6|Eranadu College<br>of Architecture<br>WP(C).<br>23840/16|Architecture (40)|19|21|-|40|
- 11 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
12. A glance at the figures would indicate that, in many courses, there is not the full intake as permitted by the AICTE. The list also reveals that all the petitioner Colleges have executed seat sharing agreement with the Government and 50% of the seats are allotted to be filled up on merit by the CEE. Of the 50% so allotted it is seen that very few have been filled up from the allotment made by the CEE. If the seats are not filled up from the allotment made by the CEE, then the self financing college is permitted to make admissions to the permitted intake, by itself, but however choosing only those candidates who have acquired a minimum mark in the Common Entrance Examination. The minimum marks prescribed also is said to be 10, which is an indication of the merit of the students who would be admitted to the professional courses. The petitioners seek urgent orders directing affiliation and permitting the admissions at least to the management seats, which in the present circumstance of even the 4th allotment having reached, would lead to the entire seats being filled up by the management itself, if there are willing applicants who figure in the rank list published by the CEE. But for want of time and the expediency projected by the petitioners, this Court would have called
- 12 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
for further details as to the pass percentage in the previous years of the petitioner colleges. It is also very evident that the meritorious students do not choose these Colleges even in the seats allotted to the Government, to be filled up on merit, wherein the fee payable is much lesser than that in management seats.
13. The learned Senior Counsel would alert the Court that, this Court is not looking at the performance of the colleges but is only concerned with the legal requirements for granting affiliation. True this Court does not have the expertise or is not competent to look into the said factors and embark upon an evaluation of the standards or quality of the colleges. However this Court cannot ignore the circumstance in which the petitioners have approached this Court, with gross delay, which assumes significance in the context of the time frame for admissions. The learned Standing Counsel for the University also specifically points out that the University itself, is not satisfied with the infrastructure provided and in the present cases did not have an opportunity to conduct an inspection. This court is exercising a discretionary remedy under Article 226 and in such circumstance an evaluation of the over all circumstances would be apposite and the
- 13 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
eventual consequences of this Court exercising discretion in favour of the petitioners, also should weigh in a consideration of the subject matter.
14. As submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, it has been unequivocally laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Jaya Gokul Educational Trust**_ and a Division Bench of this Court in _**St.Joseph's Hospital Trust**_ that there is no requirement for a consent from the Government. However, that is not to say that an affiliation from the University is a mere formality to be complied with on issuance of approval by the apex body, herein the AICTE. A reading of the judgment in _**Jaya Gokul Educational Trust**_ would reveal that, there the appellant wanted to establish a Self-financing Engineering College and submitted an application to the University as also to the AICTE. There was an inspection by a team of Professors of the University and there was also a favourable recommendation as to the facilities provided by the institution; which was found to be sufficient for establishing an Engineering College. The AICTE also granted conditional approval for establishing an Engineering and Technical College on the basis of the observations made by the Expert
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
- 14 -
Committee and the recommendations made by the Central Regional Committee, State Level Committee and Central Task Force as per the provisions of the AICTE Regulations. The University also showed the college as one among the affiliated colleges for the said period.
15. _**St.Joseph's Hospital Trust**_ dealt with two writ petitions and a reading of narration of facts, would indicate that in one a letter of consent was issued by the Kerala University for the establishment of a new course in an already existing college affiliated to the University. In the second writ petition, an already approved affiliated Pharmacy College in the Self-financing sector was trying to get a M.Pharm Course sanctioned. When the application before the AICTE was pending, the respondent applied to the University for affiliation when the petitioner was informed that a NOC from the Government is necessary for consideration of affiliation. As specifically noticed by the Division Bench, without looking into the legal implication the petitioner applied for the NOC. The Government, at the first instance, observed that there were sufficient infrastructural facilities. The University had conducted inspection and pointed out some defects in the infrastructure, which was rectified. It was in the above circumstance
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
- 15 -
that the declaration was made as to no consent being required from the Government.
16. It is trite that the standards and quality of education would be a matter coming within the ambit of the University and the only prescription is that it should not violate the norms prescribed by the apex body, insofar as attempting any dilution of the essential requirements. The University which awards the degree, that too a professional degree, is entitled to inspect the college and consider the issue of affiliation as per the standards laid down by the University which, in any event, cannot be lesser than that prescribed by the apex body. Though a consent from the Government is not mandatory, the University has to make an inspection and ascertain the availability of the infrastructure, faculty and the like; before an affiliation is granted.
17. In the present case, it is true that all of the colleges were existing with sanctioned undergraduate courses prior to the present academic year. In the present academic year, what was sought for was sanction and affiliation of a new course or an additional batch of an existing course. It cannot be said that the affiliation granted once by the University would suffice insofar as the new courses and
- 16 -
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
additional batches are concerned. Herein, prior to the approval, there is no application seen made before the University, which alone could have initiated an inspection by the University. Further, the affiliation orders, with respect to the existing courses, were issued on 14.05.2016 and considering the fact that the last date for affiliation as prescribed by the AICTE and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Parshavanath Charitable Trust and Others v. All India Council for Tech. Edu. and Others**_ **[2013 (3) SCC 385]** was on 30th May, the petitioners could have approached immediately on such denial of approval for affiliation, in which event there would have been time even for this Court to direct an inspection.
18. Further, even immediately thereafter, the petitioners did not approach this Court and as noticed earlier, the delay cannot be measured in days alone, since there is a specific time frame for admission and allotment by the CEE, which the petitioners were aware of. The petitioners waited till the third allotment was over, initially as proposed by the CEE to be the last allotment and approached this Court at the fag end of such allotment, which, in the opinion of this Court, is an attempt to circumvent even allotment to the marginal
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
- 17 -
admissions in the 50% seats reserved for the Government. This effectively frustrates the merit based admissions and only persons who would be obliged to pay the fees at the higher rates than that prescribed by the Government could be admitted; even for the seats reserved for merit. This Court cannot permit such surreptitious attempts to make the entire admissions from students who agree to pay higher fees; but not having higher ranks in the merit list.
19. The default of the petitioners was not one of consent from the Government having not been issued, but in not approaching the University early enough to conduct an inspection and grant affiliation. In the relied on judgment the institution had approached the University earlier and had obtained an NOC dated 02.03.2016 (produced as Exhibit P4 there) was obtained, giving the University sufficient time to carry out the affiliation formalities. A further NOC dated 18.05.2016 was applied for and obtained after the approval (produced as Exhibit P5 there). The factual similarities pointed out does not impress this Court and there is no “such thing as judicial precedent on facts” as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Willie (William) Slaney Vs. State of M.P.**_ **[AIR 1956 SC 116]** and
WP(C) No.23770 of 2016
## - 18 -
## reiterated in **(2004) 2 SCC 362** _**[Meheboob Dawood Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra]**_ as follows:
“A decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law. A judgment should be understood in the light of facts of that case and no more should be read into it than what it actually says”.
All these factors dissuade this Court from exercising discretion in favour of the petitioners.
20. With respect to W.P.(C) No. 23823 of 2016, in addition to the aspects already discussed the additional intake was sanctioned by the Council only on 06.06.2016, after the date prescribed in
## _**Parshavanath Charitable Trust.**_
All the writ petitions, hence, are found to be cases in which
there could be no discretion exercised, to compel the University to take a decision contrary to its wisdom and in violation of its affiliation norms. Writ Petitions hence are dismissed. No costs.
## **Sd/-**
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[ true copy ]