K.R. Jayaram v. Dr. Abdul Majeed T.A.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2021-03-16
Court Decision / Holding: Contempt case closed.
Final Disposition: Contempt case closed against the respondent University.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.R. Jayaram

Respondents

Dr. Abdul Majeed T.A.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. George Mecheril

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, SC, Calicut University

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, K.R. Jayaram, chairman and managing trustee of the CK Raghavan Memorial Educational and Charitable Trust, filed this contempt of court case against Dr. Abdul Majeed T.A., Registrar of the University of Calicut, alleging non-compliance with this Court’s judgment dated 07 June 2018 in WP(C) No.17415/2018. The writ petition had disposed of a challenge to a University communication (Ext.P7) dated 16 May 2018 and directed the University to issue a reasoned order on Ext.P2 (an application for additional affiliation for B.Sc. Physics, Chemistry, Botany, and Zoology) strictly in accordance with law, and to communicate the order within ten days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The contempt proceedings initially saw adjournments and counter-affidavits; the record includes government letters and university notes reflecting policy-driven constraints on new affiliations. Paragraphs 6–12 describe the Ext.P7 rejection, subsequent directions from the 2018 judgment, and the university’s reliance on policy and Kerala State Higher Education Council input, along with Government circulars, to justify delays. The court noted the lack of a reasoned order as against the judgment and observed a prima facie case to refer the matter to the Division Bench. Ultimately, the contempt case was closed, with the Judge recording that the University had begun granting some affiliations and directing that further action follow applicable policy without delay.

Provisions of Law Cited

University StatuteStatutes

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Education is an integral part of life and liberty.
A right can be restricted only by a law, not by policy or executive fiat; policy decisions must be grounded in law to restrict rights.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The contempt petition challenges non-compliance with the 7 June 2018 judgment in WP(C) No.17415/2018. It asserts that Ext.P7’s communication (16 May 2018) was set aside and that a reasoned order on Ext.P2, as required by the judgment, should have been issued within ten days of receipt of a certified copy, but this did not occur. The petitioner contends the University delayed and acted contrary to the court’s directions, undermining the timely consideration for additional affiliation and its start for the 2018-19 academic year.

Contentions of Respondents

The University argues that policy-driven constraints, approvals by the Kerala State Higher Education Council, government communications, and the broader policy framework govern new affiliations. It maintains that decisions were being taken within the prescribed policy environment, and that a reasoned order was contingent on policy inputs and government concurrence, not merely on legal directions. It also notes that some affiliations were granted in response to evolving policy considerations.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Kerala v. M.G.M. College of Arts and Science, Tvm and another	2017 (3) KHC 965	Positive	Cited to support the principle that once the University approves standards, the Government cannot properly override the University’s discretion; the judgment references this principle in the context of university autonomy over affiliation decisions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942** **Con.Case(C).No.1480 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 17415/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 17415/2018 DATED 07-06-2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **K.R.JAYARAM, AGED 42 YEARS S/O C.K RAGHAVAN, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING TRUSTEE, C.K RAGHAVAN MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, KALANADIKOLLY PO, PULPALLY, WAYANAD-673579.** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **DR.ABDUL MAJEED T.A. AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NOW WORKING AS THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,THENHIPPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673635** **BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2021,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 Con.Case(C).No.1480 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 17415/2018 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging noncompliance of the judgment of this Court dated 07.06.2018 in W.P. (C) No.17415 of 2018, whereby that writ petition was disposed of by setting aside Ext.P7 communication dated 16.05.2018 issued by the respondent herein and by directing the said respondent to issue a reasoned order on Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. 2. On 24.07.2018, when this contempt case came up for admission, the Standing Counsel for the University of Calicut, representing the respondent herein, the Registrar of that University, sought time to get instructions. On 02.08.2018, he sought further time. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent on 10.08.2018. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 03.09.2018 to the affidavit filed by the respondent. Along with a memo dated 06.09.2018 filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, a copy of letter No.P1/137/2018/H.Edn dated Con.Case(C).No.1480 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 17415/2018 3 23.05.2018 of the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, addressed to the respondent herein is placed on record. Along with another memo dated 13.10.2018 of the learned Standing Counsel, a copy of U.O. Note dated 09.10.2018 of the Assistant Registrar of the University is placed on record. 4. As per the order dated 29.11.2018, this Court directed the Registry to place this contempt case before the Division Bench, as per roster. Paragraphs 6 to 12 and also the operative portion of the said order read thus: “6. The petitioner, who is the Chairman and Managing Trustee of C.K.Raghavan Memorial Educational and Charitable Trust, Pulpally has filed W.P.(C) No.17415 of 2018 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the communication dated 16.05.2018 (Ext.P7) issued by the University and and to reconsider the application for additional affiliation for B.Sc. Physics, B.Sc. Chemistry, B.Sc. Botony and B.Sc. Zoology (Ext.P2) and grant provisional affiliation to the courses applied for during the academic year 2018-19, so as to enable the petitioner to start classes during the current academic year. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs. Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for additional affiliation for B.Sc. Physics and Con.Case(C).No.1480 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 17415/2018 4 B.Sc. Chemistry stands rejected vide Ext.P7 communication dated 16.05.2018 of the University. Ext.P7 reads thus: “With reference to the above, I am to inform you that your request for additional affiliation to B.Sc. Physics and B.Sc. Chemistry programmes has been examined and decided not to grant affiliation to new programmes.” 7. Ext.P7 communication is one issued by the University pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2018 in W.P.(C) No.41347 of 2017 (Ext.P5), whereby the University was directed to take up, consider and pass orders on the request made by the petitioner for additional affiliation within the time limit specified in that judgment and to communicate the decision to the petitioner without delay. 8. By the judgment dated 07.06.2018, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.17415 of 2018 by setting aside Ext.P7 communication dated 16.05.2018 and the University was directed to issue a reasoned order on Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. 9. The respondent was served with a copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 17415 of 2018, on 18.06.2018. The petitioner was issued with Annexure II communication dated 25.06.2018, whereby he was informed that the Syndicate has resolved not to grant Con.Case(C).No.1480 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 17415/2018 5 affiliation for starting new programmes during the academic year 2017-18 as that academic year has already been over. The application has not been rejected and the matter of consideration of granting affiliation for the application that are valid for the academic year 2018-19 and the norms to be observed for the same are under consideration of the Syndicate, and the same will be intimated in due course. 10. Along with the affidavit of the respondent dated 10.08.2018, Annexure R1(a) University Order dated 27.07.2018 is placed on record, whereby the petitioner and other educational agencies/colleges have been informed that the Syndicate of the University vide Resolution No.2018.741* dated 21.07.2018 resolved to reject all pending applications received for starting new colleges and additional programmes, in response to Circulars dated 30.09.2015 and 27.09.2016, in the light of Government letter No.P1/137/2018/H.Edn. dated 23.05.2018, whereby the University was informed that the Kerala Higher Education Council has been authorised to have a detailed study and to give recommendation to the State Government in the matter of framing policies related to higher education sector and that, sanctioning of new self-financing colleges/courses can be considered only after the Kerala Higher Education Council have submitted its prospective plan. The petitioner was also issued with Annexure R1(b) communication of the respondent dated 02.08.2018, wherein it has been stated that the application for additional affiliation Con.Case(C).No.1480 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 17415/2018 6 cannot be considered for the aforesaid reason. 11. Annexures R1(a) and R1(b) are followed by U.O.Note dated 09.10.2018, which is placed on record along with a memo dated 13.10.2018 of the learned Standing Counsel for the University. As per the said U.O.Note, on 08.10.2018, the Vice Chancellor of the University considered the requests for additional affiliation made by the petitioner and other institutions in the connected contempt cases, i.e., Cont. Case Nos.1452 of 2018 and 1480 of 2018 and ordered to reject those requests, as any application for additional affiliation can only be considered based on the formulation policies related to higher educational sector, as detailed in Government letter No.P1/137/2018/H.Edn. dated 23.05.2018, by the Kerala State Higher Education Council. Further, selffinancing programmes in Aided Colleges can be granted only with the concurrence of the Government. 12. It is pertinent to note that, in the year 2016, the State Government, vide G.O.(Rt) No.178/2016/H.Edn. dated 22.08.2016, resolved that no new colleges and courses would be allowed in the self-financing sector in the higher education field in the State. The said Government Order was set aside by a learned Singly Judge. In **State of Kerala v. M.G.M. College of Arts and Science, Tvm and another [2017 (3) KHC 965]** a Division Bench of this Court affirmed the said judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that, once the University approves the standards that are to Con.Case(C).No.1480 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 17415/2018 7 be met, the Government would have no say to advice the University to reject affiliation. If it does, it would be arbitrary unless good reason is shown by the State. Once power has been conferred on the authorities under the University Statute and the Statutes as such, the Government cannot override the discretion of the University, because such a policy makes the entire statute dealing with affiliation redundant. The Division Bench observed that, education is an integral part of life and liberty. Such a right can be restricted not by a policy decision, but only by a law and law means law made by the competent legislature and not by an executive fiat. 12. Despite the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in **M.G.M.College's case (supra)** the University has rejected the application for additional affiliation made by the petitioner on the ground that the same can only be considered based on the formulation of policies related to higher educational sector, as detailed in Government letter No.P1/137/2018/H.Edn. dated 23.05.2018, by the Kerala State Higher Education Council. Despite the judgment of this Court dated 07.06.2018 in W.P.(C).No.17414 of 2018 the University has not chosen to issue a reasoned order on Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. It is nothing but a deliberate attempt made to see that the petitioner is denied additional affiliation for the courses, during the current academic year. In the affidavit filed by the respondent, he has not tendered unconditional apology for non-compliance of the writ Con.Case(C).No.1480 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 17415/2018 8 issued by this Court in the judgment dated 07.06.2018. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, I find that a prima facie case has been made to refer this contempt case to the Division Bench. Registry to place this contempt case before the Division Bench, as per roster.” 5. Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench dated 30.09.2019, the respondent has filed an affidavit dated 19.12.2019. 6. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, Sri.George Mecheril, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent University has already complied with the direction contained in the judgment of this Court dated 07.06.2018 in W.P.(C).No.17415 of 2018 by granting additional affiliation to some of the courses applied for and in such circumstances, the contempt case may be closed. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this contempt case is closed. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **JUDGE** JV 9 Con.Case(C).No.1480 OF 2018 IN WP(C). 17415/2018 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REFERRED TO AS EXT.P7 IN THE WRIT PETITION ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25/6/2018 OF THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED ON 30.12.2016** **ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.07.2017 FORWARDED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY THE UNIVERSITY** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.07.2018 ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.08.2018 ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.109277/CDC-A32/2018/ADMN, DATED 09.10.2018 ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P1/137/2018/HEDN DATED 23.05.2018**