KVM College of Science and Technology, Kokkothamangalam v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others

W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 1 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942** **WP(C).No.11093 OF 2019(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **KVM COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688527, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, KOCHI682022, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. 2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, KOCHI-682022. 3 THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, KOCHI-682022. 4 INSPECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR INSPECTION OF RECOGNIZED INSTITUTIONS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-19, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, KOCHI-682022.** W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 2 **5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.D.G.VIPIN SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.M.MANOJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 3 ## _**P.V.ASHA, J**_ **.** **----------------------------------------** W.P(c) No.11093 of 2019-J --------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2020_ ## _**J U D G M E N T**_ Petitioner College is aggrieved by Ext.P17 order by which the Cochin University of Science and Technology ('the University' for short), directed it not to admit students for M.Sc in Bio-Technology for the academic year 2019-20 onwards and denied recognition to the course for that year. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the exorbitant fee being charged for extension of recognition every year. 2. While the petitioner College had been conducting MCA and other courses, it submitted application for approval for starting M.Sc in Biotechnology. University constituted an inspection committee and submitted its report. Based on the inspection report and the application of the petitioner the syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 18.06.2005 resolved to grant provisional approval to the petitioner college for conducting M.Sc in Biotechnology with an intake of 30 students for the year 2005-06 and the University issued Ext.P2 order accordingly. It was stated that all conditions governing grant of recognition by the University in the U.O No. dated 2.9.2004 would be applicable to the courses. Petitioner thereafter entered into an MOU with the University as in the case of all recognised colleges pursuant to Ext.P3 letter dated 01.04.2006. The University W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 4 continued to grant provisional recognition to the college to conduct the course year to year on the basis of applications submitted by the petitioner college every year, after remitting the prescribed fee and after getting report from the inspection committee, which visits the college every year. While considering the application for extension of provisional recognition for the year 2017-18, the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P8 order directing the petitioner to rectify the following defects noted by the inspection committee, before 10.11.2017: _" 1. Faculties with Ph.D/NET are to be appointed further._ _2. Faculties should go for research/projects etc. From external funding agencies._ _3. Faculties in CUSAT library may be utilized for improvement in the college library (INFLIBNET)._ _4. Evaluation of laboratory sessions to be conducted External assessment instead of continuous internal assessment._ _5. Conduct of Lab experiments: Several Lab experiments are not to be conducted in all semesters, especially in Semester III."_ The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P14 explanation stating that there were sufficient number of qulaified faculties and explained the achievements made by the college over the years. Thereafter, in Ext.P15 inspection report based on the visit dated 27.10.2018, for recognition for the year 2018-19, the inspection team recommended not to grant recognition for the course from the academic year 2019-20. The shortcomings found were: _"(1) shortage of adequate teaching faculty (2) library facilites are bare minimum and it is shared by the other Departments and the available equipment and (3) available equipments and lab facilities are not used for practical training"._ Thereafter, the syndicate in its meeting held on 13.02.2019 considered the matter and resolved to approve the recommendation of the inspection committee and W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 5 hence to direct the College not to admit students from 2019-20 batch onwards. Ext.P16 order was issued on 2.3.2019 based on the said decision of the syndicate. The decision in Ext.P16 was communicated to the Principal of the College as per Ext.P17 letter dated 07.03.2019. As per Exts.P18 and P19 orders, the requests of the petitioner for approval of MBA course and M.Sc in Microbiology, were also declined based on the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on academic matters. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition at that stage. 3. According to the petitioner, there is no deficiency of Faculties; there is no dearth of facilities in the library or laboratory. Moreover, on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court one more Faculty with Ph.D is already appointed. 4. Yet another complaint of the petitioner is over the exorbitant fee charged by the University every year for recognition. It is pointed out that the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.16,13,585/- in addition to a sum of Rs.2,46,140/towards GST towards annual recognition fee for the academic year 2017-18 as per Ext.P9 receipts. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.50,000/- had to be remitted as per Ext.P11 for the purpose of getting a copy of the CAT rank list 2017 for M.Sc Degree in Biotechnology in order to make admissions to the 30 seats available in the college. It is stated that the college has to remit a huge amount for recognition, inspection, etc. with the University every year and the inspection committee used to raise some irrelevant and minor defects every time. W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 6 5. It was argued that as long as the University has not framed any ordinance relating to procedure for recognition, as provided in Section 40(5) of the Cochin University Science and Technology Act ('the Act' for short), the University cannot insist payment of such fees every year; petitioner should have been given permanent recognition without compelling it to make payment every year from 2005 onwards; in the absence of ordinance relating to recognition of courses, the University has to follow the UGC (Affiliation of Colleges by Universities) Regulations, 2009, as amended in 2012. The petitioner has furnished Ext.P20 chart furnishing the rates of fee prevailing in the M.G University as well as other Universities in Kerala pointing out the incomparable high rate of fee charged by the University. According to the petitioner, the University should have granted permanent recognition to it, on completion of 5 years of the commencement of the course, in tune with the UGC Regulation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in _**Muslim Educational Society v. State of**_ Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 357, _**Cochin College v. Ajith Kumar K.**_ [2014 (4) Kerala series 532], _**Rungta Engg College v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University**_ [(2015) 11 SCC 291] in support of her contentions. It is argued that insistence of recognition fee and inspection fee year to year right from 2005-06 is arbitrary. Pointing out that the committee conducting inspection every year raises trivial and irrelevant objections, the petitioner submits that the Government shall be directed to conduct the inspection in such cases as provided in Section 50 of the Act. W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 7 6. The University has filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner failed to fulfill the conditions for recognition, though sufficient time was granted to rectify the deficiencies. It is stated that the syndicate took the impugned decision on the basis of the report submitted by the expert committee which verified the basic conditions prevailing in the institution; it is stated that Cochin University is renowned for excellence from its very inception and those institutes which are recognised by the University are also supposed to follow excellence in imparting education; lack of necessities will lead to drop in the standard of the course and therefore it had no other choice than cancelling the recognition. 7. In the additional counter affidavit it is stated that recognition was granted to the petitioner College to conduct the M.Sc degree Course in Biotechnology in accordance with Ext.R1(a) 'Rules for Recognition of Institutions other than the University Departments'. It is stated that recognition can be granted year to year in accordance with those rules. It is stated that syndicate is the authority competent to admit an institution to the University as a recognised institution and also to arrange for inspection of the recognised institution in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 18(ii) and (xxii ) of the University Act. According to the respondent, recognition and affiliation are distinct and different. 8. As per these Ext.R1(a) Rules, if at any time, the syndicate is satisfied that any of the terms and conditions imposed on a recognised institution at the time W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 8 of granting recognition is not fulfilled, or complied with, or if the institution is otherwise unfit to continue as a recognised institution, the syndicate can withdraw the recognition granted to such institution. As per Rule 4, as and when an application is submitted for recognition, the syndicate may call for further information and appoint an inspection team for making an enquiry into all matters by relevant application by visiting the institution and considering the relevant information concerning the institution. 9. According to the University, the recognition is to be granted to self financing colleges in accordance with the provisions contained in Ext.R1(a) rules and the syndicate is competent to grant or deny recognition. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that without challenging the provisions contained in the Act or statute, the petitioner cannot be in a position to contend that the charging of exorbitant fees or conducting of inspection are unauthorised. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the University that the University is not granting any affiliation, it is only granting recognition and therefore the UGC Regulations on affiliation would not apply to it when Ext.R1(a) holds the field. It is argued that recognition is granted for a particular specialised course only and not to the institution. At the same time, affiliation is to an institution; the UGC regulations deal with the affiliation of institutions. According to the learned Standing Counsel, colleges like the petitioner college are conducting various courses on the basis of the recognition received from different universities. As far as the Cochin University is concerned, the recognition cannot be granted to the W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 9 petitioner college for conducting the course M.Sc. Biotechnology. 10. Heard Smt.Vaheeda Babu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. D.G Vipin the learned Standing Counsel for the University. 11. As far as the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P15 report are concerned, the main objection was insufficiency of Faculty holding Ph.D. Now that on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court one more Faculty with Ph.D is appointed, the said deficiency ceased to exist. Therefore, the very ground based on which Ext.P16 decision was taken and consequential orders were passed does not exist. The petitioner has already admitted students based on the interim orders passed by this Court. Those admissions would be treated as regular. 12. Next question is regarding the recognition and inspection for the year 2020-21, as the petitioner claims that the University cannot go on with the temporary recognition even after about 20 years of Ext P2. In this context it is necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions contained in the University Act and Statutes. Relevant Sections of the Act read as follows: _"3(15) : "Recognised Institution" means an institution for research and or special studies, recognised as such by the Syndicate in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the Statutes and ordinances._ _3(12) : "prescribed" means prescribed by this Act or the statutes, Ordinances, Regulations or Rules made thereunder._ _Section 6 : Powers of the University: xxxxxx_ _(ii) to accord recognition to any science and technology institution which is neither a part of, nor affiliated to, a University or deemed University, as a Recognized Institution._ _xxx xxx xxx_ _6(ix) : to fix the fees payable to the University and to demand and receive such fees._ W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 10 _xxx xxx xxx_ _6(xviii) : to provide for the inspection of Recognised Institutions and lay down standards of instruction and research._ _Section 18 : Powers of the Syndicate:- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the executive powers of the University including the general superintendence and control over its institutions shall be vested in the Syndicate and subject likewise the Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely:-_ _xxx xxx xxx_ _18(ii) : to admit an institution to the University as a Recognised Institution in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by the Ordinances._ _xxx xxx xxx_ _18 (xxiii) : to arrange for the inspection of recognised institution to ensure compliance with the conditions of recognition and to decide on the continuance of recognition._ _S.40: Ordinances:- Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the Statutes, the Ordinances of the University may provide for all or any of the following matters namely:-_ _xxx xxx xxx_ _(5) : recognition of institution as "Recognised Institutions"._ _"S.50 : Power of Government to cause inspection of the University:- (1) The Government shall have the right to cause an inspection to be made by such person or persons as they may direct of the University, its buildings, laboratories, libraries, museums, workshops and equipments and of any institutions maintained, recognised or approved by, the University and also of the work conducted by the University, and to cause enquiry to be made in respect of any matter connected with the University._ _(2) The Government shall, before taking any action under subsection (1), give notices to the University of their intention to cause such inspection or enquiry to be made and the University shall be entitled to be represented thereat._ _(3) The Government shall communicate to the Syndicate the result of any inspection or inquiry made under sub-section (1) and may, after ascertaining the opinion of the Syndicate thereon, convey their views to the Vice-Chancellor and to the Syndicate._ _(4) The Government may, after considering the views of the ViceChancellor and the Syndicate on the result of any inspection or inquiry under subsection (1), advise the University upon the action to be taken in the matter._ _(5) The Syndicate shall report to the Government the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken, or has been taken, upon the result of any inspection_ W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 11 _or inquiry under sub-section(1)._ _(6) A report under sub-section (5) shall be submitted with the opinion of the Syndicate thereon and within such time as the Government may direct. (7) Where the Syndicate does not, within a reasonable time, take any action referred to in sub-section (4) to the satisfaction of the Government, the Government may, after considering any explanation furnished by the Syndicate in the matter, issue such directions as they may think fit, and the Syndicate shall comply with such directions."_ A scanning of these provisions would show that under Section 3(15) recognition is to be granted under the provisions of the Act, Statutes and ordinances. Under Section 18(ii) the syndicate is empowered to admit an institution as a recognised institution in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by the ordinances. Admittedly, no ordinance is made so far, though the ordinance making power is also on the syndicate. 13. However, it cannot be said that University cannot fix any fee or that it cannot insist year to year recognition just because there is no ordinance, when the petitioner is enjoying the benefit of recognition granted to it by the syndicate even without the ordinance, though the terms and conditions of recognition are to be prescribed by way of the Ordinances. However, Syndicate is empowered under Section 18(xxiii) to arrange for inspection of recognised institutions to ensure compliance of conditions of recognition and to decide on the continuance of recognition. Under Section 6(viii) the University is also empowered to arrange for inspection of the recognised institutions. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that inspection is no more required, cannot be accepted. 14. Eventhough the University has produced Ext.R1(a) rules it does not W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 12 throw any light as to the provision under which it is framed or as to the authority which made it. Under Section 43(2) rules may provide for only those matters provided in sub clauses (a) to (c), which do not include recognition. The rules are to be issued with the approval of the syndicate and it would come into force only from the date on which it is published in the gazette. University has not stated whether the rules are published in the gazette. It is also not stated whether the rules are issued since there is no ordinance as provided in Section 40(5) of the Act. 15. Section 2 (15) defines a recognised institution to mean an institution for research and or special studies, recognised as such by the syndicate in accordance with the provisions of the Act, statutes and ordinances. Ext.P2 would show that recognition was granted to the petitioner to conduct the M.Sc course in Biotechnology. Petitioner is not granted recognition from 2019-20 onwards. Recognition requires inspection every year, for which the college will have to make payment of the prescribed fee. The power of the syndicate under Section 18(xxiii) reads as follows: _"(xxiii) to arrange for the inspection of recognised institution to ensure compliance with the conditions of recognition and to decide on the continuance of recognition."_ Therefore, the petitioner will have to submit application for extension of recognition and the prescribed fee for the inspection. Even though the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University argued that the Cochin University is not an affiliating University and it is only granting recognition to particular courses, no provision is seen in the Cochin University of Science and Technology W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 13 Act, 1986 relating to recognition of a course alone. Wherever recognition is referred to in any of the provisions in the Act or Statute, it only relates to the Institution. 16. If that be so, there is no reason why the UGC Regulations should not be applied in the case of recognition especially when the UGC Regulations define affiliation as recognition also. Regulation 2.1 reads as follows: _"2.1. "affiliation" together with its grammatical variations, includes, in relation to a college, recognition of such college by, association of such college with, and admission of such college to the privileges of, a university."_ As per the said regulation, the College/Institution, becomes eligible for permanent affiliation on completion of five years on fulfillment of all the conditions. Clause 5 of the Regulations 2009, as amended in 2012, provides for eligibility criteria for permanent affiliation, which reads as follows: - _“5. Eligibility Criteria for Permanent Affiliation:_ - _5.1 The college shall have completed at least five years of satisfactory performance after getting temporary affiliation and attained the academic and administrative standards as prescribed by the University / UGC / Statutory / Regulatory Body concerned from time to time._ - _5.2 The college shall have completed construction of buildings and all infrastructure/facilities as stipulated in the Regulations._ - _5.3 All the teaching and non-teaching staff are appointed on permanent (appointed on regular basis, in case of a Government college) on the UGC/Government scales of pay._ - _5.4 The college shall have a duly constituted College Council as per the norms._ - _5.5 . The college shall be accredited by NAAC or any other statutory accreditation agency by State/Central government ”_ Therefore, as and when the petitioner College becomes eligible for permanent recognition in tune with clause 5 of the UGC Regulations, the respondent W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 14 University shall consider its eligibility for permanent recognition in accordance with the regulations, 2009 as amended from time to time. 17. However, the regulations do not provide for the fees to be paid for recognition or inspection. Clause 4.3 only provides that the college shall make an application to the university in the prescribed proforma along with the prescribed fee in favour of the University. 18. As far as the complaint of the petitioner regarding fee is concerned, though it _prima facie_ appears to be exorbitant on a glance at Ext.P20 chart, no rule or regulation is pointed out which limits the fee. At any rate, the petitioner would be free to take up the matter with the University or UGC as the case may be. In that event, the University/UGC shall consider the grievances of the petitioner. 19. While conducting inspection for the year 2020-21, the University shall take into account the provisions contained in the UGC affiliation regulations also. As the petitioner had already rectified the deficiencies, referred to in Ext.P15 inspection report, the order Exts.P16 and P17 shall stand set aside. In case the petitioner submits applications for any other course, the respondents shall consider the same dehors the orders Exts.P18 and P19. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. _Sd/-_ _**(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)**_ ## _**rtr/**_ W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 15 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY, PERMITTING CHANGE OF NAME OF THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION/COLLEGE. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY, GRANTING APPROVAL/SANCTION/RECOGNITION(PROVISIONAL) FOR CONDUCTING M.SC. DEGREE IN BIOTECHNOLOGY, WITH AN ANNUAL INTAKE OF 30. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 1.04.2006 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER COLLEGE FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED 17.06.2006 OF THE PETITIONER COLLEGE, SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY, EXTENDING PROVISIONAL RECOGNITION TO THE COURSE, FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFFS IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION,2018. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT ANALYSIS FROM 2007-2019 AND OTHER DETAILS OF THE COURSE M.SC.DEGREE IN BIOTECHNOLOGY, WHICH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE PETITIONER COLLEGE, SHOWING THE EXCELLENCE SHOWN IN THE FIELD OF TEACHING AND ALSO IN THE RESEARCH FIELD, WHICH IS MANDATORILY ASKED FOR BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY FOR CONTINUNACE OF RECOGNITION TO THE COUSE. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/09/2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY GRANTING EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL RECOGNITION FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2017-18 FOR M.SC. DEGREE IN BIOTECHNOLOGY TO THE PETITIONER COLLEGE.** W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 16 ## **EXHIBIT P9** **A TRUE COPY OF THE GST INVOICE DATED 20/04/2018 WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNUAL RECOGNITION FEE REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER COLLEGE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2017-18.** |**EXHIBIT P10**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.05.2017.**| |---|---| ||**ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT INSTRUCTING TO**| ||**REMIT RS.50,000/- FOR PROVIDING COPY OF THE**| ||**RANK LIST OF CAT 2017 FOR M.SC DEGREE IN**| ||**BIOTECHNOLOGY.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26.06.2018**| ||**EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.50,000/- BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER COLLEGE, FOR PROVIDING COPY OF**| ||**THE RANK LIST OF CAT 2017 FOR M.SC. DEGREE**| ||**IN BIOTECNOLOGY.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED**| ||**25.05.2017 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 WITH**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER COLLEGE.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.09.2017**| ||**OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE**| ||**PRINCIPAL OF THE PETITIONER COLLEGE.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ACTION TAKEN REPORT**| ||**DATED NIL, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**| ||**COLLEGE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT**| ||**UNIVERSITY.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED**| ||**27/10/2018 FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 WITH**| ||**RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER COLLEGE.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/03/2019**| ||**OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2019**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE**| ||**PETITIONER COLLEGE, IN PURSUANCE TO EXHIBIT**| ||**P16, INTERDICTING THE PETITIONER COLLEGE,**| ||**FROM ADMITTING STUDENTS FOR M.SC.**| ||**BIOTECHNOLOGY COURSE FROM 2019-20 BATCH**| ||**ONWARDS.**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2019,**| ||**DECLINING THE REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION OF**| ||**M.SC. MICROBIOLOGY COURSE IN THE PETITIONER**| ||**COLLEGE.**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2019,**| ||**DECLINING THE REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION OF**| ||**MBA COURSE IN THE PETITIONER COLLEGE.**| W.P(C).No.11093/2019-J 17 ## **EXHIBIT P20** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2017 OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, FIXING COURSE AFFILIATION FEE, WITH RESPECT TO AIDED AND UN-AIDED COLLEGES.** **EXHIBIT P21** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED NIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, FIXING COURSE AFFILIATION FEE, WITH RESPECT TO AIDED AND UN-AIDED COLLEGE.** - **EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 28.3.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY, RECEIVED IN THE PETITIONER COLLEGE ON 6.4.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY AGAIN RESOLVING TO CONDUCT INSPECTION AT THE COLLEGE.** - **EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY ISSUED IN PURSUANCE TO THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10.04.2019 IN THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION INTIMATING THE DECISION OF THE SYNDICATE THAT EXTENSION OF RECOGNITION TO THE PETITIONER BE GRANTED FOLLOWING THE USUAL PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-20.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RULES FOR RECOGNITION OF INSTITUTIONS OTHER THAN THE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS.** **EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.AC.C3/33/KVM CE& IT/2004 (VOL.II) DATED 19.08.2019.**