IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2014/12TH ASHADHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 16775 of 2014 (V) ----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
MINORITY PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, REG NO KNR/CA/11, ANJARAKANDY INTEGRATED CAMPUS, ANJARAKANDY P.O, KANNUR 670 612 REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT DR.HASHIM M.A
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2. THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, RAM MOHAN PALACE COCHIN 682 031
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC, ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 16775 of 2014 (V)
----------------------------
## APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-05-2014 GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH PROSPECTUS FPOR ADMISSION TO BDS COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2014-15
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO ASC 100/14/BDS/MPCMA DATED 2005-2014
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO ASC-100/14/BDS/MDS/MPCMA DATED 24-05-2014
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO ASC 100/14/BDS/MDS DATED 23-052014 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------Nil
/True copy/ P.S. to Judge.
## **K. M. JOSEPH & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JJ** .
=========================
W.A. No. 16775 of 2014 ========================= Dated this the 3[rd ] day of July 2014
## J U D G M E N T
K. M. Joseph, J.
The petitioner, an association representing the Management of six self financing educational institutions, is offering Dental and Medical courses. The petitioner Association approached the 2[nd] respondent-Committee by giving Ext.P1 letter along with a prospectus for admission to BDS course in the Member Colleges for the year 2014-15. On receipt of Ext.P1, the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P2 notice asking the petitioner to appear for personal hearing. On receiving Ext.P1, the representative of the petitioner Association appeared and tried to explain the doubts raised by the Committee. Ext.P3 is the decision of the Committee rejecting the prospectus of the petitioner Association. Ext.P4 order relates to MDS course, with which we are not concerned in this case. Challenging the legality of Ext.P3, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:
W.P.(C) No.16775/2014
2
“i). issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and to quash the same.
ii). Issue a writ declaring that the power of supervision as enjoyed by the committee and does not include takeover of the conduct of the test by the committee and that the assumption of the said power by the committee is opposed to law.
iii). Issue a writ declaring that the time schedule prescribed in Mridul Dar has no applicability for conduct of entrance examination in self financing colleges as there is no State or Central quota reserved in self financing colleges.
iv). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2[nd] respondent committee to supervise the examination on a date to be fixed from among the applicants who have applied in response to Ext.P1.”
2. We heard learned counsel Sri.George
Poonthottam appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel Smt.Mary Benjamin appearing for the Committee.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the decision taken in Ext.P3 is illegal. It is pointed out that the Committee has gone beyond its jurisdiction in refusing to grant approval. It is pointed out that, in Ext.P2 notice it is stated as follows:
“Before acting as per the prospectus, the approval of the prospectus by this committee is mandatory. Approval of the prospectus by this committee can be granted only after examining various aspects. Even this examination of various aspects can be done, only after you have entered into the consensual agreement with government.”
W.P.(C) No.16775/2014 3
He poses the question as to how the agreement could be relevant. Drawing our attention to Ext.P3, learned counsel points out that it is the constitutional right of the petitioner Association to select by holding a test. The Association had moved the Committee with the hope of getting approval and do everything as provided in law. But still the Committee, without any valid reason, has chosen to decline the same. It is also pointed out that the time schedule prescribed in Mirdul Dhar(minor) & another v. Union of India & Others (2005 (2) SCC 65) may not apply in respect of any examination to be held by the self financing institutions as therein is neither an All India Quota or a State quota. In answer to our query as to the reason for the delay in approaching this Court, it was submitted that, the petitioner was under the impression that they may have to seek relief under Article 32, in view of the fact that time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court can be varied only by that Court, but in the proceedings relating to MDS course, the petitioner got the impression that it can move the petition before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the Committee, on the other hand, points out that though Ext.P1 is dated 15/5/2014, it was received by the Committee only on 17/5/2014.
W.P.(C) No.16775/2014 4
18/5/2014 was a holiday being Sunday. On 20[th] itself, Ext.P2 notice was issued inter alia giving an opportunity to the representative of the petitioner Association for personal hearing. On 22[nd] itself the Committee had taken the decision. Regarding the decision it is pointed out that since the examination was proposed to be held on 29/5/2014, there was no sufficient time for the students to apply. Counsel points out that prior to Ext.P1 there was no application seeking approval as such. Ext.P1 was merely given to the Committee. Applications were invited by the petitioner even before getting the approval from the Committee. This is contrary to the decisions of this Court that in each and every aspect there must be prior approval of the Committee. Questions papers can be prepared by the management, but three sets of question papers must be made available to the Committee. The examinations are to be held within the time frame as per the orders of the Supreme Court which expired on 30/6/2014. Learned counsel further submits that,having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, approval could not be granted.
5. Responding to the submissions of the counsel for the Committee, counsel for the petitioner submits that the
5
W.P.(C) No.16775/2014
prospectus was given with the hope of getting approval from the Committee. Counsel points out that the mere fact that there is no request for approval is not a sufficient reason to pass Ext.P3 order.
6. In this case, we must notice that the test was proposed to be held on 29/5/2014. The writ petition was filed on 1/7/2014. The last date fixed, going by the decision of the Supreme Court, is 30/6/2014. No doubt, the petitioner has a definite case that the time schedule prescribed in Mridul Dhar's case (cited supra) is not applicable in this case as there is neither an All India quota or a state quota in regard to the self financing institutions. Even if we ignore this aspect, we would think that we need not interfere with Ext.P3 for other reasons. At first, we feel that the petitioner has approached this court with delay which could have been avoided. Secondly, we find that the reason given by the Committee, that going by the decision of this court approval is required in each stage, cannot be faulted. The prospectus was given to the Committee for approval only on 17/5/2014, but,that day which we have already stated, is Saturday. The Committee could have taken up the matter only on 19/5/2014. Ext.P2 was issued on 20[th] May 2014. At this juncture, it
W.P.(C) No.16775/2014
6
becomes relevant to note that even without awaiting for the approval, the petitioner proceeded to publish the prospectus on 20/5/2014 inviting applications. The examination was to be held on 29/5/2014. There was a gap of just 8 days. The whole idea of the supervisory Committee is to see that while upholding the right of the self financing institutions to admit students, there must be a procedure, whereby fairness is guaranteed. The Committee found fault with the practice of the petitioner in publishing the prospectus even without getting the approval. Even if no reasons are given, it is clear from Ext.P3 that approval was not granted. It is, no doubt, true that admissions can be made upto 30/9/2014. But, here we are concerned with the challenge to Ext.P3 and legality of Ext.P3.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, we may not be justified in interfering with Ext.P3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
`
## **K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE**
Sd/-
## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE**
dpk.
/True copy/ PS to Judge.
W.P.(C) No.16775/2014 7
