## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT :**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON**
**FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933**
## **WP(C).No. 15080 of 2011(H)**
**------------------------**
**PETITIONER :**
- **---------------------**
**TKM COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GOVERNING BODY, SHAHAL H. MUSALIAR.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SRI.N.ANAND**
**RESPONDENT(S):**
**-------------------------**
**1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.**
**2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.**
**3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI. M. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**Mn**
**...2/-**
## **WP(C).No. 15080 of 2011(H)**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
- **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LIST OF COURSES SANCTIONED BY THE AICTE WITH INTAKE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10.**
- **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE SANCTION DATED 16-7-2009 GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY FOR THE INCREASE OF THE INTAKE FOR THE YEAR 2009-10.**
- **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR GIVING SANCTION DATED 17-7-2009.**
- **EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN REGARDING THE FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO BE MET BY THE MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE INCREASE IN THE INTAKE.**
- **EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO. 21037/09 DATED 30-7-2009.**
- **EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 1-8-2009 BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PETITIONER.**
- **EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO. 128/09/H.EDN DATED 6-8-2009.**
- **EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO MEDICAL, AGRICULTURE, VETERINARY, ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE DEGREE COURSES 2011, KERALA.**
- **EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 30-7-2009 OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE SYNDICATE.**
- **EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE SAID COMMUNICATION DATED 6-5-2011 GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**
- **EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY ON 2-6-2011.**
## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL**
## **//TRUE COPY//**
**P.A. TO JUDGE**
**Mn**
## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J**
....................... W.P.(C).15080/2011
....................... Dated this the 17[th] day of June, 2011
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioner, an Aided College is stated as aggrieved of the alleged deduction in the intake capacity from 90 to 60, despite the sanction already given by the AICTE, the University and also the Government as borne by the various proceedings filed before this Court in respect of the previous year. The challenge in particular is in respect of Exts.P10 and P11 issued by the University for the current academic year, 2011-12.
2. The petitioner, sought to have the intake capacity enhanced in respect of the discipline 'Electronics & Communication Engineering'; which was considered and sanctioned by the AICTE; making it a total of 90 seats, as borne by Ext.P1 issued in respect of the year 2009-10. Based on the same, it is contended, the University also considered the matter and necessary clearance was given to have the intake capacity enhanced from 50 to 90 for the said discipline, as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 16.7.2009. Since no further action was forthcoming, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.
W.P.(C).15080/2011
2
(C).21037/09 which culminated in Ext.P5 interim order, whereby the petitioner was permitted to have the additional intake capacity vide Ext.P2, on a provisional basis.
3. In the course of further proceedings, Ext.P6 agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Government on 1.8.2009, wherein also the 'additional intake' was specified as '40'. Accordingly, the Government granted Ext.P7 NOC dated 6.8.2009 in respect of the additional/enhanced intake capacity of 40 as well, based on which, admission proceedings were finalized and the petitioner admitted the students to the full extent, as mentioned above.
4. The said position continued in respect of the subsequent year as well. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations issued Ext.P8 prospectus in respect of the year 2011-12 wherein also the petitioner/Institution has been shown at serial No.12, with the total capacity in the particular discipline shown as '90'. While so, the petitioner was taken surprise on issuance of Ext.P10 communication by the University
W.P.(C).15080/2011
3
on 6.5.2011, (addressed to the third respondent) stating that in respect of the present year onwards, ie, 2011-12, the total number of sanctioned capacity in respect of the discipline 'Electronics & Communication Engineering' was to be reckoned only as '60' instead of 90. University issued a further communication as borne by Ext.P11 dated 2.6.2011 asking the Commissioner, the third respondent, to correct the website in this regard. Petitioner is challenging Exts.P10 and P11 raising many a ground; particularly that, without any decision of the Syndicate, no variation is possible and the direction given by the University as per Exts.P10 and P11 is per se wrong and illegal.
5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel as well. Going by the materials on record, it is very much evident that the contents of Ext.P10 give a clear idea that the stipulation as to the actual intake capacity enhanced by the University was only '10' and not 40. The first two paragraphs of Ext.P10 are very much relevant and are extracted below.
W.P.(C).15080/2011
4
In continuation of the letter referred above, it may kindly be noted that the number of seats enhanced in B.Tech Electronics and Communication Engineering was 10 (ten) instead of 40 (forty) at TMK College of Engineering vide minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on affiliation of colleges and courses of studies held on 10.7.2009.
This year onwards, ie from 2011-2012, the total number of sanctioned strength is 60 (sixty) instead of 90 (ninety) for B.Tech Electronics and Communication Engineering at TKM College of Engineering, Kollam.
6. The said communication itself shows that it was only a mistake which in turn was sought to be corrected with respect to the present year, ie, 2011-2012. In support of the said contention, reliance is sought to be placed by the University on Ext.P9, which is a copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Affiliation, held on 10.7.2009, which clearly shows that the existing intake in the particular discipline of the petitioner/College was '50'. The
W.P.(C).15080/2011
5
intake enhanced was by '10'; thus making the total strength only as '60'. This shows that the instruction if any, issued by the University as borne by Ext.P2 was only a mistake in so far as the additional intake happened to be stipulated as 40, in place of '10'.
7. The learned Standing Counsel submits that though the mistake was brought to the notice of the third respondent , the Commissioner expressed helplessness, in view of the delay, assuring that the mistake would be corrected in respect of the subsequent year. It was in the said circumstance, that the University issued Ext.P10, followed by Ext.P11. This Court finds that there is considerable force in the submissions made by the University. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not told of Ext.P9 decision of the Syndicate earlier, is of no consequence; nor can it create any vested right to have the additional intake retained as '40' in place of '10'. The materials on record reveal that it was nothing but a mistake and the petitioner cannot capitalize the same, making unlawful gains. It is the settled law, as per the declaration made by the
6
W.P.(C).15080/2011
Apex Court reported in **Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh (AIR 1995 SC, 705)** , that, mistake is always a mistake, which cannot be perpetuated.
Writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge**
mrcs
