WA.No. 1600 of 2016 in WP(C).22092/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/10TH BHADRA, 1938 WA.No. 1600 of 2016 IN WP(C).22092/2016 -------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22092/2016 DATED 03-08-2016 ..................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT : ----------------------------------- APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, (INITIALLY KERALA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY), CET CAMPUS, TRIVANDRUM 695 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, KTU RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 : --------------------------------------------------------- 1. KMCT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, NIT CAMPUS P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 601, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 2. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O, TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM 673 635. 3. STATE OF KERALA, RERPESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. R1 BY SRI.SHYAM PADMAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUT UNIVERSITY R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, V. TEKCHAND THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Ag. C.J. & K.T. Sankaran, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1600 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1[st] day of September, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Ag.C.J.** The judgment dated 03.08.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 22092 of 2016 directing the appellant to grant affiliation to the 1[st] respondent College to start MBA/MCA courses for the academic year 2016-17 is challenged in this appeal. During the pendency of this matter, it is brought to the notice of the Court that a Corrigendum is issued by the appellant University on 16.08.2016 granting provisional affiliation in respect of MBA and MCA courses to the 1[st] respondent College. However, we made it clear that such provisional affiliation will be subject to the result of this writ appeal. Based on the provisional affiliation granted to the 1[st] respondent College, the admissions are already made and the students so admitted are being imparted with the education. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant University draws the attention of the Court to certain sentences in the impugned WA 1600/16 **==> picture [24 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** judgment and contends that such sentences will affect the right of the University to pass orders relating to grant or non-grant of affiliation, which needs to be clarified. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent argues that the judgment of the learned single Judge need not be interfered with. 3. The records reveal that the 1[st] respondent institution is conducting MBA/MCA courses for more than 11 years without any objection from any source. However, on the establishment of the appellant University, which was initially known as Kerala Technological University, the 1[st] respondent institution also fell within its purview from the present academic year, i.e. 2016-17. It seems that the appellant University has raised objection on certain factors relating to infrastructural facilities and thus has not granted affiliation to the 1[st] respondent. In the above view of the matter, the 1[st] respondent herein has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 22092 of 2016 for appropriate reliefs which came to be allowed by virtue of the WA 1600/16 ## -:3:- impugned judgment. 4. In the case of **Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others** [(2013) 2 SCC 617], the Apex Court, after considering the provisions and scheme of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act, 1993, Medical Council of India Act, 1956, the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 etc. concluded that the provisions and Scheme of NCTE Act are in _pari materia_ with that of Medical Counsel Act, 1956 and All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. In the very judgment, the Apex Court, after considering various decisions on the point, had observed that the Council is the authority constituted under the Central Act and is conferred with the responsibility of maintaining the standards of education and judging upon the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over the views of the State as well as that of the University. The Department of the State concerned and the affiliating University have a role to WA 1600/16 ## -:4:- play but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guideline or policy which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. The State can frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve, i.e. of imparting of education properly and ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and infrastructure for betterment of the educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a coordinated manner and with cooperation, will they be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist. However, the appellant University being the examining body, can impose conditions in relation to its own requirements; such as a) eligibility of students for admission b) conduct of examinations c) the manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed and d) to see that the conditions imposed WA 1600/16 -:5:- by the NCTE Act are complied with. Despite the fact that recognition itself covers the larger percepts of affiliation, still the affiliating body is not to grant affiliation automatically but must exercise its discretion fairly and transparently while ensuring that conditions of the law of the University and the functions of the affiliating body are complementary to the recognition of NCTE and ought not to be in derogation thereto. 5. Almost similar view is expressed by the Apex Court in **Rungta Engineering College, Bhilai and another v. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University and another** [(2015) 11 SCC 291]. There cannot be any dispute that no state law can overlap or stipulate norms of higher standards on the areas covered by the Central Act. Thus, the norms and guidelines framed by the AICTE are paramount and University Regulations cannot override it. 6. Be that as it may, while granting or refusing affiliation to the College, the University will have to take into consideration the law on the aspect and has to work within its field and should WA 1600/16 -:6:- not encroach upon the field of AICTE. There cannot be any repugnance in relation to the powers conferred on the University and the AICTE. As mentioned supra, it is for all the authorities to work unitedly and cohesively as they all have a common object to achieve, i.e. imparting of education properly and ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and infrastructure for betterment of the educational system. The aforesaid observations made by us will clarify the meaning of the last directions in the impugned judgment. 7. Coming back to the facts of the case, since provisional affiliation is already granted to the 1[st] respondent College and based on which certain admissions were made, we do not propose to alter the situation by virtue of this order. Provisional affiliation will continue till the end of this academic year. It is open for the writ petitioner/1[st] respondent herein to rectify defects, if any, pointed out by the appellant University as per law and if such defects are rectified as required in law, the University will grant affiliation for the next academic year. The appellant WA 1600/16 **==> picture [24 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** University shall decide the question of grant of affiliation keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments. With the above observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- **Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Acting Chief Justice.** Sd/- **K.T. Sankaran, Judge.** ttb/01/09