W.P.(C) No.5297 of 2020 (J) - Adheena Joemon, Nileena V.R. and Maneesha V.Manikuttan v State of Kerala and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anil K. Narendran
- Judgment Date
- 2020-11-17
- Court Decision / Holding
- Directed KUHS to consider and pass orders on Exts. P4 and P5 with notice to an authorized representative of the 6th respondent college, within three weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, and left open the question of whether such consideration can occur without a Government NOC, to be decided by KUHS at the time of consideration. The decision is to be made strictly in accordance with law, reinforcing the principle that mandamus cannot compel illegal action.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed with directions to KUHS to consider Exts. P4 and P5 within three weeks, with notice to the college, and to decide on the Government NOC issue at the time of consideration, in strict accordance with law.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- ADHEENA JOEMON
- NILEENA V.R.
- MANEESHA V.MANIKUTTAN
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN 695001
- Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN 695001
- Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS), Thrissur, represented by its Registrar
- Mahatma Gandhi University, Thrissur, represented by its Registrar
- Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies (CPAS), Kottayam, represented by its Director
- School of Medical Education, Kottayam, represented by its Principal
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri.Thomas M.Jacob
- • Sri.Akhil K.Madhav
- • Sri.T.R.Jerry Sebastian
- • Sri.V.Prashanth
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Standing Counsel
- • Sri.Sunil Nath N.B., Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition (Article 226) challenges the decision framework for affiliating the 6th respondent college of Medical Microbiology/Biochemistry with the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS). The petitioners, current students in the 6th respondent college, seek a mandamus directing KUHS to affiliate the college under Section 50 of the KUHS Act, 2010, and to recognise the courses that were transferred to KUHS. They also contend that there is no requirement for a Government no-objection certificate for courses taught in colleges statutorily affiliated to KUHS under Section 50. The court records that Exts. P4 and P5—applications dated 24.06.2019 for M.Sc. Medical Biochemistry and M.Sc. Medical Microbiology—formed the core of the reliefs. After hearing the parties, the court disposed of the petition by directing KUHS to consider and pass orders on Exts. P4 and P5, with notice to a representative of the college, within three weeks. It clarified that whether such consideration could proceed without Government NOC would be decided by KUHS at the time of consideration. The decision rests on the principle that mandamus cannot compel acts contrary to law, as reiterated from Supreme Court authority.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- No mandamus can be issued to direct an authority to do something which is contrary to law.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petition seeks a writ of mandamus to affiliate the 6th respondent college with KUHS under Section 50 of the KUHS Act, 2010, and recognition of courses transferred under KUHS. The petition argues there is no legal requirement for a Government No Objection Certificate for subjects taught in colleges statutorily affiliated to KUHS under Section 50. Exts. P4 and P5 (applications dated 24.06.2019 for M.Sc. Medical Biochemistry and M.Sc. Medical Microbiology) should be considered in accordance with law, and the petitioners seek expeditious action on these applications.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents highlight that any affiliation must be considered strictly in accordance with law. The court cannot compel action contrary to law; the Government NOC issue (if required) must be decided by the KUHS at the time of consideration of Exts. P4 and P5. The matter requires careful, lawful processing of affiliation applications with due procedure, and the state actors should adhere to statutory requirements and established legal principles.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of U.P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others | 1996 (9) SCC 309 | Positive | Cited and applied to support the proposition that mandamus cannot direct an authority to act contrary to law. |
| Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam | 2011 (10) SCC 259 | Positive | Repeated the same principal, reinforcing the no-mandamus-to-contrary-to-law doctrine. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against W.P.(C) No.5297 of 2020 (J) - Adheena Joemon, Nileena V.R. and Maneesha V.Manikuttan v State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.