PRINCIPAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Principal of a Self-Financing Nursing College. The college was started in the year 2008 with an initial intake of 50 students for B.Sc.Nursing. Initially, the college was affiliated to Calicut University. After the formation of the Kerala University of Health Sciences in 2010 (KUHS), the affiliation was transferred to KUHS. In the year 2021, the annual intake of students was increased from 50 to 70. In the year 2023-24, the petitioner sought for enhancement of the seats from 70 to 90. On an application filed before the Government for a No Objection Certificate (NOC), an inspection was conducted through the Director of Medical Education and thereafter the Government granted the NOC. The petitioner applied for approval by the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council (KNMC). After conducting an inspection, the KNMC also granted approval. Thereafter, the petitioner applied before the KUHS for affiliation. The application was rejected on 11/10/2023 as per Ext.P15. The reason stated in Ext.P15 is that as per UO No.69/2022/Academic/KUHS dtd. 7/2/2022, if seat enhancement was already permitted in an existing course and the application is for further enhancement of seats, the batch in which the enhancement was last sanctioned shall be treated as the first batch for the purpose of considering the further enhancement of seats. It is further stated that in the case of the petitioner, the batch to which the seat enhancement was granted, i.e., 2021-22, has not passed out from the Institution, and hence, affiliation for further enhancement cannot be granted. It is also stated that as the validity of the application will expire on 30/12/2023, a fresh online application may be submitted in subsequent academic years after the enhanced batch passes out from the Institution. Aggrieved by Ext.P15, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) A statement has been filed by the Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. In paragraph 3, it is stated that in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P17, which is the amended statute regulating affiliation for enhancement of seats in a course, it is necessary that the first batch in the said course in the applicant institution, should have completed their course. It is further stated that the University, being the affiliating and examining body, has the primary duty to ensure that the standards in the institution are properly maintained and only qualified health professionals pass out of the institution. It is stated that the evaluation of the standards is a continuous process and the same could be assessed only through the evaluation of the performance of the batches of students. In the case of nursing courses, the student-patient ratio of 1:3 and the teacher-student ratio of 1:10 are to be maintained. It is hence submitted that the University would be justified in treating the batch with an increased intake as a fresh batch to assess the performance of the Institution with the increased intake. It is further stated that a reading of Exts.P16 and P17 would show that they operate in a different context and as permitted under Ext.P18 Statutes itself. Reference is made to Statute 10 of the pre-amended First Statutes. Statute 10 dealing with the grant of affiliation, states that the grant of affiliation shall depend upon the fulfilment by the management of all the conditions that are specified or that may be specified later for the satisfactory establishment and maintenance of the proposed institution/courses of studies. In the judgment in W.P.(C)No.15368 of 2016, this Court, while dealing with the contention that the norms of affiliation could be fixed only through Statutes, held that the Statute itself permits fixation of norms through other means, relying on the words 'that may be specified later'. In the amended statutes, instead of saying 'that may be specified later', it is stated as 'that may be specified additionally'. It is hence submitted that there is no substantial difference in the Statute as amended and the interpretation placed in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.15368 of 2016 will apply. Annexure R4(a) produced along with the statement is a true copy of the notification published in the Gazette Extraordinary dtd. 15/12/2021. It is stated that the said notification gives legality and clarity to the provisions contained in Ext.P16 and P18, regarding additional intake. It is further stated that the very purpose of incorporating the condition regarding passing out of the first batch in the same stream is to ensure that the college can manage the required minimum standards in the institution. It is stated that the amendment led to a situation where the words 'first batch' were interpreted in a manner that defeated the very purpose of the amendment and that the University will be failing in its duty to monitor the standards in the case of an enhanced intake, if additional seats are permitted before the college shows that they are capable of maintaining the minimum standard requirements for the already enhanced intake for the course period. It is also stated that pending amendment of the affiliation Statutes, Ext.P18 Statute cannot be permitted to operate with lack of clarity regarding the words 'first batch of the stream' which required issuance of Exts.P16 and P17 by the Vice Chancellor who is competent to act on the emergent situation became necessary. It is stated that Ext.P16 is to be viewed as a clarification or a norm which is covered by the words 'that may be issued additionally'. Another contention taken is that 'affiliation' is distinct and different from 'permission and recognition' and that the University is the sole authority to prescribe the norms for the grant of affiliation and to grant the same. It is submitted that the number of intake to be permitted is regulated by statutory provisions and the same does not give any primacy to statutory councils or the Government. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1508 of 2020, wherein a contention that the University is bound by the intake permitted by the Statutory Council was rejected. It is submitted that the said judgment is under challenge in SLP No.1689 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is stated that in terms of Ext.P19, the admissions to the B.Sc. Nursing Course is to be closed on 7/11/2023 and as far as the application submitted by the petitioner is concerned, the same stands rejected and the University has not even conducted an inspection to assess the availability of the facilities in the College. It is stated that an inspection is to be followed by a scrutiny of the report, intimation of remediable shortfalls, if any, consideration of the records of the sub-committee of the Governing Council, etc., and that considerable time is required to complete the above process and there is no possibility of permitting admissions for the additional seats in the current academic year.

(3.) Heard Sri Kurian George Kannanthanam, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri.Saneer P.M, on behalf of the petitioner, Sri P.Sreekumar, Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri Premchand R. Nair, Senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.