THE PRINCIPAL, KARUNA MEDICAL COLLEGE Vs. THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE & FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues raised in these writ petitions are common and therefore, all these cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) W.P.(C). 17328/14 is filed by the Principal of Karuna Medical College, Palakkad. In this writ petition, he is challenging Exts. P9 and P10. Ext. P9 is a communication dated 2.7.2014, issued by the Admission Supervisory Committee, the first respondent in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee', for short), addressed to the Registrar of the Kerala University of Health Sciences (hereinafter, the 'KUHS', for short), informing that for the academic year 2013-14, Karuna Medical College has not obtained prior permission or approval from the Committee at any stage of admitting students of that college or even submitted any prospectus and various other details regarding the admission of students. It is also stated that therefore, the Committee has found that the admission made by the college is not transparent, merit oriented and fair, thus defeating the very purpose of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006 (hereinafter, the 'Act', for short). By this letter issued by the Chairman of the Committee, KUHS was directed not to register the students admitted by the college for university examination. Ext. P10 is a communication dated 10.3.2014, issued by the Committee to the Registrar of the KUHS informing that Self Financing Professional Colleges of Medical/Dental/Nursing as well as Para Medical Streams are to submit their lists for scrutiny and approval before the Committee prior to the submission of the lists to the KUHS for registration. On this basis, the Committee requested the KUHS not to register any list submitted by the Self Financing Professional Colleges, which are without the prior scrutiny and approval of the Committee.

(3.) When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed order dated 8.7.2014, staying Exts. P9 and P10 subject to the condition that the college will furnish all the details regarding the admission made for the year 2013-14 to the Committee within a period of one week therefrom. It was also ordered that it would be open to the Committee to proceed to act on the documents submitted in accordance with law. In compliance with the order dated 8.7.2014 mentioned above, the college submitted documents. The Committee considered the documents and passed order dated 24.9.2014. In this order, the Committee held that one Nadeem Mohammed, an NRI candidate, was sponsored by Sajith Sahim, who is stated to be the husband of the first cousin of the candidate. According to the Committee, the relationship between the candidate and the sponsor is beyond the explanation given under section 2(o) of the Act and G.O (MS). 243/14 dated 6.8.2014. On that basis, the Committee held that Sri. Nadeem Mohammed does not come within the NRI quota and accordingly, his admission was rejected.