AJMAL SHAH S Vs. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking directions to the Kerala University to issue notification enabling private registration to Post Graduate Courses in subjects which do not require laboratory facilities in respect of the academic year 2015-16. Though the petitioners are students aspiring to register privately for the Post Graduate Courses under the University, they seek to espouse the cause of a large number of persons who are similarly situated. The writ petition was filed on 28.06.2016 with prayers to direct the University to implement Exhibit P4 decision of the Academic Council and to issue notification for private registration in Post Graduate Courses which do not require the use of laboratory for the year 2015- 2016 forthwith and for allied reliefs.

(2.) Heard Sri.Saju S.Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University.

(3.) It is the contention in the writ petition that 237 students had submitted representations before the Vice Chancellor of the University and the Governor, seeking notification enabling their registration for Post Graduate Courses through private study during the academic year 2015-2016. It is submitted that the Syndicate of the University by its resolution dated 14.12.2015 resolved that UG/PG programs which do not require laboratory facilities should be offered through private registration. Thereafter, the Academic Council which met on 18.04.2016 also approved the recommendations of the Standing Committee and directed the evolving of uniform norms and framing the syllabus and scheme on annual pattern. It is stated that the Regulations for PG program under the annual pattern were approved by the University by Exhibit P4 proceedings dated 31.05.2016. However, the notification required for enabling private registration was not issued and therefore, the students are unable to register and appear for the examinations which would be conducted in September-October, 2016. It is contended that this will result in their loosing an academic year. Learned counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Varun Saini v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University [2014(12) SCALE 184] to contend that even in cases where the expiry of the academic year in question is pleaded, time fixed by the University for admissions can be extended, in larger public interest.