NIRMALA EDUCATION TRUST, CHALAKUDY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from judgment dated 11/08/2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 25882 of 2017. The writ petitioner is the appellant. Though virtually no adverse order has been passed by the learned Single Judge, the appeal has been preferred for getting certainty to the order in the facts which are noted hereunder.

(2.) In December, 2016, the appellant Trust made an application to the University of Calicut for allowing additional courses in certain subjects and additional batches in the existing subjects. The relevant Statute is Clause 9 of the Calicut University First Statute, 1977. As per the time schedule fixed, the University has to conduct inspection and if they are inclined to grant approval, seek the views of the Government, within a time frame, which in this case would be 31st of March, 2017. The University did conduct inspections but it got delayed. The inspection was conducted on 11/04/2017. Being satisfied, the University by Ext.P2 dated 11/07/2017, recommended after the matter was considered by the Syndicate and sought for the consideration and concurrence of the Government. Let it be noted that the admissions have to be completed by 31/08/2017 and if the State Government does not grant approval and the University consequentially does not grant formal orders of affiliation for the said courses and batches, the appellant's entire effort would become useless. This is because, the appellant will have no students for the academic session 2017-18 in respect of the courses aforesaid and all the money spent in arranging for, infrastructure, staff etc. would go waste for a complete year.

(3.) The learned Single Judge issued directions to the University to take a decision within six weeks or in the alternative direct the Vice Chancellor to allow admission of the students after granting provisional affiliation. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 19/08/2017 Syndicate of the University met and though aware of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, they decided to postpone the decision making process awaiting views of the State Government. The result is that, if no positive direction is issued, then the appellant, as noted above, would lose one year and all the money and effort go down - the drain.