RVS EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the appellant is that their College is offering Under Graduate Programme in Bachelor of Architecture, which is a five year full-time programme. The College has the sanctioned intake of 40 students from the beginning. Out of 40 seats, 26 seats are filled up under Government Quota and 14 seats are filled up under Management Quota. For the purpose of extension of approval for the year 2018-2019, the College preferred an application to the Council of Architecture on 29.12.2018. Upon inspection by the inspection team, the first respondent was fully satisfied with the infrastructural and instructional facilities provided by the College and submitted its report to the Council of Architecture. For the purpose of seeking provisional affiliation for the year 2018-2019, the College preferred online application to the fourth respondent/ University on 04.01.2018 and on 19.02.2018, for which an Inspection Team visited the College and upon satisfying with the infrastructural and instructional facilities, vide letter dated 10.04.2018, through email, informed the College that a copy of the Deficiency Report/Show Cause Notice may be downloaded from the web portal to comply with the deficiencies for grant of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2018-2019. One of the deficiencies pointed out was that the Principal of the College is not eligible. Subsequently, on 13.04.2018, when the appellant downloaded the deficiency report from the University's web portal, it was found that the eligibility regarding the Principal was not shown. In view of the same, the appellant rectified the other deficiencies by uploading the same online and also by submitting it in person to the University. Subsequently, the compliance report was scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee and the documentary evidences were not accepted by the Committee in relation to the eligibility of the Principal and therefore, it was decided to reduce the student intake by 25% and thereby, the intake was reduced from 40 to 30 and no reason was assigned with regard to non-eligibility of the Principal.

(2.) The then Principal of the College was relieved from the College by an order dated 105.2018 and in his place, a qualified person viz. Ms.Amutha, who was earlier appointed as a Professor, was appointed as Principal of the College, by an order dated 105.2018. Thereafter, the new Principal along with an Assistant Professor went to the fourth respondent/University and informed the officials of the University that the then Principal has been relieved and a new Principal has been appointed and requested for full sanctioned intake of 40 seats for admission. However, there was no response for the same. Hence, the appellant submitted a representation dated 24.05.2018 to the fourth respondent requesting for full intake of 40 seats in view of the appointment of the qualified Principal.

(3.) With the above background, the appellant has filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.13842 of 2018 seeking a direction to the fourth respondent/University to consider and pass orders on their representation dated 24.05.2018 for sanction of full sanctioned intake of 40 seats to their College for the academic year 2018-2019.