The issues raised in both the writ petitions are identical by the identical petitioners, which according to this Court, is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court. 2. The short question raised in the above writ petitions is whether the petitioners' admission to MBA course conducted by the respondent University in the 3rd respondent College, a Self Financing college, is proper or not. The petitioners admittedly, were admitted by selection in an examination conducted by an Association of Self Financing Management Institutions in Kerala (ASMIK). The petitioners were admitted and were also issued with hall tickets which was said to be provisional.
Subsequently, their hall tickets were withheld for reason of their examination; pursuant to which they were said to have been admitted, being found to be not one recognized by the notification issued by the University. The petitioners rely on Ext.P5 order issued by the Government of Kerala as also on Section 68A of the Calicut University Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act')
3. The contention raised by the petitioners is that, with respect to unaided colleges the admission, selection and the fees payable by the students in such colleges have to be determined from time to time by the Government on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee constituted by the Government. The Calicut University or the various statutory bodies under the University will have absolutely no role in the matter. Ext.P5 governs the issue being notification issued in 2004 which has not been amended as of now. The Regulations relied on by the University as extracted in the counter affidavit, would have absolutely no force.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University contends that they have the power to issue such Regulations under clause 9(f) of Chapter XXIII of the Calicut University Statutes, 1977.
5. The issue is no longer res integra; being covered by the decision in Ext.P6, in W.P.(C). 4814/2014 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court considered both the aforesaid issues. Section 68A of the Act was found to restrict the University, insofar as bringing out the Regulations, on the aspects to be determined therein. The Government alone was found to have such power and even clause 9(f) of Chapter XXIII was noticed and it was held that the Regulations or the directions issued has to be consistent with the parent Act. Section 68A is a non obstante clause and the other provisions in the Act would definitely not govern the issues enumerated in the said provision.
petitions are to be allowed. The writ petitions are with respect to two semesters in which the petitioners were declined admission to the examinations. The petitioners were permitted to appear on the basis of the interim orders and the results have not yet been published. The writ petitions having been allowed, the petitioners' admissions are directed to be regularized, necessarily the results would also have to be published. The admission and continuance of the petitioners in the Post Graduate course are to be regularized.
The writ petitions are allowed leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//