Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

The Director Vs. the Kerala University of Health Sciences

The Director vs The Kerala University of Health Sciences

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 29, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1127765

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Director

Respondent

The Kerala University of Health Sciences

Excerpt

.....there is no guideline as to how should an application for affiliation is to be dealt with.3. the grievance of the petitioner is that the university insists that unless the petitioner obtains a letter of permission from the government, no affiliation would be granted.4. when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the interim order passed by this court on 23.09.2011 wherein it was directed that on the wp(c).24784/11 -:2:- petitioner filing an affidavit before the university, of having complied with the conditions imposed by the pci regarding the appointment of teaching staff in terms of the regulations 2008, respondents 1 and 2 should pass orders on the application made by the petitioner for affiliation of pharm d course in the petitioner's college without insisting on compliance with exts.r1(a) and r1(b) guidelines issued by the 3rd respondent. the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the above, the university has passed consequential orders and no further orders are necessary. therefore, the writ petition is closed without examining the merits. sd/- a.v.ramakrishna pillai judge krj /true copy/ p.a to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE29H DAY OF JANUARY20149TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 24784 of 2011 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- THE DIRECTOR, ST.JAMES COLLEGE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE, RIVER BANK, CHALAKKUDY. BY ADVS.SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.MATHEW K. SIMON RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O., THRISSUR-680596, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

2. VICE CHANCELLOR, THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O. THRISSUR-680596.

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,SC,KERALA UTY.HEALTH & R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. FAZIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2901-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24784 of 2011 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED245.2007 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. P2: TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER OF THE APPLICATION DATED278.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AFFILIATION. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE GOVT. REQUESTING THE GRANT OF NOC, DATED1012.2010. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY REQUIRING THE NOC OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED95.2011. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF AFFILIATION GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY DATED87.11. P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT ON127.2011 P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE PCI. P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DT. 26.10.2006 IN WP(c) NO.24430/2006 OF THIS HON. COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1 A: A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED2211.2010 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. R1 B: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED42.2011 ISSUED BNY THE3D RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE Scl. A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.24784 of 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT

The petitioner has come up before this Court against the stand taken by the State that unless the petitioner enters into an agreement with the Government surrendering 50% of the seats to them, no LOP would be granted.

2. The petitioner is the Director of a Self Financing Pharmacy college. The said college was established in 2004, offering B Pharm Courses. The petitioner applied for approval of PCI to start Pharm D program and the PCI granted the same. However, the application for affiliation was given to the new Health University and the University so far has no Regulations, Rules or Ordinances and, therefore, there is no guideline as to how should an application for affiliation is to be dealt with.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the University insists that unless the petitioner obtains a letter of permission from the Government, no affiliation would be granted.

4. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the interim order passed by this Court on 23.09.2011 wherein it was directed that on the WP(C).24784/11 -:2:- petitioner filing an affidavit before the University, of having complied with the conditions imposed by the PCI regarding the appointment of teaching staff in terms of the Regulations 2008, respondents 1 and 2 should pass orders on the application made by the petitioner for affiliation of Pharm D Course in the petitioner's College without insisting on compliance with Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) guidelines issued by the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the above, the University has passed consequential orders and no further orders are necessary. Therefore, the writ petition is closed without examining the merits. Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj /True Copy/ P.A to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial