Skip to content


The Regional Engineering College (Kozhikode) Society, Calicut Vs. the Vice-chancellor, University of Calicut and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.A. No. 350 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1976Ker65
ActsCalicut University Act, 1968 - Sections 2; Calicut University (Amendment) Act, 1975 - Sections 2(11) and 2(16)
AppellantThe Regional Engineering College (Kozhikode) Society, Calicut
RespondentThe Vice-chancellor, University of Calicut and anr.
Appellant Advocate K.P. Kesava Menon and; Sumati Dandapani, Advs.
Respondent Advocate M.M. Cheriyan,; K. Rajasekharan Pillai and; S. Eswara Iy
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredS. Azees Basha v. The Union of India
Excerpt:
- - he invited our attention to the definition of the term 'government college' in section 2 (11) as well as the definition of theterm 'private college' in section 2(16) of the calicut university act, 1975. the definitions are in these terms :government college' means a college maintained by the government and affiliated to the university; the central government direction contained in ext, r-l clearly states that the administration of the regional engineering college must be by an autonomous body. r-1 it is clearly stated that 'the colleges shall have the maximum amount of autonomy -both financial and administrative -so that their establishment and development may proceed with speed and efficiency......in o p. no. 91 of 1973, (ker) an attender in the regional engineering college, calicut, to the vice-chancellor, the 1st respondent in the o. p. to deal with the representations exts. p-3 and p-5 produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. this appeal is by the regional engineering college, the 2nd respondent in the o. p. the vice-chancellor is the 1st respondent and the petitioner in the o. p. is the 2nd respondent herein.2. the only question to be considered is whether the calicut university act, 1968, for short, the act, enabled the vice-chancellor to deal with the representations exta p-3 and p-5. learned counsel appearing for the regional engineering college contended that the regional engineering college is really a government college and.....
Judgment:

Govindan Nair, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from the judgment of a learned single Judge by which he gave a direction at the instance of the petitioner in O P. No. 91 of 1973, (Ker) an Attender in the Regional Engineering College, Calicut, to the Vice-Chancellor, the 1st respondent in the O. P. to deal with the representations Exts. P-3 and P-5 produced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. This appeal is by the Regional Engineering College, the 2nd respondent in the O. P. The Vice-Chancellor is the 1st respondent and the petitioner in the O. P. is the 2nd respondent herein.

2. The only question to be considered is whether the Calicut University Act, 1968, for short, the Act, enabled the Vice-Chancellor to deal with the representations Exta P-3 and P-5. Learned counsel appearing for the Regional Engineering College contended that the Regional Engineering College is really a Government College and therefore not a private College as defined in Section 2 (x) of the Act and being not a Private College, Ext. P-1 will have no application and Section 11 (9) also will have no application as the Vice-Chancellor has no authority to deal with those representations.

3. Section 2 (x) defines 'Private College' in these terms :--

' 'Private College' means a College maintained by an agency other than the Government or the University and affiliated to the University.'

4. We may at this stage refer to the definition of 'Statutes', 'Ordinances', 'Regulations', 'Bye-laws' and 'Rules' contained in Section 2 (xvi) of the Act. It is stated therein that the above expressions mean the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations, Bye-laws and Rules respectively of the University.

5. Section 11 deals with the powers of the Vice-Chancellor, and Section 11 (9) is in these terms :--

'It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure that the provisions of this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations are faithfully observed and carried out and he shall have all powers necessary for this purpose.'

6. Ext. P-1 produced along with the petition contained the regulations relating to the terms and conditions of service of the non-teaching staff, to which the 2nd respondent in this appeal belonged, framed by the University. If those regulations are violated the Vice-Chancellor exercising his powers under Section 11 (9) of the Act can ensure compliance with the regulations. Ext. P-l it is submitted will apply only to Private Colleges and the appellant-institution is not a Private College. The Vice-Chancellor will not then have any power to implement Ext. P-1 at the request of the 2nd respondent to this appeal.

7. Naturally the arguments turned on the question as to whether the appellant-institution is a Private College or not. Counsel contended that the position has now been further clarified by the Caliout University Act, 1975 and there can be little doubt that the appellant-institution is a Government College. He invited our attention to the definition of the term 'Government College' in Section 2 (11) as well as the definition of theterm 'Private College' in Section 2(16) of the Calicut University Act, 1975. The definitions are in these terms :--

' 'Government College' means a college maintained by the Government and affiliated to the University;'

x x x ' 'Private College' means a college maintained by an educational agency other than the Government or the University and affiliated to the University;'

8. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Azees Basha v. The Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662 and the passages dealing with the discussion of the scope of the expression 'establish and administer educational institution of their choice' occurring in Article 30 of the Constitution was referred to. It was emphasised that it must be proved for the purpose of Article 30 of the Constitution that the educational institutions were not only administered but also established by minorities in order that that article may be attracted. Our attention was then drawn to the definition of the term 'edudational agency' in the Calicut University Act, 1975. Section 2 (9) which defines the term is in these terms :--

' 'educational agency' means any person or body of persons who or which establishes and maintains a private college or more than one private college;'

Our attention was then drawn to the pleadings in the case, particularly para-graph 3 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant and it was stated that the appellant-college was 'not one established and maintained by an 'educational agency' as defined in the Statutes, as the same is a joint and co-operative enterprise of Central and State Governments according to the Central Government communication' which has been produced and marked as Ext. R-1. After referring in detail to the terms of Exhibit R-1 it was stated in that .paragraph that 'Such a college is not covered toy either the Kerala University Act or by the Calicut University Act except for the limited purpose of admitting its students for examinations held by the concerned University for conferment of Degrees en them.'

9. Certain facts are admitted or are clear. The appellant-College has been affiliated to the Calicut University and it is being administered by a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. This Society came into existence soon after the College was formed. There are no dear pleadings in this case as to the position before the commencement of the College or the formation and registration of the Society. The Central Government direction contained in Ext, R-l clearly states that the administration of the Regional Engineering College must be by an autonomous body. In paragraph 3 of Appendix I in Ext. R-1 it is clearly stated that ''The Colleges shall have the maximum amount of autonomy -- both financial and administrative -- so that their establishment and development may proceed with speed and efficiency.' It is also stated that it is for this purpose that the Colleges shall be registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI, 1860. The fact that there are Government Officers in the executive body of the Society does not change its autonomous character: nor would the fact that the amount repaired for the construction of buildings and for providing the necessary equipments came from the Central Government. Not even the fact that 50% of the cost of maintenance of the institution for the first five years will be provided by the Central Government and the rest by the State Government is conclusive in the matter as to whether the institution is a private College or not and whether it is administered by an autonomous body. We think that the emphasis should be not on the source of the fund but as to the nature of the body that administered the College. That body is a registered Society aad it has not been established that this Society is not an autonomous body in the matter of finance or administration. We therefore hold with the learned Judge la the judgment under appeal that the appellant is a private College within the meaning of the expression in Section 2 (x) of the Act There is no ground to interfere with the direction given by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal We dismiss this appeal but direct the parties to bear their respective costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //