Kerala High Court
Litto K S vs Kerala University Of Health Sciences ... on 19 April, 2024
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30735 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
LITTO K S
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.SABU K.S., KATTUPALATH HOUSE,
VALLIKKADAV P.O., VELLARIKKUNDU,
KASARGOD - 671 534.
BY ADV SMT.NISHA JOHN
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES (KUHS),
MEDICAL COLELGE P.O., THRISSUR, KERALA - 680
596, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE - CHANCELLOR.
2 THE KERALA STATE HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCIL,
(KSHEC) SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MUSEUM CAMPUS,
PMG. VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPOURAM -
33, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE-
CHAIRMAN.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE.
4 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF HIGHER
EDUCATION & SOCIAL JUSTICE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, 3RD FLOOR,
SECRETARIAT, ANNEX II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI P.SREEKUMAR (SC)
SRI VENUGOPAL, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 7.12.2023, THE COURT ON 19.04.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
-2
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner acquired BSc. MLT from Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS). The request for equivalency was rejected by the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS), the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.19126 of 2022. The petitioner contended that the Kerala State Higher Education Council (2nd respondent) had resolved to recognise Paramedical Courses including BSc. MLT/MSc. MLT and allied health courses, recognised by the Regulatory Bodies, for employment and higher studies. The petitioner hence contended that since the degree conferred by the RGUHS is recognised by the Regulatory Bodies for employment in the higher studies, the same has to be recognised by the 1 st respondent also. This Court by judgment dated 21.6.2022 directed the 1 st respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner, adverting to the letter dated 21.10.2021 and the Government W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
-3 Order dared 13.11.2018, and take a fresh decision. The order dated 21.11.2021 rejecting the petitioner's application was set aside by this Court.
2. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the 1st respondent by Ext.P9 order dated 13.8.2022 revisited the issue and again rejected the request of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P9 order in this writ petition.
3. It is seen from Ext.P9 order that the 1 st respondent has considered the issue based on four aspects. On the first aspect regarding the nomenclature and discipline, the 1st respondent has found the two courses to be similar. Regarding the duration of the courses, the 1st respondent found that the course conducted by the RGUHS is of 3 years duration with additional 6 months of internship, while that conducted by the 1st respondent has a duration of four years. There is also a comparison drawn between the total hours spent on different aspects of the course in the two different Universities and it has been noted that the course conducted by the 1st respondent is spread through 5610 hours, while that of RGUHS is 2630 hours. On the third aspect regarding the course content, it is found that even 60% of the course content is not W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
-4 comparable. The fourth aspect looked into is the eligibility criteria for admission and it was noted that the eligibility criteria for the course under the RGUHS is +2 pass with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as subjects for study while the academic eligibility for the course under the KUHS is +2 with 50% mark in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and English put together.
4. The counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Section 4 (2)(ze) of the Kerala State Higher Education Council Act 2007 (as amended by the Act 19 of 2018), one of the purposes of the Council is to evolve common academic guidelines for Universities in the State for recognition, approval or equalisation of academic programmes or areas of studies and nomenclature thereof of various programmes conducted or co-ordinated by Universities or higher education institutions outside the State and outside the Country. The Counsel submits that by Ext.P16 Government Order dated 17.12.2018, after referring to G.O.(Ms.)No.272/2018/H.Edn. dated 13.11.2018, it was decided to constitute the State Level Academic Committee for the purpose of disposing of objections, disputes/complaints regarding the nomenclature of W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
-5 Academic Programmes/Degrees and according approval/ recognition/equivalence. The State Level Academic Committee is constituted with the Vice Chairman, Kerala State Higher Education Council as its Chairman, and, the Vice Chancellors of all the State universities in Kerala and Member Secretary, Kerala State Higher Education Council as its members. The counsel submits that the State Level Academic Committee at its meeting held on 22.9.2021 had resolved to recognise the paramedical courses including Bsc.MLT/MSc.MLT and allied health courses recognised by Regulatory Bodies, for employment and higher studies. The minutes of the above meeting has been produced as Ext.P15. It can be seen from Ext.P15 that the Vice Chancellor of the 1st respondent had participated in the decision-making process and Dr. Subrata Sinha who was the Professor and Head of the Department of Laboratory Medicine of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences had participated as a Special Invitee. The 2 nd respondent had issued Ext.P4 based on Ext.P15. The counsel for the petitioner hence submits that while rejecting the request of the petitioner by Ext.P9, the 1 st respondent has not even considered the fact that the 1st respondent was also, W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
-6 through its Vice Chancellor, a part of the decision making process which had led to Ext.P15 minutes. It is hence submitted that Ext.P9 has been issued even without a discussion on the aspects which were directed to be considered by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. The counsel also submitted that Ext.P14 issued by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P13 Government Order dated 13.11.2018 have all been issued with the purpose of having a reciprocal recognition of degrees awarded by Indian Universities and other Higher Education Institutions recognised by the University Grants Commission and no equivalency/recognition can be insisted upon, for the degrees conferred by such institutions, going by Ext.P13 Government Order. It is hence submitted that the stand taken by the 1st respondent that they are not bound by the orders issued by the 2nd respondent or by the Government and that the Court also cannot interfere with the academic issues is not justified on the facts of this case.
5. The 1st respondent has filed a statement justifying Ext.P9 order, while the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, justifying the orders issued by the 2nd respondent based on Ext.P13 Government Order.
W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
-7
6. I have considered the contentions put forward by the counsel on either side.
7. This Court had already directed the 1st respondent to consider the issue with due reference to Ext.P13 Government Order and Ext.P4. It is true that Ext.P9 cites several reasons, justifying the stand of the University, that equivalence cannot be granted. However, the 1st respondent has not taken into consideration the fact that they were also a part of the decision making process which culminated in Ext.P15 minutes of the State Level Academic Committee, which in turn is the basis for Ext.P4 order of the 2 nd respondent. Even if the contention of the 1st respondent that the directions issued by the 2nd respondent are not binding on the 1st respondent is accepted, having regard to the autonomy which is available to the 1st respondent in relation to academic matters, they are still bound by the directions issued by this Court, which have not been varied in a manner known to law. The said reasons cannot also be applied in the case on hand, since the 1st respondent themselves were part of the decision making process that led to Exts.P15 and P4. In the above circumstances, interests of justice requires that the issue is W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
-8 reconsidered by the 1st respondent.
8. The writ petition is hence allowed. Ext.P9 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh having due regard to Ext.P15 minutes which is a decision taken by the State Level Academic Committee of which the 1st respondent is a member, and also keeping in mind the purpose behind the issuance of Ext.P13 Government Order, i.e. reciprocal recognition of degrees. The decision shall be taken after hearing the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI JUDGE dsn W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
-9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30735/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.08.2020 ISSUED BY RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH, SCIENCES, KARNATAKA. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNSHIP COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.12.2019.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF EQUIVALENCY DT. 10.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BY MS.
SUBRATA SINHA.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2021 ISSUED BY KSHEC Exhibit P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.
14662/LEG.G2/2017/LAW DATED 03.07.2018 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.03.2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.11.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND. RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY ON 19.04.2022.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 21.06.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 19126 OF 2022 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2022 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.08.2022 ISSUED BY KSHEC CLARIFYING ITS NORMS ON EQUIVALENCY Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST SHOWING THE SUBJECTS TAUGHT IN KUHS FOR BSC MLT COURSE Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST SHOWING THE SUBJECTS TAUGHT IN RGUHS FOR BSC MLT COURSE EXHIBIT P13 CERTIFICATE OF BSc MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY ISSUED BY FATHER MULLER MEDICAL COLLEGE W.P.(C)No.30735 of 2022
-10 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) NO. 272 / 2018 / HEDN DT. 13.11.2018 Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KSHEC / A6 / 301 / VC - DRCT / 2021 DT. 28.07.2021 Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SLAC HELD ON 22.09.2021 Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 303 / 2018 / HEDN DT. 17.12.2018