Bishop Abraham Memorial Trust ... vs The University Grants Commission
2022 Latest Caselaw 11003 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA,
                                  1944
                       WP(C) NO. 25692 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

           BISHOP ABRAHAM MEMORIAL TRUST ASSOCIATION
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- ABRAHAM J. GEORGE
           BISHOP ABRAHAM MEMORIAL COLLEGE, THURUTHICAD,
           PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 597
           BY ADVS.
           BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL
           ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL


RESPONDENTS:

    1          THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH
               ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002
    2          STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
               OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANATHAPURAM - 695 001
    3          MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
               PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, 686 560.
               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
               SHRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY

               SRI .SURIN GEORGE IPE-SC.SMT.PARVATHY.K-GP


        THIS    WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No. 25692 of 2022
                               ..2..




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioners impugn Exts.P5 and P6, through

which, Government has nominated members to their

"Governing Body", as per the provisions of Sections 54

and 55 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985

('M.G.University Act', for short).

2. Even though I have heard Sri.Isaac Kuruvilla

Illikal - learned counsel for the petitioner, in great detail

today, the fact remains that every issue impelled in this

case have already been noticed by me and answered in

the judgment delivered in Consortium of Catholic

Institutions of Higher Education in Kerala v.

Mahatma Gandhi University [2022 (4) KLT 600].

3. Sri.Isaac Kuruvilla Illikal, however, attempted to

show me that the Consortium of Catholic Institutions

of Higher Education in Kerala (supra) did not take into

account the situation where a college is governed by the

Direct Payment Agreement with the Government. W.P (C) No. 25692 of 2022 ..3..

4. I fail to understand the purport of the afore

argument because, constitution of a "Governing Body" is

as per the applicable statute; while the Direct Payment

regime is solely within the contractual realm between the

parties. Thereafter, even if I am to accept the argument of

Sri.Isaac Kuruvilla Illikal, he must be able to show me that

the Direct Payment Agreement makes a provision for his

client to nominate on behalf of the Government, but he

was unable to do so, except showing me the constitution

of the Selection Committee for the purpose of appointing

teachers, as available in the said agreement - a copy of

which is on record as Ext.P1.

5. It is needless to say that - the provisions of the

Direct Payment Agreement cannot be in conflict with the

statute; and even assuming that such a leeway can be

granted, a provision as is now asserted by the petitioner

ought to have been found specifically in it. However,

whatever has been shown to me, as I have said above, is W.P (C) No. 25692 of 2022 ..4..

only qua constitution of the Selection Committee for the

purpose of appointing teachers and has no reflection in

the manner in which the nominees are to be proposed by

the Government to the "Governing Body" of College.

6. Adscititiously, the argument of Sri.Isaac Kuruvilla

Illikal that, the provisions of Sections 54 and 55 of the

M.G.University Act cannot be imposed upon his client,

because they have already constituted Governing Bodies

of their own, can certainly not appeal to me, because any

such created by them can only be construed as their

internal measure; while the "Governing Body", as provided

under Sections 54 and 55 of the M.G.University Act is

statutory in nature and cannot be avoided by the College,

unless they are able to show me that they have obtained

any such relaxation or privilage under the statutory

scheme.

No such having been shown to me, I am certain that

this writ petition is without any merit. W.P (C) No. 25692 of 2022 ..5..

Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed, following

the ratio in Consortium of Catholic Institutions of

Higher Education in Kerala (supra).

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ACR W.P (C) No. 25692 of 2022 ..6..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25692/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DIRECT PAYMENT AGREEMENT DATED 23.10.1972 Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINORITY CERTIFICATE OF THE COLLEGE DATED 12.03.2015 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGES FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATIONAL AND THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COLLEGE Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UGC REGULATIONS 2018 Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF G.O (RT) NO.27/2019/H.EDN DATED 07.01.2019 Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.04.2022 Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT.

31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT