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
-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
-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
-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,
-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.
-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
-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
-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
-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
