Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh on September 9, 2025, dismissed a writ petition by a medical college affiliated to the Kerala University of Health Sciences, which had sought to start new paramedical courses despite securing government NOCs. The University had rejected the applications citing a pass percentage of only 44.15% in existing courses, below the 50% benchmark prescribed under Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) of the affiliation statutes. The Court held that the University’s decision to enforce minimum academic standards to ensure educational quality cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, Principal of Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College, Allied Health Sciences, Karakkonam, applied for affiliation from the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS) to commence new courses: Bachelor of Occupational Therapy (BOT) with 20 seats, Bachelor of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology (BASLP) with 20 seats, Bachelor of Dialysis Technology (BDT) with 10 seats, and B.Sc Medical Microbiology (MMB) with 30 seats. Additionally, the petitioner sought enhancement of seats in the Master of Hospital Administration (MHA) program from 5 to 20.

Also Read: Arbitration & Conciliation Act | Execution of Arbitral Award Cannot Be Deferred Merely Due to Pendency of Section 37 Appeal Without Interim Stay: Supreme Court

The Government of Kerala issued No Objection Certificates (NOC) approving the proposals. However, the University rejected the applications through Ext.P5, citing that the average pass percentage of all regular examinations of existing batches was 44.15%, falling below the required minimum of 50%.

The petitioner challenged the rejection, relying on Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) of Ext.P7 notification, arguing that the requirement applied only to the same course and not to other courses under the same stream. It was also contended that Ext.P7 had not been published in the official gazette and was therefore unenforceable. The petitioner maintained that the words “same stream” must be interpreted narrowly as “same course.”

The respondents, KUHS and its Registrar, opposed the petition, contending that the statutory requirement encompassed all courses under the same stream and not merely the specific course applied for. Ext.P1 notification stipulated a minimum 50% pass percentage for eligibility to introduce additional courses. They submitted that the amendment statute was duly published in the Kerala Gazette on December 15, 2021, and hence binding.

To justify its stand, the University referred to Ext.R2(a), an order issued by the Vice Chancellor invoking emergency provisions of the Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, 2010, clarifying that for new courses, the average pass percentage of all existing courses in the same stream must meet the prescribed threshold. This order was ratified by both the Academic Council and Governing Council as per Ext.R2(b). Later, the Governing Council introduced additional sub-clauses C and D through Ext.P8, reiterating the requirement of a minimum 50% pass percentage.

The petitioner relied on N.C. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala [1988 (1) KLT 894], contending that unreasonable and uncertain statutory provisions are arbitrary and unenforceable. The University, however, relied on State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Limited [(1997) 1 SCC 121], arguing that courts must presume constitutionality and attempt to uphold statutory validity.

Justice Nagareesh observed: “It is based on Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) of Ext.P7 that the petitioner’s applications stand rejected. According to respondents 2 and 3, for processing applications for starting additional courses, the average of pass percentage of all regular examinations of the existing batches of all courses under the same stream shall not be below the minimum prescribed by the governing council.”

The Court noted the petitioner’s contention that “same stream” must be confined to the same course alone. However, Justice Nagareesh pointed out contradictions in Clause 2(5)(ii)(v): “Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) requires the Colleges which apply for affiliation of a new course to furnish details of the average pass percentage of previous regular examinations of all existing batches of the same course. It is impossible to furnish details of pass percentage of previous examination of same course as the course is yet to be introduced.”

The Court held that a purposive interpretation was required: “In such situation, this Court is bound to give a purposive interpretation to the provision taking note of the object of the Act/Statute.” Accordingly, the Court accepted the interpretation that pass percentage requirements extended to all courses under the same stream.

Justice Nagareesh examined Ext.R2(a), where the Vice Chancellor modified Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) to clarify that “for additional course the average of pass percentage of all regular examinations of the existing batches of all courses under the same stream is not below the minimum prescribed.” This order, later ratified by the Governing Council, was binding. Ext.P8 further clarified the requirement by stipulating: “For the purpose of considering applications for enhancement of seats/additional courses, the average of pass percentage as noted in Sub Clause ‘A’ and ‘B’ above shall be minimum 50%.”

On this basis, the Court held: “From Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) and Ext.R2(a) and Ext.P8, it has to be held that the University, with intent to maintain high degree of educational standards, intended to insist for minimum percentage of pass in all courses conducted by the Colleges/Institutions for grant of enhancement of seats in an existing course.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court | Hygiene Lapses and Poor Maintenance Flagged at Chottanikkara Temple | Officials Directed to Ensure Compliance with Sanitation Standards

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on earlier judgments, noting: “That was case of a College where B.Sc (Nursing) alone was taught and the respondents therein had no case that education was imparted in any other stream. The said judgment is therefore of no assistance to the petitioner.”

The High Court concluded: “The wisdom of the University to prescribe minimum standards in education cannot be called in question in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the facts of the case, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. Arun B. Varghese, Smt. Rakhi Raj, Sri. Alan Lalu John, Sri. S. Sreekumar (Sr.)
For the Respondents: Sri. Binny Thomas, Standing Counsel; Sri. P. Sreekumar (Sr.), Standing Counsel; Smt. Anima M., Government Pleader

Case Title: The Principal, Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:66346
Case Number: WP(C) No. 20249 of 2025
Bench: Justice N. Nagareesh