The court affirmed that educational institutions must be granted intake enhancements if they meet established infrastructural requirements as per regulatory guidelines.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner college was established in the year 2011 with an intake of 40 students for the B.Sc.Nursing Program. In the year 2022, the petitioner submitted an application seeking enhancement of the intake capacity from the existing 40 seats to 50 seats. By Ext.P1 order dated 24.06.2023, the State Government issued No Objection Certificate, permitting enhancement of the intake capacity to 60 seats. Thereafter, by Ext.P2 order dated 24.07.2024, the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council granted sanction for conditional affiliation for conducting B.Sc nursing program with an intake of 50 students for the academic year 2024-2025. Later, by Ext.P3 communication dated 19.03.2025, the Indian Nursing Council issued suitability certificate to the petitioner for an intake of 50 seats. This was followed by Ext.P4 order of the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council granting sanction for conditional affiliation with an intake of 50 students for the academic year 2025-2026. On the strength of the sanctions granted by the above authorities, and based on the student patient ratio in the parent and affiliated hospitals, the petitioner sought affiliation of the 1^st respondent University for conducting its B.Sc.Nursing Program with an intake of 50 students during the academic year 2025-2026. After conducting inspection and being satisfied with the infrastructure and other facilities, the University issued Ext.P5, granting affiliation for an intake of 40 students. Thereafter, the University issued Ext.P6 communication dated 28.05.2025, informing the petitioner that it is not in a position to consider the application for seat enhancement for the academic year 2025-2026 as the student patient ratio of 1:3 is not satisfied. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

“i) Issue a writ declaring that the fixation of seats as contained in Exhibit P5 restricting the intake at 40 seats is ignoring Exhibit P1, P3 and P4, which is otherwise contrary to the mandate of Section 50 (2)(iii) of the Kerala University of Health Sciences Act , 2010.

ii) Issue a writ declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get

50 seats in terms of Exhibit P1, P3 and P4 by taking into account the patient strength in the parent hospital and the affiliated hospital and the decision taken otherwise is bad in law;

iii) Issue a writ or order, directing the respondent University to issue orders enhancing the intake in tune with Exhibit P3 and P4 as the University is obliged to follow the mandate of Section 50 (2)

(iii) of the Kerala University of Health Sciences Act , 2010.”

2. Heard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 1^st respondent University.

3. Although various contentions are raised by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, in the light of the indisputable facts emerging from the statement filed of the 1^st respondent University, it is not necessary for this Court to delve into those contentions. Paragraph 6 of the 1^st respondent's statement being contextually relevant, is extracted below;

“It is most humbly submitted that the university conducted two inspections in connection with granting seat enhancement for the academic years 2023-24 and 2025-26, and in both inspections, the IP of the parent hospital was inadequate for the applied 60 seats. It may also be noted that the petitioner's parent hospital does not even have enough IP for 50 seats, as per the latest inspection report dated 10.04.2025. As per the inspection report dated 10.04.2025, the average IP of the parent hospital is 144, which shows that the petitioner's parent hospital does not have adequate IP strength for enhancement.”

4. From a reading of the above paragraph it is apparent that the average number of inpatients in the pa