“Same Stream” Pass-Percentage Rule Upheld: Kerala High Court permits KUHS to condition new-course affiliation on a 50% average pass across all courses in the stream

Case: The Principal, Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College, Allied Health Sciences, Karakonam v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2025 KER 66346

Court: High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam)

Bench: N. Nagareśh, J.

Date of Judgment: 09 September 2025

Writ Petition: WP(C) No. 20249 of 2025

Introduction

This judgment resolves a recurring and practically significant question in university affiliation law: when a college seeks affiliation for an additional course, can the affiliating university insist that the college’s average pass percentage across all courses in the same stream meet a minimum threshold? The Kerala High Court answers in the affirmative, upholding the Kerala University of Health Sciences’ (KUHS) regulatory framework that requires a minimum 50% average pass rate across all courses under the same stream as a precondition to start new courses, while distinguishing requirements for seat enhancement in an existing course.

The petitioner, an allied health sciences institution already running several paramedical programs, challenged the University’s refusal to consider its applications for four new undergraduate programs despite obtaining Government No Objection Certificates (NOCs). The University declined on the basis that the petitioner’s average pass percentage across existing batches in the same stream was 44.15%, below the 50% minimum mandated by KUHS notifications and statutes.

This decision does three things: it clarifies the meaning and operation of the “same stream” pass-percentage condition; it applies a purposive interpretation to affiliation statutes to cure drafting anomalies; and it reiterates judicial deference to academic standards and quality-control decisions of universities when exercised within the statutory framework.

Factual Background and Parties

Petitioner: The Principal, Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College, Allied Health Sciences, Karakonam, Thiruvananthapuram. The college conducts BPT (Physiotherapy), B.Sc. MLT, B.Sc. Optometry, and MHA courses.
Respondents:
- State of Kerala (Health & Family Welfare Department).
- Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS) and its Registrar.
Applications made by the petitioner (pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 31.08.2024):
- New courses: BOT (20 seats), BASLP (20 seats), BDT (10 seats), B.Sc. Medical Microbiology (30 seats).
- Seat enhancement: MHA from 5 to 20 seats.
Government NOCs: Issued for all the above proposals.
University’s decision (Ext.P5): Rejection of the new course applications because the college’s average pass percentage across existing batches in the same stream was 44.15%, below the prescribed minimum 50%.

Key challenge: The petitioner sought to quash Exts. P1, P5, P7, and P8 and prayed for a direction to KUHS to grant affiliation for the new courses, arguing that the University wrongly interpreted the affiliation statute and that statutory and procedural requirements for issuing the relevant notifications were not complied with.

Issues

Does KUHS have the authority to insist that, for starting additional courses, a college must satisfy a minimum average pass percentage calculated across all courses under the same stream?
How should the affiliation statute’s Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) be interpreted, especially the expressions “same stream” and “same course,” when applied to new-course affiliation versus seat enhancement?
Were the relevant statutory instruments (Ext.P7 amendment statute and notifications, including Ext.P8) validly made and published, and can alleged drafting ambiguities render them unenforceable?
What is the court’s role under Article 226 in reviewing university standards and quality-control norms?

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court upheld KUHS’s decision to refuse the petitioner’s applications for new courses on the ground that the college’s average pass percentage across all courses under the same stream was 44.15%, below the minimum 50% threshold stipulated by the University.
The Court endorsed a purposive interpretation of Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) of the affiliation statute: for additional courses, a college’s eligibility is assessed against the average pass percentage of all courses in the same stream; for seat enhancement, eligibility is tied to the average pass percentage of that specific course after the first batch passes out.
The Court found no merit in the challenge to the validity of the University’s statutes/notifications, noting publication in the official gazette and ratification by the Academic Council and Governing Council, and emphasized the presumption of validity of such instruments.
Judicial deference: The Court reiterated that minimum educational standards set by the University to maintain quality are within its domain and are not to be interfered with under Article 226, absent illegality.
Petition dismissed; no direction to grant affiliation.

Legal Framework and Key Instruments

Ext.P1 (31.08.2024): KUHS notification inviting applications for new courses/seat enhancement; prescribed a minimum 50% average pass percentage for additional courses, computed across existing batches in the same stream.
Ext.P7: Amendment to the First Statutes on affiliation. Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) (as originally framed) couched common procedural requirements for new colleges, new courses, and seat enhancement, leading to interpretive tension when applied to new courses.
Ext.R2(a) (U.O. 444/2021/Academic/KUHS dated 26.03.2021): Vice-Chancellor’s emergency order clarifying Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) by adding separate sub-clauses:
- Clause A (Additional courses): The average pass percentage of all regular exams of existing batches of all courses under the same stream must not be below the minimum prescribed by the Governing Council. Apex Council/central regulator’s norms, if contrary, prevail.
- Clause B (Seat enhancement): The first batch of the same course must have passed out, and the average pass percentage of existing batches of that particular course must meet the prescribed minimum. Apex Council override applies similarly.
Ext.R2(b) (20.09.2021): Ratification by the Academic Council and Governing Council.
Ext.P8: Further amendments adding:
- Clause C: Fixes the minimum at 50%; defines the relevant date as the last date for receipt of applications as per KUHS notification; clarifies treatment for multi-year-valid applications and the contingency when no notification is issued in a given year.
- Clause D: For successive seat enhancements, the batch in which enhancement was last sanctioned is treated as the first batch for the next enhancement.

The Court accepted that the amendment statute stood published in the official Gazette and that the emergency clarifications had been duly ratified, thereby curing any procedural infirmities asserted by the petitioner.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1) State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Limited, (1997) 1 SCC 121

Principle: Courts start with a presumption of constitutionality/validity and should iron out drafting defects to sustain an enactment when possible.
Application: The Court relied on this stance to apply a purposive, validating construction to Clause 2(5)(ii)(v), especially given the initial drafting’s clubbing of multiple categories (new colleges, new courses, seat enhancement) into one clause. Rather than striking the clause down as unworkable, the Court accepted the University’s clarificatory sub-clauses (A and B) and later additions (C and D) as rational cures consistent with the statute’s objective of maintaining academic standards.

2) N.C. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala, 1988 (1) KLT 894

Principle: A statutory rule that is unreasonable, uncertain, or unworkable may be struck down for manifest arbitrariness.
Petitioner’s Use: To argue Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) was unworkable (e.g., demanding pass percentages for a course yet to be introduced).
Court’s Response: The Court found the argument unsustainable because the University had already clarified implementation via sub-clauses A (additional courses) and B (seat enhancement), later reinforced by Clause C (50% threshold and relevant date) and Clause D (first batch logic for successive enhancements). With these clarifications, the provision was neither unworkable nor arbitrary.

3) Sree Anjaneya College Of Nursing v. State Of Kerala, 2022 (1) KLT 26

Context: Concerned a college imparting only B.Sc. Nursing; the respondents did not assert multiple streams.
Court’s Distinction: Not applicable here because the instant case involves a college with multiple courses within the allied health/paramedical stream, and the University’s rule is specifically about averaging performance across all courses in the same stream when an institution seeks to add a new course in that stream.

Legal Reasoning

A. Purposive Interpretation to Cure Drafting Anomalies

The Court candidly acknowledged that the original Clause 2(5)(ii)(v), by clubbing procedural requirements for new colleges, new courses, and seat enhancements, created practical confusion. One illustration: demanding “details of the average pass percentage of previous regular examinations of all existing batches of the same course” when the application is for a new course is impossible. Faced with such anomalies, the Court chose a purposive reading aligned with the statute’s object—quality assurance—rather than striking down the clause. That purposive reading is concretized by the later sub-clauses A and B (and thereafter C and D), which the Court treated as valid clarificatory measures within the University’s statutory powers.

B. “Same Stream” versus “Same Course”

For additional courses: The average pass percentage is to be computed across all courses in the same stream run by the institution. This means the University can legitimately look beyond the proposed course and examine aggregate performance in related/peer programs within the same discipline family (stream) offered by the college.
For seat enhancement: The rule narrows to the same course—the first batch of that course must have passed out, and the average pass percentage of its existing batches must meet the minimum.

This bifurcation sensibly aligns quality control with the expansion sought: adding a new offering in a stream requires the college to demonstrate overall stream competence; enhancing seats in an existing course turns on that course’s own performance data.

C. Deference to Academic Standards and Statutory Compliance

The Court underscored that universities have the mandate to set and enforce minimum academic standards. The 50% threshold (Clause C), the relevant-date rule for measuring pass percentage, and the stream-level averaging for additional courses are policy choices within KUHS’s domain. In the absence of illegality or clear arbitrariness, such choices are not to be interfered with under Article 226. The Court was also satisfied that the relevant statutory instruments were duly published and ratified, rejecting procedural challenges.

D. Government NOC versus University Affiliation

While the petitioner had Government NOCs for all proposals, the judgment implicitly affirms the distinct roles of the Government and the University: a Government NOC is necessary but not sufficient for affiliation; the University’s statutory criteria on quality and standards remain independently controlling.

Impact and Significance

1) Clarified Operational Rule for Affiliation

For additional courses in a stream: The institution must achieve at least a 50% average pass percentage across all courses in that stream as of the last date for receipt of applications indicated by KUHS’s notification (Clause C).
For seat enhancement in an existing course: The first batch must have passed out, and the course’s own average pass percentage must meet or exceed 50% (Clauses B and C). For successive enhancements, the last enhancement batch is treated as the first batch (Clause D).

2) Quality-First Signaling

Affiliated colleges cannot expand into new offerings without demonstrating consistent, adequate outcomes across their current portfolio in the same stream. This shifts incentives away from rapid expansion and towards consolidation of teaching quality, student support, and examination performance.

3) Compliance and Data Discipline

Institutions should maintain transparent, verifiable pass-percentage data for all regular examinations across all batches and courses in each stream.
Strategic timing matters: applications should be planned so that the relevant date under Clause C aligns with improved performance metrics.
Where Apex Council (national regulator) norms differ, those norms prevail; institutions must map both KUHS and regulator requirements and comply with the higher standard where applicable.

4) Litigation Outlook

The judgment narrows grounds for successful challenge to KUHS’s standard-setting where statutory instruments have been properly made and published.
Future disputes are likely to focus on stream classification, pass-percentage computation methodology, and evidence of publication/ratification for amendments—areas this judgment already tilts in KUHS’s favor.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Affiliation: Formal recognition by a university that a college may conduct specified courses and present students for examinations leading to university degrees/certifications.
Stream: A broader disciplinary family recognized by the University (e.g., Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing, Allied Health/Paramedical, etc.). “Same stream” means the set of courses in that disciplinary family offered by the institution.
Additional course vs. Seat enhancement:
- Additional course: Introducing a new program within a stream (e.g., adding BASLP to an Allied Health college already running BPT and B.Sc. MLT).
- Seat enhancement: Increasing seats in an existing approved course (e.g., MHA from 5 to 20 seats).
Average pass percentage: The aggregated pass outcomes in regular examinations across existing batches, averaged according to the University’s methodology, for either (a) all courses in the same stream (additional courses), or (b) the same course (seat enhancement).
Relevant date (Clause C): The last date for receipt of applications as per KUHS’s notification; that is the cut-off point at which the pass-percentage is assessed.
Emergency power and ratification: The Vice-Chancellor may issue urgent clarifications/orders to address operational gaps, which must then be ratified by statutory bodies like the Academic Council and Governing Council, converting an interim fix into binding policy.
Presumption of validity (Bihar Distillery): Courts presume that statutes and validly issued rules/notifications are lawful and strive to read them in a way that sustains their operation, rather than to strike them down for drafting defects.
Article 226 deference: High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction typically avoid substituting their judgment for that of academic bodies on matters of standards and policy unless illegality, mala fides, or manifest arbitrariness is shown.

Key Takeaways

KUHS can validly require a minimum 50% average pass percentage across all courses under the same stream as a condition for affiliating new courses.
For seat enhancement, performance is judged at the course level, with the first batch having passed out and an average pass percentage of at least 50%.
Ambiguities in affiliation clauses will be resolved purposively to uphold quality-control objectives; courts will not strike down such provisions as unworkable if reasonable clarifications exist and have been properly ratified and published.
Government NOCs are necessary, but affiliation decisions remain subject to the University’s statutory standards.
Institutions planning expansion should prioritize improving pass outcomes across their stream offerings ahead of the application’s relevant date.

Conclusion

This judgment lays down a clear and pragmatic rule that balances institutional ambition with educational quality: a college must first demonstrate stream-wide competence before the University permits further diversification within that stream. By upholding the University’s “same stream” pass-percentage criterion and endorsing a purposive reading of the affiliation statute, the Kerala High Court strengthens the regulatory architecture of KUHS. The ruling signals a judicial preference for sustaining academic quality standards and for deferring to university expertise in setting measurable performance conditions for affiliation. It will influence how allied health and paramedical colleges plan their growth, pushing them to consolidate educational outcomes before seeking additional courses or expanded intakes.