VINIT GARG AND OTHERS versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND OTHERS on 29 August 2019

[2019] 12 S.C.R. 1

VINIT GARG AND OTHERS

v.

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND OTHERS

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018)

AUGUST 29, 2019

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]

University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Institutions offeringtechnical education programme through distance learning mode –Approval of University Grants Commission (UGC) and All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education (AICTE) – Requirement of – Held:UGC and AICTE, among other statutory regulators, have been vestedwith the powers to regulate technical courses imparted throughdistance learning mode – It is mandatory for institutions impartingtechnical education programme through distance learning mode toseek approval and recognition of UGC and AICTE – All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education Act, 1989.

Education/Educational Institutions: College admission –Institutions offering technical education programme throughdistance learning mode – Approval of UGC and AICTE –Requirement of – On facts, petitioners- diploma holders in technicalfield, working with the government, selected for the B.Tech. degreecourse through the distance mode programme conducted byInstitute-TIET(deemed to be University) – Said Institute was grantedprovisional recognition by Distance Education Council (DEC) tostart the course for one year – On the basis thereof, TIET offeredB.Tech. degree to working professionals who had a diploma andtwo years’ experience in the respective branches in engineering inthe academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09 – Petitioners tookadmission believing that all approvals were in place – Writ petitionby petitioners seeking clarification that the B.Tech degrees acquiredby them through distance learning mode from TIET are valid,recognised and to be treated at par with degrees granted to regularstudents – Refusal by UGC to treat the said degrees as valid sincethe said courses were conducted without the approval of UGC andAICTE – Held: Approval of UGC and AICTE was not obtained by

1

A

B

CD

EF

GH

ATIET which was held mandatory in Orissa Lift IrrigationCorporation Limited-I case – Petitioners and TIET misconstruedthe judgment in Orissa Lift-I case – They overlooked severaldevelopments, correspondence, policy decisions and notificationnoticed in Orissa Lift-I case– Furthermore, provisional recognitionBby the DEC was contrary to the law – Government had held that theunilateral approvals of the DEC were invalid – In view thereof,TIET not competent to award graduation degrees in technical coursesvia distance mode.

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I’s case –CEnunciation of dictum – Explained and clarified – Held: Approvalof the AICTE and UGC mandatory for starting the technicaleducation courses through distance learning mode.

University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Purpose ofenactment – Stated.D

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Approval of AICTE was mandatory for startingthe Bachelor of Technology courses. Approval of the AICTE wasnot obtained by TIET, Patiala. [Para 11][17-C]

E

1.2 Paragraph 4 of the ‘Guidelines for Establishing NewDepartments Within the Campus, Setting Up of Off–CampusCentre(s)/Institution(s)/Off–Shore Campus and Starting DistanceEducation Programmes by the Deemed Universities’, issued bythe UGC makes it crystal clear that post the 2004 Guidelines,Fevery deemed to be university would require approvals of theUGC and DEC, for starting any degree course through open anddistance learning mode. The condition of approval was mandatory.It is not the case of the petitioners or TIET, Patiala that the latterhad taken prior approval of the UGC for the B.Tech. degreesGobtained through distance learning mode. Paragraph 5 relates toex–post facto approval of the UGC/DEC for continuation ofdistance education programmes/study centres started withoutspecific approval of the UGC/DEC. Paragraph 5 is not applicablein the instant case as the degree courses were started postenactment of the 2004 Guidelines. [Para 12][18-A-C]H

1.3 The petitioners and TIET, Patiala misconstruedparagraph 49 of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I. Thesaid paragraph refers to the 1994 Regulations issued by theAICTE under which no courses or programmes could beintroduced by any technical institution/ university, including adeemed university or a university department or college, exceptwith approval of the AICTE. Paragraph 49 deals with universitiesincluding deemed to be universities imparting higher educationfor degree courses/programmes through regular mode. Thisparagraph does not specifically deal with or confer any right uponthe deemed to be universities to start distance education courses,even if integrally connected with the approved regular courses.The foregoing analysis becomes clear when Orissa Lift IrrigationCorporation Limited-I is read in its entirety, particularly theimmediately preceding paragraph, i.e. paragraph 48, wherein ithas been specifically stipulated and mandated that whethersubjects leading to degrees in engineering would be taught indistance education mode or not is within the exclusive domain ofthe AICTE. Thus, in view of the statutory provisions and lack ofprior approval of the UGC or AICTE, TIET, Patiala was notcompetent to award graduation degrees in technical courses viadistance mode. [Para 13–15][19-C-D; 20-A-D]

1.4 The plea that the petitioners are entitled to relief aswas granted to the petitioners in Orissa Lift Irrigation CorporationLimited I and II is rejected since no relief was granted to thecandidates who had taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. Reliefin the form of one–time relaxation vide examination to beconducted by the AICTE was granted to those candidates/students who had taken admission in academic years beginningfrom 2001 and till 2004–2005. [Para 18][22-G-H]

1.5 TIET, Patiala in their additional affidavit have referredto the correspondence with the DEC expressing their desire tostart B.Tech. courses in Civil Engineering/Computer Sciencesand Engineering/Electrical Engineering/Mechanical Engineeringthrough distance learning programme, vide their letter dated17[th] May, 2006 and reply of the DEC vide its letter dated 16[th]

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2019] 12 S.C.R.

AJune, 2006 that such approvals can only be granted afterevaluation of the course material by an expert committee and forwhich TIET, Patiala should apply in the prescribed format withrequisite fee. Thereupon, TIET, Patiala had submitted anapplication in the required format and an expert committeeBconstituted by the Chairman of the DEC had evaluatedinfrastructure and other services etc., provided by TIET, Patiala.The expert committee, which included the Director, School ofEngineering and Technology, IGNOU, gave a favourable reportsubsequent to which the letter of provisional recognition datedC31[st] August, 2007 was issued by the DEC permitting TIET, Patialato start the course. Reference was also made to the press notedated 23[rd] May, 2007 released by Press Information Bureau,Government of India, which had published a list of universitiesincluding deemed to be universities offering distance education.This list also included TIET, Patiala. [Para 19][23-A-D]D

1.6 The petitioners also relied upon letter dated 3[rd]September, 2007 written to TIET, Patiala by the DEC providingthem provisional recognition for one year in programmes offeredthrough distance mode. The said letter states that TIET, PatialaEhad made an application to the DEC requesting for recognitionof programmes offered through distance mode and that they hadbeen granted provisional recognition for offering suchprogrammes. The letter records that an application was submittedby TIET, Patiala but no specific reference was made to theprogrammes or courses offered nor the date when the applicationFwas filed is indicated. The letter also does not refer to approvalby the AICTE or UGC. It had further required TIET, Patiala tosubmit a fresh application for the next academic year from June–July 2008. [Para 20][23-E; 24-G-H]

Issues

G1.7 The 2004 Guidelines issued by the UGC and the AICTEAct hold that TIET, Patiala had failed to take their prior approvalbefore starting B. Tech. degree courses through distanceeducation mode. Provisional recognition by the DEC beingcontrary to the law would not matter for at best the DEC wouldbe equally guilty for violating the law in terms of 2004 GuidelinesH

issued by the UGC and the AICTE Act. In terms of the saidnotification issued by the Government of India on 1[st] March 1995quoted in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I on distanceeducation programme by deemed to be universities etc. alsoapproval of the AICTE was required. [Para 21][25-A-C]

1.8 TIET, Patiala accepts that no approval, provisional orotherwise, was granted for the next academic year, i.e. June–July 2008, yet B.Tech. degree programmes through distancemode for the academic year June–July 2008 were offered by TIET,Patiala contrary to the statutes and law. TIET, Patiala, to justifyadmissions in the academic year 2008–2009 in their additionalaffidavit, have referred to correspondence and submission ofapplication to the UGC for offering B. Tech. degree coursesthrough distance education programme for the academic sessioni.e. 2008–2009. This is surprising as TIET, Patiala had not appliedto the UGC for the previous academic session i.e. 2007–2008.Thereafter, the additional affidavit refers to correspondenceexchanged between the DEC and TIET, Patiala pursuant to whicha Joint Expert Committee was constituted comprising of membersof the UGC, DEC and AICTE to assess the administration andmanagement of distance learning programmes offered by TIET,Patiala, which panel had visited their premises on 2[nd] June, 2009and had recommended the recognition of as many as sevenprogrammes for a period of five years. However, the CentralGovernment had, in exercise of powers under Section 20 of theUGC Act and in terms of a policy decision, issued a notificationon 29[th] July, 2009 that the B.Tech. degrees would not be offeredthrough open distance learning programme. In view of this policydecision, the DEC had to immediately withdraw the permissionto various institutions to conduct B.Tech. degree courses throughdistance education mode and no further student was admitted inthe current year and thereafter. However, the notification statesthat those who had already been admitted would have to passpracticals and written examination as may be prescribed so as toobtain the B.Tech. degrees through distance education.[Para 22, 23][25-F-H; 26-A-D]

A

BCD

EF

G

H

A

BCD

EF

G

H

A1.9 The submission/contention of the petitioners and TIET,Patiala completely overlooks several developments,correspondence and policy decisions taken which have beennoticed in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I,particularly the notification issued by the AICTE on 28[th]BNovember, 2005 clearly stating that no technical institution ofthe Government/Government aided/private institution, whetheraffiliated or not to any University, shall start new courses orincrease the intake for the same without approval of the AICTE.Notification issued by the Ministry of Human ResourceCDevelopment, Government of India on 5[th] April, 2006 in exerciseof powers vested in the Central Government under Section 20(1)of the UGC Act and Section 20(1) of the AICTE Act had clarifiedthe role of the UGC and AICTE for maintaining standards ofeducation and that the deemed to be universities are required tomaintain minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE for variousDcourses within the jurisdiction of the said Council. This wasfollowed by a joint public notice issued by the AICTE, UGC andDEC on 4[th] February, 2007. The public notice had cautioned thatthe universities/ institutions/deemed to be universities offeringtechnical education programme through distance education modeEwithout approval of concerned statutory authorities were doingso in contravention of the law and would be treated severely.The last sentence of the notification had made it clear that inaddition to the concerned statutory councils, all courses and theprogrammes offered for study in distance mode would requireFapproval of the DEC. A memorandum of understanding wasarrived at on 10[th] May, 2007 among the UGC, AICTE and DECto work in close co–operation in pursuit of excellence in technicaland general education being imparted through distance and mixedmode in the country. These aspects and contentions wereGconsidered in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I and ithas been held that B.Tech. degrees could not have been awardedthrough distance learning mode without the approval of the DECand without any specific approval of the AICTE and UGC andaward of such degrees without approval of the three were invalidand cannot be recognised. [Para 24, 25][26-E-G; 27-E-G]H

1.10 Functioning of the DEC has come in for rather strongcriticism in several quarters. Till 2006, the DEC had approvedabout 45 programmes of 23 universities out of applications forapproximately 200 programmes. In 2007, the DEC repealed theprogramme approval process and the system of institutionalrecognition was started. As per this decision, all programmesapproved by respective authorities of the institution were deemedto have recognition of the DEC. As a result of this decision, withina short span, the number of approved programmes increased toover 3000 in 2010. The provisional recognition letter of the DECwould uniformly state that before starting such programmes, therequired approvals from other regulatory bodies have to beobtained but the said stipulation was not followed in most casesand provisional recognition was granted by the DEC to technicalprogrammes through distance mode without recognition/approvalof the AICTE or UGC. This had paved way for commercialisationand was a retrograde step which had resulted in deterioration ofthe quality of open learning programmes/degrees. After burningits fingers, the DEC switched back to programme recognition.The DEC itself was finally wound up in 2013. [Para 26][27-H;28-A-C]

1.11 In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I, thisCourt, took note of the order dated 29[th] December, 2012 issuedby the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Governmentof India for regulating the standards of education being impartedthrough distance mode to hold that the unilateral approvals ofthe DEC were invalid. The said order correctly appreciated thatDEC could not act as a regulator for other Universities. The saidorder, the Court noted, had definitively vested the UGC andAICTE, among other statutory regulators, with powers to regulatetechnical courses imparted through distance learning mode andmade it mandatory for institutions intending to impart suchcourses to seek their approval and recognition. [Para 27][28-D-E; 29-B-C]

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. RabiSankar Patro and Others(2018) 1 SCC 468 – Explainedand relied on.

AB

CD

E

F

G

H

ABharathidasan University and Another v. All IndiaCouncil for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8SCC 676 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253;AnnamalaiUniversity Represented by Registrar v. Secretary toGovernment, Information and Tourism Department andBOthers (2009) 4 SCC 590 : [2009] 3 SCR 355;State ofTamil Nadu and Another v. Adhiyaman Educational andResearch Institute and Others (1995) 4 SCC 104 : [1995]2 SCR 1075;Osmania University Teachers’ Associationv. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another(1987) 4 SCC671 : [1987] 3 SCR 949;Association of ManagementCof Private Colleges v. All India Council for TechnicalEducation and Others (2013) 8 SCC 271 : [2013] 6SCR 1054;Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limitedv. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others(2018) 2 SCC 298 :[2018] 1 SCR 839 – referred to.

D

Case Law Reference

CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition(Civil) No. 1510 of 2018

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

G

C. U. Singh, Sr. Adv., D. Abhinav Rao, Adv. for the Petitioners.

Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv., Apoorv Kurup, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, RajatKhanna, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Mrs. Gayatri Gulati Sreyas, AnilSoni, Harish Pandey, T.A. Khan, G.S. Makker, Advs. for the Respondents.

H

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. The petitioners, 92 in number, in this writ petition under Article32 of the Constitution of India have prayed for directing the UniversityGrants Commission, (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC’) to issue aclarification that the degrees of Bachelor of Technology (hereinafterreferred to as ‘B.Tech.’) acquired by them through open and distancelearning mode from the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology,Patiala, (hereinafter referred to as ‘TIET, Patiala’) are valid, recognisedand should be treated at par with degrees granted to regular studentswho have undertaken such courses in TIET, Patiala and other recogniseduniversities.

2. UGC is refusing to treat the technical degrees issued by TIET,Patiala under distance learning mode as valid, primarily for the reasonthat the B.Tech. courses conducted by TIET, Patiala were without theirapproval and approval of the All India Council for Technical Education(hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’).

3. The petitioners who are diploma holders in Civil/ ComputerScience/ Electrical/ Mechanical Engineering and working in theGovernment of Punjab have stated that they were selected for theB.Tech. degree course through the distance mode programme on thebasis of competitive examination conducted by TIET, Patiala, which isdeemed to be a university under Section 3 of the University GrantsCommission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC Act’). Thepetitioners highlight that TIET, Patiala, rated as one of the premierengineering universities/colleges by the Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment, Government of India, was set up in 1956 for promotingthe study of technical education and has a 250 acre campus located inPatiala with teaching faculty strength of 391, including 301 Ph.D. holders,and undertakes 11 undergraduate courses and 23 postgraduate courses.The total strength of students is more than 8000 with nearly 700 researchstudents doing Ph.D. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council,an autonomous body established by the Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment, Government of India, has accredited the said institution/deemed to be university Grade ‘A’ status besides placing the institutionin Tier-I accreditation. Distance Education Council (hereinafter referred B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato as ‘DEC’) vide its letter dated 3[rd] September, 2007 had grantedprovisional recognition to TIET, Patiala for offering programmes throughdistance mode for a period of one year on the basis of which TIET,Patiala had offered B.Tech. degree in Civil / Computer Science /Electrical / Mechanical Engineering to working professionals who alreadyBhad a diploma and had at least two years’ experience in the respectivebranches in engineering in the academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09.No admissions were made after 29[th] July, 2009. The petitioners hadtaken admission in the prestigious deemed to be university verily believingthat all approvals were in place. The petitioners, relying on the judgmentof this Court in Bharathidasan University and Another v. All IndiaCCouncil for Technical Education and Others,[1] have argued that adeemed to be university is not required to seek prior approval of theAICTE to start a department for imparting a course or a programme intechnical education. Reference was made to paragraph 49 of thejudgment of this Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation LimitedDv. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others[2](hereinafter referred to as OrissaLift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I)to assert that TIET, Patiala,being a premier institution authorised to undertake courses and issuedegrees in the aforesaid technical fields, was not required to take anyapproval of the AICTE. Reliance was also placed on the order andEjudgment dated 10[th] April, 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3697-3698 of 2018in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. The Chairman andManaging Director, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited.There were no off-campus centres or study centres and all instruction,practicals and examinations were conducted on the campus of TIET,FPatiala using the same faculty and infrastructure as used in the traditionalB.Tech. courses. The studies were of high standard as the students hadto pass 42 subjects with practicals to earn the degree. Out of 1168students admitted to the B.Tech. courses through distance learning mode,only 822 students were awarded degree.

G4. We may at the outset record that the petitioners have given upand not raised the contention that the decision authored by one of us(Uday Umesh Lalit, J.) in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I is per incuriam for the ratio is contrary to the decision in 1 (2001) 8 SCC 676H2 (2018) 1 SCC 468

Bharathidasan University (supra). Indeed, such contention cannot beaccepted as the latter decision has been considered in Orissa LiftIrrigation Corporation Limited-I.

5. We record our inability to accept the contentions raised by thepetitioners, for they are misconstruing the judgment of this Court in OrissaLift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I which settles the controversybeyond any doubt and debate.

6. The UGC Act was legislated for coordination and determinationof standards of higher education in India with commandment to the UGCto take such steps as may be necessary for promotion and coordinationof higher education in universities and institutions. The UGC, therefore,fixes and ensures maintenance of standards in teaching, examinationand research in higher education. To fix and enforce these standards,the UGC has framed rules and regulations, and issues guidelines underthe UGC Act.

7. Referring to the UGC Act in Annamalai UniversityRepresented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Informationand Tourism Department and Others,[3]this Court had observed thatno relaxation can be granted with regard to the basic things necessaryfor conferment of a degree and if the mandatory provisions are notcomplied with by an administering authority, the action would be void.Decision of this Court in Annamalai University (supra) has somerelevance for it had examined the interplay between the provisions ofthe UGC Act and Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985(hereinafter referred to as ‘Open University Act’) and the purportedrepugnance between the two. The UGC Act, it was observed, wasenacted to make provisions for coordination and determination ofstandards in universities and for this purpose, the UGC was establishedby the Central Government in terms of Section 4 of the UGC Act withits powers and functions laid down in Chapter III. Section 12 of theUGC Act provides for functions of the UGC, relevant provisions of whichare reproduced as under:

“12. Functions of the Commission.—It shall be the generalduty of the Commission to take, in consultation with theUniversities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it maythink fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

12SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aand for the determination and maintenance of standards ofteaching, examination and research in Universities, and for thepurpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Commissionmay—

x

xx

B

(d) recommend to any University the measures necessary for theimprovement of University education and advise the Universityupon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing suchrecommendation; x xx C

(i) require a University to furnish it with such information as maybe needed relating to the financial position of the University or thestudies in the various branches of learning undertaken in thatUniversity, together with all the rules and regulations relating tothe standards of teaching and examination in that UniversityDrespecting each of such branches of learning;”

Section 22 of the UGC Act relates to the rights of a university/deemed university/institution to confer degrees and sub-section (1)thereof reads as under:

“22. Right to confer degrees.—(1) The right of conferring orEgranting degrees shall be exercised only by a University establishedor incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or aState Act or an institution deemed to be a University under Section3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliamentto confer or grant degrees.”

F

In Annamalai University (supra), the Open University Act, itwas held, was enacted to establish and incorporatean open university atthe national level for the introduction and promotion of open universityand distance education systems in the educational pattern of the countryand for coordination and determination of standards in such system.

GRecording the contention that the distance education programmeattenuates the rigidity of the traditional system requiring attendance inclass rooms that disincentivises many learners, this Court in AnnamalaiUniversity (supra), referring to the UGC Act and the role of the UGC,had observed as under:

H

“40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of itspower under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule tothe Constitution of India whereas the Open University Actwas enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power underEntry 25 of List III thereof. The question of repugnancy ofthe provisions of the said two Acts, therefore, does not arise.It is true that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of OpenUniversity Act shows that the formal system of educationhad not been able to provide an effective means to equaliseeducational opportunities. The system is rigid inter alia inrespect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of subjectsare also inflexible.

41. Was the alternative system envisaged under the OpenUniversity Act in substitution of the formal system is thequestion. In our opinion, in the matter of ensuring the standardof education, it is not. The distinction between a formal systemand informal system is in the mode and manner in whicheducation is imparted. The UGC Act was enacted foreffectuating co- ordination and determination of standards inuniversities. The purport and object for which it was enactedmust be given full effect.

42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universitieswhether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad.The Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g)and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude.They apply equally to open universities as also to formalconventional universities. In the matter of higher education, itis necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions.Such minimum standards of instructions are required to bedefined by UGC. The standards and the co- ordination ofwork or facilities in universities must be maintained and forthat purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGCunder Sections 26(1) (f) and 26(1) (g) are very broad in nature.[...]”

8. Annamalai University (supra) makes a reference to an earlierjudgment in State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. AdhiyamanEducational and Research Institute and Others[4]in which this Courthad,with regard the enactment of the UGC Act by Parliament in exerciseof power under Entry 66 of List-I, observed as under:

4 (1995) 4 SCC 104

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

A“41. What emerges from the above discussion is as follows:

(i) The expression ‘coordination’ used in Entry 66 of the UnionList of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution does not merely meanevaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniformpattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, schemeBor plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only forremoval of disparities in standards but also for preventing theoccurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also includepower to do all things which are necessary to prevent what wouldmake ‘coordination’ either impossible or difficult. This power isabsolute and unconditional and in the absence of any validCcompelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to itsplain and express intention.”

Reference was also made to Osmania University Teachers’Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another[5]wherein, withregard to the responsibility entrusted upon the UGC under the UGC Act,Dit was held as under:

“30. The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusiveauthority in regard to coordination and determination ofstandards in institutions for higher education. The Parliamenthas enacted the UGC Act for that purpose. The UniversityEGrants Commission has, therefore, a greater role to play inshaping the academic life of the country. It shall not falter orfail in its duty to maintain a high standard in the universities.Democracy depends for its very life on a high standard orgeneral, vocational and professional education. Disseminationof learning with search for new knowledge with disciplineFall round must be maintained at all costs. It is hoped thatUniversity Grants Commission will duly discharge itsresponsibility to the nation and play an increasing role to bringabout the needed transformation in the academic life of theUniversities.”

G9. Accordingly, in Annamalai University (supra) it was held thatthe UGC Act would prevail over the Open University Act, observing:

“59. The provisions of the UGC Act are not in conflict with theprovisions of the Open University Act. It is beyond any cavilof doubt that the UGC Act shall prevail over the Open H5 (1987) 4 SCC 671

University Act. It has, however, been argued that the OpenUniversity Act is a later Act. But we have noticedhereinbefore that the nodal Ministry knew of the provisionsof both the Acts. The Regulations were framed almost atthe same time after passing of the Open University Act.The Regulations were framed at a later point of time.Indisputably, the Regulations embrace within its fold thematters covered under the Open University Act also.”

10. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, referencewas made to All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1989(hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE Act’) and distinction was drawnbetween ‘technical education’ and ‘technical institution’ as defined inSection 2(g) and 2(h) respectively to observe that functions of the AICTEstipulated under sub-clauses (a), (d), (e), (f), (l) and (n) of Section 10 ofthe AICTE Act are concerned with the broader facets of ‘technicaleducation’, while functions enumerated under sub-clauses (k), (m), (p)and (q) deal with matters concerning ‘technical institutions’ and thefunctions as set out in sub-clauses (g) and (o) apply to both ‘technicalinstitutions’ and universities imparting ‘technical education’. Sub-clauses(b), (d) and (f) of Section 10 deal with, inter alia, coordination of thetechnical education in the country at all levels; promoting innovation,research and development, establishment of new technologies, generation,adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet the developmentrequirements; and promoting effecting link between technical educationand systems and other relevant systems. Drawing on the distinctionbetween ‘technical education’ and ‘technical institution’ and multifariousfunctions of the AICTE prescribed by Section 10 of the AICTE Act, itwas held that the AICTE is the sole repository of power to lay downparameters or qualitative norms for ‘technical education’ and it would,therefore, not matter whether the term ‘technical institution’ would excludea university/deemed to be university. What should be course content,what subjects should be taught and what should be the length and durationof the courses as well as the manner in which those courses be conductedis a part of the larger concept of ‘technical education’. Any idea orinnovation in that field is also a part of the concept of ‘technical education’and must, as a matter of principle, be in the exclusive domain of theAICTE.

11. Accordingly, the Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation CorporationLimited-I distinguished the decision in Bharathidasan University AB

C

DEFG

H

16SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A(supra), which had, relying upon the definition in clause 2(h) on themeaning of the term ‘technical institution’, held that a deemed to beuniversity established under a state law was entitled to start courses in‘technical education’ without any approval of the AICTE. This was doneby limiting Bharathidasan University’s (supra)application to courses/programmes integrally adjunct/connected to the sanctioned and permittedBcourses and programmes, and not to new and different courses/programmes like award of B.Tech. degrees through distance learningmode. On role of the AICTE and distance learning as a mode for acquiringB. Tech degrees, it was held in Orissa Lift Irrigation CorporationLimited-I that:

C“48. Technical education leading to the award of degrees inEngineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as wellas practicals. The practicals form the backbone of sucheducation which is hands-on approach involving actualapplication of principles taught in theory under the watchfuleyes of demonstrators or lecturers. Face to face impartingDof knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforced in practicalclasses. The practicals, thus, constitute an integral part ofthe technical education system. If this established conceptof imparting technical education as a qualitative norm is tobe modified or altered and in a given case to be substitutedby distance education learning, then as a concept AICTEEought to have accepted it in clear terms. What parametersought to be satisfied if the regular course of imparting technicaleducation is in any way to be modified or altered, is for AICTEalone to decide. The decision must be specific andunequivocal and cannot be inferred merely because ofabsence of any guidelines in the matter. No such decisionFwas ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it hasalways maintained that courses leading to degrees inEngineering cannot be undertaken through distance educationmode. Whether that approach is correct or not is not thepoint in issue. For the present purposes, if according to AICTEsuch courses ought not to be taught in distance educationGmode, that is the final word and is binding—unless rectifiedin a manner known to law. Even National Policy on Educationwhile emphasising the need to have a flexible, pattern andprogrammes through distance education learning in technicaland managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTEwill be responsible for planning, formulation and maintenance H

of norms and standards including maintenance of parity ofcertification and ensuring coordinated and integrateddevelopment of technical and management education. In ourview, whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering couldbe taught in distance education mode or not is within theexclusive domain of AICTE. The answer to the first limb ofthe first question posed by us is therefore clear that withoutthe guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTEexpressly permitting degree courses in Engineering throughdistance education mode, the deemed to be universities werenot justified in introducing such courses.”

From the dictum laid down above, it is plainly clear that approvalof the AICTE was mandatory for starting the aforesaid courses.Admittedly, approval of the AICTE was not obtained by TIET, Patiala.

12. We would now revert to the question of approval of the UGC.In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, reference was madeto paragraphs 4 and 5 of the ‘Guidelines for Establishing NewDepartments Within the Campus, Setting Up of Off-Campus Centre(s)/Institution(s)/Off-Shore Campus and Starting Distance EducationProgrammes by the Deemed Universities’ (hereinafter referred to as‘2004 Guidelines’), issued by the UGC which dealt with the procedureto be followed by deemed to be universities offering distance educationprogrammes, which read as under:

“4. Distance education.—The deemed to be university couldoffer the distance education programmes only with the specificapproval of the Distance Education Council (DEC) and theUniversity Grants Commission (UGC). As such, any studycentre(s) can be opened only with the specific approval ofDistance Education Council and UGC.

5. Ex post facto approval.—The deemed universities shallobtain the ex post facto approval of the GOI/UGC/DEC,whichever applicable within a period of six months in thefollowing cases:

I.Continuation of all the departments opened in the campus ofthe deemed universities and off-campus study centre(s)/institutions/off-shore campus started without the prior approvalof the UGC.

II. Distance education programme(s)/study centre(s) startedwithout the specific approval of the DEC/UGC.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AParagraph 4 makes it crystal clear that post the 2004 Guidelines,every deemed to be university would require approvals of the UGC andDEC, for starting any degree course through open and distance learningmode. The condition of approval was mandatory. It is not the case of thepetitioners or TIET, Patiala that the latter had taken prior approval of theBUGC for the B.Tech. degrees obtained through distance learning mode.Paragraph 5 relates to ex-post facto approval of the UGC/DEC forcontinuation of distance education programmes/study centres startedwithout specific approval of the UGC/DEC. Paragraph 5 is not applicablein the present case as the degree courses were started post enactmentof the 2004 Guidelines.

C

13. Faced and conscious of the clear violation of paragraph 4 ofthe 2004 Guidelines and absence of the AICTE’s approval, learned seniorcounsel for the petitioners had relied on paragraph 49 of Orissa LiftIrrigation Corporation Limited-I, which reads as under:

D“49. We now move to the second limb of the first question. Underthe 1994 AICTE Regulations, “no courses or programmes shallbe introduced by any technical institution, university including adeemed university or university department or college except withthe approval of the Council”. Bharathidasan declared the saidRegulation to the extent it required a university to have approvalEfor introducing any courses or programmes in technical education,to be bad. Same thought was amplified in Assn. of Managementof Private Colleges to say that affiliated colleges of the Universitywere entitled to the same protection. The question is, whether adeemed to be university is also entitled to the same protection.FThe matter can be considered under two categories:

D

F

(a) The first category could be of a deemed to be university, whichwas conferred such status for its excellence in a field oftechnological subject, is now desirous of introducing courses orprogrammes integrally connected with the area in respect of whichit was conferred deemed to be university status. For example, anEngineering college which because of its excellence in the fieldwas conferred deemed university status, now wishes to introducecourses in subjects like Robotics or Nano Technology which areEngineering subjects and integrally connected with its own fieldof excellence.

G

H

(b) The second category could be of a deemed to be universitywhich was conferred such status for its excellence in subjectswhich are completely unrelated to the field in which new coursesare sought to be introduced. For example, an institution engagedin teaching Fine Arts and Music, for its excellence in that chosenfield—or for that matter an institution engaged in teaching Lawhad been conferred such status. Can such a deemed to be universityclaim immunity from regulatory control of AICTE and say that itis entitled, as a matter of right, to introduce courses in Engineeringon the strength of the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan?”

In our opinion, the petitioners and TIET, Patiala are misconstruingparagraph 49 of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I. Theaforesaid paragraph refers to the 1994 Regulations issued by the AICTEunder which no courses or programmes could be introduced by anytechnical institution/ university, including a deemed university or auniversity department or college, except with approval of the AICTE. InBharathidasan University (supra) this mandate of the 1994 Regulationswas declared to be bad to the extent that it had required the university totake approval for introducing any course or programme in technicaleducation. Same opinion was expressed in Association of Managementof Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Educationand Others[6]to state that affiliated colleges of the university are entitledto the same protection. Thereupon, in Orissa Lift Irrigation CorporationLimited-I a distinction was made by creating two categories of deemedto be universities – Category-I, i.e. such deemed to be universities thathave been conferred status of ‘excellence’ in the field of technical subjectsand desire to introduce courses or programmes ‘integrally connected’with the area of subjects for which they had been conferred deemed tobe university status. Clarifying this, the Court had cited an example ofan engineering college of excellence that has been conferred deemed tobe university status and now wish to introduce courses in new orspecialised subjects like robotics and nanotechnology, which subjectswere integrally connected to the university’s own field of excellence.Category-II would be of those universities that have been conferreddeemed to be university status for excellence in subjects, but want tointroduce new courses unrelated to the field for which they were conferredstatus of excellence. In the latter category, the deemed to be university AB

CD

E

FG

Acannot claim immunity from regulatory control of the AICTE and musttake approval of the AICTE. Paragraph 49, we would like to clarify,deals with universities including deemed to be universities imparting highereducation for degree courses/programmes through regular mode. Thisparagraph does not specifically deal with or confer any right upon thedeemed to be universities to start distance education courses, even ifBintegrally connected with the approved regular courses.

14. The foregoing analysis becomes clear when we read OrissaLift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I in its entirety, particularly theimmediately preceding paragraph, i.e. paragraph 48 as quoted above,wherein it has been specifically stipulated and mandated that whetherCsubjects leading to degrees in engineering would be taught in distanceeducation mode or not is within the exclusive domain of the AICTE.

15. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions and lack of priorapproval of the UGC or AICTE, we do not think that TIET, Patiala wascompetent to award graduation degrees in technical courses via distanceDmode.

16. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, the Courtalso made a distinction between students who had taken admission indeemed to be universities offering technical degrees through distancelearning in the academic years 2001 to 2005 and 2005-2006 onwards.EThe reason for distinction was paragraph 5 of the 2004 Guidelines andex-post facto approvals granted by the UGC and DEC to deemed to beuniversities that had offered technical degrees in the academic years2001-2005. It was held that the said exercise of grant of ex-post factoapprovals was completely uncalled for and contrary to law and illegal.FAccordingly, the ex post facto approvals were set aside with theconsequential directions to recall all the engineering degrees grantedpursuant to the said approvals. However, conscious that the ex postfacto approvals were in terms of paragraph 5 of the 2004 Guidelines,while suspending the degrees awarded to students who had been enrolledduring the academic years 2001 to 2005, the Court had given these studentsGan opportunity to appear and clear such examination under jointsupervision of the AICTE-UGC. It was observed:

“57. [T]he matter is required to be considered with some sympathyso that interest of those students who were enrolled during theacademic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot H

wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universitiesflagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had noexperience and started conducting courses through distanceeducation system illegally, the over bearing interest of theconcerned students persuades us not to resort to recall of all thedegrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-post-factoapproval. However, the fact remains that the facilities availableat the concerned Study Centres were never checked nor anyinspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length oftime to order any inspection. But there must be confidence andassurance about the worthiness of the concerned students. We,therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to theconcerned students to have their ability tested by authoritiescompetent in that behalf. We, therefore, direct that all the degreesin Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during theacademic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they passsuch examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC inthe manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantageon the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.”

The aforesaid directions were not in respect of any engineeringdegree granted by deemed to be universities to candidates admitted/enrolled post the academic year 2004-2005. Grant of any degree forstudents enrolled post the academic year 2004-2005 was held as contraryto law and illegal, and could not be treated as regular and at par with theregular degrees. Therefore, paragraph 49 would not be of any avail tothe petitioners.

17. We would also refer to the second round of litigation asapplications were filed seeking clarification and modification of thedirections in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I.The decisiondated 22[nd] January, 2018 in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limitedv. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others[7] (hereinafter referred to as ‘OrissaLift Irrigation Corporation Limited-II’) had decided severalapplications of diploma holders who had enrolled for engineering orB.Tech. degree in deemed to be universities through distance learningmode. One of the contentions raised in the applications was that thedeemed to be universities awarding engineering degrees through distancelearning mode in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I were AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Anot institutes of excellence in the field of engineering and, thus, therewould be a distinction between engineering degrees awarded throughdistance education mode by deemed to be universities declared asinstitutions of excellence and the degrees awarded by other deemed tobe universities. This contention was squarely rejected by referring to thefact that engineering degrees through distance education mode awardedBby Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation in Orissa Lift IrrigationCorporation Limited-I had been also declared to be invalid, though thesaid institution in its field of activity and excellence included the subjectof engineering. Dealing with other contentions raised by the applicants,the Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-II held asunder:C

“25. We now turn to the general submission advanced by all thelearned counsel that the candidates after securing the degrees inEngineering through distance education mode, have advanced incareer and that their ability was tested at various levels and assuch requirement of passing the examination in terms of theDjudgment be dispensed within their case. We cannot make anysuch exception. The infirmity in their degrees is basis andfundamental and cannot be wished away. At the same time, wefind some force in their submission that if the suspension of theirdegrees and all advantages were to apply as indicated in theEjudgment, the candidates concerned may lose their jobs and evenif they were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobsand present position would pose some difficulty.

The Court, therefore, granting a one-time relaxation to thecandidates who had enrolled themselves during the academic years 2001-F2005, held that candidates would, in terms of the judgment in Orissa LiftIrrigation Corporation Limited I, be eligible to appear for the testconducted by the AICTE.

18. Given the aforesaid ratio, we reject the plea that the petitionersare entitled to relief as was granted to the petitioners in Orissa LiftIrrigation Corporation Limited I and II. This contention isGunacceptable for the reason that in Orissa Lift Irrigation CorporationLimited I and II, no relief was granted to the candidates who hadtaken admission in 2005 or thereafter. Relief in the form of one-timerelaxation vide examination to be conducted by the AICTE was grantedto those candidates/students who had taken admission in academic yearsHbeginning from 2001 and till 2004-2005.

19. TIET, Patiala in their additional affidavit have referred to thecorrespondence with the DEC expressing their desire to start B.Tech.courses in Civil Engineering/ Computer Sciences and Engineering/Electrical Engineering/ Mechanical Engineering through distance learningprogramme, vide their letter dated 17[th] May, 2006 and reply of the DECvide its letter dated 16[th] June, 2006 that such approvals can only begranted after evaluation of the course material by an expert committeeand for which TIET, Patiala should apply in the prescribed format withrequisite fee. Thereupon, TIET, Patiala had submitted an application inthe required format and an expert committee constituted by the Chairmanof the DEC had evaluated infrastructure and other services etc., providedby TIET, Patiala. The expert committee, which included the Director,School of Engineering and Technology, IGNOU, gave a favourable reportsubsequent to which the letter of provisional recognition dated 31[st] August,2007 was issued by the DEC permitting TIET, Patiala to start the course.Reference was also made to the press note dated 23[rd] May, 2007 releasedby Press Information Bureau, Government of India, which had publisheda list of universities including deemed to be universities offering distanceeducation. This list also included TIET, Patiala.

20. As already stated, the petitioners have also relied upon letterdated 3[rd] September, 2007 written to TIET, Patiala by the DEC providingthem provisional recognition for one year in programmes offered throughdistance mode. The said letter reads as under:

“INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

Maindan Garhi, New Delhi – 110068, IndiaPhone: (O) 91-11-29535923-32, 29533340 (O)Telefax: 91-11-295536668Email: [REDACTED]: www.ignou.ac.in/www.dec.ac.in DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCILF.No. DEC/Univ/State/07/5580Dated: 03.09.2007Prof. Swaraj BasuDirector A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASub: Provisional Recognition

Dear Sir,

This has reference to your application to the Distance EducationCouncil requesting for recognition of programmes offered throughdistance mode by your University.

B

We would like to inform you that your university has been grantedprovisional recognition for offering programmes (approved by thestatutory bodies of your university) through distance mode for a periodof one-year w.e.f. the date of issue of this letter.

However, for recognition of your institution for offeringprogrammes through distance mode in the next academic year, i.e. fromJune-July, 2008, you are requested to submit a fresh application in theprescribed format developed by the DEC which may be downloadedfrom the DEC website: www.dec.ac.in.

C

DWe would also like to inform you that that DEC has decided notto insist on territorial jurisdiction to be allowed by institutions in offeringprogrammes through distance mode and on that matter, universities shouldbe governed by their own Acts and Statutes.

With regards,

Yours sincerely

E

Sd/-

(Swaraj Basu)

The Vice ChancellorFThapar University

Patiala – 147004, Punjab”

The aforesaid letter states that TIET, Patiala had made anapplication to the DEC requesting for recognition of programmes offeredthrough distance mode and that they had been granted provisionalGrecognition for offering such programmes. The letter records that anapplication was submitted by TIET, Patiala but no specific referencewas made to the programmes or courses offered nor the date when theapplication was filed is indicated. The letter also does not refer to approvalby the AICTE or UGC. It had further required TIET, Patiala to submit aHfresh application for the next academic year from June-July 2008.

21. We have already referred to the 2004 Guidelines issued bythe UGC and the AICTE Act to hold that TIET, Patiala had failed totake their prior approval before starting B. Tech. degree courses throughdistance education mode. Provisional recognition by the DEC beingcontrary to the law would not matter for at best the DEC would beequally guilty for violating the law in terms of 2004 Guidelines issued bythe UGC and the AICTE Act. The legal issue stands foreclosed andcannot be argued in view of the clear dictum and ratio enunciated inOrissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I. We would also refer tothe notification issued by the Government of India on 1[st] March 1995quoted in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I on distanceeducation programme by deemed to be universities etc., which was tothe following effect:

“On the recommendation of the Board of Assessment forEducation Qualifications, the Government of India has decided that allthe qualifications awarded through Distance Education by the Universitiesestablished by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, InstitutionsDeemed to be Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 andInstitutions of National importance declared under an Act of Parliamentstand automatically recognized for the purpose of employment to postsand services under the Central Government, provided it has been approvedby Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi Nation Open University,K 76, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 and wherever necessary by AllIndia Council for Technical Education, I.G. Sports Complex, I.P. Estate,New Delhi.”

Clearly, therefore, in terms of the said notification also approvalof the AICTE was required.

22. TIET, Patiala accepts that no approval, provisional or otherwise,was granted for the next academic year, i.e. June-July 2008, yet B.Tech.degree programmes through distance mode for the academic year June-July 2008 were offered by TIET, Patiala contrary to the statutes andlaw.

23. TIET, Patiala, to justify admissions in the academic year 2008-2009 in their additional affidavit, have referred to correspondence andsubmission of application to the UGC for offering B. Tech. degree coursesthrough distance education programme for the academic session i.e.2008-2009. This is surprising as TIET, Patiala had not applied to the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AUGC for the previous academic session i.e. 2007-2008. Thereafter, theadditional affidavit refers to correspondence exchanged between theDEC and TIET, Patiala pursuant to which a Joint Expert Committeewas constituted comprising of members of the UGC, DEC and AICTEto assess the administration and management of distance learningprogrammes offered by TIET, Patiala, which panel had visited theirBpremises on 2[nd] June, 2009 and had recommended the recognition of asmany as seven programmes for a period of five years. However, theCentral Government had, in exercise of powers under Section 20 of theUGC Act and in terms of a policy decision, issued a notification on 29[th]July, 2009 that the B.Tech. degrees would not be offered through openCdistance learning programme. In view of this policy decision, the DEChad to immediately withdraw the permission to various institutions toconduct B.Tech. degree courses through distance education mode andno further student was admitted in the current year and thereafter.However, the notification states that those who had already been admittedwould have to pass practicals and written examination as may beDprescribed so as to obtain the B.Tech. degrees through distance education.

24. The submission/contention of the petitioners and TIET, Patialacompletely overlooks several developments, correspondence and policydecisions taken which have been noticed in Orissa Lift IrrigationCorporation Limited-I, particularly the notification issued by the AICTEEon 28[th] November, 2005 clearly stating that no technical institution of theGovernment/ Government aided/ private institution, whether affiliatedor not to any University, shall start new courses or increase the intakefor the same without approval of the AICTE. Notification issued by theMinistry of Human Resource Development, Government of India on 5[th]FApril, 2006 in exercise of powers vested in the Central Governmentunder Section 20(1) of the UGC Act and Section 20(1) of the AICTEAct had clarified the role of the UGC and AICTE for maintainingstandards of education and that the deemed to be universities are requiredto maintain minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE for variouscourses within the jurisdiction of the said Council. This was followed byGa joint public notice issued by the AICTE, UGC and DEC on 4[th] February,2007 to the following effect:

“It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission(UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)and the Distance Education Council (DEC), that some Universities,H

Institutions Deemed to be Universities and other institutions areoffering technical education programmes in the ‘distance mode’without the approval of the concerned Statutory Council.

All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities and otherinstitutions are hereby cautioned that running such programmesand giving misleading advertisements regarding unapproved‘distance mode courses and programmes of study, shall attractsevere action under the provisions of applicable laws, includingthat of de-recognition and withdrawal of institutional approval;

It is hereby clarified, in the public interest that there are a numberof courses or programmes of study leading to Degree/Diploma orother awards in Engineering & Technology, Management,Computer Applications, Architecture & Town Planning, Pharmacy,Hotel Management & Catering Technology, Applied Arts andCrafts, etc. which have not been approved by the appropriateStatutory Council for being conducted in the ‘distance mode’. Itis also reiterated that all courses or programmes of study in the‘distance mode’ require the approval of DEC.”

The public notice had cautioned that the universities/ institutions/deemed to be universities offering technical education programme throughdistance education mode without approval of concerned statutoryauthorities were doing so in contravention of the law and would be treatedseverely. The last sentence of the notification had made it clear that inaddition to the concerned statutory councils, all courses and theprogrammes offered for study in distance mode would require approvalof the DEC. A memorandum of understanding was arrived at on 10[th]May, 2007 among the UGC, AICTE and DEC to work in close co-operation in pursuit of excellence in technical and general educationbeing imparted through distance and mixed mode in the country.

25. In any case these aspects and contentions were fully consideredin Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I and it has been heldthat B.Tech. degrees could not have been awarded through distancelearning mode without the approval of the DEC and without any specificapproval of the AICTE and UGC and award of such degrees withoutapproval of the three were invalid and cannot be recognised.

26. Functioning of the DEC has come in for rather strong criticismin several quarters. Till 2006, the DEC had approved about 45

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Aprogrammes of 23 universities out of applications for approximately 200programmes. In 2007, the DEC repealed the programme approval processand the system of institutional recognition was started. As per this decision,all programmes approved by respective authorities of the institution weredeemed to have recognition of the DEC. As a result of this decision,within a short span, the number of approved programmes increased toBover 3000 in 2010. The provisional recognition letter of the DEC woulduniformly state that before starting such programmes, the requiredapprovals from other regulatory bodies have to be obtained but the saidstipulation was not followed in most cases and provisional recognitionwas granted by the DEC to technical programmes through distance modeCwithout recognition/approval of the AICTE or UGC. This had pavedway for commercialisation and was a retrograde step which had resultedin deterioration of the quality of open learning programmes/degrees. Afterburning its fingers, the DEC switched back to programme recognition.The DEC itself was finally wound up in 2013.

D27. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, this Court,took note of the order dated 29[th] December, 2012 issued by the Ministryof Human Resource Development, Government of India in view of therecommendations suggested in the Madhava Menon Committee reportfor regulating the standards of education being imparted through distancemode to hold that the unilateral approvals of the DEC were invalid. ItEwas observed:

“55. Para 3 of the notification dated 22.11.1991 which constitutedDEC shows that there was no representation for any Member orrepresentative of AICTE. The provisions of IGNOU Act showthat the Study Centres as defined in the IGNOU Act are that ofFIGNOU and not of any other University or Institution. The conceptof distance education under sub-clause (v) of Section 5 is also inrelation to the academic programmes of IGNOU. It undoubtedlyhas powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii) and (xxiii) to cooperate withother Universities but the IGNOU Act nowhere entitles IGNOUGto be the Controlling Authority of the entire field of distanceeducation of learning across the Country and in relation toprogrammes of other Universities or Institutions as well. The Orderdated 29.12.2012 issued by MHRD therefore correctly appreciatedthat DEC created under statute 28 of IGNOU Act could not actas a regulator for other Universities. In any event of the matter, H

the policy Guidelines issued from time to time made it abundantlyclear that DEC alone was not entitled to grant permission foropen distance learning and appropriate permissions from therequisite authorities were always required and insisted upon.Despite such policy statements, DEC went on granting permissionswithout even consulting AICTE. Such exercise on part of DECwas completely without jurisdiction.

The said order, the Court noted, had definitively vested the UGCand AICTE, among other statutory regulators, with powers to regulatetechnical courses imparted through distance learning mode and made itmandatory for institutions intending to impart such courses to seek theirapproval and recognition, observing as under:

“[T]he Central Government in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section 1 of section 20 of the UGC 1956 and the AICTEAct, 1987 hereby directs: - The UGC and AICTE as already empowered under theirrespective Acts, would also act as a regulator for Higher Education(excluding Technical Education) and Technical Education throughopen & Distance Learning (ODL) mode respectively Universitiesare empowered under their respective Act to offer any programmecourse including in Technical Education in the conventional mode.However, if they offer any programme/course in ODL mode theywould require recognition from the UGC, AICTE, NCTE and othersuch regulators of the conventional mode of education in thoseareas of study.”

28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any meritin the present Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. However, in thefacts of the case, there would be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain

Writ petition dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H