JAI SINGH AND ORS. versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS. on 24 September 2018

[2018] 12 S.C.R. 343

JAI SINGH AND ORS.

v.

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 905 of 2018)

SEPTEMBER 24, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND

UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Universities: Deemed to be University – Whether Deemed tobe University without there being any approval from the AICTE couldstart courses leading to award of Degrees in Engineering throughOpen Distance Learning – In the instant case, the petitionersenrolled themselves in years 2004 and 2005 in courses leading toaward of Degree in Engineering through Open Distance Learningby respondent no.4-Deemed to be University – Case of petitionersis completely covered by the decision of *Orissa Lift IrrigationCorporation case, wherein it was held that if the students wereadmitted after the academic sessions 2001-2005, their degrees inEngineering awarded by the Deemed to be University concernedthrough Distance Education Mode would be treated as cancelledand all benefits secured by such candidates would stand withdrawn– In view of the said judgment, instant petition is dismissed.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court

HELD: The instant petition is completely covered by the decision of this Court in *Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation andnot by the decision of this Court in **Jawaharlal NehruTechnological University. [Para 5] [349-A-B]

*Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. RabiShankar Patro and Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 468 – relied on Bharathidasan University and Anr. v. All India Councilfor Technical Education and Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 676 :[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253 – referred to **Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. TheChairman and Managing Director, Transmission

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

ACorporation of Telangana Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.3697-3698 of 2018 – held inapplicable Case Law Reference

(2018) 1 SCC 468relied onPara 2B[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253referred toPara 2CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)No. 905 of 2018

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Soli Sorabjee, Sr. Adv., Praveen Agrawal, Ms. Pushpa Chauhan,CAdvs. for the petitioners.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Seven petitioners who had enrolledthemselves in the years 2004 and 2005 in courses leading to award ofDDegree in Engineering through Open Distance Learning by respondentNo.4 - Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (deemed to beUniversity), have filed the present Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other suitable Writ directingthe Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.2/EAICTE to issue a clarification that the degree in technicaleducation granted to the petitioners herein by the RespondentUniversities through Open & Distance Learning Mode arevalid, do not require AICTE approval, and will be treated atpar with corresponding Degrees granted by any traditionalUniversity/AICTE recognized Institution in the Country.

F

ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ/Direction/Order, commanding the respondents and their men,agents and servants not to declare the technical degreesobtained by the Writ Petitioners as well as similarlycircumstanced persons as null.

G

iii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ/Direction/Order, declaring the degrees obtained throughdistance education mode or off campus mode to be valid forall purposes.

H

iv) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ/Direction/Order, quashing all steps taken by the RespondentsNo. 1 to 7 and their men, agents and servants for declaringany degree granted and/or obtained through distance educationmode as illegal and consequentially declare such steps asillegal.

v) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ/Direction/ Order, calling upon the Respondents to certify andproduce all necessary records relating to the present caseand on perusal thereof quash and/or set aside and/or declarethe same to be illegal.

vi) Grant an ex-party, ad-interim injunction against the respondentsrestraining the respondents to give effect to directionscontained in Paras 66-66.13 of (2018) 1 SCC 468 titled OrissaLift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi ShankarPatro and Ors. till the final adjudication of the present WritPetition.

2. The controversy in question including the issue whether aDeemed to be University, without there being any approval from theAICTE, could start courses leading to award of Degrees in Engineeringthrough Open Distance Learning came up for consideration beforethis Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. RabiShankar Patro and Ors.[1]While rejecting the submission that theDeemed to be Universities were also entitled to similar protection aswas accorded to State or Central Universities in terms of decision ofthis Court in Bharathidasan University and anr. vs. All India Councilfor Technical Education and Ors.[2], following directions were issuedby this Court in Para 66 of its judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra):

“66. Accordingly, we direct:

66.1. The 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to deemed to beuniversities and the deemed to be universities in the present matterwere not justified in introducing any new courses in technicaleducation without the approval of AICTE.

66.2. Insofar as candidates enrolled during the academic sessions2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals grantedby UGC and their authorities concerned are set aside.

1 (2018)1 SCC 468

2 (2001)8 SCC 676

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

66.3. Consequent to aforesaid Direction II, all the degrees inEngineering awarded by deemed to be universities concerned standsuspended.

66.4. AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriatetest(s) as indicated in para 58 above. The option be given to thestudents concerned whose degrees stand suspended by 15-1-2018to appear at the test(s) to be conducted in accordance with thedirections in para 58 above. Students be given not more than twochances to clear test(s) and if they do not successfully clear thetest(s) within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelledand all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in paras 57and 58 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s)shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concernedby 31-3-2018.

66.5. Those students who do not wish to exercise the option,shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuitionfee and other charges within one month of the exercise of suchoption. Needless to say, their degrees shall stand cancelled and alladvantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in para58.

66.6. If the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, allthe advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degreeswill stand revived fully.

66.7. As regards students who were admitted after the academicsessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by thedeemed to be universities concerned through distance educationmode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefitssecured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated inpara 59 above. However, the entire amount paid by such studentsto the deemed to be universities concerned towards tuition feesand other expenditure shall be returned by the deemed to beuniversities concerned by 31-5-2018, as indicated in para 59.

66.8. By 31-5-2018 all the deemed to be universities concernedshall refund the sums indicated above in para 66.7 and anappropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC withina week thereafter.

66.9. We direct CBI to carry out thorough investigation into theconduct of the officials concerned who dealt with the matters andwent about granting permissions against the policy statement, asindicated in para 60 above and into the conduct of institutions whoabused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally.Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination ofsuch investigation.

66.10. UGC shall also consider whether the deemed to beuniversity status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF callsfor any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30-6-2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above, arenot refunded to the students concerned, that factor shall be takeninto account while conducting such exercise.

66.11. We restrain all deemed to be universities to carry on anycourses in distance education mode from the academic session2018-2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conductsuch courses in distance education mode and specific permissionsare granted by the statutory/regulatory authorities concerned inrespect of each of those courses and unless the off-campuscentres/study centres are individually inspected and found adequateby the statutory authorities concerned. The approvals have to becourse specific.

66.12. UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps andimplement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain deemed to beuniversities from using the word “university” within one monthfrom today.

66.13. The Union of India may constitute a three-memberCommittee comprising of eminent persons who have held highpositions in the field of education, investigation, administration orlaw at national level within one month. The Committee mayexamine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map forstrengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanismin the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within sixmonths. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanismto regulate the deemed to be universities. The Union of India mayexamine the said report and take such action as may be consideredappropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athis Court of the action taken on or before 31-8-2018. The mattershall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11-9-2018.”

3. The present petitioners having enrolled themselves in 2004 and2005 are covered by directions 66.4 and 66.7. It was stated at the barthat they did appear at the examination so conducted by the AICTE.

B

4. It was, however, submitted by Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learnedsenior advocate on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, that the case ofthe petitioners was covered by one time exception granted by this Courtin the case of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Transmission Corporation ofCTelangana Ltd. & Ors.[3]decided on 10[th] April, 2018. Para 2 of saiddecision dated 10[th] April, 2018 had quoted the earlier order dated 16[th]February, 2018 passed in said matter which brings out the factualdistinction. Relevant part of said para 2 was as under:

“On 16.02.2018 the following order was passed:D ‘Permission to file the special leave petition is granted.

Learned Attorney General has pointed out that in view ofthe judgment of this Court in “Bharathidasan University & Anr.vs. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.”, (2001)8SCC 676, no prior approval of the All India Council for the TechnicalEEducation (AICTE) is required by the petitioner – University forstarting engineering courses.

The petitioner-University is a State University and it gaveadmissions in transparent manner only to the GovernmentEmployees. There was a contact programme and faculty wasavailable. Practical work also held. DEC gave ex-post factoapproval. The standards have not been compromised. ……….”

F

5. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University being a StateUniversity was completely covered by the decision of this Court inBharathidasan (supra) and as such reliance on the decision inGJawaharlal Nehru Technological University (supra) case would notbe of any assistance to the petitioners. Mr. Sorabjee learned senioradvocate further relied upon certain documents including ex-post factoapprovals which aspects have already been noticed and dealt with in thejudgment of this Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra). We, therefore, 3 Civil Appeal No. 3697-3698 of 2018

H

JAI SINGH AND ORS. v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSIONAND ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

see no reason to take a different view in the matter. The present petitionis completely covered by the decision of this Court in Orissa LiftIrrigation (supra) and not by the decision of this Court in JawaharlalNehru Technological University (supra).

6. This petition, thus, is devoid of any merits and is dismissed.

Devika Gujral

Writ petition dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H