1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17869-17870 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19807-19808/2012)
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD ……APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17871-17872 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19851-19852/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17899-17900 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19848-19849/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17897-17898 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19842-19843/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17895-17896 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19844-19845/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17879-17880 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19824-19825/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17885-17886 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19828-19829/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17881-17882 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19814-19815 /2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17883-17884 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19830-19831/2012)
2
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17893-17894 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19840-19841/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17877-17878 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19826-19827/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17889-91780 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19838-19839/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17875-17876 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19812-19813/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17873-17874 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19820-19821/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17887-17888 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19834-19835/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17891-17892 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19836-19837/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17901 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.14686/2014)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17902-17905 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.35793-35796/2012)
VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS, ETC. ETC. ……APPELLANTS
VERSUS
KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS, ETC. ETC. ….RESPONDENTS
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17906 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.37028/2012)
3
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17907 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.37957/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17908 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.38211/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17910 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.38230/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17909 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 38220/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17912 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.38846/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17911 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.38458/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17913 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.4108/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17915 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.9495/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17916-17917 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.11793-11794/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17918 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11799/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17914 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12244/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17921 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17004/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17920 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17005/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17919 /2017
4
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17003/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17926-17950 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.20658-20682/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17922 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15283/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17923 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15329/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17924 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17006/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17925 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.14933/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17951 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.36487/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17952 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.914/2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17953-17960 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.31487-31494/2014)
With
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 194-197/2016
in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 35793-35796/2012
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. Leave to appeal granted in all Special Leave Petitions.
5
2. These are two groups of appeals, one arising from the Judgment and
Order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack while the other arising
from the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Since the issues involved in these matters are same, both sets of matters are
being disposed of by this common Judgment.
3. The Directorate of Lift Irrigation in the Government of Odisha was
converted into Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (hereinafter
referred to as the “OLIC”). The service conditions of Engineers including
Junior Engineers which is the base cadre in the Engineering Wing of OLIC
are governed by Orissa Service of Engineers’ Rules, 1941 (“1941 Rules” for
short) as amended from time to time. Junior Engineers form the feeder
cadre for promotion to the next level, namely, that of Assistant Engineers.
Respondent No.11
–Rabi Sankar Patro, a Diploma holder in Electrical
Engineering, joined OLIC as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and while in
service, he acquired B.Tech (Civil) Degree from a Deemed to be University
namely JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur, through Distance
Education in the year 2009 and thereafter filed Writ Petition No.3848 of
2010 in the High Court Orissa. According to him, he being an in-service
graduate Engineer was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineer. Said
1
In the matter arising out of SLP(C) No.19807-19808 of 2012
6
writ petition was allowed without issuing notice to the respondents, placing
reliance on an earlier order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the High Court in
OJC No.13251 of 2001 by which OLIC was directed to consider the case of
the concerned candidates as in-service graduate Engineers. OLIC being
aggrieved, filed Review Petition No.58 of 2012 which was dismissed by the
High Court on 15.03.2012 along with certain similar review petitions. The
submissions recorded in support of the review petitions in the order of the
High Court were as under:-
“The argument advanced by Mr. Ashok Mohanty learned
Sr. Counsel for the review petitioners that the opposite partiesemployees
have acquired Degree Qualification of
distance/correspondence education course from JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth which is not recognized by AICTE. Therefore,
they are not qualified……….…...Learned Sr. Counsel Mr.
Mohanty placed much reliance upon the letter issued by AICTE
on 6th October, 2010 wherein the AICTE has categorically
stated as under:
“It has been the policy of the AICTE, not to
recognize the qualifications acquired through
distance education mode at Diploma, Bachelors &
Master’s level in the fields of Engineering
Technology including Architecture, Town
Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management &
Catering Technology, Applied Arts & Crafts and
Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM).
AICTE only recognizes MBA and MCA
programme through distance mode.” ”
The Review Petition was dismissed by the High Court, observing
inter alia,
7
“……. Substantial number of persons have also acquired
Engineering Degree through Universities providing Distance
Education which are also Indian Universities. Further Clause
(d) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1941 does not specify that the
qualifications obtained through distance education is not
permissible & the Degree should be obtained from the approved
Universities of the AICTE.”
4. Disposal of Review Petition and similar such petitions led to the filing
of these appeals, by special leave, by OLIC. It is principally submitted by
OLIC that the degrees in Engineering obtained by the concerned candidates
by distance education from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University and
similar Deemed to be Universities are not recognized degrees and as such
the concerned candidates cannot be said to be Graduate Engineers eligible
for benefits under the concerned Rules. It is further submitted that in its
Circular dated 09.08.2005 the University Grants Commission (“UGC” for
short) had notified that JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur was
neither permitted to affiliate any colleges or institutes nor allowed to conduct
any course through distance education.
5. While issuing notice in the matters, All India Council of Technical
Education (“AICTE” for short) and UGC were added as party-respondents,
whereafter AICTE filed its counter affidavits. The matters were taken up on
11.12.2014 when the following Order was passed by this Court:-
8
“In the course of hearing of these cases we noticed that
the UGC even though impleaded as a party respondent had not
filed any counter affidavit. We would have proceeded with the
hearing even in the absence of a counter affidavit but for the
fact that additional documents filed by Respondent No.1
include several documents concerning the UGC some of them
in the nature of letters, circulars and communications addressed
to several other authorities. It was in that backdrop that we
required the personal presence of the Chairman of the UGC,
Professor Ved Prakash who has appeared and broadly explained
the UGC stand on the questions that fall for determination.
According to Professor Ved Prakash the UGC recognises
technical degrees by the distant mode only if the University
concerned awards such degrees after obtaining the permission
of the AICTE for offering such degrees/courses by distance
education. Professor Ved Prakash further states that wherever
the UGC notices that technical educational degrees are being
awarded by deemed university without the approval of the
AICTE, it can and does take action against the defaulting
university by reporting the matter to the Central Government
who confers the status of deemed university on such
institutions. When asked whether Professor Ved Prakash can on
affidavit state the above position, Prof. Prakash was more than
willing to do so. Needless to say some of the counsel appearing
in these cases were critical of the stand taken by the UGC and
argued that the same was not the true position either on facts or
in law. Be that as it may, we deem it just and proper to permit
the UGC to file a detailed counter affidavit to this SLP which
shall apart from answering other submissions made in the SLP
elaborate on the following aspects:
1) Whether the UGC recognises degrees in
technical education by open and distance education
mode. If so, subject to what conditions, if any.
2) If such degrees are recognised only when they
are awarded after obtaining the permission of the
AICTE, what happens when the Universities
award degrees without obtaining such permission.
9
3) What action, if any, is the UGC empowered to
take under the UGC Act or any other provision of
law against the University awarding degrees
without the approval of the AICTE and whether
any such action has been taken in the past or is
proposed to be taken against such Universities
hereafter.
4) Whether the Government of India have issued
any instructions/circulars regarding recognition of
technical education degrees through ODL mode
offered by the deemed or statutory universities. If
so, what are these instructions/circulars and what is
the action/steps to be taken in regard to the degrees
awarded or status of such degrees as have already
been issued before the issue of such instructions.
5) How does UGC explain its stand in view of the
documents filed by respondent No. 1 in I.A. Nos. 5
and 6 of 2014 in these petitions or those enclosed
with the SLP or counter affidavit.
6) Since the controversy relates to different
deemed universities namely Vinayaka Mission's
research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu, IASE
Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr Rajasthan,
JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan and
Allahabad, Agriculture Research Institute,
Allahabad, U.P. the proposed affidavit by
Professor Ved Prakash shall state whether the
UGC recognises the degrees awarded by the said
Universities by ODL mode even when the same
are degrees in technical education including
degrees that have already been awarded. We grant
to Professor Ved Prakash, Chairman of the UGC
four weeks' time to file the affidavit copy whereof
shall be served upon learned counsel for the
counsel opposite who shall have two weeks' time
thereafter to file their response.”
10
6. Prof. Ved Prakash, Chairman, UGC, filed an affidavit on 30.01.2015
dealing with the aforesaid questions. The subsequent Order dated
04.08.2015 of this Court was as under:
“There are a large number of cases pending on the
principal issue raised in SLP (C) Nos.19807-19808 of 2012
(Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. & Ors.). Mr. Raju
Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that the principal issue is whether
degrees given by some institutions/universities through distant
education ought to be recognized by the employer. He submits
that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and
University Grants Commission (UGC) have taken the stand that
such degrees in technical courses are not recognized by AICTE
and therefore not recognized by UGC as well.
Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for
UGC affirms that the UGC does not recognize the degrees. It is
the submission of Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel that
in a meeting convened by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD) on 19th February, 2008 it was decided
that the approval granted by Distant Education Council
(including ) must be reviewed and the approval should be
granted to the courses and not to the Institute.
That being the position, we are of the opinion that the
concerned Secretary in the MHRD should be impleaded as a
party so that the stand of the Government of India is clear.
Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel makes
an oral request for impleadment of the concerned Secretary in
the MHRD as a party respondent. On his oral request, the
concerned Secretary in the MHRD is impleaded as a party
11
respondent. Amended memo of parties be filed within two
weeks.”
7. An affidavit has since then been filed on behalf of MHRD2
. In the
Order dated 26.04.2017 it was recorded:-
“………Our attention was drawn to letter dated
03.12.2007 addressed to UGC seeking ex post facto approval
annexing a list of 295 courses run by the JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth University under Distance Education system.
From the record, it is not clear what type of expertise the
said University has, for granting degrees for such large number
of courses by distance education mode. It is also not clear as to
what is the methodology followed for monitoring the standard
of education imparted by its centres on the basis of which such
professional degrees are granted. It is also not clear what type
of infrastructure is available with the said University.”
8. Civil Writ Petition No.1640 of 2008 was filed by one Kartar Singh in
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in public interest. Certain Deemed
to be Universities, such as JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur,
Vinayak Mission Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu, IASE Deemed
University, Rajasthan were respondents in the petition. It was submitted that
these Deemed to be Universities had set up “off campus centers” and “study
centers” in violation of the Regulations framed by the UGC; that very same
2 Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India
12
study center, at times was operating for more than one Deemed to be
University; that these study centers completely lacked infrastructure and
facilities for courses in Engineering and that the programmes through
distance education mode were illegal and without approval. Appropriate
reliefs were prayed for, including directions that degrees in Engineering
obtained through distance education be declared to be invalid for the
purposes of Government jobs in the State. This Writ Petition was allowed
by the High Court vide its decision dated 06.11.2012. Para 184 sums up the
decision as under:-
“184. In terms of the directions of the Commission, it was
necessary for the Deemed to the Universities to seek approval
from AICTE. In view of the above, we hold that the Deemed to
be Universities have started courses in technical education in
violation of the guidelines, instructions, circulars and
regulations framed by the Commission not only when they
started such courses but also in establishing Study Centres
outside their territorial limits and in subjects for which they
were not granted Deemed to be university status. Therefore,
degrees awarded by such Deemed to be Universities is an
illegal act and such illegality cannot be removed or cured by the
actions of either the Commission or DEC.”
9. The declaration invalidating the degrees in Engineering obtained
through distance education mode has been the subject matter of challenge by
various students-candidates and institutions. Since the issues raised in those
petitions are same as raised in matters arising out of the decision of the High
13
Court of Orissa, these matters were taken up soon after the matters from
Orissa. We are principally concerned in these cases only with courses
leading to the degrees in Engineering through distance education mode.
10. Thus, the degrees in Engineering obtained by serving diploma holders
through Open Distance Learning mode offered by certain Deemed to be
Universities through “off campus Study Centres” have been found valid
entitling the concerned candidates to benefits available for any serving
graduate engineers by the High Court of Orissa whereas the decision
rendered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana is to the contrary.
Considering the importance of the issues involved in the matters, this Court
vide Order dated 04.05.2017 appointed Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior
Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.
11. It may be appropriate at this stage to quote Para 19 of the affidavit
filed by Mr. Ved Prakash Chairman UGC:-
“It is pertinent to note that, while bringing the 2010
Deemed Universities Regulations to the notice of the general
public, including vide public notice No.F.27-1/2012 (CPP-II),
dated 27.06.2013 [annexed and excerpted later in the instant
affidavit], the UGC has also clarified that “the UGC has not
granted approval to any institution Deemed to be university to
establish Study Centres.” This is relevant because, firstly,
Deemed to be university status is conferred on academic
programmes in specific domains of knowledge. In this case,
14
four Deemed to be universities were conferred that status to
offer programmes in the following areas.
S.
No.
Deemed University Field of specialization for
institutions Deemed to be
Universities status
1. JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur,
Rajasthan
Social Work, Education,
Arts and Commerce
2 Institute of Advanced
Studies in Education,
Sardarshahr, Rajasthan
Education
3 Allahabad Agricultural
Institute, Allahabad,
Uttar Pradesh
Agricultural Engineering
Food & Nutrition
Biotechnology, Dairy
Technology
4. Vinayaka Mission’s
Research Foundation
Salem, Tamil Nadu
Medical Science, Dental
Science, Nursing,
Engineering & Technology,
Pharmacy, Pysiotherapy and
Homoeopathy
Yet, three institutions- Deemed to be Universities
(namely, JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan; IASE Gandhi
Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and Allahabad
Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad, U.P.) overstepped
their mandate and started distance education programmes,
including for award of B.E./B.Tech degrees outside their field
of specialization without UGC/AICTE approval.
Secondly, vide letter dated 09.08.2001 [annexed and
excerpted later in the instant affidavit], the UGC has made it
clear that franchising of education through private
agencies/establishment is not permitted. In addition, the UGC,
AICTE and DEC have issued a joint letter dated 13.05.2003
[annexed and excerpted later in the instant affidavit] to ViceChancellors/Heads
of Institutions asking them to limit the
system/programme of delivery of distance education of their
institution to the neighbourhood of the location of their main
15
campus or at the most within the State. And, as mentioned
earlier, vide public notice dated 27.06.2013, the UGC has stated
that institutions Deemed to be Universities can operate only
within its headquarters or from those off campuses/off-shore
campuses which are approved by the Government of India
through notification published in the official gazette, though the
UGC has not granted approval to any institutions Deemed to be
Universities offered distance education mainly through
franchisee arrangements and Study Centres which are not
established with the permission of the UGC.”
12. The aforesaid chart shows that the “Deemed to be University” status
was conferred keeping in view the potential to offer academic programs in
specific domains of knowledge. For example institutions at serial Nos.1 and
2 in the aforesaid table had specialized in Social Work, Education, Arts and
Commerce. However by virtue of their “Deemed to be University” status,
these institutions thereafter started distance education programs in subjects
or courses leading to award of B.E. and B.Tech degrees which were not
within their field of specialization. Whether the Deemed to be Universities
concerned were within their rights to do so is the basic question. We,
therefore, need to consider the statutory framework governing “Deemed to
be Universities” and ‘Distance Education’ more specifically in the field of
technical education.
13. “The University Grants Commission Act, 1956” (hereinafter referred
to as “the UGC Act”) was enacted to make provisions for co-ordination and
16
determination of standards in universities and for that purpose, to establish
University Grants Commission (“UGC for short”). Section 2(f) defines
“University” to mean “…a University established or incorporated by or
under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such
institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be
recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in
this behalf under this Act”. Section 3 contemplates conferral of “Deemed to
be University” status upon certain institutions for higher studies other than
universities. Section 12 delineates functions of the UGC while Section 13
deals with power of inspection for the purposes of ascertaining the financial
needs of the university or its standards of teaching, education and research.
Section 26 empowers the UGC to make regulations consistent with
the Act and with the Rules made thereunder which include, inter alia:-
“(f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for
the grant of any degree by any University;
(g) Regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination
of work or facilities in Universities.”
14. In the year 1985, the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the IGNOU Act”) was enacted to establish
and incorporate Open University at the national level, for the introduction
and promotion of distance education systems in the educational pattern of
17
the country and for co-ordination and determination of standards in such
systems. Section 2(e) defines “Distance Education System” to mean “..the
system of imparting education through any means of communication, such
as broadcasting, telecasting, correspondence courses, seminars, contact
programmes or the combinations of any two or more of such means”. The
definitions of “Study Centre” and the “University” are as under-
“Study Centre” means a centre established, maintained or
recognized by the University for the purpose of advising,
counseling or for rendering any other assistance required by the
students;
“University” means the Indira Gandhi National Open
University established under the Act.”
Study Centre referred to in the IGNOU Act is a centre established by
IGNOU and not by any other University. Section 5 then deals with powers
of IGNOU and sub-Clauses (i), (iii) and (v) are:-
“(i) To provide for instruction in such braches of
knowledge, technology, vocations and professions as the
University may determine from time to time and to make
provision for research;
(iii) to hold examinations and confer degrees, diplomas,
certificates or other academic distinctions or recognitions on
persons who have pursued a course of study or conducted
research in the manner laid down by the Statutes and
Ordinances.
(v) to determine the manner in which distance education
in relation to the academic programmes of the University may
be organized.”
18
Sub clause (v) speaks of ‘distance education’ in relation to the
academic programme of IGNOU. Few other clauses of Section 5 however
refer to other universities and institutions of higher learning and they are:-
“(vii) to co-operate with, and seek the co-operation of, other
universities and institutions of higher learning, professional
bodies and organizations for such purposes as the University
considers necessary;
(xiii) to recognize examinations of, or periods of study
(whether in full or part) at, other universities, institutions or
other places of higher learning as equivalent to examinations or
periods of study in the University, and to withdraw such
recognition at any time;
(xxiii) to recognize persons working in other universities,
institutions or organizations as teachers of the University on
such terms and conditions s may be laid down by the
Ordinances”
At this stage Clauses (i) and (j) of Section 24 of IGNOU Act also need to be
noted.
“Section 24 subject to provisions of this Act, the Statutes may
provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(i) The conferment of autonomous status on Colleges and
Study Centres;
(j) the co-ordination and determination of standards in the
open University and distance education systems and the
allocation and disbursement of grants to Colleges and other
universities and institutions.”
15. Section 16 of IGNOU Act deals with authorities of the University and
clause (7) deals with “such other authorities” as may be declared by the
19
Statutes to be the authorities of the University. In pursuance of powers
conferred under Section 16(7) read with Section 24 and 2nd Schedule to the
IGNOU Act, Distance Education Council (“DEC”, for short) was constituted
vide Notification dated 22.11.1991. Para 3 of the Notification stated that
DEC would consist of certain members including Secretary of UGC and a
member to be nominated by the Chairman, UGC. However, there was
nothing in this Para requiring any member or representative of AICTE
(which by 1991 was a Statutory Authority) to be member of DEC. Para 4
dealt with powers and functions of DEC and the relevant portion of said Para
is to the following effect:-
“4. Powers and Functions of the Distance
Education Council
a) It shall be the general duty of the Distance Education
Council to take all such steps as are consistent with the
provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances
for the promotion of the open university/distance
education systems, its coordinated development, and the
determination of its standards and in particular:
(i) To develop a network of open universities/distance
education institutions in the country in consultation with
the State Governments, Universities and other concerned
agencies;……..
(viii) To take such steps as are necessary to ensure the
coordinated development of the open university/distance
education system in the country.
(xiii) To advise State Governments, universities and
other concerned agencies on their proposals to set up
20
open universities or to introduce programmes of distance
education;”
16. The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter
referred to as the “AICTE Act”) was enacted to provide for the
establishment of AICTE with a view to proper planning and coordinated
development of the technical education system throughout the country, the
promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to
planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of
norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters
connected therewith. Terms “Technical Education”, “Technical Institution”
and “University” as defined in the AICTE Act are as under:
“(g) “technical education” means programmes of
education, research and training in engineering technology,
architecture, town planning, management, pharmacy and
applied arts and crafts and such other programme or areas as the
Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by
notification in the Official Gazette, declare;
(h) “technical institution” means an institution, not being
a University, which offers courses or programmes of technical
education, and shall include such other institutions as the
Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by
notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical
institutions;
(i) “University” means a University defined under clause
(f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
(3 of 1956) and includes an institution Deemed to be a
University under Section 3 of that Act.”
21
17. Chapter II of the AICTE Act speaks of “Establishment of the
Council”, namely AICTE and Section 10 deals with the “Powers and
Functions of the Council”. Section 10 is as under:
“10. (1) It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such
steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated
development of technical education and maintenance of
standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under
this Act, the Council may—
(a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical
education, collect data on all related matters and
make forecast of the needed growth and development
in technical education;
(b)coordinate the development of technical education in
the country at all levels;
(c)allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council,
such grants on such terms and conditions as it may
think fit to—
(i) technical institutions, and
(ii) Universities imparting technical education in
coordination with the Commission;
(d)promote innovations, research and development in
established and new technologies, generation,
adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet
developmental requirements and for overall
improvement of educational processes;
(e)formulate schemes for promoting technical education
for women, handicapped and weaker sections of the
society;
(f)promote an effective link between technical education
system and other relevant systems including research
and development organisations, industry and the
community;
(g)evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for
technical institutions and Universities imparting
22
technical education, incorporating norms and
mechanisms for enforcing accountability;
(h)formulate schemes for the initial and in-service
training of teachers and identify institutions or centres
and set up new centres for offering staff development
programmes including continuing education of
teachers;
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula,
physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff
qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and
examinations;
(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other
fees;
(k)grant approval for starting new technical institutions
and for introduction of new courses or programmes in
consultation with the agencies concerned;
(l) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of
charter to any professional body or institution in the
field of technical education conferring powers, rights
and privileges on it for the promotion of such
profession in its field including conduct of
examinations and awarding of membership
certificates;
(m)lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical
institutions;
(n)take all necessary steps to prevent commercialization
of technical education;
(o)provide guidelines for admission of students to
technical institutions and Universities imparting
technical education;
(p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution;
(q)withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses,
programmes to such technical institutions which fail
to comply with the directions given by the Council
within the stipulated period of time and take such
other steps as may be necessary for ensuring
compliance of the directions of the Council;
(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and
to set up new organisations to ensure effective
discharge of the Council’s responsibilities and to
23
create positions of professional, technical and
supporting staff based on requirements;
(s)declare technical institutions at various levels and
types offering courses in technical education fit to
receive grants;
(t)advice the Commission for declaring any institution
imparting technical education as a deemed University;
(u)set up a National Board of Accreditation to
periodically conduct evaluation of technical
institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines,
norms and standards specified by it and to make
recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the
Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition
or de-recognition of the institution or the programme;
(v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed.”
18. UGC, DEC and AICTE as well as MHRD Government of India have
issued various Notifications, Circulars and Guidelines touching upon the
issues involved in the present cases, which may now be referred to:
A. On 25.11.1985, UGC (the minimum standards of instructions
for the grant of the first degree through formal education in the
faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences,
Commerce and Science) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
1985 UGC Regulations) came into force which applied to every
University including a Deemed to be University. The relevant portion
of these Regulations are:-
“2(3). No student shall be eligible for the award of the
first degree unless he has successfully completed a three
24
year course; this degree may be called the
B.A./B.SC/B.Com. (General/Honors/Special) degree as
the case may be….
3(1). Every University enrolling students for the 1st
Degree Course shall ensure that the number of actual
teaching days does not go below 180 in an academic
year…..
3(2). The total periods provided in the timetable shall not
be less than 40 clock hours a week. The timetable on
working days shall be so drawn up that physical facilities
are adequately utilized and not used only for a few hours
a day.”
B. In 1986, National Policy on Education was published by
Government of India, Part VI of which dealt with Technical and
Management Education, Paras 6.6, 6.8 and 6.19 of the Policy were:-
“6.6. In view of the present rigid entry
requirements to formal courses restricting the access of a
large segment of people to technical and managerial
education, programmes through a distance learning
process, including use of the mass media will be offered.
Technical and management education programmes,
including education in polytechnics, will also be on a
flexible modular pattern based on credits, with provision
for multi-point entry. A strong guidance and counseling
service will be provided.
6.8. Appropriate formal and non-formal programmes of
technical education will be devised for the benefit of
women, the economically and socially weaker sections,
and the physically handicapped.
6.19. The All India Council for Technical Education,
which has been given statutory status, will be responsible
25
for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and
standards, accreditation, funding of priority areas,
monitoring and evaluation, maintaining parity of
certification and awards and ensuring the coordinated and
integrated development of technical and management
education. Mandatory periodic evaluation will be carried
out by a duly constituted Accreditation Board. The
Council will be strengthened and it will function in a
decentralized manner with greater involvement of State
governments and technical institutions of good quality.”
C. The AICTE (Grant of Approval for starting new Technical
Institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval of
intake capacity of seats for courses or programmes) Regulations were
issued in 1994 (1994 AICTE Regulations, for short). Clause 4 of these
Regulations was to the following effect-
“4.0 Requirement of Grant of Approval
4.1 After the commencement of these regulations,
a) No new Technical Institution or University
Technical Department shall be started; or
b) No course or programme shall be introduced by
any Technical Institution, University including a Deemed
University or University Department or College or;
c) No Technical Institution, University or Deemed
University or University Department or College shall
continue to admit students for Degree or Diploma
courses or programmes;
d) No approved intake capacity of seats shall be
increased or varied;
26
Except with the approval of the Council.”
D. On 01.03.1995, a notification was issued by Government of
India to the following effect:-
“On the recommendation of the Board of
Assessment for Education Qualifications, the
Government of India has decided that all the
qualifications awarded through Distance Education by
the Universities established by an Act of Parliament or
State Legislature, Institutions Deemed to be Universities
under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 and Institutions of
National importance declared under an Act of Parliament
stand automatically recognized for the purpose of
employment to posts and services under the Central
Government, provided it has been approved by Distance
Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open
University, K 76, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 and
wherever necessary by All India Council for Technical
Education, I.G. Sports Complex, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-
110 002.”
E. On 03.07.1997, DEC published Guidelines for Design,
Development and Delivery of programmes/courses through distance
mode. These were essentially dealing with distance education as a
concept without specifying the details or mechanism as to how and in
what circumstances the concerned universities and institutions were
expected to initiate courses in distance education.
27
F. In 2004, UGC issued Guidelines for establishing new
departments within the campus, setting up of off-campus
centre(s)/institution(s)/off-shore campus and starting distance
education programmes by the Deemed to be universities, 2004 (2004
UGC Guidelines, for short). The terms institution, off-campus centre,
off-shore campus and Study Centre were defined by these Guidelines
as under:-
“(a) “Institution” means an institution set up by the
same management to impart studies in a specialized
branch of study and registered under the same society or
trust under which the existing deemed university is
registered.
(b) “Off-campus centre” means a center of the
university located outside its main campus (within or
outside the State where the deemed university is located)’
operated and maintained as its constituent unit by the
resources of the university, having the centre’s own
compliment of facilities, faculty and staff.
(c) “Off-shore Campus” means a campus of the
university located outside the country, established and
maintained as its constituent unit by the resources of the
university having its own compliment of facilities,
faculty and staff.
(d) “Study Centre” means a centre established and
maintained or recognized by the university for the
purpose of advising, counseling or for rendering any
other assistance required by the students used in the
context of distance education.”
28
It was laid down that a Deemed to be University shall normally be
authorized to operate within its own campus to conduct the authorized
courses falling within the area of their specialization. However, in deserving
cases, the Deemed to be University could start new departments within the
university campus or start off-campus centre(s)/institutions/off-shore
campus(s) on selective basis with prior specific permission of the UGC in
each and every individual case. The procedure in that behalf was laid down
as under:
“2. All Deemed to be universities intending to set-up new
departments within their campus, off-campus centre(s) or an
institution outside the main campus of the deemed university
may apply as follows:
2.1 The deemed university intending to open a new
department in its campus or an off-campus center/
institution shall approach the University Grants
Commission (UGC) at least six months prior to opening
such center on a proforma prescribed for this purpose
(Annexure-I). The deemed university desirous of starting
the new off-campus center / institution or introducing a
new course/ programme in a professional subject, shall
comply with all the requirements as required by statutory
professional Councils and obtain their prior approval
before approaching the UGC.
2.2 The new Departments, new off-campus center/
institution shall be set up only after obtaining approval of
the UGC and that of the concerned state Government
where such a center is proposed to be established. The
UGC shall cause spot visit/ verification of the proposed
new departments, new off-campus center/institutions to
verify its infrastructure facilities, programmes, faculty,
29
financial viability, etc. before giving permission to start
the centre. The report of the committee shall be
considered by the Commission for its approval.
2.3 An off-shore campus shall be set up only after due
permission from the Government of India on the
recommendations of the UGC and also that of the
Government of the host country”
Paras 3.3, 3.4 and 3.8 were as under:
“3.3 The off-campus centre/institution/off-shore campus
shall conform to the relevant regulations/norms of the
UGC and other statutory bodies concerned regarding
minimum standards of instruction, qualifications of
teachers, merit-based admission of students on an all
India basis and the fee structure etc. and shall have
adequate number of qualified teachers.
3.4 The new off-campus centre/institution/off-shore
campus shall offer only those courses which are
approved by the appropriate bodies of the deemed
university. If the course to be offered in the centre is in
technical/professional subject, its academic programmes
shall have to be approved by the concerned statutory
professional council.
3.8. The over-all performance of the off-campus centre/
institution/off-shore campus shall be monitored annually,
initially for three years, and subsequently after every five
years by the UGC whose directions for management,
academic development and improvement shall be
binding. The UGC shall associate the nominee(s) of the
concerned statutory professional council in the
monitoring process.”
Paras 4 and 5 dealt with Distance Education and Ex-Post-Facto
Approval in following terms:
30
“4. Distance Education: The Deemed to be University
could offer the distance education programmes only with
the specific approval of the Distance Education Council
(DEC) and the University Grants Commission (UGC).
As such, any Study Centre(s) can be opened only with
the specific approval of Distance Education Council and
UGC.
5. Ex-Post-Facto Approval: The Deemed Universities
shall obtain the ex-post-facto approval of the
GOI/UGC/DEC, whichever applicable within a period of
six months in the following cases:
I. Continuation of all the Departments opened in the
campus of the Deemed Universities and offcampus
Study Centre(s)/ institutions / offshore
campus started without the prior approval of the
UGC.
II Distance education programme(s)/Study Centre(s)
started without the specific approval of the
DEC/UGC.”
G. On 03.02.2004 DEC published an advertisement that it was
mandatory for all Centres/Institutions/Directorates offering
programmes through Distance Education mode to apply to DEC and
obtain prior approval before starting any new
Centres/Institutions/Directorates of programme. It further stated that
the Distance Education Centres/Institutions/Directorates already
offering programmes through distance mode should submit their
applications for approval of DEC in the prescribed format.
31
H. A circular was issued by the UGC on 16.03.2004 directing
Deemed to be Universities conducting courses through Distance
Education mode to seek ex post facto approval for the courses
conducted by such Deemed to be Universities.
19. We have referred to the notifications, circulars and guidelines as were
in existence and in force in 2004. The Deemed to be Universities in the
present case had started their distance education programmes without taking
any prior approval from any of the authorities including UGC, AICTE or
DEC. However, it appears that in terms of paragraphs 4 and 5 of 2004 UGC
Guidelines, the advertisement of DEC dated 03.02.2004 and circular of UGC
dated 16.03.2004, the concerned Deemed to be Universities sought ex-postfacto
approval for courses conducted by them through distance education
mode. Before we deal with the facts leading to the consideration of such expost-facto
approval, an important development must be adverted to. On
24.09.2001 a decision was rendered by this Court in Bharathidasan
University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and
Others3
. The appellant therein, created under Bharathidasan University Act
with its area of operation over three districts in the State of Tamil Nadu had
3
(2001) 8 SCC 676
32
commenced courses in Technological subjects in its own departments as an
adjunct to the University without any approval of AICTE. A writ petition
was filed by AICTE submitting that no such courses could be started without
its prior approval. The plea was accepted by the High Court of Madras
which view was challenged in this Court. While dealing with question
whether prior approval of AICTE was required for a “University” to start
courses in technical education, this Court held that the definition of
“Technical Institution” under the AICTE Act excludes a “University” and
since the power of grant of approval for starting new “technical institution”
and for introduction of new courses or programmes under Section 10(k) of
the AICTE Act would not cover a “University” but only a technical
institution, the appellant-university was within its rights to start such courses
without the prior approval of the AICTE.
20. Bharathidasan (supra) having laid down that prior approval of
AICTE was not required for a University to start technical courses, the
subsequent guidelines, notifications issued by the UGC, AICTE and the
Government of India were framed in the light of said decision. The
understanding entertained by all the authorities was that AICTE was not
competent to deal with issues of prior approval in respect of “Universities”
for technical courses and since the term “University” under the UGC Act
33
includes Deemed to be Universities, AICTE has no power to deal with issues
of prior approval for technical courses in respect of Deemed to be
Universities as well.
21. We now turn to the aspect of consideration by the concerned
authorities of request for grant of ex-post facto approval for courses in
Technology/Engineering conducted by Deemed to be Universities, namely,
JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan (‘JRN’ for short), Institute of
Advanced Studies in Education, Rajasthan (‘IASE’ for short), Allahabad
Agricultural Institute, Allahabad (‘AAI’ for short) and Vinayaka Mission
Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu (‘VMRF’ for short). None of these
Deemed to be Universities had taken any prior permission from any of the
authorities, namely, UGC, AICTE and DEC, nor had they even intimated at
any juncture the fact that they were conducting such courses in
Technology/Engineering through distance education mode. Pertinently,
JRN, IASE and AAI had no expertise or specialization in the fields of
Technology/Engineering. None of these three Deemed to be Universities
was having any regular Engineering college or Faculty in
Technology/Engineering at their own campus when they commenced
courses in Technology/Engineering by distance education mode through
Study Centres all over the Country. The facts stated hereinafter narrate how
34
their applications for ex-post facto approval were dealt with and by way of
illustration the facts pertaining to JRN, are dealt with in detail.
A. On 10.05.2004 JRN sought approval of DEC for courses
conducted by it under distance education. The information supplied
in regard to technical courses leading to degrees in Engineering in
various disciplines4
show that details of 19 Study Centres with names
of Coordinators and Counsellors were given. Said Co-ordinators and
Counsellors were common for all disciplines and courses. At the
same time there was no Study Centre in the State of Orissa.
B. On 27.07.2004, UGC asked JRN to submit a complete list of its
off campus centres giving details of its courses/infrastructure within
21 days of the receipt of the letter failing which public notice would
be issued that such degrees were not recognized by UGC. The
relevant portion of the letter was to the following effect:
“1. The Commission vide its letter of even number
dated 5th May, 2003 and subsequent reminders dated 6th
August, 2003 and 13th October, 2003 had requested the
Vidyapeeth to submit the details of its Study Centres. In
response to that the Vidyapeeth vide its letter
No.RVU/VC/2004-2005/26 dated 2nd April, 2004
submitted a list of 517 centres, but did not furnish any
details about the approval of UGC, the statutory Councils
4 B.Tech (Computer Science), M.Tech (Computer Science)
B.Tech (Civil) and M.Tech (Civil))
35
and the concerned State Governments nor did the
Vidyapeeth submit any information about the
Infrastructural facilities, faculty etc. provided in these
Centres……………………………………………………
5. The Commission has been receiving a number of
complaints that Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is
engaged in offering Undergraduate and Postgraduate
level courses in various disciplines including Computer
Science, Business Studies, Para-medical Studies and
Physiotherapy etc. through Study Centre(s) spread all
over the country which do not have required
infrastructure to maintain the standard of education.
6. A warning was also issued to the Vidyapeeth vide
this office letter of even number dated 11th June, 2004
that the degrees awarded in violation of the instructions
contained in the Guidelines shall be regarded as
unspecified and render the Vidyapeeth to be punishable
under relevant provisions of the UGC Act, 1956.
7. The Study Centre/off-campus centres in distance
mode opened by Rajasthan Vidyapeeth are without prior
approval of UGC.
8. The Vidyapeeth is silent on furnishing the details
of fulfilling the norms as laid down by the Distance
Education Council nor has attached specific approval of
Distance Education Council and UGC.
9. It may be pointed out that unless the Vidyapeeth is
fully prepared in terms of faculty and infrastructure laid
down by the Statutory bodies, it would not be desirable to
start any graduate and postgraduate level courses.”
C. In response to a query from Commissioner (Higher Education)
Government of Gujarat, IGNOU informed vide its letter dated
36
03.08.2005 that DEC had not recognized JRN and AAI to offer
Distance Education programmes anywhere in the Country as major
deficiencies were found in their delivery system and self instructional
materials.
D. On 09.08.2005, a notice/circular was issued by UGC to the
following effect:
“UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI – 110 002
F-6-9/2004(CPP-I) 9
th August, 2005
Subject: Non-Recognition of Study Centres of Deemed
Universities-(i) JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur (ii)
Allahabad Agricultural Institute (AAI), Allahabad & (iii)
IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir (IASE) (Deemed
University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan
The University Grants Commission has been
receiving a large number of letters from individuals and
organizations seeking clarification about Study Centres
of Deemed Universities particularly those associated with
(i) Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed
University), Udaipur (ii) Allahabad Agricultural Institute
(Deemed University), Allahabad (iii) Institute of
Advanced Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir
(IASE) (Deemed University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan.
It is hereby informed that (i) Janardan Rai Nagar
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur (ii)
Allahabad Agricultural Institute (Deemed University),
Allahabad (iii) Institute of Advance Studies in Education
of Gandhi Vidya Mandir (IASE) (Deemed University),
Sardarshahr, Rajasthan have been declared as Deemed to
37
be Universities by the Government of India under
Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956. These Institutions are
empowered to award degrees as specified by the UGC
under Section 22 of the UGC Act 1956.
However above three Deemed Universities have
not been permitted to affiliate a College/Institute. These
Institutions have also not been allowed to conduct any
course through Distance Education Study Centre so far,
by the Distance Education Council/UGC.
Needless to mention that prior approval of
Distance Education Council, IGNOU Campus, New
Delhi-110 067 is also required for starting courses
offered under Distance Education mode.
It is for the information of all concerned that no
Deemed to be University can start Study
Centres/franchises without the prior approval of UGC
and that of State Government where the Centre(s) is/are
proposed to be opened. Private franchising is not
allowed. Moreover, for starting any UGC approved
degree course through Distance mode, prior approval of
the Distance Education Council is mandatory.
Students are advised to keep these things in mind
while getting admission in Deemed to be Universities.
(V.K. Jaiswal)
Under Secretary
Ph: 011-23235640
Publication Officer
UGC Website
New Delhi”
E. On 30.08.2005 a communication was addressed by UGC to
JRN, the relevant portions of which were:-
38
“……………………The Vidyapeeth has reportedly been
running 649 Study Centres/off campus centres under
Distance Education mode without the approval of
UGC/Statutory councils/State Government. The
Distance Education Council (IGNOU, New Delhi) has
not recognized Rajasthan Vidyapeeth to offer Distance
Education Programme anywhere in the country so far
because major deficiencies have been found in the
delivery system and self instructional materials.
(Ref.IGNOU/DEC letter No.IG/PVC/05 dated 3rd
August, 2005).
The Vidyapeeth may please ensure compliance of the
following:
1. All off-campus centres/Extension Centres/Study
Centres and Academic Centres offering distance
education programmes of the Vidyapeeth running
without the approval of UGC and Distance
Education Council be closed down immediately.
A list of such centres may also please be sent to
UGC along-with the documentary evidence of
closure of these centres.
2. Awarding of X and XII certification be stopped
immediately and a public notice to this effect may
be published in National Newspapers.
3. An explanation/comments may also be furnished
on complaint(s) regarding Study Centres
particularly those operating in Gujarat.”
F. A show-cause notice dated 27.10.2005 was thereafter issued by
UGC to JRN for non-adherence to UGC norms regarding Study
Centres and an explanation was sought within 15 days failing which
appropriate action could be taken by UGC.
39
G. On 28.11.2005, All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE) Grant of Approval for starting new technical institutions,
introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of
intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes and Extension
of approval for the existing technical institutions and maintenance of
norms and standards in Universities including Deemed to be
Universities Regulations, 2005 (2005 AICTE Regulations, for short)
were issued. Para 2.5 of the Regulations dealing with grant of
approval was to the following effect:-
“2.5 Requirement of grant of approval
(1) No new technical institution of Government,
Government Aided or Private (self financing) institution,
whether affiliated or not affiliated to any University shall
be started and no new courses or programs shall be
introduced and no increase and/or variation of intake in
the existing Courses/Programmes shall be effected at all
levels in the field of ‘Technical Education’ without
obtaining prior approval of the Council. The Council
may take Legal action against such defaulting
Institution/Society/Company/Associated Individuals as
the case may be for contravening provisions of this
regulations by conducting courses/programmes in
“Technical Education” without obtaining prior approval
from AICTE.
(2) No existing technical institution of Government,
Government Aided or Private (self financing) institution
whether affiliated or not affiliated to a University shall
conduct any technical course/programme without prior
approval of the Council.
40
(3) No University including Deemed University shall
conduct technical courses/programmes without ensuring
maintenance of the norms and standards prescribed by
AICTE.
(4) No University, Board or any other body shall
affiliate technical courses/programmes not approved by
the AICTE.
(5) No admission authority/body/institution shall
admit students to a course/programme of technical
education not approved by AICTE.”
H. On 05.01.2006 a circular was issued by DEC stating that the
programmes of JRN through Distance Mode were not approved by
DEC.
I. On 01.02.2006 a letter was addressed by JRN to UGC
undertaking to close its Distance Education Programme but
requesting UGC to grant one time specific approval insofar as existing
students in the programmes currently in operation.
J. On 05.04.2006 a Notification was issued by MHRD,
Government of India in exercise of powers vested in the Central
Government under Section 20(1) of UGC Act and under Section 20(1)
of AICTE Act clarifying the role of the UGC and AICTE in
maintaining standards of education in institutions notified as deemed
to be universities. The relevant portion of the notification is as under:
41
“It is not a pre-requisite for an institution notified as a
“Deemed to be University to obtain the approval of the
AICTE, to start any programme in technical or
management education leading to an award, including
degrees in disciplines covered under the AICTE Act,
1987. However, institutions notified as ‘Deemed to be
University’ are required to ensure the maintenance of the
minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE for various
courses that come under the jurisdiction of the said
Council. It is expected that the institutions notified as
‘Deemed to be University’ maintain their standards of
education higher than the minimum prescribed by the
AICTE.
In accordance with provisions under Section 11(1) of the
AICTE Act, 1987, the AICTE may cause an inspection of
the relevant departments of the institution declared as
‘Deemed to be University” offering the courses that
come under the jurisdiction of the AICTE Act, 1987 in
order to ensure the maintenance of standards by them.”
K. The application preferred by JRN for ex-post facto approval
was considered by UGC in its meeting dated 11.06.2006 and the
Chairman was authorized to do the needful through appropriate
mechanism. The Chairman, UGC accordingly constituted a two
members Committee with Legal Consultant, UGC, as Special Invitee.
This Committee held meeting in the UGC office on 30.06.2006 and
interacted with representatives of JRN. The decision of the
Committee was as under:-
“After examining all the aspects regarding one time expost-facto
approval to Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan
42
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur for the students admitted in various
Degree courses under Distance Education Mode from 1st
June, 2001 to 31st August, 2005 as also keeping in view
the future of a large number of innocent students, the
Committee recommended one-time ex-post-facto
approval for the students admitted under the distance
education mode by Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur in Degree Courses from 1st June,
2001 to 31st August, 2005 subject to strict compliance
and fulfillment of the following conditions:
1. The one time approval will cover students
admitted between 1st June, 2001 and 31st August, 2005
admitted in Degree courses under Distance Education
Mode only subject to the condition that Sri Janardan Rai
Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur shall ensure that it
has permission of relevant Statutory Bodies or Councils
wherever necessary and shall maintain the norms and
standards laid down by the relevant Statutory Bodies and
Councils.
2. Only such students shall be considered for
regularization who fulfill the eligibility conditions,
prevalent in other universities and prescribed by the
statutory authorities for the courses they have been
admitted. Non-eligible candidates shall be offered
alternative courses according to their eligibility or the
entire fee shall be refunded by the Vidyapeeth along with
the compensation claimed…………………..”
L. Thereafter, on 03.07.2006 UGC granted one time ex-post facto
approval in respect of courses conducted by Distance Education Mode
by JRN from 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2005. The conditions mentioned by
the Committee in its recommendations dated 30.06.2006 were
incorporated in this communication.
43
M. On 03.11.2006 a letter was addressed by the UGC to JRN that
the conditions of approval as incorporated in the communication dated
03.07.2006 had not been complied with. It appears that on 29.12.2006
an Expert Committee was constituted by UGC to look into the
documents/information received from JRN.
N. On 04.02.2007 a public notice was issued jointly by AICTE,
UGC and DEC. The notice stated as under:
“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, Institutions Deemed to be
Universities and other institutions are offering technical
education programmes in the ‘distance mode’ without the
approval of the concerned Statutory Council.
All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be
Universities and other institutions are hereby cautioned
that running such programmes and giving misleading
advertisements regarding unapproved ‘distance mode
courses and programmes of study, shall attract severe
action under the provisions of applicable laws, including
that of de-recognition and withdrawal of institutional
approval;
It is hereby clarified, in the public interest that
there are a number of courses or programmes of study
leading to Degree/Diploma or other awards in
Engineering & Technology, Management, Computer
Applications, Architecture & Town Planning, Pharmacy,
Hotel Management & Catering Technology, Applied Arts
and Crafts, etc. which have not been approved by the
appropriate Statutory Council for being conducted in the
‘distance mode’. It is also reiterated that all courses or
44
programmes of study in the ‘distance mode’ require the
approval of DEC.”
O. On 15.06.2007 JRN filed an application with DEC seeking
approval to start 69 programmes in Distance Education from the
Session 2007-2008. The letter stated that as directed by the UGC,
JRN had stopped new admissions after August 2005. The letter
requested for ex-post facto approval for the programmes/students
between 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2005 and approval for programmes
proposed to be started from the Session 2007-2008. 69 Programmes
indicated in the application comprised of six programmes leading to
the award of Bachelors Degree in Technology in the disciplines of
Computer Science, Information Technology, Civil Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Electronics/TeleCommunications.
List of Study Centres numbering 38 was also
appended.
P. A Visiting Committee constituted by the Chairman, DEC, had
visited the main campus of JRN on 15.06.2007 itself. Some of the
relevant portions from the report of the Visiting Committee are as
under:
“………..The University has large infrastructure of Study
Centres totaling 852. These Care located mostly in
private institutions. It has also Study Centres at its
headquarter.
45
The details of facilities available at each Centre along
with the list of equipments is given in Annexure – VIII.
The university now proposes to reduce the number of
Study Centre significantly and offer programmes through
a network of 38 Study Centres only. (list enclosed)”
After making above observations, the Committee made
the following recommendations:
“Keeping in view the above facts the committee
recommends that the request of the university for post
facto approval may be favorably considered. It also
submits that the request of the university for continuation
of its programmes may be considered by DEC as per
norms being adopted for institutional recognition.”
Q. In its meeting dated 01.08.2007 and 02.08.2007 the reports
submitted by the Visiting Committee in respect of AAI (visit dates
26th and 27th October, 2004), JRN (visit dates 15th and 16th June,
2007), VMRF (visit date 04.02.2007) and IASE (visit dates 3rd and 4th
September, 2004) were considered by the DEC. The minutes of the
meeting of DEC were:-
“The Committee deliberated upon the
recommendations of the visiting committees with respect
to each institution and came up with the following
recommendations:
1. The above four institutions may be given ex-post
facto sanction till the academic session June-July
2007 only.
46
2. These institutions should be communicated the
deficiencies/improvements identified by the
visiting committees.
3. For recognition of the institution from next
academic calendar i.e. from June-July 2008
another visiting committee may be constituted by
the Competent Authority to visit and submit a
fresh report on the basis of which further decision
on recognition may be taken.”
The minutes further show that ex-post facto approval granted to the
aforesaid institutions was to be a one time measure and not to be treated as a
precedent in future.
22. At this stage, while ex-post facto approval sought by JRN, IASE, AAI
and VMRF was under consideration, a Memorandum of Understanding was
arrived at on 10.05.2007 among UGC, AICTE and DEC to work in close cooperation
in pursuit of excellence in technical and general education through
distance and mixed mode in the country. Para 10 of the Memorandum of
Understanding was as under:
“(10) The Joint Committee shall also evolve a mechanism for
monitoring the existing institutions conducting
courses/programmes in ‘distance and mixed mode’ for ensuring
maintenance of norms & standards provided UGC, AICTE and
DEC. It will also cause inspections to existing institutions
conducting technical and general education to
courses/programmes through distant and mixed mode for the
purpose of continuation/withdrawal of approval by AICTE in
respect of technical institutions and UGC in respect of
Universities including Deemed to be Universities.”
47
This Joint Committee held several meetings and the decisions in some
of them were as under:-
i) In the first meeting held on 11.05.2007, the Chairman stated
that a large number of distance education programmes were being
offered for commercial purposes; that there was deterioration of
quality particularly in technical and professional programmes that
were being offered through distance mode and the joint committee
was expected to ensure quality of all distance education programmes
in general and professional & technical programmes in particular.
The decision taken in the meeting included inter alia:
“For any institution/university to offer distance education
programmes, it is mandatory for them to offer the same
programme in face to face mode.
--- --- ---
Study Centres should be managed by the institution and
no franchising of any kind would be allowed.”
ii) The recommendations made by the DEC on 1st and 2nd of
August 2007 ratifying the recommendation of the Visiting Committee
of DEC to grant ex-post facto approval to JRN, IASE, AAI and
VMRF as mentioned hereinabove, were then placed before and
accepted by this Joint Committee in its third meeting held on
07.08.2007. The relevant minutes of the meeting were:-
48
“3. Institutions applied for ex-post facto approval. The
Joint Committee accepted the recommendations of the
Committee appointed by DEC. It accepted the
recommendations of granting ex-post-facto approval to
all the four institutions namely JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, Allahabad Agriculture Institute Deemed
University,Vinayaka Mission University, Punjab
Technical University and IASE Deemed University up to
the current academic year i.e. 2007-08 and the
suggestions made by the visiting Expert Committee
should be made known to them which should be strictly
adhered to. However, they need to apply for formal
recognition to DEC for the next academic year.”
iii) In the fifth meeting held on 17.04.2008, convened on the
requisition of AICTE, complaints against IASE and VMRF were
discussed and it was decided to constitute Visiting Committees to
review their programmes.
iv) In the sixth meeting held on 28.07.2008, following decisions
were taken:-
“(i) It was decided that the Chairman, Joint Committee
will write to the Chairman, UGC and the Chairman,
AICTE communicating that once the decision on
approval is taken by the Joint Committee, it should be
considered as approval given by the UGC, AICTE and
DEC and the same should not be referred to the
respective Commission and Councils; otherwise the
entire purpose of the Joint Committee will be defeated.
(ii) Copies of all applications for approval of
programmes in technical and professional areas will be
sent to the AICTE and AICTE will send its
recommendations to the Joint Committee for further
processing.
49
v) In the ninth meeting held on 05.08.2009, the stand taken by
MHRD vide letter dated 29.07.20095
regarding withdrawal of
permission given to institutions to conduct B.Tech/B.E. programmes
through distance mode and to stop admissions to such programmes
was noted. The unanimous decision was taken that till such time the
matter was resolved, the Joint Committee would not accord any
approval to B.Tech/B.E. programmes.
23. After the Joint Committee of UGC, AICTE and DEC had accepted the
recommendations of DEC for granting ex-post facto approval to JRN, IASE,
AAI and VMRF in its meeting held on 07.08.2007, the further factual
developments were as under:-
i) The formal approval was communicated by IGNOU to JRN in
following terms vide its letter dated 29.08.2007
“In connection with ex-post-facto recognition, we
would like to convey that all programmes (that
were approved by the statutory bodies of your
institute) are approved till date. As you have not
been offering education through distance mode
since 2005, all your programmes (approved by the
statutory bodies of your institute) till 2005 happen
to be approved by the DEC.
5 Referred to in Para 23(xiii)
50
However, for recognition of your institution
for offering programmes through distance mode
from next academic year, i.e. from June-July,
2008, you are requested to submit fresh application
in the prescribed format developed by DEC.”
ii) JRN thereafter applied to UGC for approval for academic
Session 2007-08 submitting that “one time ex-post-facto approval”
vide letter dated 03.07.2006 was already granted by UGC and that
DEC had also granted ex-post-facto approval for programmes offered
by JRN through distance education mode till date. Thereafter, JRN
addressed a communication to UGC on 02.09.2007 submitting
compliance for final ex-post-facto approval in terms of approval dated
03.07.2006.
iii) On 03.09.2007 DEC granted provisional recognition to JRN in
respect of programmes offered through distance education mode for a
period of one year from the date of its letter in following terms:
“Dated 03.09.2007
Sub.: Provisional Recognition
Dear Sir,
This has reference to your application to the
Distance Education Council requesting for
51
recognition of programmes offered through
distance mode by your university.
We would like to inform you that your
university has been granted provisional recognition
for offering programmes (approved by the
statutory bodies of your university) through
distance mode for a period of one year w.e.f. the
date of issue of this letter.
However, for recognition of your institution
for offering programmes through distance mode in
the next academic year i.e. from June-July, 2008,
you are requested to submit a fresh application in
the prescribed format developed by the DEC
which may be downloaded from the DEC website:
www.dec.ac.in.
We would also like to inform you that the
DEC has decided not to insist on territorial
jurisdiction to be followed by institutions in
offering programmes through distance mode and
on that matter universities should be governed by
their own Acts and Statutes.
With regards
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(SWARAJ BASU)
Prof. L.S. Bhat
Vice Chancellor
Janaradan Rai Nagar Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth (Deemed University)
Pratap Nagar, Udaipur- 313 001, Rajasthan.”
iv) Having received provisional recognition for the academic year
2007-2008 from DEC, JRN then applied to UGC on 13.09.2007 and
on 13.11.2007 UGC sent a letter in reply to JRN as under:
“UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG
52
NEW DELHI 110 002
No.F.6.3(Centre)/2003 (CPP-I) November 13, 2007
The Vice-Chancellor
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth
(Deemed University)
Pratapnagar, Udaipur- 313 001
(Rajasthan)
Subject: Courses under Distance mode –Regarding
Sir,
With reference to your proposal on the subject
cited above. I am directed to inform you that the
Commission has noted that DEC, a statutory
council in regular distance education, has already
conveyed the approval (ex-post-facto as well
provisional approval for the year 2007-2008) to
certain courses run by your University under
distance mode based on the approval of the UGCAICTE-DEC
joint committee. Therefore, no
separate approval from UGC is required for the
same. You are requested to send list of the courses
(year-wise) run by the Deemed University under
distance mode as approved by the Joint
Committee.
This issues with the approval of Chairman, UGC.
Yours faithfully
(K.P. Singh)
Joint Secretary”
v) On 05.12.2007 JRN informed UGC that in view of the approval
dated 29.08.2007 granted by DEC, JRN would be offering distance
education programmes in the year 2007-08 as well.
53
vi) At a meeting held on 19.02.2008 wherein Secretary,
Department of Higher Education (Distance Learning Division),
MHRD, Heads of UGC, AICTE & IGNOU and Joint Secretary
(Distance Education) participated, it was decided that the approvals
should be granted to the courses and not to the institute. The
following decisions, were inter alia, taken in the meeting:
“e. In addition to existing agreement of AICTE for
conduct of MCA and MBA programs by distance
mode, AICTE must also consider to agree to allow
conduct of B.Tech. programmes through distance
mode for Diploma holders in
Engineering/Technology with work experience.
Similarly, distance education programmes for ITI
certificate holder, with some work experience,
leading to award of Diploma could be allowed and
encouraged for their vertical academic mobility.
f. The approvals should be granted to the courses and
not to the institute.
g. The approval, including the cases of granting of
ex-post-facto approvals conveyed by the DEC, to
Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad,
Annamalai University, TN, IASE Sardarshahr,
Raj, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur,
Vinayaka Mission, Salem must be reviewed within
the next month.”
vii) Though the decision was taken in the meeting of 19.02.2008 a
letter was addressed only on 12.05.2008 by UGC to various
institutions including JRN, AAI, AISE and VMRF as follows:-
54
“Sir,
With reference to your proposal for ex-post-facto
approval to the courses run under distance mode by the
deemed university, I am directed to inform you that the
Government of India, MHRD convened a meeting on 19th
February, 2008 which was chaired by Secretary,
Department of Higher Education. It was decided that the
approval granted by Distance Education Council
(including ex-post-facto) must be reviewed and the
approval should be granted to the courses and not to the
institute. Distance Education Council has also been
requested to give approval strictly as per the provisions
contained in the MOU signed between UGC, AICTE and
DEC. The relevant clause of the MOU is reproduced as
under:
“Based on the recommendations of Joint
Committee, the letter of approval may be issued by the
Joint Committee. The letter should explicitly state: This
has the approval of UGC, AICTE and DEC. The letter
should be jointly signed by Secretary, UGC, Member
Secretary, AICTE and Director, DEC.”
In view of the above mechanism and instructions
issued by MHRD, you are advised to approach the Joint
Committee through Distance Education Council,
IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi.
Yours faithfully
(S.C.Chadha)
Deputy Secretary”
viii) In the meantime, on 08.05.2008 JRN sought approval for the
year 2008-09 from DEC for its courses in distance education mode.
55
Nine professional/technical programmes6
leading to the award of
degrees in engineering were listed in respect of which approval was
sought. In Table 3.12 Programme-wise student enrolment in respect
of said programmes was mentioned as 4142, 1258, 3166, 1380, 312,
1792, 4216, 516 and 103 respectively; which in effect aggregated to
16885 for all 9 courses put together.
(ix) In the 447
th meeting of the UGC held on 21.05.2008 decision
was taken in respect of report submitted by the Chairman, UGC as
under:
“1.02(a) to ratify the action taken on certain matters.
(i) To report the decision by the Chairman, UGC
regarding courses run under distance mode by JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Deemed University, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
The Commission ratified the action taken by the
Chairman, UGC.”
x) Various show-cause notices were thereafter issued by UGC on
26.06.2008 and 21.08.2008 regarding alleged violation of UGC
Guidelines by concerned Deemed to be Universities but the record is
6Bachelor of Technology in (i) Mechanical Engineering; (ii) Chemical Engineering;
(iii) Electrical Engineering; (iv) Computer Science; (v) Information Technology;
(vi) Electronics & Telecommunication; (vii) Civil Engineering; (viii) Electronics &
Communication Engineering; (ix) Bio-Informatics.
56
not clear what further steps were taken and what decisions were
arrived at.
xi) On 27.06.2008, DEC issued a public notice titled “Recognition
of degree/diploma/certificates for employment and recognition and
distance education institutions” wherein it was clarified:-
“The provisional approval granted by DEC is not
to be construed to be in lieu of the approval required by
the Institutions from the AICTE in respect of the
standards to be maintained for technical education
programmes and from the UGC for offering any
programme in leading to award of a degree which is at
variance with the nomenclature of degrees mentioned in
the UGC Regulations under Section 22 of the UGC Act,
1956.”
xii) On 08.10.2008 DEC granted approval to JRN for the academic
year 2008-2009. The relevant portion of the letter was as under:-
“This has reference to your letter
No.JRNRVU/DEW/2008-2009/811, dated 8 May, 2008
requesting Distance Education Council for continuation
of recognition of your Institute for programmes offered
through distance mode for the year 2008-09.
In this connection we would like to inform you that vide
our letter No.F.No.DEC/Univ/State/07/5739, dated
3.9.2007, your University was accorded Provisional
recognition for one academic year i.e. 2007-08 for
programmes offered through distance mode. Further,
your proposal for grant of regular recognition of your
University is under process. Meanwhile, your University
has been granted continuation of provisional recognition
till such time a visiting committee visits your Institute
and submits its recommendation.
57
With regards
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Manjulika Srivastava)
Prof. L.S. Bhat,
Vice Chancellor,
Janaradan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth
(Deeded University), Pratap Nagar,
Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan”
xiii) On 29.07.2009, MHRD wrote to Chairman DEC as under:-
“D.No.6-7/2008-DL
Dear Prof. Pillai,
The matter regarding recognition of B.Tech
Degrees awarded by UGC recognised Universities
through Distance Education Mode was examined in the
Ministry. After a detailed examination of the subject
matter referred above, the following course of action has
been approved at the highest level in the Ministry.
(i) DEC should immediately withdraw permission
given to various institutions to conduct B.Tech/B.E.
Programmes through Distance Mode and no student
should be admitted in the current year also.
(ii) Those who have already been admitted will have
to pass both practical and written examination as may be
prescribed in this regard so as to give validity to the
B.Tech/B.E. degree acquired by them through distance
education.
In view of the above, I would request you kindly to take
further necessary steps to implement the action
mentioned at para (i) above immediately and also further
evolve a broad policy and guidelines to give effect to the
action as mentioned at para (ii) above. This being a very
58
important and sensitive issue, an early action in the
matter will be highly appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(N.K. Sinha)
Prof. V.N. Rajasekharan Pillai,
Vice Chancellor & Chairman, DEC,
Indira Gandhi National Open University,
Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068.”
xiv) Soon after the aforesaid letter, DEC informed JRN on
13.08.2009 as under:-
“Dear Sir/Madam
This has reference to the MHRD letter No.D.O.No.6-
7/2009-D.L. Dated 29th July, 2009 vide which MHRD
has directed the DEC to immediately withdraw
permission given to various institutions to conduct
B.Tech/BE programmes through distance mode and also
ensure that no students are admitted in the current year.
In this connection the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE
and DEC has not yet accorded any approval to
B.E./B.Tech programme of any University offered
through distance mode. Any such programmes offered
by a University are hence illegal and are not approved by
the DEC.
Thus it is notified that the above notification of the
MHRD is to be strictly adhered to and no University
should offer any B.E./B.Tech programme through
distance mode. Any deviation from this policy may
invite de-recognition of the concerned University by the
DEC.
59
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Manjulika Srivastava)
To
The Vice Chancellor,
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth,
Airport Road, Pratap Nagar,
Udaipur-313001
Rajasthan.”
xv) On 21.05.2010, the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be
Universities) Regulations, 2010( hereinafter referred to as “2010 UGC
Regulations”) were issued consolidating Guidelines issued from time
to time in respect of factors to be taken in consideration before
granting the status of Deemed to be University. Regulation 2.14
which defined statutory body includes inter alia AICTE and
Regulation 8.02 prescribes that the Institution Deemed to be
University shall submit a certificate and an undertaking that the
professional programmes being conducted by it, if any, have the
approval of the relevant statutory/regulatory body. Regulation 12
deals with “new departments, off campuses and off shore campuses”
and Regulation 12.11 is as under:-
60
“12.11. The off-Campus Centre/Off-shore Campus shall
be directly administered by the parent institution deemed
to be university in matters of admission, instruction,
evaluation, conferring of degrees, etc. In case of the offshore
Campus, lease in the name of the institution
Deemed to be university may be acceptable (as per the
procedure of the country in which such off-shore campus
is proposed to be established). In case lease is not
permissible in any particular country, land and other
assets in the name of a Strategic Partner shall be
accepted. For this, the institution Deemed to be
university shall have a duly registered MoU/collaboration
with the Strategic Partner which shall be governed in
accordance with the law for the time being in force, in
India.”
Further, Regulation 18 was as under:-
“18.0 DISTANCE EDUCATION
No institution Deemed to be university, so declared by
the Central Government subsequent to these Regulations,
shall be allowed to conduct courses in the Distance
mode. Also, such institutions declared as such, prior to
these Regulations, shall not be allowed to conduct
courses in the Distance mode from any of its off-Campus
Centre /off-shore Campus approved subsequent to these
Regulations.”
xvi) On 23.09.2011, JRN requested DEC for continuation of its
provisional recognition which was granted vide letter dated
08.10.2008. In response, DEC replied,:-
“In this regard, I am to inform that the competent
authority has acceded to your request for continuation of
provisional recognition conveyed by DEC vide letter
No.F.DEC/JRN/RJ/08/14236 dated 08.10.2008 in order
to ensure continuity of the programmes offered by your
61
University through distance mode, till the date of
visit/approval of recommendations of the Visiting Expert
Committee.
Further, it is the responsibility of the University to follow
the norms prescribed by the concerned regulatory bodies
and seek their approval for professional/technical
programmes as per the requirement. Thus getting the
approval of concerned statutory apex body for relevant
progaramme(s) will be the sole responsibility of the
University.”
xvii) On 29.12.2012 an order was issued by MHRD as under:-
“In view of the recommendations of the Madhava Menon
Committee Report and Government’s decision thereon,
the Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi
National Open University (IGNOU) created under
Statute 28 of the IGNOU Act cannot act as a regulator for
other Universities as it creates conflict of interest. The
Distance Education Council and the Board of
Management of IGNOU have already passed resolution
to repeal the Statute 28 and dissolve DEC under IGNOU.
Therefore, the Central Government in exercise of the
powers conferred by sub section 1 of section 20 of the
UGC 1956 and the AICTE Act, 1987 hereby directs:-
(i) The UGC and AICTE as already
empowered under their respective Acts,
would also act as a regulator for Higher
Education (excluding Technical Education)
and Technical Education through open &
Distance Learning (ODL) mode respectively
Universities are empowered under their
respective Act to offer any programme
course including in Technical Education in
the conventional mode. However if they
offer any programme/course in ODL mode
they would require recognition from the
62
UGC, AICTE, NCTE and other such
regulators of the conventional mode of
education in those areas of study…...”
xviii) On 01.05.2013, IGNOU dissolved DEC and regulatory
functions of “Open and Distance Learning Education” were taken
over by UGC, whereafter a notification was issued by UGC on
17.06.2013 that till it formulated Regulations for maintaining
standards in Open and Distance Learning systems/courses, the UGC
would adopt the Guidelines of the DEC on minimum requirements for
recognition of Institutions.
xix) On 27.06.2013 a public notice was issued by UGC stating that
Deemed to be Universities were not allowed to take courses in
distance education mode. The relevant portion of public notice was to
the following effect:-
“A Deemed University shall operate only within its
Headquarters or from those off campuses/off-shore
campuses which are approved by the Government of
India through notification published in the official
gazette.
In case of distance education programmes, no institution
Deemed to be university, so declared by the Govt. of
India after 26th May, 2010 [date of publication of UGC
(Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations,
2010] is allowed to conduct courses in the distance mode.
The institutions Deemed to be universities declared
before 26th May, 2010 are not allowed to conduct courses
63
in distance mode from any of its off-campus centres/offshore
campuses approved after 26th May, 2010.
Approval for new courses and extension of approval of
the courses already run by the Deemed to be Universities
under distance mode would be granted by the UGC
subject to the fulfillment of conditions as laid down by
the UGC.
The UGC has not granted approval to any Deemed to be
university to establish Study Centres.
Any information/clarification with regard to recognition
of Private Universities/Deemed Universities and the
courses offered by them may be obtained from JS (CPPI)
UGC. Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.”
xx) Despite the aforesaid policy statements that no Deemed to be
University was allowed to take technical courses in distance education
mode, JRN again requested UGC to grant approval in terms of the
earlier report of the Committee and when no response was received
from UGC, Civil Writ Petition No.13900 of 2013 was filed by JRN in
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in which
following order was passed by the High Court on 26.11.2013:-
“Issue notice. Notice be also issued on the stay
application. Rule is made returnable on 16.12.2013.
In the meantime, the respondents shall not derecognize
the courses run provisionally under the
“distance education mode.”
xxi) On 26.12.2014 JRN submitted further proposal to Distance
Education Bureau of UGC for starting new courses in distance
64
education mode from academic session 2015-2016. Soon thereafter,
on 28.02.2015 another letter was written by JRN to UGC to grant
continuation of recognition to JRN for the academic session 2015-
2016. According to JRN, a further letter in reminder was sent on
17.06.2015 and when no response was received from UGC, JRN filed
Civil Writ Petition No.8832 of 2015 in the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the following order was passed by the
High Court on 17.11.2015.
“……….At this stage, Mr. Singhvi, Learned Senior
Counsel, has argued that some interim protection be
granted to the petitioner, which is a deemed university
and involved in imparting education through distance
mode since 2001 of the approved programmed of UGC.
Mr. Singhvi further submits that although there was an
interim protection by this Court not to take any coercive
action against the petitioner-University and not to derecognize
the courses run by it, the respondent-UGC has
issued communication (Annex. 36) wherein the petitioner
University has not been mentioned to impart education
through distance mode.
Considering the fact that petitioner-University is
involved in imparting education by distance mode since
2001 and there is interim protection granted to the
University, the respondent-UGC is directed to
provisionally include the name of the petitioner-deemed
University in the list of the Universities, which are
allowed to offer the approved programmed through
distance mode for the Academic Session 2015-16.
It is made clear that this interim arrangement shall
not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner-
65
University and shall remain subject to the final decision
of the writ petition. It is further clarified that UGC shall
be free to carry out the requisite inspection for verifying
the requisite infrastructure available with the petitionerUniversity
for imparting education through distance
mode.
Stay petition is disposed off.”
xxii) On 12.04.2016 JRN submitted further proposal seeking
recognition for programmes offered by it through distance education
mode during the academic session 2016-2017. According to JRN,
there being no response from UGC, JRN filed Writ Petition No.10310
of 2016 in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur to
include name of JRN in the list of recognized Universities in the
academic year 2015-2016 and following order was passed by the
High Court on 15.09.2016:-
“Issue notice to the respondent No.1 only. Issue
notice of stay petition as well and be given ‘dasti’ to
learned counsel for the petitioner for service.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3
seeks some more time to file reply to the writ petition.
Time prayed for is granted.
In the meantime, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
directed to provisionally include name of petitionerDeemed
University in the list of universities, which are
allowed to offer the approved programme for Distance
Education mode for the Academic Sessions 2016-2017.
66
Put up on 20.10.2016 along with S.B. Civil Writ
Petition Nos.5531/2015, 13900/2013, 5194/2014,
7419/2015 and 8832/2015.”
24. In the aforementioned backdrop of facts leading to the ex-post-facto
approvals granted to JRN, IASE, AAI and VMRF and the subsequent facts,
the stand of the authorities as taken in their affidavits may now be adverted
to. We have already quoted paragraph 19 of the affidavit of Mr. Ved
Prakash, Chairman, UGC. Since the stand of the UGC in the present matter
is quite crucial, the relevant portions of the affidavit starting from
paragraphs 7 to 10 and 12 to 18 in relation to the first question posed by this
Court in its Order dated 11.12.2014 are extracted as under:-
“7. Whether the UGC recognizes degrees in technical
education by open and distant education mode. If so, subject to
what conditions, if any.
8. It is humbly submitted that the UGC used to consider the
grant of approval to programmes conducted by institutions
Deemed to be Universities for awarding B.E./B. Tech. degrees
through ODL mode. The conditions for granting such UGC
approval to ODL programmes conducted by institutions
Deemed to be Universities for awarding B.E./B.Tech. degrees
are described below.
9. After the MHRD issued a notification dated 01.03.1995
(no.44, F.No.18-15/93-TD.V/TS.IV.) making it mandatory to
obtain approval for ODL qualifications from the DEC and,
wherever necessary, from the AICTE, for employment with the
Central Government, the UGC required the approval of AICTE
wherever necessary for programmes conducted by institutions
Deemed to be Universities leading to the award of B.E./B.Tech
67
degrees through ODL mode, as an imperative for the validity of
such programmes……………
10. Then, in 2004, the UGC framed “Guidelines for
Establishing New Departments within the Campus, setting up
of Off-campus Centre(s)/Institution(s)/Off-shore Campus and
Starting Distance Education Programmes by the Deemed
Universities” [the “2004 UGC Guidelines”]. These guidelines
were framed in keeping with the UGC’s mandate to maintain
the standard of teaching and research in universities and
stipulated, ……….
12. Thus, even as per the 2004 UGC Guidelines, the institutions
Deemed to be Universities were required to have the approval
of the AICTE, in addition to that of the UGC/DEC, for
programmes leading to the award of B.E./B.Tech. degrees
through ODL mode.
13. ……..Here, it may be briefly noted that the DEC had
granted such ex-post facto approval because, as per the
MHRD’s gazette notification No.44, dated 01.03.1995,
qualifications were required to have mandatory approval of the
DEC and, wherever necessary, AICTE to be valid for Central
Government jobs. However, since the DEC started giving such
approvals in 2004-5 and the proper mechanism could be put in
place only in 2007, most universities/institutions were not
recognized by the DEC though many universities were offering
programmes through correspondence and distance mode even
before the establishment of the DEC (or its policy for giving
recognitions). As a result, many students who had obtained
their qualifications through distance mode started facing
problems because of non-recognition of their qualifications,
including many who were in employment for years. Therefore,
in order to safeguard the interest of these students, the DEC
started the process of ex-post facto approvals and,
consequently, many universities offering programmes through
distance mode (including technical programmes) were accorded
ex-post facto approval. However, the universities concerned
were required to follow the norms of the appropriate regulatory
bodies and seek their approval wherever required.)
68
14. It is pertinent to note that the Joint Committee referred to
in the aforesaid letter dated 12.05.2008 was formed pursuant to
an MoU dated 10.05.2007 between UGC, AICTE and DEC.
The MoU was “aimed to avoid duplication of efforts in
streamlining of activities” between the three bodies who had
“mutually agreed to 1) carry out various functions of UGC &
AICTE mandated under the Acts, as decided by the UGC and
AICTE from time to time jointly with Distance Education
Council to ensure coordinated and integrated development and
maintenance of norms and standards of technical and general
education through distance and mixed mode in any form and
format in the country….” The Joint Committee was “to oversee
the implementation of MoU and to design action plan for
approval and monitoring of institutions offering technical
programmes through distance and mixed mode” and
applications for approval of programmes in distance and mixed
mode in the field of technical and general education were to be
submitted to the Secretary to the Joint Committee. …….
15. Therefore, since the AICTE was a member of the Joint
Committee, the UGC considered approval from the Joint
Committee as tantamount to approval from AICTE as well. As
such, the aforesaid letter dated 12.05.2008 from the UGC
actually nullified an earlier decision to accept the
recommendation to grant ex-post facto approval to JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth and other institutions Deemed to be
universities taken at the third meeting of the Joint Committee of
UGC-AICTE. DEC held on 17.08.2007 as well as a letter dated
13.11.2007 issued by the UGC which stated that, in light of the
DEC’s approval, “no separate approval from UGC is required”
by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth for courses under distance
education mode.
16. It is also pertinent to note that, subsequent to the UGC’s
letter dated 12.05.2008, the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTEDEC;
or UGC independently, did not accord any approval
to these institutions Deemed to be Universities for starting
programmes leading to the award of degrees in technical
education through ODL mode. Therefore, till date, the deemed
69
universities, namely, JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan;
Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu;
IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and
Allahabad Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad, U.P. have
not been accorded the UGC’s approval for their ODL
programmes leading to the award of B.E./B. Tech. degrees.
17. In any event, vide letter dated 29.07.2009, the MHRD had
informed the erstwhile DEC that the latter “should immediately
withdraw permission given to various institutions to conduct
B.Tech/B.E. Programmes through Distance Mode and no
student should be admitted in the current year also. Those who
have already been admitted will have to pass both practical and
written examination as may be prescribed in this regard, so as
to give validity to the B.Tech/B.E. degree acquired by them
through distance education.” Accordingly, the erstwhile DEC
had issued a letter dated 13.08.2009 stating that “the Joint
Committee of UGC-AICTE and DEC has not yet accorded any
approval to BE/B.Tech programme of any University offered
through distance mode. Any such programmes offered by a
University are hence illegal and are not approved by the DEC.
Thus it is notified that the above notification of the MHRD is to
be strictly adhered to and no University should offer any
BE/B.Tech programme through distance mode. Any deviation
from this policy may invite de-recognition of the concerned
University by the DEC.”
18. Thereafter, in 2010, the UGC framed the UGC
(Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations (the “2010
Deemed Universities Regulations”). As per Regulation 18.0
therein.
“No institution Deemed to be university, so
declared by the central Government subsequent to
these Regulations, shall be allowed to conduct
courses in the Distance mode. Also such
institutions declared as such, prior to these
Regulations, shall not be allowed to conduct
courses in the Distance mode from any of its offCampus
Centre/Off-shore Campus approved
subsequent to these Regulations.”
70
25. The AICTE in its affidavit in reply referred to its Regulations and
Guidelines. Adverting to the decision in Bharathidasan (supra), it was
submitted that after said decision,
“…… only the “Technical Institutions” other than University
were required to have prior approval of the AICTE. However,
the universities which applied for approval of the AICTE on
their own, were considered for grant of approval as per norms
and standards of AICTE in force. At this stage, it is necessary
to clarify that the study centers and campuses of universities
which were not the constituent units of the universities, were
required to have prior approval of the Council for conducting
any technical course or programme….”
Further, reference was made to notification dated 05.04.2006 issued
by MHRD, which inter alia dealt with the issues concerning maintenance or
standards of education in institutions notified as Deemed to be universities.
The affidavit further stated that:
“That it is respectfully submitted that it has been the
policy of AICTE not to recognize qualification acquired
through Distance Education mode at Diploma, Bachelors and
Master level in the fields of Engineering, Technology and
Architecture, Town Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management
and Catering Technology, Applied Arts and Crafts and Post
Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM). AICTE has the
policy to consider only MBA and MCA through Distance Mode
for its recognition. In these circumstances, the AICTE has been
issuing public notices from time to time informing the public
and students regarding the above and specifically informing all
the existing students/prospective students pursuing/wanted to
pursue any educational programme in the above mentioned
fields to check the approval by Joint Committee of DEC, UGC
and AICTE on AICTE’s web-portal at www.aicte-india.org.. It
71
is respectfully submitted that AICTE has given various public
notices in different newspapers regarding its aforesaid policy
from time to time as per AICTE Act.
That it is submitted that in view of the position explained
hereinabove, the conduct of a technical course through distance
education mode other than a course in MBA and MCA is not
permissible. Thus, any technical course conducted by the
technical institutions including the institution Deemed to be
university concerned through distance education mode, except a
course in MBA and MCA, is contrary to the policy of the
AICTE. Hence, degrees or diplomas in technical course
through distance education mode other than a course in MBA
and MCA awarded by the technical institutions including the
institution Deemed to be university cannot be treated valid
degree or diploma.
That it is submitted that in the present matter, the Private
Respondent has obtained degree in Engineering from JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, an institution Deemed to be University,
through Distance Education Mode and through study centers
which is not permissible as per the policy of the AICTE. Thus,
such degree in Engineering awarded by JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, an institution Deemed to be university, through
distance mode is not valid.”
26. DEC having been dissolved in May 2013, we do not have its stand on
record but the stand of MHRD in its affidavit is to the following effect:
“VII. I further submit that upto year 2007 Distance Education
Council (DEC) used to give recognition to institution offering
general courses in the distance mode but during that year,
Distance Education Council (DEC) also started giving
recognition to such institutions to conduct technical
programmes under the distance mode. This was in
contradiction to policy adopted by AICTE which makes it
72
mandatory to conduct technical programmes through the
regular (Conventional) mode of education. This created
confusion amongst the stakeholders which gave unfair
advantage to unscrupulous institutions conducting such courses
in the distance mode. Accordingly, a Tripartite Committee of
UGC-AICTE-DEC was constituted through an MOU in May,
2007 for a limited period of three years.
VIII. In the meantime, on 19.02.2008 a meeting of Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, MHRD was held with the
Heads of UGC, AICTE, IGNOU and Joint Secretary (DL) to
discuss the issue of co-ordination and maintenance of standards
in Higher Education through distance. In the said meeting, it
was inter alia decided that the approvals should be granted to
the courses and no to the institute. However, all those aforesaid
arrangements did not live to the expectations.”
27. The stand taken by the Deemed to be Universities in their respective
affidavits and the documents on record is as under:-
A. JRN was founded in the year 1937, was conferred Deemed to
be University status in January 1987 and is principally engaged in
teaching and research in the field of adult and continuing education
for working people. Following averments made in paragraphs 22 and
23 of its affidavit are noteworthy:-
“22. That after permission from DEC the University
started the Distance Education programmes through its
Study Centres as per the guidelines prescribed by the
DEC and UGC. ON 26th October 2002 the Academic
Council of the University took the decision to start the
Engineering Courses (in all branches) amongst others
through Distance Education Mode from academic year
2003 onwards.
73
23. The Faculty of Engineering and Technology of the
University in the year 2003 when the University started
it’s Engineering Courses through distance education
mode. Since the University did not conduct any course
through full time mode the University did not seek any
approval from AICTE and the same was not mandatory
in view of this Judgment of the Hon’ble Court in
Bharathidasan’s case as well as provisions of the AICTE
Act that does not envisage University seeking any
approval from the AICTE to offer technical programs.
Further as communicated it also did not consider
Technical programs under distance education program
mode for approval, which was later held to be contrary to
national policy.”
As regards, its activities in the field of technical education at its
main campus, it is averred:-
“(i) The Institute of Management Studies has been
granted approval by the AICTE for the Masters in
Business Admission program (Full Time) from the
year 1998-99 onwards and granted extension till
current academic session.
(ii) The Department of Computer Science and
Information Technology has been granted approval
by the AICTE for conducting the Master in
Computer Application (Full time) from the
Academic Year 2003-04 onwards granted
extension till current academic session.
(iii) The Faculty of Engineering and Technology has
been granted approval by the AICTE for
conducting the under graduate courses in
Engineering and Technology [Electronics and
Communication Engineering, Civil Engineering,
Computer Science Engineering, Mechanical
74
Engineering and Electrical Engineering] (Full
time) from the Academic Year 2010-11 onwards
and granted extension till current academic
session.
(iv) The Rajasthan Vidyapeeth Technology College
has been granted approval by the AICTE for
conducting the Diploma in Engineering and
Technology (Electronics and Communication
Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Science
& Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and
Electrical Engineering) Master in Computer
Application (Full time) from the Academic Year
2012-13 onwards and granted extension till current
academic session.”
After dealing with factual details leading to the ex-post-facto
approvals by UGC and DEC, JRN submitted that no approval from
AICTE was required for a Deemed to be University. However despite
order dated 26.04.2017 passed by this Court, nothing was placed on
record as to what type of infrastructure is available with JRN and what
was the methodology followed for monitoring standard of education
imparted in its Study Centres. In response to queries from the Court,
it was submitted across the bar that JRN was conducting distance
education programmes through 660 Study Centres out of which four
centres were being maintained and managed by JRN while 656
centres were autonomous institutions. Though Study Centres would
in turn employ demonstrators/lecturers, they were not on the payroll
75
of JRN but course material would be provided by JRN. Further,
though Faculty in Engineering was set up in the year 2003 there was
no regular Engineering College at the main campus of JRN and said
Faculty received AICTE approval to conduct regular four year degree
courses in Engineering only from the year 2010 and at Study Centres
no regular four year degree courses in Engineering were being
conducted but students having diplomas in engineering would be
given lateral entry at second year level.
B. IASE submitted an application on 19.12.2002 with DEC for
starting distance education programme, copy of which was also sent
to UGC. According to IASE, since there was neither any denial nor
any objection from these authorities, it started conducting B.Tech
programmes through distance education mode in 2003. It is stated
that IASE stopped B.Tech courses from the year 2005 through
distance education mode though it continues to conduct diploma
courses in engineering through distance mode. It is further stated that
its regular Engineering College started functioning at main campus
from 2005 after getting recognition from AICTE. Like JRN, IASE
has also not placed on record any material regarding infrastructure and
76
methodology for monitoring standard of education in its Study
Centres.
C. The stand of VMRF is that it conducts only diploma courses
through distance education mode and it does not grant any degree in
professional courses through distance education mode. It however
submitted that it is on par with State Universities and therefore
entitled to conduct distance education programmes across the
Country.
28. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the
ex-post-facto approvals for their degree courses in Engineering were sought
by JRN and IASE only in the year 2005 when they had already begun their
courses two to three years earlier. No inspection of their facilities or
infrastructure available at the site was conducted by any authority and the
only inspection that was done was confined to checking the documents. Any
approval granted without any inspection, satisfaction and recommendation
of the AICTE was meaningless. According to him, even assuming that the
principle laid down by this Court in Bharthidasan (supra) was to apply to
Deemed to be Universities as well, the UGC guidelines themselves required
the application to be in terms of specifications of AICTE and therefore even
if one were to accept that satisfaction of AICTE was not required under the
77
AICTE Act, the UGC guidelines did contemplate the same. In his
submission, the Deemed to be Universities in question admitted students,
conducted courses and granted degrees without any statutory approvals and
in the teeth of numerous public notices. In the face of such blatant misuse,
the grant of ex-post-facto approvals was not called for. In his note the
learned Amicus Curiae submitted:-
“The further issue that arises is as to whether in technical
education and other specialized fields, the non-involvement of
technical / specialized body is permissible or advisable. There
is a difference between open distance learning in general fields
and those in specialized fileds. While in Bharathidasan
(supra), this Court has held that the AICTE has no power of
granting approvals to Universities, it nonetheless recognizes the
significant role played by the AICTE as a recommendatory /
advisory body. This would necessarily mean that before any
approvals are given, AICTE recommendation for grant of such
approval ought to be obtained. An approval granted without an
inspection, satisfaction and recommendation of the AICTE is
itself meaningless. Therefore, while the judgment in
Bharathidasan (supra) has excluded the requirement of
approvals from AICTE, the approval of a university or course
cannot be granted without the recommendation and satisfaction
of all relevant competent bodies. In other words, in the case of
distance learning education for general courses, the approval of
UGC and IGNOU are required and in the case of specialized
technical courses, the satisfaction and recommendation of
AICTE or such other specialized body would be additionally
called for.”
29. UGC in its Written Submissions submitted:-
a) 1985 UGC Regulations did not include education programmes
in technical subjects leading to award of B.E. or B .Tech. degrees.
78
b) In Bharathidasan (supra), this Court was not concerned with
the question of regulatory framework of Open Distance Learning.
c) 2004 UGC Guidelines required submission of information
whether the existing and proposed course curriculum was as per
UGC/AICTE/DEC specifications and approval/accredited by
concerned statutory council. Thus there was a specific role of AICTE
in respect of technical courses through distance learning.
d) Taking advantage of Notification of MHRD dated 01.03.1995,
the DEC started giving approvals without any proper mechanism in
place and since its approvals were not getting recognized, it mooted
the idea of ex-post-facto approval. But stand of UGC was clear in
letter dated 12.05.2008 that approvals granted by DEC (including expost-facto)
must be reviewed and approval be granted to the courses
and not to the institute.
e) After 12.05.2008, neither the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTEDEC
nor UGC independently accorded any approval to JRN, IASE,
VMRF and AAI for their distance learning programmes leading to the
award of B.E./B. Tech. degrees.
f) In any case, letter dated 29.07.2009 of MHRD was clear that
DEC should withdraw permissions granted for conducting
79
B.Tech/B.E. programmes through distance learning. This was
followed by UGC letter dated 13.08.2009.
The specific submission was:-
“It is humbly submitted that so far as UGC is
concerned, B.E./B.Tech. degrees awarded by institutions
Deemed to be Universities through ODL mode without
AICTE approval will not be treated as valid
qualifications by the UGC.
The UGC has never given any ex-post-facto
approval to the aforesaid institutions which are “deemed
universities” including JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth,
although the erstwhile DEC has given such approval to
many universities/deemed universities including JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth.
The ex-post-facto approval relied upon by the
petitioner JRN Rajasthan were not unconditional but
were subject to approval of relevant statutory bodies or
councils [which can only mean bodies like AICTE and
such other similar regulatory bodies] wherever
necessary.”
30. In its written submissions, JRN submitted:
1) 1985 UGC Regulations applied and covered degrees in
Engineering as well, since Engineering is an applied branch of
science.
2) JRN was granted permission by DEC to commence distance
education programmes on 26.09.2001 pursuant to its application dated
17.08.2001 and in its Hand-book issued in May, 2003 by DEC, JRN
was included in the list along with details of courses offered by it.
80
3) It applied for ex-post-facto approval pursuant to DEC
advertisement dated 03.03.2004, providing details of the Faculty of
Engineering and other details as per proforma.
4) From 31.08.2005 to 2007 no fresh admissions were made in
distance education.
5) UGC granted ex-post-facto approval of 03.07.2006 for students
admitted between June 2001 to August, 2005 which decision was
later ratified by the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC and expost-facto
approval was accorded on 29.08.2007.
6) In respect of academic session after 2007, provisional
recognition was granted by DEC on 08.10.2008.
7) JRN did not take any admissions in Engineering Courses from
31.08.2009 till 11.10.2011 in view of letter dated 26.08.2009 issued
by DEC.
8) It also referred to interim orders passed by High Court of
Judicature at Rajasthan which are referred to hereinabove in respect of
subsequent academic years.
9) JRN was declared to be a Deemed to be University for its
experience and expertise in the field of admission and continuing
81
education, and its expertise in a System of methodology of
education/learning and not in a particular subject or discipline.
10) It commenced its courses in Engineering through distance
education mode in the year 2003 for people who were already
employed in technical fields and had previous technical qualifications
but could not apply further due to various restraints.
11) It established Faculty of Engineering although there is no
perquisite for a university to have a full time faculty in a particular
subject to start its course through distance education mode and there
were no circulars/notices issued by any statutory body prohibiting a
University to offer distance education courses in Engineering stream.
12) A Deemed to be University is not confined to a state or region
like university created by state legislatures and it can open OffCentres/Campus
Centres in any part of India with the approval of
UGC. Similarly, Study Centres for distance education can be
established and maintained or recognized in any part of India for the
assistance of students enrolled in distance learning programmes.
13) It gave a list of 18 Deemed to be Universities having Off
Campus Centres in various parts of the country including three such
82
Deemed to be Universities having Off Shore Campus outside the
country.
14) It then referred to judgment of this Court in Bharathidasan
(supra) in support of the submission that Universities do not require
any approval from AICTE for conducting technical courses. It also
relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court in Satyabama
Institute of Science & Technology v. Union of India7 which held
that Universities including Deemed to be Universities could start a
department or commence new courses or programmes in technical
education without approval of AICTE. Reliance was also placed on
the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sam Higginbottom Institute of
Agriculture, Technology and Sciences v. University Grants
Commission8
to the effect that there was no restriction on a Deemed
to be University to start new course or department until UGC
Regulations of 2010 were issued. Further reliance was placed on
Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council
for Technical Education & Ors.9
to the effect that universities, its
7
2006 (3) MRJ 870
8 W.P. (C) 486/2015 decided on 4.12.2015
9
(2013) 8 SCC 271
83
colleges and institutes were exempted from seeking prior approval of
AICTE.
31. Appearing for JRN, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate
submitted that in terms of the decisions of this Court in Bharathidasan
(supra) and Association of Management of Private Colleges (supra) no
operational control could be exercised by AICTE over Universities including
Deemed to be Universities. However some sort of cooperation was certainly
envisaged in Bharathidasan (supra) which was purely in the nature of
advisory role for AICTE. He further submitted that power of a Deemed to
be University to start new courses was unlimited and a Deemed to be
University would be bound by regulatory mechanism only in two ways:-
a. Its recognition as a Deemed to be University could be
withdrawn if it was found to be not functioning within the limits, and
b. Regular inspections in terms of statute could be undertaken by
UGC though as a matter of fact these inspections never take place.
According to him though there was no express empowerment under
any statute enabling a Deemed to be University to initiate various courses
and disciplines outside its area of excellence, there was no negative mandate
either and as an extension of this principle a Deemed to be University could
enter the field of distance education in any subject or discipline. Mr. M.L.
84
Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for IASE made his submissions
on similar lines.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. Jayant Bhushan and Mr.
Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior Advocates and other learned Advocates led
by Mr. Ashok Mahajan, learned Advocate, appearing for various candidates
adopted the submissions of Dr. Dhavan and Mr. Verma. In their
submissions, the concerned candidate-in-service diploma holders took
admission to degree courses in Engineering and have successfully completed
such courses and advanced in life. They submitted that in any view of the
matter the degrees obtained by these candidates may not be nullified.
32. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
OLIC reiterated the stand of OLIC that the degrees in Engineering obtained
by concerned in-service diploma holders through distance education were
invalid and as such no benefit ought to accrue to such candidates. Similar
submission was advanced by Mr. V. K. Bali, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for State of Punjab in matters arising from the decision of High
Court of Punjab and Haryana.
33. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
for UGC submitted that inclusive definition of “University” in UGC Act was
85
in a completely different and limited context and the idea was essentially to
recognize Deemed to be University for the purposes of funding and that such
Deemed to be University is not a University for all purposes. In his
submission, if such Deemed to be University is desirous of starting any
technical course it ought to obtain express approval from AICTE. He also
placed reliance on Section 23 to submit that a University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act alone
is entitled to have the word “University” associated with its name which
again signified the distinction between a University established or
incorporated under a legislation as against a Deemed to be University.
34. Thus, we are principally concerned in the present matters with
questions regarding validity of degrees in Engineering awarded by the
concerned Deemed to be Universities in two periods. a) Where students
were admitted during 2001 to 2005 in respect of which ex-post-facto
approval was granted; and b) In respect of students admitted by JRN during
2007-08, 2008-09 and from 2011-12 onwards.
The crucial facts as they emerge from the narration in the preceding
paragraphs are:-
a) The concerned Deemed to be Universities namely AAI, JRN and
IASE started distance education programmes leading to degrees in
86
Engineering, outside their field of specialization. Such
programmes were started without taking any approval from UGC
and/or AICTE and when there was no approved engineering
college or faculty at their main campus.
b) Further, such programmes were being conducted in Study Centres,
majority of which were not maintained and managed by the
concerned Deemed to be Universities. The demonstrators/lecturers
employed at such Study Centres were not on the payroll of and
were not selected by such Deemed to be Universities.
c) Those Study Centres were not inspected at any stage, nor any
facilities therein were assessed to see if they meet the standards
prescribed for imparting courses in Engineering. Similarly, no
authority had checked what kind of courses were being conducted
nor was there any inspection at the time the examinations were
said to have been conducted.
d) The Visiting Committee of DEC had visited the main campus of
the concerned Deemed to be Universities and seen the record but
not visited any Study Centres. No member or representative of
AICTE was part of such Visiting Committee, the report of which
87
was simply endorsed by the Joint Committee of UGC-DECAICTE.
e) Under 1985 UGC Regulations, minimum of 180 actual teaching
days in an academic year with 40 clock hours every week are
required for courses leading to degrees of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.
Assuming that these Regulations apply to courses in Engineering,
this requirement would be more pronounced and crucial when
courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering are in issue.
Such technological programmes by very nature require extensive
practical training.
f) The application preferred by JRN for ex-post-facto approval shows
that its Study Centres for programmes leading to degrees in
Engineering were located in institutions which themselves were
running independent courses. If 180 actual teaching days with 40
clock hours per week is the requirement which must be satisfied by
those institutions for running their own courses, no scope is left for
any outside institution such as JRN for using such facilities for
imparting any courses in technical education. If the facilities
were sufficient to justify the independent strength of those
88
institutions, the additional burden caused by students of JRN
could not possibly be accommodated.
g) The inspection to ensure maintenance of standards was
specifically contemplated under the Notification of MHRD issued
on 05.04.2006. Para 10 of the Memorandum of Undertaking dated
10.05.2007 also spoke of inspection for the purposes of
continuation/withdrawal of approval. In the teeth of these Policy
statements, the Joint Committee of AICTE-DEC-UGC endorsed its
acceptance on 07.08.2007 without there being inspections at all.
h) Aforesaid aspects regarding complete absence of any inspection
become crucial particularly when communications of DEC and
UGC issued from time to time highlighted complaints regarding
those Deemed to be Universities.
i) As far as second period is concerned, again no inspections, at any
stage, were carried out. The provisional approval dated
03.09.2007 by DEC was completely mechanical and the assertion
therein that DEC would not insist on territorial jurisdiction, was
against the mandate of MHRD in its letter dated 29.07.2009 and of
the decision in the ninth meeting of the Joint Committee of UGC-
89
DEC-AICTE. The consequent approval dated 13.11.2007 by UGC
is equally mechanical and suffers from same infirmity.
j) Though decision was taken in the meeting held on 19.02.2008 to
review cases of ex-post-facto approvals within a month, nothing
was done. In fact, the first communication thereafter was three
months after on 12.05.2008. It spoke nothing about review of expost-facto
approval already granted. At this juncture, the logical
exercise ought to have been to consider and assess the claim
course-wise, cause inspections and see whether ex-post-facto
approvals were rightly granted or not. However, that was not to
be.
k) On the other hand, UGC in its meeting of 21.05.2008 went on to
ratify the decision of the Chairman to accord approval. At the
same time, in response to application dated 08.05.2008 by JRN,
DEC went on to grant provisional recognition for the year 2008-
09.
l) In spite of clear instructions by MHRD in its letter dated
29.07.2009 to withdraw permissions already given to conduct
B.Tech/B.E. programmes through distance education and not to
admit students for current year, no steps were undertaken to
90
implement those directions and withdraw permissions already
given.
m) Even after dissolution of DEC and Public Notice dated 27.06.2013
issued by UGC that no Deemed to be University would be allowed
to take courses through distance education, when JRN again
applied to UGC for grant of approval, no reply was given by
UGC; on which score JRN was able to get an interim order dated
26.11.2013 from the High Court. As a matter of fact in the face of
Regulation 18 of 2010 UGC Regulations, such a request or
application could never have been considered.
n) Similar is the case with regard to interim orders dated 17.12.2015
and 15.09.2016. Thus JRN could continue admitting standards
despite aforementioned Policy statements, on the strength of
interim orders.
o) During this period, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide its
decision dated 06.11.2012 had already held the degrees in
Engineering awarded by Deemed to be Universities through
distance education mode to be invalid. That decision was appealed
against by students and IASE but not by JRN. In any case, the
91
Interim Order of this Court only protected concerned students
whose degrees stood invalidated.
p) If interim orders dated 26.11.2013, 17.11.2015 and 15.09.2016 by
one High Court could become a justification for continuing to
conduct courses leading to degrees in Engineering through distance
education mode across the country, the final declaration issued by
another High Court on 06.11.2012 and the policy statements
referred to earlier, had greater binding force.
q) On one hand it was being proclaimed by the concerned authorities
in their public notices like 27.06.2008 and 27.06.2013 or policy
statements such as 2010 UGC Guidelines that no Deemed to be
University will be allowed to conduct courses in distance
education mode, and on the other hand DEC kept granting
provisional approval and UGC helped the concerned Deemed to be
University by its total inaction.
35. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the learned Amicus Curiae is right
in his submission that the ex-post facto approvals granted in the present
matters were completely opposed to the policy statements governing the
matters in issue. He is right that the concerned Deemed to be Universities
admitted students, conducted courses and granted degrees in the absence of
92
statutory approvals. It is, however, the submission of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
learned Senior Advocate that a Deemed to be University is entitled to start
new courses in technical education (including through distance education
mode) in terms of law laid down by this Court in Bharathidasan (supra) and
that there was no bar or prohibition in any statute or statutory instrument
when the Deemed to be Universities started the instant courses in distance
education mode. According to him, the inspections could of course be
undertaken by UGC in terms of the Statute and if no inspections, as a matter
of fact were conducted, the Deemed to be Universities could not be at fault.
The following questions, therefore, arise for our consideration.
A. Whether the concerned Deemed to be Universities in the
present case, could start courses through distance education in
subjects leading to award of degrees in Engineering –
a) Without any parameters or Guidelines having been laid
down by AICTE for conduct of such courses in technical
education through distance education mode.
b) Without prior approval under the AICTE Act.
[
B. Whether DEC, on its own, was competent to grant permission
to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to start such courses
through distance education.
93
36. The definition of “Technical Education” in Section 2(g) of the AICTE
Act shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of education, research
and training in Engineering Technology in general and the idea is not limited
to the institutions where such programmes of education, research and
training are to be conducted or imparted. However, the definition of
“Technical Institution” in Section 2(h) leaves out an institution which is a
University. The distinction between the broader concept of “Technical
Education” and the limited scope of “Technical Institution” is clear from
Section 10 of the AICTE Act where certain functions concern the broader
facets or aspects of technical education which by very nature must apply to
every single institution (whether university or not) where such courses are
conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functions are relatable to
technical institutions alone, which by definition are not applicable to
universities. For example, Functions in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (l)
and (n) are concerned with broader facets of technical education, while
functions in Clauses (k), (m), (p) and (q) deal with matters concerning
technical institutions and thus may not apply to universities, whereas there
are certain functions as set out in Clauses (g) and (o) which apply to
both “Technical Institutions” and “Universities” imparting technical
education. Clauses (c), (d) and (f) of Section 10 deal with subjects, inter
94
alia, coordination of the technical education in the country at all levels;
promoting innovation, research, development, establishment of new
technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to
meet the developmental requirements; and promoting and effecting link
between technical education and systems and other relevant systems.
AICTE is thus the sole repository of power to lay down parameters or
qualitative norms for “technical education”. What should be course content,
what subjects be taught and what should be the length and duration of the
courses as well as the manner in which those courses be conducted is a part
of the larger concept of “technical education”. Any idea or innovation 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 AICTE.
37. In Bharathidasan (supra) the issue was whether a University
established under a State Law, within its area of operation, was entitled to
start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself
without any approval of AICTE. The requirement of grant of approval under
Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act being specific in respect of technical
institutions alone, the conclusion was arrived at that the AICTE could not
insist upon such grant of approval when a University wished to start courses
in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself. The discussion
95
in Bharathidasan shows that this Court accepted the role of AICTE in
laying down norms and standards in technical education system which is
evident from following portions from paragraph Nos.10 and 16.
“10………………A careful scanning-through of the provisions
of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in
juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the
universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding
factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining
appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an
authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by
itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate
action………………….
16…………We also place on record the statement of the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, which, in our view,
even otherwise is the correct position of law, that the challenge
of the appellant with reference to the Regulation in question and
claim of AICTE that the appellant University should seek and
obtain prior approval of AICTE to start a department or
commence a new course or programme in technical education
does not mean that they have no obligation or duty to conform
to the standards and norms laid down by AICTE for the purpose
of ensuring coordinated and integrated development of
technical education and maintenance of standards………….”
38. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in Engineering
consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as practicals. The
practicals form the backbone of such education which is hands-on approach
involving actual application of principles taught in theory under the watchful
eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge
in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes. The practicals, thus,
96
constitute an integral part of the technical education system. If this
established concept of imparting technical education as a qualitative norm is
to be modified or altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance
education learning, then as a concept the AICTE ought to have accepted it in
clear terms. What parameters ought to be satisfied if the regular course of
imparting technical education is in any way to be modified or altered, is for
AICTE alone to decide. The decision must be specific and unequivocal and
cannot be inferred merely because of absence of any Guidelines in the
matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand,
it has always maintained that courses leading to degrees in Engineering
cannot be undertaken through distance education mode. Whether that
approach is correct or not is not the point in issue. For the present purposes,
if according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught in distance
education mode, that is the final word and is binding – unless rectified in a
manner known to law. Even National Policy on Education while
emphasizing the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes through
distance education learning in technical and managerial education, laid down
in Para 6.19 that AICTE will be responsible for planning, formulation and
maintenance of norms and standards including maintenance of parity of
certification and ensuring coordinated and integrated development of
97
technical and management education. In our view whether subjects leading
to degrees in Engineering, could be taught in distance education mode or not
is within the exclusive domain of the AICTE. The answer to the first limb of
the first question posed by us is therefore clear that without the Guidelines
having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree
courses in Engineering through distance education mode, the Deemed to be
Universities were not justified in introducing such courses.
39. We now move to the second limb of the first question. Under 1994
AICTE, Regulations, “no courses or programmes shall be introduced by
any Technical Institution, University including a Deemed University or
University Department on College except with the approval of the Council”.
Bharathidasan (supra) declared said Regulation to the extent it required a
University to have approval for introducing any courses or programmes in
technical education, to be bad. Same thought was amplified in Association
of Management of Private Colleges (supra) to say that affiliated colleges of
the University were entitled to the same protection. The question is, whether
a Deemed to be University is also entitled to the same protection. The
matter can be considered under two categories:-
a. The first category could be of a Deemed to be University,
which was conferred such status for its excellence in a field of
98
technological subject, is now desirous of introducing courses or
programmes integrally connected with the area- in respect of which it
was conferred Deemed to be University status. For example, an
Engineering College which because of its excellence in the field was
conferred Deemed University status, now wishes to introduce courses
in subjects like Robotics or Nano Technology which are Engineering
subjects and integrally connected with its own field of excellence.
b. The second category could be of a Deemed to be University
which was conferred such status for its excellence in subjects which
are completely un-related to the field in which new courses are sought
to be introduced. For example an Institution engaged in teaching Fine
Arts and Music, for its excellence in that chosen field- or for that
matter an institution engaged in teaching Law had been conferred
such status. Can such a Deemed to be University claim immunity
from regulatory control of AICTE and say that it is entitled, as a
matter of right, to introduce courses in Engineering on the strength of
the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan.
We are concerned in the present cases with the second category of
Deemed to be Universities. In the present cases, none of the Deemed to be
Universities was conferred such status for its excellence in the field of
99
Engineering. Their fields were completely un-related. As a matter of fact,
JRN and IASE did not even have regular college or faculty for Engineering
at its main campus. And yet, they started courses in Engineering through
distance education mode without the approval of AICTE, relying on the
dictum in Bharathidasan. According to Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior
Advocate, they were entitled as a matter of right to start such courses.
40. The affidavit of Dr. Ved Prakash as referred to hereinabove as well as
the stand of UGC and the submissions made by Mr. Maninder Singh,
learned Additional Solicitor General make it clear that such Deemed
Universities in the second category mentioned above are not entitled, as a
matter of right, to introduce courses leading to degrees in Engineering
without the approval of AICTE. According to the submission of the learned
Additional Solicitor General, the conferral of status is only because of
excellence in a particular field or subject which then entitles the Deemed to
be University to utilise its excellence to conduct research and achieve
advancement in that field. However merely because such status was
conferred on the concerned institution, in his submission, would not entitle it
to similar protection in the second category cases, as available to a
University by virtue of the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan (supra).
100
41. Paras 1 and 2 of Bharathidasan (supra) show that the University
constituted under the State law had its area of operation over three Districts
of Tamil Nadu and by virtue of such State law could provide among other
things, instructions and training in such branches of learning as it may
determine. The express grant or empowerment thus came from the State
enactment to enter into any field of learning as it may determine and
introduce new courses in that behalf. However the University would be
bound by territorial restrictions, in that it could not go beyond the territory of
three Districts over which it was given Jurisdiction. But if we accept the
submission of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate, there would be
no such territorial restrictions on a Deemed University and it could open
new departments, introduce new courses in any field anywhere in the
Country. By way of illustration, we can consider the case of a private
institution affiliated to a University such as Bharathidasan University, which
after some length of time is conferred Deemed to be University status for
excellence achieved by such private institution, say in the field of adult
education. If we accept the submission of Dr. Dhavan, upon such conferral
of Status as Deemed to be University, this originally affiliated private
institution can now introduce any courses in technical education anywhere in
101
the Country but the original University would be bound by territorial
restriction.
42. The grant or empowerment in Bharathidasan (supra) in favour of the
University in question came from the State enactment which was its Charter.
There is no such Charter or grant in favour of a Deemed to be University
under any provision of the UGC Act. All that the UGC Act does is to confer
Deemed to be University status on an Institution which has achieved
excellence in its chosen field so that its development in the concerned field
and its attempts to attain excellence and conduct research are not hampered
on any count and at the same time it could be extended the facilities of Aid.
It is precisely for this that the distinction between a regular University
established under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and an
Institution Deemed to be University is maintained in the UGC Act. A
Deemed to be University can certainly award degrees but cannot use the
word “University” by virtue of Section 23 of the UGC Act. Even after
conferral of such status it still continues to be “an Institution Deemed to be
University” and if it is equated with a University in every sense of the term it
would lead to incoherent and incongruous results, in that its area of
operation or the field of its activity would be completely unlimited and
unregulated. In our view that is certainly not the intent of the UGC Act.
102
43. Conceptually there is some difference between the status of a
University established under a State law and that of a Deemed to be
University. Normally, a University is established with an idea that particular
areas or districts of the State need to be catered to. Such University is
expected to satisfy the needs or aspirations of people in the area for
education and correspondingly empowered to initiate new courses, keeping
in tune with the needs of time. The expectations from a Deemed to be
University are of a different dimension. What is expected is excellence,
research and advancement in its chosen field for which such status was
accorded. There is no embargo on such Deemed to be University in entering
new areas of education or introducing new courses but in that case, it can’t
demand or receive complete relaxation from regulatory regime. It must
satisfy all those requirements which a normal institution is required to. The
stand taken by the UGC in the affidavit of Dr. Ved Prakash, as well as its
submissions in our view, are correct and we reject the submission of
Dr. Dhavan. The logical conclusion is that a Deemed to be University in the
second category mentioned hereinabove is still an institution of the stature of
a “technical institution” and if it desires to introduce new courses it must
fulfill the requirements of 1994 AICTE Regulations. A Deemed to be
University which has achieved excellence in a particular field may be
103
given deferential treatment but nonetheless it has to satisfy the requirements
for new technical institution. Pertinently, both JRN and IASE, while
establishing their faculty or colleges in engineering at their main Campus
sought approvals from AICTE. Further, even for introducing courses in
management which come under the definition of technical education under
the AICTE Act, appropriate permissions were sought from AICTE. We
therefore conclude that the Deemed to be Universities in the present case
were required to abide by the provisions of 1994 AICTE Regulations and
could not introduce courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering
without the approval of AICTE. 1994 AICTE Regulations or any
subsequent Regulations will have to be understood in the light of our
decision.
44. Para 3 of the notification dated 22.11.1991 which constituted DEC
shows that there was no representation for any Member or representative of
AICTE. The provisions of IGNOU Act show that the Study Centres as
defined in the IGNOU Act are that of IGNOU and not of any other
University or Institution. The concept of distance education under subclause
(v) of Section 5 is also in relation to the academic programmes of
IGNOU. It undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii) and (xxiii) to
cooperate with other Universities but the IGNOU Act nowhere entitles
104
IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of the entire field of distance
education of learning across the Country and in relation to programmes of
other Universities or Institutions as well. The Order dated 29.12.2012 issued
by MHRD therefore correctly appreciated that DEC created under statute 28
of IGNOU Act could not act as a regulator for other Universities. In any
event of the matter, the policy Guidelines issued from time to time made it
abundantly clear that DEC alone was not entitled to grant permission for
open distance learning and appropriate permissions from the requisite
authorities were always required and insisted upon. Despite such policy
statements, DEC went on granting permissions without even consulting
AICTE. Such exercise on part of DEC was completely without jurisdiction.
45. It was laid down by this Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary
to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Others10 that
no relaxation could be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for
conferment for a degree and if a mandatory provision is not complied with
by an administrative authority, the action would be void. This leads us to
conclude that the permissions granted by DEC in the first instance allowing
the Deemed to be Universities in question to introduce courses leading to the
award of degrees in engineering were illegal and opposed to Law. The
10 (2009) 4 SCC 590
105
illegality in the exercise of power was to such an extent that it could not be
cured by ex post facto approvals granted later. We have also seen that the
exercise of grant of ex post facto approvals, as a matter of fact, was only
superficial and perfunctory. Such exercise was done in the face of declared
policy statements governing the field and even when specific complaints
were received about concerned Deemed to be Universities. Yet, without
causing any inspection such power was exercised which part is already dealt
with and the exercise of power has been found by us to be suffering from
illegality and infirmity. The only thing in favour of the concerned Deemed
to be Universities is the fact that the Joint Committee of UGC – AICTE –
DEC had endorsed the decision though such exercise was also completely
flawed. That exercise was against Para 10 of the MoU dated 10.05.2007,
which contemplated causing of inspections and the decision dated
11.05.2007 of the Joint Committee itself that for an Institution/University to
offer distance education programmes it was mandatory to offer the same in
face to face mode.
46. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-facto approval to
be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would
have been not only to set aside such ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass
consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance
106
thereof in respect of Courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering.
However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the
concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval,
the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest
of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-
2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the concerned
Deemed to be Universities flagrantly violated and entered into areas where
they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance
education system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned
students persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering
granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto approval. However, the fact
remains that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were
never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this
length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and
assurance about the worthiness of the concerned students. We, therefore,
deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned students to have
their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore,
direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were
enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till
they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in
107
the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the
basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.
47. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of
this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in written
examination as well as in practicals for the concerned students admitted
during the academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the concerned subjects.
It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such
modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be
conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in respective States
wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to the students
to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during MayJune,
2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two
chances be given to the concerned students and if they do not pass the
test/tests their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular
student does not wish to appear in the test/tests, the entire money deposited
by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that
student by the concerned Deemed to be University within a month of the
exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15th of January, 2018
to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests
in respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be recovered from
108
the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. If they clear the
test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be
restored to the concerned candidates. We make it clear at the cost of
repetition that if the concerned candidates do not clear the test/tests within
the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test/tests, their degrees in
Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and cancelled.
It goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the
basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however any monetary
benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.
48. As regards the students who were admitted after the ex-post-facto
approval granted in favour of such Deemed to be Universities, in our view,
there was no sanction whatsoever for their admission. The Policy
Statements as well as warnings issued from time to time were absolutely
clear. The students were admitted on the strength either provisional
recognition or on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Court.
We therefore, declare that in respect of students admitted after the academic
sessions of 2001-2005, the degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned
Deemed to be Universities through Distance Education Mode shall stand
recalled and be treated as cancelled. Any benefit which a candidate has
secured as a result of such degrees in Engineering in the nature of promotion
109
or advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any
monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary benefit or
advantage will not be recovered by the concerned departments or employers.
We, further direct that the entire amount paid by such students to the
concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fee and all other
expenditure for such courses through distance education learning shall be
returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities to the respective
students. This direction shall be complied with by the concerned Deemed to
be Universities scrupulously and the amounts shall be returned by 31st of
May, 2018 and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with
UGC within a week thereafter.
49. The factual narration mentioned hereinabove makes certain things
distinctly clear. The affidavit of Mr. Ved Prakash discloses how permissions
were granted to introduce courses in the present cases without any authority.
On one hand, the authorities were proclaiming their policy statements and on
the other, despite there being complaints, they went about granting
permissions. Their conduct and approach is difficult to explain on any
rational basis and leaves much to be desired. We are, prima facie of the
view that the conduct of the concerned officials needs to be looked into and
investigated whether the exercise of power by them was completely genuine
110
or colourable. We do not express any final opinion in that behalf but direct
the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the matter and to take
appropriate steps after culmination thereof.
50. The record further shows that time and again warnings were issued to
the concerned Deemed to be Universities. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned
Senior Advocate is right in his submission that if a Deemed to be University
is not to be found functioning within the limits, its recognition as Deemed to
be University could be withdrawn. In our view, the concerned Deemed to
be Universities had gone far beyond their limits and to say the least, had
violated binding policy statements. Even when they did not have any
experience in the concerned field and had no regular faculty or college in
Engineering, they kept admitting students through distance education mode.
When there was nothing at the core, the expansion was carried at the tertiary
levels in brazen violation. The idea was not to achieve excellence in the
field but the attempts appear to be guided by pure commercial angle. We
therefore, direct the UGC to consider whether the Deemed to be University
status enjoyed by the concerned institutions, namely, JRN, AAI, IASE and
VMRF calls for any such withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf.
If the concerned Deemed to be Universities fail to return the moneys to the
111
concerned students as directed above, that factor shall also be taken into
account while conducting such exercise.
51. We must also put on record what we have observed during the course
of the hearing and consideration of the present matters. It has come to our
notice that many institutions which are conferred the status of Deemed to be
Universities are using the word “University”, which in our view is opposed
to the spirit of Section 23 of the UGC Act. The UGC shall take appropriate
steps to stop such practice.
52. The present case shows the extent of commercialization of education
by some of the Deemed Universities. The commercialization of education
seriously affects creditability of standards in education, eroding power
and essence of knowledge and seriously affecting excellence and merit. The
present case further displays lack of effective oversight and regulatory
mechanism for the Deemed to be Universities. The UGC had completely
failed to remedy the situation. Serious question has therefore arisen as to the
manning of the UGC itself for its effective working. We have already
found that facilities at Study Centres were never checked nor any
inspections were carried out which has led us to direct suspension of
degrees for the students enrolled during academic sessions 2001-2005 and
112
annulment of degrees of students admitted after academic sessions of 2001-
2005. We have also found that there was complete and flagrant violation of
norms and policies laid down by the authorities by the Deemed to be
Universities. AICTE had been illegally kept out.
Thus, interest of justice requires that the following issues also need to be
addressed:
(i) Action for failure of system, inter alia, on account of
misconduct of some of the functionaries who failed to uphold
the law and granted approvals contrary to the policy and the
rules;
(ii) Manning of the UGC;
(iii) Appropriate oversight and regulatory mechanism especially for
distance education degrees especially those relating to technical
education by the Deemed to be Universities in future;
(iv) Review of the Deemed to be Universities status granted to the
Deemed to be Universities in the past in the light of this
Judgment and in the light of their working; and
The above issues need immediate steps to be taken by the Union of
India. Review of oversight and regulatory mechanism is of utmost priority
for the future of technical and professional education at the hands of
113
Deemed Universities. In this regard, we may note the observations of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research
Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others11 highlighting
need for review of regulatory mechanism for medical admissions and
profession. We also note the observations in Mahipal Singh Rana,
Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh12 with regard to legal profession.
53. Accordingly we direct:
I 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be
Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter
were not justified in introducing any new courses in Technical
Education without the approval of AICTE.
II Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions
2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by
UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside.
III Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in
Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand
suspended.
11
(2016) 7 SCC 353 – Paras 86 to 92, 108 to 111
12
(2016) 6 SCC 335
114
IV The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an
appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option be
given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by
15.01.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance
with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not more than
two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the
test/tests within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled
and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and
47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be
recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by
31.03.2018.
V Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be
refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and
other charges within one month of the exercise of such option.
Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all
advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 47.
VI If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all
the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees
will stand revived fully.
115
VII As regards students who were admitted after the Academic
Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the
concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education
mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured
by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 48
above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the
concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees and other
expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be
Universities by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48.
VIII By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities
shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate
affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week
thereafter.
IX We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the
conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and
went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as
indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who
abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally.
116
Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such
investigation.
X The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be
University status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for
any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as
indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above are not refunded to
the concerned students that factor shall be taken into account while
conducting such exercise.
XI We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any
courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018-
2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such
courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are
granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of
each of those courses and unless the off-campus Centres/Study
Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the
concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course
specific.
XII The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and
implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be
117
Universities from using the word ‘University’ within one month from
today.
XIII The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee
comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the
field of education, investigation, administration or law at national
level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues
indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting
up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of
higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee
may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be
Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and
take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month
thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or
before August 31, 2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration
of this aspect on 11.09.2018.
54. Before we part, we express our sincere appreciation for the efforts put
in by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae. We are extremely
grateful for the assistance rendered by him. We are also thankful for the
assistance given by all the learned counsel.
118
55. We thus accept the view taken by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh and set aside the decision of the High Court of
Orissa. With the aforementioned observations, appeals are disposed of. No
order as to costs. No orders are called for in Contempt Petition Nos.194-
197/2016 which stands disposed of.
………………………J.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
…………………..……J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi,
November 3, 2017
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17869-17870 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19807-19808/2012)
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD ……APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17871-17872 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19851-19852/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17899-17900 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19848-19849/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17897-17898 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19842-19843/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17895-17896 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19844-19845/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17879-17880 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19824-19825/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17885-17886 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19828-19829/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17881-17882 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19814-19815 /2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17883-17884 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19830-19831/2012)
2
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17893-17894 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19840-19841/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17877-17878 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19826-19827/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17889-91780 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19838-19839/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17875-17876 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19812-19813/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17873-17874 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19820-19821/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17887-17888 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19834-19835/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17891-17892 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19836-19837/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17901 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.14686/2014)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17902-17905 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.35793-35796/2012)
VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS, ETC. ETC. ……APPELLANTS
VERSUS
KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS, ETC. ETC. ….RESPONDENTS
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17906 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.37028/2012)
3
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17907 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.37957/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17908 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.38211/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17910 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.38230/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17909 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 38220/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17912 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.38846/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17911 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.38458/2012)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17913 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.4108/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17915 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.9495/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17916-17917 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.11793-11794/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17918 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11799/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17914 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12244/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17921 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17004/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17920 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17005/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17919 /2017
4
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17003/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17926-17950 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.20658-20682/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17922 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15283/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17923 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15329/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17924 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.17006/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17925 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.14933/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17951 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.36487/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17952 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.914/2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17953-17960 /2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.31487-31494/2014)
With
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 194-197/2016
in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 35793-35796/2012
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. Leave to appeal granted in all Special Leave Petitions.
5
2. These are two groups of appeals, one arising from the Judgment and
Order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack while the other arising
from the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Since the issues involved in these matters are same, both sets of matters are
being disposed of by this common Judgment.
3. The Directorate of Lift Irrigation in the Government of Odisha was
converted into Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (hereinafter
referred to as the “OLIC”). The service conditions of Engineers including
Junior Engineers which is the base cadre in the Engineering Wing of OLIC
are governed by Orissa Service of Engineers’ Rules, 1941 (“1941 Rules” for
short) as amended from time to time. Junior Engineers form the feeder
cadre for promotion to the next level, namely, that of Assistant Engineers.
Respondent No.11
–Rabi Sankar Patro, a Diploma holder in Electrical
Engineering, joined OLIC as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and while in
service, he acquired B.Tech (Civil) Degree from a Deemed to be University
namely JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur, through Distance
Education in the year 2009 and thereafter filed Writ Petition No.3848 of
2010 in the High Court Orissa. According to him, he being an in-service
graduate Engineer was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineer. Said
1
In the matter arising out of SLP(C) No.19807-19808 of 2012
6
writ petition was allowed without issuing notice to the respondents, placing
reliance on an earlier order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the High Court in
OJC No.13251 of 2001 by which OLIC was directed to consider the case of
the concerned candidates as in-service graduate Engineers. OLIC being
aggrieved, filed Review Petition No.58 of 2012 which was dismissed by the
High Court on 15.03.2012 along with certain similar review petitions. The
submissions recorded in support of the review petitions in the order of the
High Court were as under:-
“The argument advanced by Mr. Ashok Mohanty learned
Sr. Counsel for the review petitioners that the opposite partiesemployees
have acquired Degree Qualification of
distance/correspondence education course from JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth which is not recognized by AICTE. Therefore,
they are not qualified……….…...Learned Sr. Counsel Mr.
Mohanty placed much reliance upon the letter issued by AICTE
on 6th October, 2010 wherein the AICTE has categorically
stated as under:
“It has been the policy of the AICTE, not to
recognize the qualifications acquired through
distance education mode at Diploma, Bachelors &
Master’s level in the fields of Engineering
Technology including Architecture, Town
Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management &
Catering Technology, Applied Arts & Crafts and
Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM).
AICTE only recognizes MBA and MCA
programme through distance mode.” ”
The Review Petition was dismissed by the High Court, observing
inter alia,
7
“……. Substantial number of persons have also acquired
Engineering Degree through Universities providing Distance
Education which are also Indian Universities. Further Clause
(d) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1941 does not specify that the
qualifications obtained through distance education is not
permissible & the Degree should be obtained from the approved
Universities of the AICTE.”
4. Disposal of Review Petition and similar such petitions led to the filing
of these appeals, by special leave, by OLIC. It is principally submitted by
OLIC that the degrees in Engineering obtained by the concerned candidates
by distance education from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University and
similar Deemed to be Universities are not recognized degrees and as such
the concerned candidates cannot be said to be Graduate Engineers eligible
for benefits under the concerned Rules. It is further submitted that in its
Circular dated 09.08.2005 the University Grants Commission (“UGC” for
short) had notified that JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur was
neither permitted to affiliate any colleges or institutes nor allowed to conduct
any course through distance education.
5. While issuing notice in the matters, All India Council of Technical
Education (“AICTE” for short) and UGC were added as party-respondents,
whereafter AICTE filed its counter affidavits. The matters were taken up on
11.12.2014 when the following Order was passed by this Court:-
8
“In the course of hearing of these cases we noticed that
the UGC even though impleaded as a party respondent had not
filed any counter affidavit. We would have proceeded with the
hearing even in the absence of a counter affidavit but for the
fact that additional documents filed by Respondent No.1
include several documents concerning the UGC some of them
in the nature of letters, circulars and communications addressed
to several other authorities. It was in that backdrop that we
required the personal presence of the Chairman of the UGC,
Professor Ved Prakash who has appeared and broadly explained
the UGC stand on the questions that fall for determination.
According to Professor Ved Prakash the UGC recognises
technical degrees by the distant mode only if the University
concerned awards such degrees after obtaining the permission
of the AICTE for offering such degrees/courses by distance
education. Professor Ved Prakash further states that wherever
the UGC notices that technical educational degrees are being
awarded by deemed university without the approval of the
AICTE, it can and does take action against the defaulting
university by reporting the matter to the Central Government
who confers the status of deemed university on such
institutions. When asked whether Professor Ved Prakash can on
affidavit state the above position, Prof. Prakash was more than
willing to do so. Needless to say some of the counsel appearing
in these cases were critical of the stand taken by the UGC and
argued that the same was not the true position either on facts or
in law. Be that as it may, we deem it just and proper to permit
the UGC to file a detailed counter affidavit to this SLP which
shall apart from answering other submissions made in the SLP
elaborate on the following aspects:
1) Whether the UGC recognises degrees in
technical education by open and distance education
mode. If so, subject to what conditions, if any.
2) If such degrees are recognised only when they
are awarded after obtaining the permission of the
AICTE, what happens when the Universities
award degrees without obtaining such permission.
9
3) What action, if any, is the UGC empowered to
take under the UGC Act or any other provision of
law against the University awarding degrees
without the approval of the AICTE and whether
any such action has been taken in the past or is
proposed to be taken against such Universities
hereafter.
4) Whether the Government of India have issued
any instructions/circulars regarding recognition of
technical education degrees through ODL mode
offered by the deemed or statutory universities. If
so, what are these instructions/circulars and what is
the action/steps to be taken in regard to the degrees
awarded or status of such degrees as have already
been issued before the issue of such instructions.
5) How does UGC explain its stand in view of the
documents filed by respondent No. 1 in I.A. Nos. 5
and 6 of 2014 in these petitions or those enclosed
with the SLP or counter affidavit.
6) Since the controversy relates to different
deemed universities namely Vinayaka Mission's
research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu, IASE
Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr Rajasthan,
JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan and
Allahabad, Agriculture Research Institute,
Allahabad, U.P. the proposed affidavit by
Professor Ved Prakash shall state whether the
UGC recognises the degrees awarded by the said
Universities by ODL mode even when the same
are degrees in technical education including
degrees that have already been awarded. We grant
to Professor Ved Prakash, Chairman of the UGC
four weeks' time to file the affidavit copy whereof
shall be served upon learned counsel for the
counsel opposite who shall have two weeks' time
thereafter to file their response.”
10
6. Prof. Ved Prakash, Chairman, UGC, filed an affidavit on 30.01.2015
dealing with the aforesaid questions. The subsequent Order dated
04.08.2015 of this Court was as under:
“There are a large number of cases pending on the
principal issue raised in SLP (C) Nos.19807-19808 of 2012
(Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. & Ors.). Mr. Raju
Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that the principal issue is whether
degrees given by some institutions/universities through distant
education ought to be recognized by the employer. He submits
that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and
University Grants Commission (UGC) have taken the stand that
such degrees in technical courses are not recognized by AICTE
and therefore not recognized by UGC as well.
Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for
UGC affirms that the UGC does not recognize the degrees. It is
the submission of Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel that
in a meeting convened by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD) on 19th February, 2008 it was decided
that the approval granted by Distant Education Council
(including ) must be reviewed and the approval should be
granted to the courses and not to the Institute.
That being the position, we are of the opinion that the
concerned Secretary in the MHRD should be impleaded as a
party so that the stand of the Government of India is clear.
Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel makes
an oral request for impleadment of the concerned Secretary in
the MHRD as a party respondent. On his oral request, the
concerned Secretary in the MHRD is impleaded as a party
11
respondent. Amended memo of parties be filed within two
weeks.”
7. An affidavit has since then been filed on behalf of MHRD2
. In the
Order dated 26.04.2017 it was recorded:-
“………Our attention was drawn to letter dated
03.12.2007 addressed to UGC seeking ex post facto approval
annexing a list of 295 courses run by the JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth University under Distance Education system.
From the record, it is not clear what type of expertise the
said University has, for granting degrees for such large number
of courses by distance education mode. It is also not clear as to
what is the methodology followed for monitoring the standard
of education imparted by its centres on the basis of which such
professional degrees are granted. It is also not clear what type
of infrastructure is available with the said University.”
8. Civil Writ Petition No.1640 of 2008 was filed by one Kartar Singh in
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in public interest. Certain Deemed
to be Universities, such as JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur,
Vinayak Mission Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu, IASE Deemed
University, Rajasthan were respondents in the petition. It was submitted that
these Deemed to be Universities had set up “off campus centers” and “study
centers” in violation of the Regulations framed by the UGC; that very same
2 Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India
12
study center, at times was operating for more than one Deemed to be
University; that these study centers completely lacked infrastructure and
facilities for courses in Engineering and that the programmes through
distance education mode were illegal and without approval. Appropriate
reliefs were prayed for, including directions that degrees in Engineering
obtained through distance education be declared to be invalid for the
purposes of Government jobs in the State. This Writ Petition was allowed
by the High Court vide its decision dated 06.11.2012. Para 184 sums up the
decision as under:-
“184. In terms of the directions of the Commission, it was
necessary for the Deemed to the Universities to seek approval
from AICTE. In view of the above, we hold that the Deemed to
be Universities have started courses in technical education in
violation of the guidelines, instructions, circulars and
regulations framed by the Commission not only when they
started such courses but also in establishing Study Centres
outside their territorial limits and in subjects for which they
were not granted Deemed to be university status. Therefore,
degrees awarded by such Deemed to be Universities is an
illegal act and such illegality cannot be removed or cured by the
actions of either the Commission or DEC.”
9. The declaration invalidating the degrees in Engineering obtained
through distance education mode has been the subject matter of challenge by
various students-candidates and institutions. Since the issues raised in those
petitions are same as raised in matters arising out of the decision of the High
13
Court of Orissa, these matters were taken up soon after the matters from
Orissa. We are principally concerned in these cases only with courses
leading to the degrees in Engineering through distance education mode.
10. Thus, the degrees in Engineering obtained by serving diploma holders
through Open Distance Learning mode offered by certain Deemed to be
Universities through “off campus Study Centres” have been found valid
entitling the concerned candidates to benefits available for any serving
graduate engineers by the High Court of Orissa whereas the decision
rendered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana is to the contrary.
Considering the importance of the issues involved in the matters, this Court
vide Order dated 04.05.2017 appointed Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior
Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.
11. It may be appropriate at this stage to quote Para 19 of the affidavit
filed by Mr. Ved Prakash Chairman UGC:-
“It is pertinent to note that, while bringing the 2010
Deemed Universities Regulations to the notice of the general
public, including vide public notice No.F.27-1/2012 (CPP-II),
dated 27.06.2013 [annexed and excerpted later in the instant
affidavit], the UGC has also clarified that “the UGC has not
granted approval to any institution Deemed to be university to
establish Study Centres.” This is relevant because, firstly,
Deemed to be university status is conferred on academic
programmes in specific domains of knowledge. In this case,
14
four Deemed to be universities were conferred that status to
offer programmes in the following areas.
S.
No.
Deemed University Field of specialization for
institutions Deemed to be
Universities status
1. JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur,
Rajasthan
Social Work, Education,
Arts and Commerce
2 Institute of Advanced
Studies in Education,
Sardarshahr, Rajasthan
Education
3 Allahabad Agricultural
Institute, Allahabad,
Uttar Pradesh
Agricultural Engineering
Food & Nutrition
Biotechnology, Dairy
Technology
4. Vinayaka Mission’s
Research Foundation
Salem, Tamil Nadu
Medical Science, Dental
Science, Nursing,
Engineering & Technology,
Pharmacy, Pysiotherapy and
Homoeopathy
Yet, three institutions- Deemed to be Universities
(namely, JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan; IASE Gandhi
Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and Allahabad
Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad, U.P.) overstepped
their mandate and started distance education programmes,
including for award of B.E./B.Tech degrees outside their field
of specialization without UGC/AICTE approval.
Secondly, vide letter dated 09.08.2001 [annexed and
excerpted later in the instant affidavit], the UGC has made it
clear that franchising of education through private
agencies/establishment is not permitted. In addition, the UGC,
AICTE and DEC have issued a joint letter dated 13.05.2003
[annexed and excerpted later in the instant affidavit] to ViceChancellors/Heads
of Institutions asking them to limit the
system/programme of delivery of distance education of their
institution to the neighbourhood of the location of their main
15
campus or at the most within the State. And, as mentioned
earlier, vide public notice dated 27.06.2013, the UGC has stated
that institutions Deemed to be Universities can operate only
within its headquarters or from those off campuses/off-shore
campuses which are approved by the Government of India
through notification published in the official gazette, though the
UGC has not granted approval to any institutions Deemed to be
Universities offered distance education mainly through
franchisee arrangements and Study Centres which are not
established with the permission of the UGC.”
12. The aforesaid chart shows that the “Deemed to be University” status
was conferred keeping in view the potential to offer academic programs in
specific domains of knowledge. For example institutions at serial Nos.1 and
2 in the aforesaid table had specialized in Social Work, Education, Arts and
Commerce. However by virtue of their “Deemed to be University” status,
these institutions thereafter started distance education programs in subjects
or courses leading to award of B.E. and B.Tech degrees which were not
within their field of specialization. Whether the Deemed to be Universities
concerned were within their rights to do so is the basic question. We,
therefore, need to consider the statutory framework governing “Deemed to
be Universities” and ‘Distance Education’ more specifically in the field of
technical education.
13. “The University Grants Commission Act, 1956” (hereinafter referred
to as “the UGC Act”) was enacted to make provisions for co-ordination and
16
determination of standards in universities and for that purpose, to establish
University Grants Commission (“UGC for short”). Section 2(f) defines
“University” to mean “…a University established or incorporated by or
under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such
institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be
recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in
this behalf under this Act”. Section 3 contemplates conferral of “Deemed to
be University” status upon certain institutions for higher studies other than
universities. Section 12 delineates functions of the UGC while Section 13
deals with power of inspection for the purposes of ascertaining the financial
needs of the university or its standards of teaching, education and research.
Section 26 empowers the UGC to make regulations consistent with
the Act and with the Rules made thereunder which include, inter alia:-
“(f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for
the grant of any degree by any University;
(g) Regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination
of work or facilities in Universities.”
14. In the year 1985, the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the IGNOU Act”) was enacted to establish
and incorporate Open University at the national level, for the introduction
and promotion of distance education systems in the educational pattern of
17
the country and for co-ordination and determination of standards in such
systems. Section 2(e) defines “Distance Education System” to mean “..the
system of imparting education through any means of communication, such
as broadcasting, telecasting, correspondence courses, seminars, contact
programmes or the combinations of any two or more of such means”. The
definitions of “Study Centre” and the “University” are as under-
“Study Centre” means a centre established, maintained or
recognized by the University for the purpose of advising,
counseling or for rendering any other assistance required by the
students;
“University” means the Indira Gandhi National Open
University established under the Act.”
Study Centre referred to in the IGNOU Act is a centre established by
IGNOU and not by any other University. Section 5 then deals with powers
of IGNOU and sub-Clauses (i), (iii) and (v) are:-
“(i) To provide for instruction in such braches of
knowledge, technology, vocations and professions as the
University may determine from time to time and to make
provision for research;
(iii) to hold examinations and confer degrees, diplomas,
certificates or other academic distinctions or recognitions on
persons who have pursued a course of study or conducted
research in the manner laid down by the Statutes and
Ordinances.
(v) to determine the manner in which distance education
in relation to the academic programmes of the University may
be organized.”
18
Sub clause (v) speaks of ‘distance education’ in relation to the
academic programme of IGNOU. Few other clauses of Section 5 however
refer to other universities and institutions of higher learning and they are:-
“(vii) to co-operate with, and seek the co-operation of, other
universities and institutions of higher learning, professional
bodies and organizations for such purposes as the University
considers necessary;
(xiii) to recognize examinations of, or periods of study
(whether in full or part) at, other universities, institutions or
other places of higher learning as equivalent to examinations or
periods of study in the University, and to withdraw such
recognition at any time;
(xxiii) to recognize persons working in other universities,
institutions or organizations as teachers of the University on
such terms and conditions s may be laid down by the
Ordinances”
At this stage Clauses (i) and (j) of Section 24 of IGNOU Act also need to be
noted.
“Section 24 subject to provisions of this Act, the Statutes may
provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(i) The conferment of autonomous status on Colleges and
Study Centres;
(j) the co-ordination and determination of standards in the
open University and distance education systems and the
allocation and disbursement of grants to Colleges and other
universities and institutions.”
15. Section 16 of IGNOU Act deals with authorities of the University and
clause (7) deals with “such other authorities” as may be declared by the
19
Statutes to be the authorities of the University. In pursuance of powers
conferred under Section 16(7) read with Section 24 and 2nd Schedule to the
IGNOU Act, Distance Education Council (“DEC”, for short) was constituted
vide Notification dated 22.11.1991. Para 3 of the Notification stated that
DEC would consist of certain members including Secretary of UGC and a
member to be nominated by the Chairman, UGC. However, there was
nothing in this Para requiring any member or representative of AICTE
(which by 1991 was a Statutory Authority) to be member of DEC. Para 4
dealt with powers and functions of DEC and the relevant portion of said Para
is to the following effect:-
“4. Powers and Functions of the Distance
Education Council
a) It shall be the general duty of the Distance Education
Council to take all such steps as are consistent with the
provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances
for the promotion of the open university/distance
education systems, its coordinated development, and the
determination of its standards and in particular:
(i) To develop a network of open universities/distance
education institutions in the country in consultation with
the State Governments, Universities and other concerned
agencies;……..
(viii) To take such steps as are necessary to ensure the
coordinated development of the open university/distance
education system in the country.
(xiii) To advise State Governments, universities and
other concerned agencies on their proposals to set up
20
open universities or to introduce programmes of distance
education;”
16. The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter
referred to as the “AICTE Act”) was enacted to provide for the
establishment of AICTE with a view to proper planning and coordinated
development of the technical education system throughout the country, the
promotion of qualitative improvement of such education in relation to
planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of
norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters
connected therewith. Terms “Technical Education”, “Technical Institution”
and “University” as defined in the AICTE Act are as under:
“(g) “technical education” means programmes of
education, research and training in engineering technology,
architecture, town planning, management, pharmacy and
applied arts and crafts and such other programme or areas as the
Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by
notification in the Official Gazette, declare;
(h) “technical institution” means an institution, not being
a University, which offers courses or programmes of technical
education, and shall include such other institutions as the
Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by
notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical
institutions;
(i) “University” means a University defined under clause
(f) of Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
(3 of 1956) and includes an institution Deemed to be a
University under Section 3 of that Act.”
21
17. Chapter II of the AICTE Act speaks of “Establishment of the
Council”, namely AICTE and Section 10 deals with the “Powers and
Functions of the Council”. Section 10 is as under:
“10. (1) It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such
steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated
development of technical education and maintenance of
standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under
this Act, the Council may—
(a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical
education, collect data on all related matters and
make forecast of the needed growth and development
in technical education;
(b)coordinate the development of technical education in
the country at all levels;
(c)allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council,
such grants on such terms and conditions as it may
think fit to—
(i) technical institutions, and
(ii) Universities imparting technical education in
coordination with the Commission;
(d)promote innovations, research and development in
established and new technologies, generation,
adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet
developmental requirements and for overall
improvement of educational processes;
(e)formulate schemes for promoting technical education
for women, handicapped and weaker sections of the
society;
(f)promote an effective link between technical education
system and other relevant systems including research
and development organisations, industry and the
community;
(g)evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for
technical institutions and Universities imparting
22
technical education, incorporating norms and
mechanisms for enforcing accountability;
(h)formulate schemes for the initial and in-service
training of teachers and identify institutions or centres
and set up new centres for offering staff development
programmes including continuing education of
teachers;
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula,
physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff
qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and
examinations;
(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other
fees;
(k)grant approval for starting new technical institutions
and for introduction of new courses or programmes in
consultation with the agencies concerned;
(l) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of
charter to any professional body or institution in the
field of technical education conferring powers, rights
and privileges on it for the promotion of such
profession in its field including conduct of
examinations and awarding of membership
certificates;
(m)lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical
institutions;
(n)take all necessary steps to prevent commercialization
of technical education;
(o)provide guidelines for admission of students to
technical institutions and Universities imparting
technical education;
(p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution;
(q)withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses,
programmes to such technical institutions which fail
to comply with the directions given by the Council
within the stipulated period of time and take such
other steps as may be necessary for ensuring
compliance of the directions of the Council;
(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and
to set up new organisations to ensure effective
discharge of the Council’s responsibilities and to
23
create positions of professional, technical and
supporting staff based on requirements;
(s)declare technical institutions at various levels and
types offering courses in technical education fit to
receive grants;
(t)advice the Commission for declaring any institution
imparting technical education as a deemed University;
(u)set up a National Board of Accreditation to
periodically conduct evaluation of technical
institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines,
norms and standards specified by it and to make
recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the
Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition
or de-recognition of the institution or the programme;
(v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed.”
18. UGC, DEC and AICTE as well as MHRD Government of India have
issued various Notifications, Circulars and Guidelines touching upon the
issues involved in the present cases, which may now be referred to:
A. On 25.11.1985, UGC (the minimum standards of instructions
for the grant of the first degree through formal education in the
faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences,
Commerce and Science) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as
1985 UGC Regulations) came into force which applied to every
University including a Deemed to be University. The relevant portion
of these Regulations are:-
“2(3). No student shall be eligible for the award of the
first degree unless he has successfully completed a three
24
year course; this degree may be called the
B.A./B.SC/B.Com. (General/Honors/Special) degree as
the case may be….
3(1). Every University enrolling students for the 1st
Degree Course shall ensure that the number of actual
teaching days does not go below 180 in an academic
year…..
3(2). The total periods provided in the timetable shall not
be less than 40 clock hours a week. The timetable on
working days shall be so drawn up that physical facilities
are adequately utilized and not used only for a few hours
a day.”
B. In 1986, National Policy on Education was published by
Government of India, Part VI of which dealt with Technical and
Management Education, Paras 6.6, 6.8 and 6.19 of the Policy were:-
“6.6. In view of the present rigid entry
requirements to formal courses restricting the access of a
large segment of people to technical and managerial
education, programmes through a distance learning
process, including use of the mass media will be offered.
Technical and management education programmes,
including education in polytechnics, will also be on a
flexible modular pattern based on credits, with provision
for multi-point entry. A strong guidance and counseling
service will be provided.
6.8. Appropriate formal and non-formal programmes of
technical education will be devised for the benefit of
women, the economically and socially weaker sections,
and the physically handicapped.
6.19. The All India Council for Technical Education,
which has been given statutory status, will be responsible
25
for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and
standards, accreditation, funding of priority areas,
monitoring and evaluation, maintaining parity of
certification and awards and ensuring the coordinated and
integrated development of technical and management
education. Mandatory periodic evaluation will be carried
out by a duly constituted Accreditation Board. The
Council will be strengthened and it will function in a
decentralized manner with greater involvement of State
governments and technical institutions of good quality.”
C. The AICTE (Grant of Approval for starting new Technical
Institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval of
intake capacity of seats for courses or programmes) Regulations were
issued in 1994 (1994 AICTE Regulations, for short). Clause 4 of these
Regulations was to the following effect-
“4.0 Requirement of Grant of Approval
4.1 After the commencement of these regulations,
a) No new Technical Institution or University
Technical Department shall be started; or
b) No course or programme shall be introduced by
any Technical Institution, University including a Deemed
University or University Department or College or;
c) No Technical Institution, University or Deemed
University or University Department or College shall
continue to admit students for Degree or Diploma
courses or programmes;
d) No approved intake capacity of seats shall be
increased or varied;
26
Except with the approval of the Council.”
D. On 01.03.1995, a notification was issued by Government of
India to the following effect:-
“On the recommendation of the Board of
Assessment for Education Qualifications, the
Government of India has decided that all the
qualifications awarded through Distance Education by
the Universities established by an Act of Parliament or
State Legislature, Institutions Deemed to be Universities
under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 and Institutions of
National importance declared under an Act of Parliament
stand automatically recognized for the purpose of
employment to posts and services under the Central
Government, provided it has been approved by Distance
Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open
University, K 76, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 and
wherever necessary by All India Council for Technical
Education, I.G. Sports Complex, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-
110 002.”
E. On 03.07.1997, DEC published Guidelines for Design,
Development and Delivery of programmes/courses through distance
mode. These were essentially dealing with distance education as a
concept without specifying the details or mechanism as to how and in
what circumstances the concerned universities and institutions were
expected to initiate courses in distance education.
27
F. In 2004, UGC issued Guidelines for establishing new
departments within the campus, setting up of off-campus
centre(s)/institution(s)/off-shore campus and starting distance
education programmes by the Deemed to be universities, 2004 (2004
UGC Guidelines, for short). The terms institution, off-campus centre,
off-shore campus and Study Centre were defined by these Guidelines
as under:-
“(a) “Institution” means an institution set up by the
same management to impart studies in a specialized
branch of study and registered under the same society or
trust under which the existing deemed university is
registered.
(b) “Off-campus centre” means a center of the
university located outside its main campus (within or
outside the State where the deemed university is located)’
operated and maintained as its constituent unit by the
resources of the university, having the centre’s own
compliment of facilities, faculty and staff.
(c) “Off-shore Campus” means a campus of the
university located outside the country, established and
maintained as its constituent unit by the resources of the
university having its own compliment of facilities,
faculty and staff.
(d) “Study Centre” means a centre established and
maintained or recognized by the university for the
purpose of advising, counseling or for rendering any
other assistance required by the students used in the
context of distance education.”
28
It was laid down that a Deemed to be University shall normally be
authorized to operate within its own campus to conduct the authorized
courses falling within the area of their specialization. However, in deserving
cases, the Deemed to be University could start new departments within the
university campus or start off-campus centre(s)/institutions/off-shore
campus(s) on selective basis with prior specific permission of the UGC in
each and every individual case. The procedure in that behalf was laid down
as under:
“2. All Deemed to be universities intending to set-up new
departments within their campus, off-campus centre(s) or an
institution outside the main campus of the deemed university
may apply as follows:
2.1 The deemed university intending to open a new
department in its campus or an off-campus center/
institution shall approach the University Grants
Commission (UGC) at least six months prior to opening
such center on a proforma prescribed for this purpose
(Annexure-I). The deemed university desirous of starting
the new off-campus center / institution or introducing a
new course/ programme in a professional subject, shall
comply with all the requirements as required by statutory
professional Councils and obtain their prior approval
before approaching the UGC.
2.2 The new Departments, new off-campus center/
institution shall be set up only after obtaining approval of
the UGC and that of the concerned state Government
where such a center is proposed to be established. The
UGC shall cause spot visit/ verification of the proposed
new departments, new off-campus center/institutions to
verify its infrastructure facilities, programmes, faculty,
29
financial viability, etc. before giving permission to start
the centre. The report of the committee shall be
considered by the Commission for its approval.
2.3 An off-shore campus shall be set up only after due
permission from the Government of India on the
recommendations of the UGC and also that of the
Government of the host country”
Paras 3.3, 3.4 and 3.8 were as under:
“3.3 The off-campus centre/institution/off-shore campus
shall conform to the relevant regulations/norms of the
UGC and other statutory bodies concerned regarding
minimum standards of instruction, qualifications of
teachers, merit-based admission of students on an all
India basis and the fee structure etc. and shall have
adequate number of qualified teachers.
3.4 The new off-campus centre/institution/off-shore
campus shall offer only those courses which are
approved by the appropriate bodies of the deemed
university. If the course to be offered in the centre is in
technical/professional subject, its academic programmes
shall have to be approved by the concerned statutory
professional council.
3.8. The over-all performance of the off-campus centre/
institution/off-shore campus shall be monitored annually,
initially for three years, and subsequently after every five
years by the UGC whose directions for management,
academic development and improvement shall be
binding. The UGC shall associate the nominee(s) of the
concerned statutory professional council in the
monitoring process.”
Paras 4 and 5 dealt with Distance Education and Ex-Post-Facto
Approval in following terms:
30
“4. Distance Education: The Deemed to be University
could offer the distance education programmes only with
the specific approval of the Distance Education Council
(DEC) and the University Grants Commission (UGC).
As such, any Study Centre(s) can be opened only with
the specific approval of Distance Education Council and
UGC.
5. Ex-Post-Facto Approval: The Deemed Universities
shall obtain the ex-post-facto approval of the
GOI/UGC/DEC, whichever applicable within a period of
six months in the following cases:
I. Continuation of all the Departments opened in the
campus of the Deemed Universities and offcampus
Study Centre(s)/ institutions / offshore
campus started without the prior approval of the
UGC.
II Distance education programme(s)/Study Centre(s)
started without the specific approval of the
DEC/UGC.”
G. On 03.02.2004 DEC published an advertisement that it was
mandatory for all Centres/Institutions/Directorates offering
programmes through Distance Education mode to apply to DEC and
obtain prior approval before starting any new
Centres/Institutions/Directorates of programme. It further stated that
the Distance Education Centres/Institutions/Directorates already
offering programmes through distance mode should submit their
applications for approval of DEC in the prescribed format.
31
H. A circular was issued by the UGC on 16.03.2004 directing
Deemed to be Universities conducting courses through Distance
Education mode to seek ex post facto approval for the courses
conducted by such Deemed to be Universities.
19. We have referred to the notifications, circulars and guidelines as were
in existence and in force in 2004. The Deemed to be Universities in the
present case had started their distance education programmes without taking
any prior approval from any of the authorities including UGC, AICTE or
DEC. However, it appears that in terms of paragraphs 4 and 5 of 2004 UGC
Guidelines, the advertisement of DEC dated 03.02.2004 and circular of UGC
dated 16.03.2004, the concerned Deemed to be Universities sought ex-postfacto
approval for courses conducted by them through distance education
mode. Before we deal with the facts leading to the consideration of such expost-facto
approval, an important development must be adverted to. On
24.09.2001 a decision was rendered by this Court in Bharathidasan
University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and
Others3
. The appellant therein, created under Bharathidasan University Act
with its area of operation over three districts in the State of Tamil Nadu had
3
(2001) 8 SCC 676
32
commenced courses in Technological subjects in its own departments as an
adjunct to the University without any approval of AICTE. A writ petition
was filed by AICTE submitting that no such courses could be started without
its prior approval. The plea was accepted by the High Court of Madras
which view was challenged in this Court. While dealing with question
whether prior approval of AICTE was required for a “University” to start
courses in technical education, this Court held that the definition of
“Technical Institution” under the AICTE Act excludes a “University” and
since the power of grant of approval for starting new “technical institution”
and for introduction of new courses or programmes under Section 10(k) of
the AICTE Act would not cover a “University” but only a technical
institution, the appellant-university was within its rights to start such courses
without the prior approval of the AICTE.
20. Bharathidasan (supra) having laid down that prior approval of
AICTE was not required for a University to start technical courses, the
subsequent guidelines, notifications issued by the UGC, AICTE and the
Government of India were framed in the light of said decision. The
understanding entertained by all the authorities was that AICTE was not
competent to deal with issues of prior approval in respect of “Universities”
for technical courses and since the term “University” under the UGC Act
33
includes Deemed to be Universities, AICTE has no power to deal with issues
of prior approval for technical courses in respect of Deemed to be
Universities as well.
21. We now turn to the aspect of consideration by the concerned
authorities of request for grant of ex-post facto approval for courses in
Technology/Engineering conducted by Deemed to be Universities, namely,
JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan (‘JRN’ for short), Institute of
Advanced Studies in Education, Rajasthan (‘IASE’ for short), Allahabad
Agricultural Institute, Allahabad (‘AAI’ for short) and Vinayaka Mission
Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu (‘VMRF’ for short). None of these
Deemed to be Universities had taken any prior permission from any of the
authorities, namely, UGC, AICTE and DEC, nor had they even intimated at
any juncture the fact that they were conducting such courses in
Technology/Engineering through distance education mode. Pertinently,
JRN, IASE and AAI had no expertise or specialization in the fields of
Technology/Engineering. None of these three Deemed to be Universities
was having any regular Engineering college or Faculty in
Technology/Engineering at their own campus when they commenced
courses in Technology/Engineering by distance education mode through
Study Centres all over the Country. The facts stated hereinafter narrate how
34
their applications for ex-post facto approval were dealt with and by way of
illustration the facts pertaining to JRN, are dealt with in detail.
A. On 10.05.2004 JRN sought approval of DEC for courses
conducted by it under distance education. The information supplied
in regard to technical courses leading to degrees in Engineering in
various disciplines4
show that details of 19 Study Centres with names
of Coordinators and Counsellors were given. Said Co-ordinators and
Counsellors were common for all disciplines and courses. At the
same time there was no Study Centre in the State of Orissa.
B. On 27.07.2004, UGC asked JRN to submit a complete list of its
off campus centres giving details of its courses/infrastructure within
21 days of the receipt of the letter failing which public notice would
be issued that such degrees were not recognized by UGC. The
relevant portion of the letter was to the following effect:
“1. The Commission vide its letter of even number
dated 5th May, 2003 and subsequent reminders dated 6th
August, 2003 and 13th October, 2003 had requested the
Vidyapeeth to submit the details of its Study Centres. In
response to that the Vidyapeeth vide its letter
No.RVU/VC/2004-2005/26 dated 2nd April, 2004
submitted a list of 517 centres, but did not furnish any
details about the approval of UGC, the statutory Councils
4 B.Tech (Computer Science), M.Tech (Computer Science)
B.Tech (Civil) and M.Tech (Civil))
35
and the concerned State Governments nor did the
Vidyapeeth submit any information about the
Infrastructural facilities, faculty etc. provided in these
Centres……………………………………………………
5. The Commission has been receiving a number of
complaints that Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is
engaged in offering Undergraduate and Postgraduate
level courses in various disciplines including Computer
Science, Business Studies, Para-medical Studies and
Physiotherapy etc. through Study Centre(s) spread all
over the country which do not have required
infrastructure to maintain the standard of education.
6. A warning was also issued to the Vidyapeeth vide
this office letter of even number dated 11th June, 2004
that the degrees awarded in violation of the instructions
contained in the Guidelines shall be regarded as
unspecified and render the Vidyapeeth to be punishable
under relevant provisions of the UGC Act, 1956.
7. The Study Centre/off-campus centres in distance
mode opened by Rajasthan Vidyapeeth are without prior
approval of UGC.
8. The Vidyapeeth is silent on furnishing the details
of fulfilling the norms as laid down by the Distance
Education Council nor has attached specific approval of
Distance Education Council and UGC.
9. It may be pointed out that unless the Vidyapeeth is
fully prepared in terms of faculty and infrastructure laid
down by the Statutory bodies, it would not be desirable to
start any graduate and postgraduate level courses.”
C. In response to a query from Commissioner (Higher Education)
Government of Gujarat, IGNOU informed vide its letter dated
36
03.08.2005 that DEC had not recognized JRN and AAI to offer
Distance Education programmes anywhere in the Country as major
deficiencies were found in their delivery system and self instructional
materials.
D. On 09.08.2005, a notice/circular was issued by UGC to the
following effect:
“UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI – 110 002
F-6-9/2004(CPP-I) 9
th August, 2005
Subject: Non-Recognition of Study Centres of Deemed
Universities-(i) JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur (ii)
Allahabad Agricultural Institute (AAI), Allahabad & (iii)
IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir (IASE) (Deemed
University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan
The University Grants Commission has been
receiving a large number of letters from individuals and
organizations seeking clarification about Study Centres
of Deemed Universities particularly those associated with
(i) Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed
University), Udaipur (ii) Allahabad Agricultural Institute
(Deemed University), Allahabad (iii) Institute of
Advanced Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir
(IASE) (Deemed University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan.
It is hereby informed that (i) Janardan Rai Nagar
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur (ii)
Allahabad Agricultural Institute (Deemed University),
Allahabad (iii) Institute of Advance Studies in Education
of Gandhi Vidya Mandir (IASE) (Deemed University),
Sardarshahr, Rajasthan have been declared as Deemed to
37
be Universities by the Government of India under
Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956. These Institutions are
empowered to award degrees as specified by the UGC
under Section 22 of the UGC Act 1956.
However above three Deemed Universities have
not been permitted to affiliate a College/Institute. These
Institutions have also not been allowed to conduct any
course through Distance Education Study Centre so far,
by the Distance Education Council/UGC.
Needless to mention that prior approval of
Distance Education Council, IGNOU Campus, New
Delhi-110 067 is also required for starting courses
offered under Distance Education mode.
It is for the information of all concerned that no
Deemed to be University can start Study
Centres/franchises without the prior approval of UGC
and that of State Government where the Centre(s) is/are
proposed to be opened. Private franchising is not
allowed. Moreover, for starting any UGC approved
degree course through Distance mode, prior approval of
the Distance Education Council is mandatory.
Students are advised to keep these things in mind
while getting admission in Deemed to be Universities.
(V.K. Jaiswal)
Under Secretary
Ph: 011-23235640
Publication Officer
UGC Website
New Delhi”
E. On 30.08.2005 a communication was addressed by UGC to
JRN, the relevant portions of which were:-
38
“……………………The Vidyapeeth has reportedly been
running 649 Study Centres/off campus centres under
Distance Education mode without the approval of
UGC/Statutory councils/State Government. The
Distance Education Council (IGNOU, New Delhi) has
not recognized Rajasthan Vidyapeeth to offer Distance
Education Programme anywhere in the country so far
because major deficiencies have been found in the
delivery system and self instructional materials.
(Ref.IGNOU/DEC letter No.IG/PVC/05 dated 3rd
August, 2005).
The Vidyapeeth may please ensure compliance of the
following:
1. All off-campus centres/Extension Centres/Study
Centres and Academic Centres offering distance
education programmes of the Vidyapeeth running
without the approval of UGC and Distance
Education Council be closed down immediately.
A list of such centres may also please be sent to
UGC along-with the documentary evidence of
closure of these centres.
2. Awarding of X and XII certification be stopped
immediately and a public notice to this effect may
be published in National Newspapers.
3. An explanation/comments may also be furnished
on complaint(s) regarding Study Centres
particularly those operating in Gujarat.”
F. A show-cause notice dated 27.10.2005 was thereafter issued by
UGC to JRN for non-adherence to UGC norms regarding Study
Centres and an explanation was sought within 15 days failing which
appropriate action could be taken by UGC.
39
G. On 28.11.2005, All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE) Grant of Approval for starting new technical institutions,
introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of
intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes and Extension
of approval for the existing technical institutions and maintenance of
norms and standards in Universities including Deemed to be
Universities Regulations, 2005 (2005 AICTE Regulations, for short)
were issued. Para 2.5 of the Regulations dealing with grant of
approval was to the following effect:-
“2.5 Requirement of grant of approval
(1) No new technical institution of Government,
Government Aided or Private (self financing) institution,
whether affiliated or not affiliated to any University shall
be started and no new courses or programs shall be
introduced and no increase and/or variation of intake in
the existing Courses/Programmes shall be effected at all
levels in the field of ‘Technical Education’ without
obtaining prior approval of the Council. The Council
may take Legal action against such defaulting
Institution/Society/Company/Associated Individuals as
the case may be for contravening provisions of this
regulations by conducting courses/programmes in
“Technical Education” without obtaining prior approval
from AICTE.
(2) No existing technical institution of Government,
Government Aided or Private (self financing) institution
whether affiliated or not affiliated to a University shall
conduct any technical course/programme without prior
approval of the Council.
40
(3) No University including Deemed University shall
conduct technical courses/programmes without ensuring
maintenance of the norms and standards prescribed by
AICTE.
(4) No University, Board or any other body shall
affiliate technical courses/programmes not approved by
the AICTE.
(5) No admission authority/body/institution shall
admit students to a course/programme of technical
education not approved by AICTE.”
H. On 05.01.2006 a circular was issued by DEC stating that the
programmes of JRN through Distance Mode were not approved by
DEC.
I. On 01.02.2006 a letter was addressed by JRN to UGC
undertaking to close its Distance Education Programme but
requesting UGC to grant one time specific approval insofar as existing
students in the programmes currently in operation.
J. On 05.04.2006 a Notification was issued by MHRD,
Government of India in exercise of powers vested in the Central
Government under Section 20(1) of UGC Act and under Section 20(1)
of AICTE Act clarifying the role of the UGC and AICTE in
maintaining standards of education in institutions notified as deemed
to be universities. The relevant portion of the notification is as under:
41
“It is not a pre-requisite for an institution notified as a
“Deemed to be University to obtain the approval of the
AICTE, to start any programme in technical or
management education leading to an award, including
degrees in disciplines covered under the AICTE Act,
1987. However, institutions notified as ‘Deemed to be
University’ are required to ensure the maintenance of the
minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE for various
courses that come under the jurisdiction of the said
Council. It is expected that the institutions notified as
‘Deemed to be University’ maintain their standards of
education higher than the minimum prescribed by the
AICTE.
In accordance with provisions under Section 11(1) of the
AICTE Act, 1987, the AICTE may cause an inspection of
the relevant departments of the institution declared as
‘Deemed to be University” offering the courses that
come under the jurisdiction of the AICTE Act, 1987 in
order to ensure the maintenance of standards by them.”
K. The application preferred by JRN for ex-post facto approval
was considered by UGC in its meeting dated 11.06.2006 and the
Chairman was authorized to do the needful through appropriate
mechanism. The Chairman, UGC accordingly constituted a two
members Committee with Legal Consultant, UGC, as Special Invitee.
This Committee held meeting in the UGC office on 30.06.2006 and
interacted with representatives of JRN. The decision of the
Committee was as under:-
“After examining all the aspects regarding one time expost-facto
approval to Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan
42
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur for the students admitted in various
Degree courses under Distance Education Mode from 1st
June, 2001 to 31st August, 2005 as also keeping in view
the future of a large number of innocent students, the
Committee recommended one-time ex-post-facto
approval for the students admitted under the distance
education mode by Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur in Degree Courses from 1st June,
2001 to 31st August, 2005 subject to strict compliance
and fulfillment of the following conditions:
1. The one time approval will cover students
admitted between 1st June, 2001 and 31st August, 2005
admitted in Degree courses under Distance Education
Mode only subject to the condition that Sri Janardan Rai
Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur shall ensure that it
has permission of relevant Statutory Bodies or Councils
wherever necessary and shall maintain the norms and
standards laid down by the relevant Statutory Bodies and
Councils.
2. Only such students shall be considered for
regularization who fulfill the eligibility conditions,
prevalent in other universities and prescribed by the
statutory authorities for the courses they have been
admitted. Non-eligible candidates shall be offered
alternative courses according to their eligibility or the
entire fee shall be refunded by the Vidyapeeth along with
the compensation claimed…………………..”
L. Thereafter, on 03.07.2006 UGC granted one time ex-post facto
approval in respect of courses conducted by Distance Education Mode
by JRN from 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2005. The conditions mentioned by
the Committee in its recommendations dated 30.06.2006 were
incorporated in this communication.
43
M. On 03.11.2006 a letter was addressed by the UGC to JRN that
the conditions of approval as incorporated in the communication dated
03.07.2006 had not been complied with. It appears that on 29.12.2006
an Expert Committee was constituted by UGC to look into the
documents/information received from JRN.
N. On 04.02.2007 a public notice was issued jointly by AICTE,
UGC and DEC. The notice stated as under:
“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, Institutions Deemed to be
Universities and other institutions are offering technical
education programmes in the ‘distance mode’ without the
approval of the concerned Statutory Council.
All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be
Universities and other institutions are hereby cautioned
that running such programmes and giving misleading
advertisements regarding unapproved ‘distance mode
courses and programmes of study, shall attract severe
action under the provisions of applicable laws, including
that of de-recognition and withdrawal of institutional
approval;
It is hereby clarified, in the public interest that
there are a number of courses or programmes of study
leading to Degree/Diploma or other awards in
Engineering & Technology, Management, Computer
Applications, Architecture & Town Planning, Pharmacy,
Hotel Management & Catering Technology, Applied Arts
and Crafts, etc. which have not been approved by the
appropriate Statutory Council for being conducted in the
‘distance mode’. It is also reiterated that all courses or
44
programmes of study in the ‘distance mode’ require the
approval of DEC.”
O. On 15.06.2007 JRN filed an application with DEC seeking
approval to start 69 programmes in Distance Education from the
Session 2007-2008. The letter stated that as directed by the UGC,
JRN had stopped new admissions after August 2005. The letter
requested for ex-post facto approval for the programmes/students
between 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2005 and approval for programmes
proposed to be started from the Session 2007-2008. 69 Programmes
indicated in the application comprised of six programmes leading to
the award of Bachelors Degree in Technology in the disciplines of
Computer Science, Information Technology, Civil Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Electronics/TeleCommunications.
List of Study Centres numbering 38 was also
appended.
P. A Visiting Committee constituted by the Chairman, DEC, had
visited the main campus of JRN on 15.06.2007 itself. Some of the
relevant portions from the report of the Visiting Committee are as
under:
“………..The University has large infrastructure of Study
Centres totaling 852. These Care located mostly in
private institutions. It has also Study Centres at its
headquarter.
45
The details of facilities available at each Centre along
with the list of equipments is given in Annexure – VIII.
The university now proposes to reduce the number of
Study Centre significantly and offer programmes through
a network of 38 Study Centres only. (list enclosed)”
After making above observations, the Committee made
the following recommendations:
“Keeping in view the above facts the committee
recommends that the request of the university for post
facto approval may be favorably considered. It also
submits that the request of the university for continuation
of its programmes may be considered by DEC as per
norms being adopted for institutional recognition.”
Q. In its meeting dated 01.08.2007 and 02.08.2007 the reports
submitted by the Visiting Committee in respect of AAI (visit dates
26th and 27th October, 2004), JRN (visit dates 15th and 16th June,
2007), VMRF (visit date 04.02.2007) and IASE (visit dates 3rd and 4th
September, 2004) were considered by the DEC. The minutes of the
meeting of DEC were:-
“The Committee deliberated upon the
recommendations of the visiting committees with respect
to each institution and came up with the following
recommendations:
1. The above four institutions may be given ex-post
facto sanction till the academic session June-July
2007 only.
46
2. These institutions should be communicated the
deficiencies/improvements identified by the
visiting committees.
3. For recognition of the institution from next
academic calendar i.e. from June-July 2008
another visiting committee may be constituted by
the Competent Authority to visit and submit a
fresh report on the basis of which further decision
on recognition may be taken.”
The minutes further show that ex-post facto approval granted to the
aforesaid institutions was to be a one time measure and not to be treated as a
precedent in future.
22. At this stage, while ex-post facto approval sought by JRN, IASE, AAI
and VMRF was under consideration, a Memorandum of Understanding was
arrived at on 10.05.2007 among UGC, AICTE and DEC to work in close cooperation
in pursuit of excellence in technical and general education through
distance and mixed mode in the country. Para 10 of the Memorandum of
Understanding was as under:
“(10) The Joint Committee shall also evolve a mechanism for
monitoring the existing institutions conducting
courses/programmes in ‘distance and mixed mode’ for ensuring
maintenance of norms & standards provided UGC, AICTE and
DEC. It will also cause inspections to existing institutions
conducting technical and general education to
courses/programmes through distant and mixed mode for the
purpose of continuation/withdrawal of approval by AICTE in
respect of technical institutions and UGC in respect of
Universities including Deemed to be Universities.”
47
This Joint Committee held several meetings and the decisions in some
of them were as under:-
i) In the first meeting held on 11.05.2007, the Chairman stated
that a large number of distance education programmes were being
offered for commercial purposes; that there was deterioration of
quality particularly in technical and professional programmes that
were being offered through distance mode and the joint committee
was expected to ensure quality of all distance education programmes
in general and professional & technical programmes in particular.
The decision taken in the meeting included inter alia:
“For any institution/university to offer distance education
programmes, it is mandatory for them to offer the same
programme in face to face mode.
--- --- ---
Study Centres should be managed by the institution and
no franchising of any kind would be allowed.”
ii) The recommendations made by the DEC on 1st and 2nd of
August 2007 ratifying the recommendation of the Visiting Committee
of DEC to grant ex-post facto approval to JRN, IASE, AAI and
VMRF as mentioned hereinabove, were then placed before and
accepted by this Joint Committee in its third meeting held on
07.08.2007. The relevant minutes of the meeting were:-
48
“3. Institutions applied for ex-post facto approval. The
Joint Committee accepted the recommendations of the
Committee appointed by DEC. It accepted the
recommendations of granting ex-post-facto approval to
all the four institutions namely JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, Allahabad Agriculture Institute Deemed
University,Vinayaka Mission University, Punjab
Technical University and IASE Deemed University up to
the current academic year i.e. 2007-08 and the
suggestions made by the visiting Expert Committee
should be made known to them which should be strictly
adhered to. However, they need to apply for formal
recognition to DEC for the next academic year.”
iii) In the fifth meeting held on 17.04.2008, convened on the
requisition of AICTE, complaints against IASE and VMRF were
discussed and it was decided to constitute Visiting Committees to
review their programmes.
iv) In the sixth meeting held on 28.07.2008, following decisions
were taken:-
“(i) It was decided that the Chairman, Joint Committee
will write to the Chairman, UGC and the Chairman,
AICTE communicating that once the decision on
approval is taken by the Joint Committee, it should be
considered as approval given by the UGC, AICTE and
DEC and the same should not be referred to the
respective Commission and Councils; otherwise the
entire purpose of the Joint Committee will be defeated.
(ii) Copies of all applications for approval of
programmes in technical and professional areas will be
sent to the AICTE and AICTE will send its
recommendations to the Joint Committee for further
processing.
49
v) In the ninth meeting held on 05.08.2009, the stand taken by
MHRD vide letter dated 29.07.20095
regarding withdrawal of
permission given to institutions to conduct B.Tech/B.E. programmes
through distance mode and to stop admissions to such programmes
was noted. The unanimous decision was taken that till such time the
matter was resolved, the Joint Committee would not accord any
approval to B.Tech/B.E. programmes.
23. After the Joint Committee of UGC, AICTE and DEC had accepted the
recommendations of DEC for granting ex-post facto approval to JRN, IASE,
AAI and VMRF in its meeting held on 07.08.2007, the further factual
developments were as under:-
i) The formal approval was communicated by IGNOU to JRN in
following terms vide its letter dated 29.08.2007
“In connection with ex-post-facto recognition, we
would like to convey that all programmes (that
were approved by the statutory bodies of your
institute) are approved till date. As you have not
been offering education through distance mode
since 2005, all your programmes (approved by the
statutory bodies of your institute) till 2005 happen
to be approved by the DEC.
5 Referred to in Para 23(xiii)
50
However, for recognition of your institution
for offering programmes through distance mode
from next academic year, i.e. from June-July,
2008, you are requested to submit fresh application
in the prescribed format developed by DEC.”
ii) JRN thereafter applied to UGC for approval for academic
Session 2007-08 submitting that “one time ex-post-facto approval”
vide letter dated 03.07.2006 was already granted by UGC and that
DEC had also granted ex-post-facto approval for programmes offered
by JRN through distance education mode till date. Thereafter, JRN
addressed a communication to UGC on 02.09.2007 submitting
compliance for final ex-post-facto approval in terms of approval dated
03.07.2006.
iii) On 03.09.2007 DEC granted provisional recognition to JRN in
respect of programmes offered through distance education mode for a
period of one year from the date of its letter in following terms:
“Dated 03.09.2007
Sub.: Provisional Recognition
Dear Sir,
This has reference to your application to the
Distance Education Council requesting for
51
recognition of programmes offered through
distance mode by your university.
We would like to inform you that your
university has been granted provisional recognition
for offering programmes (approved by the
statutory bodies of your university) through
distance mode for a period of one year w.e.f. the
date of issue of this letter.
However, for recognition of your institution
for offering programmes through distance mode in
the next academic year i.e. from June-July, 2008,
you are requested to submit a fresh application in
the prescribed format developed by the DEC
which may be downloaded from the DEC website:
www.dec.ac.in.
We would also like to inform you that the
DEC has decided not to insist on territorial
jurisdiction to be followed by institutions in
offering programmes through distance mode and
on that matter universities should be governed by
their own Acts and Statutes.
With regards
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(SWARAJ BASU)
Prof. L.S. Bhat
Vice Chancellor
Janaradan Rai Nagar Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth (Deemed University)
Pratap Nagar, Udaipur- 313 001, Rajasthan.”
iv) Having received provisional recognition for the academic year
2007-2008 from DEC, JRN then applied to UGC on 13.09.2007 and
on 13.11.2007 UGC sent a letter in reply to JRN as under:
“UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG
52
NEW DELHI 110 002
No.F.6.3(Centre)/2003 (CPP-I) November 13, 2007
The Vice-Chancellor
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth
(Deemed University)
Pratapnagar, Udaipur- 313 001
(Rajasthan)
Subject: Courses under Distance mode –Regarding
Sir,
With reference to your proposal on the subject
cited above. I am directed to inform you that the
Commission has noted that DEC, a statutory
council in regular distance education, has already
conveyed the approval (ex-post-facto as well
provisional approval for the year 2007-2008) to
certain courses run by your University under
distance mode based on the approval of the UGCAICTE-DEC
joint committee. Therefore, no
separate approval from UGC is required for the
same. You are requested to send list of the courses
(year-wise) run by the Deemed University under
distance mode as approved by the Joint
Committee.
This issues with the approval of Chairman, UGC.
Yours faithfully
(K.P. Singh)
Joint Secretary”
v) On 05.12.2007 JRN informed UGC that in view of the approval
dated 29.08.2007 granted by DEC, JRN would be offering distance
education programmes in the year 2007-08 as well.
53
vi) At a meeting held on 19.02.2008 wherein Secretary,
Department of Higher Education (Distance Learning Division),
MHRD, Heads of UGC, AICTE & IGNOU and Joint Secretary
(Distance Education) participated, it was decided that the approvals
should be granted to the courses and not to the institute. The
following decisions, were inter alia, taken in the meeting:
“e. In addition to existing agreement of AICTE for
conduct of MCA and MBA programs by distance
mode, AICTE must also consider to agree to allow
conduct of B.Tech. programmes through distance
mode for Diploma holders in
Engineering/Technology with work experience.
Similarly, distance education programmes for ITI
certificate holder, with some work experience,
leading to award of Diploma could be allowed and
encouraged for their vertical academic mobility.
f. The approvals should be granted to the courses and
not to the institute.
g. The approval, including the cases of granting of
ex-post-facto approvals conveyed by the DEC, to
Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad,
Annamalai University, TN, IASE Sardarshahr,
Raj, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur,
Vinayaka Mission, Salem must be reviewed within
the next month.”
vii) Though the decision was taken in the meeting of 19.02.2008 a
letter was addressed only on 12.05.2008 by UGC to various
institutions including JRN, AAI, AISE and VMRF as follows:-
54
“Sir,
With reference to your proposal for ex-post-facto
approval to the courses run under distance mode by the
deemed university, I am directed to inform you that the
Government of India, MHRD convened a meeting on 19th
February, 2008 which was chaired by Secretary,
Department of Higher Education. It was decided that the
approval granted by Distance Education Council
(including ex-post-facto) must be reviewed and the
approval should be granted to the courses and not to the
institute. Distance Education Council has also been
requested to give approval strictly as per the provisions
contained in the MOU signed between UGC, AICTE and
DEC. The relevant clause of the MOU is reproduced as
under:
“Based on the recommendations of Joint
Committee, the letter of approval may be issued by the
Joint Committee. The letter should explicitly state: This
has the approval of UGC, AICTE and DEC. The letter
should be jointly signed by Secretary, UGC, Member
Secretary, AICTE and Director, DEC.”
In view of the above mechanism and instructions
issued by MHRD, you are advised to approach the Joint
Committee through Distance Education Council,
IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi.
Yours faithfully
(S.C.Chadha)
Deputy Secretary”
viii) In the meantime, on 08.05.2008 JRN sought approval for the
year 2008-09 from DEC for its courses in distance education mode.
55
Nine professional/technical programmes6
leading to the award of
degrees in engineering were listed in respect of which approval was
sought. In Table 3.12 Programme-wise student enrolment in respect
of said programmes was mentioned as 4142, 1258, 3166, 1380, 312,
1792, 4216, 516 and 103 respectively; which in effect aggregated to
16885 for all 9 courses put together.
(ix) In the 447
th meeting of the UGC held on 21.05.2008 decision
was taken in respect of report submitted by the Chairman, UGC as
under:
“1.02(a) to ratify the action taken on certain matters.
(i) To report the decision by the Chairman, UGC
regarding courses run under distance mode by JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Deemed University, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
The Commission ratified the action taken by the
Chairman, UGC.”
x) Various show-cause notices were thereafter issued by UGC on
26.06.2008 and 21.08.2008 regarding alleged violation of UGC
Guidelines by concerned Deemed to be Universities but the record is
6Bachelor of Technology in (i) Mechanical Engineering; (ii) Chemical Engineering;
(iii) Electrical Engineering; (iv) Computer Science; (v) Information Technology;
(vi) Electronics & Telecommunication; (vii) Civil Engineering; (viii) Electronics &
Communication Engineering; (ix) Bio-Informatics.
56
not clear what further steps were taken and what decisions were
arrived at.
xi) On 27.06.2008, DEC issued a public notice titled “Recognition
of degree/diploma/certificates for employment and recognition and
distance education institutions” wherein it was clarified:-
“The provisional approval granted by DEC is not
to be construed to be in lieu of the approval required by
the Institutions from the AICTE in respect of the
standards to be maintained for technical education
programmes and from the UGC for offering any
programme in leading to award of a degree which is at
variance with the nomenclature of degrees mentioned in
the UGC Regulations under Section 22 of the UGC Act,
1956.”
xii) On 08.10.2008 DEC granted approval to JRN for the academic
year 2008-2009. The relevant portion of the letter was as under:-
“This has reference to your letter
No.JRNRVU/DEW/2008-2009/811, dated 8 May, 2008
requesting Distance Education Council for continuation
of recognition of your Institute for programmes offered
through distance mode for the year 2008-09.
In this connection we would like to inform you that vide
our letter No.F.No.DEC/Univ/State/07/5739, dated
3.9.2007, your University was accorded Provisional
recognition for one academic year i.e. 2007-08 for
programmes offered through distance mode. Further,
your proposal for grant of regular recognition of your
University is under process. Meanwhile, your University
has been granted continuation of provisional recognition
till such time a visiting committee visits your Institute
and submits its recommendation.
57
With regards
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Manjulika Srivastava)
Prof. L.S. Bhat,
Vice Chancellor,
Janaradan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth
(Deeded University), Pratap Nagar,
Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan”
xiii) On 29.07.2009, MHRD wrote to Chairman DEC as under:-
“D.No.6-7/2008-DL
Dear Prof. Pillai,
The matter regarding recognition of B.Tech
Degrees awarded by UGC recognised Universities
through Distance Education Mode was examined in the
Ministry. After a detailed examination of the subject
matter referred above, the following course of action has
been approved at the highest level in the Ministry.
(i) DEC should immediately withdraw permission
given to various institutions to conduct B.Tech/B.E.
Programmes through Distance Mode and no student
should be admitted in the current year also.
(ii) Those who have already been admitted will have
to pass both practical and written examination as may be
prescribed in this regard so as to give validity to the
B.Tech/B.E. degree acquired by them through distance
education.
In view of the above, I would request you kindly to take
further necessary steps to implement the action
mentioned at para (i) above immediately and also further
evolve a broad policy and guidelines to give effect to the
action as mentioned at para (ii) above. This being a very
58
important and sensitive issue, an early action in the
matter will be highly appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(N.K. Sinha)
Prof. V.N. Rajasekharan Pillai,
Vice Chancellor & Chairman, DEC,
Indira Gandhi National Open University,
Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068.”
xiv) Soon after the aforesaid letter, DEC informed JRN on
13.08.2009 as under:-
“Dear Sir/Madam
This has reference to the MHRD letter No.D.O.No.6-
7/2009-D.L. Dated 29th July, 2009 vide which MHRD
has directed the DEC to immediately withdraw
permission given to various institutions to conduct
B.Tech/BE programmes through distance mode and also
ensure that no students are admitted in the current year.
In this connection the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE
and DEC has not yet accorded any approval to
B.E./B.Tech programme of any University offered
through distance mode. Any such programmes offered
by a University are hence illegal and are not approved by
the DEC.
Thus it is notified that the above notification of the
MHRD is to be strictly adhered to and no University
should offer any B.E./B.Tech programme through
distance mode. Any deviation from this policy may
invite de-recognition of the concerned University by the
DEC.
59
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Manjulika Srivastava)
To
The Vice Chancellor,
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth,
Airport Road, Pratap Nagar,
Udaipur-313001
Rajasthan.”
xv) On 21.05.2010, the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be
Universities) Regulations, 2010( hereinafter referred to as “2010 UGC
Regulations”) were issued consolidating Guidelines issued from time
to time in respect of factors to be taken in consideration before
granting the status of Deemed to be University. Regulation 2.14
which defined statutory body includes inter alia AICTE and
Regulation 8.02 prescribes that the Institution Deemed to be
University shall submit a certificate and an undertaking that the
professional programmes being conducted by it, if any, have the
approval of the relevant statutory/regulatory body. Regulation 12
deals with “new departments, off campuses and off shore campuses”
and Regulation 12.11 is as under:-
60
“12.11. The off-Campus Centre/Off-shore Campus shall
be directly administered by the parent institution deemed
to be university in matters of admission, instruction,
evaluation, conferring of degrees, etc. In case of the offshore
Campus, lease in the name of the institution
Deemed to be university may be acceptable (as per the
procedure of the country in which such off-shore campus
is proposed to be established). In case lease is not
permissible in any particular country, land and other
assets in the name of a Strategic Partner shall be
accepted. For this, the institution Deemed to be
university shall have a duly registered MoU/collaboration
with the Strategic Partner which shall be governed in
accordance with the law for the time being in force, in
India.”
Further, Regulation 18 was as under:-
“18.0 DISTANCE EDUCATION
No institution Deemed to be university, so declared by
the Central Government subsequent to these Regulations,
shall be allowed to conduct courses in the Distance
mode. Also, such institutions declared as such, prior to
these Regulations, shall not be allowed to conduct
courses in the Distance mode from any of its off-Campus
Centre /off-shore Campus approved subsequent to these
Regulations.”
xvi) On 23.09.2011, JRN requested DEC for continuation of its
provisional recognition which was granted vide letter dated
08.10.2008. In response, DEC replied,:-
“In this regard, I am to inform that the competent
authority has acceded to your request for continuation of
provisional recognition conveyed by DEC vide letter
No.F.DEC/JRN/RJ/08/14236 dated 08.10.2008 in order
to ensure continuity of the programmes offered by your
61
University through distance mode, till the date of
visit/approval of recommendations of the Visiting Expert
Committee.
Further, it is the responsibility of the University to follow
the norms prescribed by the concerned regulatory bodies
and seek their approval for professional/technical
programmes as per the requirement. Thus getting the
approval of concerned statutory apex body for relevant
progaramme(s) will be the sole responsibility of the
University.”
xvii) On 29.12.2012 an order was issued by MHRD as under:-
“In view of the recommendations of the Madhava Menon
Committee Report and Government’s decision thereon,
the Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi
National Open University (IGNOU) created under
Statute 28 of the IGNOU Act cannot act as a regulator for
other Universities as it creates conflict of interest. The
Distance Education Council and the Board of
Management of IGNOU have already passed resolution
to repeal the Statute 28 and dissolve DEC under IGNOU.
Therefore, the Central Government in exercise of the
powers conferred by sub section 1 of section 20 of the
UGC 1956 and the AICTE Act, 1987 hereby directs:-
(i) The UGC and AICTE as already
empowered under their respective Acts,
would also act as a regulator for Higher
Education (excluding Technical Education)
and Technical Education through open &
Distance Learning (ODL) mode respectively
Universities are empowered under their
respective Act to offer any programme
course including in Technical Education in
the conventional mode. However if they
offer any programme/course in ODL mode
they would require recognition from the
62
UGC, AICTE, NCTE and other such
regulators of the conventional mode of
education in those areas of study…...”
xviii) On 01.05.2013, IGNOU dissolved DEC and regulatory
functions of “Open and Distance Learning Education” were taken
over by UGC, whereafter a notification was issued by UGC on
17.06.2013 that till it formulated Regulations for maintaining
standards in Open and Distance Learning systems/courses, the UGC
would adopt the Guidelines of the DEC on minimum requirements for
recognition of Institutions.
xix) On 27.06.2013 a public notice was issued by UGC stating that
Deemed to be Universities were not allowed to take courses in
distance education mode. The relevant portion of public notice was to
the following effect:-
“A Deemed University shall operate only within its
Headquarters or from those off campuses/off-shore
campuses which are approved by the Government of
India through notification published in the official
gazette.
In case of distance education programmes, no institution
Deemed to be university, so declared by the Govt. of
India after 26th May, 2010 [date of publication of UGC
(Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations,
2010] is allowed to conduct courses in the distance mode.
The institutions Deemed to be universities declared
before 26th May, 2010 are not allowed to conduct courses
63
in distance mode from any of its off-campus centres/offshore
campuses approved after 26th May, 2010.
Approval for new courses and extension of approval of
the courses already run by the Deemed to be Universities
under distance mode would be granted by the UGC
subject to the fulfillment of conditions as laid down by
the UGC.
The UGC has not granted approval to any Deemed to be
university to establish Study Centres.
Any information/clarification with regard to recognition
of Private Universities/Deemed Universities and the
courses offered by them may be obtained from JS (CPPI)
UGC. Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.”
xx) Despite the aforesaid policy statements that no Deemed to be
University was allowed to take technical courses in distance education
mode, JRN again requested UGC to grant approval in terms of the
earlier report of the Committee and when no response was received
from UGC, Civil Writ Petition No.13900 of 2013 was filed by JRN in
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in which
following order was passed by the High Court on 26.11.2013:-
“Issue notice. Notice be also issued on the stay
application. Rule is made returnable on 16.12.2013.
In the meantime, the respondents shall not derecognize
the courses run provisionally under the
“distance education mode.”
xxi) On 26.12.2014 JRN submitted further proposal to Distance
Education Bureau of UGC for starting new courses in distance
64
education mode from academic session 2015-2016. Soon thereafter,
on 28.02.2015 another letter was written by JRN to UGC to grant
continuation of recognition to JRN for the academic session 2015-
2016. According to JRN, a further letter in reminder was sent on
17.06.2015 and when no response was received from UGC, JRN filed
Civil Writ Petition No.8832 of 2015 in the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the following order was passed by the
High Court on 17.11.2015.
“……….At this stage, Mr. Singhvi, Learned Senior
Counsel, has argued that some interim protection be
granted to the petitioner, which is a deemed university
and involved in imparting education through distance
mode since 2001 of the approved programmed of UGC.
Mr. Singhvi further submits that although there was an
interim protection by this Court not to take any coercive
action against the petitioner-University and not to derecognize
the courses run by it, the respondent-UGC has
issued communication (Annex. 36) wherein the petitioner
University has not been mentioned to impart education
through distance mode.
Considering the fact that petitioner-University is
involved in imparting education by distance mode since
2001 and there is interim protection granted to the
University, the respondent-UGC is directed to
provisionally include the name of the petitioner-deemed
University in the list of the Universities, which are
allowed to offer the approved programmed through
distance mode for the Academic Session 2015-16.
It is made clear that this interim arrangement shall
not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner-
65
University and shall remain subject to the final decision
of the writ petition. It is further clarified that UGC shall
be free to carry out the requisite inspection for verifying
the requisite infrastructure available with the petitionerUniversity
for imparting education through distance
mode.
Stay petition is disposed off.”
xxii) On 12.04.2016 JRN submitted further proposal seeking
recognition for programmes offered by it through distance education
mode during the academic session 2016-2017. According to JRN,
there being no response from UGC, JRN filed Writ Petition No.10310
of 2016 in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur to
include name of JRN in the list of recognized Universities in the
academic year 2015-2016 and following order was passed by the
High Court on 15.09.2016:-
“Issue notice to the respondent No.1 only. Issue
notice of stay petition as well and be given ‘dasti’ to
learned counsel for the petitioner for service.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3
seeks some more time to file reply to the writ petition.
Time prayed for is granted.
In the meantime, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
directed to provisionally include name of petitionerDeemed
University in the list of universities, which are
allowed to offer the approved programme for Distance
Education mode for the Academic Sessions 2016-2017.
66
Put up on 20.10.2016 along with S.B. Civil Writ
Petition Nos.5531/2015, 13900/2013, 5194/2014,
7419/2015 and 8832/2015.”
24. In the aforementioned backdrop of facts leading to the ex-post-facto
approvals granted to JRN, IASE, AAI and VMRF and the subsequent facts,
the stand of the authorities as taken in their affidavits may now be adverted
to. We have already quoted paragraph 19 of the affidavit of Mr. Ved
Prakash, Chairman, UGC. Since the stand of the UGC in the present matter
is quite crucial, the relevant portions of the affidavit starting from
paragraphs 7 to 10 and 12 to 18 in relation to the first question posed by this
Court in its Order dated 11.12.2014 are extracted as under:-
“7. Whether the UGC recognizes degrees in technical
education by open and distant education mode. If so, subject to
what conditions, if any.
8. It is humbly submitted that the UGC used to consider the
grant of approval to programmes conducted by institutions
Deemed to be Universities for awarding B.E./B. Tech. degrees
through ODL mode. The conditions for granting such UGC
approval to ODL programmes conducted by institutions
Deemed to be Universities for awarding B.E./B.Tech. degrees
are described below.
9. After the MHRD issued a notification dated 01.03.1995
(no.44, F.No.18-15/93-TD.V/TS.IV.) making it mandatory to
obtain approval for ODL qualifications from the DEC and,
wherever necessary, from the AICTE, for employment with the
Central Government, the UGC required the approval of AICTE
wherever necessary for programmes conducted by institutions
Deemed to be Universities leading to the award of B.E./B.Tech
67
degrees through ODL mode, as an imperative for the validity of
such programmes……………
10. Then, in 2004, the UGC framed “Guidelines for
Establishing New Departments within the Campus, setting up
of Off-campus Centre(s)/Institution(s)/Off-shore Campus and
Starting Distance Education Programmes by the Deemed
Universities” [the “2004 UGC Guidelines”]. These guidelines
were framed in keeping with the UGC’s mandate to maintain
the standard of teaching and research in universities and
stipulated, ……….
12. Thus, even as per the 2004 UGC Guidelines, the institutions
Deemed to be Universities were required to have the approval
of the AICTE, in addition to that of the UGC/DEC, for
programmes leading to the award of B.E./B.Tech. degrees
through ODL mode.
13. ……..Here, it may be briefly noted that the DEC had
granted such ex-post facto approval because, as per the
MHRD’s gazette notification No.44, dated 01.03.1995,
qualifications were required to have mandatory approval of the
DEC and, wherever necessary, AICTE to be valid for Central
Government jobs. However, since the DEC started giving such
approvals in 2004-5 and the proper mechanism could be put in
place only in 2007, most universities/institutions were not
recognized by the DEC though many universities were offering
programmes through correspondence and distance mode even
before the establishment of the DEC (or its policy for giving
recognitions). As a result, many students who had obtained
their qualifications through distance mode started facing
problems because of non-recognition of their qualifications,
including many who were in employment for years. Therefore,
in order to safeguard the interest of these students, the DEC
started the process of ex-post facto approvals and,
consequently, many universities offering programmes through
distance mode (including technical programmes) were accorded
ex-post facto approval. However, the universities concerned
were required to follow the norms of the appropriate regulatory
bodies and seek their approval wherever required.)
68
14. It is pertinent to note that the Joint Committee referred to
in the aforesaid letter dated 12.05.2008 was formed pursuant to
an MoU dated 10.05.2007 between UGC, AICTE and DEC.
The MoU was “aimed to avoid duplication of efforts in
streamlining of activities” between the three bodies who had
“mutually agreed to 1) carry out various functions of UGC &
AICTE mandated under the Acts, as decided by the UGC and
AICTE from time to time jointly with Distance Education
Council to ensure coordinated and integrated development and
maintenance of norms and standards of technical and general
education through distance and mixed mode in any form and
format in the country….” The Joint Committee was “to oversee
the implementation of MoU and to design action plan for
approval and monitoring of institutions offering technical
programmes through distance and mixed mode” and
applications for approval of programmes in distance and mixed
mode in the field of technical and general education were to be
submitted to the Secretary to the Joint Committee. …….
15. Therefore, since the AICTE was a member of the Joint
Committee, the UGC considered approval from the Joint
Committee as tantamount to approval from AICTE as well. As
such, the aforesaid letter dated 12.05.2008 from the UGC
actually nullified an earlier decision to accept the
recommendation to grant ex-post facto approval to JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth and other institutions Deemed to be
universities taken at the third meeting of the Joint Committee of
UGC-AICTE. DEC held on 17.08.2007 as well as a letter dated
13.11.2007 issued by the UGC which stated that, in light of the
DEC’s approval, “no separate approval from UGC is required”
by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth for courses under distance
education mode.
16. It is also pertinent to note that, subsequent to the UGC’s
letter dated 12.05.2008, the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTEDEC;
or UGC independently, did not accord any approval
to these institutions Deemed to be Universities for starting
programmes leading to the award of degrees in technical
education through ODL mode. Therefore, till date, the deemed
69
universities, namely, JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan;
Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu;
IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and
Allahabad Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad, U.P. have
not been accorded the UGC’s approval for their ODL
programmes leading to the award of B.E./B. Tech. degrees.
17. In any event, vide letter dated 29.07.2009, the MHRD had
informed the erstwhile DEC that the latter “should immediately
withdraw permission given to various institutions to conduct
B.Tech/B.E. Programmes through Distance Mode and no
student should be admitted in the current year also. Those who
have already been admitted will have to pass both practical and
written examination as may be prescribed in this regard, so as
to give validity to the B.Tech/B.E. degree acquired by them
through distance education.” Accordingly, the erstwhile DEC
had issued a letter dated 13.08.2009 stating that “the Joint
Committee of UGC-AICTE and DEC has not yet accorded any
approval to BE/B.Tech programme of any University offered
through distance mode. Any such programmes offered by a
University are hence illegal and are not approved by the DEC.
Thus it is notified that the above notification of the MHRD is to
be strictly adhered to and no University should offer any
BE/B.Tech programme through distance mode. Any deviation
from this policy may invite de-recognition of the concerned
University by the DEC.”
18. Thereafter, in 2010, the UGC framed the UGC
(Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations (the “2010
Deemed Universities Regulations”). As per Regulation 18.0
therein.
“No institution Deemed to be university, so
declared by the central Government subsequent to
these Regulations, shall be allowed to conduct
courses in the Distance mode. Also such
institutions declared as such, prior to these
Regulations, shall not be allowed to conduct
courses in the Distance mode from any of its offCampus
Centre/Off-shore Campus approved
subsequent to these Regulations.”
70
25. The AICTE in its affidavit in reply referred to its Regulations and
Guidelines. Adverting to the decision in Bharathidasan (supra), it was
submitted that after said decision,
“…… only the “Technical Institutions” other than University
were required to have prior approval of the AICTE. However,
the universities which applied for approval of the AICTE on
their own, were considered for grant of approval as per norms
and standards of AICTE in force. At this stage, it is necessary
to clarify that the study centers and campuses of universities
which were not the constituent units of the universities, were
required to have prior approval of the Council for conducting
any technical course or programme….”
Further, reference was made to notification dated 05.04.2006 issued
by MHRD, which inter alia dealt with the issues concerning maintenance or
standards of education in institutions notified as Deemed to be universities.
The affidavit further stated that:
“That it is respectfully submitted that it has been the
policy of AICTE not to recognize qualification acquired
through Distance Education mode at Diploma, Bachelors and
Master level in the fields of Engineering, Technology and
Architecture, Town Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management
and Catering Technology, Applied Arts and Crafts and Post
Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM). AICTE has the
policy to consider only MBA and MCA through Distance Mode
for its recognition. In these circumstances, the AICTE has been
issuing public notices from time to time informing the public
and students regarding the above and specifically informing all
the existing students/prospective students pursuing/wanted to
pursue any educational programme in the above mentioned
fields to check the approval by Joint Committee of DEC, UGC
and AICTE on AICTE’s web-portal at www.aicte-india.org.. It
71
is respectfully submitted that AICTE has given various public
notices in different newspapers regarding its aforesaid policy
from time to time as per AICTE Act.
That it is submitted that in view of the position explained
hereinabove, the conduct of a technical course through distance
education mode other than a course in MBA and MCA is not
permissible. Thus, any technical course conducted by the
technical institutions including the institution Deemed to be
university concerned through distance education mode, except a
course in MBA and MCA, is contrary to the policy of the
AICTE. Hence, degrees or diplomas in technical course
through distance education mode other than a course in MBA
and MCA awarded by the technical institutions including the
institution Deemed to be university cannot be treated valid
degree or diploma.
That it is submitted that in the present matter, the Private
Respondent has obtained degree in Engineering from JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, an institution Deemed to be University,
through Distance Education Mode and through study centers
which is not permissible as per the policy of the AICTE. Thus,
such degree in Engineering awarded by JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, an institution Deemed to be university, through
distance mode is not valid.”
26. DEC having been dissolved in May 2013, we do not have its stand on
record but the stand of MHRD in its affidavit is to the following effect:
“VII. I further submit that upto year 2007 Distance Education
Council (DEC) used to give recognition to institution offering
general courses in the distance mode but during that year,
Distance Education Council (DEC) also started giving
recognition to such institutions to conduct technical
programmes under the distance mode. This was in
contradiction to policy adopted by AICTE which makes it
72
mandatory to conduct technical programmes through the
regular (Conventional) mode of education. This created
confusion amongst the stakeholders which gave unfair
advantage to unscrupulous institutions conducting such courses
in the distance mode. Accordingly, a Tripartite Committee of
UGC-AICTE-DEC was constituted through an MOU in May,
2007 for a limited period of three years.
VIII. In the meantime, on 19.02.2008 a meeting of Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, MHRD was held with the
Heads of UGC, AICTE, IGNOU and Joint Secretary (DL) to
discuss the issue of co-ordination and maintenance of standards
in Higher Education through distance. In the said meeting, it
was inter alia decided that the approvals should be granted to
the courses and no to the institute. However, all those aforesaid
arrangements did not live to the expectations.”
27. The stand taken by the Deemed to be Universities in their respective
affidavits and the documents on record is as under:-
A. JRN was founded in the year 1937, was conferred Deemed to
be University status in January 1987 and is principally engaged in
teaching and research in the field of adult and continuing education
for working people. Following averments made in paragraphs 22 and
23 of its affidavit are noteworthy:-
“22. That after permission from DEC the University
started the Distance Education programmes through its
Study Centres as per the guidelines prescribed by the
DEC and UGC. ON 26th October 2002 the Academic
Council of the University took the decision to start the
Engineering Courses (in all branches) amongst others
through Distance Education Mode from academic year
2003 onwards.
73
23. The Faculty of Engineering and Technology of the
University in the year 2003 when the University started
it’s Engineering Courses through distance education
mode. Since the University did not conduct any course
through full time mode the University did not seek any
approval from AICTE and the same was not mandatory
in view of this Judgment of the Hon’ble Court in
Bharathidasan’s case as well as provisions of the AICTE
Act that does not envisage University seeking any
approval from the AICTE to offer technical programs.
Further as communicated it also did not consider
Technical programs under distance education program
mode for approval, which was later held to be contrary to
national policy.”
As regards, its activities in the field of technical education at its
main campus, it is averred:-
“(i) The Institute of Management Studies has been
granted approval by the AICTE for the Masters in
Business Admission program (Full Time) from the
year 1998-99 onwards and granted extension till
current academic session.
(ii) The Department of Computer Science and
Information Technology has been granted approval
by the AICTE for conducting the Master in
Computer Application (Full time) from the
Academic Year 2003-04 onwards granted
extension till current academic session.
(iii) The Faculty of Engineering and Technology has
been granted approval by the AICTE for
conducting the under graduate courses in
Engineering and Technology [Electronics and
Communication Engineering, Civil Engineering,
Computer Science Engineering, Mechanical
74
Engineering and Electrical Engineering] (Full
time) from the Academic Year 2010-11 onwards
and granted extension till current academic
session.
(iv) The Rajasthan Vidyapeeth Technology College
has been granted approval by the AICTE for
conducting the Diploma in Engineering and
Technology (Electronics and Communication
Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Science
& Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and
Electrical Engineering) Master in Computer
Application (Full time) from the Academic Year
2012-13 onwards and granted extension till current
academic session.”
After dealing with factual details leading to the ex-post-facto
approvals by UGC and DEC, JRN submitted that no approval from
AICTE was required for a Deemed to be University. However despite
order dated 26.04.2017 passed by this Court, nothing was placed on
record as to what type of infrastructure is available with JRN and what
was the methodology followed for monitoring standard of education
imparted in its Study Centres. In response to queries from the Court,
it was submitted across the bar that JRN was conducting distance
education programmes through 660 Study Centres out of which four
centres were being maintained and managed by JRN while 656
centres were autonomous institutions. Though Study Centres would
in turn employ demonstrators/lecturers, they were not on the payroll
75
of JRN but course material would be provided by JRN. Further,
though Faculty in Engineering was set up in the year 2003 there was
no regular Engineering College at the main campus of JRN and said
Faculty received AICTE approval to conduct regular four year degree
courses in Engineering only from the year 2010 and at Study Centres
no regular four year degree courses in Engineering were being
conducted but students having diplomas in engineering would be
given lateral entry at second year level.
B. IASE submitted an application on 19.12.2002 with DEC for
starting distance education programme, copy of which was also sent
to UGC. According to IASE, since there was neither any denial nor
any objection from these authorities, it started conducting B.Tech
programmes through distance education mode in 2003. It is stated
that IASE stopped B.Tech courses from the year 2005 through
distance education mode though it continues to conduct diploma
courses in engineering through distance mode. It is further stated that
its regular Engineering College started functioning at main campus
from 2005 after getting recognition from AICTE. Like JRN, IASE
has also not placed on record any material regarding infrastructure and
76
methodology for monitoring standard of education in its Study
Centres.
C. The stand of VMRF is that it conducts only diploma courses
through distance education mode and it does not grant any degree in
professional courses through distance education mode. It however
submitted that it is on par with State Universities and therefore
entitled to conduct distance education programmes across the
Country.
28. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the
ex-post-facto approvals for their degree courses in Engineering were sought
by JRN and IASE only in the year 2005 when they had already begun their
courses two to three years earlier. No inspection of their facilities or
infrastructure available at the site was conducted by any authority and the
only inspection that was done was confined to checking the documents. Any
approval granted without any inspection, satisfaction and recommendation
of the AICTE was meaningless. According to him, even assuming that the
principle laid down by this Court in Bharthidasan (supra) was to apply to
Deemed to be Universities as well, the UGC guidelines themselves required
the application to be in terms of specifications of AICTE and therefore even
if one were to accept that satisfaction of AICTE was not required under the
77
AICTE Act, the UGC guidelines did contemplate the same. In his
submission, the Deemed to be Universities in question admitted students,
conducted courses and granted degrees without any statutory approvals and
in the teeth of numerous public notices. In the face of such blatant misuse,
the grant of ex-post-facto approvals was not called for. In his note the
learned Amicus Curiae submitted:-
“The further issue that arises is as to whether in technical
education and other specialized fields, the non-involvement of
technical / specialized body is permissible or advisable. There
is a difference between open distance learning in general fields
and those in specialized fileds. While in Bharathidasan
(supra), this Court has held that the AICTE has no power of
granting approvals to Universities, it nonetheless recognizes the
significant role played by the AICTE as a recommendatory /
advisory body. This would necessarily mean that before any
approvals are given, AICTE recommendation for grant of such
approval ought to be obtained. An approval granted without an
inspection, satisfaction and recommendation of the AICTE is
itself meaningless. Therefore, while the judgment in
Bharathidasan (supra) has excluded the requirement of
approvals from AICTE, the approval of a university or course
cannot be granted without the recommendation and satisfaction
of all relevant competent bodies. In other words, in the case of
distance learning education for general courses, the approval of
UGC and IGNOU are required and in the case of specialized
technical courses, the satisfaction and recommendation of
AICTE or such other specialized body would be additionally
called for.”
29. UGC in its Written Submissions submitted:-
a) 1985 UGC Regulations did not include education programmes
in technical subjects leading to award of B.E. or B .Tech. degrees.
78
b) In Bharathidasan (supra), this Court was not concerned with
the question of regulatory framework of Open Distance Learning.
c) 2004 UGC Guidelines required submission of information
whether the existing and proposed course curriculum was as per
UGC/AICTE/DEC specifications and approval/accredited by
concerned statutory council. Thus there was a specific role of AICTE
in respect of technical courses through distance learning.
d) Taking advantage of Notification of MHRD dated 01.03.1995,
the DEC started giving approvals without any proper mechanism in
place and since its approvals were not getting recognized, it mooted
the idea of ex-post-facto approval. But stand of UGC was clear in
letter dated 12.05.2008 that approvals granted by DEC (including expost-facto)
must be reviewed and approval be granted to the courses
and not to the institute.
e) After 12.05.2008, neither the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTEDEC
nor UGC independently accorded any approval to JRN, IASE,
VMRF and AAI for their distance learning programmes leading to the
award of B.E./B. Tech. degrees.
f) In any case, letter dated 29.07.2009 of MHRD was clear that
DEC should withdraw permissions granted for conducting
79
B.Tech/B.E. programmes through distance learning. This was
followed by UGC letter dated 13.08.2009.
The specific submission was:-
“It is humbly submitted that so far as UGC is
concerned, B.E./B.Tech. degrees awarded by institutions
Deemed to be Universities through ODL mode without
AICTE approval will not be treated as valid
qualifications by the UGC.
The UGC has never given any ex-post-facto
approval to the aforesaid institutions which are “deemed
universities” including JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth,
although the erstwhile DEC has given such approval to
many universities/deemed universities including JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth.
The ex-post-facto approval relied upon by the
petitioner JRN Rajasthan were not unconditional but
were subject to approval of relevant statutory bodies or
councils [which can only mean bodies like AICTE and
such other similar regulatory bodies] wherever
necessary.”
30. In its written submissions, JRN submitted:
1) 1985 UGC Regulations applied and covered degrees in
Engineering as well, since Engineering is an applied branch of
science.
2) JRN was granted permission by DEC to commence distance
education programmes on 26.09.2001 pursuant to its application dated
17.08.2001 and in its Hand-book issued in May, 2003 by DEC, JRN
was included in the list along with details of courses offered by it.
80
3) It applied for ex-post-facto approval pursuant to DEC
advertisement dated 03.03.2004, providing details of the Faculty of
Engineering and other details as per proforma.
4) From 31.08.2005 to 2007 no fresh admissions were made in
distance education.
5) UGC granted ex-post-facto approval of 03.07.2006 for students
admitted between June 2001 to August, 2005 which decision was
later ratified by the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC and expost-facto
approval was accorded on 29.08.2007.
6) In respect of academic session after 2007, provisional
recognition was granted by DEC on 08.10.2008.
7) JRN did not take any admissions in Engineering Courses from
31.08.2009 till 11.10.2011 in view of letter dated 26.08.2009 issued
by DEC.
8) It also referred to interim orders passed by High Court of
Judicature at Rajasthan which are referred to hereinabove in respect of
subsequent academic years.
9) JRN was declared to be a Deemed to be University for its
experience and expertise in the field of admission and continuing
81
education, and its expertise in a System of methodology of
education/learning and not in a particular subject or discipline.
10) It commenced its courses in Engineering through distance
education mode in the year 2003 for people who were already
employed in technical fields and had previous technical qualifications
but could not apply further due to various restraints.
11) It established Faculty of Engineering although there is no
perquisite for a university to have a full time faculty in a particular
subject to start its course through distance education mode and there
were no circulars/notices issued by any statutory body prohibiting a
University to offer distance education courses in Engineering stream.
12) A Deemed to be University is not confined to a state or region
like university created by state legislatures and it can open OffCentres/Campus
Centres in any part of India with the approval of
UGC. Similarly, Study Centres for distance education can be
established and maintained or recognized in any part of India for the
assistance of students enrolled in distance learning programmes.
13) It gave a list of 18 Deemed to be Universities having Off
Campus Centres in various parts of the country including three such
82
Deemed to be Universities having Off Shore Campus outside the
country.
14) It then referred to judgment of this Court in Bharathidasan
(supra) in support of the submission that Universities do not require
any approval from AICTE for conducting technical courses. It also
relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court in Satyabama
Institute of Science & Technology v. Union of India7 which held
that Universities including Deemed to be Universities could start a
department or commence new courses or programmes in technical
education without approval of AICTE. Reliance was also placed on
the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sam Higginbottom Institute of
Agriculture, Technology and Sciences v. University Grants
Commission8
to the effect that there was no restriction on a Deemed
to be University to start new course or department until UGC
Regulations of 2010 were issued. Further reliance was placed on
Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council
for Technical Education & Ors.9
to the effect that universities, its
7
2006 (3) MRJ 870
8 W.P. (C) 486/2015 decided on 4.12.2015
9
(2013) 8 SCC 271
83
colleges and institutes were exempted from seeking prior approval of
AICTE.
31. Appearing for JRN, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate
submitted that in terms of the decisions of this Court in Bharathidasan
(supra) and Association of Management of Private Colleges (supra) no
operational control could be exercised by AICTE over Universities including
Deemed to be Universities. However some sort of cooperation was certainly
envisaged in Bharathidasan (supra) which was purely in the nature of
advisory role for AICTE. He further submitted that power of a Deemed to
be University to start new courses was unlimited and a Deemed to be
University would be bound by regulatory mechanism only in two ways:-
a. Its recognition as a Deemed to be University could be
withdrawn if it was found to be not functioning within the limits, and
b. Regular inspections in terms of statute could be undertaken by
UGC though as a matter of fact these inspections never take place.
According to him though there was no express empowerment under
any statute enabling a Deemed to be University to initiate various courses
and disciplines outside its area of excellence, there was no negative mandate
either and as an extension of this principle a Deemed to be University could
enter the field of distance education in any subject or discipline. Mr. M.L.
84
Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for IASE made his submissions
on similar lines.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. Jayant Bhushan and Mr.
Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior Advocates and other learned Advocates led
by Mr. Ashok Mahajan, learned Advocate, appearing for various candidates
adopted the submissions of Dr. Dhavan and Mr. Verma. In their
submissions, the concerned candidate-in-service diploma holders took
admission to degree courses in Engineering and have successfully completed
such courses and advanced in life. They submitted that in any view of the
matter the degrees obtained by these candidates may not be nullified.
32. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
OLIC reiterated the stand of OLIC that the degrees in Engineering obtained
by concerned in-service diploma holders through distance education were
invalid and as such no benefit ought to accrue to such candidates. Similar
submission was advanced by Mr. V. K. Bali, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for State of Punjab in matters arising from the decision of High
Court of Punjab and Haryana.
33. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
for UGC submitted that inclusive definition of “University” in UGC Act was
85
in a completely different and limited context and the idea was essentially to
recognize Deemed to be University for the purposes of funding and that such
Deemed to be University is not a University for all purposes. In his
submission, if such Deemed to be University is desirous of starting any
technical course it ought to obtain express approval from AICTE. He also
placed reliance on Section 23 to submit that a University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act alone
is entitled to have the word “University” associated with its name which
again signified the distinction between a University established or
incorporated under a legislation as against a Deemed to be University.
34. Thus, we are principally concerned in the present matters with
questions regarding validity of degrees in Engineering awarded by the
concerned Deemed to be Universities in two periods. a) Where students
were admitted during 2001 to 2005 in respect of which ex-post-facto
approval was granted; and b) In respect of students admitted by JRN during
2007-08, 2008-09 and from 2011-12 onwards.
The crucial facts as they emerge from the narration in the preceding
paragraphs are:-
a) The concerned Deemed to be Universities namely AAI, JRN and
IASE started distance education programmes leading to degrees in
86
Engineering, outside their field of specialization. Such
programmes were started without taking any approval from UGC
and/or AICTE and when there was no approved engineering
college or faculty at their main campus.
b) Further, such programmes were being conducted in Study Centres,
majority of which were not maintained and managed by the
concerned Deemed to be Universities. The demonstrators/lecturers
employed at such Study Centres were not on the payroll of and
were not selected by such Deemed to be Universities.
c) Those Study Centres were not inspected at any stage, nor any
facilities therein were assessed to see if they meet the standards
prescribed for imparting courses in Engineering. Similarly, no
authority had checked what kind of courses were being conducted
nor was there any inspection at the time the examinations were
said to have been conducted.
d) The Visiting Committee of DEC had visited the main campus of
the concerned Deemed to be Universities and seen the record but
not visited any Study Centres. No member or representative of
AICTE was part of such Visiting Committee, the report of which
87
was simply endorsed by the Joint Committee of UGC-DECAICTE.
e) Under 1985 UGC Regulations, minimum of 180 actual teaching
days in an academic year with 40 clock hours every week are
required for courses leading to degrees of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.
Assuming that these Regulations apply to courses in Engineering,
this requirement would be more pronounced and crucial when
courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering are in issue.
Such technological programmes by very nature require extensive
practical training.
f) The application preferred by JRN for ex-post-facto approval shows
that its Study Centres for programmes leading to degrees in
Engineering were located in institutions which themselves were
running independent courses. If 180 actual teaching days with 40
clock hours per week is the requirement which must be satisfied by
those institutions for running their own courses, no scope is left for
any outside institution such as JRN for using such facilities for
imparting any courses in technical education. If the facilities
were sufficient to justify the independent strength of those
88
institutions, the additional burden caused by students of JRN
could not possibly be accommodated.
g) The inspection to ensure maintenance of standards was
specifically contemplated under the Notification of MHRD issued
on 05.04.2006. Para 10 of the Memorandum of Undertaking dated
10.05.2007 also spoke of inspection for the purposes of
continuation/withdrawal of approval. In the teeth of these Policy
statements, the Joint Committee of AICTE-DEC-UGC endorsed its
acceptance on 07.08.2007 without there being inspections at all.
h) Aforesaid aspects regarding complete absence of any inspection
become crucial particularly when communications of DEC and
UGC issued from time to time highlighted complaints regarding
those Deemed to be Universities.
i) As far as second period is concerned, again no inspections, at any
stage, were carried out. The provisional approval dated
03.09.2007 by DEC was completely mechanical and the assertion
therein that DEC would not insist on territorial jurisdiction, was
against the mandate of MHRD in its letter dated 29.07.2009 and of
the decision in the ninth meeting of the Joint Committee of UGC-
89
DEC-AICTE. The consequent approval dated 13.11.2007 by UGC
is equally mechanical and suffers from same infirmity.
j) Though decision was taken in the meeting held on 19.02.2008 to
review cases of ex-post-facto approvals within a month, nothing
was done. In fact, the first communication thereafter was three
months after on 12.05.2008. It spoke nothing about review of expost-facto
approval already granted. At this juncture, the logical
exercise ought to have been to consider and assess the claim
course-wise, cause inspections and see whether ex-post-facto
approvals were rightly granted or not. However, that was not to
be.
k) On the other hand, UGC in its meeting of 21.05.2008 went on to
ratify the decision of the Chairman to accord approval. At the
same time, in response to application dated 08.05.2008 by JRN,
DEC went on to grant provisional recognition for the year 2008-
09.
l) In spite of clear instructions by MHRD in its letter dated
29.07.2009 to withdraw permissions already given to conduct
B.Tech/B.E. programmes through distance education and not to
admit students for current year, no steps were undertaken to
90
implement those directions and withdraw permissions already
given.
m) Even after dissolution of DEC and Public Notice dated 27.06.2013
issued by UGC that no Deemed to be University would be allowed
to take courses through distance education, when JRN again
applied to UGC for grant of approval, no reply was given by
UGC; on which score JRN was able to get an interim order dated
26.11.2013 from the High Court. As a matter of fact in the face of
Regulation 18 of 2010 UGC Regulations, such a request or
application could never have been considered.
n) Similar is the case with regard to interim orders dated 17.12.2015
and 15.09.2016. Thus JRN could continue admitting standards
despite aforementioned Policy statements, on the strength of
interim orders.
o) During this period, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide its
decision dated 06.11.2012 had already held the degrees in
Engineering awarded by Deemed to be Universities through
distance education mode to be invalid. That decision was appealed
against by students and IASE but not by JRN. In any case, the
91
Interim Order of this Court only protected concerned students
whose degrees stood invalidated.
p) If interim orders dated 26.11.2013, 17.11.2015 and 15.09.2016 by
one High Court could become a justification for continuing to
conduct courses leading to degrees in Engineering through distance
education mode across the country, the final declaration issued by
another High Court on 06.11.2012 and the policy statements
referred to earlier, had greater binding force.
q) On one hand it was being proclaimed by the concerned authorities
in their public notices like 27.06.2008 and 27.06.2013 or policy
statements such as 2010 UGC Guidelines that no Deemed to be
University will be allowed to conduct courses in distance
education mode, and on the other hand DEC kept granting
provisional approval and UGC helped the concerned Deemed to be
University by its total inaction.
35. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the learned Amicus Curiae is right
in his submission that the ex-post facto approvals granted in the present
matters were completely opposed to the policy statements governing the
matters in issue. He is right that the concerned Deemed to be Universities
admitted students, conducted courses and granted degrees in the absence of
92
statutory approvals. It is, however, the submission of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
learned Senior Advocate that a Deemed to be University is entitled to start
new courses in technical education (including through distance education
mode) in terms of law laid down by this Court in Bharathidasan (supra) and
that there was no bar or prohibition in any statute or statutory instrument
when the Deemed to be Universities started the instant courses in distance
education mode. According to him, the inspections could of course be
undertaken by UGC in terms of the Statute and if no inspections, as a matter
of fact were conducted, the Deemed to be Universities could not be at fault.
The following questions, therefore, arise for our consideration.
A. Whether the concerned Deemed to be Universities in the
present case, could start courses through distance education in
subjects leading to award of degrees in Engineering –
a) Without any parameters or Guidelines having been laid
down by AICTE for conduct of such courses in technical
education through distance education mode.
b) Without prior approval under the AICTE Act.
[
B. Whether DEC, on its own, was competent to grant permission
to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to start such courses
through distance education.
93
36. The definition of “Technical Education” in Section 2(g) of the AICTE
Act shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of education, research
and training in Engineering Technology in general and the idea is not limited
to the institutions where such programmes of education, research and
training are to be conducted or imparted. However, the definition of
“Technical Institution” in Section 2(h) leaves out an institution which is a
University. The distinction between the broader concept of “Technical
Education” and the limited scope of “Technical Institution” is clear from
Section 10 of the AICTE Act where certain functions concern the broader
facets or aspects of technical education which by very nature must apply to
every single institution (whether university or not) where such courses are
conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functions are relatable to
technical institutions alone, which by definition are not applicable to
universities. For example, Functions in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (l)
and (n) are concerned with broader facets of technical education, while
functions in Clauses (k), (m), (p) and (q) deal with matters concerning
technical institutions and thus may not apply to universities, whereas there
are certain functions as set out in Clauses (g) and (o) which apply to
both “Technical Institutions” and “Universities” imparting technical
education. Clauses (c), (d) and (f) of Section 10 deal with subjects, inter
94
alia, coordination of the technical education in the country at all levels;
promoting innovation, research, development, establishment of new
technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to
meet the developmental requirements; and promoting and effecting link
between technical education and systems and other relevant systems.
AICTE is thus the sole repository of power to lay down parameters or
qualitative norms for “technical education”. What should be course content,
what subjects be taught and what should be the length and duration of the
courses as well as the manner in which those courses be conducted is a part
of the larger concept of “technical education”. Any idea or innovation 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 AICTE.
37. In Bharathidasan (supra) the issue was whether a University
established under a State Law, within its area of operation, was entitled to
start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself
without any approval of AICTE. The requirement of grant of approval under
Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act being specific in respect of technical
institutions alone, the conclusion was arrived at that the AICTE could not
insist upon such grant of approval when a University wished to start courses
in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself. The discussion
95
in Bharathidasan shows that this Court accepted the role of AICTE in
laying down norms and standards in technical education system which is
evident from following portions from paragraph Nos.10 and 16.
“10………………A careful scanning-through of the provisions
of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in
juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the
universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding
factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining
appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an
authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by
itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate
action………………….
16…………We also place on record the statement of the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, which, in our view,
even otherwise is the correct position of law, that the challenge
of the appellant with reference to the Regulation in question and
claim of AICTE that the appellant University should seek and
obtain prior approval of AICTE to start a department or
commence a new course or programme in technical education
does not mean that they have no obligation or duty to conform
to the standards and norms laid down by AICTE for the purpose
of ensuring coordinated and integrated development of
technical education and maintenance of standards………….”
38. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in Engineering
consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as practicals. The
practicals form the backbone of such education which is hands-on approach
involving actual application of principles taught in theory under the watchful
eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge
in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes. The practicals, thus,
96
constitute an integral part of the technical education system. If this
established concept of imparting technical education as a qualitative norm is
to be modified or altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance
education learning, then as a concept the AICTE ought to have accepted it in
clear terms. What parameters ought to be satisfied if the regular course of
imparting technical education is in any way to be modified or altered, is for
AICTE alone to decide. The decision must be specific and unequivocal and
cannot be inferred merely because of absence of any Guidelines in the
matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand,
it has always maintained that courses leading to degrees in Engineering
cannot be undertaken through distance education mode. Whether that
approach is correct or not is not the point in issue. For the present purposes,
if according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught in distance
education mode, that is the final word and is binding – unless rectified in a
manner known to law. Even National Policy on Education while
emphasizing the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes through
distance education learning in technical and managerial education, laid down
in Para 6.19 that AICTE will be responsible for planning, formulation and
maintenance of norms and standards including maintenance of parity of
certification and ensuring coordinated and integrated development of
97
technical and management education. In our view whether subjects leading
to degrees in Engineering, could be taught in distance education mode or not
is within the exclusive domain of the AICTE. The answer to the first limb of
the first question posed by us is therefore clear that without the Guidelines
having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree
courses in Engineering through distance education mode, the Deemed to be
Universities were not justified in introducing such courses.
39. We now move to the second limb of the first question. Under 1994
AICTE, Regulations, “no courses or programmes shall be introduced by
any Technical Institution, University including a Deemed University or
University Department on College except with the approval of the Council”.
Bharathidasan (supra) declared said Regulation to the extent it required a
University to have approval for introducing any courses or programmes in
technical education, to be bad. Same thought was amplified in Association
of Management of Private Colleges (supra) to say that affiliated colleges of
the University were entitled to the same protection. The question is, whether
a Deemed to be University is also entitled to the same protection. The
matter can be considered under two categories:-
a. The first category could be of a Deemed to be University,
which was conferred such status for its excellence in a field of
98
technological subject, is now desirous of introducing courses or
programmes integrally connected with the area- in respect of which it
was conferred Deemed to be University status. For example, an
Engineering College which because of its excellence in the field was
conferred Deemed University status, now wishes to introduce courses
in subjects like Robotics or Nano Technology which are Engineering
subjects and integrally connected with its own field of excellence.
b. The second category could be of a Deemed to be University
which was conferred such status for its excellence in subjects which
are completely un-related to the field in which new courses are sought
to be introduced. For example an Institution engaged in teaching Fine
Arts and Music, for its excellence in that chosen field- or for that
matter an institution engaged in teaching Law had been conferred
such status. Can such a Deemed to be University claim immunity
from regulatory control of AICTE and say that it is entitled, as a
matter of right, to introduce courses in Engineering on the strength of
the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan.
We are concerned in the present cases with the second category of
Deemed to be Universities. In the present cases, none of the Deemed to be
Universities was conferred such status for its excellence in the field of
99
Engineering. Their fields were completely un-related. As a matter of fact,
JRN and IASE did not even have regular college or faculty for Engineering
at its main campus. And yet, they started courses in Engineering through
distance education mode without the approval of AICTE, relying on the
dictum in Bharathidasan. According to Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior
Advocate, they were entitled as a matter of right to start such courses.
40. The affidavit of Dr. Ved Prakash as referred to hereinabove as well as
the stand of UGC and the submissions made by Mr. Maninder Singh,
learned Additional Solicitor General make it clear that such Deemed
Universities in the second category mentioned above are not entitled, as a
matter of right, to introduce courses leading to degrees in Engineering
without the approval of AICTE. According to the submission of the learned
Additional Solicitor General, the conferral of status is only because of
excellence in a particular field or subject which then entitles the Deemed to
be University to utilise its excellence to conduct research and achieve
advancement in that field. However merely because such status was
conferred on the concerned institution, in his submission, would not entitle it
to similar protection in the second category cases, as available to a
University by virtue of the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan (supra).
100
41. Paras 1 and 2 of Bharathidasan (supra) show that the University
constituted under the State law had its area of operation over three Districts
of Tamil Nadu and by virtue of such State law could provide among other
things, instructions and training in such branches of learning as it may
determine. The express grant or empowerment thus came from the State
enactment to enter into any field of learning as it may determine and
introduce new courses in that behalf. However the University would be
bound by territorial restrictions, in that it could not go beyond the territory of
three Districts over which it was given Jurisdiction. But if we accept the
submission of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate, there would be
no such territorial restrictions on a Deemed University and it could open
new departments, introduce new courses in any field anywhere in the
Country. By way of illustration, we can consider the case of a private
institution affiliated to a University such as Bharathidasan University, which
after some length of time is conferred Deemed to be University status for
excellence achieved by such private institution, say in the field of adult
education. If we accept the submission of Dr. Dhavan, upon such conferral
of Status as Deemed to be University, this originally affiliated private
institution can now introduce any courses in technical education anywhere in
101
the Country but the original University would be bound by territorial
restriction.
42. The grant or empowerment in Bharathidasan (supra) in favour of the
University in question came from the State enactment which was its Charter.
There is no such Charter or grant in favour of a Deemed to be University
under any provision of the UGC Act. All that the UGC Act does is to confer
Deemed to be University status on an Institution which has achieved
excellence in its chosen field so that its development in the concerned field
and its attempts to attain excellence and conduct research are not hampered
on any count and at the same time it could be extended the facilities of Aid.
It is precisely for this that the distinction between a regular University
established under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and an
Institution Deemed to be University is maintained in the UGC Act. A
Deemed to be University can certainly award degrees but cannot use the
word “University” by virtue of Section 23 of the UGC Act. Even after
conferral of such status it still continues to be “an Institution Deemed to be
University” and if it is equated with a University in every sense of the term it
would lead to incoherent and incongruous results, in that its area of
operation or the field of its activity would be completely unlimited and
unregulated. In our view that is certainly not the intent of the UGC Act.
102
43. Conceptually there is some difference between the status of a
University established under a State law and that of a Deemed to be
University. Normally, a University is established with an idea that particular
areas or districts of the State need to be catered to. Such University is
expected to satisfy the needs or aspirations of people in the area for
education and correspondingly empowered to initiate new courses, keeping
in tune with the needs of time. The expectations from a Deemed to be
University are of a different dimension. What is expected is excellence,
research and advancement in its chosen field for which such status was
accorded. There is no embargo on such Deemed to be University in entering
new areas of education or introducing new courses but in that case, it can’t
demand or receive complete relaxation from regulatory regime. It must
satisfy all those requirements which a normal institution is required to. The
stand taken by the UGC in the affidavit of Dr. Ved Prakash, as well as its
submissions in our view, are correct and we reject the submission of
Dr. Dhavan. The logical conclusion is that a Deemed to be University in the
second category mentioned hereinabove is still an institution of the stature of
a “technical institution” and if it desires to introduce new courses it must
fulfill the requirements of 1994 AICTE Regulations. A Deemed to be
University which has achieved excellence in a particular field may be
103
given deferential treatment but nonetheless it has to satisfy the requirements
for new technical institution. Pertinently, both JRN and IASE, while
establishing their faculty or colleges in engineering at their main Campus
sought approvals from AICTE. Further, even for introducing courses in
management which come under the definition of technical education under
the AICTE Act, appropriate permissions were sought from AICTE. We
therefore conclude that the Deemed to be Universities in the present case
were required to abide by the provisions of 1994 AICTE Regulations and
could not introduce courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering
without the approval of AICTE. 1994 AICTE Regulations or any
subsequent Regulations will have to be understood in the light of our
decision.
44. Para 3 of the notification dated 22.11.1991 which constituted DEC
shows that there was no representation for any Member or representative of
AICTE. The provisions of IGNOU Act show that the Study Centres as
defined in the IGNOU Act are that of IGNOU and not of any other
University or Institution. The concept of distance education under subclause
(v) of Section 5 is also in relation to the academic programmes of
IGNOU. It undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii) and (xxiii) to
cooperate with other Universities but the IGNOU Act nowhere entitles
104
IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of the entire field of distance
education of learning across the Country and in relation to programmes of
other Universities or Institutions as well. The Order dated 29.12.2012 issued
by MHRD therefore correctly appreciated that DEC created under statute 28
of IGNOU Act could not act as a regulator for other Universities. In any
event of the matter, the policy Guidelines issued from time to time made it
abundantly clear that DEC alone was not entitled to grant permission for
open distance learning and appropriate permissions from the requisite
authorities were always required and insisted upon. Despite such policy
statements, DEC went on granting permissions without even consulting
AICTE. Such exercise on part of DEC was completely without jurisdiction.
45. It was laid down by this Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary
to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Others10 that
no relaxation could be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for
conferment for a degree and if a mandatory provision is not complied with
by an administrative authority, the action would be void. This leads us to
conclude that the permissions granted by DEC in the first instance allowing
the Deemed to be Universities in question to introduce courses leading to the
award of degrees in engineering were illegal and opposed to Law. The
10 (2009) 4 SCC 590
105
illegality in the exercise of power was to such an extent that it could not be
cured by ex post facto approvals granted later. We have also seen that the
exercise of grant of ex post facto approvals, as a matter of fact, was only
superficial and perfunctory. Such exercise was done in the face of declared
policy statements governing the field and even when specific complaints
were received about concerned Deemed to be Universities. Yet, without
causing any inspection such power was exercised which part is already dealt
with and the exercise of power has been found by us to be suffering from
illegality and infirmity. The only thing in favour of the concerned Deemed
to be Universities is the fact that the Joint Committee of UGC – AICTE –
DEC had endorsed the decision though such exercise was also completely
flawed. That exercise was against Para 10 of the MoU dated 10.05.2007,
which contemplated causing of inspections and the decision dated
11.05.2007 of the Joint Committee itself that for an Institution/University to
offer distance education programmes it was mandatory to offer the same in
face to face mode.
46. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-facto approval to
be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would
have been not only to set aside such ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass
consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance
106
thereof in respect of Courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering.
However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the
concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval,
the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest
of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-
2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the concerned
Deemed to be Universities flagrantly violated and entered into areas where
they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance
education system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned
students persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering
granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto approval. However, the fact
remains that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were
never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this
length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and
assurance about the worthiness of the concerned students. We, therefore,
deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned students to have
their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore,
direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were
enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till
they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in
107
the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the
basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.
47. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of
this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in written
examination as well as in practicals for the concerned students admitted
during the academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the concerned subjects.
It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such
modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be
conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in respective States
wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to the students
to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during MayJune,
2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two
chances be given to the concerned students and if they do not pass the
test/tests their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular
student does not wish to appear in the test/tests, the entire money deposited
by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that
student by the concerned Deemed to be University within a month of the
exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15th of January, 2018
to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests
in respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be recovered from
108
the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. If they clear the
test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be
restored to the concerned candidates. We make it clear at the cost of
repetition that if the concerned candidates do not clear the test/tests within
the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test/tests, their degrees in
Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and cancelled.
It goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the
basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however any monetary
benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.
48. As regards the students who were admitted after the ex-post-facto
approval granted in favour of such Deemed to be Universities, in our view,
there was no sanction whatsoever for their admission. The Policy
Statements as well as warnings issued from time to time were absolutely
clear. The students were admitted on the strength either provisional
recognition or on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Court.
We therefore, declare that in respect of students admitted after the academic
sessions of 2001-2005, the degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned
Deemed to be Universities through Distance Education Mode shall stand
recalled and be treated as cancelled. Any benefit which a candidate has
secured as a result of such degrees in Engineering in the nature of promotion
109
or advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any
monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary benefit or
advantage will not be recovered by the concerned departments or employers.
We, further direct that the entire amount paid by such students to the
concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fee and all other
expenditure for such courses through distance education learning shall be
returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities to the respective
students. This direction shall be complied with by the concerned Deemed to
be Universities scrupulously and the amounts shall be returned by 31st of
May, 2018 and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with
UGC within a week thereafter.
49. The factual narration mentioned hereinabove makes certain things
distinctly clear. The affidavit of Mr. Ved Prakash discloses how permissions
were granted to introduce courses in the present cases without any authority.
On one hand, the authorities were proclaiming their policy statements and on
the other, despite there being complaints, they went about granting
permissions. Their conduct and approach is difficult to explain on any
rational basis and leaves much to be desired. We are, prima facie of the
view that the conduct of the concerned officials needs to be looked into and
investigated whether the exercise of power by them was completely genuine
110
or colourable. We do not express any final opinion in that behalf but direct
the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the matter and to take
appropriate steps after culmination thereof.
50. The record further shows that time and again warnings were issued to
the concerned Deemed to be Universities. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned
Senior Advocate is right in his submission that if a Deemed to be University
is not to be found functioning within the limits, its recognition as Deemed to
be University could be withdrawn. In our view, the concerned Deemed to
be Universities had gone far beyond their limits and to say the least, had
violated binding policy statements. Even when they did not have any
experience in the concerned field and had no regular faculty or college in
Engineering, they kept admitting students through distance education mode.
When there was nothing at the core, the expansion was carried at the tertiary
levels in brazen violation. The idea was not to achieve excellence in the
field but the attempts appear to be guided by pure commercial angle. We
therefore, direct the UGC to consider whether the Deemed to be University
status enjoyed by the concerned institutions, namely, JRN, AAI, IASE and
VMRF calls for any such withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf.
If the concerned Deemed to be Universities fail to return the moneys to the
111
concerned students as directed above, that factor shall also be taken into
account while conducting such exercise.
51. We must also put on record what we have observed during the course
of the hearing and consideration of the present matters. It has come to our
notice that many institutions which are conferred the status of Deemed to be
Universities are using the word “University”, which in our view is opposed
to the spirit of Section 23 of the UGC Act. The UGC shall take appropriate
steps to stop such practice.
52. The present case shows the extent of commercialization of education
by some of the Deemed Universities. The commercialization of education
seriously affects creditability of standards in education, eroding power
and essence of knowledge and seriously affecting excellence and merit. The
present case further displays lack of effective oversight and regulatory
mechanism for the Deemed to be Universities. The UGC had completely
failed to remedy the situation. Serious question has therefore arisen as to the
manning of the UGC itself for its effective working. We have already
found that facilities at Study Centres were never checked nor any
inspections were carried out which has led us to direct suspension of
degrees for the students enrolled during academic sessions 2001-2005 and
112
annulment of degrees of students admitted after academic sessions of 2001-
2005. We have also found that there was complete and flagrant violation of
norms and policies laid down by the authorities by the Deemed to be
Universities. AICTE had been illegally kept out.
Thus, interest of justice requires that the following issues also need to be
addressed:
(i) Action for failure of system, inter alia, on account of
misconduct of some of the functionaries who failed to uphold
the law and granted approvals contrary to the policy and the
rules;
(ii) Manning of the UGC;
(iii) Appropriate oversight and regulatory mechanism especially for
distance education degrees especially those relating to technical
education by the Deemed to be Universities in future;
(iv) Review of the Deemed to be Universities status granted to the
Deemed to be Universities in the past in the light of this
Judgment and in the light of their working; and
The above issues need immediate steps to be taken by the Union of
India. Review of oversight and regulatory mechanism is of utmost priority
for the future of technical and professional education at the hands of
113
Deemed Universities. In this regard, we may note the observations of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research
Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others11 highlighting
need for review of regulatory mechanism for medical admissions and
profession. We also note the observations in Mahipal Singh Rana,
Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh12 with regard to legal profession.
53. Accordingly we direct:
I 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be
Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter
were not justified in introducing any new courses in Technical
Education without the approval of AICTE.
II Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions
2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by
UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside.
III Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in
Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand
suspended.
11
(2016) 7 SCC 353 – Paras 86 to 92, 108 to 111
12
(2016) 6 SCC 335
114
IV The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an
appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option be
given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by
15.01.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance
with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not more than
two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the
test/tests within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled
and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and
47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be
recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by
31.03.2018.
V Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be
refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and
other charges within one month of the exercise of such option.
Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all
advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 47.
VI If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all
the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees
will stand revived fully.
115
VII As regards students who were admitted after the Academic
Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the
concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education
mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured
by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 48
above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the
concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees and other
expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be
Universities by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48.
VIII By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities
shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate
affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week
thereafter.
IX We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the
conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and
went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as
indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who
abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally.
116
Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such
investigation.
X The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be
University status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for
any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as
indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above are not refunded to
the concerned students that factor shall be taken into account while
conducting such exercise.
XI We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any
courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018-
2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such
courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are
granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of
each of those courses and unless the off-campus Centres/Study
Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the
concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course
specific.
XII The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and
implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be
117
Universities from using the word ‘University’ within one month from
today.
XIII The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee
comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the
field of education, investigation, administration or law at national
level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues
indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting
up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of
higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee
may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be
Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and
take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month
thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or
before August 31, 2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration
of this aspect on 11.09.2018.
54. Before we part, we express our sincere appreciation for the efforts put
in by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae. We are extremely
grateful for the assistance rendered by him. We are also thankful for the
assistance given by all the learned counsel.
118
55. We thus accept the view taken by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh and set aside the decision of the High Court of
Orissa. With the aforementioned observations, appeals are disposed of. No
order as to costs. No orders are called for in Contempt Petition Nos.194-
197/2016 which stands disposed of.
………………………J.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
…………………..……J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi,
November 3, 2017
