Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 1 of 35  

REPORTABLE      

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION    

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1510 OF 2018    

 VINIT GARG AND OTHERS …..          PETITIONERS(S)         VERSUS   

  UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION  AND OTHERS  

 …..        RESPONDENT(S)  

J U D G M E N T    SANJIV KHANNA, J.  

  The petitioners, 92 in number, in this writ petition under  

Article 32 of the Constitution of India have prayed for directing the  

University Grants Commission, (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC’)  

to issue a clarification that the degrees of Bachelor of Technology   

(hereinafter referred to as ‘B.Tech.’) acquired by them through  

open and distance learning mode from the Thapar Institute of  

Engineering and Technology, Patiala, (hereinafter referred to as  

‘TIET, Patiala’) are valid, recognised and should be treated at par

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 2 of 35  

with degrees granted to regular students who have undertaken  

such courses in TIET, Patiala and other recognised universities.  

   2. UGC is refusing to treat the technical degrees issued by TIET,  

Patiala under distance learning mode as valid, primarily for the  

reason that the B.Tech. courses conducted by TIET, Patiala were  

without their approval and approval of the All India Council for  

Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’).  

 3. The petitioners who are diploma holders in Civil/ Computer  

Science/ Electrical/ Mechanical Engineering and working in the  

Government of Punjab have stated that they were selected for the  

B.Tech. degree course through the distance mode programme on  

the basis of competitive examination conducted by TIET, Patiala,  

which is deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the  

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to  

as ‘UGC Act’). The petitioners highlight that TIET, Patiala, rated as  

one of the premier engineering universities/colleges by the  

Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India,  

was set up in 1956 for promoting the study of technical education  

and has a 250 acre campus located in Patiala with teaching  

faculty strength of 391, including 301 Ph.D. holders, and

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 3 of 35  

undertakes 11 undergraduate courses and 23 postgraduate  

courses.  The total strength of students is more than 8000 with  

nearly 700 research students doing Ph.D. The National  

Assessment and Accreditation Council, an autonomous body  

established by the Ministry of Human Resource Development,  

Government of India, has accredited the said institution/deemed to  

be university Grade ‘A’ status besides placing the institution in  

Tier-I accreditation. Distance Education Council (hereinafter  

referred to as ‘DEC’) vide its letter dated 3rd September, 2007 had  

granted provisional recognition to TIET, Patiala for offering  

programmes through distance mode for a period of one year on  

the basis of which TIET, Patiala had offered B.Tech. degree in  

Civil / Computer Science / Electrical / Mechanical Engineering to  

working professionals who already had a diploma and had at least  

two years’ experience in the respective branches in engineering in  

the academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09.  No admissions were  

made after 29th July, 2009.  The petitioners had taken admission  

in the prestigious deemed to be university verily believing that all  

approvals were in place. The petitioners, relying on the judgment  

of this Court in Bharathidasan University and Another v. All

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 4 of 35  

India Council for Technical Education and Others,1 have  

argued that a deemed to be university is not required to seek prior  

approval of the AICTE to start a department for imparting a course  

or a programme in technical education. Reference was made to  

paragraph 49 of the judgment of this Court in Orissa Lift  

Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and  

Others2 (hereinafter referred to as Orissa Lift Irrigation  

Corporation Limited-I) to assert that TIET, Patiala, being a  

premier institution authorised to undertake courses and issue  

degrees in the aforesaid technical fields, was not required to take  

any approval of the AICTE.  Reliance was also placed on the  

order and judgment dated 10th April, 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos.  

3697-3698 of 2018 in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological  

University v. The Chairman and Managing Director,  

Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited.  There were  

no off-campus centres or study centres and all instruction,  

practicals and examinations were conducted on the campus of  

TIET, Patiala using the same faculty and infrastructure as used in  

the traditional B.Tech. courses. The studies were of high standard  

as the students had to pass 42 subjects with practicals to earn the  

 1 (2001) 8 SCC 676  2 (2018) 1 SCC 468

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 5 of 35  

degree. Out of 1168 students admitted to the B.Tech. courses  

through distance learning mode, only 822 students were awarded  

degree.     

4. We may at the outset record that the petitioners have given up  

and not raised the contention that the decision authored by one of  

us (Uday Umesh Lalit, J.) in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation  

Limited-I is per incuriam for the ratio is contrary to the decision in  

Bharathidasan University (supra). Indeed, such contention  

cannot be accepted as the latter decision has been considered in  

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I.  

5. We record our inability to accept the contentions raised by the  

petitioners, for they are misconstruing the judgment of this Court  

in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I which settles the  

controversy beyond any doubt and debate.  

6. The UGC Act was legislated for coordination and determination of  

standards of higher education in India with commandment to the  

UGC to take such steps as may be necessary for promotion and  

coordination of higher education in universities and institutions.  

The UGC, therefore, fixes and ensures maintenance of standards  

in teaching, examination and research in higher education. To fix

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 6 of 35  

and enforce these standards, the UGC has framed rules and  

regulations, and issues guidelines under the UGC Act.  

7. Referring to the UGC Act in Annamalai University Represented  

by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and  

Tourism Department and Others,3 this Court had observed that  

no relaxation can be granted with regard to the basic things  

necessary for conferment of a degree and if the mandatory  

provisions are not complied with by an administering authority, the  

action would be void.  Decision of this Court in Annamalai  

University (supra) has some relevance for it had examined the  

interplay between the provisions of the UGC Act and Indira  

Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to  

as ‘Open University Act’) and the purported repugnance between  

the two.  The UGC Act, it was observed, was enacted to make  

provisions for coordination and determination of standards in  

universities and for this purpose, the UGC was established by the  

Central Government in terms of Section 4 of the UGC Act with its  

powers and functions laid down in Chapter III.  Section 12 of the  

UGC Act provides for functions of the UGC, relevant provisions of  

which are reproduced as under:  

 3 (2009) 4 SCC 590

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 7 of 35  

“12. Functions of the Commission.⎯It shall be the  general duty of the Commission to take, in  consultation with the Universities or other bodies  concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the  promotion and co-ordination of University  education and for the determination and  maintenance of standards of teaching,  examination and research in Universities, and for  the purpose of performing its functions under this  

Act, the Commission may⎯  x  x  x  

 (d)  recommend to any University the measures  

necessary for the improvement of University  education and advise the University upon the  action to be taken for the purpose of implementing  such recommendation;  

x  x  x    (i)  require a University to furnish it with such  

information as may be needed relating to the  financial position of the University or the studies in  the various branches of learning undertaken in  that University, together with all the rules and  regulations relating to the standards of teaching  and examination in that University respecting each  of such branches of learning;”    

Section 22 of the UGC Act relates to the rights of a  

university/deemed university/institution to confer degrees and sub-

section (1) thereof reads as under:   

“22.  Right to confer degrees.⎯(1) The right of  conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised  only by a University established or incorporated by  or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State  Act or an institution deemed to be a University  under Section 3 or an institution specially  empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or  grant degrees.”  

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 8 of 35  

In Annamalai University (supra), the Open University Act, it  

was held, was enacted to establish and incorporate an open  

university at the national level for the introduction and promotion  

of open university and distance education systems in the  

educational pattern of the country and for coordination and  

determination of standards in such system. Recording the  

contention that the distance education programme attenuates the  

rigidity of the traditional system requiring attendance in class  

rooms that disincentivises many learners, this Court in Annamalai  

University (supra), referring to the UGC Act and the role of the  

UGC, had observed as under:   

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

 41.  Was the alternative system envisaged under the  

Open University Act in substitution of the formal  system is the question. In our opinion, in the  matter of ensuring the standard of education, it is  not. The distinction between a formal system and  informal system is in the mode and manner in  which education is imparted. The UGC Act was

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 9 of 35  

enacted for effectuating co- ordination and  determination of standards in universities. The  purport and object for which it was enacted must  be given full effect.   

 42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all  

universities whether conventional or open. Its  powers are very broad. The Regulations framed  by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub- section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude.  They apply equally to open universities as also to  formal conventional universities. In the matter of  higher education, it is necessary to maintain  minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum  standards of instructions are required to be  defined by UGC. The standards and the co-  ordination of work or facilities in universities must  be maintained and for that purpose required to be  regulated. The powers of UGC under Sections  26(1) (f) and 26(1) (g) are very broad in nature.  [...]”  

8. Annamalai University (supra) makes a reference to an earlier  

judgment in State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Adhiyaman  

Educational and Research Institute and Others4 in which this  

Court had, with regard the enactment of the UGC Act by  

Parliament in exercise of power under Entry 66 of List-I, observed  

as under:   

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

 (i)  The expression ‘coordination’ used in Entry 66 of  

the Union List of Seventh Schedule of the  Constitution does not merely mean evaluation.  It  means harmonisation with a view to forge a  uniform pattern for a concerted action according to  

 4 (1995) 4 SCC 104

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 10 of 35  

a certain design, scheme or plan of development.   It, therefore, includes action not only for removal  of disparities in standards but also for preventing  the occurrence of such disparities.  It would,  therefore, also include power to do all things which  are necessary to prevent what would make  ‘coordination’ either impossible or difficult.  This  power is absolute and unconditional and in the  absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must  be given its full effect according to its plain and  express intention.”    

Reference was also made to Osmania University  

Teachers’ Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh and  

Another5 wherein, with regard to the responsibility entrusted upon  

the UGC under the UGC Act, it was held as under:  

“30.  The Constitution of India vests Parliament with  exclusive authority in regard to coordination and  determination of standards in institutions for higher  education.  The Parliament has enacted the UGC  Act for that purpose.  The University Grants  Commission has, therefore, a greater role to play  in shaping the academic life of the country.  It shall  not falter or fail in its duty to maintain a high  standard in the universities.  Democracy depends  for its very life on a high standard or general,  vocational and professional education.   Dissemination of learning with search for new  knowledge with discipline all round must be  maintained at all costs.  It is hoped that University  Grants Commission will duly discharge its  responsibility to the nation and play an increasing  role to bring about the needed transformation in  the academic life of the Universities.”   

 5 (1987) 4 SCC 671

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 11 of 35  

9. Accordingly, in Annamalai University (supra) it was held that the  

UGC Act would prevail over the Open University Act, observing:  

“59.  The provisions of the UGC Act are not in conflict  with the provisions of the Open University Act.  It  is beyond any cavil of doubt that the UGC Act  shall prevail over the Open University Act.  It has,  however, been argued that the Open University  Act is a later Act.  But we have noticed  hereinbefore that the nodal Ministry knew of the  provisions of both the Acts.  The Regulations were  framed almost at the same time after passing of  the Open University Act.  The Regulations were  framed at a later point of time.  Indisputably, the  Regulations embrace within its fold the matters  covered under the Open University Act also.”   

10. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, reference was  

made to All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1989  

(hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE Act’) and distinction was drawn  

between ‘technical education’ and ‘technical institution’ as defined  

in Section 2(g) and 2(h) respectively to observe that functions of  

the AICTE stipulated under sub-clauses (a), (d), (e), (f), (l) and (n)  

of Section 10 of the AICTE Act are concerned with the broader  

facets of ‘technical education’, while functions enumerated under  

sub-clauses (k), (m), (p) and (q) deal with matters concerning  

‘technical institutions’ and the functions as set out in sub-clauses  

(g) and (o) apply to both ‘technical institutions’ and universities  

imparting ‘technical education’.  Sub-clauses (b), (d) and (f) of

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 12 of 35  

Section 10 deal with, inter alia, coordination of the technical  

education in the country at all levels; promoting innovation,  

research and development, establishment of new technologies,  

generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet  

the development requirements; and promoting effecting link  

between technical education and systems and other relevant  

systems.  Drawing on the distinction between ‘technical education’  

and ‘technical institution’ and multifarious functions of the AICTE  

prescribed by Section 10 of the AICTE Act, it was held that the  

AICTE is the sole repository of power to lay down parameters or  

qualitative norms for ‘technical education’ and it would, therefore,  

not matter whether the term ‘technical institution’ would exclude a  

university/deemed to be university.  What should be course  

content, what subjects should 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 the AICTE.  

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 13 of 35  

11. Accordingly, the Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation  

Limited-I distinguished the decision in Bharathidasan University  

(supra), which had, relying upon the definition in clause 2(h) on  

the meaning of the term ‘technical institution’, held that a deemed  

to be university established under a state law was entitled to start  

courses in ‘technical education’ without any approval of the  

AICTE.  This was done by limiting Bharathidasan University’s  

(supra) application to courses/programmes integrally  

adjunct/connected to the sanctioned and permitted courses and  

programmes, and not to new and different courses/programmes  

like award of B.Tech. degrees through distance learning mode.   

On role of the AICTE and distance learning as a mode for  

acquiring B. Tech degrees, it was held in Orissa Lift Irrigation  

Corporation Limited-I that:   

“48. 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, 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 AICTE ought to have accepted it in  clear terms. What parameters ought to be satisfied

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 14 of 35  

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  emphasising 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  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 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.”  

From the dictum laid down above, it is plainly clear that  

approval of the AICTE was mandatory for starting the aforesaid  

courses. Admittedly, approval of the AICTE was not obtained by  

TIET, Patiala.   

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 15 of 35  

12. We would now revert to the question of approval of the UGC. In  

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, reference was  

made to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the ‘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’ (hereinafter  

referred to as ‘2004 Guidelines’), issued by the UGC which dealt  

with the procedure to be followed by deemed to be universities  

offering distance education programmes, which read as under:  

“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 off-campus  study centre(s)/institutions/off-shore 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.”  

Paragraph 4 makes it crystal clear that post the 2004  

Guidelines, every deemed to be university would require

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 16 of 35  

approvals of the UGC and DEC, for starting any degree course  

through open and distance learning mode. The condition of  

approval was mandatory. It is not the case of the petitioners or  

TIET, Patiala that the latter had taken prior approval of the UGC  

for the B.Tech. degrees obtained through distance learning mode.  

Paragraph 5 relates to ex-post facto approval of the UGC/DEC for  

continuation of distance education programmes/study centres  

started without specific approval of the UGC/DEC. Paragraph 5 is  

not applicable in the present case as the degree courses were  

started post enactment of the 2004 Guidelines.   

13. Faced and conscious of the clear violation of paragraph 4 of the  

2004 Guidelines and absence of the AICTE’s approval, learned  

senior counsel for the petitioners had relied on paragraph 49 of  

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, which reads as  

under:  

“49. We now move to the second limb of the first  question. Under the 1994 AICTE Regulations, “no  courses or programmes shall be introduced by any  technical institution, university including a deemed  university or university department or college  except with the approval of the Council”.  Bharathidasan declared the 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 Assn. of Management of Private  Colleges to say that affiliated colleges of the  University were entitled to the same protection.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 17 of 35  

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 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  unrelated 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?”  

In our opinion, the petitioners and TIET, Patiala are  

misconstruing paragraph 49 of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation  

Limited-I.  The aforesaid paragraph refers to the 1994  

Regulations issued by the AICTE under which no courses or  

programmes could be introduced by any technical institution/  

university, including a deemed university or a university

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 18 of 35  

department or college, except with approval of the AICTE.  In  

Bharathidasan University (supra) this mandate of the 1994  

Regulations was declared to be bad to the extent that it had  

required the university to take approval for introducing any course  

or programme in technical education. Same opinion was  

expressed in Association of Management of Private Colleges  

v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others6 to  

state that affiliated colleges of the university are entitled to the  

same protection. Thereupon, in Orissa Lift Irrigation  

Corporation Limited-I a distinction was made by creating two  

categories of deemed to be universities – Category-I, i.e. such  

deemed to be universities that have been conferred status of  

‘excellence’ in the field of technical subjects and desire to  

introduce courses or programmes ‘integrally connected’ with the  

area of subjects for which they had been conferred deemed to be  

university status. Clarifying this, the Court had cited an example of  

an engineering college of excellence that has been conferred  

deemed to be university status and now wish to introduce courses  

in new or specialised subjects like robotics and nanotechnology,  

which subjects were integrally connected to the university’s own  

 6 (2013) 8 SCC 271

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 19 of 35  

field of excellence. Category-II would be of those universities that  

have been conferred deemed to be university status for  

excellence in subjects, but want to introduce new courses  

unrelated to the field for which they were conferred status of  

excellence.  In the latter category, the deemed to be university  

cannot claim immunity from regulatory control of the AICTE and  

must take approval of the AICTE.  Paragraph 49, we would like to  

clarify, deals with universities including deemed to be universities  

imparting higher education for degree courses/programmes  

through regular mode.  This paragraph does not specifically deal  

with or confer any right upon the deemed to be universities to start  

distance education courses, even if integrally connected with the  

approved regular courses.   

14. The foregoing analysis becomes clear when we read Orissa Lift  

Irrigation Corporation Limited-I in its entirety, particularly the  

immediately preceding paragraph, i.e. paragraph 48 as quoted  

above, wherein it has been specifically stipulated and mandated  

that whether subjects leading to degrees in engineering would be  

taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive  

domain of the AICTE.   

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 20 of 35  

15. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions and lack of prior  

approval of the UGC or AICTE, we do not think that TIET, Patiala  

was competent to award graduation degrees in technical courses  

via distance mode.   

16. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, the Court also  

made a distinction between students who had taken admission in  

deemed to be universities offering technical degrees through  

distance learning in the academic years 2001 to 2005 and 2005-

2006 onwards.  The reason for distinction was paragraph 5 of the  

2004 Guidelines and ex-post facto approvals granted by the UGC  

and DEC to deemed to be universities that had offered technical  

degrees in the academic years 2001-2005.  It was held that the  

said exercise of grant of ex-post facto approvals was completely  

uncalled for and contrary to law and illegal. Accordingly, the ex  

post facto approvals were set aside with the consequential  

directions to recall all the engineering degrees granted pursuant to  

the said approvals. However, conscious that the ex post facto  

approvals were in terms of paragraph 5 of the 2004 Guidelines,  

while suspending the degrees awarded to students who had been  

enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005, the Court had  

given these students an opportunity to appear and clear such

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 21 of 35  

examination under joint supervision of the AICTE-UGC. It was  

observed:  

“57. [T]he 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 the manner indicated hereinafter. Further,  every single advantage on the basis of that  degree shall also stand suspended.”  

The aforesaid directions were not in respect of any  

engineering degree granted by deemed to be universities to  

candidates admitted/enrolled post the academic year 2004-2005.  

Grant of any degree for students enrolled post the academic year  

2004-2005 was held as contrary to law and illegal, and could not

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 22 of 35  

be treated as regular and at par with the regular degrees.  

Therefore, paragraph 49 would not be of any avail to the  

petitioners.   

17. We would also refer to the second round of litigation as  

applications were filed seeking clarification and modification of the  

directions in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I. The  

decision dated 22nd January, 2018 in Orissa Lift Irrigation  

Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others7  

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation  

Limited-II’) had decided several applications of diploma holders  

who had enrolled for engineering or B.Tech. degree in deemed to  

be universities through distance learning mode. One of the  

contentions raised in the applications was that the deemed to be  

universities awarding engineering degrees through distance  

learning mode in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I  

were not institutes of excellence in the field of engineering and,  

thus, there would be a distinction between engineering degrees  

awarded through distance education mode by deemed to be  

universities declared as institutions of excellence and the degrees  

awarded by other deemed to be universities. This contention was  

 7 (2018) 2 SCC 298

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 23 of 35  

squarely rejected by referring to the fact that engineering degrees  

through distance education mode awarded by Vinayaka Mission’s  

Research Foundation in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation  

Limited-I had been also declared to be invalid, though the said  

institution in its field of activity and excellence included the subject  

of engineering.  Dealing with other contentions raised by the  

applicants, the Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation  

Limited-II held as under:  

“25. We now turn to the general submission advanced  by all the learned counsel that the candidates after  securing the degrees in Engineering through  distance education mode, have advanced in career  and that their ability was tested at various levels  and as such requirement of passing the  examination in terms of the judgment be dispensed  within their case.  We cannot make any such  exception.  The infirmity in their degrees is basis  and fundamental and cannot be wished away.  At  the same time, we find some force in their  submission that if the suspension of their degrees  and all advantages were to apply as indicated in  the judgment, the candidates concerned may lose  their jobs and even if they were to successfully  pass the test, restoration of their jobs and present  position would pose some difficulty.    

The Court, therefore, granting a one-time relaxation to the  

candidates who had enrolled themselves during the academic  

years 2001-2005, held that candidates would, in terms of the  

judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited I, be  

eligible to appear for the test conducted by the AICTE.   

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 24 of 35  

18. Given the aforesaid ratio, we reject the plea that the petitioners  

are entitled to relief as was granted to the petitioners in Orissa  

Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited I and II. This contention is  

unacceptable for the reason that in Orissa Lift Irrigation  

Corporation Limited I and II, no relief was granted to the  

candidates who had taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. Relief  

in the form of one-time relaxation vide examination to be  

conducted by the AICTE was granted to those  

candidates/students who had taken admission in academic years  

beginning from 2001 and till 2004-2005.   

19. TIET, Patiala in their additional affidavit have referred to the  

correspondence with the DEC expressing their desire to start  

B.Tech. courses in Civil Engineering/ Computer Sciences and  

Engineering/ Electrical Engineering/ Mechanical Engineering  

through distance learning programme, vide their letter dated 17th  

May, 2006 and reply of the DEC vide its letter dated 16th June,  

2006 that such approvals can only be granted after evaluation of  

the course material by an expert committee and for which TIET,  

Patiala should apply in the prescribed format with requisite fee.  

Thereupon, TIET, Patiala had submitted an application in the  

required format and an expert committee constituted by the

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 25 of 35  

Chairman of the DEC had evaluated infrastructure and other  

services etc., provided by TIET, Patiala. The expert committee,  

which included the Director, School of Engineering and  

Technology, IGNOU, gave a favourable report subsequent to  

which the letter of provisional recognition dated 31st August, 2007  

was issued by the DEC permitting TIET, Patiala to start the  

course.  Reference was also made to the press note dated 23rd  

May, 2007 released by Press Information Bureau, Government of  

India, which had published a list of universities including deemed  

to be universities offering distance education.  This list also  

included TIET, Patiala.  

20. As already stated, the petitioners have also relied upon letter  

dated 3rd September, 2007 written to TIET, Patiala by the DEC  

providing them provisional recognition for one year in programmes  

offered through distance mode.  The said letter reads as under:  

“INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY  Maindan Garhi, New Delhi – 110068, India  Phone: (O) 91-11-29535923-32, 29533340 (O)  Telefax: 91-11-295536668  Email: basuswaraj@hotmail.com  Website: www.ignou.ac.in/www.dec.ac.in    

DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL    F.No. DEC/Univ/State/07/5580  Dated: 03.09.2007  Prof. Swaraj Basu  Director

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 26 of 35  

 Sub: Provisional Recognition    Dear Sir,    

This has reference to your application to the  Distance Education Council requesting for 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 that DEC has  decided not to insist on territorial jurisdiction to be  allowed 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)    The Vice Chancellor  Thapar University  Patiala – 147004, Punjab”    

The aforesaid letter states that TIET, Patiala had made an  

application to the DEC requesting for recognition of programmes  

offered through distance mode and that they had been granted

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 27 of 35  

provisional recognition for offering such programmes. The letter  

records that an application was submitted by TIET, Patiala but no  

specific reference was made to the programmes or courses  

offered nor the date when the application was filed is indicated.   

The letter also does not refer to approval by the AICTE or UGC. It  

had further required TIET, Patiala to submit a fresh application for  

the next academic year from June-July 2008.    

21. We have already referred to the 2004 Guidelines issued by the  

UGC and the AICTE Act to hold that TIET, Patiala had failed to  

take their prior approval before starting B. Tech. degree courses  

through distance education mode. Provisional recognition by the  

DEC being contrary to the law would not matter for at best the  

DEC would be equally guilty for violating the law in terms of 2004  

Guidelines issued by the UGC and the AICTE Act.  The legal  

issue stands foreclosed and cannot be argued in view of the clear  

dictum and ratio enunciated in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation  

Limited-I.  We would also refer to the notification issued by the  

Government of India on 1st March 1995 quoted in Orissa Lift  

Irrigation Corporation Limited-I on distance education  

programme by deemed to be universities etc., which was to the  

following effect:  

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 28 of 35  

“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 Nation 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.”     

Clearly, therefore, in terms of the said notification also  

approval of the AICTE was required.    

22. TIET, Patiala accepts that no approval, provisional or otherwise,  

was granted for the next academic year, i.e. June-July 2008, yet  

B.Tech. degree programmes through distance mode for the  

academic year June-July 2008 were offered by TIET, Patiala  

contrary to the statutes and law.   

23. TIET, Patiala, to justify admissions in the academic year 2008-

2009 in their additional affidavit, have referred to correspondence  

and submission of application to the UGC for offering B. Tech.  

degree courses through distance education programme for the  

academic session i.e. 2008-2009.  This is surprising as TIET,  

Patiala had not applied to the UGC for the previous academic

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 29 of 35  

session i.e. 2007-2008.  Thereafter, the additional affidavit refers  

to correspondence exchanged between the DEC and TIET,  

Patiala pursuant to which a Joint Expert Committee was  

constituted comprising of members of the UGC, DEC and AICTE  

to assess the administration and management of distance learning  

programmes offered by TIET, Patiala, which panel had visited  

their premises on 2nd June, 2009 and had recommended the  

recognition of as many as seven programmes for a period of five  

years.  However, the Central Government had, in exercise of  

powers under Section 20 of the UGC Act and in terms of a policy  

decision, issued a notification on 29th July, 2009 that the B.Tech.  

degrees would not be offered through open distance learning  

programme.  In view of this policy decision, the DEC had to  

immediately withdraw the permission to various institutions to  

conduct B.Tech. degree courses through distance education  

mode and no further student was admitted in the current year and  

thereafter.  However, the notification states that those who had  

already been admitted would have to pass practicals and written  

examination as may be prescribed so as to obtain the B.Tech.  

degrees through distance education.   

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 30 of 35  

24. The submission/contention of the petitioners and TIET, Patiala  

completely overlooks several developments, correspondence and  

policy decisions taken which have been noticed in Orissa Lift  

Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, particularly the notification  

issued by the AICTE on 28th November, 2005 clearly stating that  

no technical institution of the Government/ Government aided/  

private institution, whether affiliated or not to any University, shall  

start new courses or increase the intake for the same without  

approval of the AICTE. Notification issued by the Ministry of  

Human Resource Development, Government of India on 5th April,  

2006 in exercise of powers vested in the Central Government  

under Section 20(1) of the UGC Act and Section 20(1) of the  

AICTE Act had clarified the role of the UGC and AICTE for  

maintaining standards of education and that the deemed to be  

universities are required to maintain minimum standards  

prescribed by the AICTE for various courses within the jurisdiction  

of the said Council.  This was followed by a joint public notice  

issued by the AICTE, UGC and DEC on 4th February, 2007 to the  

following effect:   

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

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 31 of 35  

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  programmes of study in the ‘distance mode’ require the  approval of DEC.”  

 The public notice had cautioned that the universities/  

institutions/deemed to be universities offering technical education  

programme through distance education mode without approval of  

concerned statutory authorities were doing so in contravention of  

the law and would be treated severely.  The last sentence of the  

notification had made it clear that in addition to the concerned  

statutory councils, all courses and the programmes offered for  

study in distance mode would require approval of the DEC.  A  

memorandum of understanding was arrived at on 10th May, 2007  

among the UGC, AICTE and DEC to work in close co-operation in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 32 of 35  

pursuit of excellence in technical and general education being  

imparted through distance and mixed mode in the country.    

25. In any case these aspects and contentions were fully considered  

in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I and it has been  

held that B.Tech. degrees could not have been awarded through  

distance learning mode without the approval of the DEC and  

without any specific approval of the AICTE and UGC and award of  

such degrees without approval of the three were invalid and  

cannot be recognised.       

26. Functioning of the DEC has come in for rather strong criticism in  

several quarters. Till 2006, the DEC had approved about 45  

programmes of 23 universities out of applications for  

approximately 200 programmes. In 2007, the DEC repealed the  

programme approval process and the system of institutional  

recognition was started.  As per this decision, all programmes  

approved by respective authorities of the institution were deemed  

to have recognition of the DEC.  As a result of this decision, within  

a short span, the number of approved programmes increased to  

over 3000 in 2010. The provisional recognition letter of the DEC  

would uniformly state that before starting such programmes, the

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 33 of 35  

required approvals from other regulatory bodies have to be  

obtained but the said stipulation was not followed in most cases  

and provisional recognition was granted by the DEC to technical  

programmes through distance mode without recognition/approval  

of the AICTE or UGC.  This had paved way for commercialisation  

and was a retrograde step which had resulted in deterioration of  

the quality of open learning programmes/degrees.  After burning  

its fingers, the DEC switched back to programme recognition. The  

DEC itself was finally wound up in 2013.   

27. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, this Court, took  

note of the order dated 29th December, 2012 issued by the  

Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India  

in view of the recommendations suggested in the Madhava Menon  

Committee report for regulating the standards of education being  

imparted through distance mode to hold that the unilateral  

approvals of the DEC were invalid.  It was observed:   

“55. 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 sub-clause (v) of Section 5 is also in relation  to the academic programmes of IGNOU. It  undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 34 of 35  

and (xxiii) to cooperate with other Universities but  the IGNOU Act nowhere entitles 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.  

The said order, the Court noted, had definitively vested the  

UGC and AICTE, among other statutory regulators, with powers to  

regulate technical courses imparted through distance learning  

mode and made it mandatory for institutions intending to impart  

such courses to seek their approval and recognition, observing as  

under:  

“[T]he 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: -    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

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018  Page 35 of 35  

programme/course in ODL mode they would require  recognition from the UGC, AICTE, NCTE and other  such regulators of the conventional mode of education  in those areas of study.”   

28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the  

present Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. However, in the  

facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs.   

.....................................J.  (UDAY U. LALIT)  

......................................J.  (SANJIV KHANNA)  

 NEW DELHI;  AUGUST 29, 2019.