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)

4

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  17919  /2017 (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 parties- employees  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 6 th 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 af- fidavit],  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 pro- grammes in specific domains of knowledge. In this case, four

14

Deemed to be universities were conferred that status to offer programmes in the following areas.

S. No.

Deemed University Field of specialization for in- stitutions Deemed to be Uni- versities 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,  Ut- tar Pradesh

Agricultural  Engineering Food  &  Nutrition  Biotech- nology, Dairy Technology

4. Vinayaka  Mission’s  Re- search  Foundation Salem, Tamil Nadu

Medical Science, Dental Sci- ence,  Nursing,  Engineering &  Technology,  Pharmacy, Pysiotherapy  and  Ho- moeopathy

Yet,  three  institutions-  Deemed  to  be  Universities (namely,  JRN  Vidyapeeth  Udaipur,  Rajasthan;  IASE  Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and Allahabad Agricul- ture Research Institute, Allahabad, U.P.) overstepped their man- date and started distance education programmes, including for award of B.E./B.Tech degrees outside their field of specializa- tion without UGC/AICTE approval.

Secondly, vide letter dated 09.08.2001 [annexed and ex- cerpted later in the instant affidavit], the UGC has made it clear that franchising of education through private agencies/establish- ment is not permitted. In addition, the UGC, AICTE and DEC have issued a joint  letter  dated 13.05.2003 [annexed and ex- cerpted later in the instant affidavit] to Vice-Chancellors/Heads of Institutions asking them to limit the system/programme of delivery of distance education of their institution to the neigh- bourhood of the location of their main campus or at the most within the State. And, as mentioned earlier, vide public notice

15

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  ap- proved by the Government of India through notification pub- lished 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, there-

fore,  need to consider the statutory framework governing “Deemed to be

Universities” and ‘Distance Education’ more specifically in the field of tech-

nical 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 un-

der a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such in-

stitution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recog-

nized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this be-

half under this Act”.  Section 3 contemplates conferral of “Deemed to be

University” status upon certain institutions for higher studies other than uni-

versities.  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 co- ordination 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 sys-

tems. Section 2(e) defines “Distance Education System” to mean “..the sys-

tem of imparting education through any means of communication, such as

broadcasting,  telecasting,  correspondence  courses,  seminars,  contact  pro-

grammes 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, coun- seling or for rendering any other assistance required by the stu- dents;

“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 knowl- edge, technology, vocations and professions as the University may determine from time to time and to make provision for re- search;

(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 re- search 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 aca-

demic 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 recog- nition at any time; (xxiii) to recognize persons working in other universities, insti-

tutions 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 alloca- tion and disbursement of grants to Colleges and other universi- ties 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 con-

ferred under Section 16(7) read with Section  24 and 2nd Schedule to the IG-

NOU 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 noth-

ing 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 Educa- tion 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 educa- tion systems, its coordinated development, and the de- termination 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 open uni-

20

versities or to introduce programmes of distance educa- tion;”

16. The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter

referred to as the “AICTE Act”) was enacted to provide for the establish-

ment of AICTE with  a view to proper planning and coordinated develop-

ment of the technical education system throughout the country, the promo-

tion 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 “Uni-

versity” 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 Coun-

cil”, 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 is-

sued various Notifications, Circulars and Guidelines touching upon the is-

sues 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 facul-

ties  of  Arts,  Humanities,  Fine  Arts,  Music,  Social  Sciences,  Com-

merce  and  Science)   Regulations,  1985  (hereinafter  referred  to  as

1985 UGC Regulations) came into force which applied to every Uni-

versity 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 year course; this degree may be called the B.A./B.SC/B.- Com. (General/Honors/Special) degree as the case may be….

24

3(1). Every University enrolling students for the 1st De- gree Course shall ensure that the number of actual teach- ing 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 Gov-

ernment of India, Part VI of which dealt with Technical and Manage-

ment Education, Paras 6.6, 6.8 and 6.19 of the Policy were:- “6.6.  In  view of  the  present  rigid  entry  require-

ments to formal courses restricting the access of a large segment of people to technical and managerial education, programmes through a distance learning process, includ- ing 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 for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standards, accreditation, funding of priority areas, moni- toring 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

25

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 Insti-

tutions, 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 Regu-

lations 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;

Except with the approval of the Council.”

D. On 01.03.1995, a notification was issued by Government of In-

dia to the following effect:-

26

“On the recommendation of the Board of Assess- ment for Education Qualifications, the Government of In- dia  has  decided  that  all  the  qualifications  awarded through  Distance  Education  by  the  Universities  estab- lished by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, Insti- tutions 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, Devel-

opment 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  ex-

pected to initiate courses in distance education.   

F. In 2004, UGC issued Guidelines for establishing new depart-

ments within the campus, setting up of off-campus centre(s)/institu-

tion(s)/off-shore campus and starting distance education programmes

by the Deemed to be universities, 2004 (2004 UGC Guidelines, for

27

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 regis- tered.  

(b) “Off-campus centre” means a center of the univer- sity located outside its main campus (within or outside the State where the deemed university is located)’ oper- ated  and  maintained  as  its  constituent  unit  by  the  re- sources of the university, having the centre’s own compli- ment of facilities, faculty and staff.  

(c) “Off-shore Campus” means a campus of the uni- versity located outside the country, established and main- tained as its constituent unit by the resources of the uni- versity 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 pur- pose of advising, counseling or for rendering any other assistance required by the students used in the context of distance education.”

It was laid down that a Deemed to be University shall normally be au-

thorized 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 univer-

sity campus or start off-campus centre(s)/institutions/off-shore campus(s) on

28

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 de- partments within their campus, off-campus centre(s) or an insti- tution outside the main campus of the deemed university may apply as follows:  

2.1 The deemed university intending to open a new de- partment in its campus or an off-campus center/ institu- tion  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 approach- ing the UGC.  

2.2 The new Departments, new off-campus center/ insti- tution 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, 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 recom- mendations of the UGC and also that of the Government of the host country”

Paras 3.3, 3.4 and 3.8 were as under:

29

“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 In- dia basis and the fee structure etc. and shall  have ade- quate 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/profes- sional 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, aca- demic 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:

“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:

30

I. Continuation of all the Departments opened in the campus of the Deemed Universities and off-cam- pus 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  pro-

grammes through Distance Education mode to apply to DEC and ob-

tain prior approval before starting any new Centres/Institutions/Direc-

torates 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.    

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

31

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-post-

facto approval for courses conducted by them through distance education

mode.  Before we deal with the facts leading to the consideration of such ex-

post-facto approval,  an  important  development  must  be adverted to.   On

24.09.2001 a decision was rendered by this Court in Bharathidasan Univer-

sity 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 com-

menced courses in Technological subjects in its own departments as an ad-

junct 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 Insti-

tution” under the AICTE Act excludes a “University” and since the power of 3 (2001) 8 SCC 676

32

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-uni-

versity 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 sub-

sequent guidelines, notifications issued by the UGC, AICTE and the Gov-

ernment of India were framed in the light of said decision. The understand-

ing 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  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

33

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

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

4 B.Tech (Computer Science),  M.Tech (Computer Science)   B.Tech (Civil) and M.Tech (Civil))

34

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 submit- ted a list of 517 centres, but did not furnish any details about the approval of UGC, the statutory Councils and the concerned State Governments nor did the Vidyapeeth submit  any information about  the Infrastructural  facili- ties,  faculty  etc.  provided  in  these Centres……………………………………………………

5. The Commission has been receiving a number of complaints  that  Rajasthan  Vidyapeeth,  Udaipur  is  en- gaged in offering Undergraduate and Postgraduate level courses  in  various  disciplines  including Computer  Sci- ence, Business Studies, Para-medical Studies and Physio- therapy etc. through Study Centre(s) spread all over the country  which  do  not  have  required  infrastructure  to maintain the standard of education.

35

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 unspeci- fied 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 Edu- cation Council nor has attached specific approval of Dis- tance 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

03.08.2005 that DEC had not recognized JRN and AAI to offer Dis-

tance Education programmes anywhere in the Country as major defi-

ciencies were found in their delivery system and self instructional ma-

terials.

D. On 09.08.2005, a notice/circular was issued by UGC to the fol-

lowing effect:

“UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG

36

NEW DELHI – 110 002

F-6-9/2004(CPP-I)     9th 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  Univer- sity), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan

The University  Grants  Commission has  been re- ceiving a large number of letters from individuals and or- ganizations 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  Ad- vanced  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 be Universities by the Government of India under Sec- tion 3 of the UGC Act 1956.  These Institutions are em- powered 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  Dis- tance Education Council, IGNOU Campus, New Delhi-

37

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/fran- chises  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.  More- over,  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:-

“……………………The Vidyapeeth has reportedly been running 649 Study Centres/off campus centres under Dis- tance  Education  mode  without  the  approval  of UGC/Statutory  councils/State  Government.   The  Dis- tance Education Council (IGNOU, New Delhi) has not recognized Rajasthan Vidyapeeth to offer Distance Edu- cation  Programme anywhere  in  the  country  so  far  be- cause 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).

38

The Vidyapeeth may please ensure compliance of the fol- lowing:

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 Educa- tion Council be closed down immediately.   

A list of such centres may also please be sent to UGC along-with the documentary evidence of clo- sure of these centres.

2. Awarding of X and XII certification be stopped im- mediately 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 particu- larly 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 Cen-

tres and an explanation was sought within 15 days failing which ap-

propriate action could be taken by UGC.   

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

39

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.

(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.

40

(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:

“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

41

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 ex- post-facto approval to Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan 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,

42

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 incor-

porated in this communication.

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

43

an Expert Committee was constituted by UGC to look into the docu-

ments/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 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

44

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/Tele-

Communications.  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.

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)”

45

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.

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

46

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 co-

operation 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/pro- grammes in ‘distance  and mixed mode’ for  ensuring mainte- nance 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 Univer- sities including Deemed to be Universities.”

This Joint Committee held several meetings and the decisions in some

of them were as under:-

47

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:-

“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

48

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 requi-

sition 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.

However, for recognition of your institution for  offering  programmes  through  distance  mode from next academic year, i.e. from June-July, 2008,

5 Referred to in Para 23(xiii)

50

you are requested to submit fresh application in the prescribed format developed by DEC.”

ii) JRN thereafter applied to UGC for approval for academic Ses-

sion 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 ad-

dressed a communication to UGC on 02.09.2007 submitting compli-

ance  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 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

51

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

NEW DELHI 110 002

No.F.6.3(Centre)/2003 (CPP-I) November 13, 2007

The Vice-Chancellor Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth

52

(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 UGC- AICTE-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.

vi) At a  meeting held on 19.02.2008 wherein Secretary,  Depart-

ment  of  Higher  Education  (Distance  Learning  Division),  MHRD,

Heads of UGC, AICTE & IGNOU and Joint Secretary (Distance Edu-

53

cation)  participated,  it  was  decided  that  the  approvals  should  be

granted to the courses and not to the institute.  The following deci-

sions, 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, Anna- malai 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 institu-

tions including JRN, AAI, AISE and VMRF as follows:- “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

54

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.

Nine professional/technical programmes6 leading to the award of de-

grees  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,

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.

55

1792, 4216, 516 and 103 respectively; which in effect aggregated to

16885 for all 9 courses put together.

(ix) In the 447th meeting of the UGC held on 21.05.2008 decision

was taken in respect of report submitted by the Chairman, UGC as un-

der:

“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

not clear what further steps were taken and what decisions were ar-

rived 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 stan- dards  to  be  maintained  for  technical  education  pro-

56

grammes 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 Reg- ulations 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.

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:-    

57

“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 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.”

58

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.

With regards, Yours sincerely,

Sd/- (Manjulika Srivastava)

To

The Vice Chancellor, Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Airport Road, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur-313001 Rajasthan.”

59

xv) On 21.05.2010, the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universi-

ties) Regulations, 2010( hereinafter referred to as “2010 UGC Regula-

tions”) 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 pre-

scribes that the Institution Deemed to be University shall submit a cer-

tificate  and an undertaking that  the professional  programmes being

conducted by it, if any, have the approval of the relevant statutory/reg-

ulatory body.  Regulation 12 deals with “new departments, off cam-

puses and off shore campuses” and Regulation 12.11 is as under:-

“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 off- shore  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:-

60

“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 pro-

visional 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 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  pro- grammes as per the requirement.  Thus getting the ap- proval  of  concerned  statutory  apex  body  for  relevant progaramme(s) will be the sole responsibility of the Uni- versity.”

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,

61

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 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 func-

tions 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

62

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 dis-

tance 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 cam- puses 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 In- dia after 26th May, 2010 [date of publication of UGC (In- stitutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010] is allowed to conduct courses in the distance mode. The institutions Deemed to be universities declared be- fore 26th May, 2010 are not allowed to conduct courses in distance  mode  from any  of  its  off-campus  centres/off- shore 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 sub- ject 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 (CPP- I) 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

63

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 fol-

lowing order was passed by the High Court on 26.11.2013:-

“Issue notice. Notice be also issued on the stay ap- plication.  Rule is made returnable on 16.12.2013.

In the meantime, the respondents shall not de-rec- ognize the courses run provisionally under the “distance education mode.”

xxi) On 26.12.2014 JRN submitted further proposal to Distance Ed-

ucation Bureau of UGC for starting new courses in distance education

mode  from  academic  session  2015-2016.   Soon  thereafter,  on

28.02.2015 another letter was written by JRN to UGC to grant contin-

uation of recognition to JRN for the academic session 2015-2016.  Ac-

cording 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  Ra-

jasthan 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

64

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 de-rec- ognize the courses run by it, the respondent-UGC has is- sued 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 Uni- versity, 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- 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 petitioner- University  for  imparting  education  through  distance mode. Stay petition is disposed off.”  

xxii) On 12.04.2016 JRN submitted further proposal seeking recog-

nition for programmes offered by it through distance education mode

during the academic session 2016-2017.  According to JRN, there be-

ing no response from UGC, JRN filed Writ Petition No.10310 of 2016

in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur to include

65

name of JRN in the list of recognized Universities in the academic

year 2016-2017 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  petitioner- Deemed University in the list of universities, which are allowed to offer  the approved programme for Distance Education mode for the Academic Sessions 2016-2017.

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:-

66

“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 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,

67

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.)

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. …….

68

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 let- ter  dated  12.05.2008,  the  Joint  Committee  of  UGC-AICTE- DEC; 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 educa- tion through ODL mode. Therefore, till date, the deemed uni- versities,  namely,  JRN  Vidyapeeth  Udaipur,  Rajasthan; Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu; IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and Alla- habad 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

69

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 off- Campus  Centre/Off-shore  Campus  approved subsequent to these Regulations.”  

25. The AICTE in its affidavit in reply referred to its Regulations and  

Guidelines. Adverting to the decision in Bharathidasan (supra), it was sub-

mitted 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

71

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 dis- tance 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, Dis- tance 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  mandatory  to  conduct  technical  pro- grammes through the regular  (Conventional)  mode of  educa- tion.  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:-

72

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.

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 ap- proval from the AICTE to offer technical programs.  Fur- ther as communicated it also did not consider Technical programs under distance education program mode for ap- proval,  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

73

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 Infor- mation 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 conduct- ing the under graduate courses in Engineering and Technology [Electronics and Communication En- gineering,  Civil  Engineering,  Computer  Science Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Electri- cal  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 conduct- ing the  Diploma in  Engineering and Technology (Electronics  and  Communication  Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Science & Engineer- ing, Mechanical Engineering and Electrical Engi- neering)  Master  in  Computer  Application  (Full time)  from the  Academic  Year  2012-13 onwards and  granted  extension  till  current  academic  ses- sion.”

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

74

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 edu-

cation programmes through 660 Study Centres out of which four cen-

tres 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 of JRN

but course material would be provided by JRN.  Further, though Fac-

ulty in Engineering was set up in the year 2003 there was no regular

Engineering College at the main campus of JRN and said Faculty re-

ceived 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 stu-

dents 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 pro-

75

grammes through distance education mode in 2003.  It is stated that

IASE stopped B.Tech courses from the year 2005 through distance ed-

ucation mode though it continues to conduct diploma courses in engi-

neering through distance mode.   It is further stated that its regular En-

gineering 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 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 enti-

tled 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 infra-

structure available at the site was conducted by any authority and the only

inspection that was done was confined to checking the documents.  Any ap-

proval granted without any inspection, satisfaction and recommendation of

76

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

AICTE Act, the UGC guidelines did contemplate the same.  In his submis-

sion, 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 edu- cation  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 / ad- visory body.  This would necessarily mean that before any ap- provals are given, AICTE recommendation for grant of such ap- proval ought to be obtained.  An approval granted without an inspection, satisfaction and recommendation of the AICTE is it- self meaningless.  Therefore,  while the judgment in  Bharathi- dasan (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 rele- vant competent bodies.  In other words, in the case of distance learning education for  general  courses,  the approval  of  UGC

77

and IGNOU are required and in the case of specialized techni- cal 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.

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  con-

cerned 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 let-

ter dated 12.05.2008 that approvals granted by DEC (including ex-

post-facto) must be reviewed and approval be granted to the courses

and not to the institute.

78

e) After 12.05.2008, neither the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-

DEC 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

B.Tech/B.E.  programmes  through distance  learning.   This  was  fol-

lowed by UGC letter dated 13.08.2009.

The specific submission was:-

“It is humbly submitted that so far as UGC is con- cerned,  B.E./B.Tech.  degrees  awarded  by  institutions Deemed to be Universities through ODL mode without AICTE  approval will not be treated as valid qualifica- tions by the UGC.

The UGC has never  given any ex-post-facto ap- proval  to  the  aforesaid  institutions  which are  “deemed universities”  including  JRN  Rajasthan  Vidyapeeth,  al- though the  erstwhile  DEC has  given  such  approval  to many universities/deemed universities including JRN Ra- jasthan Vidyapeeth.

The ex-post-facto approval relied upon by the peti- tioner  JRN Rajasthan  were  not  unconditional  but  were subject to approval of relevant statutory bodies or coun- cils  [which can only mean bodies like AICTE and such other similar regulatory bodies] wherever necessary.”

30. In its written submissions, JRN submitted:

79

1) 1985 UGC Regulations applied and covered degrees in Engi-

neering as well, since Engineering is an applied branch of science.   

2) JRN was granted permission by DEC to commence distance ed-

ucation 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.  

3) It applied for ex-post-facto approval pursuant to DEC advertise-

ment dated 03.03.2004, providing details of the Faculty of Engineer-

ing 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 ex-

post-facto approval was accorded on 29.08.2007.

6) In respect of academic session after 2007, provisional recogni-

tion 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.

80

8) It also referred to interim orders passed by High Court of Judi-

cature 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 expe-

rience and expertise in the field of   admission and continuing educa-

tion, and its expertise in a System of methodology of education/learn-

ing and not in a particular subject or discipline.

10) It commenced its courses in Engineering through distance edu-

cation 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 Off-Cen-

tres/Campus Centres in any part of India with the approval of UGC.

Similarly, Study Centres for distance education can be established and

81

maintained or recognized in any part of India for the assistance of stu-

dents enrolled in distance learning programmes.

13) It gave a list of 18 Deemed to be Universities having Off Cam-

pus  Centres  in  various  parts  of  the  country  including  three  such

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 Insti-

tute of Science & Technology  v.   Union of India7 which held that

Universities including  Deemed to be  Universities could start a de-

partment or commence new courses or programmes  in technical edu-

cation 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 Commis-

sion8 to the effect that there was no restriction on a Deemed to be Uni-

versity to start new course or department until UGC  Regulations of

2010 were issued.   Further reliance was placed on  Association of

7 2006 (3) MRJ 870 8 W.P. (C) 486/2015 decided on 4.12.2015

82

Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical

Education & Ors.9 to the effect that universities, its  colleges and in-

stitutes were exempted  from seeking prior approval of AICTE.

31. Appearing for JRN, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate sub-

mitted 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 with-

drawn 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

9 (2013) 8 SCC 271

83

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.

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 submis-

sions, 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 de-

grees 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 in-

valid and as such no benefit ought to accrue to such candidates.  Similar sub-

mission 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.  

84

33. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing

for UGC submitted that inclusive definition of “University” in UGC Act was

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 submis-

sion, if such Deemed to be University is desirous of starting any technical

course it ought to obtain express approval from AICTE.  He also placed re-

liance 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 leg-

islation as against a Deemed to be University.   

34. Thus, we are principally concerned in the present matters with ques-

tions 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:-

85

a) The concerned Deemed to be Universities namely AAI, JRN and

IASE started distance education programmes leading to degrees in

Engineering,  outside  their  field  of  specialization.  Such  pro-

grammes  were  started  without  taking  any  approval  from  UGC

and/or AICTE and when there was no approved engineering col-

lege 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 con-

cerned 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 facil-

ities therein were assessed to see if they meet the standards pre-

scribed for imparting courses in Engineering.  Similarly, no author-

ity 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

86

was  simply  endorsed  by  the  Joint  Committee  of  UGC-DEC-

AICTE.    e) Under 1985 UGC Regulations, minimum of 180 actual teaching

days in an academic year with 40 clock hours every week are re-

quired for courses leading to degrees of B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.  As-

suming 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 practi-

cal training. f) The application preferred by JRN for ex-post-facto approval shows

that its Study Centres for programmes leading to degrees in Engi-

neering 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 impart-

ing any courses in technical education.    If the facilities were suffi-

cient to justify the independent strength of those institutions, the

additional burden caused by students of  JRN could not possibly be

accommodated.  

87

g)  The inspection to ensure maintenance of standards was specifi-

cally  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 continua-

tion/withdrawal  of  approval.   In  the teeth of  these Policy state-

ments, the Joint Committee of AICTE-DEC-UGC endorsed its ac-

ceptance 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-

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

88

months after on 12.05.2008.  It spoke nothing about review of ex-

post-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 ap-

provals 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 ad-

mit students for current year,  no steps were undertaken to imple-

ment 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 ap-

plied 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

89

Regulation 18 of 2010 UGC Regulations, such a request or appli-

cation 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 students de-

spite 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 Engi-

neering 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 Interim

Order of this Court only protected concerned students whose de-

grees 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 re-

ferred 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

90

University will be allowed to conduct courses in distance educa-

tion 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 mat-

ters 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 statutory

approvals.  It is, however, the submission of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Se-

nior 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 ques-

tions, therefore, arise for our consideration.

91

A. Whether  the  concerned  Deemed  to  be  Universities  in  the

present case, could start courses through distance education in sub-

jects 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 educa-

tion 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.

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 train-

ing 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

92

technical education which by very nature must  apply to every single institu-

tion (whether university or not) where such courses are conducted or im-

parted.    At the same time, certain functions are relatable to technical institu-

tions alone, which by definition are not applicable to universities.  For exam-

ple, 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 alia, coordination of the technical educa-

tion in the country at all  levels; promoting innovation, research, develop-

ment, establishment of new technologies, generation, adoption and adapta-

tion of new technologies to meet the developmental requirements; and pro-

moting 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 con-

ducted is a part of the larger concept of “technical education”.  Any idea or

93

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 estab-

lished 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 in Bharathi-

dasan 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 juxta- position, will show that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the univer- sities  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 empow- ered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submit- ting 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

94

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 techni- cal 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 practi-

cals form the backbone of such education which is hands-on approach in-

volving 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 estab-

lished 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 educa-

tion 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 impart-

ing 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 al-

ways maintained that courses leading to degrees in Engineering cannot be

undertaken through distance education mode.  Whether that approach is cor-

95

rect 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 stan-

dards including maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring coordi-

nated 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

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 dis-

tance 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 Uni-

versity Department on College except with the approval of the Council”.

96

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 mat-

ter 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 inte-

grally 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 Ro-

botics or Nano Technology which are Engineering subjects and inte-

grally 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

97

Arts and Music, for its excellence in that chosen field- or for that mat-

ter 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 deci-

sion 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 Engi-

neering.  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

98

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.  How-

ever merely because such status was conferred on the concerned institution,

in his submission, would not entitle it to similar protection in the second cat-

egory cases,  as available to a University by virtue of the decision of this

Court in Bharathidasan (supra).   

41. Paras 1 and 2 of Bharathidasan (supra) show that the University con-

stituted  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 de-

termine.  The express grant or empowerment thus came from the State enact-

ment 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 ter-

ritorial restrictions, in that it could not go beyond the territory of three Dis-

tricts over which it was given Jurisdiction. But if we accept the submission

of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate, there would be no such ter-

ritorial restrictions on a Deemed University and it could open new depart-

ments, introduce new courses in any field anywhere in the Country.  By way

99

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 the Country but the original Uni-

versity 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 un-

der 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 excel-

lence 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  estab-

lished 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”

100

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 inco-

herent 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.   

43. Conceptually there is some difference between the status of a Univer-

sity 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 corre-

spondingly  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 advance-

ment in its chosen field for which such status was accorded.  There is no em-

bargo 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 com-

plete relaxation from regulatory regime.  It must satisfy all those require-

ments 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

101

correct and we reject the submission of         Dr. Dhavan.  The logical con-

clusion 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 given deferential treatment but none-

theless it has to satisfy the requirements for new technical institution. Perti-

nently, 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 defini-

tion 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 de-

102

fined 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 un-

doubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii) 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 In-

stitutions 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 mat-

ter, the policy Guidelines issued from time to time made it abundantly clear

that DEC alone was not entitled to grant permission for open distance learn-

ing 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

10 (2009) 4 SCC 590

103

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

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

104

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

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

105

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.     

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 May-June, 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

106

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  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

107

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

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.

108

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

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

109

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

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

110

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

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

111

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

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.

11   (2016) 7 SCC 353 – Paras 86 to 92, 108 to 111 12  (2016) 6 SCC 335

112

III Consequent  to  aforesaid  direction  No.II,  all  the  degrees  in

Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand

suspended.

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.  

113

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.

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

114

indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who

abused their  position to advance their commercial  interest  illegally.

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.  

115

XII The  UGC  is  further  directed  to  take  appropriate  steps  and

implement  Section 23 of  the UGC Act  and restrain Deemed to be

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

116

grateful for the assistance rendered by him.  We are also thankful for the

assistance given by all the learned counsel.   

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