Nehru Gram Bharati University vs State of U.P. & Ors.

HELD: 1.1 The notification dated June 27, 2008 granting status of Deemed University was subject to certain conditions. Section 22 of UGC Act gives right upon such Deemed University to confer degrees. It is clear that the right which was given to the Deemed University to confer degrees pertain to those degrees which are specified by the UGC in the Official Gazette. Admittedly, BTC is not one of the degrees mentioned therein. The reason is obvious. Insofar as BTC is concerned, it is a Teachers Training Course which was regulated entirely and exclusively by NCTE Act and the Regulations framed therein. First thing which follows, therefore, is that mere conferment of Deemed University status did not entitle this University to give BTC degrees to its students. [Paras 28, 29] [594-E-H; 595-A-B]

1.2 A University was granted permission by the NCTE to start two years BTC Course vide letter dated 16.8.2005. However, this was subject to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned therein. These conditions are summarised by the High Court, in the judgment. The High Court has concluded that many of the said conditions were not fulfilled by the Deemed University which position could not be disputed inasmuch as non–compliance was admitted in the supplementary affidavit filed before the High Court. [Paras 30, 31] [595-B-C; 596-D]

1.3 The gravamen of the charge is that the very conditions which were laid down by the NCTE in giving the recognition have not been fulfilled. Merely because the college was conferred the status of Deemed University, these conditions did not cease to apply as BTC is not one of the degrees mentioned in the degrees specified by the UGC in the Official Gazette and that insofar as BTC is concerned, it would still be governed by the NCTE Act and regulations. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Deemed University has later on fulfilled the conditions and got recognition from NCTE in respect of BTC Course itself but it has happened only from the year 2012 onwards. Insofar as issue of non–fulfillment of conditions is concerned, the High Court has rightly pointed out that it more or less stands admitted by the Deemed University in its supplementary affidavit. [Para 32–34] [597-H; 598-B-D]

1.4 The submission that since the policy of fulfilling the conditions was set aside by the Single Judge of the High Court and this decision was affirmed by the Division Bench, it no more remained an obligation upon Deemed University to fulfill those conditions cannot be accepted. On this very aspect, the High Court in the impugned judgment had rightly pointed out that a direction was issued requiring the State Government to formulate a policy and not to create any impediment of running a BTC Course by private institutions also, who fulfill the norms prescribed by NCTE. Thus, fulfillment of norms prescribed by NCTE was necessary. The Division Bench has clarified that mere grant of permission by NCTE does not amount to automatic affiliation for running the BTC Course, until and unless the institution fulfills the norms which are prescribed by the NCTE. This Deemed University had also admitted in its counter affidavit filed before the High Court that the State Government, in terms of the Division Bench took a policy decision to grant recognition/affiliations to private institutions also for imparting training of BTC Course under Government order. As a corollary, it follows that there was no question of granting recognition to the private institutions upto January 15, 2010 for BTC Course in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As this was the legal position prevailing, coupled with the fact that the Deemed University approached the NCTE/SCERT for recognition of BTC Course and is given the said recognition only from the year 2012 onwards, the admission of students in BTC Course for the Academic Sessions i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 was not permissible and such degrees cannot be treated as validly recognised. It may be harsh for the students who took admission in the Academic Sessions 2008-09 and 200910. However, the Court cannot countenance the position where the unrecognised course is given imprimatur of validity only on the ground of equity. Because of this reason itself, the High Court has awarded compensation to the students. It is not possible to accede to the request of the Deemed University to waive the order of compensation made by the High Court. [Para 35, 36] [598-E-H; 599-A-D]

State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 1 : [2006]

3 SCR 638; State of U.P. & Ors. v. Furqan Ali & Ors. 2011 (1) ADJ 480; Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila

Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013)

2 SCC 617 : [2012] 13 SCR 810 ; State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College & Ors. (2016) 16 SCC 110 : [2016]

5 SCR 298; Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 468 – referred to.