Vinit Garg and Others vs University Grants Commission and Others

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I’s case – Enunciation of dictum – Explained and clarified – Held: Approval of the AICTE and UGC mandatory for starting the technical education courses through distance learning mode. University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Purpose of enactment – Stated.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Approval of AICTE was mandatory for starting the Bachelor of Technology courses. Approval of the AICTE was not obtained by TIET, Patiala. [Para 11][17-C]

1.2 Paragraph 4 of the ‘Guidelines for Establishing New Departments Within the Campus, Setting Up of Off–Campus Centre(s)/Institution(s)/Off–Shore Campus and Starting Distance Education Programmes by the Deemed Universities’, issued by the UGC makes it crystal clear that post the 2004 Guidelines, every deemed to be university would require approvals of the UGC and DEC, for starting any degree course through open and distance learning mode. The condition of approval was mandatory. It is not the case of the petitioners or TIET, Patiala that the latter had taken prior approval of the UGC for the B.Tech. degrees obtained through distance learning mode. Paragraph 5 relates to ex–post facto approval of the UGC/DEC for continuation of distance education programmes/study centres started without specific approval of the UGC/DEC. Paragraph 5 is not applicable in the instant case as the degree courses were started post enactment of the 2004 Guidelines. [Para 12][18-A-C]

1.3 The petitioners and TIET, Patiala misconstrued paragraph 49 of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I. The said paragraph refers to the 1994 Regulations issued by the AICTE under which no courses or programmes could be introduced by any technical institution/ university, including a deemed university or a university department or college, except with approval of the AICTE. Paragraph 49 deals with universities including deemed to be universities imparting higher education for degree courses/programmes through regular mode. This paragraph does not specifically deal with or confer any right upon the deemed to be universities to start distance education courses, even if integrally connected with the approved regular courses. The foregoing analysis becomes clear when Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I is read in its entirety, particularly the immediately preceding paragraph, i.e. paragraph 48, wherein it has been specifically stipulated and mandated that whether subjects leading to degrees in engineering would be taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive domain of the AICTE. Thus, in view of the statutory provisions and lack of prior approval of the UGC or AICTE, TIET, Patiala was not competent to award graduation degrees in technical courses via distance mode. [Para 13–15][19-C-D; 20-A-D]

1.4 The plea that the petitioners are entitled to relief as was granted to the petitioners in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited I and II is rejected since no relief was granted to the candidates who had taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. Relief in the form of one–time relaxation vide examination to be conducted by the AICTE was granted to those candidates/students who had taken admission in academic years beginning from 2001 and till 2004–2005. [Para 18][22-G-H]

1.5 TIET, Patiala in their additional affidavit have referred to the correspondence with the DEC expressing their desire to start B.Tech. courses in Civil Engineering/Computer Sciences and Engineering/Electrical Engineering/Mechanical Engineering through distance learning programme, vide their letter dated 17th May, 2006 and reply of the DEC vide its letter dated 16th June, 2006 that such approvals can only be granted after evaluation of the course material by an expert committee and for which TIET, Patiala should apply in the prescribed format with requisite fee. Thereupon, TIET, Patiala had submitted an application in the required format and an expert committee constituted by the Chairman of the DEC had evaluated infrastructure and other services etc., provided by TIET, Patiala. The expert committee, which included the Director, School of Engineering and Technology, IGNOU, gave a favourable report subsequent to which the letter of provisional recognition dated 31st August, 2007 was issued by the DEC permitting TIET, Patiala to start the course. Reference was also made to the press note dated 23 rd May, 2007 released by Press Information Bureau, Government of India, which had published a list of universities including deemed to be universities offering distance education. This list also included TIET, Patiala. [Para 19][23-A-D]

1.6 The petitioners also relied upon letter dated 3 rd September, 2007 written to TIET, Patiala by the DEC providing them provisional recognition for one year in programmes offered through distance mode. The said letter states that TIET, Patiala had made an application to the DEC requesting for recognition of programmes offered through distance mode and that they had been granted provisional recognition for offering such programmes. The letter records that an application was submitted by TIET, Patiala but no specific reference was made to the programmes or courses offered nor the date when the application was filed is indicated. The letter also does not refer to approval by the AICTE or UGC. It had further required TIET, Patiala to submit a fresh application for the next academic year from June– July 2008. [Para 20][23-E; 24-G-H]

1.7 The 2004 Guidelines issued by the UGC and the AICTE Act hold that TIET, Patiala had failed to take their prior approval before starting B. Tech. degree courses through distance education mode. Provisional recognition by the DEC being contrary to the law would not matter for at best the DEC would be equally guilty for violating the law in terms of 2004 Guidelines issued by the UGC and the AICTE Act. In terms of the said notification issued by the Government of India on 1st March 1995 quoted in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I on distance education programme by deemed to be universities etc. also approval of the AICTE was required. [Para 21][25-A-C]

1.8 TIET, Patiala accepts that no approval, provisional or otherwise, was granted for the next academic year, i.e. June– July 2008, yet B.Tech. degree programmes through distance mode for the academic year June–July 2008 were offered by TIET, Patiala contrary to the statutes and law. TIET, Patiala, to justify admissions in the academic year 2008–2009 in their additional affidavit, have referred to correspondence and submission of application to the UGC for offering B. Tech. degree courses through distance education programme for the academic session i.e. 2008–2009. This is surprising as TIET, Patiala had not applied to the UGC for the previous academic session i.e. 2007–2008. Thereafter, the additional affidavit refers to correspondence exchanged between the DEC and TIET, Patiala pursuant to which a Joint Expert Committee was constituted comprising of members of the UGC, DEC and AICTE to assess the administration and management of distance learning programmes offered by TIET, Patiala, which panel had visited their premises on 2nd June, 2009 and had recommended the recognition of as many as seven programmes for a period of five years. However, the Central Government had, in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the UGC Act and in terms of a policy decision, issued a notification on 29th July, 2009 that the B.Tech. degrees would not be offered through open distance learning programme. In view of this policy decision, the DEC had to immediately withdraw the permission to various institutions to conduct B.Tech. degree courses through distance education mode and no further student was admitted in the current year and thereafter. However, the notification states that those who had already been admitted would have to pass practicals and written examination as may be prescribed so as to obtain the B.Tech. degrees through distance education. [Para 22, 23][25-F-H; 26-A-D]

1.9 The submission/contention of the petitioners and TIET, Patiala completely overlooks several developments, correspondence and policy decisions taken which have been noticed in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I, particularly the notification issued by the AICTE on 28 th November, 2005 clearly stating that no technical institution of the Government/Government aided/private institution, whether affiliated or not to any University, shall start new courses or increase the intake for the same without approval of the AICTE. Notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India on 5th April, 2006 in exercise of powers vested in the Central Government under Section 20(1) of the UGC Act and Section 20(1) of the AICTE Act had clarified the role of the UGC and AICTE for maintaining standards of education and that the deemed to be universities are required to maintain minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE for various courses within the jurisdiction of the said Council. This was followed by a joint public notice issued by the AICTE, UGC and DEC on 4th February, 2007. The public notice had cautioned that the universities/ institutions/deemed to be universities offering technical education programme through distance education mode without approval of concerned statutory authorities were doing so in contravention of the law and would be treated severely. The last sentence of the notification had made it clear that in addition to the concerned statutory councils, all courses and the programmes offered for study in distance mode would require approval of the DEC. A memorandum of understanding was arrived at on 10th May, 2007 among the UGC, AICTE and DEC to work in close co–operation in pursuit of excellence in technical and general education being imparted through distance and mixed mode in the country. These aspects and contentions were considered in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I and it has been held that B.Tech. degrees could not have been awarded through distance learning mode without the approval of the DEC and without any specific approval of the AICTE and UGC and award of such degrees without approval of the three were invalid and cannot be recognised. [Para 24, 25][26-E-G; 27-E-G]

1.10 Functioning of the DEC has come in for rather strong criticism in several quarters. Till 2006, the DEC had approved about 45 programmes of 23 universities out of applications for approximately 200 programmes. In 2007, the DEC repealed the programme approval process and the system of institutional recognition was started. As per this decision, all programmes approved by respective authorities of the institution were deemed to have recognition of the DEC. As a result of this decision, within a short span, the number of approved programmes increased to over 3000 in 2010. The provisional recognition letter of the DEC would uniformly state that before starting such programmes, the required approvals from other regulatory bodies have to be obtained but the said stipulation was not followed in most cases and provisional recognition was granted by the DEC to technical programmes through distance mode without recognition/approval of the AICTE or UGC. This had paved way for commercialisation and was a retrograde step which had resulted in deterioration of the quality of open learning programmes/degrees. After burning its fingers, the DEC switched back to programme recognition. The DEC itself was finally wound up in 2013. [Para 26][27-H; 28-A-C]

1.11 In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I, this Court, took note of the order dated 29th December, 2012 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India for regulating the standards of education being imparted through distance mode to hold that the unilateral approvals of the DEC were invalid. The said order correctly appreciated that DEC could not act as a regulator for other Universities. The said order, the Court noted, had definitively vested the UGC and AICTE, among other statutory regulators, with powers to regulate technical courses imparted through distance learning mode and made it mandatory for institutions intending to impart such courses to seek their approval and recognition. [Para 27] [28-D-E; 29-B-C]

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others (2018) 1 SCC 468 – Explained and relied on.

Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8 SCC 676 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253; Annamalai University Represented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Others (2009) 4 SCC 590 : [2009] 3 SCR 355; State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Others (1995) 4 SCC 104 : [1995]

2 SCR 1075; Osmania University Teachers’ Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another (1987) 4 SCC

671 : [1987] 3 SCR 949; Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (2013) 8 SCC 271 : [2013] 6 SCR 1054; Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others (2018) 2 SCC 298 : [2018] 1 SCR 839 – referred to.