AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J) This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“(a)Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal
(b)Declare that the qualification possessed by the applicant viz., Bachelor Degree of Science (Hotel Management and Tourism) in ODL mode is equivalent qualification prescribed for the post of Principal in category A in view of several judgments of various courts as also the orders of UGC and DEC;
(c)Issue a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the application of the applicant for the post of Principal holding the qualification possessed by him as equivalent qualification for Category A”; and
(d)Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this litigation.”
Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that the Employment Notification issued by the 2nd respondent inviting applications for the post of Principal under Category ‘A’ prescribes the qualification of Post Graduation from a recognized University and Full Time Degree/Diploma in Hotel Management. The applicant possesses the qualification of Bachelor of Arts from University of Madras; Master of Commerce from University of Madras; BGL Degree Examination from Madurai Kamaraj University; M.Phil. Degree Examination from University of Madras; Diploma in Taxation from University of Madras; a pass in the intermediate examination from the Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Chennai; a Ph.D degree from University of Madras; MBA with specialization in Human Resources and a three year Bachelor Degree of Science (Hotel Management and Tourism) from Annamalai University. The applicant joined service as a Lecturer in the 2nd respondent organization and has been promoted from time to time and presently working in Food Craft Institute, Mysore as Principal and Secretary to Governing Body on deputation. Pursuant to the impugned advertisement, the applicant submitted his application for the post of Principal under Category ‘A’ as per Annexure A13 dated 28.12.2019. The applicant apprehended that his application may not be considered on the ground that the Bachelor’s degree possessed by him in Hotel Management and Tourism is from Distance Education mode. Hence, the applicant preferred OA No. 41/2020 before this Tribunal on 13.01.2020. The said OA came up for admission before this Bench on 22.01.2020 and this Tribunal while ordering notice to the respondents ordered that "In the meanwhile, the applicant's case will be considered by the Committee and the result may be kept in a sealed cover", but there has been no progress in the matter of convening of meeting for considering the applications till date. The applicant sought for withdrawal of the said OA No. 41/2020 with liberty to institute fresh proceedings. Accordingly, the said OA was dismissed on 22.02.2023 with liberty as sought for by the applicant, pursuant to which, the applicant has preferred this OA. 2A. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicant submitted that the applicant possesses all the qualifications prescribed in the impugned recruitment notification advertised but he has obtained three years degree in Hotel Management and Tourism from Annamalai University. Placing reliance on the Gazette Notification dated 25.07.2015 issued by the Government of India, learned counsel submitted that Degrees/Diplomas awarded by Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode are to be treated at par with regular degrees and diplomas and recognized for employment purposes to the posts and services under the Central Government, provided they have been approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The Government of India and UGC recognized the Degrees/Diplomas awarded in Open and Distance mode are equivalent to regular Degree/Diploma and valid for employment in Central Government provided the University or the Higher Educational Institution is recognised by UGC/Distance Education Council (DEC). However, the respondents have rejected similar applications with qualification obtained from ODL mode. The Railway Board on 16.06.2022 issued a letter to all concerned accepting the qualification obtained from distance education mode from Annamalai University through ODL mode but not beyond the Academic Year 2014-15 for the purpose of promotion and employment to posts and services under the Railways. In other words, the degrees obtained until the Academic Year 2013-14 have been accepted for the said purpose. The applicant had obtained the degree of Hotel Management and Tourism from Annamalai University before the said Academic Year.
Referring to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 606/2015 and connected matters (DD: 20.01.2023) and the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 13696/2022 as well as the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 27.02.2024 and 26.03.2024 in Contempt Petition No. 2231/2022, learned counsel submitted that since the applicant was called for an interview based on his Degree in Hotel Management and Tourism obtained through ODL mode and the interview committee has awarded 10 out of 10 for additional qualification, it is necessary to treat the Bachelor’s Degree of Science (Hotel Management and Tourism) in ODL mode possessed by the applicant as equivalent to the qualification prescribed for the post of Principal in Category ‘A’ of the impugned recruitment notification advertised. Accordingly, seeks for the reliefs claimed.
Detailed reply statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents separately. Learned counsel Shri M. Narayana Bhat representing the Respondent No. 2 submitted that the recruitment to every post is governed by the Recruitment Rules. What are the qualifications that an employer could prescribe is within the domain of the recruiting authority and the Government of India. Declaration of equivalence or considering the sufficiency of the qualification possessed by the candidate etc., is the domain of the recruiting authority. In the instant case, the applicant is indirectly seeking a prayer to frame a particular rule to suit the qualifications possessed by him. Courts can only interpret the rules and they do not substitute the rules. Admittedly, the rules are not under challenge. Annamalai University is a residential university and had no power to impart education through Distance Education program. Annamalai University is not affiliated to Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). As per Section 4 of the Annamalai University’s Act, it is prohibited from having any academic activity beyond 10 miles from its Senate Hall. The employment notification for the post of Principal as published clearly prescribes the essential educational qualification as “Full Time Degree/Full Time Three Years Diploma in Hotel Administration/Hospitality Management/Hotel Management/Hospitality Administration/ Culinary Arts/Culinary Science with minimum of 55% marks in aggregate or its equivalent grade from...........” Since the said notification specifically provides about Full Time Degree/Diploma, there is no ground for the applicant to seek for entertaining his application, as he has acquired Hotel Management and Tourism degree through distance mode. The notification issued by the Railway Board is for the general recruitment for a general post which is not applicable to a technical post in the Railways. Moreover, this Respondent No. 2 Institute of Hotel Management Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition is not functioning under the Ministry of Railways. A qualification acquired by attending the colleges regularly is held to be the only qualification to hold the post of Principal, applicant cannot adopt surreptitious method to consider his qualification as equivalent. The degrees awarded to the students of Institute of Hotel Management (IHM) are awarded not through Distance Education mode but on regularly attending the colleges. The applicant has no prescribed qualification to the post of Principal in Institute of Hotel Management since he has acquired the qualification through the Distance Education mode. Soorya Institute from where the applicant pursued the course through ODL cannot have any affiliation with the Annamalai University. Moreover, Soorya Institute is located at a distance of 75-80 kms from Annamalai University campus. When the Act prohibits the University to have any campus beyond 10 miles under Section 4, Soorya Institute’s liaisoning cannot be recognised in the eye of law. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: 1) Kurmanchal Institute of Degree and Diploma and Ors. vs. Chancellor, MJP, Rohilkhand University and Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 35. 2) Prof. Yashpal and Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 420. 3) State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252. 4) Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 213. 5) Director of Settlements, A.P. and Ors. vs. M.R. Apparao and anr., (2002) 4 SCC 638.
Learned counsel Shri N. Amaresh representing the Respondent No. 1 supporting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that the applicant has not challenged the Recruitment Rules based on which the impugned recruitment notification-advertisement has been issued. Degree obtained through ODL mode cannot be construed as equivalent to the regular degree obtained after attending the regular classes. The applicant has no prescribed qualification to the post of Principal in the IHM as he has acquired the required qualification in Hotel Management and Tourism through Distance Education mode. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had applied for the post of Principal, IHM, Chennai as well as the post of Principal, IHM, Mumbai. In respect of IHM, Mumbai, the screening committee recorded the reasons for rejection of the candidature of the applicant as follows: "No Full time degree/diploma as per prescribed RR. Candidate has done through ‘distance mode’." Similarly, information furnished by IHM, Chennai indicates that the candidature of the applicant was rejected as he is not fulfilling the criteria of basic qualification, since degree in Hotel Management and Tourism is not on full time mode.
Reply statement filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 -UGC would depict that Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu is a State University. The erstwhile regulator, Distance Education Council (DEC) granted post facto recognition to the University for the programs offered by it through distance mode from the academic session 1995-1996 to 2006-2007 vide letter dated 21.07.2008. Subsequently, the DEC granted recognition to the Annamalai University to offer the programs through the distance mode for a period of five years vide letter dated 15.02.2007. Further, the program wise recognition was accorded to it for three years from academic session 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 vide letters dated 21.08.2012, 20.08.2013 and 28.05.2014 for offering specific programs. However, no further recognition has been granted to Annamalai University either by DEC or UGC to offer any program through distance mode. It is further clarified that admission taken in a recognized program under the Open and Distance Learning mode and/or online mode during the recognition period stands recognised till the completion of program, even if the Higher Educational Institution does not have recognition for further years, provided the program is offered as per the UGC norms of territorial jurisdiction and in conformity with the extant guidelines and/or UGC regulations and regulations of respective regulatory bodies. It is specifically stated that the UGC cannot confirm or clarify the status of the applicant's degree from Annamalai University.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The earlier employment Notification dated 14.12.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent was withdrawn and a fresh Employment Notification was issued by the 2nd respondent inviting applications for the post of Principal (Regular) from suitable and eligible candidates. The same was published in the newspaper, Times of India (All India Edition) on 21.10.2023. The said Notification prescribes essential and desirable educational qualification and work experience is shown as fulfilling either under Category ‘A’ or Category ‘B’ or Category ‘C’ specified therein. The essential and desirable educational qualification for the post of Principal - 01 post (Unreserved) under Category ‘A’ is
“Post Graduation from a recognized University (Central/State/Deemed to be/AIU equivalent PG from foreign Institution) And (+) Full Time Degree/Full Time Three Years Diploma in Hotel Administration/Hospitality Management/Hotel Management/ Hospitality Administration/Culinary Arts/Culinary Science with minimum of 55% marks in aggregate or its equivalent grade from: i. NCHMCT or NCHMCT affiliated Institute; OR ii. An Institute approved by AICTE; OR iii. An Institute approved by the State Board of Technical Education; OR iv. An Institute affiliated to University duly recognized by UGC; OR v. Central/State/Deemed to be University recognized by UGC; OR vi. Equivalent degree/diploma of foreign university/institution recognized by AIU. Desirable Qualification: Ph.D Degree.”
In the note, it is mentioned that the selection process for the above post is subject to final order on the OA vide No. 170/00125/2023 submitted at Honorable CAT, Bangalore.
The applicant claims that he has submitted the application pursuant to the impugned advertisement under Category ‘A’. The applicant has obtained B. Sc. degree in Hotel Management and Tourism from Annamalai University in May, 2014 in first class. It is the apprehension of the applicant that his application may not be considered on the ground that the Bachelor’s degree possessed in Hotel Management is from distance education mode. It is not in dispute that the subject employment notification is issued in conformity with the Recruitment Rules of IHM. No challenge is made either to the Recruitment Rules or on the educational qualification prescribed in the employment notification, on the other hand, applicant seeks for a declaration that the qualification possessed by him i.e., Bachelor Degree of Science (Hotel Management and Tourism) in ODL mode is equivalent qualification prescribed for the post of Principal in Category ‘A’ as per the Recruitment Rules. In the employment notification published, educational qualification prescribed in Category ‘A’ i.e., the essential and desirable educational qualification is Post Graduation from a recognized University (Central/State/Deemed to Be/AIU equivalent PG from foreign Institution) and (+) Full Time Degree/Full Time three years Diploma in Hotel Administration/Hospitality Management/Hotel Management/ Hospitality Administration/Culinary Arts/Culinary Science with minimum of 55% of marks in aggregate or its equivalent grade from the institutes/universities mentioned therein. Desirable qualification is Ph.D. Degree. There is no dispute inasmuch as the applicant possessing Post Graduation from a recognised University as specified, but the controversy involved herein is with respect to the Full Time Degree/Full Time Three Years Diploma prescribed.
A Full Time Degree is an academic program where prescribed attendance in attending the classes is required. In Full Time courses, a majority of the time, commitment is reserved for classes. Full Time Degree offers rich face-to-face interaction, direct peer networking, immersive mentorship, extensive practical training, laboratories or workshops. It follows a fixed daily schedule with mandatory physical attendance on campus, whereas ODL is structured on virtual classes/self-based study materials with no mandatory daily campus visits but provides limited networking and lacks hands-on lab or clinical training. Prescription of eligibility qualification is the prerogative right of the employer. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Arun, supra, the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for the courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.
It is apt to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Unnikrishnan C.V. and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2023) 18 SCC 546 wherein, it is held that it is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes the equivalency namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert bodies. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the recruiting authority, to determine. In coming to the said conclusion, the legal principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610 and Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmed & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404 are relied upon. In Guru Nanak Dev University, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with, whether a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of M.A. (English) of the University concerned therein, the court held that no material had been produced to show that the distance education course had been recognised as such. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather, it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.
Employer has the absolute right to decide what skills, training or educational levels are needed for a role based on their operational needs. It is well-settled that courts will not interfere with or rewrite Recruitment Rules unless the prescribed standards are proven to be clearly arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory. The Central Administrative Tribunalrespondent Institute is not conducting courses through ODL mode. It is through Full Time degree for which practical training and workshop knowledge is necessary. Respondent Institute is offering courses relating to hospitality education with respect to Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition which, according to the employer, requires knowledge of practical training. If the job demands specific practical training available under Full Time Degree/Full Time Three Years Diploma, prescribing the same as minimum qualification cannot be faulted with. No material is placed before us to establish that Full Time Degree/Full Time Three Years Diploma in Hotel Administration/Hospitality Management/Hotel Management/Hospitality Administration/ Culinary Arts/Culinary Science is arbitrary.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal, supra, has observed thus:
“32.The interplay of Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III was again examined by a Constitution Bench in Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors. 1999 (7) SCC 120 in the context of lowering of standards by the State for admission to a Post Graduate course in a Medical College and it was held that the State cannot while controlling education in the State impinge on standards in institutions for higher education because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union Government. While considering the question whether norms for admission have any connection with the standards of education Central Administrative Tribunaland that they are only covered by Entry 25 of List III, it was observed that any lowering of the norms of admission does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutions of higher education. The standard of education in an institution depends on various factors like, (i) the caliber of teaching staff; (ii) a proper syllabus designed to achieve high level of education in a given span of time; (iii) the student-teacher ratio; (iv) equipment and laboratory facilities; (v) caliber of the students admitted; (vi) adequate accommodation in the institution; (vii) the standard of examinations held including the manner in which the papers are set and examined; and (viii) the evaluation of practical examinations done. It was pointed out that education involves a continuous interaction between the teachers and the students. The base of teaching, the level to which teaching can rise and the benefit which the students ultimately receive depends as much on the caliber of the students as on the caliber of the teachers and the availability of adequate infrastructural facilities.”
Though in Abdul Motin vs. Manisankar Maiti and Ors. reported in (2018) 16 SCC 533, the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred to the directive of the UGC inasmuch as the Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates awarded for programmes conducted by the ODL institutions, recognized by DEC/UGC in conformity with UGC notification on specification of degrees should be treated as equivalent to the corresponding awards of the Degree/Diploma/Certificate of the traditional Universities/ Institutions in the country, the same was rendered in a different situation where Ph.D. degree conferred by an Open University under the Netaji Subhash Open University Act, 1997 and the Ph.D. degree conferred by a regular University ought to be treated Central Administrative Tribunal differently, where such Ph.D. degree is an essential qualification, but not in the context of Full Time Degree/Full Time Diploma. The phrase 'Full-Time' has its own value and cannot be discarded to.
In Writ Appeal No. 1045/2022 (DD: 18.04.2022) preferred by the applicant against the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, the Division Bench in the context of the application submitted by the applicant for the post of Principal pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.07.2019 through proper channel vide letter dated 02.08.2019 after sending advance copy of the application to the 2nd respondent observed that, on the query made by the applicant, the reply was sent that the advance copy of the application was not received and only application through proper channel was received on 07.08.2019 whereas the last date for submission of the application was 05.08.2019. In such scenario, the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras held that the appellant/writ petitioner may be given a chance and interview has to be conducted for the writ petitioner alone and thereafter on receipt of performance, a decision can be taken along with other candidates. Till such time, the decision already taken in the interview conducted with regard to Central Administrative Tribunal seven applicants can be kept in a sealed cover. This order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court rejecting Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13696/2022 filed by the respondents herein. However, it was clarified that the impugned judgment (therein) and the dismissal of the present Special Leave Petition will not come in the way of the petitioners therein, examining whether the respondent – Dr. S. Kannan is otherwise ineligible. Alleging wilful disobedience of the said orders, Contempt Petition No. 2231/2022 was filed by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. On issuance of notice, the learned Additional Solicitor General representing the respondents submitted that after the earlier order dated 27.02.2024 in Contempt Petition No. 2231/2022, the petitioner was called for an interview on 19.03.2024 and an interview has been conducted. He would be considered along with the other candidates. Recording the said statement, the Contempt Petition was closed.
Strong reliance is placed on these orders by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant having been allowed to participate in the interview for the selection of Principal with the educational qualification he possessed and the maximum Central Administrative Tribunalmarks of 10 out of 10 granted for additional qualification, no contrary stand can be taken in respect of the subject employment notification. It is hard to accept this argument for the reason that the controversy involved in the Writ Appeal proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras was with respect to the cut-off date prescribed vis-à-vis the application submitted by the applicant whether was after the cut-off date prescribed in the recruitment notification involved therein, not with respect to the educational qualification prescribed was duly fulfilled by the applicant or not. The controversy involved herein, was not the subject matter of the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and the Hon'ble Apex Court. Marks awarded by the Interview Committee for the additional qualification would not protect the applicant from raising objection to the educational qualification possessed by the applicant. The issue involved herein requires to be examined independently sans relying on the permission granted to the applicant by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court altogether in a different context.
As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ambica Central Administrative TribunalQuarry Works, supra, “the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it decides, and not that logically follows from it." In the present case, the situation is entirely different. The applicant is seeking for equivalence to the qualification possessed by him in Bachelor Degree of Science (Hotel Management and Tourism) in ODL mode for the qualification prescribed for the post of Principal in Category ‘A’ of the subject employment notification more particularly with full time course.
In Writ Appeal No. 1045/2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras as aforesaid, the issue involved relates to filing of application pursuant to the recruitment notification issued whether was within the cut-off date prescribed. Nowhere whether the applicant possessed the prescribed eligibility qualification notified under the recruitment notification or whether the B. Sc degree possessed by the applicant in Hotel Management and Tourism through ODL mode could be considered as equivalent to Full Time Degree, was not adjudicated upon. Hence, permitting Central Administrative Tribunalthe applicant to participate in the interview relating to a different recruitment notification would not enure to the benefit of the applicant. No right has been created to consider the applicant's degree possessed through ODL mode as that of Full Time Degree, hence, the same has no relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In contrast, the documents placed on record by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would indicate that the Office Memorandum dated 08.12.2025 issued by the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India clarifies, the recruitment is required to be made strictly in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules, including the prescribed recruitment requirement of a Full Time Degree/Diploma as prerequisite/essential qualification to apply in Category ‘A’ for the post of Principal in IHM. Based on the said OM instructions, the Screening Committee for the post of Principal, IHM, Mumbai in the meeting convened on 05.01.2026 considered the candidature of the applicant for the post of Principal, IHM, Mumbai and rejected, assigning the reasons as under:
"No Full time degree/diploma as per prescribed RR. Candidate has done through ‘Distance mode’."
Insofar as the applicant’s candidature for the post of Principal, IHM, Chennai is concerned, the same was initially Central Administrative Tribunal rejected vide communication dated 11.02.2022. The applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, the candidature of the applicant was reconsidered by the Screening Committee. As per the Minutes of the Screening Committee Meeting dated 24.11.2023, the candidature of the applicant was rejected recording inter alia the reasons as under:
“(a)The applicant has claimed to have obtained Hotel Management Degree passed during 2014 – the said period the applicant has been working on full time at IHM-Bangalore as Head of Department/A.A.O I/c and no study leave taken.
(b)The applicant has stated that his Degree in “Hotel Management & Tourism” from Annamalai University is through Soorya Institute of Management Studies, Puducherry. The said Institute in its website “[email protected] clearly says it has its operational base at Puducherry and has signed MOU with Annamalai University for conducting Hotel Management & Tourism and Catering Technology programme through Distance Education mode.
As such he is not fulfilling the criteria of basic qualification, since that the Degree is not on full-time mode (candidate obtained it through distance learning mode), not from an Institute affiliated by NCHMCT, not from an Institute approved by AICTE, not from an Institute approved by State Board of Technical Education as specifically prescribed in the existing RR of the post. The degree obtained from an Institute which is having collaboration with a University to function as distance learning center.”
It appears that no challenge has been made by the applicant to the said rejection orders. Apprehending the same fate in the present case, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. Strictly speaking, no cause of action has arisen to the applicant in the present case.
In the OA pleadings, the applicant has stated that the qualification of B.Sc. in Hotel Management and Tourism was obtained by him from Annamalai University and for appearing in the examination etc., the applicant was liaising with Soorya Institute which is located for about 75-80 kms from University campus; that by itself will not take away the degree awarded or to say that the degree is lacking in any manner.
As per Section 4 of the Annamalai University Act, 1928, territorial jurisdiction is specified according to which the territorial jurisdiction of the University shall not extend beyond the radius of 10 miles of its convocation hall which shall be situated in Annamalai Nagar. Soorya Institute of Management Studies situated at a distance of more than 10 miles from Annamalai Nagar would not come within the ambit of territorial jurisdiction prescribed under Section 4. The applicant referring to Soorya Institute in the OA pleadings, as the Institute from where he has liaisoned with Central Administrative TribunalAnnamalai University for acquiring the degree in Hotel Management and Tourism through ODL mode now cannot dispute about its participation/involvement. Be that as it may, it is well-settled that University can conduct distance education program within the territorial jurisdiction under the Act which it was constituted. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kurmanchal Institute of Degree and Diploma, wherein in paras 19, 20 and 21 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus:
“19.The submission of the learned counsel that for the purpose of running a distance education course, extra-territorial activities must be carried out may not be entirely correct. It is one thing to say that the University takes recourse to the correspondence courses for conferring degrees or diplomas but it would be another thing to say that study centres would be permitted to operate which requires close supervision of the University. In a study centre, teachers are appointed, practical classes are held and all other amenities which are required to be provided for running a full-fledged institution or college are provided. Such an establishment, in our opinion, although named as a study centre, and despite the fact that the course of study and other study materials are supplied by the University cannot be permitted to be established beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the University. Nainital is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University. In fact it is not situated in the State of U.P. and, thus, is beyond the provisions of the Act.
20.The submission of the learned counsel that the UGC Regulations, 1985 provide for study centres of this nature cannot be countenanced. The UGC Regulations being a subordinate legislation must be read with the principal Act. The subordinate legislation will be ultra vires if it contravenes the provisions of the principal Act. [See Vasu Dev Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (11) SCALE 108]. A statutory authority, it is well known, must act within the four-corners of the statute. A fortiori it has to operate within the boundaries of the territories within which it is to operate under the statute. Such territorial jurisdiction of the University must be maintained as otherwise chaos would be created. If distance education of such a nature is to be encouraged, the only course would be to suitably amend the provisions of the Act.
21.We are not oblivious that in certain situations the territorial jurisdiction in relation to a University may not be strictly enforced as was done in Sushanta Tagore & Ors. v Union of India and Others [(2005) 3 SCC 16] but in the said matter, this Court was concerned with a totally different situation.”
The interplay of Entry 66 List I and Entry 25 List III has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal and anr., supra. The University is not authorized to open Study Centre/Off Campus Centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State. UGC - Respondent No. 3 - in its reply statement has stated that Universities cannot offer their programs through franchising arrangement with private institutions for the purpose of conducting courses through distance mode or regular mode. It is the specific stand of the Respondent No. 3, UGC, that it cannot confirm or clarify the status of the applicant's degree from Annamalai University. Equivalence of qualification contemplated in the Gazette Notification dated 25.07.2015 by the Ministry of Human Resources Development would also not come to the aid of the applicant in view of specific essential educational qualification prescribed as ‘Full Time’, not as any equivalent qualification.
Full Time Degree/Full Time Three Years Diploma having its own effect and specifically insisted upon as the essential educational qualification, declaring degree obtained through ODL mode as equivalent, in our view, would be substituting the Recruitment Rules and the Employment Notification issued in conformity with the said rules. Such power is not vested with the Tribunal in the light of the legal principles crystallised.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, OA is bereft of any merit. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.