AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been listed under heading ‘to be mentioned’ at instance of University Grants Commission (UGC), respondent.
Petitioners have described themselves in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
petitioners and draws attention to public notice dated 19th January, 2016 issued by Karnataka State Open University (KSOU). By the notice, in effect,
distance learning outside territory of Karnataka through franchisee was discontinued. Saving clause in the notice is reproduce below:
“However, students already in II to VIII Semester/II to IV Year will not be affected. A list of these Institutions is published in the University
website (www.karnatakaopenuniversity.in).â€
Mr. Mukherjee submits, institute, in which petitioners are interested, had admitted students on basis of this saving clause in said public notice. The
students stand enrolled and are doing course study. They are entitled to getting their degrees from KSOU. This, however, stands in jeopardy by reason
of public notice dated 27th June, 2013 issued by UGC which contain following clarifications:
“It is, therefore, clarified for the information of all concerned, including students and parents that:
a) a Central or State Government University can conduct courses through its own departments, its constituent colleges and/or through its affiliated
Colleges;
b) a university established or incorporated by or under a State act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in
no case beyond the territory of the state of its location;
c) the private universities and deemed universities cannot affiliate any college or institution for conducting courses leading to award of its diplomas,
degrees or other qualifications.
d) no University, whether central, state, private or deemed, can offer its programmes through franchising arrangement with private coaching
institutions even for the purpose of conducting courses through distance mode.
e) all universities shall award only such degrees as are specified by the UGC and published in the official gazette.
f) the Universities shall conduct their first degree and Master’s degree programmes in accordance with the regulations notified by the Commission
in this regard.â€
He hands up online print obtained from website of ‘The Hindu’ in reporting relief for some KSOU students as given by High Court of
Karnataka and submits, similar relief be granted on interference by this Court.
Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of UGC and files affidavit-in-opposition. He submits, there was notification made by his client its
public notice dated 27th June, 2013. Petitioners cannot be granted any relief as position is clear on distance education through franchisee having been
discontinued long before.
Affidavit of service shows service made on KSOU but none appears to represent it. This Court, therefore, does not have benefit of attempt at
explaining how the savings made in public notice dated 19th January, 2016 could have been made by KSOU inspite of earlier notification and public
notice dated 27th June, 2013 issued pursuant thereto. So far as petitioners having acted on basis of public notice by KSOU is concerned, they have
done so at their peril. Consequently students standing admitted at a time when distance education stood discontinued have to also face peril of not
receiving degree from KSOU on course study made in franchisee located in West Bengal. Report in ‘The Hindu’ regarding KSOU being told
by High Court of Karnataka to initiate one time measure to validate marks cards issued to students of non-technical in-house courses for 2013-14 and
2014-15 academic years, obviously relate to franchisees located in State of Karnataka. This information cannot be of any persuasive value to
petitioners. The position has been made clear by affidavit filed on behalf of UGC. Court does not find reason to interfere.
Writ petition is dismissed.