Naveen Dhyani vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition) passed by Respondent No. 1 whereby the B. Tech degree has been held invalid on the ground that it is not recognized by the University Grant Commission (UGC) and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) as well as Distance Education Council (DEC).

According to the Petitioners in exercise of power conferred u/s 3 of University Grant Commission Act, 1956, the Central Government issued notification, whereby the Institute of Advance Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Rajasthan has been declared as deemed to be University for the purposes of the Act. Thereafter, the U.G.C. also issued the notification on 17.07.2002, whereby declared the deemed University to the said Institution. It is stated in para 14 of the writ petition that Petitioner before obtaining the B. Tech (Civil) degree by way of distance mode from Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (for short I.A.S.E.) sought prior permission from the department.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the course was given ex-post-facto recognition by the joint committee of U.G.C., A.I.C.T.E. and D.E.C. but this fact was not considered when the order impugned was passed by the Secretary, State of Uttarakhand and even no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner before passing the order impugned.

Lastly, it is contended that the present petition involves similar controversy as in writ petition No. 1497 of 2010 (M/S) Hari Ram Bhatt and Ors. v. State and others, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2010, directing the Secretary concerned to pass a fresh and reasoned order after hearing the Petitioners.

This fact is not disputed that the Petitioners were not heard by the Secretary, State of Uttarakhand before passing the impugned order. Petitioners have been deprived of their valuable rights without giving opportunity of hearing, which is in violation of principle of natural justice as well as fair play. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of.

The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioners to move representation for recalling the impugned order and may raise all the grounds (including the ground that the course was given ex-post-facto recognition by the joint committee of U.G.C., A.I.C.T.E. and D.E.C.), raised in this writ petition, before the Secretary concerned, who shall pass a fresh and reasoned order after hearing the Petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of representation before the Secretary concerned. Till the decision is taken on the representation of the Petitioners, the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance.