AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
In all these Writ Petitions, the prayer is in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent Deemed university u/s 3 of the UGC
Act to conduct and complete the M.SC (Medical Anatomy) course for the students of the 4th respondent college for the batch of 2004-05 and
subject to the orders of the 1st respondent University Grants Commission.
The Writ Petitions were admitted on 2.5.2007 In the application for interim direction, this Court granted an interim direction based upon the
order passed in M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.1576 of 2007 declaring that the petitioners are entitled to write their examination commencing from
1st week of May 2007. On behalf of the University Grants Commission, Mr. P.K. Gopinathan, Standing Counsel took Notice.
The UGC also filed a counter affidavit dated 19.7.2007 sworn to by the Joint Secretary, UGC. It now transpires that the Writ Petition No.1576
of 2007 was heard along with W.P.No.5595 of 2007 and the two Institutions, which filed these two Writ Petitions, withdrew the Writ Petitions,
which were permitted by this Court on 29.6.2007. Therefore, no inspiration can be drawn in the earlier Writ Petitions.
With reference to the status of the 2nd respondent, it is clearly stated that if a Deemed University u/s 3 of the UGC Act proposes to enter into
any collaboration with private Institution, they will have to take prior approval of the UGC and this has been informed to the 2nd respondent by the
UGC letter dated 4.8.2001. Further, it is also stated that the UGC has decided that no University will be allowed to go for off-campuses private
educational franchise leading to the award of degrees. The UGC also directed such Institutions to stop private franchising in the matter of
University Education. A reference was also made to the guidelines framed by the UGC known as ""Guidelines for Establishing New Departments
within the Campus setting up of Off-Campus Centres/Institutions/Off-Shore campus and starting Distance Education Programmes by the Deemed
Universities.
Clause 4 of the Guidelines reads as follows:
The Deemed University could offer the distance education programmes only with the specific approval of the Distance Education Council (DEC)
and the University Grants Commission (UGC). As such, any study centre(s) can be opened only with the specific approval of the Distance
Education Council and the University Grants Commission.
It is further submitted that even under the Distance Mode of Education, the right to conduct distance education programmes in respect of a
particular discipline or not will also be subject to the approval of the UGC and the Government of India, Ministry of HRD vide their notification
dated 1.3.1995 (notified in the Gazette Notification dated 8.4.1995), makes it mandatory to get approval from Distance Education Council
(IGNOU), New Delhi for award of all the qualifications/degrees by Universities through distance education mode.
Proposal sent by the 2nd respondent University for starting education programme was submitted to the Distance Education Council as well as to
the UGC and the University was informed that students can be admitted only after obtaining a statutory approval. Further by a letter dated
2.3.2006, the Registrar of the University was directed to close down all the unauthorized Study Centres offering distance education immediately
and report the compliance of the same to the UGC. The UGC also made known to the University that it will be forced to post a Notice on its
website that the UGC and the Distance Education Council have not permitted the University to conduct courses through Distance Education Mode
with private franchise.
With reference to the course referred to by the petitioner, namely M.Sc. Medical Autonomy, in paragraph No.21, it was averred as follows:
(21). That it is further submitted that the UGC vide its letter dated 15.7.2006 empowered the Deemed to be Universities to start degree courses
such as B.A., B.Sc., M.A., M.Com., M.Sc., etc., as specified by the commission u/s 22 of the UGC Act, 1956 covered under general education
in Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities (excluding professional courses) without any prior approval of the Commission provided that such
general courses of study are offered by them on a regular basis through class room teaching at their approved campuses and are not offered
through distance mode and further subject to the condition that deemed to be Universities follow the Regulations issued from time to time in this
regard.
In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, .
In paragraph 55, it was observed as follows: ""55. Regulation 3.3 puts restriction on establishment of a university outside the State. Regulation 5
provides consequences of violation and lays down that if the Commission is satisfied that a private university has, even after getting an opportunity
to do so, failed to comply with the provisions of any of the Regulations, the Commission may pass orders prohibiting the private university from
offering any course for award of the degree or diploma. Similarly, UGC is empowered to take action against a private university awarding first
degree and/or a postgraduate degree/diploma, which is not specified by UGC and any private university continuing such programme and awarding
unspecified degree shall be liable for penalty u/s 24 of the UGC Act.
In the light of the above legal precedent and the stand taken by the UGC, the relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be countenanced. Hence,
all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all the connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.