High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 7978/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioners claiming themselves to have been running educational institution s in different branches purportedly under the authority of the respondent No. 2. The Deem Universities have filed this writ petition with the following prayers :- In the premises stated above, it is, most respectfully prayed that your Lordship would be pleased enough to admit this petition, call for records, issued Rule c alling upon the respondents to show cause as to why appropriate Writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction shall not be issued directing the Respondents, p articularly to the Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 not to de-re-cognize the petitione rs institutions as the centers for imparting Distance Education Programme under AAI-DU and/or to show cause as to why the Respondent No. 2, 4 and 5 shall not be directed not to de-recognize- cancel the already awarded degreed/diplomas award ed to the students who undertook their courses from the petitioners institutions and/or to show cause as to why the Respondent No.2, 4 and 5 shall not be direct ed to allow the students to continue their normal courses/studies in the petitio ners institutions who have been already enrolled under respondent respondent No. 2 through the petitioners centers till completion of their due courses, and/or to show case as to why the respondent No. 2 shall not be directed to enroll the students of the petitioners institution in the current academic year/current sem ester of 2005-2006 as before and causes being shown if any and after hearing the parties and on perusal of records be further pleased to make the rule absolute and/or pass any order/orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. Two counter-affidavits have been filed one by the respondent No. 1 and the other by the respondent No. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 , it has been stated that in order to maintain the standards of distance educati on imparted by the Deemed Universities/Institution, the Distance Education Counc il was created by inserting provisions in Indira Gandhi National Open Universit y (IGNOU) Act. It has also been stated that the respondent No. 2 is required to obtain requisite approval/permission from the concerned statutory authority for running its programmes. According to the said respondent, the petitioners have m is-interpreted the circular dated 23.08.2005 noted in para 16 of the writ petiti on. It has been stated that the letters issued by the UGC from time to time were to curb the menace of substandard franchise education
Legal Reasoning
In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent NO. 5 it has been stated thus : That with reference to the statements made in paragraph 18 of the writ petition I most respectfully submit that the respondent No. 5 have no approved for runni ng the Distance Education PRogramme and opening Study Centre for eh same or by F ranchising the degrees/diplomas/certificates awarded by the respondent No. 2 or the petitioners will not be recognized of the purpose of employment to post and services under the Central Government. As the respondent No. 5 did not approve/r ecognize the study Centres and as such, the petitioners have no locus-standi to file the present writ petition and the same may be dismissed summarily with cost s to the respondent No. 5. That the statements made in paragraphs 19,20,21 and 23 are not legally tenable. In this connection, I most respectfully submit that the respondent NO. 2 and the petitioners have no permission/approval to start the Distance Education Program me in the manner they are continuing in the State of Assam and Manipur, either f rom the UGC or from the respondent No. 5 and the petitioners are charging fees f rom the students without having any valid approval for the programme and, then, the petitioners have not right continue their Distance Education Programme in ab sence of any valid permission from the competent authorities. That a fortiori no institution is eligible to impart distance education without prior written approval of DEC and also of UGC under the UGC act. It is also not open for any institution to commence any course or activity in distance educatio n mode pending considering of its application by DEC. no person can arrogate to himself the right to deem a sanction by DEC, or act pursuant to such deemed sanc tion unless and until such sanction is given by DEC. That in view of this it is clear that the petitioners institute is just fleecing the students by charging heavy fee and without having the valid approval for th e programmes. This is a matter of serious concern not for the institute only but for th whole of the nation which needs highly trained manpower for its all roun d development under supervision and control of statutory body of DEC, IGNOU for maintaining the required standard of the education programme. That Allahabad Agriculture Institute (Deemed University), respondent NO. 2 herei n, submitted a request to DEC in the month of January 2004 for approval of its d irectorate and programmes. The university was asked to send details of infrastru cture facilities available at head quarters number of programmes offered, facili ties available at study centers and number of study centers established by the u niversity along with a copy of academic and executive council resolution for est ablishment of directorate of distance education. It took some time for universit y for submission of the details. Subsequently an expert committee was constitute d by Chairman, DEC to evaluate the infrastructure facilities, delivery mechanism and provision of student support services at head quarters and study centers. I n the meantime the UGC in its communication dated 19th August 2004 requested DEC to inspect study centers run by Allahabad Agriculture Institute-Deemed Universi ty to evaluate the functioning of the study centers. The Committee visited the i nstitution on 26/27 October 2004. The Committee recommended that university ma y be advised strictly to monitor the function of study centers and submit the co mpliance report within six months and its course material in SIM formal may also be evaluated by an expert committee for its content and quality constituted by Chairman, DEC. Consequently, the Regional Directors of IGNOU were requested in t he month of April 2005 to visit the study centers of deemed universities within the state. So far we have received reports of 130 study centers and out of these 20 study centers do not exist and 31 centers have poor infrastructure. In view of the above the res pendent No. 2’s university the programme and Directorate of Distance Education is not recognized by DEC under IGNOU Act. I have heard Mr. S. Hoque learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. L. P. Sarma learned counsel representing the respondent No. 5. I have also heard Mr . S. Choudhury learned CGC, for the respondent No. 1. While the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the distance education being imparted by the pet itioners institutions should be allowed to continue with the conferment of degre es, both Mr. Sarma amd Mr. Choudhury representing the respondents submit that in the name of distance education the quality of education can be compromised.
Decision
As to whether the petitioners’ educational institution should not be de-recogniz ed or as to whether the degrees conferred by the said institutions should recogn ized or not is a matter to be decided by the expert bodies constituted by the au thorities. This Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot sit on appeal over suc h decision of the expert bodies. In view of the above, while not issuing any dir ection, as has been prayed for in the writ petition, the matter is left open to the sound discretion of the respondents and to pass appropriate order in accorda nce with law.