Vijay Laxmi v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar

University has now filed reply to the writ petition. In the short reply, the respondent has stated that there is no dispute that the degree of M.Ed. Degree possessed by the petitioner through Distance Education mode is duly recognised by the Government of India, U.G.C. and National Council of Teachers Association and so also by the Association of Indian Universities. It is, however, stated that this recognition is only for the purpose of obtaining employment and service as a Teacher/Lecturer. It is pointed out that this recognition does not ipso facto be a certificate or entitlement to the petitioner to seek equivalence with the M.Ed. Degree awarded by the respondent-University for the purpose of enrolling her academically as a student for its Ph.D. Degree. Reference is made to a decision in the case of A.P.Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, (1986) 2 SCC 667 to urge that the court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statue to which it owes its existence and the regulation made by the University itself. It is stated that it would be destructive of rule of law. Reference is then made to the provisions of the University Statute, which prescribes the following eligibility conditions for enrollment as a Student of its Ph.D. Degree. “(i) That he/she must have done Master's degree with at least 55% marks (50% marks for SC/ST candidates) of Guru Nanak Devi University; (ii)That (a) he/she must have done Master's degree with at least 55% marks (50% marks for SC/ST candidates) of a recognised Indian Foreign University; Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 6 : AND (b) the said Master's degree done by him/her from a recognized Indian or Foreign University must also be recognized as equivalent to the Master's Degree of the Guru Nanak Devi University in the subject concerned or allied subject.” Thus, a person for being enrolled as a student of Ph.D. Degree must possess Master's degree with at least 55% marks of the respondent University and that such degree must be recognised as equivalent to Master Degree by Guru Nanak Dev University. As per the reply, the petitioner may be fulfilling the first condition, but she does not fulfill the second condition about the eligibility and in this regard, reference is made to a decision taken by the Equivalence Committee constituted by the University for judging the equivalence of the degree possessed by the petitioner. The Committee had decided as under:- “The committee considered the recognition of M.Ed. Degree from Annamalai University through Distance Education as equivalent to M.Ed. Degree of this University. After some discussion, it was decided that the recognition of M.Ed. Degree from Annamalai University through Distance Education be not recognised as equivalent to M.Ed. Degree of this University.” This decision was accordingly conveyed to the petitioner on 4.8.2006 (Annexure P-12) and subsequent responses were given on the same lines and basis. Accordingly, it is prayed that the prayer Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 7 : made in the writ petition cannot be granted. Prayer is also objected to on the ground of delay and laches, as the petitioner has statedly raised challenge belatedly against the order dated 4.8.2006 after nearly three years. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Akshita Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(6) S.L.R. 243, where eligibility on the basis of Bachelor Degree of Textile through Distance Education mode was under consideration and it is held that it cannot be suggested that such degree is not acceptable merely because it has been awarded under a distance education programme. The question before the Division Bench in Akshita Gupta's case (supra) was for accepting the degree for the purpose of eligibility and appointment. It has been conceded by the respondents that such a degree possessed by the petitioner obtained through Distance Education mode is acceptable for the purpose of appointment. However, the question involved here is to see equivalence of this degree for the purpose of registering the petitioner as a student for Ph.D. There can not be much dispute that the University is entitled to adopt its own standards for equivalence of a particular degree issued by the respondent-University and once the expert committee has gone into this aspect to hold that the degree possessed by the petitioner cannot be treated as equivalent to the M.Ed. Degree issued by the University for registering a student of Ph.D., the same may not be open to a judicial scrutiny. It is the job of an expert body to see equivalence of the degree and once such a body has viewed that particular degree not to be treated as Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 8 : equivalent to a degree being issued by the University for the purpose of further studies, it may not be appropriate for the Courts to review the same and substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the expert body. The other judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Tariq Islam Vs. Aligarh Muslim University, 2001(4) S.C.T. 818 and Dhan Raj Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1994(2) S.C.T. 205 are also relating to the cases where the issue was regarding the appointment only and not for the purpose of academic pursuits. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. July 13, 2010 ramesh ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE