High Court · 2025

disposed off on 03.03.2023, directing the petitioner to make a representation which was directed to be decided. In terms of the said direction, the order impugned has been passed rejecting the contention of the petitioner vide order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the Vice Chancellor.

6. In the light of the submissions as recorded above, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the entire career of the petitioner is getting adversely affected, as such, the respondents university should be directed to issue a graduation degree as the petitioner has completed three years course (sixth semesters) and in terms of the guidelines issued by the UGC, the respondents university, should grant the degree.

7. The counsel for the respondents University, on the other hand, argues that for the year 2019-2020, when the petitioner had taken admission, a prospectus was issued in which, there was no option of an exit available to the petitioner and the petitioner having taken admission in the integrated course, cannot as a matter of right asked for a degree after having completed three years course. It is argued that for the academic session 2020-2021, an exit option was prescribed in the brochure issued by the University, however, in the subsequent years, no such option has been given. He thus argues that the recommendation of the UGC are recommendatory in nature and no rights can be claimed based thereupon. He further argues that against the order dated 16.03.2023, an appeal would lie before the Board of Directors of the University.

8. The counsel for the respondents very fairly states that the instructions given by the Commission are binding on the Central Universities including the respondents, however, he states that in terms of the prescriptions contained in the notification of March 2014, the guiding principles were laid for a decision to be taken for introducing integrated in Duel degree programmes. He thus, argues that when the petitioner had taken admission, there was no intimation/decision that the exit option would be available to the petitioner and thus, a decision has been taken.

9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, admittedly the respondents university is a Central University, in terms of the prescriptions contained in the UGC Act, 1956. The recommendations made by the University Grants Commission are binding on all the Universities and, Section 14 of the said Act prescribes for 'consequences of failure of Universities to comply with the recommendations of the Commission'. It is also essential to notice that under section 22(3) of the Act, for the purposes of 'degree', as mentioned in the said section, it has been prescribed that such 'degree' means a degree which can be granted with the previous approval of the Central Government and specified by the Commission vide notification in the official Gazette.

10. Considering the fact that the UGC had issued directions in the year 2014 for taking decision with regard to forming of integrated/duel degree programmes and in fact, a decision to that effect was taken by the University for the academic session 2020-21, prima-facie the contention of the petitioner appears to be correct. The consequence of not following the directions of the UGC, are also noticed in the UGC Act, which are prima- facie indicative of the fact that the same are binding and actions can be taken by the UGC.

11. Considering the fact that the career of the petitioner, as a student, is likely to get adversely affected, the matter is relegated to the Board of Directors of the University to take a decision. While doing so, the Board will take into account the notification of the UGC issued in March 2014, and the fact that a decision was taken by the University for granting exit option in the academic year 2020-2021, a time, when the petitioner was pursuing his course was in the second year of the graduation programme. The Board of Directors shall take a sympathetic decision within a period of four weeks from today, keeping in view the guidelines as directed above.

12. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted for taking the decision.

13. The writ petition stands disposed off with the said observations. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 VNP/- [ Pankaj Bhatia, J ] VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

disposed off on 03.03.2023, directing the petitioner to make a representation which was directed to be decided. In terms of the said direction, the order impugned has been passed rejecting the contention of the petitioner vide order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the Vice Chancellor.

6. In the light of the submissions as recorded above, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the entire career of the petitioner is getting adversely affected, as such, the respondents university should be directed to issue a graduation degree as the petitioner has completed three years course (sixth semesters) and in terms of the guidelines issued by the UGC, the respondents university, should grant the degree.

7. The counsel for the respondents University, on the other hand, argues that for the year 2019-2020, when the petitioner had taken admission, a prospectus was issued in which, there was no option of an exit available to the petitioner and the petitioner having taken admission in the integrated course, cannot as a matter of right asked for a degree after having completed three years course. It is argued that for the academic session 2020-2021, an exit option was prescribed in the brochure issued by the University, however, in the subsequent years, no such option has been given. He thus argues that the recommendation of the UGC are recommendatory in nature and no rights can be claimed based thereupon. He further argues that against the order dated 16.03.2023, an appeal would lie before the Board of Directors of the University.

8. The counsel for the respondents very fairly states that the instructions given by the Commission are binding on the Central Universities including the respondents, however, he states that in terms of the prescriptions contained in the notification of March 2014, the guiding principles were laid for a decision to be taken for introducing integrated in Duel degree programmes. He thus, argues that when the petitioner had taken admission, there was no intimation/decision that the exit option would be available to the petitioner and thus, a decision has been taken.

9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, admittedly the respondents university is a Central University, in terms of the prescriptions contained in the UGC Act, 1956. The recommendations made by the University Grants Commission are binding on all the Universities and, Section 14 of the said Act prescribes for 'consequences of failure of Universities to comply with the recommendations of the Commission'. It is also essential to notice that under section 22(3) of the Act, for the purposes of 'degree', as mentioned in the said section, it has been prescribed that such 'degree' means a degree which can be granted with the previous approval of the Central Government and specified by the Commission vide notification in the official Gazette.

10. Considering the fact that the UGC had issued directions in the year 2014 for taking decision with regard to forming of integrated/duel degree programmes and in fact, a decision to that effect was taken by the University for the academic session 2020-21, prima-facie the contention of the petitioner appears to be correct. The consequence of not following the directions of the UGC, are also noticed in the UGC Act, which are prima- facie indicative of the fact that the same are binding and actions can be taken by the UGC.

11. Considering the fact that the career of the petitioner, as a student, is likely to get adversely affected, the matter is relegated to the Board of Directors of the University to take a decision. While doing so, the Board will take into account the notification of the UGC issued in March 2014, and the fact that a decision was taken by the University for granting exit option in the academic year 2020-2021, a time, when the petitioner was pursuing his course was in the second year of the graduation programme. The Board of Directors shall take a sympathetic decision within a period of four weeks from today, keeping in view the guidelines as directed above.

12. It is made clear that no further time shall be granted for taking the decision.

13. The writ petition stands disposed off with the said observations. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 VNP/- [ Pankaj Bhatia, J ] VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench