SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 975

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY U. LALIT, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS – PETITIONERS(S)
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1510 OF 2018
Decided On : 29-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):D. Abhinav Rao, Monalisa Kosaria, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Apoorv Kurup, Chanakya Boxipatro, Nidhi Mital, B. Gaulaut, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Anil Soni, Harish Pandey, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
Technical education in its larger concept is within exclusive purview of AICTE.
Approval of AICTE is mandatory for starting new technical courses.
Prior approval of UGC is mandatory for starting any course.

Headnote:

(a) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1989 - Section 10 - Technical education in its larger concept includes course content, subjects to be taught, length and duration of course as well as manner of conducting the same - Within exclusive purview of AICTE. (Para 10)

(b) All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1989 - Section 10 - Approval of AICTE mandatory for starting new technical courses - Instantly TIET, Patiala not taking approval of AICTE for its B.Tech. course through distance education mode - TIET, Patiala held not competent to award graduation degrees in technical courses via distance mode. (Para 11, 14, 15, 25)

(c) Guidelines for Establishing New Departments Within the Campus, Setting Up of Off-Campus Centre(s)/Institution(s)/Off-Shore Campus and Starting Distance Education Programmes by the Deemed Universities, 2004 - Paragraphs 4 - Prior approvals of the UGC and DEC mandatory for starting any degree course through open and distance learning mode - Instantly TIET, Patiala not obtaining prior approval of the UGC for B.Tech. degrees obtained through distance learning mode - TIET, Patiala held not competent to award graduation degrees in technical courses via distance mode. (Para 12, 14, 15, 25)

Facts of the case:

The diploma holder petitioners, 92 in number, in this writ petition have prayed for directing the University Grants Commission, to issue a clarification that the degrees of Bachelor of Technology acquired by them through open and distance learning mode from the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala, are valid, recognised and should be treated at par with degrees granted to regular students who have undertaken such courses in TIET, Patiala and other recognised universities.

Finding of the Court:

TIET, Patiala held not competent to award graduation degrees in technical courses via distance mode.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

The petitioners, 92 in number, in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have prayed for directing the University Grants Commission, (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC’) to issue a clarification that the degrees of Bachelor of Technology (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.Tech.’) acquired by them through open and distance learning mode from the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala, (hereinafter referred to as ‘TIET, Patiala’) are valid, recognised and should be treated at par with degrees granted to regular students who have undertaken such courses in TIET, Patiala and other recognised universities.

2. UGC is refusing to treat the technical degrees issued by TIET, Patiala under distance learning mode as valid, primarily for the reason that the B.Tech. courses conducted by TIET, Patiala were without their approval and approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’).

3. The petitioners who are diploma holders in Civil/ Computer Science/ Electrical/ Mechanical Engineering and working in the Government of Punjab have stated that they were selected for the B.Tech. degree course through the distance mode programme on the basis of competitive examination conducted by TIET, Patiala, which is deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC Act’). The petitioners highlight that TIET, Patiala, rated as one of the premier engineering universities/colleges by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, was set up in 1956 for promoting the study of technical education and has a 250 acre campus located in Patiala with teaching faculty strength of 391, including 301 Ph.D. holders, and undertakes 11 undergraduate courses and 23 postgraduate courses. The total strength of students is more than 8000 with nearly 700 research students doing Ph.D. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council, an autonomous body established by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, has accredited the said institution/deemed to be university Grade ‘A’ status besides placing the institution in Tier-I accreditation. Distance Education Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘DEC’) vide its letter dated 3 rd September, 2007 had granted provisional recognition to TIET, Patiala for offering programmes through distance mode for a period of one year on the basis of which TIET, Patiala had offered B.Tech. degree in Civil / Computer Science / Electrical / Mechanical Engineering to working professionals who already had a diploma and had at least two years’ experience in the respective branches in engineering in the academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09. No admissions were made after 29 th July, 2009. The petitioners had taken admission in the prestigious deemed to be university verily believing that all approvals were in place. The petitioners, relying on the judgment of this Court in Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 676 have argued that a deemed to be university is not required to seek prior approval of the AICTE to start a department for imparting a course or a programme in technical education. Reference was made to paragraph 49 of the judgment of this Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others, (2018) 1 SCC 468 (hereinafter referred to as Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I) to assert that TIET, Patiala, being a premier institution authorised to undertake courses and issue degrees in the aforesaid technical fields, was not required to take any approval of the AICTE. Reliance was also placed on the order and judgment dated 10th April, 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3697-3698 of 2018 in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. The Chairman and Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited, (2018) 1 SCC 468. There

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top