Point of Law: Education Law - Evolve methods of assessment of students - Respondents to withhold issuance of degree certificate to students of Petitioner are not legal and valid and Respondents should proceed to issue degree certificates they have withheld.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN JAMDAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken up for final disposal.

2. The Petitioner SVKM’s Mithibai College is granted a status of an Autonomous Educational Institute by the University Grants Commission. The Respondents-Mumbai University, by the impugned communications, has refused to issue degree certificates to the batch of students for the year 2019-20 and some students out of the batch of 2018-19 on the ground that though the Petitioner- College can have its own grading system, it was not entitled to change the grading system of the course which has commenced before the grant of autonomous status, mid-way and it should introduce it from the first year. Being aggrieved by the action of the University withholding the issuance of degree certificates and for a direction to the University to issue the certificates, the Petitioners have filed the present Petition contending that assessment of students is the prerogative of the autonomous college and there is no such embargo in law that the Petitioner College has to introduce the grading system from a particular point in time.

3. The University Grants Commission is entitled to confer an autonomous status on a college under the University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status Upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2018, the Regulations of 2018. The object of these Regulations is to coordinate and determine the standards of higher education. UGC has recognized that college autonomy is instrumental for providing broad-based quality education and excellence. The Regulations of 2018 lay down criteria for granting autonomy and conditions of an autonomous college. Before a college is conferred with autonomy, there is an assessment whether a college deserves such autonomy. The criteria for grant of autonomy involves the academic, administrative and financial capacity of the college. It also includes assessing the responsiveness of administrative structure; and the motivation and involvement of faculty in promoting innovative reforms.

4. The autonomous colleges are entitled set up their administrative committees and bodies. The governing body includes the nominee of the affiliating university, academicians nominated by the State and the nominee of the UGC. The academic council includes academicians from outside the college and nominees of the affiliating university. The autonomous colleges have complete administrative autonomy and have the privilege of appointing their own administrative staff and teaching faculty, including the principal, to be appointed as per the Regulations framed by the UGC, as amended from time to time. The autonomy granted to the college is at the institutional level and is not partial, and covers the programmes at all levels such as Undergraduate. Post-graduate and PhD programmes offered by the college. The courses introduced by the college after the conferment of autonomous status automatically come under the purview of autonomy. All students enrolled at the time of grant of autonomy to the college get covered under the autonomy.

5. The Regulations of 2018 permit autonomous colleges to evolve methods of assessment of students performance, the conduct of examinations and notifications of results. Regulation 3.4 states that the autonomous college can announce results, issue mark sheets, migration and other certificates; however, the degree shall be awarded by the University with the name of the college on the degree certificate. The second part of this Regulation is the genesis of the dispute before us.

6. The Petitioner No. 1 - SVKM’s Mithibai College is a Linguistic Minority Educational Institute. The Petitioner No. 2 is the Principal of the College. Both are referred to as the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 1 is the University of Mumbai (the University). The Respondent No. 2 is the Vice-Chancellor of Respondent No. 1 - University. Respondent No.