Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 2642
145 (2007) DELHI LAW TIMES 721 (DB)
DELHI HIGH COURT
Mukul Mudgal & Reva Khetrapal, TJ.
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION -Appellant
Versus
AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. -Respondents
LPA 1106/2007 & CM 10039 of 2007
Decided on 26.11.2007
For the Appellant :Mr. Vikas Singh, Addl. Solicitor General with Mr. Amitesh Kumar and Mr. R.R. Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondents No.1:Mr. Arun Jaitley and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Vinay Garg, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Ms. Anu Bagai, Ms. Enatoli Sema, Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocates.
For the UOI:Mr. Rajendra Mishra, Advocate.
Headnote:
UGC - University Establishment under State Act - UGC Act, 1956, Section 2(f), Section 3, Section 12, Section 12A(h), Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 26, UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 - The court held that the establishment and incorporation of a university under a State Act is not conditional upon recognition by the UGC. The UGC has the power to ensure coordination and maintenance of standards but does not have jurisdiction over the initial establishment of the university. The UGC Act and Regulations do not give the UGC the authority to have a say in the initial establishment of the university. The judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., II (2005) SLT 323=(2005) 5 SCC 420, clarified that the only requirement for the UGC is to lay down the standards and seek their enforcement. The UGC should inspect and take consequential measures in case the remedial steps suggested by the UGC are not implemented. The court also noted that the K.R. Mudholkar case does not have a bearing on the issues arising in the present appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over whether a university can be incorporated and established under a State Act without recognition by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The respondent, Amity University, Uttar Pradesh, was not included in the UGC's list of universities, leading to various consequences for the university and its students.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the establishment and incorporation of a university under a State Act is not conditional upon recognition by the UGC. The UGC has the power to ensure coordination and maintenance of standards but does not have jurisdiction over the initial establishment of the university.
Issues: The main issue was whether a university can be incorporated and established under a State Act without recognition by the UGC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the UGC does not have jurisdiction over the initial establishment of a university under a State Act. The UGC's role is to lay down standards and seek their enforcement, and it should inspect and take consequential measures if the remedial steps suggested by the UGC are not implemented.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Mukul Mudgal, J.-This LPA by the appellant University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "UGC) challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd July, 2007. The main plea involved in the present LPA relates to the question whether a university can be incorporated and established under the State Act, enacted by virtue of the powers conferred under List II Entry 32 of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India or whether the recognition by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "UGC") is a sine qua non for the lawful establishment of the university. While the stand of the appellant UGC is that there can be no incorporation and establishment of even a university created by a State enactment without its inspection and approval, the respondents contended that while a State university is undoubtedly bound to follow the criteria and standards postulated by the UGC, but such conformity is not a precondition for the establishment of a university particularly in light of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Para 59 of Prof. Yashpals case II (2005) SLT 323=2005 (5) SCC 420. The plea of the respondents found favour with the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal.
2. The original dispute emanated from the name of the respondent No. 1, Amity University, Uttar Pradesh not being borne in the list of the universities, as defined under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as the "UGC Act"), being maintained by the UGC and the non-inclusion of the respondent No. 1s name in the said list. The learned Single Judge by his impugned judgment inter alia held as follows:
(a) There is no dispute with regard to the power and jurisdiction of the UGC in laying down standards for higher education and also to ensure the maintenance of such standards.
(b) There is no need for any debate on the issue as to whether the expression used in Section 2(f) of the UGC Act ought to be read as "established or incorporated" or as "established and incorporated". This dispute stands settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Prof Yashpal & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 420, where it was held that the expression has to be read as "established and incorporated".
(c) There is no difficulty with the fact that the State Act, i.e., Amity University Uttar Pradesh Act, 2005 by its provisions both incorporated and established the petitioner university. Consequently, there is no necessity to examine the question of interplay between the provisions of Entry 32 List II and Entry 66 List I of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India.
3. On the above premises, the learned Single Judge went on to consider whether the writ petitioner the respondent herein was entitled to a direction that the writ petitioners name should be included in the non-statutory list maintained on the website of the UGC; Dealing with the above issue, the learned Single Judge recorded the following findings:
(a) It is not disputed that UGC maintains a non-statutory list of universities, which, according to it, fall under the definition provided in Section 2(f) of the UGC Act.
(b) UGC is empowered to undertake inspection of any university falling within Section 2(f) of the UGC Act and to require any such university to remove any shortcomings/ deficiencies during the inspection.
(c) It is also open to the UGC to take consequential action as stipulated in Regulation 5 of the 2003 Regulations in respect of private universities incorporated and established by such enactments.
(d) •There is no provision in the UGC Act or in the Regulations that has been referred to which requires the prior recognition/approval of the UGC before a university is regarded as one falling under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act.
(e) The only requirement is that the university must have been "incorporated and established" by virtue of a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act. This condition is clearly
