2015 Supreme(Del) 3502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G. ROHINI, RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, JJ.
SAM HIGGINBOTTOM UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE – Appellant
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.486/2015
Decided On : 4.12.2015
Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari & Ms. Sanskriti Pathak, Advs.
Mr. Apoorv Kurup along with Mr. A.C. Boxipatru and Mr. V.C. Shukla, Advs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that UGC has the power to regulate and maintain standards in universities, including requiring prior approval for new courses. The court also clarified that UGC could not insist on prior approval without framing a regulation.
Headnote:
UGC Regulations - Deemed University - 22.0 - The court upheld UGC Regulation 12.0, requiring deemed universities to seek prior approval for starting new departments or courses. The court also declared that new departments and courses commenced before the 2010 Regulations are valid, but any new courses commenced after the 2010 Regulations without UGC approval are invalid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a deemed university, challenged UGC's requirement for prior approval to start new courses and Regulation 12.0. The petitioner argued that the UGC Act does not mandate seeking prior approval for starting a course once conferred the status of deemed University.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that UGC has the power to regulate and maintain standards in universities, including requiring prior approval for new courses. The court upheld Regulation 12.0 but declared that courses commenced before the 2010 Regulations without UGC approval are valid.
Issues: The court identified the issues as whether the UGC Act requires deemed universities to seek prior approval for new courses and whether any such restriction was in existence when the petitioner University commenced the new courses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that UGC has the power to regulate and maintain standards in universities, including requiring prior approval for new courses. The court also held that UGC could not insist on prior approval without framing a regulation.
Final Decision: The court upheld UGC Regulation 12.0, requiring deemed universities to seek prior approval for starting new departments or courses. The court also declared that new departments and courses commenced before the 2010 Regulations are valid, but any new courses commenced after the 2010 Regulations without UGC approval are invalid.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. Though this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed challenging, besides the letter dated 3rd December, 2014 of the respondent University Grants Commission (UGC) to the petitioner, a deemed to be university (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner University), also the Regulations 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 11.0, 12.0, 14.0, 15.0, 17.0, 18.0 and 22.0 of the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010 but there being no cause of action for impugning the Regulations 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 11.0, 14.0, 15.0, 17.0, 18.0 and 22.0, the hearing, with the consent of the parties, was confined to the challenge, besides to the letter dated 3rd December, 2014, to Regulation 12 only, with the understanding that the petitioner University as and when feels the need to challenge the other Regulations aforesaid, shall be entitled thereto.
2. The cause of action for the writ petition was the letter dated 3rd December, 2014 (supra) by which the respondent UGC informed the petitioner University that the respondent UGC had never granted any permission / approval to the petitioner University to start the Departments of, i) Public Health, ii) Pharmaceutical Sciences, iii) Medical Laboratory Technology (MLT), and, iv) Nursing, and that as per the UGC norms already circulated to the deemed to be universities (deemed Universities) a deemed university can on its own start only those courses which are allied to courses already approved by the UGC and that for all those courses which are not allied to the courses already approved, prior approval of UGC is required. Respondent UGC by the said letter also informed the petitioner University that the courses being offered by it’s Departments of, i) Public Health, ii) Pharmaceutical Sciences, iii) MLT, iv) Radio Imaging Technology, and, v) Physiotherapy, are not allied to the courses approved by the UGC and hence the said courses being offered by the petitioner University “cannot be termed as valid”. The petitioner University was further advised not to admit students to the said courses.
3. It is the case of the petitioner University that:
(i) there is no provision in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act) which requires an institution, once conferred the status of deemed University, to seek prior approval of the UGC for starting a course / programme;
(ii) vide Section 22 of the UGC Act, deemed universities are entitled and empowered to award degrees subject to the requirements and applicability of approval / recognition if any required of other statutory bodies;
(iii) neither the 1992 Guidelines nor the 2000 Guidelines formulated by the UGC for declaring an institution as deemed university also included any provision / condition requiring deemed university to obtain prior approval to start Programmes / Courses / Departments;
(iv) though UGC vide its letter dated 16th March, 2004 issued Guidelines inter alia for establishing new departments but the same also provided for ex post facto approval;
(v) various deemed universities protested to the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India regarding undue illegal insistence of the UGC vide letter dated 16th March, 2004 (supra) of seeking prior approval of UGC for starting new course / programme / department;
(vi) the Government of India (MHRD) vide its letter dated 26th May, 2006 to the UGC expressed the opinion that while UGC’s concern about letting deemed universities start the courses of professional studies without following the norms of various councils and / or without maintaining standards of technical education was valid, it was not clear as to why UGC should come in the way of deemed universities starting programmes of study which are already notified by UGC and that general courses of study where no professional standards need to be maintained other than norms of UGC which can always be ensured ex post facto;
(vii) in pursuance thereto, UGC vide its letter dated