Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1978
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R. Subhash Reddy and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
Gautam Shankar S/o Uday Kumar & Ors. - Applicants
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. - Opponents
Writ Petition (Pil) No. 92 of 2016
Decided On : 17-11-2016
For the Applicants : Mr. Aum M Kotwal.
For the Opponent : Ms. Manisha L Shah, Mr. Shalin Mehta, with Mr. Harsh N Parekh, Mr. D.C Dave, with Mr. Niral R Mehta, Mr. Jayneel S Parikh, Mrs. Suman Khare, Mr. SN Shelat, with Mrs. VD Nanavati.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for universities and institutes to obtain necessary approvals for the courses they offer, and the court's authority to direct representations to UGC for ex-post facto approval of degrees awarded in the interest of students.
Headnote:
Fraud - Recognition of Degrees - UGC Act of 1956, UGC regulations of 2003 - Summary of Acts and Sections: UGC Act of 1956, Section 2(f) and Section 22; UGC regulations of 2003 - The court examined a case where students were admitted to a BBA course under the belief that it was a UGC recognized full-time course with affiliation to a university. However, it was revealed that the university did not have the necessary approvals to offer the course, leading to the students' suffering. The court directed the university and the institute to make representations to UGC for ex-post facto approval of the degrees awarded, considering the future of the students and past decisions by UGC in similar cases. The court also directed the concerned universities to take immediate steps for lodging FIR against bogus institutions to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, students of Shanti Business School (SBS), were admitted to a BBA course under the belief that it was a UGC recognized full-time course with affiliation to a university. However, it was revealed that the university did not have the necessary approvals to offer the course, leading to the students' suffering.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the university and the institute did not act in accordance with the law, resulting in the students' suffering. The court directed the university and the institute to make representations to UGC for ex-post facto approval of the degrees awarded, considering the future of the students and past decisions by UGC in similar cases. The court also directed the concerned universities to take immediate steps for lodging FIR against bogus institutions to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Issues: The issues involved the misrepresentation of the BBA course as a UGC recognized full-time course with affiliation to a university, the lack of necessary approvals for the course, and the resulting suffering of the students.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the university and the institute did not act in accordance with the law, leading to the students' suffering. The court directed the university and the institute to make representations to UGC for ex-post facto approval of the degrees awarded, considering the future of the students and past decisions by UGC in similar cases. The court also directed the concerned universities to take immediate steps for lodging FIR against bogus institutions to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Final Decision: The court directed the university and the institute to make representations to UGC for ex-post facto approval of the degrees awarded, considering the future of the students and past decisions by UGC in similar cases. The court also directed the concerned universities to take immediate steps for lodging FIR against bogus institutions to prevent similar incidents in the future.
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
This petition is filed by way of public interest litigation by the students espousing public cause with the prayers which read as under:
“(A) Your Lordships may be please to admit and allow this petition;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant interim relief by way of issuing direction to postpone the examination till the issue of recognition is addressed and/or by issuing the directions to conduct the exams in SBS as conducted erstwhile, under the supervision of GU or any other authorised university as the Court deems fit or may allow to conduct the exam and ensure that it would not give any adverse effects to the students;
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant interim relief by way of issuing directions to the authorities and SBS to pull down the advertisements on its website and elsewhere in connection to the BBA course in public interest till some clarification is provided on the status of SBS in connection to the same;
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue guidelines to the GU and the State Government for effective execution to foresee control and curb such perplex situations in the public interest;
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue directions in relation to the compensation to the aggrieved students under the supervision and/or guidance of this Hon'ble Court;
(F) Your Lordships may be please to issue any writ in nature of writ of mandamus, or certiorari or any other appropriate writ in any other nature to the State Government to act in the interest of the students and in public interest;
(G) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue any writ in nature of writ of mandamus or, certiorari any other appropriate writ in any other nature to the GU to act [in the interest of the students and provide affiliation to the limited students facing the present problem in the interest of justice;
(H) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue any writ in nature of writ of mandamus or, certiorari any other appropriate writ in any other nature to the CVRU to act in the interest of the students and provide affiliation to the limited students facing the present problem in the interest of justice;
(I) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in fact and circumstances of the case at any stage in the interest of students and in public interest;
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:
2.1 The petitioners are the students studying in Shanti Business School (‘SBS’ for short). The said SBS is run by Chiripal Charitable Trust. The said institute issued advertisement in the newspaper for admission to BBA course. The applications were also invited through internet in the said course. It was claimed that the said BBA course is UGC recognized full time course. The admissions were given to the concerned students in the academic year June-July, 2013 by issuing admission letters on the letter head of the said institute. It was also stated that the said course is full time UGC recognized course having affiliation with Dr. C.V Raman University (‘CVRU’ for short). The concerned students verified on the UGC website and it was found that CVRU is a recognized university under Section 2(f) of University Grants Commission Act of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and has powers to confer degree under Section 22 of the said Act.
2.2 On commencement of the first academic year, the students were given study material by SBS and the said study material were in the form of books whereon it was mentioned “Institute of Open and Distance Education”. When inquired, it was stated that the said books are mere reference books. Thereafter, two other batches were admitted to SBS where again full fledged advertisements were published by SBS claiming to be UGC approved and recognized whereby providing three years full time BBA undergraduate course. In all the three batches, total 249 students were enrolled.
2.3 It is the case of the petitioners that on 13.2.201
