IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI)
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SOUMITRA SAIKIA, JJ.
The University Grants Commission, Represented by the Secretary – Appellant
Versus
The Global Open University – Respondent
WA 33 of 2017
Decided on : 06-05-2022
Global Open University, Nagaland, Act, 2006 - University Grant Commission (UGC) Act, 1956 - Section 2(f) - UGC (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017 - Regulation 4, 3(2), 3, 5 - Writ appeal - Withdrawal of recognition - Recognition of Higher Educational Institutions offering programmes in ODL mode - Whether provisional recognition should be extended or regular recognition should be granted to the respondent university - Whether respondent university’s provisional recognition ought to be extended or discontinued - Rejection of requests for granting recognition without providing adequate opportunity to the respondent university is violation of principles of natural justice( Para 11).
Findings of the Court :
Non-granting of extension to the provisional recognition of the respondent university was without any basis - While coming to the conclusion, learned Single Judge had taken note of the fact that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between UGC, AICTE and DEC for a period of three years, which stipulates that the Joint Committee will decide the composition of the expert committee which would visit the institutions to verify the norms and standards for the purpose of recognition, and the recommendations of the expert committee will be placed before the Joint Committee for consideration and approval - However, the said MOU was not extended after the period of three years - Therefore, the recommendations of the expert committee, which was constituted when MOU was non-existent, would have no legal basis - Findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are that the respondent university ought to have been served with a notice and a copy of the expert committee report ought to have been furnished to the respondent university - While setting aside and quashing the impugned communication, learned Single Judge has given liberty to respondents (present writ appellant) to constitute an expert committee for inspection and looking into the aspect of grant of recognition to the respondent university.
Result : Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S. Saikia, J
Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the writ appellant. Also heard Mr. D. J. Kapil, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 as well as Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 24.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 217(K)/2013 and WP(C) No.8(K)/2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the present respondent no. 1 was allowed.
3. Respondent no. 1 is the Global Open University, Nagaland (hereinafter referred to as “respondent university”). The respondent university was incorporated by an Act of the legislature of the State of Nagaland. It was established under the provisions of the Global Open University, Nagaland, Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2006”), and is declared as a State University. The Act of 2006 was notified in the official gazette of Nagaland dated 29.06.2011. The said university is recognized under section 2(f) of the University Grant Commission (UGC) Act, 1956 and it is stated that the said university is the only State Open University in the field of distance education in Nagaland, which has been functioning since the year 2006. The distance education courses provided by the respondent university were under the approval of the Distance Education Council (DEC), which was established under Statute 28 of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) Act, 1985. The respondent university was granted provisional recognition for the period of one year w.e.f. 02.06.2008. Although the respondent university requested for grant of regular recognition, no positive response was received from the DEC. Subsequently, Statute 28 of the IGNOU along with DEC came to be abolished and the standards and requirements to be maintained for distance education were being looked into by the UGC. Till such time proper regulations were framed, the standards and requirements, as provided earlier under the DEC, were adopted as the norms. Upon various requests made by the respondent university, the present appellant, namely, UGC constituted an expert committee for inspection of the university. The expert committee in its report did not recommend grant of regular recognition or extension of the provisional recognition till grant of regular recognition. Pursuant thereto, by the impugned communication dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure-B) issued by the UGC, the respondent university was restricted from offering any programmes under distance education mode, which is generally known as “Open and Distance Learning” (ODL). This letter dated 27.08.2013 was assailed by the respondent university in the writ petition and the impugned communication was interfered with and set aside by the learned Single Judge resulting in the present writ appeal being preferred by the UGC as the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the UGC Mr. A. Chamuah strenuously submits that the order of the learned Single Judge in interfering with the letter dated 27.08.2013 is erroneous inasmuch as it is a mandate of the Act read with the regulations prescribed that unless recognition is granted and/or extended by the competent authority, no courses can be conducted and no degrees or diplomas can be offered by any institute including a university on ODL platform. It is also submitted that the respondent university was well aware of this position as it was also mentioned in its provisional recognition. However, the university continued conducting programmes on ODL platform and conferring various degrees and diplomas to the students which was contrary to the UGC norms under the Regulations. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the UGC is a statutory authority constituted under an Act of the Parliament and is empowered to ensure maintenance of adequate infrastructure and standards for imparting education and other courses as well as conferring various degrees and diplomas by the universities and/or deemed universities including cour
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. VS Deputy Commissioner Of Central Excise, Gauhati
Point of Law : Rejection of the requests for granting recognition without providing adequate opportunity to the respondent university is violation of principles of natural justice.
Point of Law : The powers under Article 142(1) to do complete justice is entirely of different level or of a different quality. Any prohibition or restriction contained in ordinary laws cannot act as....
Degrees from open universities not adhering to UGC regulations are invalid for public employment and promotion.
The importance of proof of service of the Show Cause Notice and the violation of principles of natural justice influenced the court's decision.
Singhania University was established under a Statute and automatically recognized. It needed no recognition by any other authority and hence the prayers of the Petitioners were granted.
The court affirmed that under UGC Regulations, an institution can obtain autonomy with NAAC accreditation, and universities must comply with UGC directives regarding such status.
Deemed universities must comply with UGC guidelines for distance education; degrees awarded without prior approval are invalid.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.