Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, SAMEER JAIN, JJ.
Jaipur National University, Through its Registrar Shri D.K. Mathur - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Education Department of Higher Education & Ors. - Respondents
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14095 of 2020
Decided On : 29-09-2022
The impugned second proviso to Regulation 3(A) of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 (Regulations of 2020) was challenged on the grounds that it was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a university, argued that the condition of having submitted an application to the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) till 29.02.2020 was unreasonable and that it had a right to apply to the NAAC as per NAAC Manual till 30.04.2020. The respondents, the University Grants Commission (UGC), contended that the impugned proviso was introduced to provide relaxation and relief to compliant Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) and that non-compliant institutions like the petitioner could not claim the benefit of the proviso.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a university, challenged the validity of the impugned second proviso to Regulation 3(A) of the Regulations of 2020, which required Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) to have submitted an application to the NAAC till 29.02.2020 as an eligibility criteria for offering programmes through Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode for the academic session 2020-21. The petitioner argued that the condition was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents, the UGC, contended that the impugned proviso was introduced to provide relaxation and relief to compliant HEIs and that non-compliant institutions like the petitioner could not claim the benefit of the proviso.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned second proviso to Regulation 3(A) of the Regulations of 2020 was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the classification of HEIs on the basis of whether they had applied to the NAAC on or before 29.02.2020 was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which was to protect compliant HEIs that were willing to obtain higher NAAC scores by applying on or before 29.02.2020. The court also held that the condition of having submitted an application to the NAAC till 29.02.2020 was not retrospective in nature and did not prejudicially affect the interests of the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned second proviso to Regulation 3(A) of the Regulations of 2020 was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the condition of having submitted an application to the NAAC till 29.02.2020 was retrospective in nature and prejudicially affected the interests of the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification of HEIs on the basis of whether they had applied to the NAAC on or before 29.02.2020 was reasonable and had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, which was to protect compliant HEIs that were willing to obtain higher NAAC scores by applying on or before 29.02.2020. 2. The condition of having submitted an application to the NAAC till 29.02.2020 was not retrospective in nature and did not prejudicially affect the interests of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-University seeks to assail the legality and validity of second proviso to Regulation 3(A) of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 (for short ‘the Regulations of 2020’) to the extent it prescribes a condition of having submitted an application to National Assessment and Accreditation Council (for short ‘the NAAC’) on or before 29.02.2020 as an eligibility criteria for Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) to offer programmes through Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode, for the academic session 2020-21 commencing July, 2020. The petitioner has prayed that the aforesaid proviso to the extent indicated above be declared unconstitutional, ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India, University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’) and consequently, void, illegal and invalid.
The petitioner has also prayed for writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the respondents to allow the petitioner to run and conduct Open and Distance Learning (ODL) courses for next academic session 2020-21.
2. In this petition, initially an interim order was passed on 25.08.2021 allowing the petitioner to submit offline application in prescribed format to the University Grants Commission (for short ‘the UGC’) for its approval to run Open and Distance Learning and Online Programme courses for the session 2021-22 with a further direction that the application shall be considered by the UGC in terms of prevalent regulations and the same shall not be rejected for not applying to the NAAC till 29.02.2020 in view of the impugned second proviso to Regulation 3(A) of the Regulations of 2020 and due to existing NAAC score of the petitioner. By the aforesaid interim order, it was also directed that since the UGC has fixed last date for admission till 15.12.2021, the NAAC shall conduct the inspection of the petitioner-University to award necessary score of accreditation well in time so that further complications and difficulties may be avoided. The permission/approval of the UGC was made subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 08.12.2021, application for vacating the interim order, preferred by the UGC, was rejected.
The respondent-UGC, aggrieved by the rejection of application for vacating stay order, filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20769-20770/2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 17.12.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of order dated 25.08.2021 passed in the writ petition and order dated 08.12.2021 passed in misc. application.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further directed that the NAAC can conduct the inspection for accreditation without reference to the pendency of Special Leave Petition.
4. Though, academic session 2020-21 commencing from July, 2020 is over, learned counsel for the respondents at the outset contended that this petition is rendered academic as even if the petitioner succeeds, no effective direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged this Court to decide the issue stating that the petitioner-University may be affected adversely in conducting courses in subsequent academic sessions on the ground that it had failed to comply with directives of the UGC to submit application on or before 29.02.2020 for running Open and Distance Learning (ODL) courses and, therefore, a declaration would be necessary that the impugned second proviso to Regulation 3(A) of the Regulations of 2020 was bad in law and such a condition could not be imposed and further that under the existing NAAC guidelines, the petitioner was entitled to submit its application for improvement even after 29.02.2020.
5. The petitioner is a University established under the provis
AI
The classification of Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) on the basis of whether they had applied to the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) on or before 29.02.2020 was reasonabl....
The court established that while the accreditation requirements for HEIs under the Distance Learning Regulations are constitutionally valid, the application of these requirements must be appropriate ....
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.
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.
Education and University - Remove college from matrix - Right of petitioner no.1-College to take admission of students vested in it was wrongly denied by impugned notice and as such same cannot be su....
The court emphasized the obligation of KSOU to issue marks cards and degree certificates to the petitioners, and directed UGC to conduct an enquiry to determine any infraction in imparting instructio....
Degrees from open universities not adhering to UGC regulations are invalid for public employment and promotion.
Section 55(2)(m) of 2020 Act does not authorize Central Government to give advisory/instructions to National Testing Agency.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
