Point of Law: UGC guidelines/Regulations issued in year 2003, clearly reveal that setting up of off-campus study centres require prior approval of UGC as well as State Government.

JUDGMENT :

1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

a) The Impugned Order dated 19.12.2017 (Ann.P/11) issued by the Respondent-RPSC may kindly be quashed and set aside.

b) The impugned action of the respondents in cancelling the selection of petitioner for the post of Assistant Jailor may kindly be declared as illegal and unconstitutional;

c) the respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of petitioner & give appointment to the post of Assistant Jailor prescribed in competitive examination 2013 with all consequential benefits.

d) if any appointment and order are made during the pendency of the writ petition prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same may also be called for and be declared and held to be illegal and may be quashed and set aside;

e) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner;

f) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajendra Katariya, Mr. Priyansh Arora and Mr. Dharamveer Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that the petitioner completed his Graduation Degree i.e. B.A. (History) from the respondent-University through distance learning mode.

2.1 The respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement dated 02.05.2013 for recruitment on the post of Assistant Jailor, under the Rajasthan Jail Subordinate Service Rules, 1998. As per the petitioner, being eligible, he submitted the application form for the post in question on 29.05.2013 and he appear in exam. Thereafter, the respondent-RPSC declared the results on 27.05.2016 and the petitioner declared successful in the written examination, and was further called for physical test; whereafter, he was also declared successful in physical test on 24.01.2017.

2.2 After the issuance of results, the respondent-RPSC issued a letter dated 22.03.2017 to the petitioner requiring him to submit certain relevant documents. The respondent-RPSC also conducted the interviews on 15.03.2017 to 07.04.2017 and declared the final results on 09.06.2017.

2.2.1 The petitioner fell under the merit list, and accordingly, his name was shown at serial no.7 of the final merit list. Thereafter, the respondent-RPSC issued another letter on 05.07.2017 informing him that further documents of the petitioner are required to be submitted, in relation to the recruitment in question, whereupon the petitioner immediately submitted the required documents.

2.3 However, the respondent-RPSC, vide impugned order dated 19.12.2017, cancelled the selection of the petitioner on the post in question on the ground that the petitioner has acquired the qualification of B.A. (History) from the respondent-University, through Distance Learning Mode (study centre, Jodhpur). The said impugned order shows that the same has been passed in pursuance of the letter dated 08.09.2017 issued by the respondent-UGC; the said letter bears a reference of a Public Notice dated 27.06.2013.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Public Notice dated 27.06.2013 issued by respondent-UGC cannot be applied retrospectively; vide the said notice, the students were advised not to take admission in the unapproved Study Centres, Off-Campus Centres, Franchisee Institutions, Colleges/Institutions, claiming to be affiliated with Private Universities or Deemed Universities; while, the respondent-RPSC illegally rejected the candidature of petitioner for the post in question, and thus, the same was bad in the eye of law.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has been admitted in B.A. Degree Course in the responden