Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
Jatinder Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 28211 of 2018
Decided On : 07-01-2020
AICTE - VALIDATION TEST - MODALITIES - CHANGE AFTER CONDUCT OF EXAM - NOT PERMISSIBLE - DILUTION OF STANDARDS - NOT VALID - RE-COMPUTATION OF RESULT AS PER ORIGINAL MODALITIES DIRECTED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the criteria and modalities adopted by AICTE while conducting a validation test and declaration of result thereof in respect of candidates who had obtained the B.Tech Degree between the years 2001 to 2005 by way of distance education mode. The High Court of Orissa took a divergent view pertaining to a B-tech (Civil) Degree acquired by a candidate from a deemed to be University through Distance Education Mode. Two sets of appeal thus arose, one from the judgment passed by the High Court of Orissa and the other arising from the decision of this Court in Kartar Singh's case (supra). The two sets of appeals were clubbed together and were decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.11.2017 vide judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 1 SCC 468 . The view taken by this Court in Kartar Singh's case (supra) was upheld. It was held that the deemed Universities had been conducting the distance education courses through off campus study centres without the approval of the University Grants Commission and the All India Council of Technical Education. It is further held that the action of conferring degrees through distance education mode was without jurisdiction. Even the ex-post facto approval granted by Distance Education Council (DEC) was completely illegal. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that since the UGC Guidelines had given liberty to the concerned deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic session 2001-05, is protected. A view was taken to grant a chance to the concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. Accordingly it was directed that all the degrees in engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-05 would stand suspended till they pass an examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC. AICTE was directed to device within one month from the date of judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in theory as well as in practicals for the concerned students admitted during the academic session 2001-05, covering all the concerned subjects. It was left entirely to the discretion of AICTE to formulate modalities as it may think appropriate and the test (s) were to be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in the respective states where the students were located. Choice was to be given to the students to appear in the examination to be conducted ideally during May-June 2019 or on such dates as AICTE was to determine. Not more than two chances were to be afforded to the concerned students and if they were not to pass the test/tests their degrees were to stand recalled and cancelled. In the eventuality of the concerned candidate clearing the test/tests all the advantages or benefits were to be restored.
Finding of the Court:
The modality and yardstick for successfully negotiating the examination and which stood duly notified vide public notice dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure P-5) could not be altered and diluted after conduct of the examination.
Issues: Whether the modality and yardstick for successfully negotiating the examination and which stood duly notified vide public notice dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure P-5) could be altered and diluted after conduct of the examination?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The rules of the game i.e. the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. 2. If minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before the commencing of the selection process, the authority concerned cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. 3. AICTE, in the present case has proceeded to make alterations in the modality/yardstick for qualifying the examination after conduct of the same and which would be against the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Manjusree and Himani Malhotra's case (supra).
Final Decision: Writ petition allowed. Action of AICTE in changing the modality/yardstick after conduct of the exam is held to be bad in law. Public notice dated 20.06.2018 at Annexure P-6 to the extent of change of modality is quashed. Consequent thereto even the result of the examination by applying change of modality as per Annexure P-6 is set aside. AICTE is directed to re-compute the result of the examination strictly as per modality/yardstick contained in the public notice dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure P-5). While re-computing the result, AICTE would now confine the benefit of additional marks qua the discrepant questions only to the candidates who had attempted the same. Such exercise be completed and revised result be notified within a period of four weeks from today.
JUDGMENT
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - Petitioners by way of filing the instant petition have assailed the criteria and modalities adopted by the 3rd respondent/All India Council for Technical Education while conducting a validation test and declaration of result thereof in respect of candidates who had obtained the B.Tech Degree between the years 2001 to 2005 by way of distance education mode.
2. A brief factual matrix would be necessary.
3. The petitioners and private respondents herein are engineers serving under the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. Issue as regards validity of educational qualifications and B.Tech Degrees obtained through distance education mode from four deemed to be Universities i.e. Institute of Advance Study in Education (IASE), Sardarshahar Rajasthan;(ii) JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan; (iii) Allahabad Agricultural Research Institute, Allahabad; (iv) Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu, during the session 2001 to 2005 came to be raised before this Court in CWP No.1640 of 2008 titled as Kartar Singh Vs. Union of India and others. It was submitted that the afore-noticed Deemed to be Universities had set-up "study centres" in violation of the regulations framed by the UGC and that such study centres completely lacked infrastructure and facilities for courses in engineering and that the programmes through distance education mode were illegal and without approval. The writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.11.2012 and the relevant extract reads as follows:-
"184. In terms of the directions of the Commission it was necessary for the Deemed to be Universities to seek approval from AICTE. In view of the above, we hold that the Deemed to be Universities have started courses in technical education in violation of the guidelines, instructions, circulars and regulations framed by the Commission not only when they started such courses but also in establishing study centres outside there territorial limits and in subjects for which they were not granted Deemed to be Universities status. Therefore, degrees awarded by such Deemed to be Universities is an illegal act and such illegality cannot be removed or cured by the actions of either the commission or DEC".
4. It was further held as under:-
"190. In view of the above, we hold that the approval granted by the Distance Education Council on 29.08.2007 to the Institutes in question is illegal and unwarranted and beyond the scope of authority vested in it. As a necessary consequence the degrees granted by such Deemed to be Universities are illegal and the candidates cannot be deemed to be qualified in the purported subjects in the absence of approval from the commission.
xxx xxx
Though the Court is sympathetic with the cause of the students but the larger public interest demands that the students, who have not got formal education, should not be considered eligible for appointment under the State."
5. The High Court of Orissa however took a divergent view pertaining to a B-tech (Civil) Degree acquired by a candidate from a deemed to be University through Distance Education Mode in writ petition Number 3848 of 2010 titled as Rabi Sankar Patro versus Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited. Two sets of appeal thus arose, one from the judgment passed by the High Court of Orissa and the other arising from the decision of this Court in Kartar Singh's case (supra). The two sets of appeals were clubbed together and were decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.11.2017 vide judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 1 SCC 468 . The view taken by this Court in Kartar Singh's case (supra) was upheld. It was held that the deemed Universities had been conducting the distance education courses through off campus study centres without the approval of the University Grants Commission and the All India Council of Technical Education. It is furthe
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
