O R D E R

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is aggrieved by the email dated 29.09.2018, whereby, his application for admission in Postgraduate Diploma in Book Publishing (PGDBP) has been rejected by respondent no.1-Indira Gandhi National Open University (hereinafter as „IGNOU‟) for the academic session 2018-19. He further prays for direction to respondent no.1-IGNOU to grant him admission in the said course.

2. The facts of the case show that the petitioner took admission in an offshore campus of Sikkim Manipal University, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter as „SMU‟) located in Noida, Uttar Pradesh in the year 2014 in Bachelor of Computer Application (hereinafter as „BCA‟) Programme. He obtained his degree for the said course on 10.05.2018.

3. Thereafter, being desirous of securing admission in the online PGDBP course, he applied for the same in respondent no.1-IGNOU on 10.08.2018. However, on 29.09.2018, his application for the online PGDBP course has been rejected. The petitioner forthwith filed an RTI application on the even date, seeking the reasons for rejection of his application for admission in the said course.

4. On 07.10.2018, the petitioner received a reply to the said RTI application, whereby, it was informed that SMU is a private University established under the State enactment known as Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical and Technological Sciences Act, 1995 and hence, the operation of SMU is restricted within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Signature Not Verified [3]

of Sikkim only. It was also stated in the email that the degrees obtained from SMU through an off campus centre situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Sikkim are not acceptable for academic purposes in respondent no.1-IGNOU.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has illegally been denied the admission by respondent no.1- IGNOU. According to him, the BCA Programme degree obtained by the petitioner does not disentitle him from securing admission in an online course run by respondent no.1-IGNOU. He also submits that the reason provided by respondent no.1-IGNOU vide aforementioned rejection letter is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the decision of rejection deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel also emphasizes on the notification dated 19.12.2014 issued by respondent no.2-UGC, to submit that the programme pursued by the petitioner was valid for students who had taken admission till 2014-15. He submits that respondent no.2-UGC has also written various letters at regular intervals to SMU, informing them about the continuation of recognition for offering programmes through open and distance learning mode for academic year 2016-17 and even for session 2017-18 as well.

7. According to him, it was only on 03.10.2018 that the programmes conducted through distance mode by SMU were derecognised by respondent no.2-UGC vide notification dated 03.10.2018. He, therefore, contends that since the petitioner was admitted in the year 2014, when the distance mode programmes were recognized, there is no reason to reject the petitioner’s application for PGDBP course. He further submits that such a rejection is bad in law and is causing a great prejudice to the petitioner by jeopardizing Signature Not Verified [4]

his professional endeavours.

8. While advancing the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel places reliance on paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the decision of the High Court of Sikkim in W.P.(C) No. 04 of 2013 titled as Sikkim Manipal University v. Indira Gandhi National Open University & Ors. and paragraph nos. 9 to 14 of the decision of the same High Court in W.P.(C) No. 08 of 2015 titled as Mr. Pralhad Dani Chhetri v. Union of India & Ors. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner in the instant petition is similarly placed with the aggrieved petitioners in the aforem