Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55161
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
JACKSON DAS T – Appellant
Versus
THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3664 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ANOOP KRISHNA, SRI.PLASI HALDANE K.A., SRI.JE VARGHESE FRANCIS, SRI.V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR
For the Respondents: SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SRI. SP. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI
Recognition of degrees is essential for admission to educational programs, and universities must adhere to UGC regulations to ensure validity.
Headnote:(A) University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Section 22 - UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 - Recognition of degrees - The petitioner sought to quash proceedings terminating his enrollment in LLB due to the unrecognized BA Degree from a private university. The court found that the petitioner’s qualifying degree was not recognized by UGC, justifying the termination. (Paras 1, 4, 16, 20)
(B) Education Law - Students' Rights - The court emphasized that students should not be penalized for the university's administrative errors, but upheld the validity of the UGC's recognition criteria. (Paras 15, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a student enrolled in an LLB program, was terminated based on the invalidity of his qualifying degree from Dr. C.V. Raman University, which lacked UGC approval.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the petitioner's degree was not recognized, validating the termination of his enrollment.
Issues: The main issues were the recognition of the qualifying degree and the impact of UGC regulations on student enrollment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the recognition of degrees is essential for admission to further studies, and the UGC's authority in this matter is paramount.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash termination of enrollment based on degree recognition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. counsel argues student rights should be protected despite university's failures. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. respondents assert degree from unrecognized university invalid for admission. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court hears arguments from both sides. (Para 13) |
| 5. court concludes petitioner's degree is unrecognized, thus dismissal of writ petition. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is a student of second semester LLB 2021-2023 Batch under the School of Legal Studies, CUSAT, seeks to quash Ext.P7 and to command the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the examinations scheduled as per Ext.P1.
2. The petitioner states that he passed BA (History) examination from Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur with an aggregate mark of 68.8%. The Degree program was conducted through private mode during 2016-2019. Ext.P1 is the provisional Degree Certificate of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was admitted to three year LLB Course under the School of Legal Studies, CUSAT. The petitioner appeared for the first semester University examination in May, 2022.
4. The 3rd respondent-Controller of Examinations issued Ext.P4 proceedings dated 14.10.2022 stating that the Degree of the petitioner conferred by Dr. C.V. Raman University does not have the UGC approval and hence is invalid. Proceedings were initiated to terminate the petitioner from the ongoing Course.
5. The petitioner states that Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur is a UGC recognised private University entitled to run courses through private / distance mode from 2013 onwards. By proceedings dated 06.01.2016, the UGC had granted continuation of recognition to the University for offering programs in private / distance mode for the academic year 2015-2016. The recognition so granted still continues.
6. However, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 letter dated 18.10.2022 requiring the petitioner to show-cause why the University should not proceed to terminate the petitioner from the LLB Degree program.
7. The petitioner thereupon made a request to the CUSAT to recognise the Course undergone by the petitioner. By Ext.P7, the petitioner was informed that his application for recognition of qualifying Degree cannot be considered since Dr. C.V. Raman University was not given approval by the Distance Education Bureau of the UGC to conduct Bachelor of Arts Program during the Academic year 2016-2017.
8. The counsel for the petitioner argued that if there is any deficiency in the Course conducted by a University, under Section 22 of the UGC Act, the UGC can fine and penalise the University. But, that cannot nullify the Degree obtained by the petitioner. Relying on Regulation 3.3.3 of Ext.P21 UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003, the counsel argued that if the functioning of Centres remains unsatisfactory, the private University shall be instructed by the UGC to close down the said Centres, which shall be binding on the University. In such a situation, the interests of the students already enrolled therein shall be protected.
9. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that as per Ext.P6 GO dated 17.12.2018 of the Government of Kerala, Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur (Private University) has been recognised by the Government of Kerala. The petitioner's counsel relied on the judgment in Neelam Devi and others v. Haryana Nurses Registration Council and others [(2010) 158 PLR 323] and argued that students themselves could not be penalised for any mistake committed by any functionary of University or any institute. A student shall not be penalised or put to any hardship, when he or she is not guilty of any suppression or has taken any advantage.
10. The 2nd respondent-Registrar filed counter affidavit and opposed the writ petition. The 2nd respondent stated that the petitioner was pro
