Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE KERALA UNIVERSITY – Appellant
Versus
ZITA FRANCIS – Respondent
WA 765/2021
Distance education degrees should be treated as equivalent to traditional degrees from recognized institutions, guided by UGC regulations and statutory provisions.
Headnote:(A) Kerala University Act, 1974 - Section 25(xii) - Education regulations - Equivalence of Distance Education Degrees - The Court found the decision by the University refusing equivalency to degrees obtained via distance education was invalid, asserting that such degrees must be treated equivalently to traditional degrees from recognized institutions, affirming the importance of adhering to UGC guidelines and maintaining educational standards. (Paras 26, 46, 49)
(B) Academic Council Authority - The judgment emphasized that the decision-making authority regarding equivalency lies with the academic council, not individual boards or officials, highlighting jurisdictional overreach by the Board of Studies in the case. (Paras 32, 48)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought recognition of degrees in Psychology and Counselling from distance education programs. The University denied equivalence based on traditional academic standards but the petitioner argued against this, citing UGC regulations and past judgments supporting equivalency of recognized distance education degrees.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the University’s refusal was incorrect and mandated proper consideration of the equivalency applications according to established guidelines and legislative provisions.
Issues: The central issues were the validity of the University’s refusal of the recognized degrees and whether the procedures followed adhered to legal standards of equivalency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted the precedence of educational policies dictated by UGC over traditional practices, mandating open and distance education systems' recognition as valid pathways for academic achievement.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, with directives issued for re-evaluation of applications.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to university degree recognition (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the writ petitioner's educational background (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. distance education's legal status and recognition (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. contentions regarding university's policies (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. consideration of applications by the university (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. arguments against the university's rigid stance (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. judicial precedents on degree equivalency (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. government and ugc views on distance education (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. legal backing for recognizing distance degrees (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. regulatory frameworks governing university actions (Para 28 , 29) |
| 11. powers of boards of studies and academic councils (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 12. implications of university's internal decisions (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 13. court's directive for university actions (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
Instant writ appeal is preferred by the third respondent in W.P. (C) No. 27818 of 2019 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 22.03.2021, whereby it was held as follows at paragraph 6:
“6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is force and merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Public Notice, Ext.P22 dated 23.2.2018 recognized the degrees of Post Graduation ie., M.Sc Psychology from the Madras University, Chennai from 1995-96 to 2006-07. Petitioner had submitted an application and taken the admission in pursuance to the prospectus 2007-2008, the aforementioned, notification is fully applicable to the petitioner. The decision of the Academic Council in not recognizing the degree of M.Sc Psychology through distance education course is wholly illegal. The equivalence certificate as sought for ought to have been, in such circumstance, given. The stand of the respondent of not recognizing the degree which involved open hand, physical training would not be applicable for M.Sc Psychology as it can be done through the distance education mode. As far as the M.Sc Counselling from IGNOU obtained by the petitioner vide Ext.P5, respondent University has been adopting pick and choose policy in recognizing the M.Sc degree in Computer Science awarded by the Bharathiar University, Coimbatore. Even otherwise, the notification dated 10th of June 2015, Ext.P16 recognized all the degrees/diplomas/certificates including technical education degrees/diplomas awarded through open and distance learning mode of education by the Universities established by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature. IGNOU is a University established by the Central Act and therefore a person holding the degree would be eligible for posts and services under the Central Government and the State Government cannot cause any discrimination for the holder of such degrees.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The degrees held by the petitioners will not be rejected, in case the petitioner seeks any future appointment, as and when invited through notifications, subject to compliance of other conditions.”
2. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, this appeal is filed. In fact, various reliefs are sought for by the writ petitioner/first respondent in the writ petition and in order to have a better understanding of the issues, it is only appropriate that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition are extracted and they read thus:
1. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to declare that the MSc Degree in Counselling and Family Therapy awarded by Indira Gandhi Open University and MSc Degree in Psychology awarded by University of Madras, Institute of Distant Education to Petitioner are equivalent to the corresponding Degrees awarded by Universities in Kerala for the purpose of employment.
2. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to directing the
