UTKAL RANJAN MOHANTY Vs. CHAIRMAN, DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of far reaching consequence having wide ramification that falls for our consideration is as to whether a Deemed to be University established under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 can impart Diploma courses in Engineering through Distance Education Mode all over the country.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details short facts of the case of the petitioners are that pursuant to the notification dated 12.01.1987 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development vide Annexure-1, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur, Rajasthan was declared as a Deemed to be University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the UGC Act"). Subsequently, the name of the University was changed to Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as "the Deemed to be University"). The Degrees/Diplomas awarded by the University stands automatically recognized for the purpose of employment under the Central Government. The University started imparting education through distance education mode from the academic session 2001. The students from all over the country prosecuted their study under the said University by registering their names through distance education mode. Further case of the petitioners is that while they were serving under the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the MCL")-opposite party no.5, they sought permission to take admission under the distance education mode in diploma engineering under the University-opposite party no.4. After permission was accorded, they took admission in their respective subjects, like, Electrical, Mechanical and Civil during the academic session 2003-04, prosecuted their study through distance education mode and completed three years course through lateral entry. After completion of the course, they appeared at the University examination and were declared to have passed in the year 2006. Thereafter, diploma certificates in engineering (lateral entry) were issued to them. They produced the said certificates before the MCL for the next higher posts. While the matter stood thus, vacancies arose in the next higher posts, i.e., Assistant Foreman. The eligibility criterion for consideration of the said posts was Diploma in Engineering. Since they had satisfied the eligibility criteria, they were found suitable for consideration and were directed to appear at the written test. Before they were found eligible, the MCL, opposite party no.5 had made correspondence with the Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as "the UGC") about the validity of the diploma certificate issued by the University. In response to such letter, the UGC had also clarified that the certificates issued by the University are valid certificates for all purposes. They became successful in the written test and were called for the viva-voce held on 29.05.2008. Before the viva- voce test, some unsuccessful candidates made allegations to the MCL questioning the legality of the diploma certificates issued by the University. The MCL did not conduct the viva-voce test. One Uttam Charan Ojha and others filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 15725 of 2008 for a direction to the MCL to conduct the viva-voce test, which is sub judice. Instead of considering their case for promotion to the next higher posts, the MCL issued a memorandum of charges against them that the diploma engineering certificates submitted by them are not recognized by the appropriate authority and they had given false and fabricated information for illegal gratification, vide Annexure-9 series. After a lot of correspondences made by the MCL with the All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the AICTE")-opposite party no. 3 and UGC, the AICTE had clarified in its letter dated 11.05.2005, vide Annexure-10 series, that in the case of distance mode education, approval of the AICTE is not required for starting any technical programme. Thereafter, the Chairman, UGC constituted a committee to consider the request of the University for ex-post facto approval of the courses through distance education mode started till the year 2005. The Committee in its meeting held on 30.06.2006 examined all aspects of the matter and granted one time ex-post facto approval to the University for the students admitted in various courses from 1st June, 2001 to 31st August, 2005 subject to certain terms and conditions. The decision of the UGC was communicated to the Registrar of the University on 03.07.2006, vide Annexure-11 series. It is further stated that the Distance Education Council is a statutory body. It has recognized programmes/courses undertaken by the petitioners under the University. Since the University is a Deemed to be University under Section 3(1) of the UGC Act, the question of any doubt with regard to the validity of the diploma certificates granted to the petitioners does not arise. Further, in reply to certain correspondences made by the employers of some other candidates, the Director of DEC, vide letter dated 15.01.2009 had also informed that the Council had given ex-post facto approval to all programmes, which were approved by the statutory Council of the University based on the approval of the Joint Committee comprising of UGC-AICTE-DEC. In the meantime, AICTE had also made an advertisement on 09.01.2009 in the daily newspaper "The Times of India", cautioning to the students seeking admission to the programmes/courses of technical education being imparted through distance education mode. As would evident from the said advertisement that as per the memorandum of undertaking singed by UGC, AICTE, DEC, Deemed to be Universities imparting technical education and technical institutions are required to obtain specific prior approval from the "Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC" for conducting programmes/courses in technical education through distance education mode. Since the ex-post facto approval has already been granted to the courses imparted by the University, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the validity of the diploma certificates issued to the petitioners and as such, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them is illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) With this factual scenario, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to declare that the certificates issued by opposite party no.4 under Annexure-5 series are valid and binding on the opposite parties, for a direction to the opposite parties to act in terms of ex-post facto approval as reflected under Annexure- 11 series and to declare that no further approval is necessary to such diploma qualification acquired by the petitioners from the Deemed to be University and declare the action of opposite parties 5 to 9 in not accepting the certificates to be invalid and inoperative and such other reilefs.