UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION Vs. GLOBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the writ appellant. Also heard Mr. D.J. Kapil, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 as well as Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 24.

(2.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 16/6/2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 217(K)/2013 and WP(C) No. 8(K)/2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the present respondent no. 1 was allowed.

(3.) Respondent no. 1 is the Global Open University, Nagaland (hereinafter referred to as "respondent university"). The respondent university was incorporated by an Act of the legislature of the State of Nagaland. It was established under the provisions of the Global Open University, Nagaland, Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2006"), and is declared as a State University. The Act of 2006 was notified in the official gazette of Nagaland dtd. 29/6/2011. The said university is recognized under sec. 2(f) of the University Grant Commission (UGC) Act, 1956 and it is stated that the said university is the only State Open University in the field of distance education in Nagaland, which has been functioning since the year 2006. The distance education courses provided by the respondent university were under the approval of the Distance Education Council (DEC), which was established under Statute 28 of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) Act, 1985. The respondent university was granted provisional recognition for the period of one year w.e.f. 2/6/2008. Although the respondent university requested for grant of regular recognition, no positive response was received from the DEC. Subsequently, Statute 28 of the IGNOU along with DEC came to be abolished and the standards and requirements to be maintained for distance education were being looked into by the UGC. Till such time proper regulations were framed, the standards and requirements, as provided earlier under the DEC, were adopted as the norms. Upon various requests made by the respondent university, the present appellant, namely, UGC constituted an expert committee for inspection of the university. The expert committee in its report did not recommend grant of regular recognition or extension of the provisional recognition till grant of regular recognition. Pursuant thereto, by the impugned communication dtd. 27/8/2013 (Annexure-B) issued by the UGC, the respondent university was restricted from offering any programmes under distance education mode, which is generally known as "Open and Distance Learning" (ODL). This letter dtd. 27/8/2013 was assailed by the respondent university in the writ petition and the impugned communication was interfered with and set aside by the learned Single Judge resulting in the present writ appeal being preferred by the UGC as the appellant.