Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Rakesh Kumar Shukla vs Comptroller And Auditor-General Of ... on 16 October, 2017
1 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00113/2017
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
HON'BLE DR.K.B.SURESH, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI PRASANNA KUMAR PRADHAN, MEMBER (A)
Rakesh Kumar Shukla
S/o Shri Sunder Singh
Aged about 35 years,
working as Accountant
Office of Accountant General (A&E)
Park House Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. .....Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri. Izzhar Ahmed)
Versus
1. Senior Deputy Accountant General (Admin)
Office of Accountant General (A&E)
Park House Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Assistant Controller & Audit General (N)
Office of the Comptroller & Audit General of India
# 9, Deendayal Upadhaya Marg,
New Delhi - 110 124.
3. Education Officer
University Grants Commission
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi - 110 002.
4. Vice-Chancellor
Sikkim Manipal University,
(Health, Medical & Technology Science)
5th Mile, Tadong,
Gangtok
Sikkim - 7378 102.
2 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore
5. Union of India
through the Secretary
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Government of India
North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001. ....Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri M.V. Rao, learned Sr. Panel Counsel for R1, R2 & R5, Shri
Showri.HR, learned counsel for R3 and Shri Indus Law, learned counsel for R5.
O R D E R (O R A L)
(HON'BLE DR.K.B.SURESH, MEMBER (J) "How Small of all that human hearts endure, That part which laws or kings can cause or cure! Still to ourselves in every place consigned, Our own felicity we make or find" Lord Acton
1. Whether a degree awarded in contradiction to regulation and in a colourable manner should or should not have credence is the issue here. This must be the social and legal parametres.
2. Higher Education sector has witnessed a tremendous increase in the number of Universities/University level Institutions & Colleges since Independence. The number of Universities has increased 34 times from 20 in 1950 to 677 in 2014. The sector boasts of 45 Central Universities of which 40 are under the purview of Ministry of Human Resource Development, 318 State Universities, 185 State Private universities, 129 Deemed to be Universities, 51 Institutions of National Importance (established under Acts of Parliament) under MHRD (IITs - 16, NITs - 30 and IISERs - 5) and four Institutions (established 3 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore under various State legislations). The number of colleges has also registered manifold increase of 74 times with just 500 in 1950 growing to 37,204, as on 31st March, 2013.
3. The quantum growth in the Higher Education sector is spear- headed by Universities, which are the highest seats of learning.
4. In India, "University" means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC) in accordance with the regulations made in this regard under the UGC Act, 1956. Every year, millions of students from within the country and abroad, enter these portals mainly for their graduate, post graduate studies while millions leave these portals for the world outside.
5. Higher Education is the shared responsibility of both the Centre and the States. The coordination and determination of standards in Universities & Colleges is entrusted to the UGC and other statutory regulatory bodies.
6. The Central Government provides grants to the UGC and establishes Central Universities/Institutions of National Importance in the country. The Central Government is also responsible for declaring an educational institution as "Deemed-to-be University" on the recommendations of the UGC.
4 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore
7. At present, the main categories of University/University-level Institutions are :- Central Universities, State Universities, Deemed-to-be Universities and University-level institutions. These are described as follows:
8.Central University:
A university established or incorporated by a Central Act.
9.State University:
A university established or incorporated by a Provincial Act or by a State Act.
10.Private University:
A university established through a State/Central Act by a sponsoring body viz. A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, or any other corresponding law for the time being in force in a State or a Public Trust or a Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956.
11.Deemed-to-be University:
An Institution Deemed to be University, commonly known as Deemed University, refers to a high-performing institution, which has been so declared by Central Government under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956.
12.Institution of National Importance:
An Institution established by Act of Parliament and declared as Institution of National Importance.5 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore
13.Institution under State Legislature Act:
An Institution established or incorporated by a State Legislature Act.
14. The Sikkim Manipal University seems to the established under the permission of the Sikkim government. But, unfortunately being a new entrant into the field, it appears that the government of Sikkim may not have been able to properly guide this University,
15. Particularly so because of the nature of its structure and the Central Mechanism as produced as annexure by the University themselves.
16. India's higher education system is the third largest in the world, next to the United States and China. The main governing body at the tertiary level is the University Grants Commission, which enforces its standards, advises the government, and helps coordinate between the centre and the state. Accreditation for higher learning is overseen by 15 autonomous institutions established by the University Grants Commission (UGC) .
17. The emphasis in the tertiary level of education lies on science and technology. Indian educational institutions by 2004 consisted of a large number of technology institutes. Distance learning and open education is also a feature of the Indian higher education system, and is looked after by the Distance Education Council. Indira Gandhi National Open University is the largest university in the world by number of students, having approximately 3.5 million students across the globe.
6 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore
18. Indian higher education is in need of radical reforms. A focus on enforcing higher standards of transparency, strengthening of the vocational and doctoral education pipeline, and professionalization of the sector through stronger institutional responsibility would help in reprioritizing efforts and working around the complexities. The rise of IT sector and engineering education in India has boxed students into linear path without giving them a chance to explore and discover their passions. Concerted and collaborative efforts are needed in broaden student choices through liberal arts education.
19.Accreditation Indian law requires that universities be accredited unless created through an act of Parliament. Without accreditation, the government notes, "These fake institutions have no legal entity to call themselves as University/Vishwvidyalaya and to award 'degree' which are not treated as valid for academic/employment purposes." The University Grants Commission Act 1956 explains, "the right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act , or a State Act, or an Institution deemed to be University or an institution specially empowered by an Act of the Parliament to confer or grant degrees. Thus, any institution which has not been created by an enactment of Parliament or a State Legislature or has not been granted the status of a Deemed to be University, is not entitled to award a degree."
20. The issue of assessing and assuring quality of Indian higher education is a challenge. Instead of aiming for 'world-class' universities through rankings, policy framework must improve the processes that enable accountability through data collection and reporting on parameters of institutional 7 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore quality. The government should leverage this tool to improve quality of the overall system.
21.Problems which we feel now Driven by market opportunities and entrepreneurial zeal, many institutions are taking advantage of the lax regulatory environment to offer 'degrees' not approved by Indian authorities, and many institutions are functioning as pseudo non-profit organisations, developing sophisticated financial methods to siphon off the 'profits'. Regulatory authorities like UGC and AICTE have been trying to extirpate private universities that run courses with no affiliation or recognition. Students from rural and semi urban background often fall prey to these institutes and colleges. One of the fundamental weaknesses of the system is lack of transparency and recommendations have been made to mandate high standards of data disclosures by institutions on performance. Other problem was on the excessive obsession of having Indian universities among top global college and university rankings, at times originating from government's inconsistent priorities, indicating a showcasing mentality of Indian higher education in the world stage while pathetic ignorance towards primary and secondary educations continued. The argument has been that the whole model of ignoring primary and secondary education, while focusing on ranking of a few universities and institutes, is not a sustainable model for the nation.
22.Factual exposition The matter is in a very small compass. The applicant who apparently received Annexure A1, 'B grade' degree Certificate from Sikkim 8 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore Manipal University in Bachelor of Science degree in Multimedia known as B.Sc. Multimedia, is an employee of the respondents. For the purpose of career enhancement, he wanted to have written an examination which through our interim order he has now written. The stand taken by the respondents seems to be that the UGC has not recognised this particular degree and in any case since this Bachelor Degree in B.Sc. Multimedia was obtained through a distance mode with probably a study centre at Delhi. But, apparently in the subjects, the Fundamentals of Computer, Multimedia and Internet, and Concepts of Graphics and Creating Illustration, Image Magic-I & II and Media Publishing-I & II, Principles of Computer Graphics and Fundamentals of Media Studies, Communication Skills in English he seems to have passed. He seems to have passed with a very good level i.e. above 60 marks. The applicant himself is personally present and he was personally heard and would say that upto 8 to 10 times he has attended the Study Centre at Delhi in the cause of the entire course. Apparently, in scientific subjects and subjects as mentioned above, even if, it is to be assumed that 10 days', the applicant had attended a Study Centre at Delhi, it is not possible for even a brilliant student to match the requirements of the syllabi. Even for regular students this might appear to be slightly difficult. Therefore, even if it is to be assumed that applicant is a very brilliant student, he cannot imbibe this knowledge in 10 sittings, to this extent what is stated by the respondents in the reply seems to be correct.
23. Applicant has produced Annexure A5 wherein it is stated:-
"with reference to your letter no.ESI/A1/2015-16/201 dated 08.07.2015 9 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore on the above subject, I am directed to say that the information sought by you does not make it clear whether the courses were conducted by the Sikkim Manipal University through regular mode or distance mode. In case of the distance mode, the Distance Education Bureau of this office has provided the following information on the basis of record available with them:
" Sikkim Manipal University, Sikkim was given Post facto recognition from 1995-96 to 2006 and from 2007-08 to 2008-09, it was under Institutional recognition and no subject wise approval was given for distance mode education.
From 2009-10, it was given programme wise approval for 3 academic year i.e. upto 2011-12 for distance mode programme. The letter of recognition & subjects/programmes given approval and also available on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in/deb/. The programmes given recognition do not include B.Sc. in Multimedia. Neither erstwhile DEC nor DEB/UGC has given recognition to any study centre of Sikkim Manipal University."
F.No.6-01/2015(CPP-II), dated 14.10.2015 which was issued at Annexure A5 in which "it is clearly stated that no subject wise approval was given for distance mode education and then it is followed up and the programmes given recognition do not include B.Sc. in Multimedia. Neither erstwhile DEC nor DEB/UGC has given recognition to any study centre of Sikkim Manipal University."
Therefore, it follows that the Study Centre at Delhi has no recognition at all and also there was no subject wise approval as required and No UGC approval was given by the UGC to the Sikkim Manipal University for conducting course in B.Sc. Multimedia.
24. Shri Izzhar Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant invites our attention to Annexure A10, F.No.UGC/DEB-II/SMU/Misc/2015,dated 31.12.2015 10 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore which is recorded below:-
"With reference to your letter dated 21.12.2015 on the subject cited above, it is to inform you that prior to 2006-07, there was no system of giving recognition for distance education programme by (erstwhile) DEC. Sikkim Manipal University, Sikkim was accorded post facto recognition 1995-96 upto 2006-07 for distance mode education. In the year 2007-08 and 2008- 09, it was given institutional recognition for the programmes approved by its statutory bodies/committee for distance mode and concerned apex regulatory authorities. From 2009-10, it was extended programme wise recognition for a period of 3 year upto 2011-12. Details of programmes given recognition is available on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in/deb/."
He would say that it is shown that the University was extended programme wise recognition for a period of 3 year upto 2011-12. Details of programmes given recognition is available on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in/deb/." But then he omitted to produce a printout from the website which would have shown whether B.Sc. Multimedia was given recognition at that point of time.
25. Annexure A1 is issued on 19.05.2011. The course would have been thus prior to 2011 as mentioned in Annexure A10, even otherwise also this do not mean that a recognition is given by the UGC to the distance education course in B.Sc. Multimedia conducted apparently by the said University. The Sikkim Manipal University seems to have issued a Certificate indicating that Shri Rakesh Kumar was a student of Sikkim Manipal University for the B.Sc. in Multimedia programme from the period from August 2005 to January 2011 under distance education mode i.e. for a period of 6 years in which he attended classes of 8 to 10 days. They would say that the B.Sc. MM., programme was started in August 2003 and discontinued by the university in October 2006. Therefore, the question then would be, if the course was discontinued in 2006, how can the applicant continued as an approved student of the 11 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore University after 2006. Even after going by the statement made by the Sikkim Manipal University, this does not appear to be possible. This statement is given by the University in SMU-DDE/CERT-550 dated 23.12.2016 and produced in page no.81 without any further declaration by the applicant. This Certificate is hereby recorded below for easy elucidation :-
"This is to certify that Mr. RAKESH KUMAR, bearing University Registration No.720571079 was a student of Sikkim Manipal University for the BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN MULTIMEDIA (B.Sc.(MM) program, during the period from August 2005 to January 2011 under Distance Education Mode.
The B.Sc. (MM) program was started in Aug 2003 and discontinued by the University after Oct, 2006 Session. This programme is approved as per the post-facto recognition letter issued by (erstwhile) DEC vide letter dated 29.08.2007/5452.
Further as per the judgment of Hon'ble Sikkim High Court dated 29.06.2015, all the students are protected and degrees awarded to them are valid."
But then, this also says that by judgment of the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court dated 29.06.2015 all the students are protected and the degrees awarded to them are valid. We do not know the details of this order and how the degrees can be valid. There is also another peculiarity about the University.
26. The 1st semester of the applicant was conducted by registration no.720571079 and statement of marks awarded held in January, 2006 and marks awarded with effect from 05.05.2006. For the 3 rd semester held in January, 2007 with a date 26.04.2007, statement of marks awarded. It is to be noted that in 2006 itself, this course has been discontinued by the University. Then the next peculiarity is that the 2nd semester exam is said to be held in January, 2011 and with the same number and marks were 12 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore awarded by marksheet dated 25.03.2011. Thereafter, the 4 th semester held in July, 2010 and marks were awarded on 25.10.2010 and the 5 th semester held in January, 2010 and marks awarded by the date 25.03.2010 and the 6 th semester held in July, 2009 and marks awarded by the date 19.09.2009. The consequences and sequences of such examination processes seems to be very doubtful and colourable.
27. The applicant placed reliance on the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim in Pralhad Dani Chhetri and others vs. UOI and others in WP(C) No.08 of 2015 in which in paragraph no.4, the petitioner therein contended that under Statute 28 of the IGNOU Act, 1985, it was not permissible for the UGC to now restrict the DEP of the respondent University (Sikkim Manipal University) under the DEM retrospectively in the manner in which it was being done. The action of the UGC, as per the petitioners, was arbitrary and grossly unjust to them and those similarly circumstanced, who had undergone the DEP and awarded degrees by the respondent no.4 University, after having spent several valuable years of their lives. This statement made by the petitioners and reflected in the judgment of the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court is very relevant. Apparently, the University had held out to the students that it is a recognised university and now the contention raised in the said Writ Petitioner by the petitioner therein seems to be that retrospectively no de-recognition can be made as apparently as it was given recognition by the IGNOU in the year 2001.
28. But then there is no question of de-recognition of the University here. It is only that B.Sc. (Multimedia) course is not recognised. 13 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore
29. It is stipulated in paragraph 7 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim regarding the provisions of law:-
"7. As regards the status and legal position of the UGC, it was held that UGC Act, 1956, under which it has been created, has a supervening influence over all other Legislations on the subject of education for maintenance of minimum standards in the country and indisputably governs Open University also. Thus, the resolution adopted in the 40 th Meeting of the DEC dated 08.06.2012, Annexure P34, to confine the territorial jurisdiction of the Private Universities within the geographical limits of the States of its locations, having been taken as a consequence of a policy decision of the Government of India, it cannot be held to be unauthorised and invalid. The policy decision ultimately crystallised in the form of Order dated 29.12.2012, Annexure R4. This order having been issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of India, Respondent no.1, in exercise of its powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956, assumes a statutory character and would be considered as part of the main Statute, i.e., UGC Act, 1956, and binding upon all Universities irrespective of whether the other Statutes including the ones under State Legislations provide otherwise. This is so far as the questions of law are concerned."
The working methodology of Private University is to be held up, the applicant and the respondent no.4 relying on which there seems to be another judgment of the same High Court which was the basis of the order earlier and principles enunciated in that. The applicant herein also would say that he had undertaken the courses during the period when the DEP of the respondent no.4-University was being run under valid recognition of the UGC and the DEC and their cases would be fully covered by the aforesaid decision.
30. But, unfortunately, for the applicant herein, we have gone through the methodology in which the course was allegedly conducted even though started in 2003, it was discontinued in 2006, going by the statement issued by the Sikkim Manipal University. Therefore, the 14 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore question would be, how can such a course be continued even after discontinuation?
"The way in which the semesters are conducted and examination held also remains for serious doubt. Therefore, what is stated in paragraph 12 of the said judgment in WP(C) No.08 of 2015 will not be applicable to the applicant herein. The said paragraph 12 is hereby recorded:-
"12.The The information conveyed in letter dated 11.05.2011, Annexure P32, issued by the respondent No.1 to the Royal Danish Embassy, being in conflict with the decision of the DEC, firstly, in ratifying the decision of its Chairman granting recognition to the DEP of the respondent no.4-University for hte academic years 2009-10 to 2011-12 and, secondly, its own grant of recognition, be it provisional or regular, for the preceding years, would be rendered a nullity, non est and, therefore, unenforceable and is accordingly, ordered so."
31. There is no question in this case of any prior recognition being granted at all by a retrospective operation of a new order or that the earlier recognition given was taken away. It is the Sikkim Manipal University itself which has discontinued the course in the year 2006, going by the statement of the University itself. Therefore, this order will not operate in favour of the applicant in any way because this course in B.Sc. Multimedia was discontinued by the said University in the year 2006 itself and never recognised in that period. Therefore, this judgment will not come to the assistance of the applicant. The only right which may accrue to the applicant will be to sue the University under tort for compensation.
32. This decision of Hon'ble Sikkim High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.26223/2015, dated 21.09.2015. But, unfortunately for the applicant these have no relevance to him and his case 15 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore have absolutely no relevance to the judgment in the Writ Petition of the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court of India for the simple reason that the UGC has not granted any recognition to the B.Sc. Multimedia. Even otherwise, even though the course is started in 2003, the University themselves had discontinued it in 2006. Therefore, the question of conducting examination for a discontinued course and that too in a truncated structural manner as stated above in different years seems to be colourable and suspicious and not valid.
33. Even otherwise also for a scientific course to be attempted through distance education mode seems to be rather doubtful as we have already mentioned the subject, even for a regular student such a thing may not be possible. Therefore to attempt it through a distance education mode is rather doubtful. To conduct the entire 6 years course in 8 to 10 days sitting thus seems to be coloured and improper.
34. Therefore, we asked the learned counsel for the 4th respondent whether there are regular students undergoing the same course at University Centre at Gangtok. Apparently, the learned counsel could not be ready with this information. We also wanted to know what are the facilities to conduct the B.Sc. Multimedia of the regular course including labs and other facilities to which learned counsel was not able to obtain any answer to this. But, Shri Izzhar Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant, at this juncture stipulates that the applicant is not concerned with it as he is only a distant mode student and had attended only the 8 to 10 service conducted by Arena Multimedia which is a private coaching centre situated at New Delhi.
16 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore
35. At this point of time, we also queried learned counsel Shri Srinivas Raghavan as to where their study centre in Delhi is located. This also the learned counsel was unable to answer. At this time, the applicant himself submits that there is a firm called Arena Multimedia in Delhi and they have an arrangement with the Sikkim Manipal University to operate a study centre to accommodate the students. He would say that he does not know about the qualification of the faculty of this Arena Multimedia which is a private firm. But, he would say that Photoshop, Pagemaker, Illustrator, Premia, Java Script and 3D Max are being taught there. Apparently, these courses are available for school students also and if you go to internet it is freely available and it appears by what is stated by the applicant himself personally before the court and the courses mentioned that they do not match even though he had paid Arena Multimedia an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs as fee and a total examination fee of Rs.24,000/- was only paid to the Sikkim Manipal University apart from the admission fee and other charges. But it appears from a discussion with the applicant Arena Multimedia did not teach the prescribed subjects. Therefore, how an examination can be conducted and applicant getting 60% marks without even knowing what it is, is a mystery and the fact that there is absolute mismatch of subjects allegedly offered by the University and what is to be taught by the private firm. B.Sc. Multimedia, obviously would cover much more area than taught by private firm Arena Multimedia in Delhi and therefore how it can be termed as study centre for this University is very doubtful and suspicious and that too as in 10 days' time applicant had mastered 17 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore the whole six semesters course, it is a wonder of wonders.
36. Coming to all these things, we are of the determined view that respondent no.4 might have cheated their students. At this point of time, learned counsel for respondent no.4 wants to elucidate his defence further and we allowed him to do so. The learned counsel wants us to note the paragraph 7 of the reply which we now record below and paragraph 8 also:-
"7. In 2003, the respondent University launched the bachelors'programmes with a specialisation in multimedia. However, the respondent University discontinued their ODL programme in the year 2007. It is stated that the respondent University had all requisite permissions for offering distance education programmes from time to time since its inception. Relevant to the present facts, the respondent University had uninterrupted institutional and course-wise recognition during 2005 to 2011 as enumerated herein below.
8. As a necessary background, it is pertinent to note that the regulatory responsibilities over distance education until 2013 was in a state of flux-with the baton shifting hands from UGC in 2004 to erstwhile DEC under the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) until 2013 and presently with UGC under the supervision of Distance Education Bureau (DEB). A short description of the regulatory landscape along with the details of requisite permissions held by the University is provided below:
He also wants us to note paragraph 8 of the said reply which we now record here that in which he would say that the problem was with the UGC and as the controlled shifted from one agency to another, this lacunae has happened. There is no doubt that he may probably so also. The administrative control of education was being run by the UGC and IGNOU together and may be that they had been some conflicts and contradictions there also. But, the issue is not that having started the course in 2003 and had discontinued in the year 18 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore 2006. How does it happen that same University is using a private coaching centre allegedly to conduct a study centre and then award a degree in the year 2011 is the question. Also, going by the statement of the applicant the prescribed subjects were never taught by the private firm Arena Multimedia.
37. Shri Srinivas Raghavan, learned counsel wanted us to note paragraph 8(a) to 8(e) of the 8th paragraph:-
a. Until 2004: The Indira Gandhi National Open University Act 1985 (IGNOU Act) came into force on 02.09.1985 for the promotion, coordination and maintenance of standards in open universities and distance education systems in the country. The Distance Education Council (DEC) was constituted in 1991 as an authority under IGNOU - inter alia - to grant recognition of degrees / diplomas / certificates issued by institutions through distance education. However, the DEC did not put in place any mechanism for according approvals until 2004. As a result, the UGC had de facto as well as de jure control over regulation of distance education. As stated previously, the then Chairman of the UGC informed that the respondent University could award degrees through distance education at its own centres in different parts of the country vide letter dated 28.08.2001. By abundant caution, it is clarified that there was complete absence of any requirement to seek permission/ approval for universities desirous of awarding degrees through distance education. On the other hand, the Ministry for Human Resource Development (MHRD) vide notification (44) dated 01.03.1995 imposed a pre-condition for grant equivalent to degrees obtained through distance education for employment to posts and services under the Central Government, namely that the course was approved by erstwhile DEC to be offered through distance mode. Egregiously though, there was a complete absence of any regulatory mechanism for seeking course-wise approval. A copy of the notification (bearing no.44) issued by MHRD dated 01.03.1995 (Annexure R-4/4).
b. 2004 to 2007: In February, 2004, the erstwhile DEC issued a public notice directing all universities and institutions offering and desirous to offer distance education to obtain their permission for 19 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore continuation and recognition of their distance education programs, as the case may be. More importantly, the said public notice extensively quoted the notification (44) dated 01.03.1995 issued by MHRD and added that "any degree/diploma/certificate offered through distance mode not recognized by the DEC shall not be accepted for employment in Government Services and the institution offering such programme would face de-recognition. In other words, the approval from the erstwhile DEC was made mandatory for recognition of degrees awarded previously (i.e. ex-post facto) and for the future (i.e. ex-ante). A copy of the said public notice is annexed as Annexure R-4/5. Pursuant thereto, the respondent University duly submitted their application seeking their approval for continuation of its distance education programme. On 29.08.2007, DEC accorded (a) ex-post facto recognition to programmes offered by the answering respondent through distance mode starting from 2001 and (b) provisional recognition to offer courses for the academic year 2007-08. It is submitted that the said recognition was not restrited to any list of courses, instead the erstwhile DEC accorded recognition was unambiguous and categorically approved all programmes offered until 29.08.2007. A copy of the said recognition/approval dated 29.08.2007 is annexed as Annexure R-4/6.
c. 2008-09: On 26.11.2008, the DEC extended the provisional recognition for the following academic year, i.e. 2008-09. Here again, the recognition was applicable to all programmes being offered through distance mode instead of specific list of courses. A copy of the said recognition/approval dated 26.11.2008 are annexed as Annexure R- 4/7.
d. 2009-10 to Oct 12: Eventually, on 15.10.2009, the DEC granted institutional recognition for the next three academic years - until 14.10.2012. Furthermore, on 06.11.2009, the DEC conveyed a list of approved courses for being offered through distance mode. At this juncture, it is pertinent to clarify that the approval was prospective in nature and new admissions were confined to courses specified thereunder. Prior to this, as stated previously, the erstwhile DEC conferred recognition to all programmes being offered by the answering respondent. A copy of the said communications dated 15.10.2009 and 06.11.2009 are annexed as Annexure R-4/8 (Colly).
e. Present: Subsequently, the erstwhile DEC had unreasonably delayed the grant of continuation of recognition for academic year 2012-13. As a result, the respondent University was constrained to stop further 20 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore admissions and approached the Sikkim High Court (bearing WP (C) No.3 of 2013) i.e. SMU (I) seeking appropriate reliefs continuation of distance education programmes. The answering respondent resumed fresh admissions after brief hiatus by virtue of interim orders dated 22.02.2013, 19.07.2013 and 07.11.2013 passed by the Sikkim High Court in SMU (I) until final disposal on 26.06.2015. In the interregnum, the regulatory control over distance education was transferred to the DEB of UGC, after the dissolution of DEC on 04.05.2013. As on date, the answering respondent continues to offer distance education programmes under annual approvals issued to it by the UGC on 21.03.2016 and 21.03.2007 for the academic years 2016-17 and 2017- 18, respectively."
38. But, then the fact remains that this course was discontinued according to the University in 2006 itself. Therefore, if at all, any ex-post facto recognition has been granted then it will not cover this course in 2007 as it is already discontinued in the year 2006 itself. Shri Srinivas Raghavan, learned counsel would say as mentioned in paragraph 9 (B) of the reply "what has happened in 2009 was for earlier courses a recognition was given and therefore, they assumed that even though the course was discontinued and no subject wise recognition was given to B.Sc. Multimedia, then this course also may exist and for future students it may stop but the facts remains that in the interregnum between 2006 and 2010 there is no such course recognised by the UGC at any point of time in any manner and so that for this, they cannot conduct at all".
39. We heard learned counsel for R-4 in great detail. At this point of time, Shri Izzhar Ahmed, learned counsel also wants to make some more submissions. At this point of time wind of wisdom dawned on Shri Izzhar Ahmed and he submits that he has nothing more to say. We queried Shri Srinivas Raghavan, learned counsel for respondent no.4 about the logic of the 21 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore stand taken by him. He would say that without further instructions of the party, he cannot add anything more to the submissions he has already made. Therefore, we had delayed the issue of the order by a few days but as nothing is forthcoming, it is issued.
40. In a way, what is stated by R-4 is to some degree correct. In the year 2002 to 2010 there had been multiple conflicts and contradictions in educational policy set up by the Government. All sorts of public and private institutions mushroomed without virtually no facilities for students with the result that they all produced students of doubtful ability and through association lessened the integrity situation as well as when a student pursue these courses. They would have understood as they are normal intelligent persons that this course does not canvass anything worthwhile to their knowledge basis. But, still they pursue it because they have already joined and have paid money and sometime or the other they were declared as winners by the University. Therefore, without much effort they have obtained a degree. Even though, they may not understand what is the syllabi, they should have been taught (The syllabi is absent from the contents of the 4 th respondent reply). The methodology of examination we have already dealt with. The way in which the examinations were carried out is shocking and that too even when somebody can not get recognition for the courses. Therefore, we queried the applicant as to know where the examination was held. He says the examination was held not in the University but in a private school in Delhi. Applicant does not remember the names of his instructors and the examination was conducted by Sikkim Manipal University in Delhi. Applicant corrected himself and would say 22 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore that the examination was conducted in several public and private schools and some employees of the University had come to conduct the examination. He would say that he had paid 2.5 lakhs to Arena Multimedia. He would also say that he had paid an additional fee of Rs.24000/- to Rs.26000/- to Sikkim Manipal University per examination. He would correct and say that this is the total amount he paid as examination fee for all six semesters. This will not improve the case of the applicant, he would say that he has not paid any other fees to the University but charges and admission fee, but his fees has been paid to Arena Multimedia which is a private firm. Therefore, there is no doubt that this is a truncated degree obtained by the applicant which would have no value at all in academic scene.
"Some men with swords may reap the field And plant fresh laurels where they kill:
But their strong nerves at last must yield:
They tame but one another still:
Early or late They stoop to fate...... Bacon"
We regret to note that this kind of things can happen in this country. The respondent no.4 had obviously taken students for a ride and had obtained benefits which are not called for. We had asked learned counsel for respondent no.4 as to how many students they have and he is unable to answer. Therefore, we will assume that a great many number of students were there in the 23 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore University and they also might have been treated alike by this University. Anyhow this has given rise to multiple legal proceedings now or will in the future. The public exchequer must be protected against such manipulations Therefore, we hereby declare that "the degree Annexure A1 issued by the Sikkim Manipal University to the applicant has no value academically and legally and they have issued such certificate knowing fully well that they do not have recognition from the UGC and at no point of time the examination was legal as the course was discontinued in 2006 itself and by then themselves as admitted by them and therefore they may have cheated the students. Since there are many students thus cheated and they may even now be occupying government position it is a serious matter to ponder ".
41. At this point of time, the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that we must take a more merciful view of the matter, as no fault can be ascribed to him. In terms of his employment, he was born in Haryana, he was living there. He had obtained qualification of Pharmacist and Medical Laboratory Technician post and was working in Dr. Lal Path Labs which is a private firm while he joined this lab and went through this course. On the basis of this qualification he did his Masters Degree in Multimedia from Annamalai University which is another distant course which also seems to be derecognised by the UGC. He now faces termination. He would say that it is not his fault that his degree is not recognised. But the very fact that he had chosen for B.Sc. Multimedia, an institution which had no facilities nor recognition then he 24 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore could have, if he wanted to obtain a job in Indian Audit Science, he could have studied degree of History or Commerce as well in all probability it might be that he might have thought it an easy course to pass and without too much of pain. Therefore, we are unable to bestow too much mercy on the applicant in terms of termination from service.
42.Therefore the blame game If the university itself had chosen to discontinue the course in 2006, ie, after three years of starting it in 2003 what is any degree of credibility to be attached to this course? We had queried the learned counsel for the respondent as to the:-
i)Number of regular students admitted for this course in Sikkim
ii)The facilities and laboratories available for this purpose.
iii)Why they would assign the task of coaching their students in the distance mode to the coaching centre "Arena Multimedia in Delhi"
iv)How can an entire course of 3 years to be covered in 8 or 10 sittings and that too within a period of 6 years.
v)How can they hold examinations in such haphazard manner and if at all held it, the details thereof
vi)What are the details of faculty
43. No answer was forthcoming to all these questions. But after the order was pronounced in open court, the learned counsel promised to file a 25 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore statement on all these issues. Hence, we waited for it with Bated Breath.
44. But none was forthcoming even till today.
45. There cannot be any doubt that this university had taken the Government, UGC and the students for a ride.
46. We had also queried the applicant himself, who was present in the court about his faculty, subjects that he was taught, the time taken for it and the nature of examinations. He was unable to answer any.
47. The student claims that none of this is his fault. The University claims that it is the fault of the Government and UGC.
48 But at the same time we also take note of the fact that respondent no.4 has misguided the students and have gained benefit from them without paying back adequately, logically and legally. Therefore, we dismiss this application with the cost of Rs.25,00,000/- to be paid by respondent no.4 to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority as some sort of compensation for originating multiple litigations. We will also direct them to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be paid to the applicant because it appears to us that there may be some eligibility to his grievance that he was taken in by respondent no.4. But, at the same time we are reducing the cost only to one lakh as a token amount for the simple reason that applicant had a duty to take care which he had not done. In the internet he would have got the information regarding the subjects which are recognised by UGC, even at that point of time and which he did not do. Since he was intending of joining a course of understanding of internet this is the first thing he should have done. 26 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore Therefore, we hold that there is a diminishing right in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the respondent no.4 will pay only cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to the applicant himself. Therefore, the OA is dismissed with the total cost of Rupees Twenty five lakhs and Rupees One lakh to be paid by Respondent no.4 within one month from today. OA is dismissed.
(P.K.PRADHAN) (DR.K.B.SURESH)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
bk.
27 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore
Annexures referred to by the applicant in OA No.170/00113/2017 Annexure A1: Copy of marks and degree award dated 19.05.2011 Annexure A2: Copy of employment notice by SSC dated 24.03.2012 Annexure A3: Copy of offer of appointment dated 08.04.2014 Annexure A4: Copy of letter dated 22.07.2015 Annexure A5: Copy of letter dated 14.10.2015 Annexure A6: Copy of letter dated 05.11.2015 Annexure A7: Copy of representation dated 16.11.2015 along with letter dated 30.11.2015 Annexure A8: Copy of letter dated 11.12.2015 Annexure A9: Copy of representation dated 16.12.2015 along with letter dated 29.08.2007 Annexure A10: Copy of letter dated 31.12.2015 Annexure A11: Copy of representation dated 25.01.2016 Annexure A12: Copy of letter dated 18.02.2016 Annexure A13: Copy of letter dated 25.04.2016 Annexure A14: Copy of letter dated 23.11.2016 Annexure A15: Copy of show cause notice dated 02.12.2016 Annexure A16: Copy of representation dated 16.12.2016 Annexure A17: Copy of order dated 20.12.2016 in OA 1024/2016 Annexure A18: Copy of order dated 29.12.2016 in WP 65835/2016 Annexure A19: Copy of representation dated 23.12.2016 Annexure A20: Copy of letter dated 02.01.2017 Annexure A21: Copy of order of withdrawal in OA 1024/2016 dated 11.01.2017 Annexure A22: Copy of representation dated 09.02.2017. Annexure A23: Copy of impugned termination order dated 10.02.2017 Annexure A24: Copy of order dated 29.06.2015 in WP No.08/2015 28 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore Annexure A25: Copy of order dated 21.09.2015 in SLP No.26223/2015 Annexure A26: Copy of notification dated 10.06.2015 Annexure A27: Copy of letter dated 28.04.2016.
Annexures with reply statement:
Annexure R1: Copy of letter dated 10.03.2014 Annexure R2: Copy of letter dated 08.07.2015 Annexure R3: Copy of reply dated 22.07.2015 Annexure R4: Copy of letter dated 08.07.2015 Annexure R5: Copy of reply dated 14.10.2015 Annexure R6: Copy of letter dated 23.11.2016 Annexure R7: Copy of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 Annexure R8: Copy of Attestation Form dated 28.03.2014 Annexure R9: Copy of letter dated 10.02.2017 Annexure R10: Copy of order dated 21.09.2015 in SLP (C) No.26223/2015 Annexure R11: Copy of notice of termination dated 02.12.2016 Annexure R12: Copy of details of programmes given recognition, available on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in/deb/, the B.Sc. (Multimedia) degree course does not find a mention (Annexure R12).
Annexures with reply statement by R4:
Annexure R4-1: Copy of final judgment dated 26.06.2015 passed by the High Court of Sikkim in WP (C) No.04 of 2013 Annexure R4-2: Copy of SMU Act (along with subsequent Amendment Act of 2006) Annexure R4-3: Copy of communication dated 28.08.2001 issued by the then Chairman, University Grants Commission Annexure R4-4: Copy of the Notification (bearing no.44) issued by MHRD dated 01.03.21995 Annexure R4-5: Copy of the Public Notice issued by erstwhile DEC Annexure R4-6: Copy of recognition/approval dated 29.08.2007 29 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore Annexure R4-7: Copy of recognition/approval dated 26.11.2008 Annexure R4-8: Copy of the communication dated 15.10.2009 and 06.11.2009 Annexure R4-9: Copy of letter dated 23.12.2015 Annexures with rejoinder:
Annexure Re-28: Copy of letter dated 23.12.2016 Annexure Re-29: Copy of letter dated 07.03.2017.30 OA.No.170/00113/2017/CAT/Bangalore