Karnataka High Court
University Grants Commission vs Sonnappa M V on 19 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 906 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
C/W.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 909 OF 2022 (EDN-RES);
WRIT APPEAL NO. 912 OF 2022 (EDN-RES);
WRIT APPEAL NO. 924 OF 2022 (EDN-RES);
WRIT APPEAL NO. 926 OF 2022 (EDN-RES);
WRIT APPEAL NO. 930 OF 2022 (EDN-RES);
WRIT APPEAL NO. 931 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.906 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI-110 002
REP. BY SECRETARY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. ANANDA KUMAR G.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O GURUMALLAPPA
S. HOSAKOTE VILLAGE AND POST
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU-571 129
2 . SRI. MAHADEVASWAMY R.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O RAMEGOWDA
-
2
BOODAMBALLI VILLAGE
GALIPURA POST
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 117
3 . SMT. SABA K.
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
D/O M.N.S. KHADRI
NO. MIG 18, BADAMAKAN LAYOUT
MYSURU BENGALURU ROAD
MYSURU-571 129
4 . SRI. SHANKAR S. POL
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O SHIVAPPA
MUGALKHOD VILLAGE AND POST
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 113
5 . SRI. SIDDARAJU C.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O CHIKKAMALLAIAH
NO.130, KANDEGALA VILLAGE
HOSAKADAJETTY POST
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU-571 313
6 . SMT. N. SATHYASHEELA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
D/O NAGARAJAN
3696, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BEL LAYOUT, MYSURU-570 022
7 . SMT. SHANTHI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
D/O A.P. BANGARAPPA
NO.78, KSR ROAD
MARIGENDIBEEDU
METAGALLI
MYSURU-570 016
8 . SMT. SAVITHA H.M.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O MAHADEVAPPA
-
3
RANGA RAO MEMORIAL SCHOOL
FOR DIFFERENTLY ABLED
K.R.S. ROAD, METAGALLI
MYSURU-570 015
9 . SMT. SAVITHA M.N.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
D/O M.G. NAGAPPA
2562/9, 11TH CROSS
KALIDASA ROAD
V.V. MOHALLA
MYSURU-570 002
10 . SRI. VEEREGOWDA R.
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O H. RUDRAIAH
No.336, VIKASUMA
5TH 'B' MAIN, T. DASARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 057
11 . SRI. PAVAN KUMAR S.P.
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O PADMANABHA E.
No.566/B2
LENINNAGAR COLLEGE ROAD
NITTUVALLI
BENGALURU-560 057
12 . KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MUKTHAGANGOTHRI
MYSURU-570 006
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
SECRETARY
13 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES)
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
-
4
14 . KARNATAKA STATE ELIGIBILITY TEST
CENTER FOR LECTURESHIP
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
PAREEKSHA BHAVAN
MYSURU-570 005
REP. BY ITS
CO-ORDINATOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KUMARI M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R11;
SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R12 &
R14;
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R13)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (a) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03.08.2022 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP
No.14903/2019 AND CONNECTED MATTERS AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 909 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI-110 002
REP. BY SECRETARY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NAGARAJU B.R.
S/O RAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT. No.97
BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
GANJALAGODU POST
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK-573 102
-
5
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
4. KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MUKTHA GANGOTHRI
REP. BY VICE CHANCELLOR
MUKTHA GANGOTHRI CAMPUS
MYSURU-570 006
5. REGIONAL DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
REGIONAL CENTER
CHAMUNDESHWARI EDUCATION TRUST (R)
SHANTHINEKETANA GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS
B.M. ROAD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
RAMANAGARA-562 159
...RESPONDENTS
(BY R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (a) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03.08.2022 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP
No.13951/2019 AND CONNECTED MATTERS AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 912 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SAFAR MARG
-
6
NEW DELHI-110 002
REP. BY SECRETARY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BALESH SIDDAYYANAVAR
S/O SIDARAI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT. MUTAWAD
SAUNDATTI TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 121
2. BASAPPA A HONNALLI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT. ITNAL
RAIBAG TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 235
3. MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
SHASTRY BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110 001
REP. BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY
4. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES)
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
6. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
OFFICE OF KPSC, UDYOGA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
-
7
7. KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MUKTHAGANGOTHRI
MYSURU-570 006
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. CHANDRACHUD, CGSPC FOR R3;
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R4 & R5;
SRI. K.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03.08.2022 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WRIT PETITION
Nos.1666/2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 924 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI-110 002
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SONNAPPA M.V.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O VENKATAREDDY
R/AT. MARENAHALLI VILLAGE
HOLUR POST
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 126
2 . SHARADA R.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
D/O RAMAPPA V.
R/AT. MARIPALLI VILLAGE
-
8
KASATTIPALLI POST
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135
3 . HUSNA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
D/O LATE SAMIULLA KHAN
R/AT. No.195, 1ST CROSS
GUTTAL ROAD, MARUTINAGAR
MANDYA-571 403
4 . KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MUKTHAGANGOTHRI
MYSURU-575 006
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
SECRETARY
5 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES)
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANUSUYA DEVI K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03.08.2022 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP
No.41143/2019 AND CONNECTED MATTERS AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 926 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI-110 002
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
...APPELLANT
-
9
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJESHWARI C.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
D/O LAKSHMIKUMARA
GARUDAGALLU VILLAGE
SASALU POST, SASALU HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
2. YAMUNA B.R.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O CHANNEGOWDA
AMARA NARAYANA BLOCK
KANAKAPURA
BEHIND KSRTC
GARAGE-562 117
3. NANDINI D.M.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
W/O KODANDARAMU
R/AT. KASTURI KOPPALU, DESHANI POST
ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT
4. THIRTHAKUMAR H.K.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O KANTHEGOWDA
R/AT. HOSAMANEHALLI
BENNUR DISTRICT
BELUR TALUK
HASSAN-573 115
5. PADMA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
W/O P.K. LAKSHMINARAYANA
R/AT. No.U-36, 3RD CROSS
PIPE LINE, KRISHNAPPA BLOCK
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
6. KUMAR M.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
-
10
S/O MARIYANNA N.
R/AT No.226/77, 13TH MAIN
2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS
METRO LAYOUT, NAYANDANAHALLI
MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU
7. SOJUANYA C.
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
D/O CHANDRAPPA, R/AT. No.4081
2ND CROSS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 078
8. KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MUKTHAGANGOTHRI
MYSURU-570 006
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
SECRETARY
9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES)
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI SHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7;
SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (a) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03.08.2022 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WRIT PETITION
No.33066/2019 AND CONNECTED MATTERS AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 930 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SAFAR MARG
NEW DLEHI -110 002
-
11
REP. BY SECRETARY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. P. KUSHALAPPA
S/O KORAGAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT. 3-93, PUCHEGUTHU HOUSE
VITTAL, BANTWAL
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 243
2. MAHADEVASWAMY B.
S/O BELLA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT. UPPARA STREET
GUNDLUPETE TALUK
BELACHALAVADI
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 109
3. DAYANANDA
S/O GOPAL MOOLYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT. No.1-108
BEDRALA-NEKKARE HOUSE
CHIKKAMUDNOOR POST
AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR
D.K.-574 203
4. SOMSHEKARAGOWDA M.C.
S/O CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT. MADAPURA VILLAGE
AND POST, KIKKERI HOBLI
KRISHNARAJAPET TALUK
MANDYA, KARNATAKA -571 423
5. SHANKARA G.
S/O GOVINDA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT. No.77, P.S.S.K. FACTORY
-
12
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
BEHIND PANDAVAPURA RAILWAY STATTION
KENNALU, PANDAVAPURA P.S.
MANDYA, KARNATAKA -571 434
6. GANGALEELA H.T.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
W/O RENUKA K.S.
R/AT. HALKURIKE
TIPTUR TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201
7. SUVARNA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O NARASIMHA HEGDE
BULAPPA MAMLEDESAI
VIRAKTAMATH STREET
DESAI ONI, SHIGGAON-581 205
HAVERI
8. KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MUKTHAGANGOTHRI
MYSURU-570 006
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY
9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES)
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KUMARI M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7;
SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R9)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03.08.2022 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP
No.50044/2019 AND CONNECTED MATTERS AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION AND ETC
-
13
.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 931 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI-110 002
REP. BY SECRETARY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHOWRI H.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. AVINASH N.
S/O NANDESHA K.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT. MALLIKYATHANAHALLI (BLUFF)
MALAVALLI TALUK-571 437
MANDYA DISTRICT
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
4. KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MUKTHAGANGOTHRI
REP. BY VICE CHANCELLOR
MUKTHA GANGOTHRI CAMPUS
MYSURU-570 006
5. REGIONAL DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
REGIONAL CENTER
-
14
ST. PAULS COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
No.1, 2ND MAIN ROAD
B.D.A. LAYOUT, PATTEGARAPALYA
PRASHANTHNAGAR
BENGALURU-560 079
...RESPONDENTS
(BY R1 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
SRI. VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. T.P. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 03.08.2022 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP
No.13953/2019 AND CONNECTED MATTERS AND DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 19.11.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) The Writ Appeals No.906/2022, 909/2022, 912/2022, 924/2022, 926/2022, 930/2022 and 931/2022, are filed challenging the Order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.14903/2019 and connected matters, 13951/2019 and connected matters, 1666/2018 and connected matters, 41143-45/2019, 33066/2019 and connected matters, 5044/2019 and
-
15 connected matters and 1395/2019 and connected matters, respectively.
2. We have heard Shri. Showri H.R., learned counsel appearing for UGC, Shri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel appearing for KSOU, Shri. Vikas Rajipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Smt. Kumari. M, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.906/2022 that the respondents No.1 to 11 had filed W.Ps.No.14903/2019 and connected matters before the learned Single Judge, asserting that they were students of the Karnataka State Open University (KSOU)-Respondent No.12, having been admitted to various courses in distance education mode for the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the KSOU to issue their degree certificates and a further direction to the appellant-University Grants Commission (UGC) to recognize the courses undertaken by them with the KSOU.
-
16
4. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge by his order dated 03.08.2022, by allowing the writ petitions, issued a writ of mandamus directing the KSOU to issue marks cards and degree certificates to the petitioners (respondents herein), or such among them who had completed the prescribed courses and examinations as per the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992, within two months.
5. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge issued a writ of mandamus to the appellant to consider the case of the petitioners (respondents herein) who had pursued courses under the KSOU's Open Learning System (OLS) and in-house systems during the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appellant was directed to conduct an enquiry within six weeks, specifically to ascertain whether KSOU had violated substantial provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, or the University Grants Commission Regulations, 1985, thereby affecting the maintenance of academic standards. The enquiry was to be conducted in accordance with law, providing KSOU with a
-
17 full opportunity to present all relevant materials before the enquiry committee. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.08.2022, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, despite specific pleadings and arguments before the learned Single Judge, critical aspects of the regulatory framework governing distance education were not duly considered. It was highlighted that:
(a) Until 2012, the Distance Education Council (DEC), established under Section 16 of the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, by enacting statute No.28 of IGNOU, regulated distance education across India;
(b) KSOU was granted institutional recognition by DEC in 2007 for one year, which was extended for five years in 2008 and expired in 2012-13;
(c) subsequently, DEC policy mandated program-
wise recognition for universities offering distance mode courses, a requirement duly communicated to all universities, including KSOU;
-
18
(d) KSOU failed to apply for such program-wise recognition and continued offering courses without compliance;
(e) In 2012, the DEC framework was repealed, and regulatory powers were vested in UGC;
(f) despite repeated violations of UGC regulations, KSOU continued offering unrecognized courses, prompting UGC to issue several public notices, including one dated 30.06.2015, declaring that courses offered by KSOU beyond 2012-13 were not recognized; and
(g) The Hon'ble Apex Court had categorically ruled against retrospective or post-facto approval in multiple instances.
7. It is contended that the learned Single Judge, however, allowed the writ petitions and passed the impugned directions. This decision overlooked the actionable points communicated by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) based on the recommendations of the Prof. Madhava Menon Committee and the Apex Court's judgment in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information to Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590, which expressly
-
19 disallowed ex-post facto recognition of courses. Furthermore, the UGC, in its counter-affidavit submitted before the Apex Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. and others v. Sri Rabi Sankar Patro and others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468, reiterated its stance against granting ex-post facto or conditional approval for Open and Distance Learning (ODL) Programmes.
8. It is contended that the MHRD, vide letter dated 07.10.2018, conveyed the recommendations of the Justice Reddy Committee, constituted on the directions of the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd's case, (supra), emphasizing that UGC must not grant retrospective or ex-post facto recognition for ODL courses under any circumstances. Consequently, UGC issued a public notice dated 20.11.2018, informing all stakeholders of this directive. Additionally, the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, and its amendments also do not provide for such retrospective or ex-post facto recognition. It is further contended that the UGC had as a
-
20 matter of fact filed an affidavit before the Apex Court specifically undertaking no ex-post facto sanction would be accorded to any courses offered in the distance mode after the academic year 2012-13 by any University.
9. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge failed to anticipate the broader implications and nationwide consequences of the impugned order, which could adversely impact the regulatory framework for distance education. Additionally, it is pertinent to note that KSOU itself has not sought recognition for courses offered during the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15, and its writ petition seeking recognition for courses from 2015-16 onwards was withdrawn. In view of the aforementioned legal and factual inconsistencies, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the KSOU submits that the KSOU had institutional recognition till the academic year 2012-13 and that even thereafter requests had been made by the KSOU before the DEC and the UGC for permission to conduct the courses. It is submitted that
-
21 there is absolutely no allegation that the KSOU was not compliant with any of the legal requirements and that it was only on account of the refusal to grant course wise recognition that the KSOU could not grant the degree certificates as required by the students. There was no violation of the minimum standards required to be maintained by the University and that the University could issue degree certificates only if the UGC grants the permission, as directed.
11. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.A.No.906/2022 that the respondents No.1 to 12, were admitted to non-technical, in- house courses of KSOU, a State University. Their admissions were based on notifications published in newspapers and information provided on the official websites of KSOU and the UGC. The recognition was initially granted to KSOU on 31.08.2007, by the DEC, without insisting for territorial jurisdiction. This recognition was renewed for five years in the year 2008, covering academic years upto 2012-13, pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
-
22 Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420. The recognition granted was an Institutional Recognition, permitting KSOU to conduct courses approved by its academic bodies, subject to obtaining necessary statutory approvals.
12. It is further contended that the UGC failed to diligently oversee KSOU's compliance. Despite granting and renewing recognition, it did not ascertain whether KSOU had secured the necessary statutory approvals. Though UGC withheld renewal of recognition starting from academic year 2013-14, this information was made public only on 16.06.2015, after two academic years had lapsed. By that time, many students, including the respondents No.1 to 12, had completed their courses. UGC neither raised any contentions as to maintenance of educational standards by KSOU's nor any allegation of malpractice or misrepresentation by the students. The respondents, as bonafide students, were entitled to a legitimate expectation of receiving duly recognized degree certificates upon completing their courses. Yet, even a decade later, they
-
23 remain deprived of these essential documents, critically affecting their career prospects.
13. It is contended that the respondents emphasize the urgency of obtaining degree certificates for employment purposes. As admitted by KSOU, there are approximately 90,000 similarly affected students. The State Government cannot provide employment to all such students and private sector opportunities also necessitate verification of their degrees by KSOU. The outcome of this case holds wider implications, affecting not only the respondents but also numerous students enrolled through KSOU's study centers. Penalizing the students, who acted bonafide and committed no fault, would violate their legitimate expectations and fundamental rights. These respondents and other similarly placed students have already lost their precious years in their career and future prospects due to the inaction and lapses on the part of KSOU and UGC.
14. It is contended that the dereliction of the DEC, UGC and KSOU have caused irreversible harm to students' careers. They seek action against the responsible officers
-
24 and demand compensation for the affected student community and prayed this Court to dismiss the appeals, uphold the order of the learned Single Judge and direct KSOU to promptly issue and verify degree certificates to ensure justice and equity.
15. We have considered the contentions advanced. The respondents are students, who were admitted to in house non-technical courses offered by the KSOU during the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is now beyond cavil that the KSOU had recognition and permission to conduct such courses only till the end of academic year 2012-13. It is also not in dispute that the permission granted by the DEC to the KSOU was in operation only till 2012-13. If that be so, it is absolutely clear that there was no recognition available for the KSOU for conducting such courses during the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is admitted that after the UGC issued public notice on 16.06.2015, the KSOU had not conducted the courses or granted admissions. However, the UGC contends that the notices were issued as early as in 2011 and thereafter on 27.06.2013, specifically
-
25 informing the KSOU that programme-wise recognition was required to be obtained by them, which was never done by the KSOU.
16. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, the appellant would contend that the question of granting ex- post facto approval to the courses in question would not arise since the Apex Court had specifically held that such an exercise is impermissible in the light of the Regulations issued by the UGC. It is further clear that the State Government has passed orders recognizing the courses conducted by the KSOU during the years 2012-13 and 2013- 14, as valid for all purposes within the State of Karnataka. The learned Single Judge has also directed the issuance of marks cards and degree certificates by the KSOU.
17. The learned counsel appearing for the KSOU as well as the private respondents would contend that the observations made by the Apex Court with regard to ex-post facto approval are specifically made in cases involving technical courses conducted through off campus centers by the Universities in question. It is contended that the present
-
26 case is of a State University conducting In-House non- technical courses and the interdiction would not apply in such a case. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no provision in the UGC Regulations for the grant of ex-post facto approval and that the University could not have conducted the courses without obtaining course wise approval. It is further submitted that an affidavit has been placed on record by the Chairman of the UGC before the Apex Court on 30.01.2015, where it has been specifically stated that no ex-post facto approval would be issued by the UGC for institutions or courses in future. It is submitted that the fact of filing such an affidavit has also been noticed by the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd.'s case, (supra).
18. In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the directions issued to the KSOU are legal and valid. However, we are further of the opinion that the UGC which had been pre-empted by binding directions by the Apex Court not to grant ex-post facto approvals to courses
-
27 conducted even by statutory Universities could not have been directed to grant such sanction by this Court.
19. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be allowed. Accordingly:-
(i) The appeals are allowed.
(ii) The directions issued to the UGC to conduct inspections and to grant approval to the courses conducted by the KSOU during the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, shall stand vacated.
(iii) However, it is made clear that this judgment will not affect the directions issued to the KSOU and the orders already passed by the State Government.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, in all the appeals stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE cp*