Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic ... vs University Grants Commission, on 7 May, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu, Prakash Chandra Gupta
1 W.P.No.13213/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
WRIT PETITION No.13213 of 2021
Between:-
MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, A BODY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF MAHARSHI MAHESH
YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA
ADHINIYAM, 1995, THROUGH ITS
REGISTRAR SHRI ARVIND SINGH
RAJPUT S/O SHRI G.S. RAJPUT, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT VILLAGE KAROUNDI, POST
UMMARIAPAAN, DISTRICT KATNI
(M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R. VENKATRAMANI WITH SHRI MANOJ
SHARMA, SENIOR ADVOCATES WITH SHRI PRASHANT
MISHRA AND SHRI DINESH CHOUBEY, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (A
STATUTORY BODY CONSTITUTED
2 W.P.No.13213/2021
UNDER UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION ACT, 1956) HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR
MARG, NEW DELHI - 110002, THROUGH
ITS CHAIRMAN.
2. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT AND
ACCREDITATION COUNCIL (AN
AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION OF THE
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION)
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, P.O. BOX
No.1075, NARGABHAVI, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.M. NATRAJ, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR
GENERAL WITH SMT. NIRMALA NAYAK, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT No.1 AND SHRI ALABHYA
BAJPAI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.2)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 15.03.2022
Passed on : 07.05.2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per: Sheel Nagu, J.
ORDER
Petitioner-University, a creature of Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyala Adhiniyam, 1995 (" the Act of 1995" for brevity) has filed this petition aggrieved by notification dated 04.09.2020 (Annexure-P/1) to the extent it relates to Regulations 3(A)(i) of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) 3 W.P.No.13213/2021 Regulations, 2020 prescribing the minimum cumulative grade point average (CGPA) of 3.01 in 4-point scale as precondition for recognition for offering programmes under the Open & Distant Learning (ODL) and online mode.
2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also final disposal.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner - Shri R. Venkatramani, learned senior counsel delineating the factual matrix submits that the petitioner-University was established under the Act of 1995 and was empowered by the said legislation to establish such campuses, coaching centres, specified laboratory and other units for research and instructions, which in the opinion of the University are necessary for furtherance of its objects.
3.1 It is submitted that by order dated 24.08.1998 (Annexure-P/5), UGC included petitioner-University in the list of Universities maintained by the UGC under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act 1956.
3.2 Initially, the courses available for imparting education exclusively related to the field of vedic education. However, it was felt by petitioner- University that to survive and achieve its object of imparting education in Vedic Learning and Practices, finances are required for which the popular courses in the field of Arts, Commerce, Computer Application, Social Work etc. also need to be made available.
3.3 An attempt was made by the State Government to cripple the activities of petitioner-University by restricting the scope of education imparted therein to only learning and practices.
4 W.P.No.13213/20213.4 The dispute between the University and State compelled the petitioner- University to challenge various provisions of the Act of 1995 on the anvil of its constitutional rights before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court in AIR 2002 MP 196 (Maharashi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) partly allowed the petition to the extent of declaring as ultra vires to Constitution, the provision which prohibited the petitioner-University for running the courses other than of vedic learning and practices. Dissatisfied petitioner-University approached the Apex Court which by its final order passed in 2013 (15) SCC 677 (Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Vs. State of M.P. and others) granted some more relief to petitioner-University by declaring certain provision of the Act of 1995 to be also ultra vires which prohibited petitioner-University from opening centres of learning except with the approval of the State Government.
3.5 Learned counsel for petitioner laying stress on Para 113 and 114 of the said judgment, submits that the Apex Court appreciated the uniqueness and laudable objects for which petitioner-University was established by a piece of legislation, held thus:
113. One other relevant factor which is also to be kept in mind is the establishment of the appellant University at the repeated persuasion of Maharshi Mahesh Yogi was definitely to provide full-fledged education on Vedas and the various intricate subjects, which are found in Vedas, as well as its practices, Ithihas, Puranas etc. In fact, there can be no two opinion that such an institution with such a laudable objective for imparting education in different fields based on the teachings in Vedas, was very rare and it is said that the appellant University is stated to be an unique University created and established by the founders of the said institution headed by Maharshi Mahesh Yogi. Therefore, when such a premium University, which is stated to be only one of its kind in 5 W.P.No.13213/2021 the whole of the Country was successfully established based on the 1995 Act, in our considered opinion, such a well established institution should be allowed to survive by enabling the said University to conduct courses as has been planned by it and introduced under Ordinance 15 and thereby, make the appellant University a viable one. Such an approach alone, in our considered view, ensure the successful existence and continued running of the University in the further years and thereby, benefit very many aspirants from among the younger generation who wish to learn more and more about very many subjects by understanding such subjects based on the teachings that are found and established in Vedic learnings, its practices, Ithihas and Puranas etc. Therefore, on this ground as well, in our considered opinion, any attempt made from any quarters, which would disrupt the running of the appellant University, will only amount to interfering with its various Constitutional rights and fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, when such interference is brought to the notice of this Court, the Court has to necessarily come to the rescue of the appellant University by saving it from any such onslaught being made on its continued existence. We, therefore, find force in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant while attacking the amended Section 4(1) and its proviso, by which the appellant University was deprived of its valuable right to hold very many programmes in the conduct of the course enumerated in its Ordinance 15, which consequently resulted in violation of its Constitutional, as well as Fundamental Rights in the running of its educational institutions.
114. With this, we come to the last part of the submission made on behalf of the appellant, which related to the amendment to Section 9(2) of the 1995 Act. Under the un-amended provision, after the first Chancellor viz., Maharshi Mahesh Yogi, the Board of Management was empowered to appoint the Chancellor from among the persons of eminence and renowned scholar of Vedic education who can hold office for a term of five years and who would be eligible for reappointment. Under the amended Section 9(2), it was stipulated that after the first Chancellor, the Board of Management should prepare and submit a panel of three persons to the State Government and out of the panel, one person should 6 W.P.No.13213/2021 be appointed as Chancellor by the Board of Management, after obtaining the approval of the State Government. As far as the period of holding office was concerned, there was no change in its terms. The Division Bench while considering the said amendment introduced under Act 5 of 2000, has held that even after the amendment, the Management had the power of recommendation and they can recommend a person of eminence and renowned scholar of Vedic education and even if the ultimate appointment is to be made with the approval of the State Government, since any such appointment can be only from the panel prepared by the Board of management, such a stipulation contained in the amendment does not in any way impinge upon any right, much less the Constitutional Right or Fundamental Right of the appellant University.
3.6 Succeeding the battle against the State, petitioner-University was granted recognition for conducting open and distance learning programmes i.e. Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Computer Application, Bachelor of Science (Computer Science), Bachelor of Social Work, Master of Arts (Education) and Master of Arts (English) besides the courses relating to vedic learning and practices. This recognition in regard to the said courses was continued by the UGC till the academic session 2020-
2021. by Annexure-P/6 dated 25.01.2021.
3.7 It is further submitted that the aforesaid recognition was based on the yardstick fixed by the UGC vide Clause 3(i)(viii) of UGC (Open & Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017 ("2017 Regulations" for brevity) which provide thus:
"3. Recognition of Higher Educational Institutions offering programmes in Open and Distance Learning mode--
(1) Every Higher Educational Institution offering a programme in Open and Distance Learning mode in pursuance of an approval 7 W.P.No.13213/2021 granted to it for the purpose by the then Distance Education Council or by the Commission or by any other regulatory authority or intending to offer a programme in Open and Distance Learning mode from the academic session immediately after the notification of these regulations shall, for grant of recognition, make an application to the Commission in such form and manner as laid down in sub-regulation (2) on fulfilment of the following conditions, namely :--
(i) the Higher Educational Institution has the approval of the statutory bodies under the Act for offering the programme in Open and Distance Learning mode;
(ii) the Higher Educational Institution shall adhere to the policy of territorial jurisdiction as specified in Annexure IV;
(iii) the Higher Educational Institution other than an Open University, is offering similar programme in the conventional mode of classroom teaching;
(iv) a copy of such application is displayed on the website of the Higher Educational Institutions by way of self- disclosure;
(v) that the application is accompanied by evidence of having prepared the self learning materials required for the programmes of study, duly approved by the statutory bodies of the Higher Educational Institutions empowered to decide on academic matters;
(vi) the application is accompanied by evidence of availability of Open and Distance Learning resources adequate for effective delivery of all the proposed programme(s) of study and the expected enrolment of students;
(vii) the application is accompanied by evidence of the preparedness for establishing Learner Support Centres, providing Learning Support Services, establishing Centre for Internal Quality Assurance, availability of the academic and other staff in the Unit and Learner Support Centres of the Higher Education, availability of qualified Counselors 8 W.P.No.13213/2021 in the Learner Support Centres meeting such standards of competence as specified in Annexure V, and the administrative arrangements for supportive services for effective delivery of Open and Distance Learning;
(viii) the Higher Educational Institution has valid accreditation from National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and has completed five years of existence:
Provided that this clause shall not be applicable to Open Universities till the time they become eligible for National Assessment and Accreditation Council accreditation and it shall be mandatory for Open Universities to get National Assessment and Accreditation Council accreditation within one year of their becoming eligible for the same:
Provided further that an institution Deemed to be a University so declared by the Central Government shall offer the Open and Distance Learning courses or programmes as per the extant Deemed to be a University Regulations and also notified by the University Grants Commission from time to time in the matter."
3.8 It is further submitted that aforesaid Clause 3(i)(viii) of 2017 Regulations was amended by UGC vide order dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure-
P/8) laying down the following minimum criteria for recognition for open and distance learning courses. Relevant portion is reproduced as under:
F. No. 2-4/2015 (DEB-III).--In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 26 read with clause (j) of section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), the University Grants Commission hereby makes the following regulations further to amend the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017, namely:--
1. (1) These regulations may be called the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning) Second Amendment Regulations, 2018.9 W.P.No.13213/2021
(2) These shall come into the force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said regulations),- (a) in regulation 3, in sub-regulation 1, for clause
(viii), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-
"(viii) The Higher Educational Institution has valid accreditation from National Assessment and Accreditation Council with minimum Cumulative Grade Point Average of 3.26 on a 4 point scale and has completed five years of existence:
Provided that the Higher Educational Institutes that are either State or Central or State Private Universities and were given permission by the University Grants Commission to offer programmes in open and distance learning mode for the academic session 2017-18 will be allowed to impart Open and Distance Learning education till the academic session 2019-20 to enable them reach the prescribed quality National Assessment and Accreditation Council benchmark.
Provided further, that the Higher Educational Institutes falling in the above category but currently not accredited with National Assessment and Accreditation Council shall apply for National Assessment and Accreditation Council accreditation within three months from the date of issue of this regulation. Provided further, that this clause shall not be applicable to Open Universities till the time they become eligible for National Assessment and Accreditation Council accreditation and it shall be mandatory for Open Universities to get National Assessment and Accreditation Council accreditation within one year of their becoming eligible for the same.
Provided further, that an institution Deemed to be a University so declared by the Central Government shall offer the Open and Distance Learning courses or programmes as per the extant Deemed to be a University Regulations and also notified by the University Grants Commission from time to time in the matter.10 W.P.No.13213/2021
Provided further that the higher education institutions which are Deemed to be Universities and were given permission by the University Grants Commission to offer programme in open and distance learning mode for the academic year 2017-18 shall be permitted to impart Open and Distance Learning education till the academic session 2019-20 to enable them reach the specified quality National Assessment and Accreditation Council benchmark subject to University Grants Commission specifically allowing the Deemed to be University to conduct Open and Distance Learning courses for specific programmes and after the off campus centres, study centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the University Grants Commission and the approval will be course specific.
Provided further, Deemed to be Universities falling in this category and currently not accredited with National Assessment and Accreditation Council shall apply for National Assessment and Accreditation Council accreditation within three months from the commencement of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning) Second Amendment Regulations, 2018"
3.9 It is further urged that Clause 3(i)(viii) was again amended by the UGC vide notification dated 06.09.2018 providing thus:
2. In the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said regulations), - in regulation 3, in sub-regulation (1), for clause
(viii), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-
"(viii) The Higher Educational Institution has completed five years of existence:
Provided that the Higher Educational Institutions shall submit an undertaking to the effect that it will attain a National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) score of 3.26 on a 4-point scale before the end of academic session July 2019-June 2020, failing which, the Commission shall not accord any approval to the Open and Distance Learning Programmes of the Higher Educational Institutions:11 W.P.No.13213/2021
Provided further, that this clause shall not be applicable to Open Universities till the time they become eligible for NAAC accreditation and it shall be mandatory for Open Universities to get NAAC accreditation within one year of their becoming eligible for the same:
Provided further, that an institution Deemed to be a University so declared by the Central Government shall offer the Open and Distance Learning courses or programmes as per the extant Deemed to be a University Regulations and other relevant Regulations notified by the University Grants Commission from time to time and after due inspection of the off-campus centres or study centres or both as applicable, are found adequate" 3.10 The aforesaid amendment Annexure-P/8 and P/9, as per learned counsel for petitioner, became subject matter of challenge before Madras High Court which by order dated 25.06.2018 stayed the relevant part of 2018 amendment on the ground that petitioner-University therein which was conducting open and distance learning courses since four decades cannot all of a sudden be prevented from continuing with such courses by enhancing the minimum cumulative grade point average inrespect of petitioner-University therein which was assessed four years ago and the said assessment was to remain in force for further a period of one year.
3.11 Attention of this Court is also invited to the interim order dated 30.12.2019 in a case filed by petitioner-University i.e. W.P. No.28795/2019 staying the orders dated 06.02.2018 and 06.09.2018 (Annexure-P/8 & P/9 herein). However, it is informed that W.P. No.28795/2019 was dismissed as infructuous in the face of coming into effect from 04.09.2020 the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 ("2020 Regulations" for brevity).12 W.P.No.13213/2021
3.12. Thereafter it is submitted that National Assessment and Accreditation Council ("NAAC" for brevity) by certificate vide Annexure-P/11 awarded CGPA score of 1.77 to petitioner-University (Grade C) declaring that the said ranking shall be valid for three academic years i.e. 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 which shall be reviewed by UGC for academic session 2024-25 and onwards.
3.13 Learned counsel for petitioner further refers to the amendment caused in the 2020 Regulations vide order dated 01.07.2021 (Annexure-P/14) to the effect of substituting the following proviso in Regulations 3 (B) sub-clause (i) of the Regulations 2020.
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 1st July, 2021 F. No. 1-10/2020 (DEB-I).--In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 26 read with clause (j) of section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) with the previous approval of Central Government, the University Grants Commission hereby makes the following Regulations to amend the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, namely:--
1. Short title and commencement.─(1) These regulations may be called the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) (Amendment) Regulations, 2021.
(2) These shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 (herein referred as Principal Regulations), in regulation 3 in 13 W.P.No.13213/2021 clause (A) sub-clause (i), the following proviso shall be substituted, namely:--
"Provided that the NAAC and NIRF Ranking requirements shall be valid for next three academic years i.e 2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023-2024. Thereafter shall be reviewed by the Commission for the academic session 2024-2025(session beginning July 2024) and onwards."
3. In the said Principal Regulations, in regulation 3 in clause (B) sub-clause (a), the following proviso shall be substituted, namely:
"Provided further that the NAAC and NIRF Ranking requirements shall be valid for next three academic years i.e. 2021-2022, 2022- 2023, 2023-2024. Thereafter shall be reviewed by the Commission for the academic session 2024-2025(session beginning July 2024) and onwards.
3.14 It is thereafter submitted by petitioner that UGC invited applications for recognition under the Amended 2020 Regulations by order dated 14.07.2021 (Annexure-P/15).
3.15 By referring to the amendment caused in the yardstick fixed by NAAC for open and distance learning course, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the characteristic of petitioner-University is such that it possibly cannot attain the enhanced yardstick of CGPS scores prescribed by NAAC. It is submitted that the said enhanced CGPS score which can be attained by Universities conducting the class-room courses in a short time, cannot possibly be so attained by petitioner-University in the same period of time.
3.16 In the aforesaid factual background, it is urged that to achieve CGPA score 3.01 on 4-point scale, the petitioner-University requires reasonable period of time. In this regard, it is further submitted that since NAAC certificate granted in favour of petitioner-University vide Annexure-P/11 is valid for a period of five years, petitioner-University ought to be afforded 14 W.P.No.13213/2021 reasonable opportunity of few more years to achieve CGPA of 3.01 at 4-point scale, at least till the academic session 2023-24. For this purpose, reliance is placed on AIR 1962 SC 305 (Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. And others Vs. Union of India) and 1972 (2) SCC 788 (Bennett Coleman & Co. and others Vs. Union of India and others).
3.17 In sum and substance, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner- University is that by its very character and nature the petitioner-University is distinct than other Universities conducting classroom courses of direct learning and thus cannot be treated at par with those Universities for the purpose of achieving the CGPA score. It is submitted that this would amount to treating unequals as equals thereby violating the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.
3.18 It is further submitted that the impugned amendment of making CGPA score more stringent cannot be applied during the period of five years till 2023-24, which was provided to petitioner by NAAC vide certificate (Annexure-P/11).
3.19 It is further submitted that by granting exemption to Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) which is also a University conducting distant learning programmes, from the application of UGC Act but not granting similar benefit to similarly placed petitioner-University amounts to discrimination.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for UGC referring to the letter dated 14.08.2018 vide Annexure-R1/1 submits that the petitioner-University submitted online application form for programme-wise recognition pursuant 15 W.P.No.13213/2021 to UGC public notice dated 28.03.2018. The application so received was considered by UGC in its 534th meeting held on 02.08.2018 deciding to grant recognition for the academic year 2018-19 and 2019-20 for 19 different programmes as mentioned therein. However, it was made clear by UGC in this letter Annexure-R-1/1 that validity of recognition is only upto 2020 based on the UGC (ODL) 2nd Amendment Regulations, 2018. UGC further granted recognition to another programme of Bachelor of Commerce (Computer Application) conducted by petitioner-University for 2018-19 and 2019-20 subject to the same condition. By referring to another letter dated 25.01.2021, learned counsel for UGC submits that the recognition for the next academic year 2020-21 was granted for the same 20 programmes making them subject to 2020 Regulations which mandated achieving of minimum score of 3.01 on 4-point scale as prescribed by NAAC. The counsel for UGC has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-R-1/2 along with its return which is an affidavit dated 28.04.2018 of the petitioner-University submitted along with online application form whereby, petitioner-University had undertaken to abide by UGC (ODL) Regulations 2017. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner-University is estopped from seeking exemption from abiding by the Regulations especially when the recognition granted for academic sessions 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 was based on the undertaking furnished on an affidavit. It is submitted that the third amendment in the 2017 Regulations was carried out on 06.09.2018 (Page 150 of the compilation) where NAAC score of 3.26 on a 4-point scale was prescribed to be achieved before the end of academic session 2019-20, failing which the University concerned rendered disqualification as regards recognition qua programmes in.
16 W.P.No.13213/20214.1 It is also submitted by UGC counsel Shri K. M. Natraj that petitioner- University had applied for NAAC accreditation which led to issuance certificate of accreditation in favour of petitioner-University certifying CGPA score of 1.77 on 7-point scale at C-Grade valid upto 01.11.2023. It is submitted that based on the said accreditation, petitioner-University was issued recognition qua 20 courses vide Annexure-R-1/1. It is further submitted that in view of impugned Regulations of 2020 having came into effect vide Annexure-P/1 prescribe a lower minimum standard score of 3.01 on 4-point scale for recognition of programmes conducted through open and distance learning mode by Higher Education Institutions. Even otherwise, it is submitted by UGC Counsel that NAAC certificate, certifying the petitioner- University to have achieved the score of 1.77 in a 4-point scale, is valid upto November, 2023 which affords ample opportunities to petitioner-University to come up to the minimum standard prescribed in the impugned 2020 Regulations.
4.2 It is submitted that standards fixed by the 2020 Regulations are based on reports of experts in the filed of higher education and, therefore, the same is immune from judicial intervention especially when no mala fide is alleged for which learned counsel for UGC placed reliance on 2010(8) SCC 372 (Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and others) Para 38 and 2013 (10) SCC 519 (University Grants Commission Vs. Neha Anil Bobde)(Para 31).
4.3 Further reliance is placed on 2002 (2) SCC 712 (G.N. Nayak Vs. Goa University and others) Para 22 to contend that once the petitioner-University accepts a particular yardstick laid down by an expert body, it cannot turn back and assail the same. It is further submitted by learned counsel for UGC that 17 W.P.No.13213/2021 the contention of petitioner that they were not informed of various attributes and sub-attributes which constitute the minimum score of CGPA prescribed by NAAC is of no avail since any scientific standard set by rules and regulations as a prerequisite for recognition of a particular course is not required to be informed individually to every institution.
4.4 Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for UGC in regard to the contention of discrimination qua IGNOU having been exempted from the application of 2020 Regulations, that the petitioner-University has never applied for exemption. It is submitted that it is only after an application is made by the petitioner-University, the acceptability of the same under the provisions of Clause 1(3) proviso of 2020 Regulations can be tested.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for NAAC- Shri Alabhya Bajpai submits that the NAAC accreditation certificate vide Annexure-P/11 issued in favour of petitioner is valid upto November, 2023 affording sufficient opportunity to petitioner to come upto to the standard laid down by the impugned 2020 Regulations.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents on record and the relevant statutory provisions, what comes out loud and clear, is that the petitioner-University because of its unique characteristic and nature appears to be finding it difficult to come up to the minimum standard set by 2020 Regulations, prescribed as prerequisite for recognition of different courses under the open and distance learning.
6.1 The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is to the effect that the NAAC accreditation by Annexure-P/11 is valid for a period of five years i.e. 18 W.P.No.13213/2021 01.11.2023. It is contended by petitioner that no new standards can be imposed on the petitioner-University before expiry of five years validity period of the accreditation certificate. Thus, from the contention raised by the petitioner-University, the grievance appears to be more based on the inability of the petitioner-University to come up to the requisite standard prescribed under the 2020 Regulations. It is trite law that standards set in the field of education by expert bodies are ordiniraly immune from judicial review, unless cases of blatant mala fide or arbitrariness are noticed, which is not the case herein.
6.2 Thus, this appears to be a case where the petitioner-University has been a little lax in coming up to the requisite standard.
6.3 However, the laxity does not appear to be voluntary, but primarily induced by the unique character of the courses conducted by it. These courses in the past were the least popular courses, thereby attracting very few students and thus adversely affecting the viability and feasibility of the petitioner- University. However, the disadvantage faced by petitioner-University due to its unique character and nature appears to have been taken care of by the 2020 Regulations by reducing the minimum standards for recognition from NAAC score of 3.26 on a 4-point score to 3.01 on a 4-point score.
6.4 This Court is not equipped with technical know how to judge the validity of minimum standards prescribed for recognition of open distance learning courses and, therefore, no further scrutiny in this respect is called for.
19 W.P.No.13213/20217. Pertinently, the only response submitted by the UGC to the contention of discrimination raised by the petitioner by citing example of exemption granted to IGNOU is that the petitioner-University has not applied for exemption under Clause 3(i) proviso to 2020 Regulations.
8. Universities like the petitioner, need special care and fostering by the State and as well as UGC. Petitioner - University is one of those very few institutions which endeavour to revive the fundamentals of Sanatan Dharm i.e. hinduism which unfortunately have been forgotten and pushed into oblivion by the cacophony of western culture. Materialism has been thrust upon us pushing attributes like spiritualism, morality, mediation, modesty, truthfulness etc., to the back-seat. Fortunately, with the present political dispensation, efforts are being made to rejuvenate and re-live our glorious past thereby re- kindling the pride for our motherland - Bharat. The efforts are appreciable. Thus, the endeavours of the petitioner-University of treading the less treaded path, ought to encouraged with all possible assistance from the State and the functionaries of the State.
9. In the conspectus of above discussion, this Court while repelling the challenge to Regulations 3(A)(i) of the UGC Regulations 2020 disposes of the petition with the following directions:
(i) The prayer with regard to quashment of Regulation 3(A)(i) of University Grants Commission (Open & Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 is dismissed.20 W.P.No.13213/2021
(ii) The petitioner-University is extended liberty to apply for exemption of 2020 Regulations under Clause 3(i) proviso before the UGC by filing an appropriate application supported by relevant documentary proof, which if done within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order, shall be considered and decided by the UGC in accordance with law by passing a speaking order.
(iii) It is made clear that so long as the application for exemption filed within the aforesaid period, is not decided, the petitioner-
University shall not be subjected to the rigors of the 2020 Regulations provided with petitioner-University files an undertaking along with an affidavit before the UGC that it shall make all possible endeavours to come up to the minimum standards laid down by the 2020 Regulations.
10. Petition stands disposed of.
(SHEEL NAGU) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Biswal
Digitally signed by SHIBA NARAYAN
BISWAL
Date: 2022.05.07 15:09:13 +05'30'