Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ramesh Singh vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 30 September, 2024
1
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A./3472/2018
M.A./3889/2018
M.A./3890/2018
Reserved on: 05.09.2024
Pronounced on: 30.09.2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr.Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Ramesh Singh,
Aged about 59 years
S/o Shri Balram Singh,
R/o Flat No.1110, Tower-B
5th Avenue, Gaut City-I
Greater Noida (West)-201009, U.P.
2. Rajendra Pal Singh,
Aged about 58 years
S/o Shri Hanumant Singh
R/o Flat No.2595, Block-L
1st Avenue, Gaur City-I
Greater Noida (West)-201009, U.P. ...Applicants
(Through Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
VERSUS
1. Union of India & Ors.
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Prasar Bharti
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
PTI Building, New Delhi
3. The Director General,
All India Radio,
Prasar Bharti
2
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018
(Broadcasting Corporation of India)
Akashwani Bhawan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
4. Birla Institute of Technology & Science (BITS)
Through its Registrar
Vidya Vihar Pilani
Rajasthan
5. University Grants Commission (UGC)
Through its Chairman
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110002
6. All India Council for Technical Education
Through its Chairman
Nelson Mandela Marg,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070
7. Ministry of Human Resource Development
Through its Secretary,
Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001 ...Respondents
(Through Sh. Satish Kumar,Advocate for Respondent 1
Sh. S.M. Arif, Advocate for respondents 2&3
Sh. Mahesh Agarwal with Sh. Arshit Anand,
Advocates for respondent 4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr.Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
The applicants, two in number, joined as Engineering Assistant at different stations of the All India Radio (AIR) in the years 1981 and 1986 and were promoted as Sr. Engineering Assistant on 08.05.1985 and 16.01.1991.
Thereafter, they were promoted as AE through Departmental Competitive Examination in April, 1991 and February, 1997 respectively. After completion of 03 years of 3 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 regular service, the applicants became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Station Engineer (JTS) against 50% quota. The 50% of the JTS is filled up by DRs through UPSC and 50% by promotion amongst Assistant Engineer of AIR and Doordarshan possessing requisite qualification. Applicant No.1 was promoted on adhoc basis to JTS Grade of IB(E)S in 2005 and regularized in 2007 against the vacancies for the year 2004 and applicant No.2 was also promoted on adhoc basis to JTS Grade of IB(E)S in 2007. Thereafter, the Respondent Nos.1-4, vide order dated 27.04.2009 issued a modified eligibility list of Assistant Engineers in AIR and Doordarshan for promotion to JTS Cadre. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants filed OA No.1260/2009 which was disposed of by the Tribunal with the directions to the respondents not to pass any adverse order against the applicants without following principle of natural justice.
2. Thereafter the applicants submitted representations with respect to their claim which were rejected by the respondents stating that the degree obtained by the applicants i.e. Work Integrated Learning Programme (WILP) of BITS Pilani acquired through distance mode of education, was not valid and cannot be considered as equivalent to Engineering Degree. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants filed another OA No.2733/2010, 4 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 which was disposed of on 21.09.2016 by the Tribunal with the directions to the respondents to consider the claim of applicants for promotion to JTS & STS on regular basis subject to outcome of the SLP pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, Hon'ble Apex Court had pronounced the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. vs Rabi Sankar Patro, AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 5179 declaring that degrees obtained through four 'deemed to be' Universities under DL mode as invalid, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court the cause of the applicants was rejected by the respondents, stating that the degrees obtained by them through distance learning mode is invalid. Aggrieved by the same the applicants have filed the instant OA, seeking the following relief:-
"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09.08.2010 & 01.05.2018 and direct the respondents to consider the claim of respondents for promotion to JTS & STS on regular basis from the date of promotion of their immediate junior in the list of Assistant Engineer with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
(ii) To declare the action of respondents in not treated the applicants as eligible for promotion to JTS & STS on the basis of their degree of B.S Systems) as (Information illegal and issue appropriate directions for considering the applicants claim for promotion to JTS & STS on regular basis on the basis of their Degree in Engineering i.e. B.S (Information Systems) alongwith their juniors and similarly placed persons with all consequential benefits including arrears.
(iii) To allow the OA with cost.
(iv) To pass other order as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."5
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018
3. Learned counsel for the applicants draws attention to Para 34 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. (supra), which is reproduced as under:-
"The crucial facts as they emerge from the narration in the preceding paragraphs are:-
a) The concerned Deemed to be Universities namely AAL.
JRN and IASE started distance education programmes leading to degrees in Engineering, outside their field of specialization. Such Programs were started without taking any approval from UGC and/or AICTE and when there was no approved engineering college or faculty at their main campus.
Further, such programme were being conducted in Study Centres, majority of which were not attained and many Centers Deemed to be Universities. The demonstrators lecto played at such Study Centres were not on the payroll of and were not selected by such Deemed to be Universities. Those Study Centres were not inspected at any stage, nor any facilities therein were assessed if they meet the standards prescribed for imparting courses in Engineering to authority had checked what kind of courses were being conducted nor was there any inspection at the time the examinations were said to have been conducted."
4. He submits that perusal of the aforesaid Para of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India would clarify that the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the degree imparted by 4 deemed Universities i.e. IASE, JRN, AAI & VMRF and not BITS Pilani, and secondly, the degree in Engg. granted to students who were enrolled during academic years 2001 to 2005 have been suspended, while degrees of students who got enrolled after 2005 has been declared invalid. Meaning thereby that the degrees in Engg. granted to students who obtained degree, on being enrolled 6 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 prior to 2001 was declared invalid and the applicants in the instant OA got enrolled for acquiring a degree in 1999.
5. He further supported by the fact that the applicants acquired the degree in Engg. from BITS Pilani and not from the 4 deemed Universities i.e. IASE, JRN, AAI & VMRF. He submits that in the year 1999, the National Assessment & Accreditation Council (NAAC) which is an autonomous institution of UGC itself declared that the WILP of BITS Pilani providing excellent and quality higher education through Off-Campus Programme. He states that the members of the Visiting Expert Committee comprise the members /Nominee of UGC, AICTE and others visited BITS-Pilani on 19-20th June 2009, in their report they have concluded that Work Integrated Learning Programmes of BITS is meticulously planned and conducted and that the committee is fully satisfied with the operation and conduct of the programme. He states that there should be no doubt as to the quality of the education imparted by the BITS in its WILP.
6. He draws strength from the order dated 01.11.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 13657/2021 - Rajendra Prasad Rai and Ors. Vs. UGC and Ors. and submits that the Hon'ble High Court has in fact supported the cause of the applicants and have concluded that the BITS Pilani, from where the applicants 7 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 has acquired the degree, did not require the approval of the AICTE. The operative portion of the aforementioned order reads as under:-
"6. A joint reading of the averments made by respondent no.1-UGC and respondent no.3-AICTE indicates that there is no reason to apprehend that courses under the concerned programme i.e. Work Integrated Learning Programme (WILP) can be treated to be invalid.
7. Since respondent-no.1-UGC does not grant any certification for validation of the concerned course and respondent no.3-AICTE has unequivocally stated that the concerned course does not require any approval by them, no further adjudication is necessary in view of the stand taken by respondent no.1-UGC and respondent no.3-AICTE."
7. Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned Sr. CGSC appearing on behalf of the AICTE, draws strength from the averments made in the Counter reply dated 23.01.2019 placed at Page 786 of the OA, filed on behalf of Respondent No. 6 i.e. AICTE and states that The Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 03.11.2017 in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. case is applicable to only 4- listed Deemed to be Universities viz: JRN, IASE, AAI & VMRF and Hon'ble Apex Court had also directed that all the Degrees of Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 shall stand suspended till they pass examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC.
8
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 8. In pursuance of the direction, AICTE/UGC the
Examinations were conducted in June 2018 and in December 2018 for validating the degrees of candidates. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not consider the issue relating to the degree(s) awarded by BITS in the order dated 03-11- 2017; as such, no decision has been taken by Respondent No. 6 AICTE about the degree awarded by BITS through distance education. He further draws attention to the public notice published by the AICTE in the year 2010 that is placed at Annexure (R-1), page 793 of the OA, which states that the AICTE does not recognize the qualifications acquired through distance education in the field of Engineering. He states that AICTE has not granted recognition to degree(s) obtained through ODL Mode in Engineering & Technology awarded by any institute during the years 1999-2002. As far as AICTE is concerned, year of admission or the year of completion of the Engineering degree from the deemed to be universities or any other Institutions is of no relevance with the validity of the degree, since as per its policy, it is not granting recognition to engineering degree obtained through distance education.
9. Shri Arshit Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 i.e. BITS, Pilani takes us to the additional affidavit filed by them on 25.09.2023 and states that the BITS Pilani had addressed a letter dated 9 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 17.06.2020 to the Ministry of Education (MoE) seeking clarification/permission to include the opening of off- campuses and to continue offering the WILP for working professionals. Subsequent to that the Ministry of Education, Government of India vide letter dated 24.06.2020 sought clarifications from the UGC on issues pertaining to the WILP Program offered by BITS Pilani. He submits that the clarifications sought by the Ministry of Education were not covered under the existing Institute of Eminence (loE) regulations, 2017, however, as per clause 23 of the loE regulations, the Empowered Expert Committee (the EEC) is empowered to make recommendations on the issues that are not covered in the IoE Regulations. He submits that, subsequently, EEC conducted a meeting and discussed the issue of BITS Pilani offering courses for working professionals through WILP. The EEC was apprised of the issues related to WILP and took note of the recommendations of the UGC committee looking into the issue related to WILP being offered by BITS Pilani. The Committee then resolved as follows in its meeting held on 24.07.2020: -
"Keeping in view the benefits of the programme ECC is of the view that BITS Pilani should be allowed to continue with its WILP Programme with the recommendations suggested by the UGC committee treated as guidelines for the purpose."10
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018
10. The UGC, in its Meeting held on 09.09.2020 considered the recommendations of the EEC on the WILP Program offered by the BITS, PILANI and decided as under:
"2.02: To consider the recommendations of the Empowered Expert Committee (EEC) on (i) Establishment of new off- campus by Institutions of Eminence (loE), and (4) Continuation of Work Integrated Learning Programme (WILP) by BITS, Pilani.
Considered and approved.
Further, the Commission approved the recommendations of the Empowered Expert Committee to allow BITS, Pilani to continue with its WILP Programme. However, BITS, Pilani will have to strictly comply with the UGC Guidelines in this regard as and when issued."
11. From the above decision of the UGC dated 09.09.2020, it is clear that the UGC has allowed continuance of the recognized degree offered by BITS, Pilani. He submits that the recommendations of the EEC in respect of WILP were communicated to the Ministry of Education by the UGC vide its letter dated 22.09.2020. He submits in an identical matter in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13657 of 2021 in the matter of "Rajendra Prasad Rai & Ors. Vs. University Grants Commission & Ors." filed by 5 Petitioners who are degree holders from BITS, Pilani in Masters of Technology in software systems (M.Tech) under its Work Integrated Learning Program ("WILP") in the batch of 2015-17, 2016-18, 2014-17 and 2016-18, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in this Writ Petition the 11 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 UGC has filed its Affidavit on 28.03.2023, wherein it has taken a stand that the WILP Program by BITS Pilani has been allowed to continue with the condition(s) that the programme shall be subject to the guidelines issued by UGC from time to time.
12. Mr. S.M. Arif, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3, has vehemently opposed the present OA. He explains the chequered history of this OA, stating that the applicants had approached this Tribunal in OA No. 1260/2009 against the show cause notice of reversion. To clarify, the applicants, who were granted promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Engineer) in the JTS scale, were sought to be reverted by the show cause notice, for want of eligibility as they did not possess the required qualifications, having obtained their degrees from BITS Pilani through the distance mode. This OA was allowed by this Tribunal on 12.04.2010, as the principles of natural justice were not followed when issuing the show cause notice. Thereafter, in compliance with the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 1260/2009 dated 12.04.2010, the respondents issued a fresh order dated 09.08.2010 after providing the applicants with an opportunity to be heard.
13. The applicants challenged the respondents' fresh decision dated 09.08.2010 before this Tribunal by filing a fresh OA No. 2733/2010. This OA was decided by the 12 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 Tribunal on 29.08.2016, wherein the applicants were allowed to continue in their promoted posts, however, their promotion was made subject to the outcome of the decision in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra), pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The decision in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) was rendered on 03.11.2017. Subsequently, various applications were filed by stakeholders before the Hon'ble Apex Court seeking clarification of its initial decision. However, all these applications were decided on 22.01.2018, confirming the initial order and clarifying the position that no technical degree could be obtained through distance learning mode.
14. In pursuance of the order dated 03.11.2017 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents were in the process of taking appropriate steps in compliance with the order dated 21.09.2016 in OA No. 2733/2010. However, the applicants filed both a contempt petition before this Tribunal and a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, registered as W.P. No. 6619/2018. In the interregnum, the respondents passed the order dated 01.05.2018 in compliance with the contempt petition. Therefore, while disposing of the writ petition on 06.07.2018, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court granted liberty to the applicants to approach this Tribunal to challenge the order dated 01.05.2018. The Court also extended protection to the petitioners for two weeks with 13 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 respect to the order dated 01.05.2018. Thereafter, the applicants preferred the instant OA assailing the order dated 01.05.2018, and the interim protection extended by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was reiterated by this Tribunal and has continued till date.
15. Mr. S.M. Arif, learned counsel, explains that similarly situated persons approached this Tribunal in OA No. 1308/2009, titled S.C. Jain and Ors. vs. UOI, a copy of which is placed at pages 120 to 151 of the counter reply filed by the respondents. This OA was dismissed by this Tribunal on 21.12.2011. The applicants therein approached the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 1149/2012, assailing the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1308/2009. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court is placed at pages 132 to 154 of the counter reply. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi disposed of the said writ petition with the observation that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) shall be binding on the parties to the petition. Meanwhile, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana rendered a decision in Kartar Singh vs. UOI. The Orissa High Court had taken a view in favour of the applicants, prompting the respondents to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra). In the meantime, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Kartar Singh (supra), had taken a view against the 14 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 applicants therein. Consequently, both the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court were under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. He states that by deciding the issue at stake, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the decision taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the Kartar Singh (supra) case.
16. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the issue in this OA, being whether the technical degree obtained by the applicants through distance learning mode can be considered a valid degree for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Engineering) in the JTS scale. He states that this question has been addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) case, which established that: (i) no technical degree can be obtained through distance learning mode; (ii) no post facto approval can be granted to a degree; (iii) Section 22 of the UGC Act does not recognize the course for which the applicant obtained his degree. A list of this information is annexed as Annexure R- 5 to the reply filed by the respondents. He further states that the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) has been reiterated in the subsequent decision dated 29.08.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 15 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 1510/2018, Vinit Garg and Ors. Vs. University Grants Commission and Ors., particularly in paragraphs 25 and 27, which are reproduced herein:-
"25. In any case these aspects and contentions were fully considered in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I and it has been held that B.Tech. degrees could not have been awarded through distance learning mode without the approval of the DEC and without any specific approval of the AICTE and UGC and award of such degrees without approval of the three were invalid and cannot be recognised.
27. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-1, this Court, took note of the order dated 29th December, 2012 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India in view of the recommendations suggested in the Madhava Menon Committee report for regulating the standards of education being imparted through distance mode to hold that the unilateral approvals of the DEC were invalid. It was observed:
"55. Para 3 of the notification dated 22.11.1991 which constituted DEC shows that there was no representation for any Member or representative of AICTE. The provisions of IGNOU Act show that the Study Centres as defined in the IGNOU Act are that of IGNOU and not of any other University or Institution. The concept of distance education under sub-clause (v) of Section 5 is also in relation to the academic programmes of IGNOU. It undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii) (xxiii) to cooperate with other Universities but the IGNOU Act nowhere entitles IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of the entire field of distance education of learning across the Country and in relation to programmes of other Universities or Institutions as well. The Order dated 29.12.2012 issued by MHRD therefore correctly appreciated that DEC created under statute 28 of IGNOU Act could not act as a regulator for other Universities. In any event of the matter, the policy Guidelines issued from time to time made it abundantly clear that DEC alone was not entitled to grant permission for open distance learning and appropriate permissions from the requisite authorities were always required and insisted upon. Despite such policy statements, DEC went on granting permissions without even consulting AICTE. Such exercise on part of DEC was completely without jurisdiction.
The said order, the Court noted, had definitively vested the UGC and AICTE, among other statutory regulators, with powers to regulate technical courses imparted through distance learning mode and made it mandatory for institutions intending to impart such courses to seek their approval and recognition, observing as under:16
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 "[T]he Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of section 20 of the UGC 1956 and the AICTE Act, 1987 hereby directs: -
The UGC and AICTE as already empowered under their respective Acts, would also act as a regulator for Higher Education (excluding Technical Education) and Technical Education through open & Distance Learning (ODL) mode respectively Universities are empowered under their respective Act to offer any programme course including in Technical Education in the conventional mode. However, if they offer any programme/course in ODL mode they would require recognition from the UGC, AICTE, NCTE and other such regulators of the conventional mode of education in those areas of study.""
17. Therefore, he submits, that the original application does not warrant interference. While deciding the issue, the Hon'ble Apex Court did not limit its decision to only four universities but established a principle applicable to all technical courses obtained through distance learning mode.
18. In rejoinder, learned counsel for applicant states that the degree acquired by the applicant in WILP program which is in fact not by distanced learning mode and this course has been declared as a recognized course by the Delhi High Court. He draws attention to page 374 of the OA and submits that Hon'ble Apex Court pursuant to MA preferred by the stake holder and clarifying that the issue was decided only with respect to the four universities for specific period and for the courses undertaken by these university only. He draws attention to order dated 01.05.2018 impugned in the OA, para 8 wherein it says that since the applicant did not possess the requisite essential education qualifications and was not entitled to 17 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 the promotion to the post of Assistant Director (P) hence the order issued on 09.08.2010 would still hold good. To clarify the order dated 09.08.2010 was assailed by the applicant in OA No. 2733/2010, the order is placed at page 37 of this OA.
19. We have heard the submissions by the learned counsels for both the parties carefully and have perused the records of the case thoroughly.
Analysis:
20. For adjudication of the present OA, from the pleadings by the parties and submissions by the respective counsels, the following issues are framed:
(i) Whether the Work Integrated Learning Programme (WILP) conducted by the BITS Pilani is considered as a programme for B.Tech.
through distance education mode?
(ii) Whether the Apex Court judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. (supra) case is confined to the 4 deemed Universities i.e. IASE, JRN, AAI and VMRF or whether the said judgment is per incuriam, which cannot be applied to the technical courses offered by other universities like BITS Pilani through distance education mode?
18
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018
(iii) Whether BITS, Pilani being a deemed university prior to 2018 did not require any approval from AICTE for conducting technical courses through Distance Education/WILP Mode?
(iv) Whether the B.Tech degree through the WILP programme obtained by the applicants can be held as valid because of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P. No.13657/2021 in the matter of Rajendra Prasad Rai and ors.
(supra)?
(v) Whether the BITS Pilani had obtained the ex-
post-facto approval from the competent authority for the courses including WILP for offering technical degrees through distance education mode during academic years 1995- 2002?
(vi) Are the students, who obtained the technical
degrees through distance education
mode/WILP, protected in view of the judgment of the judgment of the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. (supra) and subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, 19 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited, Civil Appeal No.3697-3698/2018?
(vii) Whether the B.Tech degrees acquired by the applicants from BITS, Pilani through distance education mode/WILP are valid degrees?
21. Issue No.(i) :The applicants in their OA, their counsel during his submissions and the private Respondents (BITS) PILANI have made attempts, to show that the Work Integrated Learning programme (WILP) leading to award of B.Tech. course is a distinctive course than the run-off-mill Distance Education Courses run by deemed Universities. Accordingly, they tried to impress upon the Tribunal that the ratio of judgments like the Osissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. (supra), and the subsequent judgments based on this judgment relating to technical courses conducted through distance education mode are not applicable in the instant case. This attempt by them is more pronounced by BITS, PILANI (Respondent No.4) in their submissions and counter affidavit. Even learned counsel for the applicants in his submissions in Paragraph no.5 has stated that the NAAC of UGC declared the WILP as an excellent programme, though it was offered through the off-campus mode. The visiting team of NAAC comprises representatives of UGC, AICTE and others.
20
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 21.1 The learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the Private Respondent, BITS, Pilani have confused themselves trying to make distinction between the Distance Education and WILP modes. As it has been mentioned, the learned counsel for the applicants has mentioned the visit of NAAC team to the campus and declared that the WILP programme is an off-campus programme. Neither the learned counsel for the applicants nor the BITS, Pilani have referred to any documents, relating to the exact methodology of imparting the course, number of classes held and the places of such classes and practicals held so as to infer that the WILP was distinctly different from Distance Learning Course/programmes. More interestingly, the learned counsels have relied on the judgments pertaining to Distance Learning to impress upon this Tribunal that WILP programme has got ex-post-facto approval from the DEC of IGONU and hence, the judgments by the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra) and others are not applicable in the instant case. The applicants and BITS, Pilani can not take two contradictory stands to suit their submissions. Whenever it suits them, BITS, Pilani states that the WILP is not a distance education programme and on other occasion it says it has got ex-post-facto approval of DEC to conduct WILP through Distance Education Mode.
21
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 21.2 From the above analysis, we conclude that the applicants and the Private Respondent No.4, i.e. BITS Pilani have failed to substantiate that the WILP of BITS Pilani is not a course conducted through the Distance Education Mode. Accordingly, we hold that WILP, despite a different nomenclature, is a programme imparted through the Distance Education Mode.
22. Before discussing the issue no.2 and the subsequent issues, it would be appropriate to delve into the specific orders by the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) and subsequent judgments by the Apex Court providing clarifications regarding applicability of the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. to various technical degrees offered by universities through distance learning mode. In the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case the issue regarding validity of the technical degrees obtained by various candidates through distance education mode from four universities namely JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan (JRN), Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan (IASE), Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh (AAI) and Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu (VMRF) was squarely and succinctly dealt with. In the concluding paragraph i.e. para 53, the Apex Court held:
22
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 "53. Accordingly we direct:
I 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education without the approval of AICTE.
II Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside.
III Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand suspended.
(2016) 7 SCC 353 - Paras 86 to 92, 108 to 111 (2016) 6 SCC 335 IV The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and 47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018.
V Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 47.
VI If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully. VII As regards students who were admitted after the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 48 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48.
23
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 VIII By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter.
IX We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation.
X The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above are not refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise.
XI We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018- 2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course specific.
XII The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word 'University' within one month from today. XIII The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 31, 2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11.09.2018."
24
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018
23. The matter regarding the technical degrees through distance education mode awarded by a State University i.e. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University was dealt in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar (supra). As the matter was regarding the legality of the technical courses through distance education mode conducted by a State University, the following interim order was passed on 16.02.2018:
"Learned Attorney General has pointed out that in view of the judgment of this Court in "Bharathidasan University & Anr.Vs. All India Council For Technical Education & Ors.", (2001) 8 SCC 676, no prior approval of the All India Council for the Technical Education (AICTE) is required by the petitioner - University for starting engineering courses.
The petitioner - University is a State University and it gave admissions in transparent manner only to the Government Employees. There was a contact programme and faculty was available. Practical work also held. DEC gave ex-post facto approval. The standards have not been compromised. It was also submitted that upto 2005, there were no bar for such courses being conducted even by Universities other than the State Universities. It is also stated that after 2009, the distance education system has been closed. It has been suggested that it will be necessary to hear the UGC also.
AICTE and UGC are added as party - respondents. Mr. Harish Pandey, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of AICTE and seeks time to take instructions. Let notice be issued to UGC, returnable on 21.03.2018. In the meanwhile, status quo,as of today, shall be maintained by the parties. In SLP(C) No. 3755/2018, SLP(C) Diary No(s). 3731/2018, Diary No(s). 4347/2018 & SLP(C) Diary No.5836/2018:
Put up these matters along with SLP(C)Diary No(s). 3501 of 2018".25
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 The Apex Court citing paragraphs 47 and 48 of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case modified the above order to the following extent vide order dated 10.04.2018:
"6. While we find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the view taken by the High Court is correct in law, in view of distinguishing features in the present case noted in the order issuing notice, while directing that norms must be followed in future, the degrees and diplomas in question already granted by the appellant - University to candidates admitted up to academic year 2009-2010 may be left undisturbed. To this extent, the impugned order stands modified."
24. To be specific, the question was whether prior approval of AICTE is required by a State University for starting an engineering course through distance education mode for which Distance Education Council (DEC) gives ex- post-facto approval. It is a specific case concerning a State University and as the judgment has relied on Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case, it has reiterated the decision of the Apex Court in the said case. However, it has made a distinction regarding ex-post-facto approval given by the DEC of a State University to start a technical course during a specific period. Hence, this judgment cannot be extended that anybody who has got ex-post-facto approval from DEC irrespective of the nature of the university has the validity of the technical degree awarded through distance education mode. This matter has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinit Garg (supra). Particularly, in its judgment in paragraph 11, the Hon'ble 26 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 Apex Court has quoted para 48 of the Orissa Lift Irrigation judgment (supra), which reads as follows :
"48. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education which is hands-on approach involving actual application of principles taught in theory under the watchful eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes. The practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the technical education system. If this established concept of imparting technical education as a qualitative norm is to be modified or altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance education learning, then as a concept the AICTE ought to have accepted it in clear terms. What parameters ought to be satisfied if the regular course of imparting technical education is in any way to be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to decide. The decision must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely because of absence of any Guidelines in the matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it has always maintained that courses leading to degrees in Engineering cannot be undertaken through distance education mode. Whether that approach is correct or not is not the point in issue. For the present purposes, if according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught in distance education mode, that is the final word and is binding - unless rectified in a manner known to law. Even National Policy on Education while emphasizing the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes through distance education learning in technical and managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTE will be responsible for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standards including maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education. In our view whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering, could be taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive domain of the AICTE. The answer to the first limb of the first question posed by us is therefore clear that without the Guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree courses in Engineering through distance education mode, the Deemed to be Universities were not justified in introducing such courses."
Referring to para 48 of the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case, it has clearly stated that the approval of AICTE was mandatory for starting technical courses through distance education mode.
27
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018
25. Subsequent to the judgment of the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case, a series of MAs were filed by affected parties seeking clarification regarding paragraph 53 of the said judgment. In the said MAs, the clarification was sought regarding the validity of the diploma and whether the degree obtained in engineering through distance education mode should also cover under the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case. The gist of applications and contentions advanced by the counsels has been mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the Apex Court in MA Nos.1795-1796/2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870/2017, in the following manner:
"The applicants, holding diplomas in Engineering, enrolled themselves in 2005 in courses leading to award of B.Tech degree offered by Deemed to be University in question through distance learning mode. Later, on the basis of the degrees awarded by the Deemed to be Universities, they underwent independent selection undertaken by Union Public Service Commission and entered certain services as direct recruits and have presently either been engaged in the same service or have advanced in career on the basis of such selection by UPSC."
The Apex Court finally clarified in paragraphs 3 to 8 of the judgment dated 22.01.2018:
"3] It is true, as is evident from paragraphs 34 and 46 of the judgment that the controversy in the present case pertained to validity of degrees in Engineering conferred by the Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode and this Court was not called upon to consider validity of diplomas conferred by such Deemed to be Universities. However the advertisement issued by AICTE covers diploma courses as well. We therefore accept the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhruv Mehta and Mr. M.L. Verma, learned Senior Advocates and clarify that validity of 28 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 such courses leading to diplomas was not the subject matter of the judgment.
4] At the same time, courses leading to award of degrees, whether graduate or post graduate degrees, was certainly the matter in issue. We therefore reject the submission of Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate and do not find any infirmity in the understanding of and the advertisement issued by AICTE.
5] Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate is right that JRN, AAI and IASE had no expertise in the field or subjects of Engineering and the status of Deemed Universities conferred on them was not because of their excellence in the field of Engineering. As against these three Deemed to be Universities, the case of VMRF stood on a better footing as its field of activity and excellence also included subjects in Engineering. However that was not the only basis of the judgment. The facts still remain that conferral of degrees in Engineering through distance education mode was never approved in principle by AICTE and the Study Centres were never inspected or approved. We therefore reject the submission of Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate.
6] If award of degrees in Engineering through distance education mode by Deemed to be Universities, as a concept or principle was not accepted by AICTE, it is immaterial whether the Study Centre in question was ITM International. Said Institution was not by itself authorized to award degrees in Engineering on its own nor was it affiliated to any State or Central University at the relevant time. The courses conducted by said institution led to award of degrees of AAI, which had no expertise or excellence in the field of Engineering and through distance education mode. We therefore reject the submission advanced by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate.
7] We now turn to the general submission advanced by all the learned counsel that the candidates after securing the degrees in Engineering through distance education mode, have advanced in career and that their ability was tested at various levels and as such requirement of passing the examination in terms of the judgment be dispensed with in their case. We cannot make any such exception. The infirmity in their degrees is basic and fundamental and cannot be wished away. At the same time, we find some force in their submission that if the suspension of their degrees and all advantages were to apply as indicated in the judgment, the concerned candidates may lose their jobs and even if they were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs and present position would pose some difficulty.
We, therefore, as a one-time relaxation in favour of those candidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 and who, in terms of the judgment, are eligible to appear at the test to be conducted by AICTE, direct:-29
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 a] All such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcoming test to be conducted by AICTE in May-June 2018 and who exercise option to appear at the test in terms of the judgment, can retain the degrees in question and all the advantages flowing therefrom till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018 whichever is earlier.
b] This facility is given as one-time exception so that those who have the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt itself, should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the advantages. But if they fail or choose not to appear, the directions in the judgment shall apply, in that the degrees and all advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that no more such chances or exceptions will be given or made. They will undoubtedly be entitled to appear on the second occasion in terms of the judgment but this exception shall not apply for such second attempt. c] We direct AICTE to conduct the test in May-June 2018 and declare the result well in time, in terms of our directions in the judgment and this Order. AICTE shall however extend the time to exercise the option to appear at the test suitably.
8] Except for the directions given in the preceding paragraph i.e. paragraph 7 and the clarification as regards courses leading to award of diplomas as mentioned hereinabove, we reject all the other submissions."
In other words, the Apex Court in the order in respect of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case, vide its judgment dated 22.01.2018 clarified that the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case dated 3.11.2017 was also made applicable to candidates who got diploma in engineering through distance education mode.
26. Subsequently, the Apex Court in Vinit Garg (supra) also had given a clarification regarding applicability of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) judgment to other universities including institutions of excellence and deemed universities like Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala. In paragraphs 25 and 27, the Apex 30 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 Court in Vinit Garg (supra) case has succinctly clarified the applicability of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) judgment to all technical degrees obtained through distance education mode. For clarity, paragraphs 25 and 27 of Vinit Garg (supra) judgment are reproduced below:
"25. In any case these aspects and contentions were fully considered in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I and it has been held that B.Tech. degrees could not have been awarded through distance learning mode without the approval of the DEC and without any specific approval of the AICTE and UGC and award of such degrees without approval of the three were invalid and cannot be recognised.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
27. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, this Court, took note of the order dated 29th December, 2012 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India in view of the recommendations suggested in the Madhava Menon Committee report for regulating the standards of education being imparted through distance mode to hold that the unilateral approvals of the DEC were invalid. It was observed:
"55. Para 3 of the notification dated 22.11.1991 which constituted DEC shows that there was no representation for any Member or representative of AICTE. The provisions of IGNOU Act show that the Study Centres as defined in the IGNOU Act are that of IGNOU and not of any other University or Institution. The concept of distance education under sub-clause (v) of Section 5 is also in relation to the academic programmes of IGNOU. It undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii) and (xxiii) to cooperate with other Universities but the IGNOU Act nowhere entitles IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of the entire field of distance education of learning across the Country and in relation to programmes of other Universities or Institutions as well. The Order dated 29.12.2012 issued by MHRD therefore correctly appreciated that DEC created under statute 28 of IGNOU Act could not act as a regulator for other Universities. In any event of the matter, the policy Guidelines issued from time to time made it abundantly clear that DEC alone was not entitled to grant permission for open distance learning and appropriate permissions from the requisite authorities were always required and 31 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 insisted upon. Despite such policy statements, DEC went on granting permissions without even consulting AICTE. Such exercise on part of DEC was completely without jurisdiction.
The said order, the Court noted, had definitively vested the UGC and AICTE, among other statutory regulators, with powers to regulate technical courses imparted through distance learning mode and made it mandatory for institutions intending to impart such courses to seek their approval and recognition, observing as under:
"[T]he Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of section 20 of the UGC 1956 and the AICTE Act, 1987 hereby directs: -
The UGC and AICTE as already empowered under their respective Acts, would also act as a regulator for Higher Education (excluding Technical Education) and Technical Education through open & Distance Learning (ODL) mode respectively Universities are empowered under their respective Act to offer any programme course including in Technical Education in the conventional mode. However, if they offer any programme/course in ODL mode they would require recognition from the UGC, AICTE, NCTE and other such regulators of the conventional mode of education in those areas of study."
27. In view of the above background and clarificatory judgments by the Apex Court subsequent to the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case, we now consider the subsequent issues as framed in paragraph 20 above.
28. Issue No.(ii): In Vinit Garg (supra) judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court had particularly dealt whether Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) judgment is per incuriam or not. In paragraph 4, it has specifically mentioned that:
"4. We may at the outset record that the petitioners have given up and not raised the contention that the decision authored by one of us (Uday Umesh Lalit, J.) in Orissa Lift 32 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 Irrigation Corporation Limited-I is per incuriam for the ratio is contrary to the decision in Bharathidasan University (supra). Indeed, such contention cannot be accepted as the latter decision has been considered in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I."
In view of this categorical finding by the Apex Court, the ratio of the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case is applicable to all cases where the technical degrees have been awarded through distance education mode by any university. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) judgment is limited to the technical degrees awarded by the four universities namely JRN, IASE, AAI and VMRF through distance education mode is not tenable.
28.1 The ratio of the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case is equally applicable to any technical degree awarded through distance education mode by BITS, Pilani. To be specific, both the applicants got the B.Tech degree in B.S. Information System from BITS, Pilani in the year 2002. It is a separate matter that applicant no.2 has also got M.Tech degree from V.M. University, Tamil Nadu, again through distance education mode.
29. Issue No.(iii): This question has already been squarely dealt in Apex Court judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case as well as Vinit Garg (supra) case where it has been held that the deemed universities like 33 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 BITS, Pilani are empowered to impart technical degrees through the conventional mode. Nevertheless, they were required to take approval of UGC and AICTE before starting any course through distance education mode. As we have already analysed that WILP programme is also similar or equivalent to distance education mode, BITS, Pilani was supposed to take approval of UGC and AICTE before starting such programme.
30. Issue No.(iv): The Delhi High Court in Rajendra Prasad Rai (supra) has considered the case of validity of the degree granted to the petitioners therein by BITS, Pilani through its WILP. Citing the judgment dated 1.11.2023 by the Delhi High Court, the learned counsel for the applicants states that as the High Court has held the degrees awarded through WILP to be valid, the degrees awarded by the BITS, Pilani through its WILP should also be considered as valid. However, perusal of the judgment dated 1.11.2023 shows that the subject matter of validity of the degrees pertains to a period subsequent to the period which was considered in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) judgment. Following the judgment by the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case, subsequently the institutions obtained approval for conducting technical degrees courses through distance education mode or likewise like WILP with due approval 34 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 from UGC/AICTE. In the said case, UGC and AICTE have given their consent for conduct of the WILP programme during the academic year 2015-17, 2016-18, 2014-17 and 2016-18 respectively. However, these are the periods not in question in the present OA. The applicants in the instant OA had have obtained the degrees in the year 2002. Hence, the judgment dated 1.11.2023 by the Delhi High Court is not applicable in the instant case.
31. Issue Nos.(v) & (vii): The issue regarding validity of the degrees through distance education mode/ WILP by BITS, Pilani by seeking ex-post-facto approval of UGC and AICTE can be analysed referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Vinit Garg (supra) case. In paragraph 11 of the judgment in Vinit Garg case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has cited paragraph 48 of the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case and has unequivocally stated that the approval of the AICTE was mandatory for starting any distance education or similarly named programmes like WILP for awarding technical degrees. In paragraph 49 of the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically stated that under the AICTE regulations, no courses or programmes shall be introduced by any technical institution, university including a deemed 35 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 university or university department or college except with the approval of the AICTE.
31.1 The judgment by the Apex Court in Vinit Garg (supra) case has also clarified that even in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken note of the order dated 29.12.2012 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, where it has been mentioned that in view of the recommendations suggested in the Madhava Menon Committee report for regulating the standards of education being imparted through distance mode to hold that the unilateral approvals of the DEC were invalid. Citing paragraph 55 of the Orissa Lift Irrigation judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinit Garg (supra), held that the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (supra) judgment has definitively vested the UGC and AICTE, among other statutory regulators, with powers to regulate technical courses imparted through distance learning mode and made it mandatory for institutions intending to impart such courses to seek their approval and recognition. In view of this categorical finding by the Apex Court in Vinit Garg (supra), it was incumbent upon the BITS, Pilani to obtain at least ex-post-facto approval of the courses conducted prior to 2001-2005 to award degrees through distance education mode/WILP. The BITS, Pilani has failed 36 C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018 to produce any such approval or ex-post-facto approval from UGC or AICTE for the degrees awarded to the present applicants when they took admission in 1999 and were awarded the degrees in the year 2002. In absence of any express approval from UGC or AICTE, the degrees awarded by BITS, Pilani through WILP programme to the present applicants cannot be termed as valid.
32. Item No.(vi): One time protection was awarded to the students who got their technical degrees through distance education mode from the deemed universities during the academic year 2001-2005. They were given one time option to appear for a test to be conducted by the AICTE. In the instant case, the applicants took admission starting from the academic year 1999 and were awarded degrees in 2002. So, one time protection given to the students who were admitted in the academic year 2001-2005 is not applicable to the present applicants. Moreover, such protection was given subject to passing of the test which was conducted by the AICTE. In the instant case, none of the applicants have appeared for the test nor have they submitted any result showing that they have passed such a test. In view of this, no protection can be available to the degrees awarded by BITS, Pilani from the WILP programme to the present applicants for admissions which started in 1999. 37
C-3/Item-36 OA-3472/2018
33. Conclusion : We have framed relevant issues for the adjudication of the present OA in respect of the specific reliefs sought by the applicants. The findings in respect of the issues No. (i) to (vii) as given from paragraphs 21 t0 32 show that the applicants do not have a case here. Accordingly, the present OA lacks merit and hence dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dkm/