Jdt Islam Ignou Community College vs Indira Gandhi National Open University

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Jdt Islam Ignou Community College vs Indira Gandhi National Open University

The petitioners in W.P.(C).No.17785 of 2012 are Community Colleges, who entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Indira Gandhi National Open University [IGNOU], [hereinafter referred to as "University"], for commencing and continuing Community Colleges under a specific scheme of the University. The approval for conducting various courses, being Certificate, Diploma and Associate Degree courses; having respective duration of 6 months, 1 year and 2 years; were granted to the 13 institutions, who are the petitioners. The approvals are produced as Exhibit P1 series in the writ petition.

2. It is the admitted position that the Community Colleges, which were so granted approval under the University, have been making admissions in January and June of every year, to the aforesaid courses. The petitioners, all of whom had started courses as per valid approvals in the year 2009-2010 WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 2 - onwards, were aggrieved with Exhibit P2 order issued by the University, impugned in the writ petition.

3. The Board of Management of the University resolved to have a complete review of the Community College Scheme and the Vice-Chancellor was authorised to constitute a review committee. By Exhibit P2 communication, the petitioners along with the other Principals of Community Colleges have been informed of the said decision and all actions directed to be kept in abeyance. Hence, there could have been no continuance of the course after that.

4. The petitioners having moved the above writ petition, was granted an interim order dated 01.08.2012, wherein this Court granted stay of Exhibit P2 insofar as the students already admitted were concerned; but, however, interdicted any further admissions. Subsequently, by interim orders dated 04.04.2013 and 09.04.2013, the respondent-University was directed to conduct examinations and also publish results as prayed for in the respective Interlocutory Applications. The interim order also directed grant of enrolment to the students already admitted.

WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 3 -

5. Later, a detailed interim order was passed by this Court dated 28.05.2013, wherein the following directions were issued:

"i. IGNOU shall conduct examination in respect of the students admitted to the colleges in the above writ petitions for the academic year 2012-13 and for the previous years as well.

ii. Fee, if any, in respect of conduct of examination shall be paid by the respective colleges on intimation from IGNOU.

iii. The entire process of examination should be conducted within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

iv. IGNOU shall intimate the petitioners the requirements for conduct of the examination, as early as possible, and the petitioners shall comply with the same diligently.

v. The result n respect of the examination shall be produced before this Court in a sealed cover".

6. The examinations as per the Community College Scheme have to be conducted by the Colleges themselves, with participation of a nominated member of the University. Hence, the petitioner-Colleges have conducted examinations and the results WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 4 - have to be transmitted to the University, who would then issue the certificates. The University has now come out with a final decision, on the review proposed by the Board in Exhibit P2, which is produced at Exhibit P35.

7. With respect to the Community College Scheme, Exhibit P35 considers the issue as item No.24. The University decided finally to discontinue the existing Community College Scheme and also contemplated introduction of a new scheme as per a separate statute. The existing Community College Scheme was found to be not strictly covered under the extant provisions of the statute. The University also decided to allow the students who were admitted upto January, 2012 to complete their programme studies. Hence, for all practical purposes the students admitted upto January 2012, whether to the award of Certificate, Diploma or Associate Degree programmes, ought to be continued and certificates issued in accordance with the earlier scheme, which was applicable as far as Community Colleges are concerned.

8. The difficulty expressed by the petitioners is, insofar as the students admitted in June, 2012 and continued pursuant to the interim orders of this Court. True, the students were admitted WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 5 - in June, 2012, on which month itself Exhibit P2 communication was received. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the admission process has to start prior to June, 2012 and, hence, the students who had applied were enrolled and admitted before Exhibit P2 order.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the University, however, would contend that on communication of Exhibit P2 decision of the Board of Management, the petitioner-Colleges ought to have discontinued such admissions immediately and in such circumstance it would have saved the heart-burn to students also, since they could have pursued other avenues on being told of the cancellation of the Community College Scheme. The petitioners having not done so, cannot claim continuance on grounds of entitlement of equity to students, is the contention. The learned Standing Counsel would also contend that the provisional decision communicated as per Exhibit P2 has been affirmed by the Review Committee, which also carefully took into account the difficulty that would be faced by the admissions prior to issuance of Exhibit P2 communication and, hence, directed continuance of the courses for admissions till January, 2012. WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 6 -

10. The respondent-University, which is one of the premier Universities providing Distance Education all over the country, had introduced the courses, inter alia, under a scheme of Community Colleges, to enhance literacy among the general public as also to ensure acquisition of higher qualification to the marginalised sections of the society, who were not able to so do for various reasons. True, there was a review of the implementation of the Scheme and the petitioner-Colleges were informed of the same immediately on such review being mooted and the Community Colleges who were approved earlier, were directed to abstain from taking any further action in the matter. The entire controversy arose only since the decision of the Board was communicated on the month of admission.

11. As was argued by the learned Standing Counsel, the Colleges had two options; one to discontinue the course as such and to send out the students at least, those who were admitted as on June, 2012. However, considering the fact that only a review was mooted in Exhibit P2 and the possibility of the continuance of Community Colleges, the petitioners had approached this Court, challenging the interdiction, before a final WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 7 - decision was taken. By Exhibit P3 even the fate of students, who had been admitted earlier, and whose courses were not over was not clear. The continuance of the students inter alia admitted in June, 2012 was also made by virtue of the orders issued by this Court. The various interim orders issued by this Court, it is to be emphasised, was provisional and subject to the result of the writ petition.

12. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot find any irregularity or any arbitrariness in conducting a review much less interfere with a decision to change the entire structure of the Community College Scheme; as per Exhibit P35. An expert body's decision, especially in academic matters cannot be lightly interfered with, by this Court. But for the rather sudden and abrupt discontinuance of the scheme itself; nothing else is projected by the petitioners, to assail it. It is also to be noticed that the petitioners too could do little else; since this Court would not be equipped to look at the content and syllabus of the course or its conduct and decide upon whether the University should continue the course leading to award of certificates by the University; under the scheme. That would be an WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 8 - overreach of jurisdiction conferred on this Court. Though extra-ordinary, the nature of the powers under Article 226 is fettered by well established principles and hedged-in by long standing precedents, which would caution this Court from interfering with an academic body's decision, arrived at on an evaluation of an existing scheme and finding defects therein, that too after deliberations and also taking into account the hardship of those who were already admitted.

13. The petitioner-Colleges had not admitted students after June, 2012. The admissions in June, 2012 itself were continued only by reason of the interim orders issued by this Court. The decision to continue the students admitted upto January, 2012 was also taken only by Exhibit P35, and such students were also continued only by virtue of the interim orders of this Court. In such circumstance, it would be proper that the University consider a review of the case of the petitioner-institutions, insofar as the admissions made in June, 2012, especially since the University has decided to regularise the admissions upto January 2012 and the students admitted in June, 2012 were continued only by reason of the interim orders of this WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 9 - Court. It is of some significant import that the said review, if at all allowed, would only lead to the continuation of every course for another six months, since then the course which has the longest duration of two years started in June, 2012 would have concluded by now.

14. In the above circumstance, the University, on a representation being made by the petitioners herein, pointing out the students who were admitted in June, 2012, which number has to tally with the number specified by the petitioner-Colleges in page 5 of the writ petition, shall consider the matter sympathetically and bearing in mind the fact that the students who had been admitted are candidates who have spent considerable money as also time in the acquisition of a higher qualification. The petitioners shall approach the University within a period of one month from today, with a certified copy of this judgment as also a copy of the writ petition and the University or the appropriate authority under the University shall consider the same within three months thereafter.

15. Exhibits P2 and P35 are upheld. With respect to the students admitted till January, 2012, necessarily the same is WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 10 - governed by Exhibit P35, which has permitted continuance of such students and issuance of such certificates on results being transmitted by the petitioner-Colleges. The decision in Exhibit P35 would definitely be complied with by the University and no direction needs to be issued to that end. The consideration of the representation directed herein above shall be untrammelled by the observations made by this Court to uphold Exhibit P35, since what is expected is a sympathetic consideration, on equittable grounds.

W.P.(C).No.10908 of 2013

16. In view of the judgment passed in W.P.(C).

No.17785 of 2012, this writ petition can also be disposed of on the very same lines. Admittedly the petitioners herein are students of the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C).No.17785 of 2012, who were admitted to the Community College in April and May, 2012, i.e., admissions of June, 2012, just prior to the order of cancellation being issued. Hence, their case would be considered by the University as directed in W.P.(C).No.17785 of 2012.

WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 11 - W.P.(C).No.13386 of 2014

17. This writ petition is concerned with one of the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.17785 of 2012, who had admitted students under the Community College scheme in the year 2011 for three specific courses of Associate Degree Programme, being

(i) ADP in Computer Science, (ii) ADP in Business Administration (Retailing) and (iii) ADP in Commerce. The said courses have been sanctioned by the University, as is evidenced by Exhibit P24. As was noticed earlier, on the order dated 20.06.2012 being issued by the University, the Community College Scheme was kept in abeyance. Neither were there any admissions conducted subsequent to the said order, Admission of students made prior to such order, were allowed to be participated in the examinations by interim orders in the other writ petition. Again, now, it has been decided by the University to regularise the admissions upto January, 2012 as per order dated 15.06.2013, which was referred to earlier. The instant writ petition is concerned with 111 students who were admitted in the year 2011 and who finished their Associate Degree Programme in the year 2013.

WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 12 -

18. The examinations towards granting of an Associate Degree Programme are being conducted by the College itself, with one of the members nominated from the University; and the credits are transmitted to the University for grant of Associate Degrees. There is a system of upward mobility granted to such Associate Degree holders, facilitating continuance for one more year, subsequent to the acquisition of Associate Degree, at the end of which the University itself examines the candidates and grants a regular Graduate Degree.

19. The controversy in the above writ petition is with respect to such upward mobility. There is dispute with respect to whether the candidates had in fact 64 [sixty four] credits; which alone would facilitate an upward mobility. There is also dispute as to whether the programmes carried out in the petitioner-College, under the Associate Degree Programme were eligible for upward mobility. By virtue of an interim order, all the 111 students were participated in an examination, which was the term-end examination [TEE] of admissions of June, 2011.

20. The specific contention taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the University is that the students are not WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 13 - eligible to be so participated. The publication of their results would depend upon such eligibility criteria, since participation of the students in the term-end examination was by reason of the interim orders issued by this Court; which were provisional and subject to the result of the writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel specifically refers to paragraphs 2, 3, 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed, dated 03.09.2014.

"2) The students on behalf of whom the writ petition was filed belong to the associate studentship scheme under the community college system of IGNOU. They are expected to complete minimum two years of study and acquires 64 credits before they can join IGNOU under ODL mode for the third year to acquire the remaining 32 credits. In the instant case their two years of study would have come to an end only in June, 2013. However, IGNOU had already kept the community college scheme under abeyance after giving appropriate information to the Community College institutions in 2012 itself. Further the University has called for examinatioin data upto December, 2011 for releasing results of all the prior batches (the community college scheme having been kept in abeyance from 2012 onwards).

3. It is respectfully submitted that under the community college scheme the students do not automatically become eligible to join the third year of their WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 14 - study. They have to clear examinations conducted under the supervision of an examination committee in which the IGNOU nominee is an essential member. Without the concurrence of the IGNOU nominee and therefore is essntially invalid. In this scenario the students are not eligible for upward mobility to the third year of study. Under the Community College scheme upward mobility is applicable only for BA and B.Com programmes. However in the present case upward mobility has been claimed for programmes like BCA and BBARL with respect to a large number of students for which they were clearly not eligible and their attempt is to obtain favourable order misleading the Hon'ble Court.

xxx xxx xxx

11) With regard to averments in the writ petition that the 111 students of the Petitioner's Institution is entitled to appear for the term-end examination scheduled to commence on 2.6.2014, it is submitted that they are not eligible to attend the term-end examination. The e-mail sent on 17.4.2014 produced as Ext.P4 is not addressed to the petitioner institution. It does not include students enrolled through Community College Scheme. It is further made it clear in Ext.P4 that students enrolled in the University upto January 2012 session may only be allowed to submit the exam form. Therefore the petitioners are not eligible to attend the examination as sought for by them.

12) In Ext.P9 the petitioner had sent a communication WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 15 - to the IGNOU requesting to allow them to appear for the examination. It was replied to by Ext.P10. Ext.P10 is silent about the fact that 111 students for whom the permission was sought for to attend the examination are not eligible to attend the examination. It is a fact that, the said communication is only with regard to the delay in submitting the application for examination. The eligibility of the student was not considered at that time. Therefore such a communication was issued. Even though the students have allowed to write their examination under orders of this Hon'ble Court in the above writ petition, their results have not been published. Since they are not eligible to take part in the term-end examinations 2014. Their stream of study is different. The syllabus is different as also consequently the question papers are also different. All these would show that the petitioners are not eligible to attend the term-end examination".

21. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refers to the mark-list produced along with the reply affidavit as Exhibit P14 series and credits granted to each student, exhibited at Exhibit P15, to contend that all those students got 64 credits. The learned counsel also produced the extract of the Manual for Community Colleges 2011, along with I.A.No.14273 of 2014 to substantiate the contention that upward mobility is permissible in WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 16 - all the three courses which were conducted by the Community Colleges.

22. Specific reference has to be made to Exhibit P27, the relevant extract of the Manual. With respect to the scheme of vertical mobility from Associate Degree Programme to Three Year Degree Programme in IGNOU, the same is seen to have been approved in the meeting held on 15.11.2011. In item 3.5, the distinction with respect to the two degrees, respectively under the Associate Degree Programme and Bachelor Degree Programme is enumerated. An Associate Degree is a two-year tertiary education qualification which can be undertaken by dropouts from school or college; either after matriculation or even before that. The Associate Degree programme is categorised as a pathway leading to a related Bachelor Degree, meaning thereby that after acquisition of Associate Degree, a further one year programme along with qualification in the term-end examination would lead to conferment of a Graduate Degree.

23. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also specifically point to item 3.10, where programmes in which vertical mobility to three-year Degree has been permitted, specifically BA, WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 17 - B.Com., BTS, BSW, BCA, BTS and BIHM. Hence, there is no provision by which a ADP in Business Administration (Retailing) could lead to upward mobility and eventually result in a grant of Bachelor Degree. There is, hence, no three-year programme contemplated with respect to that particular subject.

24. However, though the counter affidavit declines such upward mobility even in ADP in Computer Science, the Manual specifically show otherwise. In such circumstance, definitely ADP in Computer Science and ADP in Commerce could have been provided with upward mobility to the additional one year, enabling acquisition of a Bachelor Degree.

25. As was noticed earlier, all admissions upto January, 2012 have been decided to be regularised by the University. The students who have been admitted to the Associate Degree Programme were of the year 2011. They are entitled to be continued for the Associate Degree Programme and on their having acquired the necessary eligibility, i.e., acquisition of 64 credits in the Associate Degree Programme, would also be entitled for upward mobility. On qualifying the term-end examinations of 2014, they would be eligible for conferment of WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 18 - graduate degree. Such examinations also have been conducted and participated in by all the 111 students, provisionally, by virtue of the interim orders of this Court.

26. The question now boils down to the consideration of the students who have continued the Associate Degree Programme, participated in the examinations, who acquired 64 credits. It is declared that the students who have undergone ADP in Computer Science and ADP in Commerce, going by the Manual of the University, are entitled to be participated in the term-end examinations leading to acquisition of Bachelor's Degree, provided they have obtained 64 credits in the Associate Degree programme. The said acquisition of 64 credits would be an issue which would have to be considered by the University, since this Court would not, under Article 226 of the Constitution, verify the mark-list and credit sheets. Definitely the consideration by the University with respect to the acquisition of 64 credits has to be as per the originally envisaged Community College Scheme.

27. The students who have completed the Associate Programme in Business Administration (Retailing) definitely cannot be granted the upward mobility and the appearance in the WP(C).No.17785 of 2012 - 19 - Term End Examination of 2014, by virtue of the interim orders of this Court, would be of no consequence, especially since their participation was provisional. With respect to the students who had completed ADP in Computer Science and ADP in Commerce, their credits shall be verified by the University and those students who are found eligible for upward mobility shall be granted the Degree, provided they have qualified in the term-end examinations. The results of the term-end examinations shall be published only with respect to those students whom the University finds eligible on a verification of their credits as per the originally envisaged Community College scheme. The same shall be considered and the results published within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

All the three writ petitions are disposed of as above. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.

Sd/-


                                           K.Vinod Chandran,
vku.                                             Judge

                                ( true copy )

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court