Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Prem Chand And Others on 3 March, 2020
Bench: Ravi Shanker Jha, Arun Palli
RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260-
260-2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RA-
RA-LP-
LP-30-
30-2019 in
LPA-
LPA-260-
260-2019
Date of Decision: March 03, 2020
State of Haryana and another
... Appellants
Versus
Prem Chand and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Hooda, Advocate, for the applicants-respondents no. 1,3, 5 & 7.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Ravi Shanker Jha, Chief JJustice ustice (Oral) Heard on RA-LP-30-2019 seeking review of the judgment dated 05.08.2019 passed by this Court in LPA-260-2019.
The review applicants are students, who had obtained a degree under the Distance Education Programme from Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University. The Supreme Court, in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. Vs Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 468, held that such Distance Education Programmes that were started by the Universities without the approval of UGC/AICTE, were unauthorized and illegal and accordingly, issued the following directions:
"66. Accordingly, we direct:
1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 ::: RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260- 260-2019 -2- 66.1. The 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.
66.2. Insofar as candidates enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their authorities concerned are set aside.
66.3. Consequent to aforesaid Direction II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by deemed to be universities concerned stand suspended.
66.4. AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test(s) as indicated in para 58 above. The option be given to the students concerned whose degrees stand suspended by 15-1-2018 to appear at the test(s) to be conducted in accordance with the directions in para 58 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test(s) and if they do not successfully clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in paras 57 and 58 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018.
66.5. 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 58.
66.6. If the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully.
2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 ::: RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260- 260-2019 -3- 66.7. As regards students who were admitted after the academic sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the deemed to be universities concerned through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in para 59 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the deemed to be universities concerned towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-5-2018, as indicated in para
59. 66.8. By 31-5-2018 all the deemed to be universities concerned shall refund the sums indicated above in para 66.7 and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter.
66.9. We direct CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the officials concerned who dealt with the matters and went about granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in para 60 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.
66.10. 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 30-6-2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above, are not refunded to the students concerned, that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise.
66.11. 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 statutory/ 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 ::: RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260- 260-2019 -4- regulatory authorities concerned in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus centres/study centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the statutory authorities concerned. The approvals have to be course specific.
66.12. 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.
66.13. The Union of India may constitute a three-member 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 31-8-2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11-9-2018."
In terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the qualifying examination was conducted by the All India Council for Technical Education in which the review applicants participated and passed. Thereafter, as benefit of clearing the said examination was not granted, they approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as CWP-11789-2010 and ultimately, the said writ petition was allowed by a judgment and order dated 08.08.2018.
4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 ::: RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260- 260-2019 -5- The appellants-respondents filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of this Court and this Court, while taking note of the fact that there was no assertion or averment to the effect that the review applicants were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001 to 2005, held that they were not entitled to any benefit of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra).
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed setting aside the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge.
The applicants have now filed the present application for review, placing on record the documents to establish and assert that applicants, in fact, obtained admission in the Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University on 30.08.2005. It is submitted that as this objection or issue was not raised by the appellants/non-applicants either before the learned Single Bench or before the Division Bench, therefore, these documents were not placed before the Court either during the hearing of the writ petition or the LPA. It is asserted that in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) in paragraph Nos. 27, 57, 63 to 66, for the review applicants had obtained admission between the Sessions 2001 to 2005, they are entitled to the benefit of availing a chance to pass the subsequent examination held by the All India Council for Technical Education 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 ::: RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260- 260-2019 -6- and to avail the benefit of the degree obtained by them from the Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University.
The learned senior counsel for the review applicants submits that this is an apparent error that has crept into the order passed by the Division Bench in LPA as the factual foundation on the basis of which the LPA was allowed, was neither examined nor considered and it was observed that the review applicants had not obtained admission during the Sessions 2001 to 2005. Further, as the review applicants had obtained admission between 2001 to 2005, the order passed by the Division Bench is required to be reviewed and the necessary benefit be granted to the applicants.
Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the non-applicants/appellants, per contra, submits that from a bare perusal of paragraph no. 52 of the order passed in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra), it is evident that the benefit of one time chance to pass the examination and validate the degree was granted only to those students who were enrolled during the academic Sessions 2001 to 2005, whereas the degrees obtained after academic Sessions 2001 to 2005 were annulled. He has placed before this Court a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Vinit Garg and others Vs University Grants Commission and others, 2019(11) Scale 658:
2019(4) S.C.T. 245, vide which confusion, if any, in this regard
6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 ::: RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260- 260-2019 -7- has since been removed by the Supreme Court itself. He has taken this Court through paragraph Nos. 16 to 18 of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Vinit Garg and others (supra) to contend that the Supreme Court rather clarified that benefit of availing one chance to pass an examination and validate the degree was granted only to those students who had enrolled themselves upto the academic year 2004-2005 and any student who had obtained admission after the academic year 2004-05, even if such admission or enrolment was in the year 2005 itself, the benefit of the decision in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) could not be claimed and/or granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
The controversy raised by the review applicants as to how those students, who were admitted in the year 2005 i.e. on 30.08.2005 as is the case of the review applicants before this Court, could be entitled to the benefit of the decision in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) by treating them to be students enrolled in the academic year 2004-05, was clearly Vinit answered by the Supreme Court in Vinit Garg and others (supra) and paragraph Nos. 16 to 18 read as under:-
Limited-
"16. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, the Court also made a distinction between students who had taken admission in deemed to be universities offering technical degrees tthrough hrough distance learning in the academic years 2001 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 ::: RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260- 260-2019 -8- 2005- to 2005 and 2005- 2006 onwards. The reason for distinction ex-
was paragraph 5 of the 2004 Guidelines and ex-post facto approvals granted by the UGC and DEC to deemed to be technical universities that had offered technical degrees in the 2001- academic years 2001-2005. It was held that the said exercise ex-
of grant of ex-post facto approvals was completely uncalled for and contrary to law and illegal. Accordingly, the ex post facto approvals were set aside with the consequential directions to recall all the engineering degrees granted pursuant to the said approvals. However, conscious that the ex post facto approvals were in terms of paragraph 5 of the 2004 Guidelines, while suspending the degrees awarded to students who had been enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005, the Court had given these students an opportunity to appear and clear such examination under AICTE-
joint supervision of the AICTE-UGC. It was observed:
"57. [T]he matter is required to be considered with some ssympathy ympathy so that interest of those students who 2001- were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001 -2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universities flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned students persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-
ex post-
-post approval.
-facto app roval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be assurance confidence and assuran ce about the worthiness of the concerned students. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore, direct that Engineering all the degrees in Enginee ring granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such AICTE-
examination under the joint supervision of AICTE -UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basbasis is of that degree shall also stand suspended."
8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 ::: RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260- 260-2019 -9- The aforesaid directions were not in respect of any engineering degree granted by deemed to be universities to candidates admitted/enrolled post the academic year 2004- 2004- 2005. Grant of any degree for students enrolled post the 2004- academic year 2004-2005 was held as contrary to law and illegal, and could not be treated as regular and at par with the regular degrees. Therefore, paragraph 49 would not be of any avail to the petitioners.
17. We would also refer to tthe he second round of litigation as applications were filed seeking clarification and modification of the directions in Orissa Lift Irrigation Limited-
Corporation Limited-I. The decision dated 22nd January, 2018 in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 2 SCC 298 (hereinafter referred to Limited-
as 'Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-II') had decided several applications of diploma holders who had enrolled for engineering or B.Tech. degree in deemed to be through universities through distance learning mode. One of the contentions raised in the applications was that the deemed to be universities awarding engineering degrees through distance learning mode in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-
Limited-I were not institutes of excellence in the field of engineering and, thus, there would be a distinction between engineering degrees awarded through distance education mode by deemed to be universities declared as institutions of excellence and the degrees awarded by other deemed to be universities.
universities. This contention was (2018) 2 SCC 298 squarely rejected by referring to the fact that engineering degrees through distance education mode awarded by Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation in Orissa Lift Irrigation Limited-
Corporation Limited also
-I had been also declared to be invalid, though the said institution in its field of activity and excellence included the subject of engineering. Dealing with other contentions raised by the applicants, the Court in Limited-
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-II held as under:
9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 ::: RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260-
260-2019 10- -10- "25. 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 levels and that their ability was tested at various levels and as such requirement of passing the examination in terms of the judgment be dispensed within their case. We cannot make any such exception. The infirmity in their degrees is basis and fundamental and cannot be wished away. At the same time, we some find so me force in their submission that if the suspension of their degrees and all advantages were to apply as indicated in the judgment, the candidates concerned 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."
one-
The Court, therefore, granting a one-time relaxation to the candidates who had enrolled themselves during the academic 2001- years 2001-2005, held that candidates would, in terms of the Irrigation judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited I, be eligible to appear for the test conducted by the AICTE.
18. Given the aforesaid ratio, we reject the plea that the petitioners are entitled to relief as was granted to the Corporation petitioners in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited I and II. This contention is unacceptable for the reason that in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited I and II, no relief was granted to the candidates who had taken admission one-
in 2005 or thereafter. Relief in the form of one-time relaxation vide examination to be conducted by the AICTE was granted to those candidates/students who had taken admission 2004- in academic years beginning from 2001 and till 2004-2005."
From a perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is evident that the Supreme Court has clarified the fact that no relief could be granted to a candidate who had taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. For the relief granted in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) was confined and limited to candidates/students who had taken admission in the academic 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 ::: RA-
RA LP-
-LP 30-
-30-2019 in LPA-
LPA-260-
260-2019 11-
-11-
year beginning from 2001 till 2004-2005. Apparently and
undisputedly, academic year 2004-05 would not include those students, who had obtained admissions in August, 2005. For those were admitted in the academic session 2005-06 and not 2004-05.
In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court in Vinit Garg and others (supra) as well as in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra), we do not find any error, least an error apparent on the face of record, warranting interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the present review application is dismissed.
(Ravi Shanker Jha)
Chief Justice
March 03, 2020 (Arun Palli)
vkd Judge
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 22-03-2020 04:50:54 :::