Gujarat High Court
Rai University vs Manish Nandumar Gupta on 24 April, 2019
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Anant S. Dave, Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 297 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21295 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 297 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 951 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13215 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 958 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4934 of 2018
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 955 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11537 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 952 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13665 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 954 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11541 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 956 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13413 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 953 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11540 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 957 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14024 of 2018
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 961 of 2019
In
Page 1 of 24
Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019
C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21310 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 959 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21491 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 962 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21304 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 960 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21308 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 964 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21306 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 966 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2057 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 970 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14601 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 972 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1504 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 968 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5257 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 973 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 94 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 967 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 87 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 969 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13889 of 2017
Page 2 of 24
Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019
C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 974 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1619 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 971 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13651 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 965 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 58 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 965 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 58 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 971 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13651 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 974 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1619 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 969 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13889 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 967 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 87 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 973 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 94 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 968 of 2019
Page 3 of 24
Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019
C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5257 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 972 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1504 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 970 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14601 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 966 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2057 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 964 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21306 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 960 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21308 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 962 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21304 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 959 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21491 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 961 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21310 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 957 of 2019
Page 4 of 24
Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019
C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14024 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 953 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11540 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 956 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13413 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 954 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11541 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 952 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13665 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 955 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11537 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 958 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4934 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 951 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13215 of 2017
==========================================================
RAI UNIVERSITY
Versus
MANISH NANDUMAR GUPTA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D.C. DAVE, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR UDAYAN P VYAS(1302) for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
Page 5 of 24
Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019
C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER
MS NISHA THAKORE & MR CHINTAN DAVE, ASST GOVERNMENT
PLEADERS(1) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MEHUL S SHAH, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR VISHAL S
AWTANI(7913) & MS. AISHVARYA GUPTA(8018) for the Respondent(s) No.
1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 24/04/2019
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. A University, professing to award Doctorate to aspirant Ph.D students and which has admitted 400 Ph.D students for its programme contrary to UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations of 2009') is before this Court in appeal. Notwithstanding the stipulation in the Regulations that there would be not more than 8 Ph.D students per one Supervisor, such a University admitted 400 students with supervisors who were not on the University's regular faculty. Being made aware that the Ph.D program that they were admitted to was not going to "educate" them, the students who were misled into seeking admission, sought refund of fees. The learned Single Judge allowed such petitions directing the University to refund fees. Aggrieved by these directions, Rai University is in appeal before us. The CAV judgement, common in case of all petitioners, dated 21.12.2018 is under challenge herein.
2. We have focused our attention to the facts in the lead Page 6 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No. 297 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 21295 of 2016. Such facts in a nutshell are as under:
2.1 The original petitioner - respondent in the appeal, pursuant to an advertisement, registered himself for admission in the Ph.D programme in the year 2013 for a two years course believing that the appellant University had necessary permissions for conducting the programme in compliance of the Regulations of 2009. The petitioner paid a fee of Rs.1,50,350/-. A Committee of Experts from the University Grants Commission (UGC) visited the University and after due inspection submitted a report categorically opining that the University has not been following the Regulations of 2009 and found certain shortfalls.
2.3 According to the petitioner, since it was crystal clear that the University had failed to abide by the Regulations of 2009, the degree awarded by such a University would not be valid and genuine, the petitioner claimed refund of fees.
Having failed to elicit a favourable response, the petitioner approached this Court in a writ seeking refund of fees.
2.4 The short ground on which the refund was sought was that since the course was not being conducted in accordance with Regulations of 2009 and in absence of qualified faculty and supervisors, the Ph.D programme was irregular. It was the case of the petitioner that the guide allotted was not a regular faculty of the University and therefore the petitioner felt duped and wanted a refund of fees. Extensive reliance was placed on the report of the Expert Committee of the UGC Page 7 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER which visited the University on 23rd and 24th October 2015. The report found that majority of the faculty was not qualified and that there is not a single qualified faculty to guide Ph.D students. Regulations of 2009 were extensively relied upon especially regulations no. 6 to 8, 12 & 13. We will refer to these regulations in the latter part of our judgement.
2.5 Replies and rejoinders were exchanged by the parties i.e. the original petitioner, the University and the UGC. Briefly put, the case of the University was as under:
(a) Since the University was a private University established under the Gujarat Private Universities (Amendment) Act, 2012, it was free to manage its own courses.
(b) That the petitioner's portrayal that the University is not complying with the Regulations of 2009 is misconceived. The Regulations came into force with effect from 01.06.2009 which nowhere clarified whether guides/supervisors for Ph.D/M.Phil were supposed to be on roll of the University or as external resource persons.
In absence of a negative covenant, the University had external guides/supervisors.
(c) It was only in 2015 that the Regulations clearly stipulated a regular faculty in the 2016 regulations. It was only with effect from 05.05.2016 that clause 6 of the regulations of 2016 specifically provided for a full time faculty.
Page 8 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER(d) Not a single external guide is appointed after 06.07.2015. The University is complying with the UGC regulations and therefore there is no case of refund.
2.6 The University Grants Commission has filed two replies before the learned Single Judge. It is their case as under:
(a) Rai University was given a grant under Section 3 of the Act and therefore it can award degrees as per Section 22 of the Act within its main campus only.
(b) There is no authority to open study centres or off campus centres.
(c) The UGC has not granted approval for opening a study centre at Ahmedabad and the Rai University could not have admitted students in its study center at Ahmedabad.
(d) The Rai University could not have admitted students prior to creation of required academic and physical infrastructure when there were specific findings of the UGC Expert Committee that out of various programmes only Ph.D programme had been found irregular and therefore had failed to clear a mandatory criteria.
(e) Even in 2016, the University had not submitted compliance about the observations and suggestions of AICTE nor had given details sought for by UGC.
(f) Failure to comply with UGC Regulations would lead to Page 9 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER awarding of Ph.D degrees which cannot be termed as valid degrees.
2.7 In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it was asserted that clear opinion of UGC suggested want of infrastructure and in absence of "faculty" it was not open to hide behind the lack of clarity in the Regulations of 2009.
2.8 Having considered these facts, the learned Single Judge allowed the petitions and awarded refund along with 9% interest and along with costs of Rs.10,000/-. While doing so, the learned Single Judge recorded his findings which are as under:
"25. It will be relevant to note that the respondent- University has admitted about 400 students for Ph.D. programme. As per Rule 51, there would not be more than 8 Ph.D. students and 5 M.Phil students could study under one supervisor. Supervisor was required to be in permanent employment of the University. As is clear from the stand of the respondent-University even in the year 2016, they were not having requisite number of supervisors and were yet in the process of recruiting permanent faculty. This could only be done after creation of required academic and physical infrastructure other facilities including Library, Laboratory and appointment of teaching and supporting staff as per norms and standards laid down by UGC and statutory council concerned. The UGC Expert Committee would visit the University within 3 months from the receipt of the information for spot assessment of infrastructure and other facilities available with the University, thereafter, report be prepared and sent it within 2 weeks. The University may respond to the report within a period of 2 weeks thereafter. After receipt of compliance report from the University, if any, were required to be placed before the Commission Page 10 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER for consideration. After approval of the commission, an approval letter is issued by the UGC to an effect that the University fulfills the criteria in terms of program, academic and physical infrastructure facilities, financial viability etc. as per the norms laid down from time to time by UGC and other statutory bodies. If it is found that private university has, even if getting an opportunity to do so, failed to comply with the provisions of UGC Regulations, pointed out by the UGC Expert Committee, Commission may pass an order prohibiting the University for offering any course for awarding degree or post degree / diploma as the case may be till the deficiencies is rectified.
26. It could be seen that respondent No.2 University has been restrained from various actions. That Expert Committee in number of inspection reports have found fault with the infrastructure facilities available to the students for Ph.D. courses. The University has failed to remove the deficiencies pointed out by the Expert Committee. The University was restrained to admit the students and impart the degrees. However, University thought it fit to continue with courses despite objections having been raised from time to time by Expert Committee of UGC. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-University, Mr.Shalin Mehta, has laid emphasis on the point that at no point of time, the University has been restrained from admitting the students and has been prohibited and it is never seen in the website being a barred university."
3. Mr. D.C. Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Udayan Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant - University has made the following submissions:
(A) The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the inspection carried out by the University on 23.10.2015 and 24.10.2015 was as per Regulations of 2009. There Page 11 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER was no specific mandate in such regulations to have an in-house employed faculty.
(B) There was no order passed by the UGC restraining the University from conferring degree of Ph.D. Failure to comply with the Regulations will at best entail cancellation of grant.
(C) Though the appellant University had 400 students pursuing Ph.D in the respective discipline, each supervisor did not have more number of students than prescribed under Regulations of 2009.
(D) By a separate compilation handed over, during the course of arguments it was pointed out that students who had been awarded Ph.D degree have been placed in government jobs.
(E) The petitioners were students who had been irregular in their attendance and had therefore no right to raise such frivolous arguments and claim refund of fees.
4. Mr. Mehul S. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Vishal S. Awtani, learned advocate for the respondents - students supported the findings of the learned Single Judge. He submitted as under:
(A) Admittedly, based on the inspection report, the University had no regular faculty and the breach of Regulations of 2009 were evident.Page 12 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER
(B) Letters of AICTE and UGC made it clear that the appellant University lacked basic faculty and therefore it was informed not to impart degrees unless the mandate of the Regulations of 2009 were complied with. Till July 2016 there was no compliance.
(C) The absence of a clarification in 2009 Regulations did not absolve the University from having a regular faculty. The interpretation of the University that since the 2009 Regulations did not specify "faculty" to mean "a regular employed" faculty was misconceived. The regulations nowhere permitted Universities to allot external faculties as guide.
5. Having heard Mr. Dhaval C Dave, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Udayan Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mehul Shah, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Vishal Awtani and Ms. Aishwarya Gupta, learned advocates for the respondents no. 1 - original petitioners, Mr. Khare, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - UGC and Ms. Nisha Thakore & Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the State, before we embark in assessment of facts, what emerges is that Rai University came to be established in Gujarat by a notification dated 11.04.2012. It was established as a private university. Though it was a private university, the power to award degrees was under Section 22 of the UGC Act. UGC had in place the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure For Awards of M.Phil/Ph.d Degree) Regulations, 2009 of which regulations no. 6, 7, 8 and 12 read as under:
Page 13 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER"ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR M.PHIL/PH.D
6. All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities and Colleges/Institutions of National Importance shall lay down the criteria for the faculty to be recognized as Research Supervisor both for M.Phil and Ph.D Programmes.
7. All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities and Colleges/Institutions of National Importance shall lay down and decide on annual basis, a predetermined and manageable number of M.Phil and doctoral students depending on the number of the available Faculty Supervisors. A Supervisor shall not have, at any given point of time, more than eight Ph.D Scholars and Five M.Phil Scholars.
8. The number of seats for M.Phil and Ph.D shall be decided well in advance and notified in the University website or advertisement. All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities and Colleges/Institutions of National Importance shall widely advertise the number of available seats for M.Phil/Ph.D studies and conduct admission on regular basis.
ALLOCATION OF SUPERVISOR
12. The allocation of the supervisor for a selected student shall be decided by the Department in a formal manner depending on the number of student per faculty member, the available specialization among the faculty supervisors, and the research interest of the student as indicated during interview by the student. The allotment/allocation of supervisor shall not be left to the individual student or teacher.
5.1 In the year 2016 i.e. on 05.05.2016, the UGC had issued a notification called the "University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure For Awards of M.Phil/Ph.d Degree) Regulations, 2016 wherein regulation no. 6 specifically provided that only a full time regular teacher Page 14 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER can act as a supervisor and that external supervisors are not allowed. The UGC in its letter dated 19.11.2012 to the Registrar of Rai University informed the University that merely because the name of the University is in the list maintained by the UGC that by itself does not allow the University to make admissions in its programmes. The letter clearly stated that it may be done only after creation of required academic and physical infrastructure facilities as per norms and standards laid down by UGC. The letter dated 19.11.2012 addressed by the Joint Secretary, UGC to the Registrar of the University reads as under:
"F.No. 8-11/2012 (CPP-I/PU) The Registrar 19 Nov 2012 Rai University Saroda Post Dholka Taluka, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382260.
Subject : Establishment of Rai University, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) Sir, With reference to your letter No. Nil dated 11.05.2012 of the subject cited above, I am directed to inform you that the UGC has received the Act No. (12 of 2012) of the State Legislature of Gujarat wherein Rai University, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) has been established vide Notification No. GH/SH/8/GPU/2012/25/kh-1 dated 02.05.2012. In view of the establishment of the Rai University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat by the State Act, the name of the University has been included in the list maintained by the UGC on its website www.ugc.ac.in.
2. The inclusion of the name of the University in the list of Universities maintained by the UGC does not by itself allow the University to make Page 15 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER admissions in its programmes. This may be done only after creation of required academic and physical infrastructure facilities, including library, laboratories and appointment of teaching and supporting staff as per the norms and standards laid down by the UGC and Statutory Council(s) concerned.
3. The University is now requested to submit detailed information in the enclosed format (Annexure-1) (soft copy as well as hard copy) along with supporting documents duly attested by the Registrar of the University within a period of 3 months from the receipt of this letter.
4. After receipt of the information in the above mentioned format, the following procedure would be adopted by the UGC for inspection of the University.
(a) The information received from the University in the prescribed format would be posted on the UGC website within 10 days of the receipt of the information (Annexure-1) shall also be posted by the University on its website immediately. The comments received from the general public would be placed before the visiting UGC Expert Committee for perusal.
(b) An Expert Committee would be constituted by the UGC to ascertain whether the University fulfills the criteria in terms of programmes, faculty, infrastructural facilities, financial viability, etc. as laid down from time to time by the UGC and other concerned statutory bodies such as AICTE, BCI, MCI, DCI, INC, NCTE, PCI etc.
(c) The UGC Expert Committee would visit the University within 3 months of the receipt of the information (Annexure-1) for on the spot assessment of infrastructure and other facilities available with the University. The report prepared by the UGC Expert Committee would be sent to the University within 2 weeks of the completion of the visit for comments.
(d) The University may respond to the report within a period of two weeks after its receipt. After receipt of comments from the University, the report and comments from the University, if any, would be placed before the Commission for consideration.Page 16 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER
(e) The Commission shall take final decision in the matter. It may require the University to submit a compliance report in respect of the observations/suggestions of the UGC Expert Committee. The compliance report submitted by the University shall be placed before the Commission for consideration.
(f) On approval of the Commission, an Approval Letter would be issued by the UGC to the effect that the University fulfills the criteria in terms of programmes, faculty, infrastructural facilities, financial viability etc as laid down from time to time by the UGC and other concerned statutory bodies.
(g) It is found that the Private University has even after getting an opportunity to do so failed to comply with the provisions of the various UGC Regulations including UGC (Establishment of and maintenance of standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 and suggestions given by the UGC Expert Committee, the Commission may pass an order prohibiting the University from offering any course for the award of the degree and/or the post-graduate degree/diploma, as the case may be, till the deficiency is rectified.
(h) The UGC may also take necessary action against a University awarding a first degree and/or a post-graduate degree, which are not specified by the UGC and inform the public in general through a public notification.
5. As per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal vs. State of Chhattisgarh, there is no provision ot have Regional Centres/off-campus centres beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State. In view of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court, the University is requested to adhere to the following:-
(i) No off-campus centre(s) is opened by the University outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Prof. Yashpal vs. State of Chhattisgarh.
(ii) In case the University has already started any off campus centre outside the State, it must be closed down immediately. It may also be ensured that any off campus centre within the State shall be Page 17 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER opened only as per the provision laid down in the UGC (Establishment of and maintenance of standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 and with the prior approval of UGC.
(iii) The University shall not have any affiliated Colleges.
(iv) The University has to follow UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure For Awards of M.Phil/Ph.d Degree) Regulations, 2009.
6. The University is required to follow the UGC (Establishment of and maintenance of standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 and other regularations issued from time to time and posted on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in."
5.2 The UGC thereafter carried out inspection on 23.10.2015 and 24.10.2015 and found shortfalls which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"(i) There is not a single qualified faculty to guide Ph.D students
(ii) The University has engaged/registered faculty from outside University as Ph.D main supervisors; and
(iii) The ordinance for admission and supervision of Ph.D is not in accordance with University Grants Commission regulations."
5.3 The UGC, therefore, recommended as under:
"(i) Respondent University should not register Ph.D students in absence of qualified faculty and Supervisors;
(ii) Adequate environment and facilities be created for carrying
(iii) Existing Ph.D programme is irregular and be reviewed in the light of the University Grants Commission Regulations"
5.5 Even the AICTE wrote a letter dated 27.11.2015 to the Page 18 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER UGC regarding its observations. The letter reads as under:
" F.No. 3-82/AICTE (UB)/
Nomination-Pvt.Uni/The
Rai University/Uni/2015
Dated: 23.11.2015
To,
The Secretary
University Grants Commission
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110002.
Subject : Visit Report of AICTE Committee for visit to The Rai University, Saroda, Dholka Taluka, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382260- reg Sir, This has reference to letter D.O. No. F.8-11/2012 (CPP-1/PU) dated 1st April, 2015 from Dr. Jitendra K. Tripathi, Joint Secretary, UGC for deputing a nominee of the Council on the UGC committee of expert visiting The Rai University, Saroda, Dholka Taluka, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382260, established vide Gujarat Government Notification No. GH/SH/8/GPU/2012/25/kh-1 dated 02.05.2012 and Gazetted on 11th April, 2012 (Gujarat Act No. 12 of 2012) as a Private University.
In compliance to the directions of the MHRD letter F-1-31/2006/TS-II dated 07.03.2007 and further clarification issued vide letters ref. No 1- 31/2006/TS-II dated 26.5.2011 and an Office Memorandum ref. 1-31/2006/TS-II dated 9th May, 2013, the comments, observations and recommendations of the AICTE committee are hereby forwarded to incorporate in the UGC committee making recommendations to the MHRD.
The Expert Visiting Committee has not recommended the case, however, the specific and general observations for proposed The Rai University, Saroda, Dholka Taluka, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382260:-
Page 19 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER1. Gross shortfall in faculty at all the levels i.e. Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor.
2. Shortfall in the area of university for Physics, Chemistry and Mechanics & Kinematics laboratories and tutorial room is not available.
3. Specific area for technical courses and administrative work has not been earmarked/identified as printers.
4. Shortfall in computer facilities in terms of computer terminals, license software and peripherals/printers.
5. Gross shortfall in the title of books, volume of books and journals/e-journals in the library.
6. Barrier free environment for disabled and elderly persons is not available.
7. Needs academic and good governance parameters in the University.
In the light of the above mentioned observations & recommendations of the committee, AICTE is of the view that the recognition should not be granted at this stage to the The Rai University, Saroda, Dholka Taluka, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382260.
Kindly find enclosed the visit report along with recommendations of AICTE Committee having 21 pages with additional pages of Annexure for further needful action. It will be appreciated, the copy of the further decision of UGC in the regards of above University reorganization, communicated to AICTE.
Yours Sincerely, sd/-
(M.S. Manna) Director (UB)"
5.6 UGC in its two affidavits has gone on record that it was mandatory of the appellant University to follow the Regulations of 2009. Even in the compliance report, it was an Page 20 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER admitted fact that in December 2015, the University was informed that it should have faculty strength on the basis of intake capacity and not on the basis of actual student strength. The University admitted that it will be only by July 2016 that they will be having all the required number of Ph.D supervisors in the University. Clarifications issued by the UGC on 06.07.2015 and 04.09.2015 regarding compliance of the Regulations of 2009 are on record. Relevant extracts thereof read as under:
"Extract from clarification dated 06.07.2015 :
'It has come to the notice of the UGC that some Universities are hiring the services of the Supervisors who do not happen to be the regular teachers of the Universities or its affiliated Colleges/Institutes awarding the M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree. This practice is in violation of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure For Awards of M.Phil/Ph.d Degree) Regulations, 2009 .
The following clarification is, therefore, issued in this regard:
"Universities shall allocate the supervisor from amongst the regular faculty members in a department or its affiliated PG Colleges/Institutes depending on the number of students per faculty member, the available specialization among the faculty supervisors and the research interest of the student. It is further clarified that any Ph.D/M.Phil degree awarded by a University or its affiliated PG Colleges/Institutes would be in violation of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure For Awards of M.Phil/Ph.d Degree) Regulations, 2009."
This may also be brought to the ntoice of the Colleges/Research Institutions affiliated to your University. Any violation of the Regulation of the UGC will be viewed very seriously by the UGC.' Page 21 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER Extract from clarification dated 04.09.2015:
'It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission that some Universities are circumventing the provisions of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure For Awards of M.Phil/Ph.d Degree) Regulations, 2009 by utilising the services of Adjunct Faculty as Supervisors. It is reiterated for the information of the Universities that only regular faculty (not Adjunct Faculty) can be appointed as Research Supervisors. This has already been reiterated in the earlier letter of even number dated 6th July, 2015.
In case of any aberration by the University, it will be proceeded against as per the UGC Act, 1956 and the name of the University will be put in the defaulters list on the UGC website.'"
6. Considering the papers, the pleadings of the petition, reply of the University and the UGC and the rejoinders filed, it is clear that :
(I) The University though a private university, its curriculla etc were governed under the provisions of the UGC Act and the Regulations.
(II) Regulations of 2009 provide that there was an eligibility criteria for M.Phil/Ph.D supervisor. It was incumbent to lay down and decide on an annual basis, a predetermined and manageable number of M.Phil and doctoral students depending on the number of the available eligible faculty supervisors. A supervisor at any given point of time will not have more than 8 Ph.D scholars and five M.Phil scholars.
(III) The UGC had issued clarifications on 06.07.2015 which we have reproduced hereinabove that the University shall allocate the supervisors from the Page 22 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER regular faculty. Any Ph.D degree awarded by the University under the supervision of a Supervisor who is not a faculty member of the University or its affiliated PG Colleges would be in violation of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure For Awards of M.Phil/Ph.d Degree) Regulations, 2009. Mr. Dave's contention therefore about the absence of a positive mandate to avoid the disqualification can therefore not be accepted. (IV) The University when inspected in October 2015 was found to be lacking in the faculty and had 400 students for Ph.D. This was obviously more than the predetermined and manageable standards and also the faculty was not an employed faculty but an outsider. The Ph.D degree awarded at the hands of such a supervisor was no degree in the eye of law.
(V) Letters of AICTE and the UGC are enough to suggest that the University had started enrolling students for Ph.D/M.Phil contrary to the prescribed Regulations of 2009. The University had also been so informed and admittedly till July 2016 did the University have some in-house faculty.
(VI) Based on these circumstances, no fault can be found from the students who found that the University lacked basic academic and infrastructural facilities and therefore they had no option to seek refund of fees. The Ph.D degree that they would have been awarded was to be an unrecognised one therefore making it inevitable for them not to pursue their Ph.D Doctoral pursuits any further. The only option available to them therefore was to seek refund of their fees.
(VII) Merely because some students have secured Page 23 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019 C/LPA/297/2019 ORDER placements in government would not justify the University's stand that their non-compliance of the Regulations of 2009 notwithstanding should absolve them of their misdeeds.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeals calling for interference in the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeals are therefore dismissed. Civil Applications are also disposed of accordingly.
(ANANT S. DAVE, ACJ) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) DIVYA Page 24 of 24 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 25 00:28:07 IST 2019