Himachal Pradesh High Court
Maheshwar Singh vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 30 May, 2018
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2920/2016 Decided on: 30.5.2018 .
Maheshwar Singh ...... Petitioner
Vs.
State of H.P. and ors. ..... Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur and Mr. Sudhir
r Bhatnagar, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr.
Bhupinder Thakur, Dy.A.G. for
respondents No. 1 and 2.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan (oral)
The only question to be determined in this petition is as to whether the Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary Council could have refused to register the name of the petitioner as Veterinary Practitioner solely on the ground that the diploma obtained by him from Janardan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan (JRN) has not been recognized by the State Government after consulting the Himachal Pradesh Para Veterinary Council for providing employment.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 23:01:56 :::HCHP ...2...
2 Even though, the petition is vehemently opposed by the State on various grounds, but I find that the issue otherwise .
is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in CWP No.2216/2007, titled as Babu Ram and ors. vs. State of H.P. and ors., dated 25.9.2008 and thereafter reiterated by this Court in CWP No.1065/2011, titled as Dharmender Kumar vs. State of H.P. and ors., dated 11.9.2012.
3 Apart from above, I find that the issue otherwise stands conclusively determined by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and ors. (2018) 1 SCC 468.
4 A perusal of the decision in Rabi Sankar Patro's case (supra) would indicate that on the basis of a large number of complaints from individuals and organisations seeking clarification of study centers of deemed universities particularly those associated with (i) Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur (ii) Allahabad Agricultural Institute (Deemed University), Allahabad and (iii) Institute of Advanced Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir (IASE) (Deemed University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan, a notice/circular was issued by the University Grant Commission (UGC) on 9.8.2005, wherein it was pointed out that above three ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 23:01:56 :::HCHP ...3...
deemed Universities had not been permitted to affiliate a College/Institute and these Institutions had also not been .
allowed to conduct any course through Distance Education Study Centre so far, by the Distance Education Council (DEC)/UGC and the students were advised to keep these things in mind while getting admission in deemed to be Universities.
5 On 30.8.2005, a communication was addressed by the UGC to JRN, whereby it was informed that the DEC had not recognized the distance education programme being conducted by JRN and further sought certain other information from the JRN. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 27.10.2005 was issued by the UGC to JRN for non-adherence to UGC norms regarding study centres and an explanation was sought within 15 days failing which appropriate action could be taken by the UGC.
6 On 28.11.2005, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Grant of Approval for starting new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes and Extension of approval for the existing technical institutions and maintenance of norms and standards in ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 23:01:56 :::HCHP ...4...
Universities including Deemed to be Universities Regulations, 2005 was issued, which again provided for grant of approval.
.
7 On 5.1.2006 a circular was issued by the DEC stating that the programmes of JRN through distance mode were not approved by the DEC. On 1.2.2006 a letter was addressed by JRN to UGC undertaking to close its distance education programme but requesting UGC to grant one time specific approval insofar as existing students in the programmes which were currently in operation.
8 On 5.4.2006 a notification was issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India (MHRD) in exercise of powers vested in the Central Government under Section 20(1) of UGC Act and under Section 20(1) of AICTE Act clarifying the role of the UGC and AICTE in maintaining standards of education in institutions notified as deemed to be universities.
9 In the meeting held by the UGC on 11.6.2006, the application preferred by JRN for ex-post facto approval was considered and the Chairman was authorized to do the needful through appropriate mechanism. The Chairman, UGC accordingly constituted a two members Committee with Legal Consultant, UGC, as Special Invitee. This Committee held ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 23:01:56 :::HCHP ...5...
meeting in the UGC office on 30.6.2006 and interacted with representatives of JRN and thereafter took the following decision:
.
"After examining all the aspects regarding one time ex-
post-facto approval to Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur for the students admitted in various Degree courses under Distance Education Mode from 1st June, 2001 to 31st August, 2005 as also keeping in view the future of a large number of innocent students, the Committee recommended one-time ex-post-facto approval for the students admitted under the distance education mode by Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur in Degree Courses from 1st June, 2001 to 31st August, 2005 subject to strict compliance and fulfillment of the following conditions:
1. The one time approval will cover students admitted between 1st June, 2001 and 31st August, 2005 admitted in Degree courses under Distance Education Mode only subject to the condition that Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur shall ensure that it has permission of relevant Statutory Bodies or Councils wherever necessary and shall maintain the norms and standards laid down by the relevant Statutory Bodies and Councils.
2. Only such students shall be considered for regularization who fulfill the eligibility conditions, prevalent in other universities and prescribed by the statutory authorities for the courses they have been admitted. Non-eligible candidates shall be offered alternative courses according to their eligibility or the entire fee shall be refunded by the Vidyapeeth along with the compensation claimed......................."::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 23:01:56 :::HCHP
...6...
10 Thereafter, on 3.7.2006 the UGC granted one time ex-post facto approval in respect of courses conducted by .
distance education mode by JRN from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2005.
The conditions mentioned by the committee in its recommendations dated 30.6.2006 were incorporated in this communication.
11 Thus, it stands established on record that the UGC has already granted ex-post facto approval in respect of courses conducted by distance education mode by JRN from 1.6.2001 to 31.8.2005 and these facts have been noticed by this Court in its decisions referred hereinabove and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi Sankar Patro's case (supra).
12 Indubitably, the petitioner was admitted in the course in JRN in the year 2004 and passed the same in the year 2006 and is thus, protected by the decision taken by the UGC on 3.7.2006 because admittedly in terms of the decision of the UGC, one time ex-post facto approval was granted to JRN to cover the students admitted between 1st June, 2001 and 31st August, 2005 and this aspect of the matter stands already considered and decide by this Court in Babu Ram's case(supra), wherein it was observed as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 23:01:56 :::HCHP...7...
Prima facie, there appears to be substance in the arguments of Ms. Dua. The decisions of the UGC is absolutely clear that one time ex post facto approval was .
granted to cover the students admitted between 1st June, 2001 and 31st August, 2005. Obviously, the students who had been admitted just before 31st August, 2005 could not have obtained their diploma before the said date. They would have to wait for one year or two years to obtain the diplomas. This aspect seems to have escaped the attention of the respondents.13
order dated 30.7.2006
r to
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned (Annexure P-9) passed by the respondents cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to register the name of the petitioner as Veterinary Practitioner under Section 38(2) of Para Veterinary Council Act, 2010 as expeditiously as possible and not later than four weeks from today.
14 The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
May 30, 2018 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
(pankaj) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2018 23:01:56 :::HCHP