Telangana High Court
B.Sai Kiran vs The State Of Telangana on 17 August, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION No.3006 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard Mr. P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. Megha Rani Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mrs. P. Sarada, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7.
2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in not recognizing the Graduation Courses i.e., B.Sc., B.A., and B.Com., of the petitioners as awarded by respondent No.4 University through distance mode as illegal, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to treat the Graduation Courses / Bachelors Degree obtained by the petitioners as valid for all purposes including for admissions into Higher Education and employment purposes.
3. FACTS OF THE CASE:
i) The petitioners herein are claiming that they had completed their Graduation Courses through distance education mode offered by respondent No.4 - The Acharya Nagarjuna University. 2
KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021
ii) Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 5 had completed B.Sc., Course during the academic years 2016-18; 2015-17 and 2017-19 respectively, while petitioner No.3 had completed B.A., Course during the academic year 2017-19 and petitioner No.4 had completed B.Com., Course during the academic year 2018-20. They have completed their aforesaid Graduation Courses through Distance Education Mode offered by respondent No.4 herein.
iii) All the petitioners herein had appeared for the Entrance Examination to pursue Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.,) and Bachelor of Physical Education (B.P.Ed.,) Courses. They secured ranks in the State Level Examination.
iv) As the petitioners are qualified in the Graduation Courses and secured ranks in the said Entrance Examination, they appeared and participated in the counseling process. They were not allotted a seat in B.Ed., and B.P.Ed., Courses on the ground that they had completed their Graduation Courses through a University outside the State. Therefore, they are not eligible to pursue the said Courses.
4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
i) Mr. P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the action of the respondents in not 3 KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021 treating the petitioners' aforesaid Graduation Courses obtained by them from respondent No.4 University is illegal.
ii) He would submit that petitioner No.2 herein had completed her graduation course (B.Sc.,) through distance mode during the academic year 2015-17 i.e., after bifurcation of the State and had appeared for the Post Graduation Entrance Examination. She secured a rank in the said entrance and participated in PGCET counseling process in which she was allotted a seat by the Convenor.
Accordingly, she joined in M.Sc., (Physics) Course in Sri Venkateswara College under Convenor Quota. She had successfully completed her course during the academic year 2018-20 and a Post- Graduation Degree was awarded by Mahatma Gandhi University based on the very same qualification obtained from the Acharya Nagarjuna University i.e., respondent No.4 herein through distance mode. Even then, the respondents are not allotting a seat to petitioner No.2 in B.Ed., Course.
iii) Referring to Section - 95 of Part XI of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, learned counsel would submit that the action of the respondents in refusing to allot a seat is wholly illegal. 4
KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021 The said provision enables the students to pursue Higher Education and it is applicable to both the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. Even then, the respondents have denied the admission to the petitioners herein.
5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.2 & 3:
i) Mrs. Megha Rani Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, referring to various provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; proceedings issued by respondent No.2 and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chattisgarh1, would submit that Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the Legislature of the State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State.
ii) She would further submit that the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017, were notified on 23.06.2017, and subsequently the process for granting recognitions to Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) for offering programmes through Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode was 1 . (2005) 5 SCC 420 5 KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021 undertaken by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Under the said Regulations, programme-wise recognition was accorded to the HEIs for 2018-19 to 2019-20.
iii) She would also submit that UGC had also notified UGC (ODL Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 in the Gazettee of India on 04.12.2020 and amended vide Notification dated 01.07.2021. Respondent No.4 University being a State University can operate within its State only. The said University is not authorized to open Centre / Off Campus Centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal1. UGC had issued a public notice dated 27.06.2013 on territorial jurisdiction of universities and other matters related to distance education. The UGC had not granted any approval to the university to open off-campus / study centre anywhere.
iv) Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners herein had completed their Degree Courses through respondent No.4 University through Distance Education Mode cannot seek admission in B.Ed., and B.P.Ed., Courses in the State of Telangana, as the said Courses are not recognized in the State of Telangana. Therefore, the 6 KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021 petitioners without knowing the said aspects filed the present writ petition.
6. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.5 to 7:
i) Mrs. P. Sarada, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7, would submit that after bifurcation of the State, respondent No.2 - UGC had addressed a letter dated 08.09.2015 to respondent No.4 University reiterating its stand taken vide Notification dated 27.06.2013. Vide the said notification, respondent No.2 had clarified that a University established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory of the State of its location. The programmes in distance mode will not be offered through franchising arrangement and/or through any private institution/college.
ii) He would further submit that the Telangana State Council of Higher Education has been following the said Notification issued by the UGC dated 27.06.2013. The UGC had formulated territorial jurisdiction policy in compliance of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal1. As per the public notice, dated 7 KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021 27.06.2013 and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal1, as the Degrees awarded by the University through ODL mode from the study centres located in other States beyond territorial jurisdiction, the Degrees obtained by the petitioners through distance mode were not recognized. Therefore, their degrees were not considered for admission into B.Ed., and B.P.Ed., Courses.
7. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
i) From the above stated facts and submissions, there is no dispute that the petitioners herein had completed their respective Degrees, through Distance Education Mode offered by respondent No.4 University.
ii) In Prof. Yashpal1, the Apex Court held that that in view of Article 245 (1) of the Constitution of India, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the Legislature of the State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. It further held that Universities are not authorized to open study centre / off campus centres beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the University. Pursuant to the said judgment, the UGC had formulated territorial jurisdiction policy. It 8 KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021 had issued public notice dated 27.06.2013 clarifying that a University established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory of the State of its location. It had also addressed a letter dated 08.09.2015 to respondent No.4 University stating that territorial jurisdiction in respect of respondent No.4 University for offering programmes through distance mode will be as per the policy of UGC on territorial jurisdiction and opening of off-
campuses / centres / study centres as mentioned in UGC Notification dated 26.07.2013. The programmes in distance mode will not be offered through franchising arrangement and / or through any private institution / college. Therefore, respondent No.5 had been following the said guidelines and policy issued by the UGC. Vide the aforesaid notification, the UGC had clarified categorically on the territorial jurisdiction to be followed by all the Universities / Institutions including ODLI for awarding degrees through ODL Mode. A University established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory of the State of its location. The UGC had also clarified that it had not any permission to any 9 KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021 Private / Deemed Universities to establish Off-campus study centres and allowed to conduct courses in Distance Mode.
iii) It is also relevant to note that the UGC, a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, has been entrusted with the duty to take such steps as it may deem fit for the promotion and co-ordination of the University education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities. As per Section - 12 (d) of the UGC Act, 1956, the UGC has been vested with the power to recommend to any University the measures necessary for the improvement of University Education and advice the University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementation of such recommendations.
iv) It is relevant to note that the UGC is also authorized to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the UGC for advancing the cause of Higher Education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of its functions. The UGC has also power under Section - 26 of the UGC Act, 1956 to make regulations consistent with the Act for the said purposes. It is a core function of the UGC to see that teaching standards in Universities / Colleges do not get diluted. 10
KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021
v) It is also not in dispute that respondent No.4 herein is a State University. It was accorded post facto programme-wise recognition by the erstwhile Distance Education Council (DEC) for the academic year 1995 to 2007-08 to offer specific programmes. It was accorded provisional recognition for one year vide letter dated 31.08.2007 which was further continued vide letter dated 17.12.2009. The same was continued up to academic year 2017-18. It is also not in dispute that the UGC had notified UGC (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 vide Gazette, dated 04.12.2020 and the same was amended vide Notification, dated 01.07.2021. A list of Higher Educational Institutions including respondent No.4 with recognized programmes under Open and Distance Mode for the Academic Session beginning February - March, 2021 to 2024-January, 25.
vi) Respondent No.4 being the State University can operate within its State only. The University is not authorized to open Centre / Off-Campus Centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal1 and also as per the public notice dated 27.06.2013 issued by respondent No.2 - UGC. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 11 KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021 has been issuing instructions / guidelines after the judgment of the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal1. Respondent No.5 being the State Council for Higher Education has to necessarily follow the said guidelines / instructions issued by respondent No.2 by invoking its powers laid down under the UGC Act, 1956.
vii) It is also relevant to note that vide the aforesaid public notice dated 27.06.2013, respondent No.2 had advised the students not to take admission in the unapproved Study Centres, Off-Campus Centres, Franchisee Institutions, Colleges / Institutions claiming to be affiliated with Private Universities or Deemed Universities.
viii) It is relevant to note that Section - 95 of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 deals with 'equal opportunities for quality higher education to all students', which is extracted as under:
" In order to ensure equal opportunities for quality higher education to all students in the successor States, the existing admission quotas in all government or private, aided or unaided, institutions of higher, technical and medical education in so far as it is provided under article 371D of the Constitution, shall continue as such for a period of ten years during which the existing common admission process shall continue.12
KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021
ix) In view of the language employed in the said provision i.e., "existing admission quotas" the petitioners cannot take shelter under the said provision.
8. CONCLUSION:
i) Thus, as discussed above, it is not in dispute that all the petitioners had completed their Degree Courses through Distance Education Mode from respondent No.4 University, which is located in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal1, territorial jurisdiction policy / public notice dated 27.06.2013 issued by respondent No.2 and the subsequent proceedings, the petitioners cannot contend that their Degrees have to be treated as valid for the purpose of seeking admission into Higher Education Courses including B.Ed., and B.P.Ed., and Employment purposes in the State of Telangana.
Therefore, they cannot seek a direction to respondent Nos.6 and 7 to permit them to participate in the Counselling Process for the purpose of admission into B.Ed., and B.P.Ed., Courses. The petitioners are not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought in the present writ petition. Thus, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13
KL,J W.P. No.3006 of 2021
ii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
iii) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 17th August, 2022 Mgr