Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Jageshwar R Khapekar vs Central Scientific Instruments ... on 14 May, 2025
1- O.A. No. 1011/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.1011/2016
Pronounced on: 14.05.2025
Reserved on: 10.03.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Shri Jageshwar R Khapekar son of Sh. Ramchandra Namaji Khapekar
age 33 years working as Technical Assistant in the office of Central
Scientific Instruments Organization (CSIO) (Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research (CSIR)] Sector-30, Chandigarh (resident of C-5,
CSIO Colony, Sector: 30-A, Chandigarh.
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Rohit Seth
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology,
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Anusandhan Bhawan,
2 Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001
2. Central Scientific Instruments Organization (CSIO), [Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)] Sector-30, Chandigarh
3. CSIR-Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), [Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research (CSIR)] Adyar, Chennai-600020 through the
Director General.
4. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Nelson Mandela
Marg Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110067
5. University Grants Commission (UGC), Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New
Delhi- 110 002, India through the Chairman.
6. Karnataka State Open University (KSOU), Mysore through its
Registrar
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC for R-1
Sh. Vikas Kuthiala for R-2 and 3
Sh. Ajit Singh for Sh. Nitin Kaushal for Res. No. 4
Sh. Salil Sablok for R-5 through VC
2- O.A. No. 1011/2016
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
i). That Order dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure A-1) and letter dated 30.08.2016 along with AICTE letter dated 30.06.2016 and UGC letter dated 10.08.2016 which find mention in letter dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure A-1/A) and letter dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure A-9) be quashed and set-aside, in the interest of justice;
ii). That the respondent No. 3 be directed to accept the M.Tech. Degree in Computer Science obtained by the applicant from Karnataka State Open University, Mysore through Distance Mode (respondent No. 6) and carry out the required steps including issuance of offer of appointment to the applicant for the post of Scientist (S1407-ST) pursuant to his selection vide Selection Notification dated 25.05.2016 (Annexure A-7).
iii). That it be declared that Degrees etc awarded by the Karnataka State Open University (KSOU), Mysore, which is the State University formed under the State Act, does not need any approval from AICTE and/or UGC as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgement dated 24.09.2001 in Bharathidasan University case (A-24) and admitted by the AICTE vide Public Notice dated 2011 (A-25);
iv). That it be further declared that since the MHRD, Govt. of India, has already issued Notification dated 10.06.2015, 3- O.A. No. 1011/2016 published in Gazette of India on 25.07.2015 (A-20) recognising the Technical Education obtained through Distance Mode for the purpose of employment in Central Government Services and since the UGC has already recognised Degrees/ Diplomas/ Certificates awarded for programmes conducted by the Open and Distance learning (ODL) institutions, as equivalent to the corresponding awards off the Degree/ Diploma/ Certificate of the traditional Universities/institutions in the country, vide letter dated 28.07.1993 (A-14), dated 05.05.2004 (A-15), dated 14.10.2013 (A-16), placing reliance on UGC letter dated 10.08.2016 is arbitrary, illegal and misconceived;
2. The factual matrix of the case is that applicant joined on the post of Technical Assistant on 30.05.2005 with respondent No. 2 and promoted to the post of Technical Officer in the year 2016 w.e.f. 30.05.2012. The CSIR-Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), Chennai (respondent No. 3) issued Advertisement No. 1/2014 dated 22.06.2014 inviting applications for various posts including One (1) post of Scientist under Post Code S 1407, Area-Business Process Division (BPD) in the pay band of Rs. 15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs. 6600/-, reserved for ST category candidates. The Essential educational qualification and experience requisite for the post of Scientist, as mentioned in the Advertisement, is as under-:
ME/ M.Tech. in Leather Technology/ Information Technology Computer Science/ Biotechnology/Footwear Science;
OR B.Tech/ M.Sc. with Post Graduate Degree in Intellectual Property Law (1st Class or 60% on an aggregate or equivalent GPA);
4- O.A. No. 1011/2016
OR
Ph.D. submitted in Chemistry/ Biology/ Leather
Technology/Information/Computer Science
3. The applicant being eligible applied for the aforesaid post of Scientist through respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 14.08.2014 (A-4). The respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 24.12.2015 calling the applicant for Interview before the Selection Committee on 22.01.2016 (Annexure A-6). The applicant was informed by the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 25.05.2016 (Annexure A-7) that he has been selected for the aforesaid post of Scientist and he was asked to submit the attached Attestation Forms and Form of Written consent and full particulars of Passport. The applicant completed the formalities on 27.05.2016 (Annexure A-8).
4. The respondent No. 3 issued letter dated 13.06.2016 directing the applicant to provide satisfactory proof to show that the qualification possessed by him is recognized by AICTE (Annexure A-9). Vide letter dated 22.06.2016 (Annexure A-10), the applicant explained the matter inter-alia stating that he acquired the M.Tech degree from Karnataka State Open University (KSOU), Mysore, which is a State University formed under the State Act and does not need any approval from AICTE. The applicant also brought into notice of the respondent No. 3 that M.Tech. Degree is from Karnataka State Open University (KSOU), which was established, vide Karnataka Government Law and Parliamentary Affairs Secretariat Notification No. Law 9 LGN 92 dated 26.05.1995 (Annexure A-11), which was established on 01.06.1996 with the assent of his Honorable Excellency notification No. ED I UOV 95 dated 12.02.1996 (KSOU Act) and published in Official Gazette under 5- O.A. No. 1011/2016 the authority of the Governor of Karnataka under the clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India and enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature in the 43rd Year of the Republic of India, as per KSOU Act, 1992.
5. The respondent No. 3 issued letter dated 30.08.2016 stating that the offer of appointment cannot be issued to applicant for the post of Scientist (S1407-ST) because AICTE vide letter dated 30.06.2016 and UGC vide letter dated 10.08.2016 has clarified that applicant's qualification is not recognized by the statutory body i.e. AICTE. In continuation of letter dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure A-1/A), the order dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure A-1) has been passed cancelling the selection of the applicant against the post of Scientist (S1407-ST) as he has not possessed the recognized qualification required for the post of Scientist.
6. The applicant contended that the action of respondent no. 3 denying the appointment to the applicant for the post of Scientist (S1407-ST) pursuant to his selection vide Notification dated 25.05.2016 (Ann. A-7) on unjustified and unsustainable grounds is arbitrary and illegal. He has also averred that the respondent No. 3 is going to fill-up the sole post in question i.e. post of Scientist (S1407-ST) from amongst the other candidates which will be prejudicial to the interest of applicant when he already stand selected for the same vide Selection Notification dated 25.05.2016 (Ann. A-7).
7. The contention of the applicant is that the degree of M.Tech.
acquired by him from KOSU has been recognized by Distance Education Council (DEC), Association of Indian Universities (AIU), New Delhi vide notifications dated 08.04.2008 and 22.12.1993 (Annexures A-12 and A- 6- O.A. No. 1011/2016 13 respectively) and also by University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, vide letters dated 28.07.1993 (Ann. A-14), dated 05.05.2004 (Ann. A-15) and dated 14.10.2013 (Ann. A-16). The applicant also submitted that the KSOU is AICTE approved State University as per Internet-Google Search (Annexure A-17) and recognized by Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) as per MHRD website i.e. http://mhrd.gov.in information, in which KSOU figure at Serial No. 7 (Annexure A-18). The University Grants Commission (UGC), Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), Government of India has endorsed the MHRD Notification No. 6-1/2013-DL dated 10.06.2015 to all the State Education Secretaries of all the States of India, vide Circular dated 28.04.2016/04.05.2016 (Annexure A-21 & A-22). The applicant further submitted that in reference to MHRD Notification dated 10.06.2015 (A-20) the AICTE again clarified vide letter dated 04.11.2015 that technical education acquired through ODL/ Distance Mode is recognized for the purpose of employment to posts under the Central Government, and the students are not misled in any way (Annexure A-30).
8. The applicant has also referred to a judgment dated 24.09.2001 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India passed in Appeal (Civil) No. 2056 of 1999 titled Bharathidasan University & anr vs. A.I.C.T.E. & Ors wherein it has been held that the Universities (which are established by State or Central Act and duly recognized by UGC) do not require AICTE approval, for the launch of any technical education/programmes (Annexure A-24). The AICTE has issued Public Notice No. UB/04(03)/2011 in the year 2011 that as per Section 2(h) of AICTE, University do not require approval to commence Course and 7- O.A. No. 1011/2016 Programmes in Technical Education (Annexure A-25). The applicant also submitted copies of RTI letter dated 05.12.2011, 14.11.2014 of AICTE informing to the applicant therein that it is not mandatory for the Universities/ Deemed Universities to seek prior approval of AICTE for starting the Technical Programme/ Course. However, universities have obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid-down by the AICTE and in terms of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharathidasan case (supra).
9. The applicant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru vide decision dated 27.06.2016 passed in the case titled Karnataka State Open University vs. State of Karnataka (WP No. 34255 of 2016) wherein the contention of the UGC has been noticed that that the candidates, who have joined the KSOU up to and including the academic session 2012-13, their degrees are recognized and it is immaterial when they have actually completed the degrees. The applicant has also placed reliance upon the order dated 28.01.2013 passed by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) 1149/2012 whereby the petitioners therein are held entitled to benefits of degrees obtained by them through Distance Education mode subject to the outcome of the SLP (C) No. 35793-96/2012. The applicant has also relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Jarnail Ram and others vs. Union of India and others (O.A. No. 060/00166/2014 dated 24.04.2014).
10. The respondents no. 2 and 3 filed written statement contesting the case of the applicant. It has been stated therein that in response to advertisement no. 1/2014 (Annexure A-2) by the respondent the applicant applied Scientist. Based on his stated qualification of M. Tech 8- O.A. No. 1011/2016 Degree in Computer Science, the applicant was provisionally selected subject to fulfilment of all conditions of eligibility. It was then learnt that the M. Tech Degree acquired by the applicant from Karnataka State Open University, Mysore (KSOU) by Distance Education mode is not approved by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) which is the apex body for recognizing technical qualifications. So the applicant was asked to provide satisfactory proof of the approval of his qualifications by AICTE (Annexure A-9). The applicant failed to furnish the required proof and communications were received from AICTE and UGC confirming the non recognition of M. Tech Degree of the applicant. The applicant was therefore informed that offer of appointment cannot be issued to him vide letter dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure A-1/ A Colly) and was further conveyed vide impugned letter dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure A-1) that his selection to the post stands cancelled.
11. The respondents no. 2 and 3 further submitted that the UGC also forwarded list/ parameters dated 27.04.2016 a check for checking the validity of qualification acquired through distance mode which inter-alia provides that the technical education are programmes not allowed through distance mode. It was also stated that the joint committee of UGC, AICTE and DEC has not given its recognition to such a technical programme to any university to distance mode. Vide Government of India letter dated 29.07.2009, the Ministry of HRD directed that permission given, if any, regarding recognition of technical degree awarded by UGC recognized universities through distance education mode was withdrawn ( Annexure R-1). The KSOU established by an Act of State Legislature has only been given institutional recognition and there is no recognition for any specific technical programme. In Public 9- O.A. No. 1011/2016 Notice no. UB/04 (03)/ 2011 (Annexure A-25) issued by the AICTE, it has clearly been stated that technical institutions offering technical education are required to seek prior approval of AICTE. It has also been submitted that the universities established by State Legislation are not permitted to impart technical education beyond their own State and their territorial jurisdiction is confined to their own State.
12. The respondent no. 4 (AICTE, Chandigarh) filed short reply stating therein that the Ministry of Human Resource and Development, New Delhi has issued a notification dated 10.06.2015 whereby UGC has been empowered to deal with matters concerning education including technical education imparted through ODL mode and therefore it was suggested by the said communication that the UGC may be approached for necessary information and clarification. Further, the UGC has also conveyed its decision vide letter dated 10.08.2016. It has been submitted that the respondent no. 4 has nothing to do in the matter as the clarification in the matter is required to be given by the UGC and therefore, the O.A. may be dismissed qua respondent no. 4.
13. The respondent no. 5 i.e. the UGC in its written statement submitted that the UGC has been issuing letters and bringing out public notices to clarify and emphasize the point that "a University established or incorporate 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 (Annexure R-5/1 colly). The issue of territorial jurisdiction was further clarified by the Public Notice dated 19.07.2016 wherein it has been mentioned in clear terms that conduct of examinations by institutions/Universities/Institutions deemed to be Universities for their Open and Distance Learning Programmes 10- O.A. No. 1011/2016 outside the State of their location or beyond their territorial jurisdiction was wholly illegal (Annexure R-5/6). With regard to reply sent under the Right to Information Act, wherein it has been mentioned "as per public notice issued by the UGC vide No. F27-1/2012(CPP-II) dated 27th June 2013, there is no restriction on examination centres outside the State, it has been submitted that the same had been issued inadvertently and under ignorance and all corrective steps have already been taken by the UGC (Annexure R-5/7). There is no such rule or regulation with regard to seek prior approval of UGC for conducting examination by State/Private Universities outside the territorial jurisdiction as the Universities have been directed vide guidelines/notices issued to operate within its territorial jurisdiction. The respondent has referred to a judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Kartar Singh Vs. Union of India (CWP No. 1640/2008 decided on 06.11.2012).
14. On merits, the respondent no. 5 stated that vide various letters (Annexures R-5 /8 to 5/9), it was directed that „no university should offer any B.E./B. Tech programme through distance mode. It has been reiterated that the KSOU, Mysore is a State University and it was accorded institutional recognition by erstwhile Distance Education Council (DEC)/UGC-DEB from 2007-2008 to 2012-13 to offer programmes through distance mode and no further recognition has been given to the University. Further, it can operate within its State only. It has also been submitted that MHRD vide notification dated 10.6.2015 has notified that "all the degrees/ diplomas/ certificates including technical education degrees/ diploma awarded through Open and Distance learning mode of education by the Universities established by 11- O.A. No. 1011/2016 an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 and Institutions of National Importance declared under an Act of Parliament stand automatically recognized for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government, provided they have been approved by the UGC." It has also been informed that the answering respondent issued a Public notice dated 16.06.2015 whereby the general public, students and other stakeholders were cautioned against the wrong reporting/publicity in newspapers and television by the university about its territorial jurisdiction and about the validity of the recognition of its programmes including professional/technical programmes.
15. The applicant filed separate rejoinders to written statements filed by Respondents No. 2, 3 and Respondent no. 5, denying the averments made by the respondents and reiterating his contentions raised in the O.A.
16. The applicant, by way of MA No. 405/2025, has also placed on record downloaded documents to exhibit that the Barathidisan University, Tiruchirappali, Tamilnadu and Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad are also offering M. Tech course (Annexures MA-1 and MA-2). He has also placed on record a circular dated 25.11.2020 issued by AICTE, New Delhi whereby in view of judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukul Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. AICTE and Others, the AICTE has given its „No objection‟ for B.Tech degree/Diploma in Engineering awarded by IGNOU to the students, who were enrolled with IGNOU for the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 (Annexure MA-3).
12- O.A. No. 1011/2016
17. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material placed on record and considered the rival submissions of both sides.
18. This is the 3rd round of litigation by the applicant. The applicant, after cancellation of his selection for the post of Scientist, approached this Tribunal against the action of the respondents by way of instant O.A. No. 1011/2016, which was dismissed vide decision dated 23.01.2018. The applicant challenged the decision aforementioned by filing CWP No. 22438/2018 before the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which remitted the matter to this Tribunal for re-consideration, as to whether the petitioner‟s case would be covered under the subsequent orders passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd. and Others, (2019) 13 SCC 620 and Mukul Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (W.P.(Civil No. 382 of 2018 decided on 30.07.2018), vide order dated 13.05.2022, the relevant part of which is extracted hereunder for better understanding of the facts:-
"Challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioner is to the order dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure A-1), whereby his selection for the post of Scientist was cancelled.
The Tribunal vide order dated 23.01.2018 has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the Apex Court in the judgment of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Others, 2017 (4) SCT 683 had held that degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed Universities through Distance Education Mode shall stand recalled and treated as cancelled.
The said order has been clarified on two subsequent occasions, in Miscellaneous Applications on 22.01.2018 as reported in 2018 13- O.A. No. 1011/2016 (2) SCC 298 and similarly on 10.04.2018 in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd. and others, (2019) 13 SCC 620 and thereafter, in a short order passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.382 of 2018 'Mukul Kumar Sharma and others Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others' on 30.07.2018 pertaining to the Indira Gandhi National Open University.
It is the case of the petitioner that he has acquired M.Tech. Degree in Computer Science from Karnataka State Open University, Mysore, which was established in the year 1992 and would be covered under the subsequent orders.
Keeping in view the fact that on account of subsequent events the issue has been clarified, we deem it fit to remit the matter to the Tribunal for re-consideration, as to whether the petitioner's case would be covered under the exceptions made out, as referred above.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of and the interim order dated 06.10.2016 is set aside with the aforesaid liberty. Parties shall put in appearance before the Tribunal on 04.07.2022."
19. Now, the short issue for reconsideration before us is as to whether the applicant‟s case would be covered under the exceptions made out by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University's case (supra) and Mukul Kumar Sharma's case (supra).
20. Admittedly, the sole reason for cancellation of selection of the applicant to the post of Scientist in CSIR, Chennai, as informed by the respondents is that the M. Tech degree possessed by the applicant by distant mode from Karnataka State Open University (hereinafter referred to as KSOU, Mysore) is not recognized by the AICTE. The applicant, vide letter dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure A-9), was asked to provide satisfactory proof to show that the qualification possessed by 14- O.A. No. 1011/2016 him is recognized by AICTE, to which the applicant filed detailed reply along with supported documents vide letter dated 22.06.2016. However, the claim of the applicant did not find favour with the respondents and ultimately his selection was cancelled vide letter dated 30.08.2016 while relying upon the letter dated 30.06.2016 issued by the AICTE and the letter dated 10.08.2016 issued by the UGC mentioning therein that vide Public Notice dated 16.06.2015, the recognition of programme through ODL mode at Karnataka State Open University, Mysore has been discontinued.
21. The first argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that because the KSOU, Mysore is the State University formed under the State Act, therefore, it does not need any approval from AICTE for launch of technical education/programme. From the perusal of notification dated 12.02.1996 (Annexure A-11), it is apparent that the KSOU was established vide Karnataka Government Law and Parliamentary Affairs secretariat Notification dated 26.05.1995 and it came into force vide notification dated 12.02.1996 published in Official Gazette under the authority of the Governor of Karnataka under clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India and enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature, as per KSOU Act, 1992. Learned counsel for the applicant has averred that the KSOU has been recognized by the Distance Education Council (DEC) vide notification dated 08.04.2008 (Annexure A-12) and by the MHRD (Annexure A-18). It is also the averment of the applicant that the KSOU has recognition from University Grants Commission (UGC) and in support of his averments he has placed on record letters dated 28.07.1993, 05.05.2004, 14.10.2013 (Annexures A-14 to A-17). While relying upon google search report 15- O.A. No. 1011/2016 (Annexure A-17), the applicant averred that the KSOU is recognized by the AICTE. The rebuttal averment of the respondent no. 5(UGC) is that the KSOU, which was established by an act of State Legislature, was accorded Institutional recognition by erstwhile Distance Education Council (DEC)/UGC-DEB from 2007-08 to 2012-13 to offer programmes through distance mode and no further recognition has been given to the University. The applicant herein acquired his M. Tech degree for the year 2011-13, therefore, this aspect remains undisputed that the period when the applicant pursued his qualifications of M. Tech Degree (Year 2011-13) by distance mode from the KSOU, the said university has recognition from the erstwhile DEC/UGC for delivering education by distance mode. Even in the impugned letter dated 10.08.2016 issued by the UGC, relied upon by the respondents to cancel applicant‟s selection, it is categorically mentioned that vide Public Notice dated 16.06.2015, the recognition of programme through ODL mode at Karnataka State Open University, Mysore has been discontinued. Since the applicant completed his M. Tech. degree in the year 2013, therefore, the notice issued thereafter in the year 2015 regarding discontinuance of recognition shall not adversely impact the M. Tech. degree of the applicant which he acquired prior to discontinuation of recognition. The reliance of the respondents on the letter dated 10.08.2016 to cancel applicant‟s selection to the post of Scientist is totally misconceived.
22. From the perusal of the records, we find that the MHRD vide notification dated 10.06.2015 has notified that "Now, THEREFORE, the Central Government hereby notifies that all the degrees/diplomas/certificates including technical education degrees/diplomas awarded through Open and Distance Learning mode 16- O.A. No. 1011/2016 of education by the Universities established by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, Institutions deemed to be Universities under Section 3 of the University Grants commission Act, 1956 and Institutions of National Importance declared under an Act of Parliament stand automatically recognised for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government provided they have been approved by the University Grants Commission.
23. The question now to be considered is whether the KSOU, which had recognition of DEC/UGC for the relevant period i.e. (2011-13), requires getting approval/recognition from the AICTE to launch technical programmes. The AICTE (Respondent No. 4) in its reply nowhere stated that before launching technical programme by distant mode, the University has to take approval from the AICTE. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bharathidasan University (supra) considered this aspect of the matter and held that the regulation which compels the Universities to seek for and obtain prior approval and not to start any new department for a course or programme in technical education is directly opposed to and inconsistent with the provision of Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder for better understanding of the issue.
"11. It is by now well-settled that Parliament has enacted the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 as well as the AICTE Act, 1987 in the purported exercise of the powers envisaged in Entry 66 of List-I of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India, which reads as Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. It was permissible for the Parliament to enact a law with the object and aim of co- ordination and determination of standards among a particular class or category of institutions, which may deal with different kinds of education and research as also scientific and technical institutions of different disciplines and specialised branches of even such disciplines. The Parliament, while enacting the AICTE 17- O.A. No. 1011/2016 Act, was fully alive to the existence, in full force and effect the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, which specifically dealt with the co- ordination and determination of standards at university level of institutions as well as institutions for higher studies of the category or class other than but deemed to be universities and yet roped into the definition of "technical institution" only institutions not being a University as defined in Section 2(i). Apart from so defining technical Institutions so as to be exclusive of University even in empowering the AICTE to do certain things, special care seems to have been conspicuously and deliberately taken to make specific mention of universities, wherever and whenever alone the AICTE was expected to interact with universities and University Departments as well as its constituent Institutions. In the statement of objects to the AICTE Act, the evil sought to be curbed was stated to be the coming up indiscriminately of number of private engineering colleges and polytechnics in complete disregard of the guidelines resulting in diluted standards, unplanned growth, inadequate facilities and lack of infra-structural facilities in them and not of any anomalies arising out of any university bodies or UGC to even think of either sidelining or subjugating them by constituting AICTE. The guarded language employed for the said purpose and deliberate omission to refer to the universities in Section 10 (1) (k) of the AICTE Act while empowering AICTE to accord approval for starting new technical institutions and introduction of new programmes or courses by or in such institutions cannot be ignored to be of any insignificance. A careful analysis of the various provisions contained in Sections 10,11 and 22 will further go to show that the role of interaction conferred upon AICTE vis- a-vis Universities is limited to the purpose of ensuring the proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system so as to conform to the standards laid down by it, with no further or direct control over such universities or scope for any direct action except bringing it to the notice of the UGC or other authorities only, of any lapses in carrying out any directions of the AICTE in this regard, for appropriate action. While stating that autonomy of universities should not mean a permission for authoritarian functioning, the High Courts by the construction placed by them have virtually allowed such authoritarianism to the AICTE to such an extent as to belittle the importance and elegant role assigned to the universities in the Educational system of the country and rendered virtually subordinate to the AICTE. In our view, that does not seem to be the object of creating AICTE or passing of the AICTE Act. Such construction as has been placed by the Court in M. Sambasiva Raos case (supra) which found favour of acceptance of the Court in the present case ought to have been avoided and the same could neither be said to have been intended or was ever in the contemplation of the Parliament nor should the UGC and the universities been relegated to a role subordinate to the AICTE. The UGC and universities have always had and have an accepted and well-merited role of Primacy to play in shaping as well as stepping up a co-ordinated development and improvement in the standards of education and research in the sphere of education.18- O.A. No. 1011/2016
When it is only Institutions other than universities which are to seek affiliation, it was not correct to state in the decisions under challenge that a University, which cannot grant affiliation to a technical institution, cannot grant the same to itself. Consequently, the conclusions rendered based on the principles for classifying enactments into `general law' and `special law' to keep them within their respective limits or area of operation are not warranted and wholly uncalled for and do not merit our approval or acceptance.
12. The AICTE cannot, in our view, make any regulation in exercise of its powers under Section 23 of the Act, notwithstanding sub-section (1), which though no doubt enables such regulations being made generally to carry out the purposes of the Act, when such power is circumscribed by the specific limitation engrafted therein to ensure them to be not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules. So far as the question of granting approval, leave alone prior or post, Section 10(1)(k) specifically confines the limits of such power of AICTE only to be exercised vis-à-vis technical institutions, as defined in the Act and not generally. When the language is specific, unambiguous and positive, the same cannot be over-looked to give an expansive meaning under the pretext of a purposive construction to perpetuate an ideological object and aim, which also, having regard to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the AICTE Act, are not warranted or justified. Therefore, the regulation insofar as it compels the universities to seek for and obtain prior approval and not to start any new department or course or programme in technical education (Regulation 4) and empower itself to withdraw such approval, in a given case of contravention of the regulations (Regulation 12) are directly opposed to and inconsistent with the provisions of Section 10(1)(k) of the Act and consequently void and unenforceable."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Transmisson Corporation of Telangana Ltd. And Others (Civil Appeal No. 3697-3698/2018) vide order dated 10.04.2018 directed that the norms of AICTE must be followed in future and the degrees and diploma granted to candidates admitted up to academic year 2009-10 were left undisturbed. The aforementioned decision was followed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukul Kumar Sharma and others Vs. AICTE (W.P.(C) No. 382/2018 19- O.A. No. 1011/2016 decided on 30.07.2018) where the issue was with regard to the B.Tech Degree/Diploma course of study through distant mode by the Indira Gandhi National Open University, established under an Act of Parliament, wherein it was held that the AICTE approval for the said course is not necessary, but the AICTE norms will be adhered to strictly by the institution in question. The operative part of the order is extracted hereunder:-
"The present case involves Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) established under an Act of Parliament. We are concerned, in the present case, with the B.Tech Degree/Diploma course of study.
In a similar case decided on 10.04.2018, namely, Jawaharlal Nehru University Technological vs. The Chairman and Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3697-3698/2018), we had made it clear that given the fact that appellant-University in that case had been set up by a State Statute, it is enough that AICTE norms should be followed while granting the B.Tech Degree/Diploma. We follow this order and state that even in the present case, AICTE norms will be adhered to strictly by the institution in question but that AICTE approval for the said course is not necessary.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly."
The contention of the respondents in cancelling the selection of applicant on the ground of non-recognition of applicant‟s M.Tech degree by the AICTE is not in consonance with the aforesaid observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
25. Following the ratio of decision in Jawaharlal Nehra Technological University Registrar's case (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court allowed another identical case of Md. Naseem Baig and Others Vs. AICTE & Others (WP(c) No. 1341/2019 decided on 20- O.A. No. 1011/2016 18.09.2020). The decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is reproduced hereunder:-
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In the present case. the petitioners before us are diploma holders in what is called the Vertically Integrated Engineering Programme, which is one of the two distance education courses conducted by IGNOU. We had, vide order dated 11.03.2019, stated that degrees and diplomas of IGNOU in such distance education courses up to the years 2009-10 be left undisturbed. We grant the same relief to the petitioners who will be covered in the years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
We make it clear that since there is no distance education courses in IGNOU after these years and these are the last batches who will be granted the reliefs that were granted by our order dated 11.03.2019, as a one-time measure therefore, these batches will also be granted this relief. We allow this writ petition with no order as to costs."
(Emphasis supplied) Subsequently, in terms of the above order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, a number of cases were allowed including Kamlesh Kumar Maurya & others Vs. AICTE & Others (WP(c) No. 1225/2019 decided on 18.09.2020) by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, R.Palanivel Vs. The Director of Municipal Administration and Another (WP No. 17575/2021 decided on 01.09.2021) by the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Madras and recently in the case of Rattan Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (CWP No. 6401/2024 decided on 11.07.2024) by the Hon‟ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.
26. Undisputedly, the KSOU, Mysore is a State University established by an Act of State Legislature and it was not necessary for the University to seek approval from the AICTE to impart technical 21- O.A. No. 1011/2016 education/course as per the provisions of AICTE Act and the law settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, though it was mandatory for the University to strictly adhere to the norms set by the AICTE. The Public Notice (Annexure A-
25) issued by the AICTE specifically mentioned in para (iv) that "The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in case of Bharathidasan University and Another Vs. AICTE and Others has interpreted the provisions of the AICTE and has held that although University do not require prior approval of AICTE to commence a new department or course and programmes in technical education, however, universities have obligation or duty to confirm to the standards; and norms laid down by the AICTE".
27. The AICTE (Respondent No. 4) in its written statement has submitted that as per notification dated 10.06.2015 issued by the MHRD, New Delhi, the UGC has been empowered to deal with matters concerning education including technical education imparted through ODL mode, therefore, they suggested to approach the UGC for necessary information and clarification. The UGC (Respondent No. 5) in its written statement has clearly admitted that the Karnataka State University, Mysore is a State University established by an Act of State Legislature, it was accorded Institution recognition by erstwhile Distance Education Council (DEC)/UGC-DEB from 2007-08 to 2012-13 to offer programmes through distance mode. The conjoint reading of replies of Respondents No. 4 and 5 has affirmed that the KSOU had the recognition to offer programmes through distance mode at the relevant point of time (i.e. 2011-13). Therefore, the contention of the respondents no. 2 and 3 that the M.Tech. degree acquired by the 22- O.A. No. 1011/2016 applicant from KSOU, Mysore requires to be approved by AICTE, is not tenable.
28. In another case of Suhas and Others Vs. KSOU, the students who have been admitted to the KSOU upto and including the academic year 2012-13 were held entitled by the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka, to obtain and collect marks cards, degree certificates etc from the KSOU.
29. In an identical case of KSOU Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (supra), wherein the KSOU approached the Hon‟bel High Court apprehending that the candidature of its students would be rejected by the Karnataka Public Service Commission(KPSC) for the posts of Assistants/First Division Assistant and the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in that case directed the KPSC to consider the applications of the candidates, who have joined the KSOU University up to and including the academic year 2012-13.
30. From the orders and directions given by the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka, it is crystal clear that the degrees/diplomas/certificates issued by the KSOU, Mysore upto and including the academic year 2012-13 were held to be valid qualification for all purpose. However, no opinion was expressed in relation to the validity of the degrees obtained by the students by joining the KSOU for the academic session 2013-14 onwards. Since the applicant joined the KSOU in the year 2011 for M.Tech. degree and completed it in the year 2013, therefore, the validity of his qualification M.Tech from the KSOU cannot be declared questioned on the ground of recognition of the KSOU by the AICTC or UGC, in view of the judicial pronouncements in the cases aforementioned by the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka under which 23- O.A. No. 1011/2016 jurisdiction this University falls. Accordingly, the action of respondents in raising objection of validity of M.Tech degree and cancellation of applicant‟s selection to the post of Scientist, on that ground is held to be illegal. 31. On the basis of discussion hereinabove, it is held that the case of applicant would be covered under the exception made out by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and the Hon‟ble High Courts. In view of the observations made in foregoing paragraphs, the Original Application succeeds. The impugned orders dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure A-1) and dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure A-1/A) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to offer appointment to the applicant pursuant to his selection for the post of Scientist vide notification dated 25.05.2016, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Dated:14.05.2025 „mw‟