Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harsh vs Union Of India on 30 March, 2017
WP-6037-2014
(THE DALY COLLEGE INDORE BOARD OF GOVERNORS Vs UNION OF INDIA)
30-03-2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
BENCH AT INDORE
Before Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K.
Jaiswal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh
Writ Petition No.6037/2014
Daly College Indore Board of Governors Vs.
Union of India and others
&
Writ Petition No.6104/2014
Harsh S/o Shri Narendra Khandelwal and anr.
Vs.
Union of India and others
Mr. S.C. Bagadiya, Senior Advocate with Shri Gourav
Charbra, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.
No.6037/2014.
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P. No.6104/2014.
Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned counsel for the Intervener
Shri Ajinkya Dagaonkar, learned counsel for respondent
no.2 in both the petitions.
Shri Vivek Sharan, learned counsel for respondent no(s).
1& 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 30.03.2017) Per: Virender Singh, J.
Both the petitions involves same issue and are filed by the petitioners for the same relief, therefore, they are being decided with this common order.
2. For convenience facts are being taken from W.P. No.6037/2014.
3. Relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner/institution started twinning Under Graduate Course (B.A. Hons. Buisness Studies) in collaboration with De Montfort University, Leicester, U.K (for short DMU) in1998 and since than the Course is running successfully. As per this Course/programme, the students pursue a part of study in the petitioner institution and complete their degree course with the DMU. After completion of the course, they are granted business degree with the name of B.A. (Hons.).
4. After running the Course successfully till September, 2007, the petitioner institute received a show-cause notice on 09.03.2007 from All India Council for Technical Education (for short âAICTEâ)(respondent no.2) seeking clarification as to why the approval is not obtained for this twinning Course/programme. The petitioner replied the notice on 22.03.2007. On 26.06.2007, an intimation was received from AICTE advising the petitioner to defer the fresh admission till it get approval from AICTE. On 13.08.2008, Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Indore (for short âDAVVâ) (Respondent No.4) issued a letter expressing its consent for running the Business Degree Course; if the same is approved by AICTE. Later, the petitioner applied for approval to AICTE, which was granted on 29.08.2008 and this approval was renewed on year to year basis till 2014-15 by the AICTE. DAVV also recognized the course as it was approved by AICTE.
5. In the year 2014 the DAVV denied the admission to the students of the petitioner institution on the pretext that Association of Indian Universities (for short AIU/Respondent no.3) has not issued âEquated Certificateâ to the petitioner while there is no statutory requirement to obtained such certificate when the education Course has already been approved by the AICTE, which is the only competent authority to approve all twinning Course in India, more particularly, when DAVV itself has sent a letter declaring the equivalency of the Course and consent for its approval.
6 Apart from that, on several occasions, the DAVV issued equivalency and eligibility certificates to many students for this twinning Course from the petitioner institution. The DAVV also appointed a Committee to examine the equivalency of this twinning course. In its meeting held on 15.10.2013, the Committee, after meticulous scrutiny and comparing of the question papers of the Business Studies of DMU and BBA 3 year Degree Course of DAVV, reached on the conclusion that both are similar and are in parity (Annexure-P/13). The said opinion of the Committee was forwarded by the petitioner to the AIU to consider the case of the petitioner institution for grant of equivalancy certificate. The AIU, vide letter dated 21.01.2014 (Annexure-P/14) intimated that in reference to the request of the petitioner and subsequent clarification from DAVV, they constituted a Committee to look into the equivalancy of the Degree awarded by the Foreign accredited university in India in collaboration with the Indian Universities/Institutions with the permission of the statutory bodies. It was also informed that this being a policy matter, will be placed in the Governing Council meeting which is likely to be held on the last week of February, 2014, but no formal intimation from AIU has been received till date. In the absence of such intimation the DAVV is not approving the twinning Course of the petitioner. In its recent letter dated 28.08.2014 (Annexure R/4-1) the AIU communicated that the AIU is not involved in the equivalence of degrees awarded by the Indian Universities. But even then the DAVV is not taking any admission. The DAVV has not issued any written communication in this respect, but is orally denying to recognize the said Course on the pretext that the âequivalence certificateâ has not been issued by the AIU/respondent no.3. Therefore, the students, who are pursuing their studies in the twinning course are being adversely affected as they are being denied admission to the courses run by the DAVV.
7. While granting approval, the AICTE specifically mentioned that the students who failed to get VISA for completing the later part of the programme at DMU shall be allowed to complete the entire programme at DAVV and shall be awarded Degree by DAVV. A copy of this letter was marked to the Vice-Chancellor, DAVV and also to the Technical Education Department of Govt. of M.P.
8. The twinning course is approved under the AICTE Act, 1987 by the AICTE, which is the only statutory authority to grant such approval. Respondent no.3 upon having issued the certificate declaring the B.A. (Hons.) Degree Majoring Business Administration From De Montfort University equated with the Bachelor Business Administration Degree of an Indian University, there was no reason for the DAVV to deny admissions to the students on the ground of AIU has not issued certificate of equivalence to the course. The DAVV is also not entitled to deny admission to the students as the said course is approved by AICTE for last more than 10 years and the DAVV itself have been granting admission and issuing degree to the students approaching it pursuant to the Mid-Course transfer and also after successful completion of education programme run by the petitioner institution.
9. The petitioners of both the petitions have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ of mandamus/certiorari directing the respondent no.4 to grant admission to the students who have successfully completed their courses from the petitioner institution and also to those students who are wishing to take Mid-Term transfer to DAVV as approved by AICTE and consented by DAVV itself. Further it is also prayed that AIU may be directed to issue equivalence certificate to the course B.A. (Hons) Business Studies Program (Bachelor in Management) offered by the petitioner institution in collaboration with the De Montfort University, U.K.
10. Respondent no.1 and 3 has chosen not to file any reply of the petition.
11. Respondent no.2/AICTE, while admitting the facts of issuance of show-cause notice and later approval of the twining course run by the petitioner institution from 2007 to 2014-15 has submitted that earlier the course was running by the petitioner institution without its approval, therefore, they issued show-cause notice and thereafter the petitioner obtained its approval and now they have no objection in running of the course by the petitioner institution.
12. In its reply, the DAVV/respondent no.4 has admitted that earlier the programme was run by the petitioner without approval of AICTE but later the approval was obtained. It is further admitted that a Committee was constituted by it to examine equivalency of the courses offered by the petitioner and the BBA Degree Course of the respondent no.4. The Committee after meticulous scrutiny of the question papers, opined that both courses are equivalent. The respondent no.4 has raised only few technical objections. The main objection is that granting admission to the students pursuing course offered by the petitioner institution in the courses running by it depends upon the fulfillment of the conditions of the minimum eligibility criteria, passing of the entrance test and availability of seats etc.
13. It is further submitted by the DAVV/Respondent No.4 that in its letter 28.08.2014, the AIU informed the petitioner that the matter may be taken up with the DAVV in reference to the letter dated 29.08.2008 of the AICTE, which stipulates that â.....Students who fail to get visa for completing the later part of the programme at De Montfort University, Leicester, U.K. Shall be allowed to complete the entire programme at Devi Ahilya Vishwavidhyalaya, Indore, M.P.â, therefore it would be required for the students who desired to complete their degree at DAVV to first show that they fail to get visa and then they would be required to complete the entire programme. Such admission will also be subject to fulfillment of the conditions of eligibility criteria/entrance test/number of seats available etc.
14. Respondent no.4 also raised the objections that neither the petitioner institute nor it course i.e. B.A. (Hons.) Business Studies programme is affiliated to the DAVV. The nomenclature of this course was later on changed to Bachelor of Management Business Studies and admittedly it is affiliated to De Montfort University, U.K. It is further objected that the University Grant Commission (UGC) vide its communication dated 11.07.2014 sent the list of approved nomenclature of degrees and informed the University that its compliance is mandatory in nature so far as the nomenclature of the course/degree is concerned. The State of M.P. has not been impleaded in the array of respondents. The Higher Education Department of the State Govt. of M.P. Vide its communications dated 27.11.2010 and 06.12.2010 informed all District Collectors to take action against all those institutes who are violating the provisions contained in Section 7(2) of the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, therefore, the petitioner is required to take NOC from the State Government so far as the University is concerned and also for being affiliated with De Montfort University, U.K.
15. Thus, Respondent no.4 have taken mainly two objections: First- that NOC from the Department of Higher Education, Government of M.P. has not been obtained by the petitioner and Second- the courses which are run by the petitioner institution are not affiliated to the DAVV.
16. In its rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent no.2 and 4, the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had applied for NOC from the Department of Higher Education, Government of M.P. in the year 1998 and it was clarified by the Department vide letter dated 24.04.1998 (Annexure P/19-20) that no such approval/NOC is required from the State Government.
17. It is submitted that DAVV/Respondent no.4 vide its letter dated 26.10.2013 admitted that both the courses offered by the petitioner institution and BBA 3 years programme of DAVV are equivalent and are in parity, therefore, they can not deny the admission to the students pursuing the Course run by the petitioner institution. Respondent no.3 in recent communication has clearly stated that they are unable to issue any direction to take students on transfer basis from the petitioner institution as the petitioner institution is affiliated to AICTE and all the university in India are autonomous in taking their academic decisions including admission, examination and award of the degree in accordance with their Act, Statues, Ordinances, Rules, Regulations and Guidelines issued by the Competent Authorities and Regulatory bodies from time to time. As regarding the second objection As the course run by the petitioner institution is in collaboration with a foreign university and if the course are similar of nature run by the DAVV, there is no violation of the direction of UGC regarding list of approved nomenclature of degrees. In taking students from the petitioner institution for completion of their course respondent no.4 or any other autonomous college of M.P. is competent as the twinning programme run by the petitioner institution is duly approved by the AICTE.
18. In view of the above facts, the petitioner prayed for the relief as requested above.
19. The DAVV denied the claim of the students, who are pursuing their B.A. (Hons.) Business Studies Course from the petitioner institute mainly on two counts, first, the programme was not approved by the AICTE and second, AIU has not issued equivalence certificate. But is very much clear from the documents produced by the petitioner and admission of the respondents particularly of the Respondent No.4 DAVV that the petitioner is running twinning course of B.A. (Hons.) with the approval of AICTE, who is the sole statutory authority to grant approval of such course/programme and both the courses, one being run by the petitioner institute with the collaboration of DMU i.e B.A. (Hons.) Business Studies and another being run by the DAVV i.e. B.A. 3 years Degree Course are equivalent. The AIU has made it clear in letter dated 28.08.2014 (Annexure R4/1) that they are not involved in examining the equivalence of the degrees awarded by the Indian Universities and that this being a policy matter they have constituted a Committee and report of the Committee will be placed before the governing council, who will take decision in this regard. Objection regarding approval of Higher Education Department, Government of M.P. also has no force in the light of letter dated 27.11.2010 of the Dy Secretary, Govt. of M.P. Higher Education Deptt. Therefore, virtually, no ground for denying admission to the students, who are pursuing their B.A. (Hons.) Business Studies Course from the petitioner institution and desires to complete the course from the DAVV for various reasons. Concerns raised by the DAVV regarding clearance of eligibility test, availability of seats etc. is a subjective matter and may be taken care of on the case to case basis. Therefore, the petitions deserve to be allowed.
20. With the aforesaid, both the petitions preferred by the petitioners are allowed. The respondent no.4 is directed to take the students who have pursued their course in twinning programme of the petitioner institution in the equivalence of the course run by DAVV subject to the fulfillment of eligibility criteria, clearance of the entrance test and availability of seats etc.
21. With the aforesaid direction, both the petitions are disposed of. However, no order as to costs.
22. A c o p y o f t h i s o r d e r b e p l a c e d i n W . P .
No.6104/2014.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE