Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 stating, inter alia, that the main dispute is between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and the only controversy that requires to be answered by the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 is whether they can control the distance education programme being run by the University formed under the State statute. The respondent No. 3, IGNOU, has been established through an Act No. 50 of 1985 enacted by the Parliament under the title of [The] Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IGNOU Act'). The primary purpose of the IGNOU Act as is evident from the Preamble and various provisions to act as a nodal agency for co-ordination and determination of standards in the open university and distance education system. A reference has been made to the Preamble and Sections 4, 5 and 24 of the IGNOU Act. It averred that from the language employed in the statute the respondents are duty-bound for co-ordinated development of the open universities and distant education centres all over the country. The respondent No. 3 created a statute under Section 28 of the IGNOU Act for the purpose of establishing the answering respondent No. 5. Under the said statute the respondent No. 5 is responsible for promotion and co-ordination of the open universities and distance education centres and for determination of its standard. For the purposes of co-ordinate with the open universities and distance education centres, it is imperative for the answering respondents to issue guidelines to such open universities and study centres. A reference has been made to Statute 4 which deals with powers and functions of the Distance Education Council. Placing reliance on the said provision it is asseverated that the said authorities have the power to supervise and maintain the standard of education in the distance mode of learning launched by the university inasmuch as the distance education system does not suffer due to commercialisation of the teaching mechanism.

12. It is further put forth that the respondent No. 5 has framed guidelines, viz., DEC-Guidelines, 2006 for regulating the establishment and operation of open and distance learning institutions in India. One of the guidelines provided under the Statute is that a distance education institution should be located within the territorial limits of the university to which it is affiliated. Reference has been made to Paragraph 4.12 of the guidelines which deals with 'study centre'. It is set forth that establishment of distance education centre outside the geographical limits of the parent university is not permissible. Reference has been made to the decisions rendered in Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. and Rai University v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. . Relying on the said citations it is manifest that the only recourse open to the petitioner is to seek affiliation with any of the university which has jurisdiction over the area where the petitioners-institutions are functioning. It is contended that the respondent No. 2, University has been established under the Madhya Pradesh Bhoj (Open) University Adhiniyam, 1991 for the purpose of encouraging open universities and distance education systems within the State and, therefore, the said University falls within the framework of Section 4 of the IGNOU Act for the purposes of co-ordination of distance education system and accordingly regulated by answering respondents and further in view of the Apex Court's judgments the said University cannot have any off-campus centre outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Madhya Pradesh under its auspices.

(iv) The definition of distance education system as occurs in the IGNOU Act includes broadcasting, telecasting and correspondence courses etc. and if the broad definition is taken into consideration there can be no trace of doubt that any university which has the jurisdiction to impart distance education system can have the study centres.

(v) The object of the IGNOU as provided under Section 4 is to advance and disseminate learning and knowledge and with the advancement of communication technology the territorial conception has to melt into insignificance.

26. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Study Centres that the Bhoj (Open) University has the authority to open study centres as it has the statu tory obligation to promote the distance education system. It is also urged by them that the Distance Education Council of IGNOU has no authority to direct the University not to have study centres outside the State. As has been stated hereinabove in Section 2 of the IGNOU Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 clearly lays down that the 1991 Adhiniyam extends to the whole of Madhya Pradesh whereas provision in the IGNOU Act provides to extend the distance education to whole of India. Thus as per the said Statute it can have the study centres throughout India but the Bhoj (Open) University cannot (sic: can) have study centres within the whole of the State. The quality of Distance Education system can be controlled. Mode of Distance Education system may be practiced by way of telecast, broadcast and correspondence courses but that does not mean a regional centre or a study centre can be established beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State as the Act extends only to whole of Madhya Pradesh. Section 3 provides that the headquarters of the University shall be at Bhopal or it may establish or maintain Regional Centres and Study Centres at such places as it may deem fit, but such places have to have the nexus and the connection with the provision of the Statute inasmuch as it cannot go beyond the territorial limits of the State of Madhya Pradesh. At this juncture we may refer with profit that the State Legislature has enacted the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. Section 7 of the said 1973 Adhiniyam deals with the territorial limits of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The said section stipulates that the University under the said Act shall not extend beyond the limits of territorial jurisdiction specified in Second Schedule from time to time. The first proviso to the said section lays postulate that the State Government may authorise the University to associate orto admit to any of its privileges to colleges situated within the State outside the aforesaid limits in accordance with the provision of the Act and the Statutes made thereunder.