Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The DEC granted ex-post facto approval to the distance mode progammes though there is nothing to indicate that the course of Lab Technician has been approved. The perusal of letter issued by the DEC shows casual approach to give ex-post facto approval to the distance mode programme run by the JRN University as it is without proper inspection. The recognition of the courses started from the year 2001 till 2005 has been given in the year 2007 even without noticing as to whether standard required for the studies were maintained by the JRN University or not? In fact, initial report of UGC and other bodies shows that JRN University was lacking in proper infra and other facilities to distance mode programme. The UGC commanded JRN University with the direction not to provide off-campus programmes without their approval. The instructions aforesaid was given in the year 2001 itself. Contrary to instructions of UGC, if the JRN University provided courses without prior approval then recognition of such courses at subsequent stage shows casual approach, rather it to be without jurisdiction. In any case, if the appointments have to be made under the Rules of 1965 and 2008 then requirement of recognition of institution by the State gets importance and thereby, it is only the State Government, which is competent to give recognition to the institution.

Learned counsel appearing for IGNOU Mr.G.P.Kaushik submitted that DEC is a statutory body constituted under the Act of 1985. It approved all the programmes given by the JRN University till 2005, however, it has not given recognition the institution for any specific course/programme. The ex-post facto approval given by the DEC after joint meeting with UGC and AICTE should be viewed with proper caution. The DEC never accorded recognition to study center of the University. The ex-post facto approval was given on the recommendation of the Committee constituted for the aforesaid purposes, however, if the institution needs recognition by the State Government, the DEC has no role to play therein. The ex-post facto approval was granted keeping in mind the career of the students who had undertaken studies under distance mode programmes. It was lastly urged that despite of specific order of this Court to produce record of the inspection and time granted for it, it could not be produced for certain reasons.

The perusal of the aforesaid letter reveals that even as per the report by the DEC, till 2005, major deficiencies were found in the delivery system and it was also noted that JRN University is running those courses without approval, thus directed to close it immediately. Contrary to the aforesaid and ignoring even the deficiencies earlier pointed out, ex-post facto approval was given to certain courses without specifying the name of the course. The aforesaid shows nothing but mockery of the system otherwise courses provided by JRN University till the year 2005 with major deficiencies should not have been given ex-post facto approval only in the name of equity because inspection after the year 2005 was nothing but an empty formality and therefore only, the IGNOU failed to produce original record of inspection despite order of this Court. A course with major deficiencies upto year 2005 is approved based on inspection in the year 2006, as if deficiencies can be removed with retrospective effect and even for those, who have already passed out the course. This Court cannot ignore the fact that till 2005, neither UGC nor DEC had granted permission to the programmes by distance mode by JRN University, rather deficiencies were found therein.

Learned counsel for the UGC Mr.Bharat Vyas very fairly admitted that UGC never recognized any course by distance mode programme as UGC is authorized only for conferment of degrees and not other course, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Commission is very limited. It is only to sort out the problem, the matter was sent to DEC and subsequent ex-post facto approval was given keeping in mind equities in favour of the students. The fact, however, remains that equities cannot be given precedent over the statutory provisions or it should not be by way of misplace sympathy. This is specifically when in the present matters, the post involved is to serve the patient. The casual approach to treat petitioners as qualified for the post in reference may be fatal with ill-consequence. In fact, UGC as well as DEC could not justify their act for ex-post facto approval to the distance mode programmes provided by the JRN University. This is moreso when till the year 2005, no approval to those courses were given, rather major deficiencies were found. It has not been clarified as to how those deficiencies got removed for the students, who had already passed out the course by the year 2006 as matter for ex-post facto approval was undertaken thereafter. The deficiencies of course cannot be removed from retrospective effect. In the aforesaid background, it remains nothing but undue favour extended by the UGC as well as DEC to the JRN University. This cannot be in the name of equities. This is moreso when ex-post facto approval is without specifying the name of the courses.