Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioners, in the said case, have pleaded that they took admission in the EIILM university in the course of Bachelor of Arts. As per the certificates attached, they graduated in the year 2012. They applied for getting admission in the LL.B. Course (professional), a three year course and were given admission and attended classes till the 4th semester with the respondent no. 2-college which is affiliated to the respondent-university. On account of their result not being declared and non-allotment of their registration number, they were asked to get their documents verified from EIILM university. A perusal of the letter dated 25.04.2013 would go on to show that respondent no. 2-college recommended their case for registration on the strength of the verification got done by them from the EIILM university. It is apparent that thereafter, they continued with their studies before the impugned order was passed on 20.03.2014. The case of the petitioners is that the EIILM university was duly recognized by the University Grants Commission (in short 'UGC')-respondent no. 3 as per the information taken by them under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Annexure P-7) and, therefore, the university was not justified in not allowing them to continue their course and complete the same. They having spent sufficient time and money and wasted their precious academic years, were entitled for continuation of their studies. In connected cases, specially pertaining to the Bachelor of Education courses, the petitioners have already completed the one year course.

The respondent-university, in its reply, has taken the plea that the petitioners had not disclosed that whether they had passed their qualifying examination by way of regular mode or through distant education mode. Regular courses of the university were recognized by UGC or AICTE whereas, distant education courses were recognized by Distance Education Council (in short 'DEC') and the Indira Gandhi National Open University (in short 'IGNOU'), New Delhi. The EIILM University was an approved university of UGC and its regular courses were recognized as such. However, distant courses were not approved by the DEC. A communication dated 21.08.2012 had been received (Annexure R-1/1) from the IGNOU that the EIILM University, Sikkim was not recognized by DEC. The Joint Committee of UGC, AICTE and DEC had accorded course wise recognition to the EIILM university for only one academic year i.e. 2009-10 to offer the following programmes through distant mode:-

The degrees of qualifying examinations whether they were approved by IGNOU or not was the issue and the university asked the respondent no. 2- college to direct the students who had submitted certificates of qualifying examinations from EIILM university to obtain an equivalency certificate from IGNOU vide letter dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure R-1/2). Since large number of students with certificates of different courses from EIILM university had taken admissions in the session 2012-13 in various colleges and departments of the university and it was not clear whether they had studied as regular students by way of distant education mode or from off campus centers. Accordingly, the students were asked to obtain the equivalency certificates of the qualifications from IGNOU in respect of the examinations passed by them. None of the students submitted the requisite documents that they had been regular students of the campus. Their qualification was not as per norms as approved by the DEC and vide letter dated 05.04.2013 (Annexure R-1/3), the required information was asked upto 20.04.2013, failing which, the admission would stand cancelled. An application dated 17.04.2013 was received from petitioner no. 1 (Annexure R-1/4) asking for more time to furnish the information and the respondent- university also sought more information from neighbouring universities regarding eligibility of students. A perusal of Annexure R-1/5 would go on to show that another application was also received from petitioner no. 1 dated 25.04.2013 that he wanted to get the mark sheet verified from the regional center of EIILM university at New Delhi and prayed for time. A Committee was constituted on 29.08.2013 to consider the admission cases of 368 students, who had taken admission in different courses and it was decided that the admission be not recognized and the results be withheld. The Committee consisted of the Dean (Academic Affairs), Dean of Colleges, Controller of Examinations and the Assistant Registrar (Academic) and in its meeting held on 05.09.2013 , it was found difficult to regularize the admission. The colleges, institutes and departments were asked to tell the students to get their documents verified from EIILM university whether they had passed through distant mode or not. Accordingly, communication dated 14.10.2013 (Annexure R-1/7) was sent to the respondent no. 2-college asking them that the students should get it verified from the said university whether they had passed the examination through distant mode or regular mode. Thereafter, respondent no. 2, vide letter dated 29.10.2013 (Annexure R-1/8) submitted the information in respect of the students that they had passed the qualifying examination from the said university and the verification had been done, however, the mode of their passing was not given. A request was again made on 20.11.2013 (Annexure R-1/9) regarding the regular mode or distant mode and similar request dated 04.12.2013 and 03.01.2004 was made. Finally, vide decision dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure R-1/12), it was decided by the Committee that the result would only be declared where proof of regular mode was given. The students who had not submitted any proof regarding the mode of passing the qualifying examination even after getting final opportunity, their result would be cancelled. The recommendation of the Committee was approved on 04.03.2014 by the Vice Chancellor. Thereafter, respondent no. 2-college was informed vide the impugned letter. Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition was prayed.

The argument of counsel for the petitioners that the said university was a recognized university is without any basis since the dispute in issue pertains to the mode of study whether by regular mode or by distant education. Nothing has been shown that the EIILM university was duly authorized to grant degrees by way of distant education beyond its territorial jurisdiction by the competent authorities. Statute 28 of IGNOU had declared the DEC as an authority of the IGNOU under Section 16 of the IGNOU Act for distant education systems in the educational pattern of the country and for coordination and determination of standards of teaching and evaluation of research. As per sub clause (4) of Statute 28, the powers and functions of the DEC were such way which provided it to take all steps for the promotion of open university/distant education systems and its coordinated development and regarding the determination of its standards and for developing the network of open universities. Nothing could be shown in that manner that the said permission had thus been granted to the EIILM university. Statute 28 which now stands repealed in view of the notification dated 09.05.2013 would go on to show that the interim arrangements and options of DEC have now to be dealt with by UGC and AICTE as per the letter dated 16.05.2013 issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. As noticed, UGC, in its reply, has also taken the same line as the respondent-university and has rather taken the stand that the EIILM University was misleading students and selling degrees without conducting any exams or practicals. The same was being done outside its jurisdiction without the approval of the UGC/DEC.