Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.44 seconds)
P.Saravana Kumar vs The Registrar on 28 March, 2019 cites

Annamalai University Rep.By Registrar vs Secy. To Govt. Infn &Toursm Dept & Ors on 25 February, 2009

“60.It was laid down by this Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department10 that no relaxation could be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for conferment for a degree and if a mandatory provision is not complied with by an administrative authority, the action would be void. This leads http://www.judis.nic.in 27 us to conclude that the permissions granted by DEC in the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities in question to introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in engineering were illegal and opposed to Law. The illegality in the exercise of power was to such an extent that it could not be cured by ex post facto approvals granted later. We have also seen that the exercise of grant of ex post facto approvals, as a matter of fact, was only superficial and perfunctory. Such even when specific complaints were received about concerned Deemed to be Universities. Yet, without causing any inspection such power was exercised which part is already dealt with and the exercise of power has been found by us to be suffering from illegality and infirmity. The only thing in favour of the concerned Deemed to be Universities is the fact that the Joint Committee of UGC – AICTE – DEC had endorsed the decision though such exercise was also completely flawed. That exercise was against Para 10 of the MoU dated 10.05.2007, which contemplated causing of inspections and the decision dated 11.05.2007 of the Joint Committee itself that for an Institution/University to offer distance education programmes it was mandatory to offer the same in face to face mode.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 171 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next