ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS.

p. 967 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Subject: Courses under Distance mode -Regarding A Sir, With reference to your proposal on the subject cited above. I am directed to inform you that the Commission has noted that DEC, a statutory council in regular distance education, has already conveyed the approval (ex-post-facto as well provisional approval B for the year 2007-2008) to certain courses run by your University under distance mode based on the approval of the UGC-AICTE- DEC joint committee. Therefore, no separate approval from UGC is required for the same. You are requested to send list of the courses (year-wise) run by the Deemed University under distance c mode as approved by the Joint Committee. This issues with the approval of Chairman, UGC. Yours faithfully (K.P. Singh) D Joint Secretary" v) On 05.12.2007 JRN informed UGC that in view of the approval dated 29.08.2007 granted by DEC, JRN would be offering distance education programmes in the year 2007-08 as well. vi) At a meeting held on 19.02.2008 wherein Secretary, Department E of Higher Education (Distance Learning Division), MHRD, Heads of UGC, AICTE & IGNOU and Joint Secretary (Distance Education) participated, it was decided that the approvals should be granted to the courses and not to the institute. The following decisions, were inter alia, taken in the meeting: F "e. In addition to existing agreement of AICTE for conduct of MCA and MBA programs by distance mode, AICTE must also consider to agree to allow conduct of B. Tech. programmes through distance mode for Diploma holders in Engineering/Technology with work experience. Similarly, distance education programmes for !TI certificate holder, with G some work experience, leading to award of Diploma could be allowed and encouraged for their vertical academic mobility. f. The approvals should be granted to the courses and not to the institute. H

p. 968 Copy page pinpoint

A g. The approval, including the cases of granting of ex-post-facto approvals conveyed by the DEC, to Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Allahabad, Annamalai University, TN, !ASE Sardarshahr, Raj, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Vinayaka Mission, Salem must be reviewed within the next month." B vii) Though the decision was taken in the meeting of 19.02.2008 a Jetter was addressed only on 12.05.2008 by UGC to various institutions including JRN, AA!, AISE and VMRF as follows:-

"Sir, c With reference to your proposal for ex-post-facto approval to the courses run under distance mode by the deemed university, I am directed to inform you that the Government of India, MHRD convened a meeting on 19" February, 2008 which was chaired by Secretary, Department of Higher Education. It was decided that D the approval granted by Distance Education Council (including ex-post-facto) must be reviewed and the approval should be granted to the courses and not to the institute. Distance Education Counail has also been requested to give approval strictly as per the provisions contained in the MOU signed between UGC, E AICTE and DEC. The relevant clause of the MOU is reproduced as under:

"Based on the recommendations of Joint Committee, the letter of approval may be issued by the Joint Committee. The letter should explicitly state: This has the approval ofUGC, AICTE F and DEC. The letter should be jointly signed by Secretary, UGC, Member Secretary, AICTE and Director, DEC."

In view of the above mechanism and instructions issued by MHRD, you are advised to approach the Joint Committee through Distance Education Council, IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi. G Yours faithfully

(S.C.Chadha) Deputy Secretary"

p. 969 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.)

viii) In the meantime, on 08.05.2008 JRN sought approval for the A year 2008-09 from DEC for its courses in distance education mode. Nine professional/technical programmes' leading to the award of degrees in engineering were listed in respect of which approval was sought. In Table 3.12 Programme-wise student enrolment in respect of said programmes was mentioned as 4142, 1258,3166, 1380,312, 1792,4216, B 516 and I 03 respectively; which in effect aggregated to 16885 for all 9 courses put together. (ix) In the 447~ meeting of the UGC held on 21.05.2008 decision was taken in respect of report submitted by the Chairman, UGC as under: c "I .02(a) to ratify the action taken on certain matters. (i) To report the decision by the Chairman, UGC regarding courses run under distance mode by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Deemed University, Udaipur, Rajasthan. The Commission ratified the action taken by the Chairman, UGC." D x) Various show-cause notices were thereafter issued by UGC on 26.06.2008 and 21.08.2008 regarding alleged violation of UGC Guidelines by concerned Deemed to be Universities but the record is not clear what further steps were taken and what decisions were arrived at. E xi) On 27.06.2008, DEC issued a public notice titled "Recognition of degree/diploma/certificates for employment and recognition and distance education institutions" wherein it was clarified:- "The provisional approval granted by DEC is not to be construed F to be in lieu of the approval required by the Institutions from the AICTE in respect of the standards to be maintained for technical education programmes and from the UGC for offering any programme in leading to award of a degree which is at variance with the nomenclature of degrees mentioned in the UGC Regulations under Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956." G

'Bachelor ofTechnology in (i) Mechanical Engineering; (ii) Chemical Engineering; · (iii) Electrical Engineering; (iv) Computer Science; (v) Information Technology; (vi) Electronics & Telecommunication; (vii) Civil Engineering; (viii) Electronics & Conununication Engineering; (ix) Bio-Informatics. H

p. 970 Copy page pinpoint

A xii) On 08.10.2008 DEC granted approval to JRN for the academic year 2008-2.009. The relevant portion of the letter was as under:- "This has reference to your letter No.JRNRVU/DEW/2008-2009/. 811, dated 8 May, 2008 requesting Distance Education Council for continuation ofrecognition of your Institute for programmes B offered through distance mode for the year 2008-09. In this connection we would like to inform you that vide our letter No.F.No.DEC/Univ/State/07/5739, dated 3.9.2007, your University was accorded Provisional recognition for one academic year i.e. 2007-08 for programmes offered through distance mode. c Further, your proposal for grant of regular recognition of your University is under process. Meanwhile, your University has been granted continuation of provisional recognition till such time a visiting committee visits your Institute and submits its recommendation. D With regards Yours sincerely, Sd/-

(Manjulika Srivastava) E Prof. L.S. Bhat, Vice Chancellor, Janaradan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deeded University), Pratap Nagar, Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan" F xiii) On 29.07.2009, MHRD wrote to Chairman DEC as under:- "D.No.6-7/2008-DL Dear Prof. Pillai, The matter regarding recognition of B.Tech Degrees G awarded by UGC recognised Universities through Distance Education Mode was examined in the Ministry. After a detailed examination of the subject matter referred above, the following course of action has been approved at the highest level in the Ministry. H

p. 971 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

(i) DEC should immediately withdraw pennission given to various institutions to conduct B. Tech/B.E. Programmes through Distance Mode and no student should be admitted in the current year also. (ii) Those who have already been admitted will have to pass both practical and written examination as may be prescribed in this regard so as to give validity to the B.Tech/B.E. degree acquired by them through distance education. In view of the above, I would request you kindly to take further necessary steps to implement the action mentioned at para (i) above immediately and also further evolve a broad policy and guidelines to give effect to the action as mentioned at para (ii) c above. This being a very important and sensitive issue, an early action in the matter will be highly appreciated.

Yours sincerely, Sci/- D (N. K. Sinha) Prof. V. N. Rajasekharan Pillai, Vice Chancellor & Chairman, DEC, Indira Gandhi National Open University, Maidan Garhi, NewDelhi-110068." E

xiv) Soon after the aforesaid letter, DEC informed JRN on 13.08.2009 as under:- "Dear Sir/Madam F This has reference to the MHRD letter No.D.O.No.6-7/2009- D.L. Dated 29,. July, 2009 vide which MHRD has directed the DEC to immediately withdraw permission given to various institutions to conduct B.Tech/BE programmes through distance mode and also ensure that no students are admitted in the current year. G In this connection the Joint Committee ofUGC-AICTE and DEC has not yet accorded any approval to B.E./B.Tech programme of any University offered through distance mode. Any such programmes offered by a University are hence illegal and are not approved by the DEC. H

p. 972 Copy page pinpoint

A Thus it is notified that the above notification of the MHRD is to be strictly adhered to and no University should offer any B.E./ B. Tech programme through distance mode. Any deviation from this policy may invite de-recognition of the concerned University by the DEC. B With regards, Yours sincerely, Sci/- (Manjulika Srivastava) C To

The Vice Chancellor, Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Airport Road, Pratap Nagar, D Udaipur-313001 Rajasthan." xv) On 21.05.2010, the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2010( hereinafter referred to as ''2010 UGC Regulations") were issued consolidating Guidelines issued from time to E time in respect of factors to be taken in consideration before granting the status of Deemed to be University. Regulation 2.14 which defined statutory body includes interalia AICTE and Regulation 8.02 prescribes that the Institution Deemed to be University shall submit a certificate and an undertaking that the professional programmes being conducted by it, if any, have the approval of the relevant statutory/regulatory body. F Regulation 12 deals with "new departments, off campuses and off shore campuses" and Regulation 12.11 is as under:- "12.11. The off-Campus Centre/Off-shore Campus shall be directly administered by the parent institution deemed to be university in matters ofadmission, instruction, evaluation, conferring G of degrees, etc. In case of the off-shore Campus, lease in the name of the institution Deemed to be university may be acceptable (as per the procedure of the country in which such off-shore campus is proposed to be established). In case lease is not

p. 973 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

permissible in any particular country, land and other assets in the A name of a Strategic Partner shall be accepted. For this, the institution Deemed to be university shall have a duly registered MoU/collaboration with the Strategic Partner which shall be governed in accordance with the law for the time being in force, in India." B Further, Regulati on 18 was as under:- "18.0 DISTANCE EDUCATION No institution Deemed to be university, so declared by the Central Government subsequent to these Regulations, shall be allowed to conduct courses in the Distance mode. Also, such institutions declared as such, prior to these Regulations, shall not be allowed to conduct courses in the Distance mode from any of its off- Campus Centre /off-shore Campus approved subsequent to these Regulations." xvi) On 23.09.2011, JRN requested DEC for continuation of its provisional recognition which was granted vide letter dated 08.10.2008. In response, DEC replied,:- "In this regard, I am to inform that the competent authority has acceded to your request for continuation of provisional recognition conveyed by DEC vide letter No.F.DEC/JRN/RJ/08/ E 14236 dated 08.10.2008 in order to ensure continuity of the programmes offered by your University through distance mode, till the date ,of visit/approval ofrecommendations of the Visiting Expert Committee. Further, it is the responsibility of the University to follow the norms F prescribed by the concerned regulatory bodies and seek their approval for professional/technical programmes as per the requirement. Thus getting the approval of concerned statutory apex body for relevant progaramme(s) will be the sole responsibility of the University." G xvii) On 29.12.2012 an order was issued by MHRD as under:- "In view of the recommendations of the Madhava Menon Committee Report and Government's decision thereon, the

974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l3 S.C.R.

A Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) created under Statute 28 of the IGNOU Act cannot act as a regulator for other Universities as it creates conflict of interest. The Distance Education Council and the Board of Management of IGNOU have already passed resolution to repeal the Statute 28 and dissolve DEC under IGNOU. Therefore, B the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section 1 of section 20 of the UGC 1956 and theAICTEAct, 1987 hereby directs:- (i) The UGC and AICTE as already empowered under their respective Acts, would also act as a regulator for Higher c Education (excluding Technical Education) and Technical Education through open & Distance Learning (ODL) mode respectively Universities are empowered under their respective Act to offer any programme course including in Technical Education in the conventional mode. However if they offer any programme/course in ODL mode they would require recognition from the UGC, AICTE, NCTE and other such regulators of the conventional mode of education in those areas of study ...... " xviii) On 01.05.2013, IGNOU dissolved DEC and regulatory functions of"Open and Distance Leaming Education" were taken over by UGC, whereafter a notification was issued by UGC on 17.06.2013 that till it formulated Regulations for maintaining standards in Open and Distance Leaming systems/courses, the UGC would adopt the Guidelines of the DEC on minimum requirements for recognition oflnstitutions.

F xix) On 27.06.2013 a public notice was issued by UGC stating that Deemed to be Universities were not allowed to take courses in distance education mode. The relevant portion of public notice was to the following effect:- " A Deemed University shall operate only within its Headquarters G or from those off campuses/off-shore campuses which are approved by the Government of India through notification published in the official gazette. In case of distance education programmes, no institution Deemed to be university, so declared by the Govt. oflndia after 26" May, 2010 [date of publication of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be H

p. 975 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

Universities) Regulations, 20IO] is allowed to conduct courses in A the distance mode. The institutions Deemed to be universities declared before 26'" May, 20 l 0 are not allowed to conduct courses in distance mode from any of its off-campus centres/off-shore campuses approved after 26'" May, 20 IO. B Approval for new courses and extension of approval of the courses already run by the Deemed to be Universities under distance mode would be granted by the UGC subjectto the fulfillment of conditions as laid down by the UGC. The UGC has not granted approval to any Deemed to be university C to establish Study Centres. Any information/clarification with regard to recognition of Private Universities/Deemed Universities and the courses offered by them may be obtained from JS (CPP-I) UGC. Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi." D xx) Despite the aforesaid policy statements that no Deemed to be University was allowed to take technical courses in distance education mode, JRN again requested UGC to grant approval in terms of the earlier report of the Committee and when no response was received from UGC, Civil Writ Petition No.13900of2013 was filed by JRN in the High Court E of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in which following order was passed by the High Court on 26.11.2013:- "Issue notice. Notice be also issued on the stay application. Rule is made returnable on 16.12.2013. F In the meantime, the respondents shall not de-recognize the courses run provisionally under the "distance education mode." xxi) On 26.12.2014 JRN submitted further proposal to Distance Education Bureau ofUGC for starting new courses in distance education mode from academic session 2015-20I 6. Soon thereafter, on 28.02.2015 another letter was written by JRN to UGC to grant continuation of G recognition to JRN for the academic session 2015-2016. According to JRN, a further letter in reminder was sent on 17.06.2015 and when no response was received from UGC, JRN filed Civil Writ Petition No.8832 of2015 in the High Court ofJudicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the following order was passed by the High Court on 17.11.2015. H

p. 976 Copy page pinpoint

A " .......... At this stage, Mr. Singhvi, Learned Senior Counsel, has argued that some interim protection be granted to the petitioner, which is a deemed university and involved in imparting education through distance mode since 200 I of the approved programmed ofUGC. Mr. Singhvi further submits that although there was an interim protection by this Court not to take any coercive action B against the petitioner-University and not to de-recognize the courses run by it, the respondent-UGC has issued communication (Annex. 36) wherein the petitioner University has not been mentioned to impart education through distance mode. Considering the fact that petitioner-University is involved in c imparting education by distance mode since 200 I and there is interim protection granted to the University, the respondent-UGC is directed to provisionally include the name of the petitioner- deemed University in the list of the Universities, which are allowed to offer the approved programmed through distance mode for the D Academic Session 2015-16. It is made clear that this interim arrangement shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner-University and shall remain subject to the final decision of the writ petition. It is further clarified that UGC shall be free to carry out the requisite inspection for verifying the requisite infrastructure available with the petitioner-University for imparting education through distance mode. Stay petition is disposed off." xxii) On 12.04.2016 JRN submitted further proposal seeking recognition for programmes offered by it through distance education mode during the academic session 2016-2017. According to JRN, there being no response from UGC, JRN filed Writ Petition No. I 0310of2016 in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpurto include name of JRN in the list of recognized Universities in the academic year 2016- G 2017 and following order was passed by the High Court on 15.09.2016:- "Issue notice to the respondent No.I only. Issue notice of stay petition as well and be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner for service.

p. 977 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.)

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeks some more time to file reply to the writ petition. Time prayed for is granted. In the meantime, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to provisionally include name of petitioner-Deemed University in the list of universities, which are allowed to offer the approved programme for Distance Education mode for the Academic Sessions 2016-2017. Put up on 20.10.2016 along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.5531/2015, 13900/2013, 5194/2014, 7419/2015 and 8832/ 2015." c

24Copy pinpoint24. In the aforementioned backdrop of facts leading to the ex- post-facto approvals granted to JRN, !ASE, AA! and VMRF and the subsequent facts, the stand of the authorities as taken in their affidavits may now be adverted to. We have already quoted paragraph 19 of the affidavit of Mr. Ved Prakash, Chairman, UGC. Since the stand of the D UGC in the present matter is quite crucial, the relevant portions of the affidavit starting from paragraphs 7 to 10 and 12 to 18 in relation to the first question posed by this Court in its Order dated 11.12.2014 are extracted as under:- "7. Whether the UGC recognizes degrees in technical E education by open and distant education mode. If so, subject to what conditions, if any.

8. It is humbly submitted that the UGC used to consider the grant of approval to programmes conducted by institutions Deemed to be Universities for awarding B.E./B. Tech. degrees through ODL F mode. The conditions for granting such UGC approval to ODL programmes conducted by institutions Deemed to be Universities for awarding B.E./B. Tech. degrees are described below.

9. After the MHRD issued a notification dated 01.03.1995 (no.44, F.No.18-15/93-TD.V/TS.IV.) making it mandatory to obtain G approval for ODL qualifications from the DEC and, wherever necessary, from the AICTE, for employment with the Central Government, the UGC required the approval of AICTE wherever necessary for programmes conducted by institutions Deemed to

p. 978 Copy page pinpoint

A be Universities leading to the award of B.E./B.Tech degrees through ODL mode, as an imperative for the validity of such programmes .............. . l 0. Then, in 2004, the UGC framed "Guidelines for Establishing New Departments within the Campus, setting up of Off-campus B Centre(s)/Institution(s)/Off-shore Campus and Starting Distance Education Programmes by the Deemed Universities" [the "2004 UGC Guidelines"]. These guidelines were framed in keeping with the UGC's mandate to maintain the standard of teaching and research in universities and stipulated, ......... .

c 12. Thus, even as per the 2004 UGC Guidelines, the institutions Deemed to be Universities were required to have the approval of the AICTE, in addition to that of the UGC/DEC, for programmes leading to the award ofB.E./B.Tech. degrees through ODL mode. 13 ......... Here, it may be briefly noted that the DEC had granted D such ex-post facto approval because, as per the MHRD's gazette notification No.44, dated 01.03.1995, qualifications were required to have mandatory approval of the DEC and, wherever necessary, AICTE to be valid for Central Government jobs. However, since the DEC started giving such approvals in 2004-5 and the proper mechanism could be put in place only in 2007, most universities/ E institutions were not recognized by the DEC though many universities were offering programmes through correspondence and distance mode even before the establishment of the DEC (or its policy for giving recognitions). As a result, many students who had obtained their qualifications through distance mode started F facing problems because of non-recognition of their qualifications, including many who were in employment for years. Therefore, in order to safeguard the interest of these students, the DEC started the process of ex-post facto approvals and, consequently, many universities offering programmes through distance mode (including technical programmes) were accorded ex-post facto approval. G However, the universities concerned were required to follow the norms of the appropriate regulatory bodies and seek their approval wherever required.)

14. It is pertinent to note that the Joint Committee referred to in the aforesaid letter dated 12.05 .2008 was formed pursuant to an H

p. 979 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

MoU dated 10.05.2007 between UGC, AICTE and DEC. The A MoU was "aimed to avoid duplication of efforts in streamlining of activities" between the three bodies who had "mutually agreed to l) carry out various functions ofUGC & AICTE mandated under the Acts, as decided by the UGC and AICTE from time to time jointly with Distance Education Council to ensure coordinated and B integrated development and maintenance of norms and standards of technical and general education through distance and mixed mode in any form and format in the country .... " The Joint Committee was "to oversee the implementation of MoU and to design action plan for approval and monitoring of institutions offering technical programmes through distance and mixed mode" c and applications for approval of programmes in distance and mixed mode in the field of technical and general education were to be submitted to the Secretary to the Joint Committee ....... .

15. Therefore, since the AICTE was a member of the Joint Committee, the UGC considered approval from the Joint Committee D as tantamount to approval from AICTE as well. As such, the aforesaid Jetter dated 12.05.2008 from the UGC actually nullified an earlier decision to accept the recommendation to grant ex- pos! facto approval to JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth and other institutions Deemed to be universities taken at the third meeting of the Joint Committee ofUGC-AICTE. DEC held on 17.08.2007 E as well as a letter dated 13.11.2007 issued by the UGC which stated that, in light of the DEC's approval, "no separate approval from UGC is required" by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth for courses under distance education mode.

16. It is also pertinent to note that, subsequent to the UGC's letter F dated 12.05.2008, the Joint Committee ofUGC-AICTE-DEC; or UGC independently, did not accord any approval to these institutions Deemed to be Universities for starting programmes leading to the award of degrees in technical education through ODL mode. Therefore, till date, the deemed universities, namely, G JRNVidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan; Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu; !ASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and Allahabad Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad, U.P. have not been accorded the UGC's approval for their ODL programmes leading to the award ofB.E./ B. Tech. degrees. H

p. 980 Copy page pinpoint

A 17. In any event, vide letter dated 29.07.2009, the MHRD had informed the erstwhile DEC that the latter "should immediately withdraw permission given to various institutions to conduct B.Tech/B.E. Programmes through Distance Mode and no student should be admitted in the current year also. Those who have already been admitted wiU have to pass both practical and written B examination as may be prescribed in this regard, so as to give validity to the B. Tech/B.E. degree acquired by them through distance education." Accordingly, the erstwhile DEC had issued a letter dated 13.08.2009 stating that "the Joint Committee ofUGC- AICTE and DEC has not yet accorded any approval to BE/B. Tech c programme of any University offered through distance mode. Any such programmes offered by a University are hence illegal and are not approved by the DEC. Thus it is notified that the above notification of the MHRD is to be strictly adhered to and no University should offer any BE/B. Tech programme through distance mode. Any deviation from this policy may invite de- D recognition of the concerned University by the DEC."

18. Thereafter, in 2010, the UGC framed the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations (the "2010 Deemed Universities Regulations"). As per Regulation 18.0 therein.

E "No institution Deemed to be university, so declared by the central Government subsequent to these Regulations, shall be allowed to conduct courses in the Distance mode. Also such institutions declared as such, prior to these Regulations, shall not be allowed to conduct courses in the Distance mode from any ofits off-Campus Centre/Off-shore Campus approved F subsequent to these Regulations."

25Copy pinpoint25. The AICTE in its affidavit in reply referred to its Regulations and Guidelines. Adverting to the decision in Bharathidasan (supra), it was submitted that after said decision,

G " ...... only the "Technical Institutions" other than University were required to have prior approval of the AICTE. However, the universities which applied for approval of the AICTE on their own, were considered for grant of approval as per norms and standards of AICTE in force. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that the study centers and campuses of universities which H

p. 981 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

were not the constituent units of the universities, were required to A have prior approval of the Council for conducting any technical course or programme .... " Further, reference was made to notification dated 05.04.2006 issued by MHRD, which inter alia dealt with the issues concerning maintenance or standards of education in institutions notified as Deemed B to be universities. The affidavit further stated that: "That it is respectfully submitted that it has been the policy ofAICTE not to recognize qualification acquired through Distance Education mode at Diploma, Bachelors and Master level in the fields of Engineering, Technology and Architecture, Town Planning, c Pharmacy, Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Applied Arts and Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM). AICTE has the policy to consideronly MBAand MCA through Distance Mode for its recognition. In these circumstances, the AICTE has been issuing public notices from time to time informing the public and students regarding the above and specifically informing all the existing students/prospective students pursuing/wanted to pursue any educational programme in the above mentioned fields to check the approval by Joint Committee of DEC, UGC and AICTE on AICTE's web-portal at www.aicte- india.org.. It is respectfully submitted that AICTE has given various public notices in different newspapers regarding its aforesaid policy from time to time as per AICTE Act. That it is submitted that in view of the position explained hereinabove, the conduct of a technical course through distance education mode other than a course in MBA and MCA is not permissible. Thus, any technical course conducted by the technical institutions including the institution Deemed to be university concerned through distance education mode, except a course in MBA and MCA, is contrary to the policy of the AICTE. Hence, degrees or diplomas in technical course through distance education mode other than a course in MBA and MCA awarded by the technical institutions including the institution Deemed to be university cannot be treated valid degree or diploma. That it is submitted that in the present matter, the Private Respondent has obtained degree in Engineering from JRN H

p. 982 Copy page pinpoint

A Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, an institution Deemed to be University, through Distance Education Mode and through study centers which is not permissible as per the policy of the A!CTE. Thus, such degree in Engineering awarded by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, an institution Deemed to be university, through distance mode is not valid." B

26Copy pinpoint26. DEC having been dissolved in May 2013, we do not have its stand on record but the stand ofMHRD in its affidavit is to the following effect: "VIL I further submit that upto year 2007 Distance Education c Council (DEC) used to give recognition to institution offering general courses in the distance mode but during that year, Distance Education Council (DEC) also started giving recognition to such institutions to conduct technical programmes under the distance mode. This was in contradiction to policy adopted by AICTE which makes it mandatory to conduct technical programmes D through the regular (Conventional) mode of education. This created confusion amongst the stakeholders which gave unfair advantage to unscrupulous institutions conducting such courses in the distance mode. Accordingly, a Tripartite Committee ofUGC- AICTE-DEC was constituted through an MOU in May, 2007 for E a limited period of three years. VIII. In the meantime, on 19.02.2008 a meeting of Secretary, Department of Higher Education, MHRD was held with the Heads of UGC, AICTE, IGNOU and Joint Secretary (DL) to discuss the issue of co-ordination and maintenance of standards in Higher Education through distance. In the said meeting, it was inter alia decided that the approvals should be granted to the courses and no to the institute. However, all those aforesaid arrangements did not live to the expectations."

27Copy pinpoint27. The stand taken by the Deemed to be Universities in their respective affidavits and the documents on record is as under:- A. JRN was founded in the year 193 7, was conferred Deemed to be University status in January 1987 and is principally engaged in teaching and research in the field of adult and continuing education for working people. Following averments made in paragraphs 22 and 23 of its affidavit are noteworthy:- H

p. 983 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

"22. That after permission from DEC the University started the Distance Education programmes through its Study Centres as per the guidelines prescribed by the DEC and UGC. ON 26"' October2002 the Academic Council of the University took the decision to start the Engineering Courses (in all branches) amongst others through Distance Education Mode from academic year 2003 onwards.

23. The Faculty of Engineering and Technology of the University in the year 2003 when the University started it's Engineering Courses through distance education mode. Since the University did not conduct any course through foll time mode the University did not seek any approval from AICTE and the same was not c mandatory in view of this Judgment of the Hon'ble Court in Bharathidasan 's case as well as provisions of the AICTE Act that does not envisage University seeking any approval from the AICTE to offer technical programs. Further as communicated it also did not consider Technical programs under distance education program mode for approval, which was later held to be contrary to national policy." As regards, its activities in the field of technical education at its main campus, it is averred:- "(i) The Institute of Management Studies has been granted approval by the AICTE for the Masters in Business Admission program (Full Time) from the year 1998-99 onwards and granted extension till current academic session. (ii) The Department of Computer Science and Information Technology has been granted approval by the AICTE for conducting the Master in Computer Application (Full time) from the Academic Year 2003-04 onwards granted extension till current academic session. (iii) The Faculty of Engineering and Technology has been granted approval by the AICTE for conducting the under graduate courses in Engineering and Technology [Electronics and Communication Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Science Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Electrical Engineering] (Full time) from the Academic Year 2010-11 onwards and granted extension till current academic session. H

p. 984 Copy page pinpoint

A (iv) The Rajasthan Vidyapeeth Technology College has been granted approval by the AICTE for conducting the Diploma in Engineering and Technology (Electronics and Communication Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Science & Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Electrical Engineering) Master in Computer Application (Full B time) from the Academic Year 2012-13 onwards and granted extension till current academic session." After dealing with factual details leading to the ex-post-facto approvals by UGC and DEC, JRN submitted that no approval from AlCTE was required for a Deemed to be University. However despite c order dated 26.04.2017 passed by this Court, nothing was placed on record as to what type of infrastmcture is available with JRN and what was the methodology followed for monitoring standard of education imparted in its Study Centres. In response to queries from the Court, it was submitted across the bar that JRN was conducting distance education D programmes through 660 Study Centres out of which four centres were being maintained and managed by JRN while 656 centres were autonomous institutions. Though Study Centres would in turn employ demonstrators/lecturers, they were not on the payroll of JRN but course material would be provided by JRN. Further, though Faculty in Engineering was set up in the year 2003 there was no regular Engineering E College at the main campus of JRN and said Faculty received AICTE approval to conduct regular four year degree courses in Engineering only from the year 2010 and at Study Centres no regular four year degree courses in Engineering were being conducted but students having diplomas in engineering would be given lateral entry at second year level. F B. !ASE submitted an application on 19.12.2002 with DEC for starting distance education programme, copy of which was also sent to UGC. According to !ASE, since there was neither any denial nor any objection from these authorities, it started conducting B.Tech programmes through distance education mode in 2003. It is stated that !ASE stopped G B. Tech courses from the year 2005 through distance education mode though it continues to conduct diploma courses in engineering through dist3nce mode. It is further stated that its regular Engineering College started functioning at main campus from 2005 after getting recognition from AICTE. Like JRN, JASE has also not placed on record any material regarding infrastmcture and methodology for monitoring standard H of education in its Study Centres.

p. 985 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

C. The stand ofVMRF is that it conducts only diploma courses through distance education mode and it does not grant any degree in professional courses through distance education mode. It however submitted that it is on par with State Universities and therefore entitled to conduct distance education programmes across the Country.

28Copy pinpoint28. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the ex-post-facto approvals for their degree courses in Engineering were sought by JRN and !ASE only in the year 2005 when they had already begun their courses two to three years earlier. No inspection of their facilities or infrastructure available at the site was conducted by any authority and the only inspection that was done was confined to checking the documents. Any approval granted without any inspection, satisfaction c and recommendation of the AICTE was meaningless. According to him, even assuming that the principle laid down by this Court in Bharthidasan (supra) was to apply to Deemed to be Universities as well, the UGC guidelines themselves required the application to be in terms of specifications of AICTE and therefore even if one were to accept that satisfaction of AICTE was not required under the AICTE Act, the UGC guidelines did contemplate the same. In his submission, the Deemed to be Universities in question admitted students, conducted courses and granted degrees without any statutory approvals and in the teeth of numerous public notices. In the face of such blatant misuse, the grant of ex-post-facto approvals was not called for. In his note the learned Amicus Curiae submitted:- "The further issue that arises is as to whether in technical education and other specialized fields, the non-involvement of technical I specialized body is permissible or advisable. There is a difference between open distance learning in general fields and those in specialized fileds. While in Bharathidasan (supra), this Court has held that the AICTE has no power of granting approvals to Universities, it nonetheless recognizes the significant role played by the AICTE as a recommendatory I advisory body. This would necessarily mean that before any approvals are given, AICTE G recommendation for grant of such approval ought to be obtained. An approval granted without an inspection, satisfaction and recommendation of the AICTE is itself meaningless. Therefore, while the judgment in Bharathidasan (supra) has excluded the requirement of approvals fromAICTE, the approval of a university H

p. 986 Copy page pinpoint

A or course cannot be granted without the recommendation and satisfaction of all relevant competent bodies. In other words, in the case of distance learning education for general courses, the approval of UGC and IGNOU are required and in the case of specialized technical courses, the satisfaction and recommendation of AICTE or such other specialized body would be additionally B ~ailed for."

29Copy pinpoint29. UGC in its Written Submissions submitted:- a) 1985 UGC Regulations did not include education programmes in technical subjects leading to award of B.E. or B .Tech. degrees. c b) In Bharathidasan (supra), this Court was not concerned with the question of regulatory framework of Open Distance Learning. c) 2004 UGC Guidelines required submission of information whether the existing and proposed course curriculum was as per UGC/ AICTE/DEC specifications and approval/accredited by concerned statutory council. Thus there was a specific role of AICTE in respect of technical courses through distance learning. d) Taking advantage of Notification of MHRD dated 01.03.1995, the DEC started giving approvals without any proper mechanism in place and since its approvals were not getting recognized, it mooted the idea of ex-post-facto approval. But stand of UGC was clear in letter dated 12.05.2008 that approvals granted by DEC (including ex-post-facto) must be reviewed and approval be granted to the courses and not to the institute. e) After 12 .05 .2008, neither the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE- F DEC nor UGC independently accorded any approval to JRN, IASE, VMRF and AAI for their distance learning programmes leading to the award of B.E./B. Tech. degrees. f) In any case, letter dated 29.07.2009 of MHRD was clear that DEC should withdraw permissions granted for conducting B. Tech/B.E. G programmes through distance learning. This was followed by UGC letter dated 13.08.2009. The specific submission was:- " It is humbly submitted that so far as UGC is concerned, B.E./B.Tech. degrees awarded by institutions Deemed to be H

p. 987 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

Universities through ODL mode without AICTE approval wiJJ A not be treated as valid qualifications by the UGC. The UGC has never given any ex-post-facto approval to the aforesaid institutions which are "deemed universities" including JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, although the erstwhile DEC has given such approval to many universities/deemed universities including B JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth. The ex-post-facto approval relied upon by the petitioner JRN Rajasthan were not unconditional but were subject to approval of relevant statutory bodies or councils [which can only mean bodies like AICTE and such other similar regulatory bodies] wherever c necessary."

30Copy pinpoint30. In its written submissions, JRN submitted: l) 1985 UGC Regulations applied and covered degrees in Engineering as weJJ, since Engineering is an applied branch of science. D 2) JRN was granted permission by DEC to commence distance education programmes on 26.09.2001 pursuant to its application dated 17.08.2001 and in its Hand-book issued in May, 2003 by DEC, JRN was included in the list along with details of courses offered by it. 3) It applied for ex-post-facto approval pursuant to DEC E advertisement dated 03.03.2004, providing details of the Faculty of Engineering and other details as per proforma. 4) From 31.08.2005 to 2007 no fresh admissions were made in distance education. 5) UGC granted ex-post-facto approval of 03.07.2006 for students F admitted between June 200 I to August, 2005 which decision was later ratified by the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC and ex-post- facto approval was accorded on 29.08.2007. 6) In respect of academic session after 2007, provisional recognition was granted by DEC on 08.10.2008. G 7) JRN did not take any admissions in Engineering Courses from 31.08.2009 till I l.10.2011 in view ofletter dated 26.08.2009 issued by DEC.

p. 988 Copy page pinpoint

A 8) It also referred to interim orders passed by High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan which are referred to hereinabove in respect of subsequent academic years. 9) JRN was declared to be a Deemed to be University for its experience and expertise in the field of admission and continuing B education, and its expertise in a System of methodology of education/ learning and not in a particular subject or discipline. 10) It commenced its courses in Engineering through distance education mode in the year 2003 for people who were already employed in technical fields and had previous technical qualifications but could not apply further due to various restraints. c 11) It established Faculty of Engineering although there is no perquisite for a university to have a full time faculty in a particular subject to start its course through distance education mode and there were no circulars/notices issued by any statutory body prohibiting a University to offer distance education courses in Engineering stream. D 12) A Deemed to be University is not confined to a state or region like university created by state legislatures and it can open Off-Centres/ Campus Centres in any part of India with the approval ofUGC. Similarly, Study Centres for distance education can be established and maintained or recognized in any part oflndia for the assistance of students enrolled E in distance learning programmes. 13) It gave a list of 18 Deemed to be Universities having Off Campus Centres in various parts of the country including three such Deemed to be Universities having Off Shore Campus outside the country. 14) It then referred to judgment of this Court in Bharathidasan F (supra) in support of the submission that Universities do not require any approval from AICTE for conducting technical courses. It also relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court in Satyabama lnstitllte of Science & Technology v. Union ofIndia' which held that Universities including Deemed to be Universities could start a department or commence new courses or programmes in technical education without G approval of AICTE. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sam Higginbottom Institute ofAgriculture, Technology and Sciences v. University Grants Commission' to the effect that 7 2006 (3) MRJ 870 'W.P. (C) 486/2015 decided on 4.12.2015 H

p. 989 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.)

there was no restriction on a Deemed to be University to start new A course or department until UGC Regulations of 20 JO were issued. Further reliance was placed on Association ofManagement ofPrivate Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.' to the effect that universities, its colleges and institutes were exempted from seeking prior approval of AICTE. B

31Copy pinpoint31. Appearing for JRN, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate submitted that in terms of the decisions of this Court in Bharathidasan (supra) and Association of Management of Private Colleges (supra) no operational control could be exercised by AICTE over Universities including Deemed to be Universities. However some sort of cooperation was certainly envisaged in Bharathidasan (supra) c which was purely in the nature of advisory role for AICTE. He further submitted that power of a Deemed to be University to start new courses was unlimited and a Deemed to be University would be bound by regulatory mechanism only in two ways:- a. Its recognition as a Deemed to be University could be withdrawn D if it was found to be not functioning within the limits, and b. Regular inspections in terms of statute could be undertaken by UGC though as a matter of fact these inspections never take place. E According to him though there was no express empowerment under any statute enabling a Deemed to be University to initiate various courses and disciplines outside its area of excellence, there was no negative mandate either and as an extension of this principle a Deemed to be University could enter the field of distance education in any subject or discipline. Mr. M.L. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for F JASE made his submissions on similar lines. · Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. Jayant Bhushan and Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior Advocates and other learned Advocates led by Mr. Ashok Mahajan, learned Advocate, appearing for various candidates adopted the submissions of Dr. Dhavan and Mr. G Verma. In their submissions, the concerned candidate-in-service diploma holders took admission to degree courses in Engineering and have successfully completed such courses and advanced in life. They

'(20l3J s sec 211 H

p. 990 Copy page pinpoint

A submitted that in any view of the matter the degrees obtained by these candidates may not be nullified.

32Copy pinpoint32. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocate appearing for OL!C reiterated the stand of OLIC that the degrees in Engineering obtained by concerned in-service diploma holders through distance B education were invalid and as such no benefit ought to accrue to such candidates. Similar submission was advanced by Mr. V. K. Bali, learned Senior Advocate appearing for State of Punjab in matters arising from the decision of 1.-jigh Court of Punjab and Haryana.

33Copy pinpoint33. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General c appearing for UGC submitted that inclusive definition of"University" in UGC Act was in a completely different and limited context and the idea was essentially to recognize Deemed to be University for the purposes of funding and that such Deemed to be University is not a University for all purposes. Jn his submission, if such Deemed to be University is desirous of starting any technical course it ought to obtain express approval from AICTE. He also placed reliance on Section 23 to submit that a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act alone is entitled to have the word "University" associated with its name which again signified the distinction between a University established or incorporated under a legislation as against a Deemed to be University.

34Copy pinpoint34. Thus, we are principally concerned in the present matters with questions regarding validity of degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities in two periods. a) Where students were admitted during 200 I to 2005 in respect of which ex-post- F facto approval was granted; and b) In respect of students admitted by JRN during 2007-08, 2008-09 and from 2011-l 2 onwards. The crucial facts as they emerge from the narration in the preceding paragraphs are:- a) The concerned Deemed to be Universities namely AA!, JRN G and !ASE started distance education programmes leading to degrees in Engineering, outside their field of specialization. Such programmes were started without taking any approval from UGC and/or AJCTE and when there was no approved engineering college or faculty at their main campus. H

p. 991 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

b) Further, such programmes were being conducted in Study A Centres, majority of which were not maintained and managed by the concerned Deemed to be Universities. The demonstrators/lecturers employed at such Study Centres were not on the payroll of and were not selected by such Deemed to be Universities. c) Those Study Centres were not inspected at any stage, nor any B facilities therein were assessed to see if they meet the standards prescribed for imparting courses in Engineering. Similarly, no authority had checked what kind of courses were being conducted nor was there any inspection at the time the examinations were said to have been conducted. c d) The Visiting Committee of DEC had visited the main campus of the concerned Deemed to be Universities and seen the record but not visited any Study Centres. No member or representative of AICTE was part of such Visiting Committee, the report of which was simply endorsed by the Joint Committee ofUGC-DEC-AICTE. D e) Under 1985 UGC Regulations, minimum of 180 actual leaching days in an academic year with 40 clock hours every week are required for courses leading to degrees of B.A.!B.Sc./B.Com. Assuming that these Regulations apply to courses in Engineering, this requirement would be more pronounced and crucial when courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering are in issue. Such technological programmes by very nature require extensive practical training. f) The application preferred by JRN for ex-post-facto approval shows that its Study Centres for programmes leading to degrees in Engineering were located in institutions which themselves were running independent courses. If 180 actual teaching days with 40 clock hours per week is the requirement which must be satisfied by those institutions for running their own courses, no scope is left for any outside institution such as JRN forusing such facilities for imparting any courses in technical education. If the facilities were sufficient to justify the independent strength ofthose institutions, the additional burden caused by students of G JRN could not possibly be accommodated. g) The inspection to ensure maintenance of standards was specifically contemplated under the Notification of MHRD issued on 05.04.2006. Para 10 of the Memorandum of Undertaking dated 10.05.2007 also spoke of inspection for the purposes of continuation/ H

p. 992 Copy page pinpoint

A withdrawal of approval. In the teeth of these Policy statements, the Joint Committee of AICTE-DEC-UGC endorsed its acceptance on 07.08.2007 without there being inspections at all. h) Aforesaid aspects regarding complete absence of any inspection become crucial particularly when communications of DEC and UGC B issued from time to time highlighted complaints regarding those Deemed to be Universities. i) As far as second period is concerned, again no inspections, at any stage, were carried out. The provisional approval dated 03.09.2007 by DEC was completely mechanical and the assertion therein that DEC c would not insist on territorial jurisdiction, was against the mandate of MHRD in its letter dated 29.07.2009 and of the decision in the ninth meeting of the Joint Committee ofUGC-DEC-AICTE. The consequent approval dated 13.11.2007 by UGC is equally mechanical and suffers from same infirmity.

D j) Though decision was taken in the meeting held on 19.02.2008 to review cases of ex-post-facto approvals within a month, nothing was done. In fact, the first communication thereafter was three months after on 12.05.2008. It spoke nothing about review of ex-post-facto approval already granted. At this juncture, the logical exercise ought to have been to consider and assess the claim course-wise, cause inspections and see whether ex-post-facto approvals were rightly granted or not. However, that was not to be. k) On the other hand, UGC in its meeting of2 l.05.2008 went on to ratify the decision of the Chairman to accord approval. At the same time, in response to application dated 08.05.2008 by JRN, DEC went on to grant provisional recognition for the year 2008-09. 1) In spite of clear instructions by MHRD in its letter dated 29.07.2009 to withdraw permissions already given to conduct B.Tech/ B.E. programmes through distance education and not to admit students for current year, no steps were undertaken to implement those directions and withdraw permissions already given. m) Even after dissolution of DEC and Public Notice dated 27.06.2013 issued by UGC that no Deemed to be University would be allowed to take courses through distance education, when JRN again applied to UGC for grant of approval, no reply was given by UGC; on H

p. 993 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

which score JRN was able to get an interim order dated 26.l l.2013 A from the High Court. As a matter of fact in the face of Regulation 18 of 20 I 0 UGC Regulations, such a request or application could never have been considered. n) Similar is the case with regard to interim orders dated 17.12.2015 and 15.09.2016. Thus JRN could continue admitting students B despite aforementioned Policy statements, on the strength of interim orders. o) During this period, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide its decision dated 06.11.2012 had already held the degrees in Engineering awarded by Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode c to be invalid. That decision was appealed against by students and JASE but not by JRN. In any case, the Interim Order of this Court only protected concerned students whose degrees stood invalidated. p) lfinterim orders dated 26.l l.2013, 17.11.2015 and 15.09.2016 by one High Court could become a justification for continuing to conduct courses leading to degrees in Engineering through distance education mode across the country, the final declaration issued by another High Court on 06.11.2012 and the policy statements referred to earlier, had greater binding force. q) On one hand it was being proclaimed by the concerned authorities in their public notices like 27 .06.2008 and 27.06.2013 or policy statements such as 20 I 0 UGC Guidelines that no Deemed to be University will be allowed to conduct courses in distance education mode, and on the other hand DEC kept granting provisional approval and UGC helped the concerned Deemed to be University by its total inaction. F

35Copy pinpoint35. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the learned Amicus Curiae is right in his submission that the ex-post facto approvals granted in the present matters were completely opposed to the policy statements governing the matters in issue. He is right that the concerned Deemed to be Universities admitted students, conducted courses and granted degrees in the absence of statutory approvals. It is, however, the G submission of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate that a Deemed to be University is entitled to start new courses in technical education (including through distance education mode) in terms of law laid down by this Court inBharathidasan (supra) and that there was no bar or prohibition in any statute or statutory instrument when the Deemed H

p. 994 Copy page pinpoint

A to be Universities started the instant courses in distance education mode. According to him, the inspections could of course be undertaken by UGC in terms of the Statute and if no inspections, as a matter of fact were conducted, the Deemed to be Universities could not be at fault. The following questions, therefore, arise for our consideration. B A. Whether the concerned Deemed to be Universities in the present case, could start courses through distance education in subjects leading to award of degrees in Engineering - a) Without any parameters or Guidelines having been laid down by AICTE for conduct of such courses in technical education c through distance education mode. b) Without prior approval under the AICTE Act. B. Whether DEC, on its own, was competent to grant permission to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to start such courses through distance education. D

36Copy pinpoint36. The definition of"Technical Education" in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of education, research and training in Engineering Technology in general and the idea is not limited to the institutions where such programmes of education, research and training are to be conducted or imparted. However, the definition of'Technical Institution" in Section 2(h) leaves out an institution which is a University. The distinction between the broader concept of "Technical Education" and the limited scope of"Technical Institution" is clear from Section I 0 of the AlCTE Act where certain functions concern the broader facets or aspects of technical education which by very nature must apply to every single institution (whether university or not) where such courses are conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functions are relatable to technical institutions alone, which by definition are not applicable to universities. For example, Functions in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (I) and (n) are concerned with broader facets of technical education, while functions in Clauses (k), (m), (p) and (q) deal with matters concerning technical institutions and thus may not apply to universities, whereas there are certain functions as set out in Clauses (g) and (o) which apply to both "Technical Institutions" and "Universities" imparting technical education. Clauses (c), (d) and (f) of Section 10 deal with subjects, inter alia, coordination of the technical education in the country at all levels; promoting innovation, research, development, H

p. 995 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

establishment of new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet the developmental requirements; and promoting and effecting link between technical education and systems and other relevant systems. AICTE is thus the sole repository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative norms for "technical education". What should be course content, what subjects be taught and what should be the length and duration of the courses as well as the manner in which those courses be conducted is a part of the larger concept of"technical education". Any idea or innovation in that field is also a part of the concept of"technical education" and must, as a matter of principle, be in the exclusive domain of AICTE.

37Copy pinpoint37. In Bharathidasan (supra) the issue was whether a University C established under a State Law, within its area of operation, was entitled to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself without any approval of AICTE. The requirement of grant of approval under Section 10( 1)(k) of the AICTE Act being specific in respect of technical institutions alone, the conclusion was arrived at that D theAICTE could not insist upon such grant of approval when a University wished to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself. The discussion inBharathidasan shows that this Court accepted the role of AICTE in laying down norms and standards in technical education system which is evident from following portions from paragraph Nos. I 0 and 16. E

"10 .................. A careful scanning-through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of A!CTE vis-a-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action ..................... . 16 ............ We also place on record the statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, which, in our view, even otherwise is the correct position of law, that the challenge of the appellant with reference to the Regnlation in question and claim of AICTE that the appellant University should seek and obtain prior approval of AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or programme in technical education does not mean that they have H

p. 996 Copy page pinpoint

A no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by AICTE for the purpose of ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards ............. "

38Copy pinpoint38. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in B Engineering consists of imparting oflessons in theory as well as practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education which is hands-on approach involving actual application of principles taught in theory under the watchful eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes. The practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the technical education c system. If this established concept of imparting technical education as a qualitative norm is to be modified or altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance education learning, then as a concept the AICTE ought to have accepted it in clear terms. What parameters ought to be satisfied if the regular course of imparting technical education is in any way to be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to decide. The decision must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely because of absence of any Guidelines in the matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it has always maintained that courses leading to degrees in Engineering cannot be undertaken through distance education mode. Whether that approach is correct or not is not the point in issue. For the present purposes, if according toAICTE such courses ought not to be taught in distance education mode, that is the final word and is binding - unless rectified in a manner known to law. Even National Policy on Education while emphasizing the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes through distance education learning in technical and managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTE will be responsible for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standards including maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education. In our view whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering, could be taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive domain of the AICTE. The answer to the first limb of the first question posed by us is therefore clear that without the Guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree courses in Engineering through distance education mode, the Deemed to be Universities were not justified in introducing such courses. H

p. 997 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

39Copy pinpoint39. We now move to the second limb of the first question. Under A 1994 AICTE, Regulations, "no courses or programmes shall be introduced by any Technical Institution, University including a Deemed University or University Department on College except with the approval of the Council". Bharathidasan (supra) declared said Regulation to the extent.it required a University to have approval for introducing any B courses or programmes in technical education, to be bad. Same thought was amplified in Association of Management of Private Colleges (supra) to say that affiliated colleges of the University were entitled to the same protection. The question is, whether a Deemed to be University is also entitled to the same protection. The matter can be considered under two categories:- c a. The first category could be of a Deemed to be University, which was conferred such status for its excellence in a field of technological subject, is now desirous of introducing courses or programmes integrally connected with the area- in respect of which it was conferred Deemed to be University status. For D example, an Engineering College which because of its excellence in the field was conferred Deemed University status, now wishes to introduce courses in subjects like Robotics or Nano Technology which are Engineering subjects and integrally connected with its own field of excellence. E b. The second category could be of a Deemed to be University which was conferred such status for its excellence in subjects which are completely un-related to the field in which new courses are sought to be introduced. For example an Institution engaged in teaching Fine Arts and Music, for its excellence in that chosen field- or for that matter an institution engaged in teaching Law F had been conferred such status. Can such a Deemed to be University claim immunity from regulatory control of AICTE and say that it is entitled, as a matter of right, to introduce courses in Engineering on the strength of the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan. G We are concerned in the present cases with the second category of Deemed to be Universities. In the present cases, none of the Deemed to be Universities was conferred such status for its excellence in the field of Engineering. Their fields were completely un-related. As a matter of fact, JRN and !ASE did not even have regular college or H

p. 998 Copy page pinpoint

A faculty for Engineering at its main campus. And yet, they started courses in Engineering through distance education mode without the approval of AICTE, relying on the dictum in Bharathidasan. According to Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate, they were entitled as a matter of right to start such courses.

40Copy pinpoint40. The affidavit of Dr. Ved Prakash as referred to hereinabove as well as the stand ofUGC and the submissions made by Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General make it clear that such Deemed Universities in the second category mentioned above are not entitled, as a matter of right, to introduce courses leading to degrees in Engineering without the approval of A!CTE. According to the submission of the c learnedAdditional Solicitor General, the conferral of status is only because of excellence in a particular field or subject which then entitles the Deemed to be University to utilise its excellence to conduct research and achieve advancement in that field. However merely because such status was conferred on the concerned institution, in his submission, would not entitle it to similar protection in the second category cases, as available to a University by virtue of the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan (supra).

41Copy pinpoint41. Paras 1 and 2 of Bharathidasan (supra) show that the University constituted under the State law had its area of operation over three Districts of Tamil Nadu and by virtue of such State law could provide among other things, instructions and training in such branches of learning as it may determine. The express grant or empowerment thus came from the State enactment to enter into any field of learning as it may determine and introduce new courses in that behalf. However the University would be bound by territorial restrictions, in that it could not go beyond the territory of three Districts over which it was given Jurisdiction. But if we accept the submission of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate, there would be no such territorial restrictions on a Deemed University and it could open new departments, introduce new courses in any field anywhere in the Country. By way of illustration, we can consider the case ofa private institution affiliated to a University such as Bharathidasan University, which after some length of time is conferred Deemed to be University status for excellence achieved by such private institution, say in the field ofadult education. If we accept the submission of Dr. Dhavan, upon such conferral of Status as Deemed to be University, this originally affiliated private H

p. 999 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.)

institution can now introduce any courses in technical education anywhere in the Country but the original University would be bound by territorial restriction.

42Copy pinpoint42. The grant or empowerment inBharathidasan (supra) in favour of the University in question came from the State enactment which was its Charter. There is no such Charter or grant in favour of a Deemed to be University under any provision of the UGC Act. All that the UGC Act does is to confer Deemed to be University status on an Institution which has achieved excellence in its chosen field so that its development in the concerned field and its attempts to attain excellence and conduct research are not hampered on any count and at the same time it could be extended the facilities ofAid. It is precisely for this that the distinction c between a regular University established under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and an Institution Deemed to be University is maintained in the UGC Act. A Deemed to be University can certainly award degrees but cannot use the word "'University" by virtue of Section 23 of the UGC Act. Even after conferral of such status it still continues D to be "an Institution Deemed to be University" and if it is equated with a University in every sense of the term it would lead to incoherent and incongruous results, in that its area of operation or the field of its activity would be completely unlimited and unregulated. In our view that is certainly not the intent of the UGC Act. E

43Copy pinpoint43. Conceptually there is some difference between the status of a University established under· a State law and that of a Deemed to be University. Normally, a University is established with an idea that particular areas or districts of the State need to be catered to. Such University is expected to satisfy the needs or aspirations of people in the area for education and correspondingly empowered to initiate new courses, keeping in tune with the needs of time. The expectations from a Deemed to be University are of a different dimension. What is expected is excellence, research and advancement in its chosen field for which such status was accorded. There is no embargo on such Deemed to be University in entering new areas of education or introducing new courses but in that case, it can't demand or receive complete relaxation from regulatory regime. It must satisfy all those requirements which a normal institution is required to. The stand taken by the UGC in the affidavit of Dr. Ved Prakash, as well as its submissions in our view, are correct and we reject the submission of Dr. Dhavan. The logical conclusion is that H

p. 1000 Copy page pinpoint

A a Deemed to be University in the second category mentioned hereinabove is still an institution of the stature of a "technical institution" and if it desires to introduce new courses it must fulfill the requirements of 1994 AICTE Regulations. A Deemed to be University which has achieved excellence in a particular field may be given deferential treatment but nonetheless it has to satisfy the requirements for new technical institution. B Pertinently, both JRN and JASE, while establishing their faculty or colleges in engineering at their main Campus sought approvals from AICTE. Further, even for introducing courses in management which come under the definition of technical education under the AICTE Act, appropriate permissions were sought from AICTE. We therefore c conclude that the Deemed to be Universities in the present case were required to abide by the provisions of 1994 AICTE Regulations and could not introduce courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering without the approval of AICTE. 1994 AICTE Regulations or any subsequent Regulations will have to be understood in the light of our decision.

44Copy pinpoint44. Para 3 of the notification dated22.l 1.1991 which constituted DEC shows that there was no representation for any Member or representative of AICTE. The provisions of IGNOU Act show that the Study Centres as defined in the !GNOU Act are that of IGNOU and not of any other University or Institution. The concept of distance education under sub-clause (v) of Section 5 is also in relation to the academic E programmes of!GNOU. It undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii) and (xxiii) to cooperate with other Universities but the IGNOU Act nowhere entitles IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of the entire field of distance education ofleaming across the Country and in relation to programmes of other Universities or Institutions as well. The Order F dated 29.12.2012 issued by MHRD therefore correctly appreciated that DEC created under statute 28 oflGNOlJ Act could not act as a regulator for other Universities. In any event of the matter, the policy Guidelines issued from time to time made it abundantly clear that DEC alone was not entitled to grant permission for open distance learning and appropriate permissions from the requisite authorities were always required and G insisted upon. Despite such policy statements, DEC went on granting permissions without even consulting AICTE. Such exercise on part of DEC was completely without jurisdiction.

45Copy pinpoint45. It was laid down by this Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department H

p. 1001 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

and Others 10 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 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 exercise was done in the face of declared policy statements governing the field and even when specific complaints were received c 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 ofUGC-AICTE D - 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. E

46Copy pinpoint46. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of Courses leading to award of F degrees in Engineering. However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universities G flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned students persuades

"(2009) 4 sec s90 H

p. 1002 Copy page pinpoint

A us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the concerned students. We, B therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years 200 I to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of c AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.

47Copy pinpoint47. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in written examination as well as in practicals for the concerned students admitted during the academic sessions 200 l-2005 covering all the concerned subjects. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in respective States wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during May-June, 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the concerned students and if they do not pass the test/tests their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the test/tests, the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the concerned Deemed to be University within a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15'" of January, 2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/ tests in respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. G If they clear the lest/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the concerned candidates. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the concerned candidates do not clear the test/tests within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test/tests, their degrees in Engineering through distance education H

p. 1003 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

shall stand recalled and cancelled. It goes with out saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.

48Copy pinpoint48. As regards the students who were admitted after the ex-post- facto approval granted in favour of such Deemed to be Universities, in our view, there was no sanction whatsoever for their admission. The Policy Statements as well as warnings issued from time to time were absolutely clear. The students were admitted on the strength either provisional recognition or on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Court. We therefore, declare that in respect of students admitted after the academic sessions of 2001-2005, the degrees in Engineering c awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through Distance Education Mode shall stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. Any benefit which a candidate has secured as a result of such degrees in Engineering in the nature of promotion or advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary benefit or advantage will not be recovered by the concerned departments or employers. We, further direct that the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fee and all other expenditure for such courses through distance education learning shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities to the respective students. This direction shall be complied with by the concerned Deemed to be Universities scrupulously and the amounts shall be returned by 31" of May, 2018 and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter.

49Copy pinpoint49. The factual narration mentioned hereinabove makes certain things distinctly clear. The affidavit of Mr. Ved Prakash discloses how permissions were granted to introduce courses in the present cases without any authority. On one hand, the authorities were proclaiming their policy statements and on the other, despite there being complaints, they went about granting permissions. Their conduct and approach is difficult to explain on any rational basis and leaves much to be desired. We are, prima facie of the view that the conduct of the concerned officials needs to be looked into and investigated whether the exercise of power by them was completely genuine or colourable. We do not express any final opinion in that behalf but direct the CBI to carry out thorough H

p. 1004 Copy page pinpoint

A investigation into the matter and to take appropriate steps after culmination thereof.

50Copy pinpoint50. The record further shows that time and again warnings were issued to the concerned Deemed to be Universities. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate is right in his submission that ifa Deemed to be B University is not to be found functioning within the limits, its recognition as Deemed to be University could be withdrawn. In our view, the concerned Deemed to be Universities had gone far beyond their limits and to say the least, had violated binding policy statements. Even when they did not have any experience in the concerned field and had no regular faculty or college in Engineering, they kept admitting students c through distance education mode. When there was nothing at the core, the expansion was carried at the tertiary levels in brazen violation. The idea was not to achieve excellence in the field but the attempts appear to be guided by pure commercial angle. We therefore, direct the UGC to consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by the D concerned institutions, namely, JRN, AA!, JASE and VMRF calls for any such withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf. If the concerned Deemed to be Universities fail to return the moneys to the concerned students as directed above, that factor shall also be taken into account while conducting such exercise.

E 5 l. We must also put on record what we have observed during the course of the hearing and consideration of the present matters. It has come to our notice that many institutions which are conferred the status of Deemed to be Universities are using the word "University", which in our view is opposed to the spirit ofSection23 of the UGCAct. The UGC shall take appropriate steps to stop such practice. F

52Copy pinpoint52. The present case shows the extent of commercialization of education by some of the Deemed Universities. The commercialization of education seriously affects creditability of standards in education, eroding power and essence of knowledge and seriously affecting excellence and merit. The present case further displays lack of effective G oversight and regulatory mechanism for the Deemed to be Universities. The UGC had completely failed to remedy the situation. Serious question has therefore arisen as to the manning of the UGC itself for its effective working. We have already found that facilities at Study Centres were never checked nor any inspections were carried out which has led us to H

p. 1005 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

direct suspension of degrees for the students enrolled during academic A sessions 2001-2005 and annulment of degrees of students admitted after academic sessions of 2001-2005. We have also found that there was complete and flagrant violation of norms and policies laid down by the authorities by the Deemed to be Universities. AICTE had been illegally kept out. B Thus, interest ofjustice requires that the following issues also need to be addressed: (i) Action for failure of system, inter alia, on account of misconduct of some of the functionaries who failed to uphold the law and granted approvals contrary to the policy and the rules; c (ii) Manning of the UGC; (iii) Appropriate oversight and regulatory mechanism especially for distance education degrees especially those relating to technical education by the Deemed to be Universities in future; D (iv) Review of the Deemed to be Universities status granted to the Deemed to be Universities in the past in the light of this Judgment and in the light of their working; and The above issues need immediate steps to be taken by the Union of India. Review of oversight and regulatory mechanism is of utmost E priority for the future of technical and professional education at the hands of Deemed Universities. In this regard, we may note the observations of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others v. State ofMadhya Pradesh and others 11 highlighting need for review of regulatory mechanism for medical admissions and profession. We also note the observations in Mahipal F Singh Rana, Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh" with regard to legal profession.

53Copy pinpoint53. Accordingly we direct: I 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not G justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education without the approval of AICTE.

11 (2016) 7 SCC 353 -Paras 86 to 92, 108 IO 111 12 (2016) 6 sec 335 H

p. 1006 Copy page pinpoint

A lI Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 200 l-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside. Ill Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities B stand suspended. IV The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15.0l.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and 47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. V Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 47. VI If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully. F VII As regards students who were admitted after the Academic Sessions 200 l-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in G Para 48 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 3l.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48.

p. 1007 Copy page pinpoint

PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

VIII By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities A shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter. IX We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and B went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation. c X The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by JRN, AA!, JASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above are not refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise. D

XI We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018-2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course specific. XII The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word 'University' within one month from today. XIII The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism

p. 1008 Copy page pinpoint

A in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 31, ·s

2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11.09.2018.

54Copy pinpoint54. Before we part, we express our sincere appreciation for the efforts put in by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae. We are extremely grateful for the assistance rendered by him. We are also c thankful for the assistance given by all the learned counsel.

55Copy pinpoint55. We thus accept the view taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and set aside the decision of the High Court of Orissa. With the aforementioned observations, appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs. No orders are called for in.Contempt Petition D Nos.194-19712016 which stands disposed of.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.