Allahabad High Court
U.P. Rajarshi Tandon Open University ... vs Sanjay Kumar Baghel 2810 Miss 2012 on 15 April, 2025
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21212
Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 140 of 2021
Applicant :- U.P. Rajarshi Tandon Open University Pryagraj Thru Registrar
Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Baghel 2810 Miss 2012
Counsel for Applicant :- Saryu Prasad Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava,Narendra Gupta
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
[C.M. APPLICATION NO.IA/8/2025-Application for Restoration/ Recalling the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by this Court]
(i) We have heard Shri S.P. Tiwari on the Recall application.
(ii) We find the reasons are sufficient and allow the Recall application.
(iii) The Review application is restored to its original number.
Order on Review Application.
1. We have heard counsel appearing on behalf of the Review-applicant and also Shri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava who appears on behalf of the Respondent no.3.
2. The counsel for the Review-applicant while arguing on the merits of his Review application has referred to Section 22 (1) of the University Grants Commission Act of 1956 which provides, the Right of conferring or Granting Degrees to Universities established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an Institution which is deemed to be a University under Section 3 or an Institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
3. It has been argued by the counsel for the Review-applicant that the University Grants Commission has issued a letter on 02.11.2004 granting recognition of degrees awarded by Open University and empowering the Open University to award Degrees or Diploma in several courses.
4. The counsel for the Review-applicant has also referred to the U.P. Rajarshi Tandon Open University First Ordinance 2002 where under Chapter 2 the provisions of admission, eligibility, duration and structure of various Degrees and Certificate Programmes and Courses of studies have been provided.
5. The counsel appearing for the Review-applicant has also referred to a Writ Petition filed by one other student by the name of Ajeem Akhtar challenging the Government Order dated 24.04.1989 namely Writ-C No.10939 of 2007 which was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 08.10.2010 by observing that the University has validly been conducting courses and granting Diploma of Medical Technicians on requisite permission being granted by the State Government. It also observed that however, such permission does not dispense with the requirement mentioned in the Government Order dated 24.04.1989 and the requirement of the Government Order of 1989 is an additional requirement which was continuing since before 2001 when permission was granted to the University to impart training, education and award the Diploma in question.
6. It has been submitted by the counsel for the Review-applicant that a Special Appeal No.1846 of 2010 was filed against judgment and order dated 18.10.2010 which was decided by the Appellate Court by its order dated 18.11.2010. The Appellate Court modified the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 08.10.2010 by saying that in case the petitioner makes an application for providing Registration Form pursuant to the said Government Order, such prayer would be considered in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of communication of certified copy of the order.
7. Shri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava who appears for the Respondent no.3 has referred to Section 22 as quoted in Paragraph-8 of his Counter affidavit. It has been pointed out that the counsel for the Review-applicant has only referred to Sub-Section 1 of Section 22 but has not referred to Sub-Section 2 and Sub-Section (3) thereof. The Degrees/ Diploma which can be granted by such Universities have to be given only with previous approval of the Central Government and in specified courses as mentioned by the Commission by a Notification in the Official Gazette. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the Diploma course of Laboratory Technology was ever notified in the Official Gazette by the University Grants Commission and therefore the Open University could not have granted such Diploma/ Degree. The University Grants Commission in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 22 of the Act of 1956 and in supersession of all earlier Gazette Notification pertaining to Nomenclature of Degree, has notified a list which was published in March, 2014 and which is available on the Website of the UGC. Diploma in Laboratory Technology is not mentioned in the list which was notified on 14.03.2014. The University Grants Commission has never recognized any course by distance mode programme for Laboratory Technology.
8. It has also been submitted by Shri Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava that the Open University has not been given any power to run any Paramedical course without valid recognition / permission of Competent Authority.
9. With regard to the Judgment and order dated 08.10.2010 as modified in Special Appeal by order dated 18.11.2020, it has been submitted that the said case of Ajeem Akhtar was completely different. The Hon'ble Single Judge has mentioned that the Government Order which was challenged by the writ petitioner Ajeem Akhtar still continues to stand.
10. Shri Narendra Kumar Gupta appearing for the writ petitioners Sanjay Kumar Baghel, in Writ Petition No.2810 (M/S) of 2012, had approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 21.03.2012 passed by U.P. State Medical Faculty, the Respondent no.3 where his case for Registration as Lab Technician was rejected. The Court after considering the case on merits had observed that since the validity of the Government Order dated 24.04.1989 had been upheld by Writ-Court which judgment was later on modified giving the writ petitioner Ajeem Akhtar only an opportunity to file a Representation, it would not have benefited the petitioner in any manner.
11. The Court had considered the language of the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the State Government on 16.04.2001 to the Registrar of the Open University which referred to several Degrees and Diploma Courses including a Diploma course of Medical Technicians only on the condition that the State Government shall not be saddled with the financial burden in running the course. The 'No Objection Certificate' could only be treated as a permission to run the course and nothing more could be read into it. Recognition for such course would still have to be given by the appropriate Department i.e. U.P. State Medical Faculty. Without such recognition being given by the U.P. State Medical Faculty or even by the Department of Medical Education, such course could not have been run by the University.
12. This Court having gone through the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent no.3 finds that the Notification issued by the University Grants Commission under Sub-Section (3) of Section 22 does not mention the course of Medical Technician/ Laboratory Technician and the U.P. State Medical Faculty was only following the law in rejecting the application of the petitioner.
13. This Court had found the University having fooled several students into applying for such course being run by it without recognition being granted by the UGC. It had therefore disposed of the writ petition giving the writ petitioner-Sanjay Kumar Baghel the liberty to file appropriate proceedings before Competent Forum for seeking damages against Universities which mislead the petitioner in pursuing the course which had not been recognized by the Competent Authority and wasting precious years of his life.
14. This Court does not find any good ground to review its order dated 08.08.2019.
15. The review application stands rejected.
Order Date :- 15.4.2025
N.PAL
