Bombay High Court
Symbiosis Open Education Soc. Through ... vs University Grants Commission And Anr on 4 March, 2025
Author: M.S.Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
SAYYED Digitally
2025:BHC-AS:10433-DB signed
by SAYYED
SAEED SAEED ALI
1 17.WP.2462.25.docx
ALI AHMED ALI
AHMED Date:
2025.03.06
Revati
ALI 10:02:27 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2462 OF 2025
Symbiosis Open Education Soc.
Through Principal Director & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
University Grants Commission
& Anr ...Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr Ravi Bharadwaj, a/w Siddheshwar Biradar, for the
Petitioner.
Mr Rui Rodrigues, for the Respondent.
______________________________________________________
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 4 March 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.S.Sonak, J.):-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties.
3. The petitioner challenges the letter dated 19 December
2024 issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC)
rejecting the petitioner's application seeking approval for
Open Distance Learning (ODL) and Online (OL) programmes
from the ensuing academic sessions. The petitioners contend
that they satisfied the eligibility criteria in Regulation 3(A)(i)
and 3(B)(b)(ii) of the UGC ODL/OL Regulations, 2022,
2 17.WP.2462.25.docx
particularly after the petitioner university achieved National
Institution of Ranking Framework (NIRF) Rank-1 as
communicated on 12 August 2024.
4. Mr. Bharadwaj learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the judgment and order dated 28 June 2024
disposing of the petitioner's Writ Petition No.7339 of 2023 had
at para 57 and 58 directed the UGC to consider the
petitioner's case should the petitioners fulfil the NIRF ranking
laid down by Ministry of Education, Government of India
criteria in the meanwhile. He submitted that even the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had directed the UGC to consider the
petitioner's case for approval after the petitioner obtained
NIRF Rank-1 effective from 12 August 2024.
5. Mr Bharadwaj submitted that there had been no
consideration or, in any event, no fair consideration of the
petitioner's case in the context of the NIRF ranking achieved
by the petitioner. He pointed out that no opportunity of
hearing was granted to the petitioner, and the impugned
communication dated 19 December 2024 is unreasoned. He
submitted that the petitioner fulfils the UGC criteria and
without assigning any reasons or otherwise complying with
principles of natural justice and fair play, the petitioner's
application should not have been rejected in a summary
fashion. On these grounds, Mr. Bharadwaj submitted that the
impugned communication be set aside, and a Writ of
Mandamus be issued to the UGC for grant of approval as
applied for by the petitioner.
6. Mr. Rodrigues learned counsel for the UGC submitted
3 17.WP.2462.25.docx
that the UGC does not act in a judicial or quasi-judicial
capacity while considering applications for approvals, and no
statute prescribed any hearing. He submitted that a mere
Rank- 1 does not confer eligibility upon the petitioner because
ranking has to be considered in the context of the various
streams and overall ranking parameters. He submitted that for
a university to claim eligibility based on NIRF ranking, the
rank in a particular sub-group or category is not quite
relevant. He submitted that the overall ranking of the
University in India is applicable in such matters. He, therefore,
submitted that there was no infirmity in the impugned
communication dated 19 December 2024.
7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused
the material on record.
8. The petitioner No.2/University was established as a
State Private University under the Symbiosis Skill and Open
University Act, 2017, effective 3 May 2017.
9. The petitioners desired to commence open and distance
learning programmes or online programmes but faced
difficulties given the UGC (Open and distance learning
programmes and online programmes) Regulations, 2020.
Therefore, the petitioners challenged regulations 3(A)(i) and
3(B)(b)(ii) of the UGC Regulations, 2020 before this Court by
instituting Writ Petition No.7339 of 2023. This petition was
disposed of by judgment and order dated 28 June 2024.
10. This court rejected the challenge to the constitutional
validity of the impugned provisions. However, this Court
agreed with the petitioner's contention that the NAAC
4 17.WP.2462.25.docx
accreditation process was a misfit for an appropriate and
reasonable accreditation of skilled universities since it relied
on the 'one-size-fits-all manual currently in vogue'.
Accordingly, directions were issued to the UGC to take
remedial measures to evolve the fair and reasonable criteria.
Pending such process, the petitioner was held entitled to apply
to the UGC for recognition to offer the proposed programme
in the ODL and OL mode without awaiting the formulation of
the proper accreditation, provided the petitioner fulfilled
other stipulations and conditions.
11. Besides, in the context of NIRF ranking procedures, this
Court made the following observations:
"57. Purely for completeness, we also clarify that we have
reviewed the process for the NIRF rankings and are refraining
from making any interference in relation to the same. Vide an
email dated 2nd February, 2024 (when these proceedings were
pending), the NIRF Helpdesk has confirmed that for 2024, two
new segments have been introduced for skill universities and
open universities. We are informed that SSPU has applied on 8th
March, 2024.
58. We note that even for the NIRF process, there is yet another
time deferral NIRF rankings can only be obtained by institutions
that have graduated at least three batches of students in full-time
undergraduate programmes (minimum duration of three years)
or postgraduate programmes (minimum duration of two years).
However, since a special category for ranking of skill universities
has indeed been created by NIRF, we refrain from any further
comment on the NIRF ranking. Suffice it to say, if SSPU obtains a
ranking from the NIRF that makes the NAAC accreditation
unnecessary, it would be entitled to proceed with offering the
ODL and OL courses without waiting for the NAAC accreditation."
12. The UGC challenged this court's judgment and order
dated 28 June 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
instituting Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.38965 of
5 17.WP.2462.25.docx
2024. Notices were issued on 11 November 2024, and in the
meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued the interim stay
of the operation and implementation of Paragraph No.70 (e to
h) and any action pursuant thereto of this court's order dated
28 June 2024, disposing of the Writ Petition No.7339 of 2023.
13. When the matter was pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the petitioner achieved NIRF Rank-1.
According to the petitioners, irrespective of NAAC criteria, the
petitioner now fulfilled the alternate criteria prescribed in
Regulation-3(A)(i) of the UGC Regulations, 2020. Accordingly,
the petitioners applied to the UGC for approval based on the
NIRF ranking.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the pending Special
Leave Petition, by its order dated 9 December 2024, directed
the UGC to consider the petitioner's application expeditiously
and in accordance with the law.
15. The UGC, by impugned communication dated 19
December 2024, has disposed of the petitioner's application
for approval.
16. In the impugned communication, the UGC has stated as
follows:
In view of above, it is regretted to inform you that your HEI is not
eligible as per University Grants Commission (Open and Distance
Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020
and its amendments for the following reasons:-
➤ The HEL is not yet accredited by National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (NAAC).
The HEI is not yet ranked in top-100 in University Category by
National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF)..
Further, it is also to be informed that sub-regulation 7 of
regulation 5 of the UGC (ODL Programmes and Online
Programmes) Regulations, 2020 stipulates as under:-
6 17.WP.2462.25.docx
"No Higher Educational Institution shall offer any Open and
Distance Learning Programme and/or Online Programm e and
admit learners thereto unless it has been granted recognition by
the Commission and admission shall not be made in anticipation
of the recognition."
This may please be treated as MOST URGENT.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
17. Admittedly, the petitioners were not heard or given any
opportunity to explain their version of how they were eligible
for approval under Regulation 3(A)(i) on account of securing
Rank-1 from the NIRF. The regulation provides that any higher
educational institution may apply for offering programmes
through open and distance learning modes, which fulfils the
following conditions, namely :
(i) shall be accredited by the National Assessment and
Accreditation Council with minimum score of 3.01 on a 4-point
scale;
or
having rank in top-100 in University category of National
Institutional Ranking Framework, at least once in two preceding
cycles (at the time of application).
18. The petitioner had placed on record before the UGC of
its achieving NIRF ranking 1. Therefore, the UGC was required
to consider this document placed on record by the petitioner
and then decide whether the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility
criteria referred to in Regulation 3(A)(i) of the UGC
Regulations 2020. The impugned communication simply states
that NIRF has not yet ranked the petitioner in the top 100 in
the University category. Such a communication can hardly be
styled as some reasoned communication. To that extent, Mr.
Bharadwaj's contention that the petitioner's application for
approval has not been considered fairly or consistent with the
7 17.WP.2462.25.docx
principles of natural justice by UGC deserves acceptance.
19. After the above developments, the petitioner withdrew
IA No.6464 of 2025 filed under the Special Leave Petition
against this court's order dated 28 June 2024 in Writ Petition
No.7339 of 2023, with liberty to approach this Court to assail
the UGC's communication dated 19 December 2024. Pursuant
to this liberty, the present petition came to be filed.
20. Mr. Rodrigues's contention about the proper
interpretation of Regulation 3(A)(i) and what it means by
having ranked in the top 100 in the university category of the
NIRF ranking framework may or may not be correct. At this
stage, we do not propose to decide on this issue. However, in
the present case, we think the petitioner should have been
granted an opportunity to present their version. Now that the
petitioners tentatively have an idea about the UGC reasoning,
it is only appropriate that the petitioners also have an
opportunity to meet such reasoning and persuade the UGC
about the correctness of its version.
21. The UGC must also communicate its reasons in such
matters. A mere communication of the conclusion would not
comply with the requirement of fair play. While the UGC is not
expected to write an elaborate judgment, the applicant must
get a fair idea of the reasons in support of an adverse
conclusion.
22. Besides, the UGC, before concluding one way or the
other, can always indicate to the applicant the difficulties or
the problems it sees or envisages in considering the approval
application favourably. This would afford the applicant an
8 17.WP.2462.25.docx
opportunity to respond and convince the UGC of its version of
the matter. Even in administrative matters or where the
statute may not have explicitly prescribed compliance with
natural justice, adopting a fair and reasonable procedure is
not to be jettisoned. Principles of natural justice are to be read
even into the unoccupied interstices of a statute.
23. Therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned
communication dated 19 November 2024, not on merits but
by faulting the decision-making process. In judicial review, we
examine the decision-making process, not the conclusion. The
conclusion or the decision may or may not be correct. But, in a
given case, even a decision which may appear prima facie
correct would be vulnerable if the decision-making process
was unfair or otherwise infirm.
24. We direct the UGC to reconsider the petitioner's
application dated 12 November 2024 in accordance with law
and on its own merits. The UGC is directed to grant the
petitioners hearing opportunity. Now that they have an idea of
the UGC's tentative version, the petitioners can file a synopsis
of their version within two weeks of the uploading of this
order.
25. All contentions of all parties are, however, left open
because we have not made any observation on the merits of
the matter. After hearing the petitioners and considering the
petitioner's application in accordance with the law, the UGC
should decide the application by issuing a reasoned
communication to the petitioner. This exercise must be
completed within 8 weeks from the date of uploading of this
9 17.WP.2462.25.docx
order. Mr. Rodrigues states that he will communicate the same
to the UGC no sooner than when this order is uploaded. The
petitioner is also permitted to communicate the authenticated
copy of this order to the UGC.
26. The rule is made absolute in the above terms without
any cost order. All concerned to act upon the authenticated
copy of this order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
