Delhi High Court
Stuti Saxena vs University Grant Commission & ... on 15 March, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15th March, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 6923/2009
% STUTI SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. L. Roshmani and Mr.
Somiran Sharma, Advocates.
Versus
UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate
for UGC and AICTE.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CM No.19881/2010 (for restoration of the writ petition dismissed
in default on 19th October, 2010)
1. The counsel for UGC and AICTE appears on advance notice.
2. A perusal of the earlier order sheet shows that though the other
respondents were served with the notice of the writ petition but had
chosen not to appear. In the circumstances, need is not felt to issue
notice of this application to them. The counsel for the respondents
No.1 and 2-UGC and respondent No.4-AICTE has been heard.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
4. The writ petition is restored to its original position.
WP(C) No.6923/2009
5. The counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for
UGC and AICTE have been heard.
6. The petitioner claims to have done her graduation from Miranda
House College of the University of Delhi; the petitioner claims to have
thereafter done the Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management
(PGDBM) course from the respondent No.5-Jaipuria Institute of
Management, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; the petitioner thereafter
appeared in the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC
held on 17th December, 2006; only Post Graduates or holders of
Diplomas equivalent to Post Graduation are eligible to appear in the
said test; the petitioner appeared in the said test on the premise that the
PGDBM Diploma of the respondent No.5-Jaipuria Institute of
Management was equivalent to Post Graduation; UGC, however,
referred the said question to the respondent No.3-Association of Indian
Universities who did not find the PGDBM Diploma obtained by the
petitioner from the respondent No.5- Jaipuria Institute of Management
to be equivalent to Post Graduation. Accordingly, the petitioner was
disqualified from the NET otherwise cleared by her. Aggrieved
therefrom, the present petition has been filed for issuing mandamus to
UGC and Association of Indian Universities to recognize the PGDBM
Diploma of respondent No.5- Jaipuria Institute of Management as
equivalent to Post Graduation and for the relief of declaration of the
petitioner as qualified in NET.
7. Notice of the petition was issued. The respondent No.5- Jaipuria
Institute of Management has failed to appear in spite of service.
Counter affidavits have been filed by UGC and AICTE and to which
rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have
been told by the respondent No.5- Jaipuria Institute of Management
that its PGDBM course had been recognized as equivalent to MBA by
the AICTE. The sole argument of the petitioner is that once the
PGDBM course of the Jaipuria Institute of Management is recognized
by AICTE as equivalent to MBA, the same has to be necessarily
treated as equivalent to Post Graduation and hence the decision of the
Association of Indian Universities of not recognizing it as equivalent to
Post Graduation is erroneous. The petitioner has, however, not filed
any document whatsoever to show that the PGDBM course of Jaipuria
Institute of Management is recognized by AICTE as equivalent to
MBA. AICTE in its counter affidavit has denied that the said course is
recognized by it as equivalent to MBA. The petitioner along with its
rejoinder has filed a copy of the letter dated 30th May, 2007 of AICTE
in response to the request of the Jaipuria Institute of Management
informing the said Institute that PGDBM programme offered by the
said Institute was equivalent to MBA, provided the course is approved
by AICTE during the period for which equivalence was sought.
8. The counsel for AICTE has contended that the letter aforesaid
cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner
claims to have completed the PGDBM course in the year 2006, i.e.
prior to the date of the said letter. It is thus contended that the
petitioner cannot avail any benefit of the said letter.
9. The aforesaid letter on which reliance is placed by the petitioner
is subject to the approval of AICTE for the concerned year having
been sought. There is nothing to show that there existed any approval
of AICTE for the course done by the petitioner.
10. The counsel for the UGC and AICTE has otherwise contended
that the Association of Indian Universities though a Society but being
controlled by the Government is fully equipped to go into the question
of equivalence; that without the respondent No.5- Jaipuria Institute of
Management evidencing any interest even to have its PGDBM course
recognized as equivalent to Post-Graduation or MBA, no enquiry in
that regard can be conducted. It is further informed that the said
enquiry entails detailed investigation into the course content and for
which the assistance of the Institute is necessary.
11. In the present case, the Jaipuria Institute of Management has
chosen not to appear before this Court also.
12. The petitioner cannot be permitted to fight a proxy battle for
Jaipuria Institute of Management. In a petition filed by the petitioner,
this Court cannot direct the UGC or Association of Indian Universities
to, without participation of the respondent No.5-Jaipuria Institute of
Management enquire into equivalence of the said course of the
respondent No.5-Jaipuria Institute of Management.
13. There is thus no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. If
the petitioner has been misled by the respondent No.5-Jaipuria Institute
of Management, the remedy of the petitioner is to claim damages
therefrom and not by way of this petition.
No orders as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
MARCH 15, 2011
vk
