Karnataka High Court
Sri Debasish Das vs Karnataka State Open University on 15 December, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 5422 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.P.R.SUNDARESHAN
AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O K P RAMAKRISHNAN
H NO P/93, TEJAS, GT ROAD
ADKATHBAIL, P O KUDLU - 671121
KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA
2. SRI SAURABH YADAV
AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O PARAMDEV YADAV
VILLAGE NEAR DEOKALI BYE
AYODHYA - 224001, UTTAR PRADESH
3. MR KHIROD PRADHAN
AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O DHANURDHAR PRADHAN
G G P COLONY, PLOT NO. L/50
RASULGARH, BHUBANESWAR
KHURDHA, ODISHA - 751010
4. SRI KARTIK GANESAN
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O SRI P S GANESAN
DG-2, 33-B, VIKAS PURI,
NEW DELHI - 110018
2
5. SRI LAXMIKANTHA
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE ANANTHA BHAT
NO 001, VENKATAGIRI APARTMENTS
NEAR BAPPANADU TEMPLE, BAPPANADU
MULKI POST
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574154
6. MS SRIDEVI R
AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O RAGHAVENDRA G
NO 128, 2ND MAIN ROAD
AVALAHALLI NEW BDA LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560085
7. SRI DAYANANDA K
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O KRISHNA
KRISHNA, BEJAI ANEGUNDI
MANGALURU - 575004
8. MR VINOD SHARMA
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O LATE M L SUTHAR
MITHILA (HOME), PADANNAKKARA
PINARAYI (PO), THALASSERY
KERALA - 670741
9. SRI KUMARNAVEEN P
AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O NANDABALAN P V
NANDA VIHAR, POTTACHAL ROAD,
NADAKKAVU, UDINUR POST, THRIKKARIPPUR
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE - 671310
10 . SRI ABHIJIT MOHARANA
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O GOLAK BIHARI MOHARANA
3
KADALIPAL, POST KOTTAM, VIA BHAPUR
DISTRICT DHENKANAL, ODISHA - 759015
11 . MS SWAROOPA G
AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O GANGADHARAN G
SAKETHAM HOUSE, KAIVATTAMOOLA
PAZHUPATHOOR POST - 673592
WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE
12 . SRI BYREGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O VASANTHAPPA
MARAGONDANAHALLI, SULIKERE POST
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH - 560060
13 . SRI DINEESH K S
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O K K SANKARANARAYANAN
VIPANCHIKA, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR
KERALA - 679531
14 . SRI GURPREET SINGH
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O SRI.ARJAN DASS
VILL TILLUWAL, PO KHUN KHUN KALAN
DASUYA, HOSHIARPUR, PUNJAB - 144305
15 . SRI JAI HIND PARETA
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O BRIJMOHAN PARETA, NAYAPURA, LAKHERI
DISTRICT BUNDI, RAJASTHAN - 323603
16 . SRI JYOTHI PRAKASH SARANGI
AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O SURENDRA SARANGI
NUA BHADRA, POST KHASBAHAL
4
DISTRICT BALANGIR - 767032
17 . SRI KIRAN H S
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SHIVANNA S
SITE NOS 35 AND 36
SRI SIDDESHWARA NILAYA, 6TH G CROSS
GUTTEBASAVESHWARA NAGARA, CHIKKABANAVARA
BANGALORE - 560090
18 . MS ARTHII R
AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS
D/O RAVI G
1/1312, HIG, TNHB
VIRUPATCHIPURAM, COLLECTORATE (PO),
VENNAMPATTY ROAD, DHARMAPURI - 636705
TAMILNADU
19 . SRI NARESH KUMAR
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O SHYAM LAL, 271, PARTAP NAGAR, GALI - 3
BANGUR STADIUM ROAD, PALI (RAJ.)
DISTRICT PALI, STATE: RAJASTHAN - 306401
20 . SRI NOORUDDIN M
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O M SULAIMAN
C/O NOORUDDIN M
DOOR NO 1 -14 (1), MANI HOUSE AND POST
BANTWAL TALUK, D K - 574253
21 . SRI BHAVE OMKAR SUNIL
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SUNIL BALKRISHNA BHAVE, QTR NO P303/D
SARVATRA VIHAR, MES DEFENCE COLONY,
RANGE HILL ROAD, OPPOSITE TO RAJA BUNGLOW
KIRKEE, PUNE- 411003 (MH).
5
22 . SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR K S
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O SHRIDHARA PUROHITH
NO 145, NEMMADI NILAYA, 4TH BLOCK, 4TH CROSS
JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT, NAGADEVANAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560056
23 . SRI SANDEEP YADAV
AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O OM PRAKASH
V P O RAJGARH, DISTRICT BHIWANI
STATE HARYANA - 127021
24 . SRI SHISHIR SRIVASTAVA
AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O MR A K SRIVASTAVA
1401, ACE PLATINUM
GREATER NOIDA - 201310
25 . SRI VINAY KUMAR K
AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O VASANTHA DEVANGA
NO 6, SHRUTHI, 1ST E MAIN
B K NAGAR, YESHWANTHPUR
BENGALURU - 560022
26 . SRI BALVINDER KUMAR
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O KISHORE CHAND
13 PARMAR COLONY, GARHSHANKAR,
DISTRICT HOSHIAR PUR, PUNJAB - 144527
27 . SRI ANJANI KUMAR SHARMA
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE K P SHARMA, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC
CHANDAUSI, BUDAUN ROAD
CHANDAUSI, SAMBHAL, UP - 244412
6
28 . JITHIN K C
AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS
D/O VIJAYAN V
MITHILA, PADANNAKKARA, PINARAYI POST
THALASSERY, KERALA-670741
29 . SRI JAGRIT DAS MANIKPURI
AGED MAJOR
S/O MAHANGU DAS MANIKPURI
III, B/4, RESIDENTIAL COLONY, RAJABHOJ AIRPORT,
AAI, BHOPAL - 462030
MADHYA PRADESH
30 . MS MEENAKSHI
AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O R P KODATE
NO 9/A, MUKHYA PRANA NILAYA, 1ST CROSS
R R LAYOUT, NAGADEVANAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560056
31 . MS DIVYA P
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS
D/O D P PRAKASH
NO 586, AKUL, 1ST FLOOR, SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE ROAD
SARASWATHIPURAM, HASSAN - 573201
32 . SRI KARTHIK RAO P
S/O MURALIDHARA RAO
SATWI VILLE, SY NO 502/1, B- 403,
BEHIND GREEN GARDENIA
BAR AND RESTAURANTS, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560043
33 . SRI ABILASH N B
AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O BALACHANDRAN N
NHAREKKATU HOUSE, ETTAMPURAM,
CHOWANNUR POST, KUNNAMKULAM
7
THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA - 680517
34 . SRI RAJASEKARAN M
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O MURUGAN, 64/34, EB COLONY,
MAHARAJANAGAR TIRUNELVELI - 627011, TAMILNADU
35 . MS USHA M
AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS
D/O MUNIHANNAPPA M
NO 102, ASHIRWADA,
PATEL CHANNAPPA COMPOUND MANGAMMANAPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560068
36 . SRI VELAYYA K
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O A KUPPUSAMY, 10/43C,
NORTH KAMARAJAR STREET
SANDHAPETTAI, LALGUDI TALUK
TRICHIRAPPALLI - 621601
37 . SRI BHASKAR CHANDRA ROUT
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O PARSHURAM ROUT, AT BABALPUR POST,
VIA MANJURI ROAD, BHADRAK - 756121
38 . MS DEEPARSREE T K
AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS
D/O RAJEEVAN P K, SREERAGA HOUSE
THEKKEKALATHINGAL, NANMINDA P O - 677361
CALICUT, KERALA
39 . SRI S NIZAR AHMAD
AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O ABDUL SUBHAN, VELLORE DISTRICT
TAMIL NADIU - 632107
8
40 . SUNIL KUMAR
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O SATISH CHANDER
FLAT NO B -70, KENDRIYA VIHAR,
SECTOR 51, NOIDA - 201303
41 . SRI RAJENDRA SINGH
AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O SHRI PURAN SINGH, C - 48/14,
LAB QUARTERS
DRDO TOWNSHIP, KANCHANBAGH
HYDERABAD - 500058
42 . SRI RITESH GUPTA
AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O KANHAIYA LAL GUPTA, ECO VILLAGE - 1,
FLAT NO A4/010, PLOT NO.8, SECTOR - 1
GREATER NOIDA WEST, UP - 201306
43 . SRI SHAJAHAN M M
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED MYDEEN
58/168, NEW STREET
KEDAYANALLUR - 627751, TENKASI
TAMILNADU
44 . SRI S SAGAR
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O R SHIVA SHANKAR
FLAT NO 103, GAYATRI APARTMENT,
891/1, KANTHARAJ URS ROAD
LASKHMIPURAM, MYSORE - 570004
45 . SRI SUHAS B S
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O SANTHOSH, NO 992, 2ND MAIN
3RD CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM
MYSURU - 570008
9
46 . SRI. VISHWANATH DC
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O CHANDRA SHEKAR,
NO.584/150, VISHALA NILAYA,
BEHIND PRERARANA MOTORS,
NEAR VISHWA SHANTI ASHRAMA,
ARISHINAKUNTE, BANGALORE RURAL-562 123.
47 . SRI ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O ARVIND KUMAR SINGH,
PLOT NO.909/5, FLAT NO.301,
STREET NO.7, PATEL NAGAR,
GURUGRAM - 122 001.
HARYANA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. KUMARI M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MUKTHAGANGOTHRI, MYSORE - 575006
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI - 110002
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
(UNIVERSITIES), M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
10
4. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
NELSON MANDELA MARG
VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110070
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-3;
MS. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R-3;
SMT. KSHAMA NARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 AICTE TO
CONSIDER THE CASE OF R1 UNIVERSITY AND TREAT THE
TECHNICAL DEGREES / DIPLOMAS AWARDED TO THE STUDENTS
WHO HAVE ADMITTED DURING THE ACADEMIC YEARS 2007-08 TO
2012-13 AS VALID, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE
SUPREME COURT IN W.P.(C)382/2018, AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE
CASE OF IGNOU VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 14.12.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the captioned petition seeking
the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction,
directing the respondent No.4 AICTE to consider the
case of 1st respondent University and treat the Technical
Degrees/Diplomas awarded to the students who have
admitted during the academic years 2007-08 to 2012-
13 as valid, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in W.P.(c) 382/2018, as has been done
in the case of IGNOU vide Annexure-M, and;
b) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 University to
issue/award Marks cards and Degree certificates to the
petitioners who have successfully completed the
courses, and;
c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 University to
conduct examination to the students who have not
completed the courses, and;
d) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 University to
pay appropriate compensation to the petitioners for loss
of their future prospects and loss of their valuable time
and money, and;
e) Pass such other and further orders as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity."
2. The petitioners herein are students of respondent
No.1-University. The petitioners claim that Distance Education
Council has accorded recognition to the respondent No.1-
University to offer various programs/courses approved by
statutory body of University. The petitioners claim that they
have completed B.Tech and Diploma Courses at various study
centres of respondent No.1-University in collaboration with
private institution named as Academic Collaborative
Institution. The petitioners who claim that they have
completed B.Tech and Diploma courses have joined the course
between 2011-12 and 2012-13. The captioned petition is filed
alleging that respondent No.1-University has withheld the
marks cards and degree certificates of petitioners herein
though they have completed their degree/diploma prior to
2011-12.
3. The respondent No.1-Univeristy has filed statement
of objections and has contested the proceedings. The
respondent No.1-University placing reliance on public notice
issued by the respondent No.2 dated 24.06.2013 has declined
to issue degree certificates and marks cards on the ground
that all the courses offered by the respondent No.1 including
in-house technical courses conducted by the Academic
Collaborative Institutions are withdrawn and therefore, the
respondent No.1-University as per direction of respondent
No.2 cannot issue degree certificates. The respondent No.1
has also contended that courses offered through collaborative
institution under respondent No.1-University which is found to
be beyond jurisdiction of the University is not recognized by
respondent No.2. The respondent No.1-University has taken a
stand that it has resolved to issue degree certificates only to
in-house courses students who were admitted through
Academic Collaborative Institution and a Circular to that effect
is issued in that regard on 08.04.2021. The said Circular is
also placed along with statement of objections at
Annexure-R-10. The respondent No.1 has further contended
that respondent No.2 has directed not to issue degree
certificates for the years for which either University therein
recognized by it or territorial jurisdiction has not been
complied.
4. The respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit
refuting the claim made by the petitioners. The respondent
No.2 has claimed that respondent No.1-University has violated
the norms and guidelines and directives of the Distance
Education Council. The respondent No.2 claimed that inspite
of several reminders and show cause notice issued to
respondent No.1-University, the respondent No.1 is found to
be guilty of imparting education even beyond its territorial
jurisdiction in collaboration with private institutions and
therefore, respondent No.2 claimed that respondent No.1-
University was not given any recognition beyond 2012-13.
The respondent No.2 has further contended that respondent
No.1-University though was conferred with recognition upto
2012-13, however, no technical courses viz., B.E./B.Tech was
given recognition by the joint committee of UGC-DEC-AICTE
pursuant to issuance of public notice dated 13.08.2009.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
6. The petitioners in the present petition are claiming
that they have completed B.Tech and M.Tech as well as
Diploma courses through various study centres within and
outside State of Karnataka. The petitioners claim is that they
have completed their course at various study centres of
authorized University in collaboration with private institution
named as Academic Collaborative Institution in face to face
mode (ODL).
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 while placing
reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the
case of Prof. Yashpal and Another vs. State of
Chhattisgarh and Others1 and the judgment rendered in the
case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi
(2005) 5 SCC 420
Sankar Patro and Others2 has strongly resisted the petition
by arguing that engineering degrees cannot be conducted by
open and distance learning mode (ODL) and even if approved
by Distance Education Council for want of approval from
AICTE, the engineering degrees conferred through ODL mode
was held to be illegal.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Orissa Lift
Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and
Others (supra). The Apex Court in the above cited judgment
has clearly taken cognizance of the fact that Distance
Education Council started giving approvals without any proper
mechanism in place. Referring to the material on record, Apex
Court held that B.E./B.Tech degrees awarded by institution
deemed to be Universities through ODL mode without AICTE
approval cannot be treated as valid qualification by UGC.
Paras 45 to 48 of the said judgment are found to be relevant
(2018) 1 SCC 468
and therefore, I deem it fit to cull out these relevant
paragraphs which would have a direct bearing on the present
lis and the same reads as under:
"45. In the backdrop of the 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 deemed to be
universities concerned admitted students, conducted
courses and granted degrees in the absence of statutory
approvals. It is, however, the 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 in Bharathidasan
[Bharathidasan University v. AICTE, (2001) 8 SCC 676 : 1
SCEC 924] and that there was no bar or prohibition in
any statute or statutory instrument when the deemed 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.
A.Whether the deemed to be universities concerned 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 through distance education mode?
(b). Without prior approval under the AICTI Act?
B. Whether DEC, on its own, was competent to grant
permission to the deemed to be universities concerned to
start such courses through distance education?
46. 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 10 of the
AICTE 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 clauses (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (l) 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, 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.
47. In Bharathidasan [Bharathidasan University v. AICTE,
(2001) 8 SCC 676 : 1 SCEC 924] the issue was whether
a university 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 AICTE 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 in Bharathidasan
[Bharathidasan University v. AICTE, (2001) 8 SCC 676 : 1
SCEC 924] shows that this Court accepted the role of
AICTE in laying down norms and standards in technical
education system which is evident from the following
portions from paras 10 and 16 : (SCC pp. 685 & 690)
"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 AICTE vis-à-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 Regulation 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 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."
48. Technical education leading to the award of degrees
in Engineering consists of imparting of lessons 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
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 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 to AICTE 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 emphasising 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 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."
9. The Apex Court further held that if deemed
universities have introduced any course in technical education
without approval of AICTE, all the degrees in engineering
awarded by deemed Universities concerned stand suspended.
The Apex Court further directed AICTE to devise modality to
conduct appropriate test which was indicated in para 58 of the
said judgment.
10. In the light of dictum laid down by the Apex Court
which is culled out supra, what this Court needs to examine is
feasibility of pursuing technical courses through Distance
Education at an open University. While the inherent practical
nature of technical disciplines implies a substantial hands-on
component, the assertion that such courses are incompatible
with distance education warrants a more nuanced
examination. The Apex Court in the judgment cited supra has
dealt with the said issue exhaustively. The question that
needs to be considered is as to whether deemed University
through study centres can impart technical courses mainly
B.Tech and B.E. Reputable open Universities, cognizant of the
exigencies of technical education, have adeptly harnessed
virtual labs, simulation software and interactive multimedia to
simulate real-world scenarios and these Universities have the
benefit of full-fledged laboratories and other infrastructures.
Accreditation bodies and regulatory frameworks play a pivotal
role in ensuring the equivalence and validity of qualifications
obtained through distance learning, thereby fortifying the
credibility of such programs.
11. The petitioners are claiming that they have
completed B.Tech and M.Tech as well as Engineering through
private institutions. If such deemed Universities are permitted
to impart technical courses through private study centres, it
may cause a serious dent in the standard of education. The
Apex Court while questioning the competence of these study
centres has issued several directions to respondent No.2 as
well as respondent No.4 to take remedial measures. A salient
facet involves the scrutiny of degrees conferred through
distance education in technical fields, which may encounter
skepticism as there is every possibility of students securing
fake degree certificates from the study centres which are not
equipped with infrastructure. The respondent No.2 which
provides regulatory mechanism and establishment for
operation of private Universities is under a bounden duty to
safeguard the interest of students community with adequate
emphasis on the equality of education and to avoid
commercialization of higher education and also to maintain
standard of teaching, research and examination.
12. Whether these study centres were equipped with all
requisite infrastructure and collaborative and interactive
dimensions to effectively conduct practical sessions which
could have equipped the students with nuanced skills or
whether these courses which are imparted through private
study centres has virtually compromised with standard
education is a matter to be looked into by respondent Nos.2
and 4. Whether the study centres displayed inherent
deficiencies within the framework of technical courses offered
through distance education has to be enquired into by
respondent Nos.2 and 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 are
required to enquire into and find out as to whether the
intricate task of replicating authentic practical experiences
which constitute an indispensable facet in imparting technical
courses such as B.Tech and Engineering has to be enquired
into before the students who claim that they have undergone
the courses of B.Tech and Engineering can be conferred with
degree certificate and marks card.
13. In the light of discussion made supra, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is disposed of;
(ii) The 1994 AICTE Regulations are
applicable even to deemed to be Universities and
therefore, the deemed to be Universities before
introducing any new course in technical education
were required to seek approval from respondent
No.4-AICTE. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 4
shall enquire by securing the details of the
approval of admissions with the respondent No.1-
University and examine whether the course in
technical education were imparted through study
centres with prior approval of AICTE;
(iii) The respondent No.4 shall also ensure
that respondent No.1-University had recognition
to impart distance education through study
centres;
(iv) The respondent No.4 shall also enquire
and ascertain as to whether there was approval
from respondent No.2 and Distance Education
Council enabling the study centres situated
outside Karnataka in imparting education in
technical courses and thereafter take appropriate
action in the matter;
(v) In the event the petitioners have
completed the courses which had a prior approval
from the concerned competent authorities, the
respondent No.1-University shall issue degree
certificates/marks cards to the petitioners;
(vi) This exercise shall be completed within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order;
(vii) The pending interlocutory application, if
any, does not survive for consideration and stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
