Kerala High Court
Karnataka State Open University vs Engineers Trading Centre on 29 February, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WA NO. 1383 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.7.2017 IN WP(C) NO.25410 OF 2015 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY
MUKTHANGANGOTHRI, MYSORE 570006, REP BY ITS VICE
CHANCELLOR, KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY,
MUKTHANGANGOTHRI, MYSORE - 570006.
2 REGISTRAR OF EXAMINATIONS
KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY, MUKTHANGANGOTHRI,
MYSORE - 570006.
3 REGISTRAR
EVALUATION, KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY,
MUKTHANGANGOTHRI, MYSORE - 570006.
BY ADV P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 ENGINEERS TRADING CENTRE
KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT PALAKKAT LANE,
NAIKKANAL, THRISSUR 680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR/PROPRIETOR, I K SINDHU, D/O.KUNJUNNI,
R/A.HOUSE NO 182, HARI NAGAR MAIN STREET,
POONKUNNAM P O, THRISSUR.
2 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT (NOW MINISTRY OF HIGHER
EDUCATION), SHASTRI BHAVAN, C-WING,
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
BY SRI S MANU, DSGI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
29.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Writ Appeal No.1383 of 2021
AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.1383 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of February 2024
JUDGMENT
C.S.Sudha, J.
This intra court appeal has been filed by respondents 1 to 3
aggrieved by the judgment dated 05/07/2017 in W.P.(C)No.25410/2015.
The respondents herein are the petitioner and the fourth respondent
respectively in the writ petition. The parties and the documents will be
referred to as described in the writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed for directing the first respondent
University to issue certificates to the students of the petitioner's Study
Centre. According to the petitioner, the first respondent is a State Open
University established under the Karnataka State Open University Act,
1992. The petitioner institution, a distance education study centre of the
first respondent, has been conducting distance education technical diploma
course of three years offered by the first respondent University. The last
admission given to students in the petitioner's Centre was in the year 2014.
All along, respondents 1 and 2 had been issuing certificates to the students
who passed the exam for the various courses conducted by the petitioner.
Despite the exams of the year 2014 being over, the respondents have issued
certificates only to a few students and have failed to issue provisional as
well as diploma certificates to several other students who have passed the
respective examinations. Though the petitioner had approached the
respondents requesting them to issue the certificates taking note of the
plight of the students who had studied in the petitioner's training centre, the
respondents have not acceded to the request. Hence the writ, seeking a
direction to the respondents to issue convocation certificates to the students
who are entitled to the same.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit contending that
certificates as prayed for in the writ petition were not issued because the
University Grants Commission (the UGC) has issued specific directions to
the University not to conduct courses outside its territorial jurisdiction. The
UGC has not granted recognition to the first respondent University beyond
the academic year 2012-'13 and therefore the University has not held any
convocation beyond the said period and in the absence of holding
convocation, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be allowed.
4. The learned Single Judge relying on the judgment in W.P.
(C)No.14654/2016 held that the petitioner is also entitled to get the similar
relief as was granted in the said judgment, especially as the students of the
petitioner's training centre had completed the respective courses during the
period 2011-'14. The only thing that remained to be done by the first
respondent University was the issuance of necessary certificates to the said
students. Hence a direction was given to the first respondent University to
issue necessary certificates to the students who had prosecuted the distance
education programme through the petitioner's training centre within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Aggrieved,
respondents 1 to 3 have come up in appeal.
5. Heard respondents 1 to 3/appellants. Initially the first
respondent had entered appearance through a counsel. On 18/01/2024 it
was submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent that he was
relinquishing the vakalath. However, the Registry has noted that no
relinquishment memo has been filed so far and also that fresh vakalath has
not been filed. As service on the first respondent has already been
completed, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned
counsel for respondents 1 to 3/appellants.
6. It would be apposite to refer to Annexure R1(F) dated
16/06/2015, a public notice issued by the UGC. In the notice it is stated
thus -
"Public Notice
Karnataka State Open University, Mysore - Discontinuation of
recognition of programmes through ODL mode
1. Kamataka State Open University, Mysore, in collaboration with
private Institutions/entities/coaching centres spread all over the
country and even abroad, has been offering programmes through
distance learning mode by blatantly flouting the norms, guidelines
and directives of University Grants Commission and erstwhile
Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open
University, New Delhi. Taking cognizance of this fact, the
programmes offered by KSOU, Mysore has not been recognized by
UGC beyond 2012-13. This has been done after issue of a Show
Cause notice to them on 10.06.2011 and after considering their
response including personal hearing of the officials of the
University.
2. It has, however, been noticed that despite this the university
remained undeterred and is continuing to offer programmes through
distance learning mode in violation of the UGC policy on territorial
jurisdiction vide UGC public notice dated 27 th June, 2013. The
university has also been offering professional/technical programmes
in violation of the norms of the concerned regulatory bodies and
without their approval. Moreover, the university has been offering
engineering programmes, despite clear directions of Ministry of
Human Resource of Development vide their D.O letter No. 6-
7/2009-DL dated 29th July, 2009 and DEC letter dated 13 th August,
2009 and recent UGC public notice dated 11 th March, 2015 (All the
three letters available on UGC DEB website). The university has
also started offering online programmes, which are not recognised
by UGC, as an exclusive method of distance education.
3. The General Public, students and other stake holders are,
therefore, cautioned through this public notice against the wrong
reporting/publicity in newspaper and television by the university
about its territorial jurisdiction and about validity of the recognition
of its programmes, including professional/technical programmes.
Taking admissions to such programmes may jeopardise the career of
the students, in view of the absence of recognition of the programmes
of the university by UGC."
In the light of the directions of the UGC that recognition beyond 2012-'13
for the programmes offered by the first respondent University has not been
granted, the latter could not have issued certificates as sought for in the writ
petition. Hence the impugned judgment requires to be interfered with and
thus we do so.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.SUDHA
JUDGE
ami/
