Mohd Meer Fraz Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 7021 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

              WRIT PETITION No.10359 OF 2021
ORDER:

Heard Mr. M. Muralikrishna, learned counsel representing Mr.

Balakrishna Mandapati, learned counsel for petitioner, Mrs. Megha

Rani Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent

No.4 and Mr. Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned letter

issued by respondent No.2 basing on the letter No.DEB/QMC/2013,

dated 02.08.2013 of respondent N.4.

3. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:

i) The petitioner herein had obtained Degree in Bachelor of

Business Administration (BBA) through distance mode from Sikkim

Manipal University in 2018.

ii) On the strength of the said Bachelor Degree, the petitioner

has appeared for TS LAWCET-2020 Entrance Examination conducted

for admission into Bachelor of Law, a 3-Years Degree Course. He

secured 6186 State Rank.

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

iii) According to the petitioner, he had requisite qualification to

join in LL.B., 3-Years Course on clearing the aforesaid TS LAWCET-

2020 Entrance Examination. On commencement of Counselling, he

had realized that an equivalent certificate issued by the concerned

University is mandate since he had completed his BBA through

distance mode, that too from Sikkim Manipal University. Therefore,

he has approached respondent No.2 University with a request to issue

equivalent certificate. The said request was not considered.

Therefore, he had filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.3827 of 2021.

This Court vide order dated 17.02.2021 in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in

W.P.No.3827 of 2021 directed the respondent University to consider

the case of the petitioner for grant of equivalent certificate, as it was

done in the case of one Mr. Shiraaz Ahmed Khan, to enable the

petitioner to pursue 3-Years B.L. Course.

iv) The respondents University did not comply with the said

order. Therefore, the petitioner herein had filed a Contempt Case vide

C.C. No.390 of 2021. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed a

counter in the said writ petition stating that the request made by the

petitioner seeking issuance of equivalent certificate was rejected vide

proceedings dated 15.03.2021. Therefore, this Court disposed of the

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

aforesaid writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge

the said rejection proceedings dated 15.03.2021. In view of the same,

Contempt Case was also closed.

v) According to the petitioner, Distance Education Programme

conducted by Sikkim Manipal University is recognized by respondent

No.4 - University Grants Commission (UGC). He relies on the

information furnished to him on 24.03.2021 under Right to

Information (RTI) Act, 2005. He also placed reliance on the orders in

W.P. (C) Nos.4 of 2013 and 8 of 2015 which were upheld by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

vi) The petitioner also placing reliance on the order of the

Sikkim High Court in W.P. (C) No.8 of 2015, dated 26.06.2015,

would submit that it had a prospective effect, but not retrospective

effect. According to him, a fair understanding of the order is that the

jurisdiction of Sikkim Manipal University was decided in accordance

with UGC Rules and there were certain exemptions. The said

exemptions were upheld by the Apex Court in Special Leave to

Appeal (C) No.26223 of 2015 along with S.L.P. (C) No.26239 of

2015 arising out of W.P. No.W.P. (C) No.04 of 2013.

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

vii) With the said submissions, the petitioner herein sought to

set aside the impugned rejection letter 15.03.2021.

4. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3:

i) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed counter contending that

requisite qualification for LL.B., is graduation from recognized

University. However, candidates can apply for TS LAWCET

Entrance Test and verification of certificates will be done only in

counseling after the Entrance Test. Issuance of Hall Ticket to attend

the Entrance Test is not the testimony for all the required parameters

to join the programme when qualified in the test.

ii) In terms of the UGC Guidelines, dated 23.08.2013, the

petitioner is not entitled for issuance of equivalent certificate of his

BBA course studied in the Centres beyond the territorial jurisdiction

of the State of Sikkim. The petitioner studied BBA Course through

distance mode from Sikkim Manipal University during the period

from May, 2015 to August, 2018 and the same was not recognized by

the UGC, New Delhi. The judgment in W.P. (C) No.8 of 2015 is

concerned, the petitioners therein have passed degree prior to 2013

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

and, therefore, the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the

present case.

iii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have issued rejection order dated

15.03.2021 basing on the proceedings dated 02.08.2013 of respondent

No.4. There is no error in it.

5. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT No.4:

i) Respondent No.4 had also filed counter contending that the

Sikkim Manipal University, Sikkim is a State Private University

established by the Act of the State Legislature. It is not authorizsed to

open study centre/off campus centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction

of the State as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Prof. Yash Pal

v. State of Chhattisgarh1.

ii) Private Universities cannot affiliate any College or

Institution for conducting courses leading to award of its Diplomas,

Degrees or other qualifications, and also cannot offer their

programmes through franchising arrangement with private institutions

for the purpose of conducting courses through distance mode.

. (2005) 5 SCC 420

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

iii) A Public Notice dated 27.06.2013 was issued by respondent

No.4 on territorial jurisdiction of the Universities and other matters

related to distance education. UGC has not granted any approval to

the University to open off-campus/study centre anywhere. The said

public notice dated 27.06.2013 was only a reiteration of earlier Policy

of UGC on territorial jurisdiction of UGC vide Circular D.O. No.0F.1-

52/99 (CPP-II) dated 09.08.2001. Therefore, the petitioner, who has

completed his BBA Degree from Sikkim Manipal University through

distance mode, is not entitled for equivalency certificate.

iv) With the aforesaid submissions, learned Standing Counsel

sought to dismiss the writ petition.

6. In view of the aforesaid rival submissions, the question that

fell for consideration before this Court is:

Whether the petitioner herein, who obtained BBA Degree through distance mode from Sikkim Manipal University, is entitled for equivalent certificate from Osmania University?

7. ANALAYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) Respondent No.4 herein - UGC is a statutory Organization of

the Government of India by an Act of Parliament in 1956, for the co-

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

ordination, determination and maintenance of standards of teaching,

examination and research in University Education.

ii) There is no dispute that Sikkim Manipal University is a

State Private University established by the Act of State Legislature

and is empowered to award degrees as specified by the UGC under

Section - 22 of the UGC Act, 1968 through its main campus with the

approval of concerned statutory bodies/councils, wherever required.

iii) As per Section - 12 (d) of the UGC Act, 1956, the UGC has

been vested with the power to recommend to any University the

measures necessary for the improvement of University Education and

advice the University upon the action to be taken for the purpose of

implementation of such recommendations. The UGC is also

authorized to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as

may be deemed necessary by the UGC for advancing the cause of

Higher Education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the

discharge of its functions. The UGC has also power under Section -

26 of the UGC Act, 1956 to make regulations consistent with the Act

for the said purposes. It is a core function of the UGC to see that

teaching standards in Universities / Colleges do not get diluted.

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

iv) It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal1

held that that in view of Article 245 (1) of the Constitution of India,

Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part

of the territory of India and the Legislature of the State may make

laws for the whole or any part of the State. Universities are not

authorized to open study centre / off campus centres beyond the

territorial jurisdiction of the University.

v) Pursuant to the said judgment, respondent No.4 had

formulated territorial jurisdiction policy. It had issued public notice

dated 27.06.2013 clarifying that a University established or

incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the

territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond

the territory of the State of its location. It had also addressed a letter

dated 08.09.2015 to the Osmania University stating that territorial

jurisdiction in respect of that University for offering programmes

through distance mode will be as per the policy of UGC on territorial

jurisdiction and opening of off-campuses / centres / study centres as

mentioned in UGC Notification dated 26.07.2013. The programmes

in distance mode will not be offered through franchising arrangement

and / or through any private institution / college. Therefore, all the

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

Universities had been following the said guidelines and policy issued

by the UGC. Thus, vide the aforesaid notification, respondent No.4

had clarified categorically on the territorial jurisdiction to be followed

by all the Universities / Institutions including Osmania University.

vi) It is also not in dispute that respondent No.4 herein is a

State University. It was accorded post facto programme-wise

recognition by the erstwhile Distance Education Council (DEC) for

the academic year 1995 to 2007-08 to offer specific programmes. It

was accorded provisional recognition for one year vide letter dated

31.08.2007 which was further continued vide letter dated 17.12.2009.

The same was continued up to academic year 2017-18. It is also not

in dispute that the UGC had notified UGC (Open and Distance

Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020

vide Gazette, dated 04.12.2020 and the same was amended vide

Notification, dated 01.07.2021. A list of Higher Educational

Institutions including respondent No.4 with recognized programmes

under Open and Distance Mode for the Academic Session beginning

February - March, 2021 to 2024-January, 25.

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

vii) Sikkim Manipal University, being the State University can

operate within its State only. The University is not authorized to open

Centre / Off-Campus Centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the

State in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Prof.

Yashpal1 and also as per the public notice dated 27.06.2013 issued by

respondent No.4 - UGC. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.4

has been issuing instructions / guidelines after the judgment of the

Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal1. Sikkim Manipal University as well as

respondent No.3 University, have to necessarily follow the said

guidelines / instructions issued by respondent No.4 by invoking its

powers laid down under UGC Act, 1956.

viii) The University can conduct courses through its own

departments, its constituent colleges and/or through its affiliated

institutions. There is, however, no provision for leaving it to private

institutions for conducting courses leading to award its degrees. As

per recent UGC Guidelines, the Universities are permitted to impart

education and award its degrees through their own campus located

elsewhere in the country or even at their own off shore campuses with

the approval of the UGC.

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

ix) Looking into wide spread menace of franchising the

University education through the private institutions, the UGC has

decided that any University which proposed to enter into collaboration

with any private institution, would be required to take prior approval

of the UGC. The commission has also decided that no University

should be permitted to go for off campus private educational franchise

leading to the award of its degrees.

x) Accordingly, all the Universities are being directed to stop

franchising their degree education through private

agencies/establishments with immediate effect. Thus, the petitioner,

who has completed his BBA Degree from Sikkim Manipal University

through distance mode, is not entitled for equivalency certificate.

xi) Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC vide its letter dated

13.05.2003 directed to all Vice Chancellor/Head of Institutions to

limit the distance education programme of the Institutions to the

neighbourhood to limit the distance education programme of the

Institutions to the neighbourhood of the location of the main campus

or at the most within the State. The Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal1

held that in view of Article 245 (1) of the Constitution of India,

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part

of the territory of India and the Legislature of the State may make

laws for the whole or any part of the State.

xii) Pursuant to the observation of the Apex Court, the UGC

issued two letters No.F.9-8/2008 (CPP-I), dated 16.04.2009 addressed

to all the State Governments and dated 15.06.2009 addressed to Vice

Chancellors of all State University with the following:

Vide letter dated 16.04.2009, it was requested to (i) take immediate action to take suitable steps for amending the existing Acts made so as to bring the same in conformity with the observations made by the Apex Court; and (ii) to stop all the State/State Private University in the State from operating beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their State in any manner.

Vide letter dated 15.06.2009, it was requested to ensure that no off campus centre (s)/study centre/affiliating college and the centres operating through franchises is opened by the University outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State in view of the judgment of the Apex Court.

UGC vide its letter F.No.28-2/2015 (DEB-III) dated 04.05.2016, while drawing the attention to the above mentioned letter again requested all the State Education Secretaries as under:

1. Take immediate action to take suitable steps for amending the exiting Acts (if not done so far) made

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

so as to bring the same in conformity with the observations made by the Apex court and;

2. To stop all the State/State Private University in the State from operating beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their State in any manner;

3. To check and stop all other University (except Central University) to operate in any manner in your state."

xiii) As far as Examination Centres are concerned, UGC vide

Public Notice issued vide F.No.12-9/2016 (DEB-III) dated 19.07.2016

clarified as under:

"It has come to notice of the UGC that some Institutions/University/Institutions Deemed to be University is conducting examinations for their Open and Distance Learning (ODL) programmes outside the State of their location or beyond their territorial jurisdiction which are wholly illegal. The policy of the UGC with regard to territorial jurisdiction and off-campuses/study centres has been clearly articulated in its Public Notice dated 27.06.2013."

xiv) It is also relevant to note that vide the aforesaid public

notice dated 27.06.2013, respondent No.4 had advised the students not

to take admission in the unapproved Study Centres, Off-Campus

Centres, Franchisee Institutions, Colleges / Institutions claiming to be

affiliated with Private Universities or Deemed Universities. It is

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

relevant to note that the aforesaid public notice dated 27.06.2013 was

only reiteration.

xv) This Court in B. Sai Kiran v. The State of Telangana,

rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Dept.,

Hyderabad2, considering all the aforesaid aspects and also the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal1, dismissed

the said writ petition filed by the petitioner therein seeking a direction

to the respondents therein to treat the Graduation Courses / Bachelors

Degree obtained by them as valid for all purposes including for

admissions into Higher Education and Employment purposes. In the

said case also, the petitioners have obtained graduation degrees

through distant education mode offered by the Acharya Nagarjuna

University. No writ appeal was filed and the said order attained

finality.

xvi) A Division Bench of this Court in M. Naveen Kumar v.

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education,

Hyderabad3 held that Osmania University does not have power to

declare its B.A. (External) Degree as a recognized degree or

. Order in W.P. No.3006 of 2021, decided on 17.08.2022

. W.A. No.597 of 2020, W.P. Nos.37566 & 42680/2016 and 28822/2021, decided on 28.12.2021

KL,J W.P. No.10359 of 2021

equivalent degree. The said power lies with the UGC only and no such

equivalence certificate has been brought to the notice of this Court

issued by the UGC.

xvii) Considering the said facts, respondent No.2 vide letter

dated 15.03.2021 rejected the request made by the petitioner to issue

equivalency certificate. There is no error in it. Therefore, the

petitioner herein failed to make out any ground to interfere with the

said proceedings.

8. CONCLUSION:

i) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner is not

entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought in the present writ

petition and, therefore, the same is liable to dismissed.

ii) The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ

petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 27th December, 2022 Mgr