Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 252 (MP)

SHIVAJI GROUP OF EDUCATION v. UNION OF INDIA

2017-02-15

A.K.JOSHI, R.S.JHA

body2017
ORDER : R.S. JHA, J. 1. Since all these petitions involve similar and identical facts and question of law they are heard and decided concomitantly upon hearing the learned counsel for the various petitions as well as counsel for the University, State, UGC and Union of India. 2. The petitioners in these petitions have filed these petitions against the notification dated 01.07.2015 issued by the respondent Karnataka State Open University (for short the 'K.S.O.U.') whereby the University in reference to the Public notice issued by the UGC dated 16.06.2015, letter dated 19.06.2015 issued by the Principal Secretary Government Education Department, (Higher Education, Banglore), approval granted by the Academic Council for the University in its proceedings dated 25.06.2015, approval of the Board of Management in its meeting held on 26.06.2015 and the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor on 01.07.2015, has withdrawn all the open distance education programmes offered by the collaborative institutions of KSOU outside the territory of the Karnataka State with immediate effect. The KSOU has also notified that all the educational institutions with whom it has entered into collaboration shall not make any further admission to any course. 3. In all the petitions, the petitioners have also challenged the consequential steps and the enquiry being conducted by the State authority on the complaint of certain students against the petitioners-institution to the effect that they have defrauded the students by extracting the fees for imparting education for the courses that had no recognition or authority in the State of M.P. 4. In W.P. No. 14919/2016, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the S.D.O., Wara Seoni, Balaghat by which he has ordered that as the petitioner-institution was imparting D.El. Ed. Courses without obtaining recognition or approval from the competent authority therefore, the petitioner-institution should immediately refund the amount extracted from the students failing which appropriate action shall be taken against the institution. 5. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions have also challenged the order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the Collector, Balaghat asking the petitioner to immediately produce the necessary recognition and authorization letter for running the centres, issued by the competent authority failing which action shall be taken against the petitioner. 6. 5. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions have also challenged the order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the Collector, Balaghat asking the petitioner to immediately produce the necessary recognition and authorization letter for running the centres, issued by the competent authority failing which action shall be taken against the petitioner. 6. In W.P. No. 1027/2017 the petitioner-institution which is situated in Khandwa has sought a direction to the respondents KSOU to declare the result of the students studying in their centres or in the alternative to refund the amount received by KSOU as well as its collaborative agency, respondent no. 1 in W.P. No. 1027/2017 and also to award compensation to the petitioner institutions on their failure to do so. 7. The joint contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are open distance learning centres approved by various orders passed by the KSOU on 08.01.2015 in the case of Shri Govind Institute of education, order dated 23.12.2014 in the case of Maa Sharda Group of Education petitioner in W.P. No. 15160/2016 and order dated 21.02.2015 in respect of Sai Ram education, petitioner in W.P. No. 15259/2016. 8. In all the petitions, it is stated that the respondent-KSOU signed an MOU with one Need Foundation Glorial Adversity, New Delhi and in W.P. No. 1027/2017 with All India Educational Trust having its head quarter at Quarsi, Etah Byepass, Ramgrhat Road, Aligarh, U.P. It is stated that the petitioners were appointed as distance education learning centres by the KSOU for the purposes of imparting D. El.Ed. and B.Ed. Courses. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid appointment of the petitioners as open distance learning centres, the petitioners admitted students for the purpose of imparting B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. Course and their first semester examination result was also declared by the KSOU on 17.12.2015. However, subsequently, the respondent KSOU has issued the impugned notification dated 01.07.2015 closing down all the open distance learning centres. It is stated that on a complaint filed by several students, the authorities of the State have also conducted enquiry and initiated proceedings against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner institutions are imparting B.Ed. and D.Ed. Courses without obtaining due recognition and affiliation from the competent authority therefore, the courses imparted by them are totally unauthorized. 9. It is stated that on a complaint filed by several students, the authorities of the State have also conducted enquiry and initiated proceedings against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner institutions are imparting B.Ed. and D.Ed. Courses without obtaining due recognition and affiliation from the competent authority therefore, the courses imparted by them are totally unauthorized. 9. The petitioners submitted that the KSOU kept the petitioners in the dark regarding its legal status and has suddenly issued the impugned notification in mid session in violation of the conditions on the basis of which the petitioners had been appointed as open distance education learning centres and this has caused great prejudice to the petitioners as well as to the students and has also resulted in initiation of proceedings against them therefore, the notification issued by the respondent KSOU dated 01.07.2015 be quashed. 10. It is also submitted that the respondents be also directed to permit the petitioners to continue to operate the centres and to quash the enquiry conducted and steps taken by the respondents/authorities of the State Government against the petitioners. 11. The respondents KSOU has filed a return and has stated that the respondent KSOU has been established under the provisions of Karnataka State Open Universities Act 1992 (for short 'the 1992 Act'). It is stated that the KSOU has been running the open distance learning centres pursuant to the provisions contained under section 3(2) of the 1992 Act which permits the university to establish such centres outside the State of Karnataka. It is also submitted that subsequently in the year 2016, the 1992 Act has been amended by notification dated 12.08.2016 and by the Amendment Act 2016 and the words 'and may also open Centres outside Karnataka at such places as it deems fit.' as mentioned in section 3 of the 1992 Act, have been omitted. 12. It is also submitted that subsequently in the year 2016, the 1992 Act has been amended by notification dated 12.08.2016 and by the Amendment Act 2016 and the words 'and may also open Centres outside Karnataka at such places as it deems fit.' as mentioned in section 3 of the 1992 Act, have been omitted. 12. It is also stated and brought to the notice of this court that the impugned notification dated 01.07.2015 has been issued pursuant to the publication issued by the UGC dated 16.05.2015 whereby the UGC has issued a public notice to the effect that the KSOU in collaboration with the private institutions/agencies, is running coaching centres spread all over the country and even abroad through distance learning mode in blatant violation of norms, guidelines and directives of the UGC as well as erstwhile distance council established under the Indira Gandhi Open National Universities New Delhi (now Distance Education Bureau, New Delhi). It is also mentioned in the said public notice that a show cause notice was issued to KSOU on 10.06.2011 and after considering the response of the KSOU and granting it personal hearing the recognition to the distance learning centres established by KSOU was discontinued beyond 2012-13. In the said public notice it is stated the university/KSOU has been running such courses contrary to the norms of the UGC without obtaining due permission as well as contrary to the letter of Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 29.07.2009 and 13.8.09 and recent UGC public notice dated 11.03.2015 and therefore general public, students other stake holders have been cautioned through the public notice against the wrong reporting/ publicity being done by the KSOU in newspaper and by television about its territorial jurisdiction and validity of recognition of programmes run by it and therefore taking admission to such programme may jeopardize the career of the students in the absence of recognition of the programme of the university by the UGC. 13. The respondent KSOU has submitted that in view of the public notice issued by the UGC, the respondent -University has issued notification dated 01.07.15 withdrawing all programmes offered by the collaborative institutions of KSOU outside the territorial area of the State of Karnataka with immediate effect. 13. The respondent KSOU has submitted that in view of the public notice issued by the UGC, the respondent -University has issued notification dated 01.07.15 withdrawing all programmes offered by the collaborative institutions of KSOU outside the territorial area of the State of Karnataka with immediate effect. It is submitted that the Karnataka State Open University is a State University and it had no knowledge about the fact that the UGC has withdrawn the recognition to its courses outside the State of Karnataka with immediate effect from 2012-2013 and that immediately on coming to know about the public notice it has issued notification dated 01.07.2015. It is also submitted that as the notification has been issued pursuant to the public notice issued by the UGC dated 16.06.2015 and as the amendment in the Karnataka State Open University Act 1992 now does not permit the university to run centres outside the State of Karnataka, therefore no fault can be found with the impugned notification issued by the respondent-University. 14. However, on a specific query being made from the counsel appearing for the KSOU, he has fairly stated that the respondent KSOU had no approval or permission from the Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi or any permission from the UGC to run the open distance learning centres nor has any such document been filed or placed before this court. 15. The learned counsel for the University submits that the University is now under communication with the UGC for the purposes of obtaining permission to run the distance education centres within the State of Karnataka but in view of the amendment in the Act 1992 and the public notice issued by the UGC, the Karnataka State University having no authority to run the education centres outside the State of Karnataka, has issued the impugned publication on 01.07.2015 which cannot be found fault with. 16. The respondent/State has also filed a return and has stated that the respondent KSOU was unauthorizedly running the open distance learning centres throughout the country and abroad, contrary to the provisions of the Act 1992, as a bare perusal of provision 1(2) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the operation and applicability of the aforesaid Act of 1992 is limited to the territorial area of the State of Karnataka. It is submitted that even otherwise the State legislature has no power to enact a law having effect and operation outside the geographical area of the State of Karnataka in view of the provisions of Article 245(1) of the Constitution of India, therefore the act of the KSOU in authorizing centres outside the State was perse illegal from the very beginning. 17. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has dealt with this aspect in detail in 2005(5) SCC 420 Professor Yashpal and another v. State of Chhatisgarh and others wherein the Supreme Court has categorically laid down the law that the State University has no power or authority to run or establish distance education centres outside the concerned State. It is submitted that inspite of having full knowledge of the provisions of section 1(2) of the Act 1992 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Professor Yashpal, (supra), the KSOU which is a State University, continued to commit illegality by running the centres outside the State of Karnataka which is absolutely impermissible. 18. It is next contended by the learned Government Advocate for the State that the the KSOU has purportedly approved the petitioners distance learning centres to impart B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. Course without having obtained any prior permission or recognition as required by the statutory provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 to impart the D.El. Ed. and B.Ed. Courses and therefore even otherwise the centres have to be closed down and the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for permitting the students to participate in the examination or for declaration of their result, cannot be allowed or considered in view of the statutory provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014. 19. It is submitted that apart from the fact that the open distance education learning centres can not be established by the University of the State outside the territorial area of the State, such distance education centres imparting B.Ed. and D.Ed. Courses have also got to obtain recognition under the provisions of NCTE, Regulations, 2014 specifically appendix 9 attached thereto. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that apparently and admittedly no such recognition or permission has been obtained by the KSOU or the petitioners for imparting B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. Courses. 20. and D.Ed. Courses have also got to obtain recognition under the provisions of NCTE, Regulations, 2014 specifically appendix 9 attached thereto. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that apparently and admittedly no such recognition or permission has been obtained by the KSOU or the petitioners for imparting B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. Courses. 20. The respondent/State has brought on record the notification issued by the respondent KSOU dated 05.03.2016 whereby the KSOU has terminated all MOUs entered by it with Collaborating agencies with immediate effect in support of the submission that the KSOU realizing that its act was illegal has cancelled all permissions. It is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that a bare perusal of the notification dated 05.03.2016 issued by the KSOU indicates that the UGC has issued a Public notice to the effect that academic programmes conducted by the collaborative institutions and the study centres outside the concerned State have no legal basis in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Professor Yashpal (supra) and therefore the degrees awarded to such students are to be declared invalid. The notification dated 05.03.2016 issued by the KSOU further states that the UGC has also directed the KSOU to terminate the MOUs with immediate effect therefore, in furtherance of the public notification issued by the UGC dated 05.07.2015 the MOUs entered into by the KSOU with collaborative agencies stands terminated forthwith. 21. The learned Government Advocate for the State submits that in view of the aforesaid notification issued by the KSOU, the petitioners have no legal leg to stand on and to claim that their students be permitted to appear in the examination and for declaration of their result. 21A. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 22. The learned Government Advocate for the State submits that in view of the aforesaid notification issued by the KSOU, the petitioners have no legal leg to stand on and to claim that their students be permitted to appear in the examination and for declaration of their result. 21A. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 22. Before we proceed any further, it is pertinent to note at this stage itself that the public notice issued by the UGC dated 16.06.2015 or the action taken by the UGC in the year 2011-12 de-recognizing the open distance learning centres run by the KSOU have not been challenged before this court in the present petition and infact the KSOU has relied upon the same to justify its notification dated 01.07.2015, therefore, it is an undisputed and an admitted fact that the UGC by public notice dated 16.06.2015 has informed the public at large that the open distance learning centres run by the KSOU have no recognition or approval of the UGC after 2012-13 and that the degrees imparted by such open distance learning centres are invalid. It is also an admitted fact that the impugned notification dated 01.07.2015 has been issued by the KSOU pursuant to the public notice issued by the UGC on 16.06.2015. It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that the MOUs entered into by the KSOU with the collaborative agency have been terminated by the KSOU by notification dated 05.03.2016. 23. It is also an undisputed and admitted fact that as on date in view of the amendment to section 3(2) of the 1992 Act, the KSOU has not power or authority to run any open distance learning centres outside the territorial area of the State of Karnataka. 24. It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that the KSOU had never obtained any approval from the erstwhile Distance Education Council established under Indira Gandhi Open University (now the Distance Education Bureau) prior to establishing such distance education centres and that the KSOU has no approval or permission to run centres after 2012-13. 25. 24. It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that the KSOU had never obtained any approval from the erstwhile Distance Education Council established under Indira Gandhi Open University (now the Distance Education Bureau) prior to establishing such distance education centres and that the KSOU has no approval or permission to run centres after 2012-13. 25. In view of the aforesaid admitted and undisputed facts, we need not go into the issue raised by the learned Government Advocate for the State to the effect that KSOU had no such powers or authority to establish the distance education centres outside the territorial area of the State of Karnataka by relying upon the provisions of section 3(2) of the Act in view of the clear and specific provisions of section 1(2) of the 1992 Act which limited the are of operation of the Act to the territorial area of the State of Karnataka. 26. It is also admitted and undisputed fact that no document has been produced before this court to indicate that the petitioners had obtained recognition for imparting B.Ed. or D.El.Ed. Courses under the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 or the regulations framed thereunder and that even under the Regulations of 2014, the recognition granted to the KSOU under the NCTE Act for conducting B.Ed. Course was only limited to the territorial area of the State of Karnataka in view of appendix 10 attached to the Regulations, 2014 of the NCTE Act, 1993 in respect of B.Ed. Course and Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of Appendix 9 in respect of D.El.Ed. Course. In the present batch of petitions the petitioners have also not produced any document to establish that they are recognized under the NCTE Act of 1993 or the Regulations framed thereunder. 27. In view of the aforesaid admitted and undisputed facts, we are of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioners to the effect that the petitioner institutions be permitted to continue to impart the courses and the petitioner students be permitted to participate in the examination for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. 27. In view of the aforesaid admitted and undisputed facts, we are of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioners to the effect that the petitioner institutions be permitted to continue to impart the courses and the petitioner students be permitted to participate in the examination for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. Courses and that their result be directed to be declared, cannot be acceded to or allowed in view of the statutory provisions of NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, the notification of the UGC dated 16.06.2015, the lack of recognition to the centres run by the petitioners and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Professor Yashpal (supra) and Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and others v. Subhash Rahangdale and others (2012) 2 SCC 425 and a series of decisions of the Supreme Court to the same effect, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the aforesaid legal position and the statutory provisions of law that have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, proceedings initiated by the respondents/authorities against the petitioners institutions after conducting enquiry also cannot be interfered with as the same are in accordance with law. 28. In the light of the above discussions, we find no merits in the petitions which are accordingly dismissed. 29. It is however made clear that the petitioners institutions, the students and all other concerned would be at liberty to initiate proceedings for compensation or to file a criminal case against the authorities or the persons concerned and in case they do so the authority would be obliged to deal with the same in accordance with law.