JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Dutta along with Mr. T. Debbarma learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Despite due notice, there is no representation from the respondent No.3. However, against the respondent No.3, no relief has been urged in this writ petition. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Technical Assistant [Group-C] on contractual basis in the Tripura University since 08.05.2006. She has the qualification of Master of Arts in English and Diploma in Computer Science from NIIT. The petitioner acquired the degree of Library and Information Science (non-semester) as ‘Off Campus’ student from Madurai Kamraj University in the year 2008. The petitioner, however, acquired the degree of Master of Arts from Tripura University in the year 2005. By the notification dated 15.03.2006 [Annexure P/3 to this writ petition] Tripura University invited applications from the eligible candidates for various posts including the Library Assistant and Semi Professional Assistants. For both the posts the degree of bachelor in Library Science or equivalent is the essential qualification. The petitioner had placed her degree of Library and Information Science along with her application while she applied for those posts. But the Tripura University did not entertain her application on the ground that the said degree was obtained by the petitioner by “off campus” mode and the petitioner was denied to appear in the written examination. Based on this cause this writ petition has been filed urging the following reliefs: (I). To consider the petitioner eligible for taking part in the selection process for the post of Semi Professional Assistant or the Library Assistant. (II). To recognize the qualification that the petitioner has obtained from Madurai Kamraj University i.e. Bachelor Degree in Library & Information Science and Masters Degree in Library & Information Science by the off-campus mode and not to reject her candidature for those posts. (III). To accept the qualification in the future recruitment process. 3. The University-respondents by filing their reply have submitted that the Apex Court by the judgment in Prof. Yashpal & Ors. Vrs. (III). To accept the qualification in the future recruitment process. 3. The University-respondents by filing their reply have submitted that the Apex Court by the judgment in Prof. Yashpal & Ors. Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., reported in AIR 2005 SC 2026 has declared that degrees provided to the students beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State Universities cannot be recognized inasmuch as the State enactments cannot have any effect beyond the territorial jurisdiction of particular State. Only the Central Govt. can bring such law by declaring any University to have its territorial limit throughout the national territory but the State Acts are not competent to do that in view of Article 241 (1) of the Constitution of India. All the degrees from such off shores/off campus centres cannot be recognized. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has observed that—“… What is necessary is a large number of good colleges and institutions and not Universities without any teaching facility but having the authority to confer degrees. If good institutions are established for providing higher education, they can be conferred the status of a deemed University by the Central Government in accordance with Section 3 of the UGC Act or they can be affiliated to the already existing Universities. The impugned Act has neither achieved nor is capable of achieving the object sought to be projected by the learned counsel as it enables a proposal alone being notified as a University.” It has been further observed that if any institution has been established by the Universities, steps may be taken for their affiliation to already existing State Universities in accordance with the direction contained in paragraph 45 of the said judgment. 4. To enforce the said judgment, the University Grants Commission [UGC, for short] has issued several circulars to the Universities and the state governments to close down such off-shores/off-campus centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the state which enacted the Act setting up the Universities. It was further directed that the existing off-campus centres be attached to the existing Universities within that State. There is no dispute that despite Prof. Yashpal’s case was pronounced on 11.02.2005, a good number of off-campus centres are operating in the various states including the state of Tripura till 2012, when the Department of Higher Education, Govt. It was further directed that the existing off-campus centres be attached to the existing Universities within that State. There is no dispute that despite Prof. Yashpal’s case was pronounced on 11.02.2005, a good number of off-campus centres are operating in the various states including the state of Tripura till 2012, when the Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Tripura issued a notification completely banning operation of such off-campus centres in the state of Tripura. But by the said notification, Govt. of Tripura had adopted a policy that till such banning notification those who had acquired degree, their degree shall be recognized for a limited purpose but the degree obtained on publication of the notification will have no recognition for any purpose by the state government. 5. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Tripura University never published such notification. According to the Court, Tripura University has no locus even to issue such notification inasmuch as it does not fall within its permitted activity. But the Tripura University is definitely bound by the circulars issued by the UGC. As it appears, the University in pursuance to the said employment notice dated 14.11.2014 issued a notice dated 18.03.2016 providing that “candidates passing the qualifying examination/examinations through ODL ‘Off Campus’ mode will not be allowed to sit for the written examination.” But there was also no cutoff date. 6. By filing the reply, the respondents have submitted that they have not entertained anyone on the basis of the degree obtained by ‘off campus’ mode as yet. In their additional counter affidavit, they have proved a chart of the persons against whom the petitioner has levelled allegations that those persons were appointed in the respective post on their degree acquired through ‘off campus’ mode. By the additional counter affidavit, the respondents have categorically stated that none of those persons as appearing in Annexure F/2 to their additional counter affidavit had acquired their basic qualification through the ‘off campus’ mode as alleged. But Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has, however, submitted that one person namely Surajit Dutta who has been appointed as UDC under the Tripura University obtained the degree of B.Sc.(IT) in 2005. Mr. Dutta has endeavoured to give justification for entertaining his degree. According to him, the said candidate sat in the last semester slightly after the judgment of Prof. Yashpal was pronounced. 7. Mr. Dutta has endeavoured to give justification for entertaining his degree. According to him, the said candidate sat in the last semester slightly after the judgment of Prof. Yashpal was pronounced. 7. Thus, this Court finds that if the policy of the University was that the date of judgment of Prof. Yashpal (supra) i.e. 11.02.2005 was the cutoff date, then Surajit Dutta should not have been allowed to sit for the examination or nor should he been selected for the said post. Since the Tripura University has been consistent in other matters, the Tripura University is permitted to continue that after 11.02.2005 those who have obtained the degrees through ‘off campus’ mode shall not be allowed to sit or get appointed under the Tripura University. However, since this Court finds there was no cutoff date and moreover, the petitioner is working as the contractual employee of the Tripura University, in her case, particularly in absence of any cutoff date, the said strict restrictions may not be applied, as the solitary exception. As has been relaxed in the case of Surajit Dutta, similar treatment she might be provided. As the State Govt. has set up a definite restriction, the degrees obtained thereafter cannot at all be entertained by any public office. Since Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that the selection process is already over and the selected persons are already appointed, in the future exercise the petitioner’s degree may be entertained in view of the observation as made above and the petitioner may be given the relaxation of age for the period to the extent i.e. from the date of the first employment notification dated 14.11.2014 to the next notification. The said period shall be added to her age for purpose of appearing in the examination if for any reason the petitioner fell short of the maximum age. 8. With this observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. It is made absolutely clear that this observation made in this judgment will not be treated as precedent for any other case in future. This view has been taken as the petitioner has been working in the Tripura University on contractual basis. No order as to costs.