JUDGMENT : VIPUL M. PANCHOLI 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs; “33. … A. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition; B. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to consider the Master’s Degree of the Petitioner for the purpose of recruitment of the petitioner in Higher Secondary (Grant-in-aid) School in the District of Valsad in order to meet the ends of justice, as the Petitioner was going to be allotted a school in the District of Valsad in the 4th Allotment Round. C. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant interim relief by directing the Respondent No.1 to keep one post vacant for the petitioner. D. ...” 2. Heard, learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Shah, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Though served, none appears for Respondent No.3. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has obtained the degree of B.Sc., B.Ed. and M.Sc. (Physics). 3.1 It appears that the petitioner obtained the degree of M.Sc. (Physics) from the Madurai Kamraj University, Madurai, Tamil Nadu (in brief, ‘MK University’), by distance study mode through S.E.S. Center No. 994 of the M.K. University, situated at Mumbai, in the year 2009-2010. 3.2 According to the petitioner, the M.K. University is a State University, falling under Section 2(f) and 12B of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter, ‘UGC Act’) and thus, the MK University has been established by an Act of the State Legislature as a State University and it is empowered to award degrees as specified by the UGC under the Section 22 of the UGC Act. 3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that, thereafter, he cleared Teachers’ Aptitude Test (‘TAT’ in short) conducted by the State of Gujarat in the year 2014 and obtained 141 marks, out of total 250 marks. 3.4 It appears that pursuant to an advertisement published by the Respondent-Stat on 15.04.2016 to fill-up 4322 vacancies for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in Gujarati Medium schools and 31 posts of Shikshan Sahayak in English Medium schools, the petitioner applied for the same. 3.4 It appears that pursuant to an advertisement published by the Respondent-Stat on 15.04.2016 to fill-up 4322 vacancies for the post of Shikshan Sahayak in Gujarati Medium schools and 31 posts of Shikshan Sahayak in English Medium schools, the petitioner applied for the same. 3.4.1 At this stage, a reference was made to the aforesaid advertisement, which is produced at Page-23 of the compilation. 3.5 According to the petitioner, he is qualified and is eligible for appointment on the post of Shikshan Sahayak. 3.6 At the end of the selection process, the petitioner was selected and his name appeared at Sr. No. 290, as he had obtained 52.54%. A copy of the merit-list prepared by the Respondent-state authorities is produced at Page-30 of the compilation. 3.7 Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was called at the DEO Office, Valsad, along with all necessary documents for allotment of school on 28.06.2017 and the petitioner remained present before the concerned authorities on the given date and place, accordingly. However, the petitioner was orally informed that he is ineligible for appointment on the post of Shikshan Sahayak, as he had obtained the degree of M.Sc. (Physics) through distance education from MK University. 3.8 Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, appearing for the petitioner referred to the documents, which are produced Pages-32 and 34 of the compilation. She also referred to the document produced at Page-36, i.e. the Attempt Certificate issued by the MK University. She, then, referred to the document produced at Page-52 of the compilation, which is a communication dated 27.07.1993, issued by the UGC to the concerned Chancellor. 4.1 Learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, submitted that, later on, a clarification was issued by the UGC vide public notice dated 27.06.2013, which would be applicable to the cases/degrees, which are obtained after June, 2013, whereas, the petitioner obtained the degree of M.Sc. (Physics) from MK University in the year 2009-2010. Thus, there cannot be retrospective applicability of the policy of the UGC. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is eligible for appointment on the post of Shikshan Sahayak. 4.2 At this stage, learned Advocate, Ms. (Physics) from MK University in the year 2009-2010. Thus, there cannot be retrospective applicability of the policy of the UGC. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is eligible for appointment on the post of Shikshan Sahayak. 4.2 At this stage, learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, for the petitioner also contended that as the petitioner obtained the degree in the year 2009-2010, the bar on territorial jurisdiction would not apply to the case of the petitioner and the similarly situated candidates have been given appointments in the department of the Respondent-State. 4.2.1 Reference was also made to the details produced at Page-71 of the compilation and it was contended that as the policy of territorial jurisdiction was issued, for the first time, in June, 2013, the same cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect in the case of the petitioner. 4.3 In support of her submissions, learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, placed reliance on the decision of the Gauhati High Court, rendered in the case of ‘PUNAL KUMAR DAS S/O. TARUN CHANDRA DAS AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS’, reported in 2014 (2) GauLT 715 , more particularly, the observations made in Paragraphs-40, thereof. 4.3.1 Relying on the observations made in the aforesaid decision, learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, submitted that as per the status of the universities, they are entitled to impart Distance Mode of Education with no bound of any territorial jurisdiction and therefore, the degree obtained by the present petitioner in the present petition, who had studied during the year 2009-2010, will have to be recognized as a valid degree. It was, therefore, submitted that the notification issued by the UGC cannot be held to be applicable to the case of the present petitioner. 4.4 Learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, thereafter, placed reliance on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 7626 of 2015, Dated: 27.05.2015, and submitted that in the said matter, the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued directions to the concerned respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners therein, on certain terms and conditions. 4.5 Learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, also invited the attention of this Court to the stay granted by the Madras High Court vide order dated 29.09.2016, passed in WP (MD) No. 18855 of 2016 and WMP (MD) Nos. 13645 to 13646 of 2016, filed by the MK University. 4.5 Learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, also invited the attention of this Court to the stay granted by the Madras High Court vide order dated 29.09.2016, passed in WP (MD) No. 18855 of 2016 and WMP (MD) Nos. 13645 to 13646 of 2016, filed by the MK University. It was, then, submitted that the stay granted by the Madras High Court is in operation, till date. 4.5.1 A copy of the order passed by the Madras High Court is produced at Page-128 of the compilation. 4.5.2 It was, therefore, submitted that as the matter is sub-judice before the concerned High Court, it is not open to the Respondents to deny the appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has obtained degree from MK University. 4.6 Learned Advocate, Mr. Prajapati, at this stage, submitted that at the time of admitting this petition, this Court had granted ad-interim-relief, whereby, it is observed that, if, the petitioner succeeds finally in this petition, the ground of non-availability of vacancy shall not be allowed to deny the employment to the petitioner. 4.7 It was lastly submitted that some of the students, who have obtained degree through distance learning from the MK University, have been appointed on various posts including the posts of Shikshan Sahayak and therefore, the present petitioner be also given the similar treatment. 4.8 It was, therefore, prayed that this petition be allowed and the Respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned AGP, Mr. Shah, appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vehemently opposed this petition and referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.1. 5.1 It was contended that in respect of the very same advertisement the concerned petitioner, who had passed M.Sc. (Chemistry) degree from MK University in the year 2004-2006 through distance learning mode, had filed Special Civil Application No. 6881 of 2017 before this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated 28.12.2018. A copy of the order dated 28.12.2018 is produced at Page-210 of the compilation. 5.1.1 Learned AGP, Mr. Shah, invited the attention of this Court to the relevant facts of the said case, more particularly, Paragraphs- 3 and 4 thereof. 5.1.2 Learned AGP, Mr. A copy of the order dated 28.12.2018 is produced at Page-210 of the compilation. 5.1.1 Learned AGP, Mr. Shah, invited the attention of this Court to the relevant facts of the said case, more particularly, Paragraphs- 3 and 4 thereof. 5.1.2 Learned AGP, Mr. Shah, thereafter, referred to the relevant observations made by the Coordinate Bench and contended that ultimately the aforesaid petition was dismissed by this Court, and therefore, the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. 5.1.3 At this stage, it was submitted that the issue of non-issuance of call letter to the concerned petitioner, who had obtained the post graduation degree from the MK University, came-up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1199 of 2016, where, the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal with certain observations. A copy of the said order is also produced on record. 5.2 It was also submitted that, even if, appointments have been given to some of the candidates, who had obtained degree from MK University prior to 2013, the petitioner cannot claim negative equality, if, the concerned Respondent committed an error in the past and hence the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of the same. 5.3 Learned AGP, Mr. Shah, therefore, submitted that since the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid two decision, this Court may not entertain this petition. 6. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6.1 It is the case of the petitioner that he obtained the degree of M.Sc. (Physics) through distance learning mode from MK University and on that ground, his case was not considered for appointment on the post of Shikshan Sahayak by the Respondent authorities. 6.2 In support of his case, the petitioner has referred to various communications addressed by UGC and contended that the concept of open university was introduced in the country by the Act enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislature in accordance with Section 2(d) of the UGC Act and therefore, such universities are empowered to award degrees. 6.2 In support of his case, the petitioner has referred to various communications addressed by UGC and contended that the concept of open university was introduced in the country by the Act enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislature in accordance with Section 2(d) of the UGC Act and therefore, such universities are empowered to award degrees. However, it is pertinent to note that the UGC issued a public notice on 27.06.2013, whereby, the students and parents were informed 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 beyound the territory of the state of its location. It, further, provides that the private universities and deemed universities cannot affiliate any college or institution for conducting courses leading to award of its diplomas, degree or other qualifications. A copy of the said communication is produced at Page-56 of the compilation. 6.3 It is the case of the petitioner that said clarification/notification, which was issued in the form of a public notice, would be applicable only prospectively and not retrospectively. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained the degree of M.Sc. (Physics) in the year 2009-2010 from MK University through distance learning mode and therefore, according to the petitioner, he is eligible to participate in the recruitment process initiated by the Respondents for appointment on the post of Shikshan Sahayak. 6.4 At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the similar issue had come-up for consideration before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6881 of 2017, where, the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under in Paragraphs- 3, 3.1, 3.2, 4, 6 and 7; “3. Noticing the relevant facts, upon the advertisement dated 15th April, 2016 issued by the respondent for the recruitment of Shikshan Sahayaks/ Teachers in the Registered Non-Government Granted Higher Secondary Schools (Gujarati and English Medium), the petitioner submitted his application for the subject of Chemistry. His merit marks was 68.53, upon which he was placed in the Merit Rank at Serial No.6 in selection list dated 07th November, 2016. The petitioner holds the following qualifications - (i) B.Sc. (Chemistry) from Gujarat University, passed in the year 2000, (ii) M.Sc. (Chemistry) from Madurai Kamraj University, Tamil Nadu, passed in the years 2004-2006 by distant learning mode, (iii) B.Ed. The petitioner holds the following qualifications - (i) B.Sc. (Chemistry) from Gujarat University, passed in the year 2000, (ii) M.Sc. (Chemistry) from Madurai Kamraj University, Tamil Nadu, passed in the years 2004-2006 by distant learning mode, (iii) B.Ed. with the subjects of Science and Maths from Gujarat University in 2009, (iv) TAT-2011 in the subject of Chemistry and (v) TAT-2014 in the same subject where he secured the first rank. It is the case of the petitioner therefore that he is eligible and qualified to be appointed as Shikshan Sahayak in the secondary and higher secondary school and accordingly submitted his application. 3.1 It appears that when the stage of verification of certificates/marksheets reached, the authorities held, in view of qualification of the petitioner of M.Sc. (Chemistry) having been obtained from Madurai Kamraj University, Tamil Nadu, that it required more scrutiny and that its recognition was needed to be verified. The petitioner was therefore not permitted to participate further and he was not allowed to select the school. 3.2 Thus the candidature of the petitioner was finally not accepted for the post of Shikshan Sahayak on the ground that the petitioner had obtained M.Sc. (Chemistry) from Madurai Kamraj University, Tamil Nadu which was not recognised.” 3.2 Thus the candidature of the petitioner was finally not accepted for the post of Shikshan Sahayak on the ground that the petitioner had obtained M.Sc. (Chemistry) from Madurai Kamraj University, Tamil Nadu which was not recognised. 4. It was submitted that M.Sc. (Chemistry) course of Madurai Kamraj University possessed by the petitioner was in the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and though it was distant learning course, its validity was not questioned. It was submitted that the recruitment was governed by the Rules called Teachers and Head Masters of Registered Private Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools (Procedure for Selection) Rules as amended in the years 2013 and 2016. It was submitted that accordingly the candidate was required to possess Bachelor's Decree and Post Graduate Degree in the subject concerned as well as the Degree of B.Ed. from any recognised University. The further requirement is passing of Teachers' Aptitude Test. It was contended that it was nowhere stated in the Rules that qualification obtained from Madurai Kamraj University, Tamil Nadu in the year 2004-2006 would not be valid for the recruitment. XXX XXX XXX 6. from any recognised University. The further requirement is passing of Teachers' Aptitude Test. It was contended that it was nowhere stated in the Rules that qualification obtained from Madurai Kamraj University, Tamil Nadu in the year 2004-2006 would not be valid for the recruitment. XXX XXX XXX 6. In view of the above established position of law, the respondent authorities could not be said to have committed any error in not accepting the degree qualification obtained by the petitioner by distant learning centre of Madurai Kamraj University, Tamil Nadu. Learned advocate for the petitioner wanted to rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana [ AIR 1987 SC 2027 ] to submit that passing of the petitioner from the distant learning centre of Madurai Kamraj University was in the years, and that the public notice was dated 27th June, 2000. This submission hardly stands good in as much as it is clearly held, as noticed above, that the study centres or off-campus centres of Madurai Kamraj University beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the district of Tamil Nadu and even beyond the State of Tamil Nadu are not permitted and such centres are treated to be illegal. The petitioner cannot claim any right to get appointed on the basis of the degree certificate obtained from such off-campus study centres, which have no legal basis and which are not recognized as operated illegality. 7. In the aforesaid view, the petition stands meritless. None of the relief prayed for in the petition could be granted to the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim orders are vacated.” 6.4.1 From the aforesaid observations made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it is clear that the concerned petitioner had obtained the degree of M.Sc. (Chemistry) from MK University in the year 2004-2006 through distance learning mode and while considering the similar contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner therein, this Court observed that the Respondent authorities cannot be said to have committed any error in not accepting the qualification obtained by the concerned petitioner through the distance learning center of the MK University. 6.4.2 Further, the contention with regard to the public notice/notification dated 27.06.2013 was also considered by this Court and it was observed that such a submission hardly stands good inasmuch as it is clearly held that the study centers or off-campus centers of Madurai Kamraj University beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the district of Tamil Nadu and even beyond the State of Tamil Nadu are not permitted and such centers are treated to be illegal. It was. Therefore,. Held that the concerned petitioner cannot claim any right to get appointed on the basis of the degree certificate obtained from such off-campus study centers, which have no legal basis and which are not recognized as operated illegality. 6.5 So far as the contention raised by the learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, for the petitioner that other persons, who have obtained degree from MK University through distance study mode before the year 2013, have been granted appointment by the Respondent authorities is concerned, as observed herein above, the petitioner cannot claim negative equality and thus, such a submission is misconceived. 6.6 At this stage, reference also needs to be made to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1199 of 2016, which reads thus; “2.1. That the original petitioners submitted certificate of Post Graduate issued by Madurai Kamaraj University, Tamilnadu (hereinafter referred to as the "MK University"). It was the case on behalf of the petitioner that all of them have passed Post Graduate off Campus, Center of MK University. However, the original concerned respondents did not issue the call letters to the original petitioners on the ground that their post graduate from MK University by stating Off Campus Centre in State shall not be recognized and/or considered as eligible. However, the original concerned respondents did not issue the call letters to the original petitioners on the ground that their post graduate from MK University by stating Off Campus Centre in State shall not be recognized and/or considered as eligible. Therefore, the original petitioners preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application before this Court and prayed for following reliefs: "(A) This Honble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the No Call Letters at AnnexureC colly, issued to the petitioners and this Honble Court may be further pleased to direct the respondents to prepare merit list on the basis of merit marks prepared by adding marks for Post Graduation so far as the petitioners are concerned and thereafter, to issue call letters for the interview starting from 27.01.2016 for the selection on the posts of Vidhyasahayak in the State of Gujarat; (B) This Honble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to give deem date of appointment to the petitioners in case of their appointment at subsequent stage;" 2.2 It was the case on behalf of the original petitioners that as the MK University was recognized under the provisions of UGC Act, 1956 and when they studied their recognition was continued, the certificate issued by the MK University be considered as valid. However, on the other hand, it was the specific case on behalf of the University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "UGC") that MK University is a State University and it was Act of State Legislature as a State University. It was the specific case on behalf of the UGC that UGC has not granted any approval to MK University to open Off Campus or study centre anywhere (outside Tamilnadu). Therefore, it was submitted that MK University can not open study centre/off campus centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State (State of Tamilnadu). It was submitted that therefore, in any study centre operated by the MK University in Gujarat or other State is illegal. In support of his above submission, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yaspal and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420 and in the case of . In support of his above submission, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yaspal and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420 and in the case of . That considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and accepting the stand and/or submissions on behalf of the UGC, by impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid petition. While dismissing the aforesaid petition, the learned Single Judge has also observed that it is very unfortunate that none of the authorities of the State Government or the UGC took appropriate steps to see that such Study Centres of the distance learning programmes outside its territorial jurisdiction are stopped. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the students interested to pursue their post graduation would get misled unmindful when it would come to meet such degree of the post graduation would not be considered. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge has further observed that these petitions should be an eyeopener for the State Government as well as for the University Grants Commission to take appropriate steps against the M K University so far as their Study Centres which are operating in different States are concerned. XXX XXX XXX 3.1. However, it is required to be noted that even as per the letter dated 27.05.2014 addressed by the Deputy Director to the Vice Chancellor, M K University the territorial jurisdiction in respect of universities for offering programmes through distance mode will be as per the policy of UGC on territorial jurisdiction and opening of off campus/centres/study centres as mentioned in the UGC notification No.F.271/2012 (CPPII), dated 27th June, 2013. It does not seem to be in dispute that M K University is a State University and was established by an Act of State Legislature as a State University and is empowered to award degrees as specified by the UGC under 22 of UGC Act, 1956. The territorial jurisdiction of the MK University to open Off Campus or Study Centre was State of Tamilnadu only. It appears that UGC had not granted any approval to the MK University to open Off Campus or Study Centre anywhere. Thus, MK University as such was not authorized to open study centre/Off Campus Centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of State of Tamilnadu. It appears that UGC had not granted any approval to the MK University to open Off Campus or Study Centre anywhere. Thus, MK University as such was not authorized to open study centre/Off Campus Centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of State of Tamilnadu. It is not in dispute that original petitioners claim their right on the basis of their studies in the Off Campus Centre/Study Centre in the State of Gujarat. Therefore, the petitioners study from the Off Campus or the Study Centre in Gujarat would not be authorized or legal and void. XXX XXX XXX 4.1. At this stage, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma and Ors (supra) also requires to be referred to and considered. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has negatived the contention that such study centre should be permitted to be operated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned university.” 6.7 This Court is, therefore, of the view that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid two decisions of this Court and therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Advocate, Ms. Prajapati, for the Petitioner on the decisions of the Gauhati High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as the Madras High Court is wholly misconceived and the same would render no assistance to the case of the present petitioner. 6.8 In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reliefs prayed for in this petition cannot be granted. 7. Resultantly, this petition fails and is DISMISSED. Rule is discharged.