JUDGMENT : 1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction: a) The Impugned Order dated 19.12.2017 (Ann.P/11) issued by the Respondent-RPSC may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) The impugned action of the respondents in cancelling the selection of petitioner for the post of Assistant Jailor may kindly be declared as illegal and unconstitutional; c) the respondents may be directed to consider the candidature of petitioner & give appointment to the post of Assistant Jailor prescribed in competitive examination 2013 with all consequential benefits. d) if any appointment and order are made during the pendency of the writ petition prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same may also be called for and be declared and held to be illegal and may be quashed and set aside; e) Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner; f) Costs of this petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajendra Katariya, Mr. Priyansh Arora and Mr. Dharamveer Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that the petitioner completed his Graduation Degree i.e. B.A. (History) from the respondent-University through distance learning mode. 2.1 The respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement dated 02.05.2013 for recruitment on the post of Assistant Jailor, under the Rajasthan Jail Subordinate Service Rules, 1998. As per the petitioner, being eligible, he submitted the application form for the post in question on 29.05.2013 and he appear in exam. Thereafter, the respondent-RPSC declared the results on 27.05.2016 and the petitioner declared successful in the written examination, and was further called for physical test; whereafter, he was also declared successful in physical test on 24.01.2017. 2.2 After the issuance of results, the respondent-RPSC issued a letter dated 22.03.2017 to the petitioner requiring him to submit certain relevant documents. The respondent-RPSC also conducted the interviews on 15.03.2017 to 07.04.2017 and declared the final results on 09.06.2017. 2.2.1 The petitioner fell under the merit list, and accordingly, his name was shown at serial no.7 of the final merit list. The respondent-RPSC also conducted the interviews on 15.03.2017 to 07.04.2017 and declared the final results on 09.06.2017. 2.2.1 The petitioner fell under the merit list, and accordingly, his name was shown at serial no.7 of the final merit list. Thereafter, the respondent-RPSC issued another letter on 05.07.2017 informing him that further documents of the petitioner are required to be submitted, in relation to the recruitment in question, whereupon the petitioner immediately submitted the required documents. 2.3 However, the respondent-RPSC, vide impugned order dated 19.12.2017, cancelled the selection of the petitioner on the post in question on the ground that the petitioner has acquired the qualification of B.A. (History) from the respondent-University, through Distance Learning Mode (study centre, Jodhpur). The said impugned order shows that the same has been passed in pursuance of the letter dated 08.09.2017 issued by the respondent-UGC; the said letter bears a reference of a Public Notice dated 27.06.2013. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Public Notice dated 27.06.2013 issued by respondent-UGC cannot be applied retrospectively; vide the said notice, the students were advised 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; while, the respondent-RPSC illegally rejected the candidature of petitioner for the post in question, and thus, the same was bad in the eye of law. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has been admitted in B.A. Degree Course in the respondent-University through distance education mode (off campus at Jodhpur) in the year 2012, while the Public Notice was issued on 27.6.2013, and therefore, the said Public Notice is prospective in nature, and cannot be given retrospective effect. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the cancellation of the petitioner’s selection has been made, on the strength of the letter dated 08.09.2017 and Public Notice dated 27.06.2013 issued by respondent-UGC; a bare perusal of the letter dated 08.09.2017 reveals that the UGC has issued a public notice dated 27.06.2013 on territorial jurisdiction of the universities relating to distance education, and the UGC has not granted any approval to the respondent-Univerity to open off campus/study centre anywhere. However, as per learned counsel the said public notice nowhere provides that the same shall be given retrospective effect, in relation to the distance education, facilitated by the respondent-University through off study centres. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of the application dated 20.02.2018 by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, before the Public Information Officer, UGC, New Delhi, the respondent-UGC has provided certain information vide correspondence dated 13.04.2018, stating that the Expert Committee has found that the respondent-University has about 87 study centres in other states in the country and 15 study centres overseas, and accordingly, the Committee had recommended for grant of recognition for offering programmes through distance education mode. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the similar nature of controversy arose before Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, wherein the relief of grant of appointment was granted. 7.1. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim in the case of Sikkim Manipal University Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University, Distance Education Council and Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 04 of 2013) decided on 26.06.2015; and the said judgment upon being challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of University Grants Commission Vs Sikkim Manipal University & Ors. (Special Leave Appeal No. 26223/2015) decided on 21.09.2015), came to upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7.1.1 Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Sikkim Manipal University Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University, Distance Education Council and Ors. (supra) , as relied by learned Senior Counsel, reads as under: “22. Question No.(b) Can it be said that Regulations 2003 was never applied after it was framed and that UGC Regulation, 1985 continued to be in force? Question No.(c) Would the letters issued to the Petitioner University by the IGNOU and DEC in contravention to letter dated 29-12-2012, Annexure P29, of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Respondent No.2, amount to abandonment of Regulations 2003? Question No.(d) Can it, therefore, be said that it was permissible for the Universities of all categories to run DEP outside the territorial limits of the State? (i) The three questions being interrelated may be taken up together. Question No.(d) Can it, therefore, be said that it was permissible for the Universities of all categories to run DEP outside the territorial limits of the State? (i) The three questions being interrelated may be taken up together. (ii) The submission on behalf of the Petitioner University that even if Regulations 2003 had been validly framed, it was never applied in the case of the Petitioner-University and stood abandoned, does not appear to be sound and acceptable. We have already noted that Supreme Court in Annamalai University (supra) observed that when mandatory requirements have been violated in terms of the provisions of one Act, an Authority under another Act could not have validated the same and that too with retrospective effect and non-compliance will certainly entail consequences. (iii) The validity of Regulations 2003 has been upheld in Prof. Yashpal case (supra) and, therefore, there can be no doubt that the Universities offering DEP would mandatorily require to follow the same. Even if it is accepted that the Petitioner-University had earlier been granted recognition for its ODL programmes without following Regulations 2003 or other Notifications of the UGC, the situation now stands altered in view of the policy decision of the Central Government and the Notifications and Orders following thereafter under which it is mandatory for the ODL programmes of the Universities to be recognised by the UGC, AICTE and IGNOU and, that these Universities shall be subject to its operations within geographical territorial limits of the State under the Statute of which the Universities are created. (iv) Order of the Respondent No.2 dated 29-12-2012, Annexure P29, is admittedly a policy decision of the Government of India. This policy decision having been issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of the UGC Act, 1956, has statutory force and would stand engrafted in the Act and, thus would be all-pervasive and binding on all Universities. Permissibility of interference in matters of policy of Government, particularly, with regard to education, is well-settled. …… 29. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Order of the Central Government dated 29-12-2012, Annexure P29, is valid and binding upon all Universities in the country, be it State or Private or Central Universities, being a policy decision of the Government. Permissibility of interference in matters of policy of Government, particularly, with regard to education, is well-settled. …… 29. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Order of the Central Government dated 29-12-2012, Annexure P29, is valid and binding upon all Universities in the country, be it State or Private or Central Universities, being a policy decision of the Government. Notifications/Orders issued consequential thereto and also preceding those to the same effect or consistent therewith, are also held to be valid and binding.” 7.1.2 Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in University Grants Commission Vs Sikkim Manipal University & Ors. (supra), as relied by the learned Senior Counsel, reads as under: “Applications for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment and application for permission to place additional documents on record are allowed. Insofar as the questions of law raised by the petitioner-University Grants Commission before the High Court were concerned, they have been decided in favour of the petitioner. However, in the peculiar facts of the case as noted by the High Court, relief is granted to the students who had undergone the distant learning courses. We are not inclined to interfere with those directions passed by the High Court on those facts. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Obviously, such an order would not be cited as a precedent in any other case.” 7.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the following judgments - (a) Karamjeet Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (CWP No. 11049 of 2017) decided by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 06.06.2019. (b) Jagjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No. 24938 of 2016) decided by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 27.03.2019. (c) Vikram Singh Vs. Subordinate Service Selection Board & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No. 22867 of 2016) decided by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 27.03.2019. (d) Mr. Pralhad Dani Chhetri & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (WP No. 08 of 2015) decided by Hon’ble High Court of Sikkam on 29.06.2015. (e) Iaan School of Mass Communication & Ors Vs. Makhan Lal Chaturvedi Rashitriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyalaya & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 6740 of 2006) decided by Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 07.09.2022. (f) Sonia Ahuja Vs State of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. (e) Iaan School of Mass Communication & Ors Vs. Makhan Lal Chaturvedi Rashitriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyalaya & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 6740 of 2006) decided by Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 07.09.2022. (f) Sonia Ahuja Vs State of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. (CWP 29977 of 2018) decided by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 02.08.2019. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the advertisement so issued by the respondent-RPSC in relation to the recruitment in question, specifically contained a condition that the requisite degree should be issued by the recognized university established by law in India, and thus, since in the present case, the said condition is fulfilled, therefore, the respondents cannot deny the appointment, on the post in question, to the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Girish Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-UGC, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Maduraj Kamraj University, Madurai, Tamil Nadu is State University, and was granted post facto programme-wise recognition by the erstwhile Distance Education Counsel (DEC, IGNOU) for the academic sessions 1995-96 to 2006-07, for the programmes offered by the University through distance learning mode; further, the Distance Education Council (DEC) granted institutional recognition to the University from 2007-08 to 2009-10. As per learned counsel, thereafter, the recognition was further granted for the academic sessions 2010-11 to 2012-13 and till 2014-15; no further recognition was granted for distance education mode study to the University. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-UGC further submitted that State Universities are not authorized to open study centre/off campus centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State. The UGC vide circular D.O. No. F.1-52/99 (CCP-II) dated 09.08.2001, informed all the universities, to the effect that they cannot offer their programmes through franchising arrangement with private institution for the purpose of conducting course through distance mode and the Universities were thus directed to stop franchising their degree education through private agencies through off campus mode. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-UGC further submitted that a Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC vide letter dated 13.05.2003, directed all the Vice Chancellors/Head of the Institutions to limit the distance education programme of the institutions to the neighborhood of the location of the main campus or at most within the State boundary. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-UGC further submitted that a Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC vide letter dated 13.05.2003, directed all the Vice Chancellors/Head of the Institutions to limit the distance education programme of the institutions to the neighborhood of the location of the main campus or at most within the State boundary. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-UGC thus reiterated that the State Universities are not authorized to open study centre/ off campus beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the state. 13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent-UGC heavily relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 420, relevant portion of which reads as under: “54. In exercise of power conferred by Section 26 of the UGC Act, the University Grants Commission has made the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. The Regulations have been made with the object of providing for a regulatory mechanism for establishment and operation of private universities and for safeguarding the interests of the student community with adequate emphasis on the quality of education and to avoid commercialisation of higher education and also to maintain standards of teaching, research and examination. Regulation 1.2 provides that the same shall apply to every private university established by or incorporated under a State Act, before or after the commencement of these Regulations. Regulation 1.5 provides that any private university which has started functioning before the commencement of these Regulations shall ensure adherence to these Regulations within a period of three months from the notification thereof and failure to comply with this requirement shall render any degree/diploma awarded by a private university as unspecified in terms of Section 22(3) of the UGC Act and shall invite penalty under Section 24 of the said Act. Regulations 3.1, 3.2, 3.6 and 3.7 are important and they are being reproduced below: “3.1. Each private university shall be established by a separate State Act and shall conform to the relevant provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, as amended from time to time. 3.2. A private university shall be a unitary university having adequate facilities for teaching, research, examination and extension services. 3.6. Each private university shall be established by a separate State Act and shall conform to the relevant provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, as amended from time to time. 3.2. A private university shall be a unitary university having adequate facilities for teaching, research, examination and extension services. 3.6. The programmes of study leading to a degree and/or a postgraduate degree/diploma offered by a private university shall conform to the relevant regulations/norms of UGC or the statutory body concerned as amended from time to time. 3.7. A private university shall provide all the relevant information relating to the first degree and postgraduate degree/diploma programme(s) including the curriculum structure, contents, teaching and learning process, examination and evaluation system and the eligibility criteria for admission of students, to UGC on a pro forma prescribed by UGC prior to starting of these programmes.” 55. Regulation 3.3 puts restriction on establishment of a university outside the State. Regulation 5 provides consequences of violation and lays down that if the Commission is satisfied that a private university has, even after getting an opportunity to do so, failed to comply with the provisions of any of the Regulations, the Commission may pass orders prohibiting the private university from offering any course for award of the degree or diploma. Similarly, UGC is empowered to take action against a private university awarding first degree and/or a postgraduate degree/diploma, which is not specified by UGC and any private university continuing such programme and awarding unspecified degree shall be liable for penalty under Section 24 of the UGC Act. 60. Dr. Dhavan has also drawn the attention of the Court to certain other provisions of the Act which have effect outside the State of Chhattisgarh and thereby give the State enactment an extraterritorial operation. Section 2(f) of the amended Act defines “off-campus centre” which means a centre of the university established by it outside the main campus (within or outside the State) operated and maintained as its constituent unit having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 2(g) defines “offshore campus” and it means a campus of the university established by it outside the country, operated and maintained as its constituent unit, having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 2(g) defines “offshore campus” and it means a campus of the university established by it outside the country, operated and maintained as its constituent unit, having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 3(7) says that the object of the university shall be to establish the main campus in Chhattisgarh and to have study centres at different places in India and other countries. In view of Article 245(1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. The impugned Act which specifically makes a provision enabling a university to have an off-campus centre outside the State is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh Legislature.” 14. Learned counsel for the respondent-UGC further submitted that in pursuance of the observations made in Prof. Yashpal (supra), the UGC issued letter no. F.9/8/2008 (CCP-I) dated 16.04.2009 for initiating an immediate action against all the universities who operate the study centre beyond their territorial jurisdiction. He also submitted that the UGC also vide letter dated 15.06.2009 addressed to Vice Chancellor of the State Universities requested to ensure that no off campus centre/study, centre/affiliating college and centres shall operate through franchise opened by the university outside the territorial jurisdiction of that particular State. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 16. At the outset, this Court observes that the vide the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prof. Yashpal (supra), the complete controversy pertaining to the qualification/degree obtained through the off campus mode, from the institution being run beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State without any approval of UGC, has been set at rest, thereby holding such qualification/degree as not valid. 17. Yashpal (supra), the complete controversy pertaining to the qualification/degree obtained through the off campus mode, from the institution being run beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State without any approval of UGC, has been set at rest, thereby holding such qualification/degree as not valid. 17. This Court further observes that the Hon’ble Sikkim High Court passed the order in the case of Sikkim Manipal University (Supra); the appeal challenging the same though was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide the judgment rendered in University Grants Commission (Supra); however, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment observed that, “in the peculiar facts of the case as noted by the High Court, relief is granted to the students who had undergone the distant learning courses. We are not inclined to interfere with those directions passed by the High Court on those facts.” After making such observations, the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide the same judgment, while dismissing the appeal categorically observed that “Obviously, such an order would not be cited as a precedent in any other case.” Therefore, the applicability of the said judgment, as claimed on behalf of the petitioner, is of no consequence, not only in regard to the present case at hand, but also in the matters involving the identical issue raised herein. 18. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered in the case of Promila Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Writ Petition 2796 of 2021 decided by a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 21.03.2022) which also dealt with the similar question and the Hon’ble Court, in the said case also, followed the observations made in the case of Prof. Yashpal (Supra), and University Grants Commission (Supra). Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Promila Devi (supra) reads as under: - “9. The moot question is whether the University established or incorporated by or under the State Act can operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under the Act or can operate beyond the territory of the State or its location 10. Relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Promila Devi (supra) reads as under: - “9. The moot question is whether the University established or incorporated by or under the State Act can operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under the Act or can operate beyond the territory of the State or its location 10. This issue is no longer re integra and has in fact been taken into consideration by one of us (Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan) while adjudicating the same in Business Institute of Management Studies vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others 2016 ILR (HP) 1410 wherein after noticing the large scale menace of education institutions being commercial shops, it was held as under:- "24. Education institution of the petitioner is no less than a commercial shop, where the aspiring needs of the students stand defeated due to the malpractices and frivolous activities of the petitioner. This is a classical example where the petitioner institute has presented an imaginary and illusory picture for making a successful career to the innocent students admitted in their institute, that too, by charging exorbitant fees and thereafter leaving them in the lurch to fend for themselves little knowing that even the courses undertaken by them may probably not even be recognized in the country. This practice is not only to be deprecated, but is also to be handled and dealt with a heavy hand. 25. In Prof. Yashpal and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2005) 5 SCC 420, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed its deep anxious and concern about the quality of education. It had also expressed its concern about mushrooming growth of fake education institutions. The relevant portion reads as under:- ... .... 12. It would be noticed that the degree as obtained by the petitioner does not figure in the Course/Programme mentioned in the aforesaid letter. That apart, the recognition given by the UGC is only for one academic year i.e. 2009-2010, whereas, the petitioner has obtained her M.A. (English) during the academic years 2010-2012. In such circumstances, obviously, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the recognition. 13. That apart, the recognition given by the UGC is only for one academic year i.e. 2009-2010, whereas, the petitioner has obtained her M.A. (English) during the academic years 2010-2012. In such circumstances, obviously, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the recognition. 13. As a last ditch effort, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21.09.2015 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 26223/2015 in case titled University Grants Commission versus Sikkim Manipal University and others, wherein it was held as under:- "UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Applications for exemption from fling certified copy of the impugned judgment and application for permission to place additional documents on record are allowed. Insofar as the questions of law raised by the petitioner-University Grants Commission before the High Court were concerned, they have been decided in favour of the petitioner. However, in the peculiar facts of the case as noted by the High Court, relief is granted to the students who had undergone the distant learning courses. We are not inclined to interfere with those directions passed by the High Court on those facts. The special leave petitions are accordingly, dismissed. Obviously, such an order would not be cited as a precedent in any other case." 14. It is clearly evident from the aforesaid order that the same has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for doing complete justice to the parties. Such powers have not been conferred upon the High Court and the jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with a writ petition is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the judicial decisions and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge. 15. No doubt, the High Court is entitled to exercise its judicial discretion while deciding the writ petitions, but this discretion has to be confined in declining to entertain the petitions and refusing to grant reliefs, asked for by the petitioners on adequate considerations and it does not permit the High Court to grant relief on such a consideration alone. 16. The powers under Article 142(1) to do complete justice is entirely of different level or of a different quality. 16. The powers under Article 142(1) to do complete justice is entirely of different level or of a different quality. Any prohibition or restriction contained in ordinary laws cannot act as a limitation on the constitutional power of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in seisin of a case, cause or matter before it, it has power to issue any order or direction to do complete justice in the matter. This constitutional power of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be limited or restricted by provisions contained in statutory law. However, as discussed above, this power has not been conferred nor exercisable by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.” 19. In the case of Mohd. Meer Fraz Ahmed Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 10359 of 2021 decided by High Court of Telangana on 27.12.2022), it was observed thus: “7. ANALYSIS 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-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. 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. iv) It is relevant to note that the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal (2005) 5 SCC 420 held 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 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 200708 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. 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. 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. Yashpal (2005) 5 SCC 420 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. Yashpal (2005) 5 SCC 420. 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. 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. 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. Yashpal (2005) 5 SCC 420 held 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. .... .... 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 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., Hyderabad, in W.P. No.3006 of 2021, decided on 17.08.2022 considering all the aforesaid aspects and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal (2005) 5 SCC 420, 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, Hyderabad W.A. No.597 of 2020, W.P. Nos.37566 & 42680/2016 and 28822/2021, decided on 28.12.2021 held that Osmania University does not have power to declare its B.A. (External) Degree as a recognized degree or equivalent degree. xvi) A Division Bench of this Court in M. Naveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education, Hyderabad W.A. No.597 of 2020, W.P. Nos.37566 & 42680/2016 and 28822/2021, decided on 28.12.2021 held that Osmania University does not have power to declare its B.A. (External) Degree as a recognized degree or 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.” 20. This Court thus observes that after the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prof. Yashpal (supra), it is deemed unnecessary to delve much into the controversy in question, which stood res intergra, in light of the said judgment, more particularly, when the said judgment has already been followed in catena of judgments, rendered thereafter. 21. However, as regards the controversy herein is concerned, this Court observes that the Guidelines of the UGC were issued so as to enhance the standard and quality of education, and when the said guidelines are given a conjoint consideration, with the judgment rendered in Prof. Yashpal (supra), it is apparent that the respondents herein have complied with the same, in the larger academic interest of the student community at large, and the institutional requirements, coupled with employment prospects in the State. 22. That apart, a bare perusal of the UGC guidelines/Regulations issued in the year 2003, clearly reveal that setting up of the off-campus study centres require prior approval of the UGC as well as the State Government, and such approval is clearly absent in the present case, as revealed from the record. 23. 22. That apart, a bare perusal of the UGC guidelines/Regulations issued in the year 2003, clearly reveal that setting up of the off-campus study centres require prior approval of the UGC as well as the State Government, and such approval is clearly absent in the present case, as revealed from the record. 23. This Court also finds that the present petitioner clearly failed to prove the validity or otherwise of the degree acquired by him, by placing any document on record, so as to establish that the said qualification was acquired by him in the manner, as laid down by the UGC Guidelines (Regulating Body for the Universities in the country) from time to time. 24. This Court finds that Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC vide letter dated 13.05.2003, issued a direction to all Vice Chancellors/Head of Institution to limit the off-campus within the limit of the State. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered the judgment in the case of Prof. Yashpal (Supra) and observed that setting up of the off-campus study centres require prior approval of the UGC as well as the State Government. 24.1 In compliance of the judgment rendered in Prof. Yashpal (Supra), the UGC issued letter no.9/8/2008 (CCP-I) dated 16.04.2009 addressed to all the State Governments and letter dated 15.06.2009 addressed to Vice Chancellors of State Universities to ensure that no off-campus shall operate beyond the limit of State without any prior/requisite approval. 24.2 The UGC also issued a public notice dated 27.06.2013 and clarified that no university, whether central, or state, private, or deemed, shall offer programme through franchising arrangement even for the purpose of conducting the course through distance mode. 24.3 Thereafter, the UGC vide letter F. No. 28-2/2015 (DEB-III) dated 04.05.2016 again requested all State Secretaries to stop the off-campus programmes in all State Universities, operating beyond the limit of that particular state. 24.4. The UGC also issued the Public Notice vide F.no. 12-9/2016 (DEB-III) dated 19.07.2016 clarifying the previous notice issued on 27.06.2013, stating that some universities are conducting examination for their open and Distance Learning programmes outside the State and beyond their territorial jurisdiction, which is wholly illegal. 24.4. The UGC also issued the Public Notice vide F.no. 12-9/2016 (DEB-III) dated 19.07.2016 clarifying the previous notice issued on 27.06.2013, stating that some universities are conducting examination for their open and Distance Learning programmes outside the State and beyond their territorial jurisdiction, which is wholly illegal. Therefore, the UGC has clarified many-a-times through issuance of the public notices against the off-campus study and directed all the concerned authorities to stop that off – Campus and Distance Learning Centre being run outside the territory of a particular State, without any approval, as per law. 25. In view of the above, this Court finds that the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, do not render any assistance to their case, in the present factual matrix. 26. Thus, in view of the above, and in light of the judgment rendered in Prof. Yashpal (supra) [as followed, amongst others in the judgment rendered in Promila Devi (Supra), and Mohd. Meer Fraz Ahmed (supra)] and the UGC Guidelines issued from time to time, and the necessary orders passed by the UGC, in consonance therewith, this Court does not find any case to be made out so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 27. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.