Holding

AICTE is the sole regulator for technical education; DEC lacks authority to approve engineering distance‑learning programmes of deemed universities, making the ex‑post‑facto approvals illegal and rendering the awarded degrees invalid.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether deemed‑to‑be universities could award engineering degrees through open‑distance learning without the approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). It held that AICTE is the exclusive authority to lay down norms for technical education and that the Distance Education Council (DEC) under the IGNOU Act lacks jurisdiction to approve such programmes for other universities. Consequently, the ex‑post‑facto approvals granted to the deemed universities were declared illegal and could not be cured by later sanctions. Degrees awarded to students who enrolled between 2001‑2005 are to be suspended pending a competency test conducted under AICTE‑UGC supervision, while degrees to students admitted after 2005 are to be cancelled and tuition refunded. The Court also directed investigations into the officials who granted the approvals, ordered the withdrawal of deemed‑university status where appropriate, and prohibited the use of the word “University” by deemed institutions.

Issues considered

Whether a deemed‑to‑be university may offer engineering programmes through distance education without AICTE approval.
Whether the Distance Education Council has the statutory power to grant such approvals to universities other than IGNOU.
The legality and effect of ex‑post‑facto approvals issued by UGC and DEC.
The appropriate remedy for students who obtained engineering degrees via distance mode from 2001‑2005 and thereafter.
Whether the word “University” can be used by institutions deemed to be universities under the UGC Act.

Legislation cited

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987s. 10, s. 20(k), s. 2(g), s. 2(h)
Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985s. 16(7), s. 24, s. 2(e), s. 5(v)
University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 23, s. 26, s. 2(f), s. 3

Subjects

distance educationdeemed universityAICTEUGCtechnical educationex post facto approvalengineering degree validationregulatory jurisdictionstudent promotion

Judgment

[2017] 13 S.C.R.921

ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. A
v.
RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870of2017)
NOVEMBER 3, 2017 B

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Technical education - Through distant education mode - Imparted
by Deemed to be University - Respondent-employees acquired C
Engineering degree through distance education mode, from Deemed
to be Universities - Thereafter, filed Writ Petition seeking promotion
on the basis of engineering degree - Plea of appellant-employer
that the employees were not qualified for promotion as degrees
acquired by them was from such institutions which were not approved D
by AICTE and hence not recognized - High Court allowed the case
of employees holding that service rules did not specify that
qualifications obtained through distance education was not
permissible and that the degree was required to be obtained fi'om
the approved Universities of AICTE - On appeal, held: Decision as
to whether subjects leading to degrees in engineering, could be E
taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive
domain of AICTE - The Deemed to be universities in question had
started the courses in Engineering through distance education mode
without the approval of AICTE - IGNOU Act nowhere entitles
IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of the entire field of distance
F
education of learning across the country and in relation to
programmes of other Universities or institutions - Therefore,
Distance Education Council (DEC) created u/s. 28 of IGNOU Act
cannot act as a regulator for other Universities - Despite several
policy guidelines that DEC alone was not entitled to grant
permission for open distance learning, DEC went on granting G
permission without consulting AICTE - Such exercise on part of
DEC was without jurisdiction - Therefore, the permission granted
by DEC in the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities
in question to introduce courses leading to award of degrees in
engineering were illegal and opposed to law - Such illegality could
H
921
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A not be cured by ex post facto approvals granted later - The grant of
ex post facto approval were also superficial and perfimctory -
However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty
to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post
facto approval, the matter is considered with sympathy in the interest
of students who were enrolled during the academic session 2001-
B
2005 - it would be appropriate to grant some chance to the
concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities
competent in thrit behalf' - Therefore, the degrees qf' such students
shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the
joint supervision of AJCTE-UGC - Degrees of students who were
c admitted after ex-post facto approval, shall stand recalled and be
treated as cancelled - Direction to CBJ to carry out investigation
as regards the conduct of the concerned officials who granted
permission - UGC is directed to consider withdrawal of Deemed to
be University status to the concerned institutions - UGC is also
directed to stop the practice of using the word "University "by the
D
Deemed to be Universities as this is opposed to the spirit of' s. 23 of
UGC Act -- All lndia Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - s. 23 - lndira Gandhi
National Open University Act, 1985 - s. 28 - All lndia Council for
Technical Education (Grant of Approval for Starting New Technical
E Institutions, Introduction of Courses or Programmes and Approval
of Intake Capacity of Seats for Courses or Programmes)
Regulations, 1994 - National Policy on Education. 1986 -
Guidelines for establishing new departments within the campus,
setting up of off-campus centre(s)linstitutions(s)lqff-shore campus
and starting distance education programmes by the Deemed to be
F
universities, 2004 - Orissa Service Engineering Rules, 1941.
'University' and Deemed to be University' - Distinction
between - Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
G HELD: 1. The definition of"Technical Education" in Section
2(g) of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987
(AICTE Act) shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of
education, research and training in Engineering Technology in
general and the idea is not limited to the institutions where such
H
programmes of education, research and training are to be
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 923
PATRO & ORS.

'
conducted or imparted. However, the definition of "Technical A
Institution" in Section 2(h) of AICTE Act leaves out an institution
which is a University. The distinction between the broader
concept of "Technical Education" and the limited scope of
"Technical Institution" is clear from Section 10 of the AICTE
Act where certain functions concern the broader facets or aspects B
of technical education which by very nature must apply to every
single institution (whether university or not) where such courses
are conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functions
are relatable to technical institutions alone, which by definition
are not applicable to universities. [Para 36) [994-D-F)
2. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is c
the sole repository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative
norms for "technical education". What should be course content,
what subjects be taught and what should be the length and
duration of the cours~.s as well as the manner in which those
courses be conducted is a part of the larger concept of "technical D
education". Any idea or innovation in that field is also a part of
the concept of "technical education" and must, as a matter of
principle, be in the exclusive domain of AICTE. [Para 36) [995-
B-C
Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India E
Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8
SCC 676 : [2001) 3 Suppl. SCR 253 - referred to.
3. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in
Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as
practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education F
which is hands-on approach involving actual application of
principles taught in theory under the watchful eyes of
Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge
in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes. The
practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the technical
education system. If this established concept of imparting G
technical education as a qualitative norm is to be modified or
altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance education
learning, then as a concept the AICTE ought to have accepted it
in clear terms. What parameters ought to be satisfied if the
regular course of imparting technical education is in any way to
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.

A be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to decide. The decision
must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely
because of absence of any Guidelines in the matter. No such
decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it
has always maintained that courses leading to degrees in
Engineering c::innot be undertaken through distance education
B
mode. If according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught
in distance education mode, that is the final word and is binding -
unless rectified in a manner known to law. [Para 38) )996-B-E)
4. Even National Policy on Education while emphasizing
the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes through
c distance education learning in technical and managerial education,
laid down in Para 6.19 thatAICTE will be responsible for planning,
formulation and maintenance of norms and standards including
maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring coordinated
and integrated development of technical and management
D education. Whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering,
could be taught in distance education mode or not is within the
exclusive domain of the AICTE. Therefore, without the
Guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly
permitting degree courses in Engineering through distance
education mode, the Deemed to be Universities were not justified
E in introducing such courses. [Para 38) [996-F-H)
5. In the present cases, none of the Deemed to be
Universities was conferred such status for its excellence in the
field of Engineering. Their fields were completely un-related.
As a matter of fact, two of the institutions in question did not
F even have regular college or faculty for Engineering at its main
campus. And yet, they started courses in Engineering through
distance education mode without the approval of AICTE, relying
on the dictum in *Bharathidasan case. [Para 39) [997-H; 998-AJ
6. The grant or empowerment in* Bharathidasan case in favour
G of the University in question came from the State enactment which
was its Charter. There is no such Charter or grant in favour of a
Deemed to be University under any provision of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act). All that the UGC Act
does is to confer Deemed to be University status on an Institution
which has achieved excellence in its chosen field so that its
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 925
PATRO & ORS.

development in the concerned field and its attempts to attain A
excellence and conduct research are not hampered on any count
and at the same time it could be extended the facilities of Aid. It
is precisely for this that the distinction between a regular
University established under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a
State Act and an Institution Deemed to be University is maintained
B
in the UGC Act. A Deemed to be University can certainly award
degrees but cannot use the word "University" by virtue of Section
23 of the UGC Act. Even after conferral of such status it still
continues to be "an Institution Deemed to be University" and if
it is equated with a University in every sense of the term, it would
lead to incoherent and incongruous results, in that its area of C
operation or the field of its activity would be completely unlimited
and unregulated. That is certainly not the intent of the UGC Act.
[Para 42) (999-B-E]
Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India
Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8 D
SCC 676: (2001) 3 Suppl. SCR 253 - distinguished.
7. Conceptually there is some difference between the status
of a University established under a State law and that of a Deemed
to be University. Normally, a University is established with an
idea that particular areas or districts of the State need to be
E
catered to. Such University is expected to satisfy the needs or
aspirations of people in the area for education and correspondingly
empowered to initiate new courses, keeping in tune with the
needs of time. The expectations from a Deemed to be University
are of a different dimension. What is expected is excellence,
research and advancement in its chosen field for which such status F
was accorded. There is no embargo on such Deemed to be
University in entering new areas of education or introducing new
courses but in that case, it can't demand or receive complete
relaxation from regulatory regime. It must satisfy all those
requirements which a normal institution is required to. A Deemed
G
to be University which was conferred such status for its
excellence in subjects which are completely unrelated to the field
in which new courses are sought to be introduced, is still an
institution of the stature of a "technical institution" and if it desires
to introduce new courses, it must fulfill the requirements of
AICTE (Grant of Approval for Starting New Technical Institutions, H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 13 S.C.R.

A Introduction of Courses or programmes and Approval of Intake
Capacity of Seats for Courses or Programmes) Regulations, 1994.
A Deemed to be University which has achieved excellence in a
particular field may be given deferential treatment but nonetheless
it has to satisfy the requirements for new technical institution.
Pertinently, two of the institutions concerned, while establishing
B
their faculty 0r colleges in engineering at their main Campus
sought approvals from AICTE. Further, even for introducing
courses in management which come under the definition of
technical education under the AJCTE Act, appropriate
permissions were sought from AICTE. The Deemed to be
c Universities in the present case were required to abide by the
provisions of 1994 AJCTE Regulations and could not introduce
courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering without the
approval of AJCTE. [Para 431 [999-E-H; 1000-A-Cj
8. Para 3 of the Notification dated 22.11.1991 which
D constituted Distance Education Council (DEC) shows that there
was no representation for any Member or representative of
AICTE. The provisions of Indira Gandhi National Open
University Act, 1985 (JGNOU Act) show that the Study Centres
as defined in the JGNOU Act are that of Indira Ganchi National
Open University (IGNOU) and not of any other University or
E Institution. The concept of distance education under sub-clause
(v) of Section j5 is also in relation to the academic programmes
of JGNOU. It undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii)
and (xxiii) to co-operate with other Universities but the IGNOU
Act nowhere entitles IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of
F the entire field of distance education oflearning across the Country
and in relation to programmes of other Universities or Institutions
as well. The Order dated 29.12.2012 issued by Ministry of Human
Resources and Development (MHRD) therefore correctly
appreciated that DEC created under statute 28 of JGNOU Act
could not act as a regulator for other Universities. In any event
G of the matter, the policy Guidelines issued from time to time made
it abundantly clear that DEC alone was not entitled to grant
permission for open distance learning and appropriate
permissions from the requisite authorities were always required
and insisted upon. Despite such policy statements, DEC went on
H granting permissions without even consulting AICTE. Such
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 927
PATRO & ORS.

exercise on part of DEC was completely without jurisdiction. [Para A
44] [1000-D-GI
Annama/ai University v. Secretary to Government,
Information and Tourism Department and Others (2009)
4 SCC 590 : (2009] 3 SCR 355 - relied on.
9. Therefore, the permissions granted by DEC in the first B
instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities in question to
introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in engineering
were illegal and opposed to Law. The illegality in the exercise of
power was to such an extent that it could not be cured by ex post
facto approvals granted later. The exercise of grant of ex post c
facto approvals, as a matter of fact, was only superficial and
perfunctory. Such exercise was done in the face of declared policy
statements governing the field and even when specific complaints
were received about concerned Deemed to be Universities. Yet,
without causing any inspection such power was exercised which
is suffering from illegality and infirmity. The only thing in favour D
of the concerned Deemed to be Universities is the fact that the
Joint Committee of UGC - AICTE - DEC had endorsed the
decision though such exercise was also completely flawed. That
exercise was against Para 10 of the MoU dated 10.05.2007, which
contemplated causing of inspections and the decision dated E
11.05.2007 of the Joint Committee itself that for an Institution/
University to offer distance education programmes it was
mandatory to offer the same in face to face mode. [Para 45] (1001-
B-E]
10. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post- F
facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in
normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such
ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions
to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect
of Courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However,
since Guidelines for establishing new departments within the G
campus, setting up of off-campus centre(s)/institutions(s)/off-
shore campus and starting distance education programmes by
the Deemed to be universities, 2004 (2004 UGC Guidelines)
themselves had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be
Universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval, the matter is H
928 SUP~EME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest
of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions
2001-2005 is protected. However, the fact" remains that the
facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were never
checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible
at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be
B
confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the concerned
students. Therefore, it would be appropriate to grant some chance
to the concerned students to have their ability tested by
authorities competent in that behalf. It is, therefore, directed
that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were
c enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand
suspended till they pass such examination under the joint
supervision of AICTE-UGC. [Para 46] [1001-E-H; 1002-A-C]
ll. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from
the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/
D tests both in written examination as well as in practicals for the
concerned students admitted during the academic sessions 2001-
2005 covering all the concerned subjects. It is entirely left to the
discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may
think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted
in the National Institutes of Technology in respective States
E wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to
the students to appear at the examination which ideally should
be conducted during May-June, 2018 or on such dates as AICTE
may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the
concerned students and if they do not pass the test/tests their
F degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. lf a particular student
does not wish to appear in the test/tests, the entire money
deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall
be refunded to that student by the concerned Deemed to be
University within a month of the exercise of such option. The
students be given time till 15.. of January, 2018 to exercise such
G option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests in
respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be
recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by
31.03.2018. If they clear the test/tests within the stipulated time,
all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the concerned
H candidates. If the concerned candidates do not clear the test/
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 929
PATRO & ORS.

tests within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the A
test/tests, their degrees in Engineering through distance
education shall stand recalled and cancelled. Any promotion or
advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also
stand withdrawn, however any monetary benefits or advantages
in that behalf shall not be recovered from them. [Para 471 [1002-
B
D-H; 1003-A)
12. As regards the students who were admitted after the
ex-post-facto approval granted in favour of such Deemed to be
Universities, there was no sanction whatsoever for their
admission. The Policy Statements as well as warnings issued
from time to time were absolutely clear. The students were C
admitted on the strength either provisional recognition or on the
strength of interim orders passed by the High Court. Therefore,
it is declared that in respect of students admitted after the
academic sessions of 2001-2005, the degrees in Engineering
awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through D
Distance Education Mode shall stand recalled and be treated as
cancelled. Any benefit which a candidate has secured as a result
of such degrees in Engineering in the nature of promotion or
advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any
monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary
benefit or advantage will not be recovered by the concerned E
departments or employers. It is further directed that the entire
amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be
Universities towards tuition fee and all other expenditure for such
courses through distance education learning shall be returned
by the concerned Deemed to be Universities to the respective
F
students. [Para 481 [1003-B-EI
13. On one hand, the authorities were proclaiming their
policy statements and on the other, despite there being
complaints, they went about granting permissions. Their conduct
and approach is difficult to explain on any rational basis and leaves
much to be desired. The conduct of the concerned officials needs G
to be looked into and investigated whether the exercise of power
by them was completely genuine or colourable. CBI is directed
to carry out thorough ·investigation into the matter and to take
appropriate steps after culmination thereof. [Para 49) [1003-G-
H; 1004-AI H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A 14. UGC is directed to consider whether the Deemed to be
University status enjoyed by the concerned institutions, calls for
any such withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf. If the
concerned Deemed to be Universities fail to return the moneys
to the concerned students as directed above, that factor shall
also be taken into account while conducting such exercise. Many
B
institutions which are conferred the status of Deemed to be
Universities are using the word "University", which is opposed
to the spirit of Section 23 of the UGC Act. The UGC shall take
appropriate steps to stop such practice. [Paras 50 and 511 [1004-
D-F]
c 15. The present case shows the extent of commercialization
of education by some of the Deemed Universities. The
commercialization of education seriously affects creditability of
standards in education, eroding power and essence of knowledge
and seriously affecting excellence and merit. The present case
D further displays lack of effective oversight and regulatory
mechanism for the Deemed to be Universities. The UGC had
completely failed to remedy the situation. Serious question has
therefore arisen as to the manning of the UGC itself for its
effective working. As the facilities at Study Centres were never
checked nor any inspections were carried out which has led the
E Court to direct suspension of degrees for the students enrolled
during academic sessions 2001-2005 and annulment of degrees
of students admitted after academic sessions of 2001-2005. There
was complete and flagrant violation of norms and policies laid
down by the authorities by the Deemed to be Universities. AlCTE
F had been illegally kept out. Thus, interest of justice requires that
the following issues also need to be addressed: (1) Action for
failure of system, inter alia, on account of misconduct of some of
the functionaries who failed to uphold the law and granted
approvals contrary to the policy and the rules; (ii) Manning of
the UGC; (iii) Appropriate oversight and regulatory mechanism
G especially for distance education degrees especially those relating
to technical education by the Deemed to be Universities in future;
(iv) Review of the Deemed to be Universities status granted to
the Deemed to be Universities in the past in the light of this
Judgment and in the light of their working. The above issues
H need immediate steps to be taken by the Union of India. Review
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 931
PATRO & ORS.

of oversight and regulatory mechanism is of utmost priority for A
the future of technical and professional education at the hands of
Deemed Universities. [Para 52] [1004-F-H; 1005-A-B]
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2016) 7 SCC
353; Mahipal Singh Rana. Advocate v. State of Uttar B
Pradesh (2016) 6 SCC 335; Satyabama Institute of
Science & Technology v. Union of India 2006 (3) MRJ
870; Association of Management of Private Colleges v.
All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. (2013)
8 SCC 271 : [2013] 6 SCR 1054 - referred to.
c
Case Law Reference

[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253 referred to Para 19
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253 distinguished Para 42
2006 (3) MRJ 870 referred to Para 30 D

[2013] 6 SCR 1054 referred to Para 30
[2009] 3 SCR 355 relied on Para 45
(2016) 1 sec 353 referred to Para 52 E
(2016) 6 sec 335 referred to Para 52
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-
17870 OF 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2010 in Writ Petition F
(C) No. 3848 of2010 and Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2012 in
Review Petition No. 58 of2012 of the High Court ofOrissa at
Cuttack
WITH
CivilAppea!Nos.17871-17872, 17899-17900, 17897-17898, 17879-17880, G
17895-17896, 17885-17886,17881-17882, 17883-17884, 17893-17894,
17877-17878,17889-17890,17875-17876,17873-17874, 17887-17888,
17891-17892, 17901 of2017

H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A Civil Appeal Nos. 17902-17905 of2017
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 17906, 17907, 17908, 17910, 17909, 17912,
1791l,17913, 17915, 17916-17917, 17918, 17914, 17921, 17920, 17919,
17926-17950, 17922, 17923,17924, 17925, 17951, 17952, 17953-17960
B of2017
Contempt Petition (CJ Nos. 194-197 of 2016 in Special Leave
Petition (CJ Nos. 35793-35796 of2012
Maninder Singh, Tushar Mehta, A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASGs. Arnn
C Bhardwaj, AAG, C. A. Sundaram, (A.C.), Rajuramachandran, Dr. Rajeev
Dhawan, Sanjay R. Hegde, Mrs. V. Mohana, Nidhesh Gupta, M. L.
Verma, Jayant Bhushan, V.K. Bali, Sr. Advs., Ms. Rohini Musa,
Ms. Aakanksha Kaur, Zafar lnayat, Abhishek Gupta, Apoorv Tripathi,
Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha Nandini V, Deepak
Kanwar, Sudhir Kumar, S. Vijay Kanth, Ms. Sudarshan Singh Rawat,
D Apoorv Kump, V.C. Shukla, Manoj R. Sinha, Ms. Vikas Singh Jangra,
M. P. Gupta, Vijay Prakash, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Swarupma
Chaturvedi, Shadman Ali, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Ms. Rukrnini Bobde,
Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Vijay Kumar, Raj Bahadur Yadav, GS. Makker,
Ms. Kirti Dua, Anmol Chandan, Ms. A. Chaturvedi, Ms. D. S. Mahra,
E Umesh Ch. Mohanty, P.K. Pattanaik, Kumar Gaurav, Ms. Anil Kumar
Tandale, Ms. Arjun Harkauli, Anil Soni, Ms. Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Raj
Kumar Mehta, Ms. Himanshi Andley, Ms. Kedar Nath Tripathy,
Ms. Gopal Singh, Vikas Singh Jangra, Nilotpal Sharma, Ms. Awanish
Sinha, Himanshu Upadhaya, Shivam Tripathi, Atul Kumar, R. C. Kaushik,
Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Deepak Kanwar, Girjapati K, Sudhir Kumar,
F Vinay Garg, Ashok K. Mahajan, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, A. Tewari,
Ms. Eliza Bar, Shree Pal Singh, Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati, Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal, Santosh Kumar - I, Apoorv Kump, V.C. Shukla, A.C.
Boxipatro, Prabhas Bajaj, Vikas Singh Jhangra, Karan Bharihoke, Ronak
Karanpuria,Ashish Pandey, Vishwa Pal Singh, Chandra Prakash, Rituraj
G Biswas, Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,
Mrs. Rani Mishra, Piyush Hans, Dr. Monika Gusain, Shekhar Raj Shanna,
Sanjay Kumar Visen, N.M. Popli, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Jayant Sud, Kuldip
Singh, Tarjit Singh Chikara, Satish Kumar, Gopal Singh, Ms. T. Mahipal,
Rauf Rahim, Amit Kumar, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
Gaurav Shanna, Anubha Agrawal, Rakesh K. Shanna, Satyendra Kumar,
H A. V. Rangam, S. L. Aneja, D. Bharathi Reddy, Rameshwar Prasad
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 933
PATRO & ORS.

Goyal, C. S. N. Mohan Rao, Balaji Srinivasan, Gagan Gupta, G Umapathy, A
Rakesh K.Sharma, A. Leo G Rozario, Aditya Singh, Subhasish Bhowmick,
Tanm Gupta, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Randhir Singh, Anuj Aggarwal,
Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Ms. Pawan Kishore Singh, B. D. Vivek, P. N.
Puri, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Respondent-in-person. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. !. Leave to appeal granted in all
Special Leave Petitions.
2. These are two groups ofappeals, one arising from the Judgment c
and Order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack while the
other arising from the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh. Since the issues involved in these matters are same, both
sets of matters are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
3. The Directorate of Lift Irrigation in the Government ofOdisha D
was converted into Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (hereinafter
referred to as the "OLIC"). The service conditions of Engineers including
Junior Engineers which is the base cadre in the Engineering Wing of
OLIC are governed byOrissa Service of Engineers' Rules, 1941 ("1941
Rules" for short) as amended from time to time. Junior Engineers form
the feeder cadre for promotion to the next level, namely, that ofAssistant E
Engineers. Respondent No. l 1-Rabi Sankar Patro, a Diploma holder in
Electrical Engineering, joined OLIC as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and
while in service, he acquired B.Tech (Civil) Degree from a Deemed to
be University namely JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur,
through Distance Education in the year 2009 and thereafter filed Writ F
Petition No.3848 of20l 0 in the High Court Orissa. According to him, he
being an in-service graduate Engineer was entitled to be promoted as
Assistant Engineer. Said writ petition was allowed without issuing notice
to the respondents, placing reliance on an earlier order dated 14.12.2009
passed by the High Court in OJC No.13251 of 2001 by which OLIC
was directed to consider the case of the concerned candidates as in- G
service graduate Engineers. OLIC being aggrieved, filed Review Petition
No.58 of2012 which was dismissed by the High Court on 15.03.2012
along with certain similar review petitions. The submissions recorded in
'In the matter arising out ofSLP(C) No.19807-19808 of2012
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l3 S.C.R.

A support of the review petitions in the order of the High Court were as
under:-
"The argument advanced by Mr. Ashok Mohanty learned
Sr. Counsel for the review petitioners that the opposite parties-
employees have acquired Degree Qualification of distance/
B correspondence education course from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth
which is not recognized by AICTE. Therefore, they are not
qualifi(ld ................ Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Mohanty placed
much reliance upon the letter issued by AICTE on 6'h October,
2010 wherein the AICTE has categorically stated as under:
"It has been the policy of the AICTE, not to recognize
c the qualifications acquired through distance education mode at
Diploma, Bachelors & Master's level in the fields of Engineering
Technology including Architecture, Town Planning, Pharmacy,
Hotel Management & Catering Technology, Applied Arts &
Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM).
D AICTE only recognizes MBA and MCA programme through
distance mode." "
The Review Petition was dismissed by the High Court, observing
inter alia,
".,..... Substantial number of persons have also acquired
Engineering Degree through Universities providing Distance
E
Education which are also Indian Universities. Further Clause (d)
of Rule 9 of the Rules, I 94 I does not specify that the qualifications
obtained through distance education is not permissible & the
Degree should be obtained from the approved Universities of the
AICTE."
F 4. Disposal of Review Petition and similar such petitions led to
the filing of these appeals, by special leave, by OLIC. It is principally
submitted by OL!C that the degrees in Engineering obtained by the
concerned candidates by distance education from JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth University and similar Deemed to be Universities are not
G recognized degrees and as such the concerned candidates cannot be
said to be Graduate Engineers eligible for benefits under the concerned
Rules. It is further submitted that in its Circular dated 09.08.2005 the
University Grants Commission ("UGC" for short) had notified that JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur was neither permitted to
affiliate any colleges or institutes nor allowed to conduct any course
H through distance education.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 935
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

5. While issuing notice in the matters, All India Council ofTechnical A
Education ("AICTE" for short) and UGC were added as party-
respondents, whereafter AICTE filed its counter affidavits. The matters
were taken up on 11.12.2014 when the following Order was passed by
this Court:-
"In the course of hearing of these cases we noticed that the B
UGC even though impleaded as a party respondent had not filed
any counter affidavit. We would have proceeded with the hearing
even in the absence of a counter affidavit but for the fact that
additional documents filed by Respondent No. I include several
documents concerning the UGC some of them in the nature of
letters, circulars and communications addressed to several other C
authorities. It was in that backdrop that we required the personal
presence of the Chairman of the UGC, Professor Ved Prakash
who has appeared and broadly explained the UGC stand on the
questions that fall for determination. According to Professor Ved
Prakash the UGC recognises technical degrees by the distant D
mode only if the University concerned awards such degrees after
obtaining the permission of the AICTE for offering such degrees/
courses by distance education. Professor Ved Prakash further
states that wherever the UGC notices that technical educational
degrees are being awarded by deemed university without the
approval of the AICTE, it can and does take action against the E
defaulting university by reporting the matter to the Central
Government who confers the status of deemed university on
such institutions. When asked whether Professor Ved Prakash
can on affidavit state the above position, Prof. Prakash was
more than willing to do so. Needless to say some of the counsel F
appearing in these cases were critical of the stand taken by the
UGC and argued that the same was not the true position either on
facts or in law. Be that as it may, we deem it just and proper to
permit the UGC to file a detailed counter affidavit to this SLP
which shall apart from answering other submissions made in the
SLP elaborate on the following aspects: G

I) Whether the UGC recognises degrees in technical education
by open and distance education mode. If so, subject to what
conditions, if any.

H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 13 S.C.R.

A 2) If such degrees are recognised only when they are awarded
after obtaining the permission of the AICTE, what happens
when the Universities award degrees without obtaining such
permission.
3) What action, if any, is the UGC empowered to take under the
B UGC Act or any other provision of law against the University
awarding degrees without the approval of the AICTE and
whether any such action has been taken in the past or is
proposed to be taken against such Universities hereafter.
4) Whether the Government of India have issued any instructions/
circulars regarding recognition of technical education degrees
c through ODL mode offered by the deemed or statutory
universities. If so, what are these instructions/circulars and
what is the action/steps to be taken in regard to the degrees
awarded or status of such degrees as have already been
issued before the issue of such instructions.
D 5) How does UGC explain its stand in view of the documents
filed by respondent No. l in I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2014 in
these petitions or those enclosed with the SLP or counter
affidavit.
6) Since the controversy relates to different deemed universities
E namely Vinayaka Mission's research Foundation, Salem, Tamil
Nadu, JASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr Rajasthan,
JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan and Allahabad,
Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad, U.P. the proposed
affidavit by Professor Ved Prakash shall state whether the
UGC recognises the degrees awarded by the said Universities
F by ODL mode even when the same are degrees in technical
education including degrees that have already been awarded.
We grant to Professor Ved Prakash, Chairman of the UGC
four weeks' time to file the affidavit copy whereof shall be
served upon learned counsel for the counsel opposite who
G shall have two weeks' time thereafter to file their response."
6. Prof. Ved Prakash, Chairman, UGC, filed an affidavit on
30.01.2015 dealing with the aforesaid questions. The subsequent Order
dated 04.08.2015 of this Court was as under:
"There are a large number of cases pending on the principal
H issue raised in SLP (C) Nos.19807-19808 of 2012 (Orissa Lift
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 937
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Irrigation Corporation Ltd. & Ors.). Mr. Raju Ramachandran, A
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the principal issue is whether degrees given by some
institutions/universities through distant education ought to be
recognized by the employer. He submits that All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE) and University Grants Commission B
(UGC) have taken the stand that such degrees in technical courses
are not recognized by AICTE and therefore not recognized by
UGCaswell.
Mr. Raj iv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for UGC
affirms that the UGC does not recognize the degrees. It is the
submission of Mr. Raj iv Dutta, learned senior counsel that in a C
meeting convened by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD) on 19th February, 2008 it was decided
that the approval granted by Distant Education Council (including)
must be reviewed and the approval should be granted to the courses
and not to the Institute. D
That being the position, we are of the opinion that the
concerned Secretary in the MHRD should be impleaded as a party
so that the stand of the Government oflndia is clear.
Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel makes an
oral request for impleadment of the concerned Secretary in the E
MHRD as a party respondent. On his oral request, the concerned
Secretary in the MHRD is impleaded as a party respondent.
Amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks."
7. An affidavit has since then been filed on behalf of MHRD2 • In
the Order dated 26.04.2017 it was recorded:- F
" ......... Our attention was drawn to letter dated 03.12.2007
addressed to UGC seeking ex post facto approval annexing a list
of 295 courses run by the JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University
under Distance Education system.
G
From the record, it is not clear what type of expertise the
said University has, for granting degrees for such large number
of courses by distance education mode. It is also not clear as to
what is the methodology followed for monitoring the standard of
2
Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of Jndia
H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A education imparted by its centres on the basis of which such
professional degrees are granted. It is also not clear what type of
infrastructure is available with the said University."
8. Civil Writ Petition No.1640 of 2008 was filed by one Kartar
Singh in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in public interest. Certain
B Deemed to be Universities, such as JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University,
Udaipur, Vinayak Mission Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu, !ASE
Deemed University, Rajasthan were respondents in the petition. It was
submitted that th~se Deemed to be Universities had set up "off campus
centers" and "study centers" in violation of the Regulations framed by
the UGC; that very same study center, at times was operating for more
c than one Deemed to be University; that these study centers completely
lacked infrastructure and facilities for courses in Engineering and that
the programmes through distance education mode were illegal and without
approval. Appropriate reliefs were prayed for, including directions that
degrees in Engineering obtained through distance education be declared
D to be invalid for the purposes of Government jobs in the State. This
Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court vide its decision dated
06.11.2012. Para 184 sums up the decision as under:-
" 184. In terms of the directions of the Commission, it was
necessary for the Deemed to the Universities to seek approval
from AICTE. In view of the above, we hold that the Deemed to
E
be Universities have started courses in technical education in
violation of the guidelines, instructions, circulars and regulations
framed by the Commission not only when they started such courses
but also in establishing Study Centres outside their territorial limits
and in subjects for which they were not granted Deemed to be
F university status. Therefore, degrees awarded by such Deemed
to be Universities is an illegal act and such illegality cannot be
removed or cured by the actions of either the Commission or
DEC."
9. The declaration invalidating the degrees in Engineering obtained
G through distance education mode has been the subject matter of challenge
by various students-candidates and institutions. Since the issues raised
in those petitions are same as raised in matters arising out of the decision
of the High Court of Orissa, these matters were taken up soon after the
matters from Orissa. We are principally concerned in these cases only
with courses leading to the degrees in Engineering through distance
H education mode.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 939
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

10. Thus, the degrees in Engineering obtained by serving diploma A
holders through Open Distance Learning mode offered by certain
Deemed to be Universities through "off campus Study Centres" have
been found valid entitling the concerned candidates to benefits available
for any serving graduate engineers by the High Court of Orissa whereas
the decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana is to the
B
contrary. Considering the importance of the issues involved in the matters,
this Court vide Order dated 04.05.2017 appointed Mr. C.A. Sundaram,
learned Senior Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.
11. It may be appropriate at this stage to quote Para 19 of the
affidavit filed by Mr. Ved Prakash Chairman UGC:-
c
"It is pertinent to note that, while bringing the 2010 Deemed
Universities Regulations to the notice of the general public,
including vide public notice No.F.27-112012 (CPP-II), dated
27.06.2013 [annexed and excerpted later in the instant affidavit],
the UGC has also clarified that "the UGC has not granted approval
to any institution Deemed to be university to establish Study D
Centres." This is relevant because, firstly, Deemed to be university
status is conferred on academic programmes in specific domains
of knowledge. In this case, four Deemed to be universities were
conferred that status to offer programmes in the following areas.
E
S.No. Deemed University Field of specialization for
institutions Deemed to be
Universities status
l. JRN Rajasthan Social Work, Education, Arts
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, and Commerce
Rajasthan
F
2 Institute of Advanced Education
Studies in Education,
Sardarshahr, Raiasthan
3 Allahabad Agricultural Agricultural Engineering
Institute, Allahabad,Food & Nutrition
Uttar Pradesh Biotechnology, Dairy
G
Technologv
4. Vinayaka Mission's Medical Science, Dental
Research Foundation Science, Nursing,
Salem, Tamil Nadu Engineering & Technology,
Pharmacy, Pysiotherapy and
Homoeooathv
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A Yet, three institutions- Deemed to be Universities (namely,
JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan; IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir,
Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and Allahabad Agriculture Research
Institute, Allahabad, U.P.) overstepped their mandate and started
distance education programmes, including for award of B.E./
B. Tech degrees outside their field of specialization without UGC/
B
AICTE approval.
Secondly, vi de letter dated 09 .08 .200 1 [annexed and excerpted
later in the instant affidavit], the UGC has made it clear that
franchising of education through private agencies/establishment
is not permitted. In addition, the UGC, AICTE and DEC have
c issued a joint letter dated 13 .05 .2003 [annexed and excerpted later
in the instant affidavit] to Vice-Chancellors/Heads oflnstitutions
asking them to limit the system/programme of delivery of distance
education of their institution to the neighbourhood of the location
of their main campus or at the most within the State. And, as
D mentioned earlier, vide public notice dated 27.06.2013, the UGC
has stated that institutions Deemed to be Universities can operate
only within its headquarters or from those off campuses/off-shore
campuses which are approved by the Government of India through
notification published in the official gazette, though the UGC has
not granted approval to any institutions Deemed to be Universities
E offered distance education mainly through franchisee
arrangements and Study Centres which are not established with
the permission of the UGC."
12. The aforesaid chart shows that the "Deemed to be University"
status was conferred keeping in view the potential to offer academic
F programs in specific domains of knowledge. For example institutions at
serial Nos. I and 2 in the aforesaid table had specialized in Social Work,
Education, Arts and Commerce. However by virtue of their "Deemed
to be University" status, these institutions thereafter started distance
education programs in subjects or courses leading to award ofB.E. and
G B.Tech degrees which were not within their field of specialization.
Whether the Deemed to be Universities concerned were within their
rights to do so is the basic question. We, therefore, need to consider the
statutory framework governing "Deemed to be Universities" and
'Distance Education' more specifically in the field of technical education.

H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 941
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

13. "The University Grants Commission Act, 1956" (hereinafter A
referred to as "the UGC Act") was enacted to make provisions for co-
ordination and determination of standards in universities and for that
purpose, to establish University Grants Commission ("UGC for short").
Section 2(f) defines "University" to mean" ... a University established
or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State
B
Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the
University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance
with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act". Section 3
contemplates conferral of"Deemed to be University" status upon certain
institutions for higher studies other than universities. Section 12 delineates
functions of the UGC while Section 13 deals with power of inspection c
for the purposes of ascertaining the financial needs of the university or
its standards of teaching, education and research.
Section 26 empowers the UGC to make regulations consistent
with the Act and with the Rules made thereunder which include, inter
alia:- D
"(f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the
grant of any degree by any University;
(g) Regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-
ordination of work or facilities in Universities."
E
14. In the year 1985, the Indira Gandhi National Open University
Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the IGNOU Act") was enacted
to establish and incorporate Open University at the national level, for the
introduction and promotion of distance education systems in the
educational pattern of the country and for co-ordination and determination
of standards in such systems. Section 2(e) defines "Distance Education F
System" to mean" .. the system of imparting education through any means
of communication, such as broadcasting, telecasting, correspondence
courses, seminars, contact programmes or the combinations of any two
or more of such means". The definitions of "Study Centre" and the
"University" are as under-
G
"Study Centre" means a centre established, maintained or
recognized by the University forthe purpose ofadvising, counseling
or for rendering any other assistance required by the students;

H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A "University" means the Indira Gandhi National Open
University established under the Act."
Study Centre referred to in the IGNOU Act is a centre established
by IGNOU and not by any other University. Section 5 then deals with
powers ofIGNOU and sub-Clauses (i), (iii) and (v) are:-
B "(i) To provide for instruction in such braches of knowledge,
technology, vocations and professions as the University may
determine from time to time and to make provision for research;
(iii) to hold examinations and confer degrees, diplomas,
certificates or other academic distinctions or recognitions on
c persons who have pursued a course of study or conducted research
in the manner laid down by the Statutes and Ordinances.
(v) to determine the manner in which distance education in
relation to the academic programmes of the University may be
organized."
D
Sub clause (v) speaks of 'distance education' in relation to the
academic programme of IGNOU. Few other clauses of Section 5
however refer to other universities and institutions of higher learning
and they are:-
"(vii) to co-operate with, and seek the co-operation of, other
E
universities and institutions of higher learning, professional bodies
and organizations for such purposes as the University considers
necessary;
(xiii) to recognize examinations of, or periods of study
(whether in full or part) at, other universities, institutions or other
F
places of higher learning as equivalent to examinations or periods
of study in the University, and to withdraw such recognition at
anytime;
(xxiii) to recognize persons working in other universities, institutions
or organizations as teachers of the University on such terms and
G conditions s may be laid down by the Ordinances"
At this stage Clauses (i) and Ul of Section 24 of!GNOU Act also need
to be noted.
"Section 24 subject to provisions of this Act, the Statutes may
H provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 943
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(i) The confennent of autonomous status on Colleges and Study A
Centres;
(j) the co-ordination and detennination of standards in the open
University and distance education systems and the allocation and
disbursement of grants to Colleges and other universities and
institutions." B
15. Section 16 of IGNOU Act deals with authorities of the
University and clause
/
(7) deals with "such other authorities" as may be
declared by the 'Statutes to be the authorities of the University. In
pursuance of powers conferred under Section 16(7) read with Section
24 and 2•• Schedule to the IGNOU Act, Distance Education Council c
("DEC", for short) was constituted vide Notification dated 22.11.1991.
Para 3 of the Notification stated that DEC would consist of certain
members including Secretary of UGC and a member to be nominated
by the Chairman, UGC. However, there was nothing in this Para
requiring any member or representative of AICTE (which by 1991 was
a Statutory Authority) to be member of DEC. Para 4 dealt with powers D
and functions of DEC and the relevant portion of said Para is to the
following effect:-
"4. Powers and Functions of the Distance Education Council
a) It shall be the general duty of the Distance Education Council E
to take all such steps as are consistent with the provisions of
this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances for the promotion
of the open university/distance education systems, its
coordinated development, and the determination of its
standards and in particular:
F
(i) To develop a network of open universities/distance education
institutions in the country in consultation with the State
Governments, Universities and other concerned agencies; ....... .
(viii) To take such steps as are necessary to ensure the coordinated
development of the open university/distance education system in
G
the country.
(xiii) To advise State Governments, universities and other
concerned agencies on their proposals to set up open universities
or to introduce programmes of distance education;"

H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 13 S.C.R.

A 16. The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987
(hereinafter referred to as the "AICTE Act") was enacted to provide
for the establishment of AICTE with a view to proper planning and
coordinated development of the technical education system throughout
the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education
in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper
B
maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system
and for matters connected therewith. Terms "Technical Education",
"Technical Institution" and "University" as defined in the AICTE Act
are as under:
"(g) "technical education" means programmes of education,
c research and training in engineering technology, architecture, town
planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and
such other programme or areas as the Central Government may,
in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare;
D (h) "technical institution" means an institution, not being a University,
which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and
shall include such other institutions as the Central Government
may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare as technical institutions;
E (i) "University" means a University defined under clause (f) of
Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of
1956) and includes an institution Deemed to be a University under
Section 3 of that Act."
17. Chapter II of the AICTE Act speaks of "Establishment of the
F Council", namely AICTE and Section I 0 deals with the "Powers and
Functions of the Council". Section 10 is as under:
"I 0. (I) It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as
it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development
of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the
G purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council
may-
(a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical education,
collect data on all related matters and make forecast of the
needed growth and development in technical education;
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 945
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(b) coordinate the development of technical education in the A
country at all levels;
(c) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council, such
grants on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to-
(i) technical institutions, and
B
(ii) Universities imparting technical education in
coordination with the Commission;
(d) promote innovations, research and development in established
and new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of
new technologies to meet developmental requirements and C
for overall improvement of educational processes;
(e) formulate schemes for promoting technical education for
women, handicapped and weaker sections of the society;
(f) promote an effective link between technical education system
and other relevant systems including research and D
development organisations, industry and the community;
(g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical
institutions and Universities imparting technical education,
incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing
accountability; E
(h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training of
teachers and identify institutions or centres and set up new
centres for offering staff development programmes including
continuing education of teachers;
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical F
and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications,
quality instructions, assessment and examinations;
(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees;
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for G
introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation
with the agencies concerned;
(l) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter
to any professional body or institution in the field of technical
education conferring powers, rights and privileges on it for H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A the promotion of such profession in its field including conduct
of examinations and awarding of membership certificates;
(m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions;
(n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialization of
technical education;
B
( o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical
institutions and Universities imparting technical education;
(p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution;
(q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses,
C programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply
with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated
period of time and take such other steps as maybe necessary
for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council;
(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and to set
D up new organisations to ensure effective discharge of the
Council's responsibilities and to create positions of professional,
technical and supporting staff based on requirements;
(s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types offering
courses in technical education fit to receive grants;
E (t) advice the Commission for declaring any institution imparting
technical education as a deemed University;
(u) set up a National Board ofAccreditation to periodically conduct
evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis
of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it and to make
F recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission
or to other bodies, regarding recognition or de-recognition of
the institution or the programme;
(v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed."
18. UGC, DEC and AICTE as well as MHRD Government of
G
India have issued various Notifications, Circulars and Guidelines touching
upon the issues involved in the present cases, which may now be referred
to:
A. On 25.11.1985, UGC (the minimum standards of instructions
for the grant of the first degree through formal education in the
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 947
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, A
Commerce and Science) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter referred
to as 1985 UGC Regulations) came into force which applied to
every University including a Deemed to be University. The relevant
portion of these Regulations are:-
"2(3). No student shall be eligible for the award of the first B
degree unless he has successfully completed a three year
course; this degree may be called the B.A./B.SC/B.Com.
(General/Honors/Special) degree as the case may be ....
3(1). Every University enrolling students for the 1" Degree
Course shall ensure that the number of actual teaching days c
does not go below 180 in an academic year. ....
3(2). The total periods provided in the timetable shall not be
less than 40 clock hours a week. The timetable on working
days shall be so drawn up that physical facilities are adequately
utilized and not used only for a few hours a day." D
B. In 1986, National Policy on Education was published by
Government oflndia, Part VI of which dealt with Technical and
Management Education, Paras 6.6, 6.8 and 6.19 of the Policy
were:-
"6.6. In view of the present rigid entry requirements to E
formal courses restricting the access of a large segment of
people to technical and managerial education, programmes
through a distance learning process, including use of the mass
media will be offered. Technical and management education
programmes, including education in polytechnics, will also be
F
on a flexible modular pattern based on credits, with provision
for multi-point entry. A strong guidance and counseling service
will be provided.
6.8. Appropriate formal and non-formal programmes of
technical education will be devised for the benefit of women,
G
the economically and socially weaker sections, and the
physically handicapped.
6.19. The All India Council for Technical Education, which
has been given statutory status, will be responsible for planning,
formulation and maintenance of norms and standards,
H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.

A accreditation, funding of priority areas, monitoring and
evaluation, maintaining parity of certification and awards and
ensuring the coordinated and integrated development of
technical and management education. Mandatory periodic
evaluation will be carried out by a duly constitutedAccreditation
Board. The Council will be strengthened and it will function in
B
a decen1ralized manner with greater involvement of State
governments and technical institutions of good quality."
C. The AICTE (Grant of Approval for starting new Technical
Institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval
of intake capacity of seats for courses or programmes) Regulations
c were issued in 1994 ( 1994 AICTE Regulations, for short). Clause
4 of these Regulations was to the following effect-
"4.0 Requirement of Grant of Approval
4.1 After the commencement of these regulations,
D a) No new Technical Institution or University Technical
Department shall be started; or
b) No course or programme shall be introduced by any
Technical Institution, University including a Deemed University
or University Department or College or;
E
c) No Technical Institution, University or Deemed University
or University Department or College shall continue to admit
students for Degree or Diploma courses or programmes;
d) No approved intake capacity of seats shall be increased or
varied;
F
Except with the approval of the Council."
D. On 01.03.1995, a notification was issued by Government of
India to the following effect:-
"On the recommendation of the Board of Assessment
G for Education Qualifications, the Government of India has
decided that all the qualifications awarded through Distance
Education by the Universities established by an Act of
Parliament or State Legislature, Institutions Deemed to be
Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 and
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 949
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.)

Institutions of National importance declared under an Act of A
Parliament stand automatically recognized for the purpose of
employment to posts and services under the Central
Government, provided it has been approved by Distance
Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University, K
76, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 and wherever necessary B
by All India Council for Technical Education, I.G. Sports
Complex, LP. Estate, New Delhi-110 002."
E. On 03.07.1997, DEC published Guidelines for Design,
Development and Delivery of programmes/courses through
distance mode. These were essentially dealing with distance
education as a concept without specifying the details or mechanism c
as to how and in what circumstances the concerned universities
and institutions were expected to initiate courses in distance
education.
F. In 2004, UGC issued Guidelines for establishing new
departments within the campus, setting up of off-campus centre(s )I D
institution(s)/off-shore campus and starting distance education
programmes by the Deemed to be universities, 2004 (2004 UGC
Guidelines, for short). The terms institution, off-campus centre,
off-shore campus and Study Centre were defined by these
Guidelines as under:- E
"(a) "Institution" means an institution set up by the same
management to impart studies in a specialized branch of study
and registered under the same society or trust under which the
existing deemed university is registered.
(b) "Off-campus centre" means a center of the university F
located outside its main campus (within or outside the State
where the deemed university is located)' operated and
maintained as its constituent unit by the resources of the
university, having the centre's own compliment of facilities,
faculty and staff. G
(c) "Off-shore Campus" means a campus of the university
located outside the country, established and maintained as its
constituent unit by the resources of the university having its
own compliment of facilities, faculty and staff.
H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A (d) "Study Centre" means a centre established and maintained
or recognized by the university for the purpose of advising,
counseling or for rendering any other assistance required by
the students used in the context of distance education."
It was laid down that a Deemed to be University shall normally
B be authorized to operate within its own campus to conduct the authorized
courses falling within the area of their specialization. However, in
deserving case~, the Deemed to be University could start new
departments within the university campus or start off-campus centre( s)/
institutions/off-shore campus(s) on selective basis with prior specific
permission of the UGC in each and every individual case. The procedure
c in that behalf was laid down as under:
"2. All Deemed to be universities intending to set-up new
departments within their campus, off-campus centre(s) or an
institution outside the main campus of the deemed university may
apply as follows:
D
2.1 The deemed university intending to open a new department
in its campus or an off-campus center/ institution shall approach
the University Grants Commission (UGC) at least six months
prior to opening such center on a proforma prescribed for this
purpose (Annexure-1). The deemed university desirous of
E starting the new off-campus center I institution or introducing
a new course/ programme in a professional subject, shall comply
with all the requirements as required by statutory professional
Councils and obtain their prior approval before approaching
theUGC.
F 2.2 The new Departments, new off-campus center/ institution
shall be set up only after obtaining approval of the UGC and
that of the concerned state Government where such a center
is proposed to be established. The UGC shall cause spot visit/
verification of the proposed new departments, new off-campus
G center/institutions to verify its infrastructure facilities,
programmes, faculty, financial viability, etc. before giving
permission to start the centre. The report of the committee
shall be considered by the Commission for its approval.
2.3 An off-shore campus shall be set up only after due
permission from the Government of India on the
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 951
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT,'J.]

recommendations of the UGC and also that of the Government A
of the host country"
Paras 3.3, 3.4 and 3.8 were as under:
"3.3 The off-campus centre/institution/off-shore campus shall
conform to the relevant regulations/norms of the UGC and
other statutory bodies concerned regarding minimum standards B
of instruction, qualifications of teachers, merit-based admission
of students on an all India basis and the fee structure etc. and
shall have adequate number of qualified teachers.
3.4 The new off-campus centre/institution/off-shore campus
shall offer only those courses which are approved by the C
appropriate bodies of the deemed university. If the course to
be offered in the centre is in technical/professional subject, its
academic programmes shall have to be approved by the
concerned statutory professional council.
3.8. The over-all performance of the off-campus centre/ D
institution/off-shore campus shall be monitored annually, initially
for three years, and subsequently after every five years by the
UGC whose directions for management, academic development
and improvement shall be binding. The UGC shall associate
the nominee(s) of the concerned statutory professional council E
in the monitoring process."
Paras 4 and 5 dealt with Distance Education and Ex-Post-Facto
Approval in following terms:
"4. Distance Education: The Deemed to be University could
offer the distance education programmes only with the specific F
approval of the Distance Education Council (DEC) and the
University Grants Commission (UGC). As such, any Study
Centre(s) can be opened only with the specific approval of
Distance Education Council and UGC.
5. Ex-Post-Facto Approval: The Deemed Universities shall G
obtain the ex-post-facto approval of the GOI/UGC/DEC,
whichever applicable within a period of six months in the
following cases:
I. Continuation of all the Departments opened in the campus
of the Deemed Universities and off-campus Study H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A Centre(s)/ institutions I offshore campus started without
the prior approval of the UGC.
II Distance education programme(s)/Study Centre(s) started
without the specific approval of the DEC/UGC."
G. On 03.02.2004 DEC published an advertisement that it was
B mandatory for all Centres/Institutions/Directorates offering
programmes through Distance Education mode to apply to DEC
and obtain prior approval before starting any new Centres/
Institutions/Directorates of programme. It further stated that the
Distance Education Centres/Institutions/Directorates already
c offering programmes through distance mode should submit their
applications for approval of DEC in the prescribed format.
H. A circular was issued by the UGC on 16.03.2004 directing
Deemed to be Universities conducting courses through Distance
Education mode to seek ex post facto approval for the courses
D conducted by such Deemed to be Universities.
19. We have referred to the notifications, circulars and guidelines
as were in existence and in force in 2004. The Deemed to be Universitieb
in the present case had started their distance education programmes
without taking any prior approval from any of the authorities including
E UGC,AICTE or DEC. However, it appears that in terms of paragraphs
4 and 5 of 2004 UGC Guidelines, the advertisement of DEC dated
03.02.2004 and circular of UGC dated 16.03.2004, the concerned
Deemed to be Universities sought ex-post-facto approval for courses
conducted by them through distance education mode. Before we deal
with the facts leading to the consideration of such ex-post-facto approval,
F an important development must be adverted to. On 24.09.2001 a decision
was rendered by this Court in Bharathidasan University and Another
v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others'. The
appellant therein, created under Bharathidasan University Act with its
area of operation over three districts in the State of Tamil Nadu had
G commenced courses in Technological subjects in its own departments
as an adjunct to the University without any approval of AICTE. A writ
petition was filed by AICTE submitting that no such courses could be
started without its prior approval. The plea was accepted by the High
Cowt of Madras which view was challenged in this Court. While dealing

H '(2001) s sec 676
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 953
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

with question whether prior approval of AICTE was required for a A
"University" to start courses in technical education, this Court held that
the definition of "Technical Institution" under the AICTE Act excludes
a "University" and since the power of grant of approval for starting new
"technical institution" and for introduction of new courses or programmes
under Section IO(k) of the AICTE Act would not cover a "University"
B
but only a technical institution, the appellant-university was within its
rights to start such courses without the prior approval of the AICTE.
20. Bharathidasan (supra) having laid down that prior approval
of AICTE was not required for a University to start technical courses,
the subsequent guidelines, notifications issued by the UGC, AICTE and
the Government of India were framed in the light of said decision. The c
understanding entertained by all the authorities was that AICTE was not
competent to deal with issues of prior approval in respect of
"Universities" for technical courses and since the term "University"
under the UGC Act includes Deemed to be Universities, AICTE has no
power to deal with issues of prior approval for technical courses in respect D
of Deemed to be Universities as well.
21. We now tum to the aspect of consideration by the concerned
authorities of request for grant of ex-post facto approval for courses in
Technology/Engineering conducted by Deemed to be Universities,
namely, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan ('JRN' for short), Institute E
ofAdvanced Studies in Education, Rajasthan ('!ASE' for short), Allahabad
Agricultural Institute, Allahabad(' AA!' for short) and Vinayaka Mission
Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu ('VMRF' for short). None of these
Deemed to be Universities had taken any prior permission from any of
the authorities, namely, UGC, AICTE and DEC, nor had they even
intimated at any juncture the fact that they were conducting such courses F
in Technology/Engineering through distance education mode. Pertinently,
JRN, !ASE and AA! had no expertise or specialization in the fields of
Technology/Engineering. None of these three Deemed to be Universities
was having any regular Engineering college or Faculty in Technology/
Engineering at their own campus when they commenced courses in G
Technology/Engineering by distance education mode through Study
Centres all over the Country. The facts stated hereinafter narrate how
their applications for ex-post facto approval were dealt with and by way
of illustration the facts pertaining to JRN, are dealt with in detail.

H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A A. On 10.05.2004 JRN sought approval of DEC for courses
conducted by it under distance education. The information supplied
in regard to technical courses leading to degrees in Engineering in
various disciplines' show that details of 19 Study Centres with
names of Coordinators and Counsellors were given. Said Co-
ordinators and Counsellors were common for all disciplines and
B
courses. At the same time there was no Study Centre in the
Slate of Orissa.
B. On 27.07.2004, UGC asked JRN to submit a complete list of
its off campus centres giving details of its courses/infrastructure
within 21 days of the receipt of the letter failing which public
c notice would be issued that such degrees were not recognized by
UGC. The relevant portion of the letter was to the following
effect:
"!.The Commission vide its letter of even number dated 5'"
May, 2003 and subsequent reminders dated 6th August, 2003
D and 13'" October, 2003 had requested the Vidyapeeth to submit
the details of its Study Centres. In response to that the
Vidyapeeth vide its letter No.RVUNC/2004-2005/26 dated 2""
April, 2004 submitted a list of 517 centres, but did not furnish
any details about the approval ofUGC, the statutory Councils
E and the concerned State Governments nor did the Vidyapeeth
submit any information about the Infrastructural facilities,
faculty etc. provided in these
Centres ........................................................... .
5. The Commission has been receiving a numberofcomplaints
F that Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is engaged in offering
Undergraduate and Postgraduate level courses in various
disciplines including Computer Science, Business Studies, Para-
medical Studies and Physiotherapy etc. through Study Centre(s)
spread all over the country which do not have required
infrastructure to maintain the standard of education.
G
6. A warning was also issued to the Vidyapeeth vide this office
letter of even number dated 11 '" June, 2004 that the degrees
awarded in violation of the instructions contained in the

'B.Tech (Computer Science), M.Tech (Computer Science)
H B.Tech (Civil) and M.Tech (Civil)
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 955
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Guidelines shall be regarded as unspecified and render the A
Vidyapeeth to be punishable under relevant provisions of the
UGC Act, 1956. '
7. The Study Centre/off-campus centres in distance mode
opened by Rajiisthan Vidyapeeth are without prior approval of
UGC. B
8. The Vidyapeeth is silent on furnishing the details of fulfilling
the norms as laid down by the Distance Education Council nor
has attached specific approval of Distance Education Council
andUGC.
9. It may be pointed out that unless the Vidyapeeth is fully C
·prepared in terms of faculty and infrastructure laid down by
the Statutory bodies, it would not be desirable to start any
graduate and postgraduate level courses."
C. In response to a query from Commissioner (Higher Education)
Government of Gujarat, IGNOU informed vide its letter dated D
03.08.2005 that DEC had not recognized JRN and AA! to offer
Distance Education programmes anywhere in the Country as major
deficiencies were found in their delivery system and self
instructional materials.
D. On 09.08.2005, a notice/circular was issued by UGC to the E
following effect:

"UNNERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI - 110 002 F'

F-6-9/2004(CPP-I) 9'' August, 2005
Subject: Non-Recognition of Study Centres of Deemed
Universities-(i) JRN Rajasthan Vtdyapeeth, Udaipur (ii) Allahabad G
Agricultural Institute (AA!), Allahabad & (iii) JASE Gandhi Vidya
Mandir (JASE) (Deemed'University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan
The University Grants Commission has been receiving a large
number of letters from individuals and organizations seeking
H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A clarification about Study Centres of Deemed Universities
particularly those associated with (i) Janardan Rai Nagar
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur (ii) Allahabad
Agricultural Institute (Deemed University), Allahabad (iii) Institute
of Advanced Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir (JASE)
(Deemed University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan.
B
It is hereby informed that (i) Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur (ii) Allahabad
Agricultural Institute (Deemed University), Allahabad (iii) Institute
ofAdvance Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir (JASE)
(Deemed University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan have been declared
c as Deemed to be Universities by the Government of India under
Section3 of the UGCAct 1956. These Institutions are empowered
to award degrees as specified by the UGC under Section 22 of
the UGC Act 1956.
However above three Deemed Universities have not been
D permitted to affiliate a College/Institute. These Institutions have
also not been allowed to conduct any course through Distance
Education Study Centre so far, by the Distance Education Council/
UGC.
Needless to mention that prior approval of Distance Education
E Council, IGNOU Campus, New Delhi-ll 0 067 is also required
for starting courses offered under Distance Education mode.
It is for the information of all concerned that no Deemed to
be University can start Study Centres/franchises without the prior
approval of UGC and that of State Government where the
Centre(s) is/are proposed to be opened. Private franchising is
F
not allowed. Moreover, for starting any UGC approved degree
course through Distance mode, prior approval of the Distance
Education Council is mandatory.
Students are advised to keep these things in mind while getting
admission in Deemed to be Universities.
G
(V.K. Jaiswal)
Under Secretary
Ph: 011-23235640
Publication Officer
UGCWebsite
H New Delhi"
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 957
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

E. On 30.08.2005 a communication was addressed by UGC to A
JRN, the relevant portions of which were:-
" ........................ The Vidyapeeth has reportedly been running
649 Study Centres/off campus centres under Distance Education
mode without the approval of UGC/Statutory councils/State
Government. The Distance Education Council (IGNOU, New B
Delhi) has not recognized Rajasthan Vidyapeeth to offer Distance
Education Programme anywhere in the country so far because
major deficiencies have been found in the delivery system and
self instructional materials. (Ref.IGNOU/DEC Jetter No.IG/PVC/
05 dated 3"' August, 2005).
c
The Vidyapeeth may please ensure compliance of the following:
I. AU off-campus centres/Extension Centres/Study
Centres and Academic Centres offering distance
education programmes of the Vidyapeeth running without
the approval of UGC and Distance Education Council D
be closed down immediately.
A list of such centres may also please be sent to UGC
along-with the documentary evidence of closure of these
centres.
2. Awarding of X and XII certification be stopped E
immediately and a public notice to this effect may be
published in National Newspapers.
3. An explanation/comments may also be furnished on
complaint(s) regarding Study Centres particularly those
operating in Gujarat." F
F. A show-cause notice dated 27.10.2005 was thereafter issued
by UGC to JRN for non-adherence to UGC norms regarding Study
Centres and an explanation was sought within 15 days failing
which appropriate action could be taken by UGC.
G. On 28.11.2005, All India Council for Technical Education G
(AICTE) Grant ofApproval for starting new technical institutions,
introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of
intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes and
Extension of approval for the existing technical institutions and
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A maintenance of norms and standards in Universities including
Deemed to be Universities Regulations, 2005 (2005 AICTE
Regulations, for short) were issued. Para 2.5 of the Regulations
dealing with grant of approval was to the following effect:-
"2.5 Requirement of grant of approval
B ( 1) No new technical institution of Government, Government
Aided or Private (self financing) institution, whether affiliated
or not affiliated to any University shall be started and no new
courses or programs shall be introduced and no increase and/
or variation of intake in the existing Courses/Programmes shall
c be effected at all levels in the field of 'Technical Education'
without obtaining prior approval of the Council. The Council
may take Legal action against such defaulting Institution/
Society/Company/Associated Individuals as the case may be
for contravening provisions of this regulations by conducting
courses/programmes in "Technical Education" without obtaining
D prior approval from AICTE.
(2) No existing technical institution of Government, Government
Aided or Private (self financing) institution whether affiliated
or not affiliated to a University shall conduct any technical
course/programme without prior approval of the Council.
E
(3) No University including Deemed University shall conduct
technical courses/programmes without ensuring maintenance
of the norms and standards prescribed by AICTE.
(4) No University, Board or any other body shall affiliate
technical courses/programmes not approved by the AICTE.
F
(5) No admission authority/body/institution shall admit students
to a course/programme of technical education not approved
by AICTE."
H. On 05.01.2006 a circular was issued by DEC stating that the
G programmes of JRN through Distance Mode were not approved
by DEC.
I.On 01.02.2006 a letter was addressed by JRN to UGC
undertaking to close its Distance Education Programme but
requesting UGC to grant one time specific approval insofar as
H existing students in the programmes currently in operation.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 959
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

J.On 05.04.2006 a Notification was issued by MHRD, Government A
of India in exercise of powers vested in the Central Government
under Section 20( 1) ofUGC Act and under Section 20( I) ofAICTE
Act clarifying the role of the UGC and AICTE in maintaining
standards of education in institutions notified as deemed to be
universities. The relevant portion of the notification is as under:
B
"It is not a pre-requisite for an institution notified as a "Deemed
to be University to obtain the approval of the AICTE, to start
any programme in technical or management education leading
to an award, including degrees in disciplines covered under the
AICTE Act, 1987. However, institutions notified as 'Deemed
to be University' are required to ensure the maintenance of C
the minimum standards prescribed.by the AICTE for various
courses that come under the jurisdiction of the said Council. It
is expected that the institutions notified as 'Deemed to be
University' maintain their standards of education higher than
the minimum prescribed by the AICTE. D
In accordance with provisions under Section 11 (1) of the AICTE
Act, 1987, the AICTE may cause an inspection of the relevant
departments of the institution declared as 'Deemed to be
University" offering the courses that come under the
jurisdiction of the AICTE Act, 1987 in order to ensure the E
maintenance of standards by them"
K. The application preferred by JRN for ex-post facto approval
was considered by UGC in its meeting dated 11.06.2006 and the
Chairman was authorized to do the needful through appropriate
mechanism. The Chairman, UGC accordingly constituted a two F
members Committee with Legal Consultant, UGC, as Special
Invitee. This Committee held meeting in the UGC office on
30.06.2006 and interacted with representatives of JRN. The
decision of the Committee was as under:-
"After examining all the aspects regarding one time ex-post- G
facto approval to Sri Janardan Rai N agar Raj as than
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur for the students admitted in various Degree
courses under Distance Education Mode from I" June, 200 I
to 31" August, 2005 as also keeping in view the future of a
large number of innocent students, the Committee
H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A recommended one-time ex-post-facto approval for the students
admitted under the distance education mode by Sri Janardan
Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur in Degree Courses
from l" June, 2001 to 31" August, 2005 subject to strict
compliance and fulfillment of the following conditions:
B 1. The one time approval will cover students admitted between
l" June, 2001 and 31" August, 2005 admitted in Degree courses
under Distance Education Mode only subject to the condition
that Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur
shall ensure that it has permission ofrelevant Statutory Bodies
or Councils wherever necessary and shall maintain the norms
c and standards laid down by the relevant Statutory Bodies and
Councils.
2. Only such students shall be considered for regularization
who fulfill the eligibility conditions, prevalent in other universities
and prescribed by the statutory authorities for the courses they
D have been admitted. Non-eligible candidates shall be offered
alternative courses according to their eligibility or the entire
fee shall be refunded by the Vidyapeeth along with the
compensation claimed ....................... "
L. Thereafter, on 03.07.2006 UGC granted one time ex-post facto
E approval in respect of courses conducted by Distance Education
Mode by JRN from 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2005. The conditions
mentioned by the Committee in its recommendations dated
30.06.2006 were incorporated in this communication.
M. On 03.11.2006 a letter was addressed by the UGC to JRN
F that the conditions of approval as incorporated in the
communication dated 03.07.2006 had not been complied with. It
appears that on 29.12.2006 an Expert Committee was constituted
by UGC to look into the documents/information received from
JRN.
G N. On 04.02.2007 a public notice was issued jointly by AICTE,
UGC and DEC. The notice stated as under:
"It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission
(UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
and the Distance Education Council (DEC), that some
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 961
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

Universities, Institutions Deemed to be Universities and other A
institutions are offering technical education programmes in the
'distance mode' without the approval of the concerned Statutory
Council.
All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities
and other institutions are hereby cautioned that running such B
programmes and giving misleading advertisements regarding
unapproved 'distance mode courses and programmes of study,
shall attract severe action under the provisions of applicable
laws, including that of de-recognition and withdrawal of
institutional approval;
c
It is hereby clarified, in the public interest that there are
a number of courses or programmes of study leading to Degree/
Diploma or other awards in Engineering & Technology,
Management, Computer Applications, Architecture & Town
Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management & Catering
Technology, Applied Arts and Crafts, etc. which have not been D
approved by the appropriate Statutory Council for being
conducted in the 'distance mode'. It is also reiterated that all
courses or programmes of study in the 'distance mode' require
the approval of DEC."
0. On 15.06.2007 JRN filed an application with DEC seeking E
approval to start 69 programmes in Distance Education from the
Session 2007-2008. The letter stated that as directed by the
UGC, JRN had stopped new admissions after August 2005. The
letter requested for ex-post facto approval for the programmes/
students between 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2005 and approval for F
programmes proposed to be started from the Session 2007-2008.
69 Programmes indicated in the application comprised of six
programmes leading to the award of Bachelors Degree in
Technology in the disciplines of Computer Science, Information
Technology, Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical
Engineering and Electronics/Tele- Communications. List of Study G
Centres numbering 3 8 was also appended.
P. A Visiting Committee constituted by the Chairman, DEC, had
visited the main campus of JRN on 15.06.2007 itself. Some of
the relevant portions from the report of the Visiting Committee
are as under: H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A " ........... The University has large infrastructure of Study
Centres totaling 852. These Care located mostly in private
institutions. It has also Study Centres at its headquarter.
The details of facilities available at each Centre along with the
list of equipments is given in Annexure - VIII.
B The university now proposes to reduce the number of Study
Centre significantly and offer programmes through a network
of 38 Study Centres only. (list enclosed)"
After making above observations, the Committee made the
following recommendations:
c
· "Keeping in view the above facts the committee recommends
that the request of the university for post facto approval may
be favorably considered. It also submits that the request of
the university for continuation of its programmes may be
considered by DEC as per norms being adopted for institutional
D recognition."
Q. In its meeting dated 01.08.2007 and 02.08.2007 the reports
submitted by the Visiting Committee in respect ofAA! (visit dates
26'" and 27'" October, 2004), JRN (visit dates 15" and 16'" June,
2007), VMRF (visit date 04.02.2007) and JASE (visit dates 3''
E and 4'" September, 2004) were considered by the DEC. The
minutes of the meeting of DEC were:-
"The Committee deliberated upon the recommendations of the
visiting committees with respect to each institution and came
up with the following recommendations:
F
I. The above four institutions may be given ex-post facto
sanction till the academic session June-July 2007 only.
2. These institutions should be communicated the deficiencies/
improvements identified by the visiting committees.

G 3. For recognition of the institution from next academic calendar
i.e. from June-July 2008 another visiting committee may be
constituted by the Competent Authority to visit and submit
a fresh report on the basis of which further decision on
recognition may be taken."

H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 963
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

The minutes further show that ex-post facto approval granted to A
the aforesaid institutions was to be a one time measure and not to be
treated as a precedent in future.
22. At this stage, while ex-post facto approval sought by JRN,
JASE, AA! and VMRF was under consideration, a Memorandum of
Understanding was arrived at on 10.05.2007 among UGC, AICTE and B
DEC to work in close co-operation in pursuit of excellence in technical
and general education through distance and mixed mode in the country.
Para I 0 of the Memorandum of Understanding was as under:
"(10) The Joint Committee shall also evolve a mechanism for
monitoring the existing institutions conducting courses/programmes c
in 'distance and mixed mode' for ensuring maintenance ofnorms
& standards provided UGC, AICTE and DEC. It will also cause
inspections to existing institutions conducting technical and general
education to courses/programmes through distant and mixed mode
for the purpose of continuation/withdrawal of approval by AICTE
in respect of technical institutions and UGC in respect of D
Universities including Deemed to be Universities."
This Joint Committee held several meetings and the decisions in
some of them were as under:-
i) In the first meeting held on 11.05.2007, the Chairman stated E
that a large number of distance education programmes were being
offered for commercial purposes; that there was deterioration of quality
particularly in technical and professional programmes that were being
offered through distance mode and the joint committee was expected to
ensure quality of all distance education programmes in general and
professional & technical programmes in particular. F
The decision taken in the meeting included inter alia:
"For any institution/university to offer distance education
programmes, it is mandatory for them to offer the same
programme in face to face mode.
G

Study Centres should be managed by the institution and no
franchising of any kind would be allowed."
ii) The recommendations made by the DEC on l" and 2"" ofAugust
2007 ratifying the recommendation of the Visiting Committee of DEC to H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A grant ex-post facto approval to JRN, JASE, AAI and VMRF as mentioned
hereinabove, were then placed before and accepted by this Joint
Committee in its third meeting held on 07 .08.2007. The relevant minutes
of the meeting were:-
"3. Institutions applied for ex-post facto approval. The Joint
B Committee accepted the recommendations of the Committee
appointed by DEC. It accepted the recommendations of granting
ex-post-facto approval to all the four institutions namely JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Allahabad Agriculture Institute Deemed
University,Vinayaka Mission University, Punjab Technical
University and !ASE Deemed University up to the current
c academic year i.e. 2007-08 and the suggestions made by the visiting
Expert Committee should be made known to them which should
be strictly adhered to. However, they need to apply for formal
recognition to DEC for the next academic year."
iii) In the fifth meeting held on 17.04.2008, convened on the
D requisition of AICTE, complaints against JASE and VMRF were
discussed and it was decided to constitute Visiting Committees to review
their programmes.
iv) In the sixth meeting held on 28.07.2008, following decisions
were taken:-
E "(i) It was decided that the Chairman, Joint Committee will write
to the Chairman, UGC and the Chairman, AICTE communicating
that once the decision on approval is taken by the Joint Committee,
it should be considered as approval given by the UGC, AICTE
and DEC and the same should not be referred to the respective
Commission and Councils; otherwise the entire purpose of the
F Joint Committee will be defeated.
(ii) Copies of all applications for approval of programmes in
technical and professional areas will be sent to the AICTE and
AICTE will send its recommendations to the Joint Committee for
further processing.
G
v) In the ninth meeting held on 05.08.2009, the stand taken by
MHRD vide letter dated 29 .07 .2009 5 regarding withdrawal of
permission given to institutions to conduct B.Tech/B.E.
programmes through distance mode and to stop admissions to
' Referred to in Para 23(xiii)
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 965
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

such programmes was noted. The unanimous decision was taken A
that till such time the matter was resolved, the Joint Committee
would not accord any approval to B.Tech/B.E. programmes.
23. After the Joint Committee of UGC, AICTE and DEC had
accepted the recommendations of DEC for granting ex-post facto
approval to JRN, JASE, AA! and VMRF in its meeting held on 07.08.2007, B
the further factual developments were as under:-
i) The formal approval was communicated by IGNOU to JRN in
following terms vide its letter dated 29.08.2007
"In connection with ex-post-facto recognition, we would like to
convey that all programmes (that were approved by the statutory C
bodies of your institute) are approved till date. As you have not
been offering education through distance mode since 2005, all
your programmes (approved by the statutory bodies of your
institute) till 2005 happen to be approved by the DEC.
However, for recognition of your institution for offering D
programmes through distance mode from next academic year,
i.e. from June-July, 2008, you are requested to submit fresh
application in the prescribed format developed by DEC."
ii) JRN thereafter applied to UGC for approval for academic
Session 2007-08 submitting that "one time ex-post-facto approval" vide E
letter dated 03.07.2006 was already granted by UGC and that DEC had
also granted ex-post-facto approval for programmes offered by JRN
through distance education mode till date. Thereafter, JRN addressed a
communication to UGC on 02.09.2007 submitting compliance for final
ex-post-facto approval in terms of approval dated 03.07.2006.
F
iii) On 03.09.2007 DEC granted provisional recognition to JRN in
respect of programmes offered through distance education mode for a
period of one year from the date of its letter in following terms:
"Dated 03.09.2007
Sub.: Provisional Recognition G
Dear Sir,
This has reference to your application to the Distance
Education Council requesting for recognition of programmes
offered through distance mode by your university.
H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A We would like to inform you that your university has been
granted provisional recognition foroffering programmes (approved
by the statutory bodies ofyouruniversity) through distance mode
for a period of one year w.e.f. the date of issue of this letter.
However, for recognition of your institution for offering
B programmes through distance mode in the next academic year
i.e. from June-July, 2008, you are requested to submit a fresh
application in the prescribed format developed by the DEC which
may be downloaded from the DEC website: www.dec.ac.in.
We would also like to inform you that the DEC has decided
c not to insist on territorial jurisdiction to be followed by institutions
in offering programmes through distance mode and on that matter
universities should be governed by their own Acts and Statutes.
With regards
Yours sincerely,
D
Sd/-
(SWARAJ BASU)
Prof. L.S. Bhat
Vice Chancellor
E Janaradan Rai Nagar Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth (Deemed University)
Pratap Nagar, Udaipur- 313 001, Rajasthan."
iv) Having received provisional recognition for the academic year
2007-2008 from DEC, JRN then applied to UGC on 13.09.2007 and on
F 13.11.2007 UGC sent a letter in reply to JRN as under:
"UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG
NEW DELHI 110 002
No.F.6.3(Centre)/2003 (CPP-I) November 13, 2007
G
The Vice-Chancellor
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth
(Deemed University)
Pratapnagar, Udaipur-313 001
(Rajasthan)
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 967
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Subject: Courses under Distance mode -Regarding A
Sir,
With reference to your proposal on the subject cited above. I am
directed to inform you that the Commission has noted that DEC,
a statutory council in regular distance education, has already
conveyed the approval (ex-post-facto as well provisional approval B
for the year 2007-2008) to certain courses run by your University
under distance mode based on the approval of the UGC-AICTE-
DEC joint committee. Therefore, no separate approval from UGC
is required for the same. You are requested to send list of the
courses (year-wise) run by the Deemed University under distance c
mode as approved by the Joint Committee.
This issues with the approval of Chairman, UGC.
Yours faithfully
(K.P. Singh)
D
Joint Secretary"
v) On 05.12.2007 JRN informed UGC that in view of the approval
dated 29.08.2007 granted by DEC, JRN would be offering distance
education programmes in the year 2007-08 as well.
vi) At a meeting held on 19.02.2008 wherein Secretary, Department E
of Higher Education (Distance Learning Division), MHRD, Heads of
UGC, AICTE & IGNOU and Joint Secretary (Distance Education)
participated, it was decided that the approvals should be granted to the
courses and not to the institute. The following decisions, were inter
alia, taken in the meeting:
F
"e. In addition to existing agreement of AICTE for conduct of
MCA and MBA programs by distance mode, AICTE must
also consider to agree to allow conduct of B. Tech.
programmes through distance mode for Diploma holders in
Engineering/Technology with work experience. Similarly,
distance education programmes for !TI certificate holder, with G
some work experience, leading to award of Diploma could
be allowed and encouraged for their vertical academic
mobility.
f. The approvals should be granted to the courses and not to the
institute. H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A g. The approval, including the cases of granting of ex-post-facto
approvals conveyed by the DEC, to Allahabad Agricultural
Institute, Allahabad, Annamalai University, TN, !ASE
Sardarshahr, Raj, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur,
Vinayaka Mission, Salem must be reviewed within the next
month."
B
vii) Though the decision was taken in the meeting of 19.02.2008 a
Jetter was addressed only on 12.05.2008 by UGC to various institutions
including JRN, AA!, AISE and VMRF as follows:-

"Sir,
c
With reference to your proposal for ex-post-facto approval
to the courses run under distance mode by the deemed university,
I am directed to inform you that the Government of India, MHRD
convened a meeting on 19" February, 2008 which was chaired by
Secretary, Department of Higher Education. It was decided that
D the approval granted by Distance Education Council (including
ex-post-facto) must be reviewed and the approval should be
granted to the courses and not to the institute. Distance Education
Counail has also been requested to give approval strictly as per
the provisions contained in the MOU signed between UGC,
E AICTE and DEC. The relevant clause of the MOU is reproduced
as under:

"Based on the recommendations of Joint Committee, the
letter of approval may be issued by the Joint Committee. The
letter should explicitly state: This has the approval ofUGC, AICTE
F and DEC. The letter should be jointly signed by Secretary, UGC,
Member Secretary, AICTE and Director, DEC."

In view of the above mechanism and instructions issued by
MHRD, you are advised to approach the Joint Committee through
Distance Education Council, IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi.
G
Yours faithfully

(S.C.Chadha)
Deputy Secretary"

H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 969
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.)

viii) In the meantime, on 08.05.2008 JRN sought approval for the A
year 2008-09 from DEC for its courses in distance education mode.
Nine professional/technical programmes' leading to the award of degrees
in engineering were listed in respect of which approval was sought. In
Table 3.12 Programme-wise student enrolment in respect of said
programmes was mentioned as 4142, 1258,3166, 1380,312, 1792,4216,
B
516 and I 03 respectively; which in effect aggregated to 16885 for all 9
courses put together.
(ix) In the 447~ meeting of the UGC held on 21.05.2008 decision
was taken in respect of report submitted by the Chairman, UGC as
under:
c
"I .02(a) to ratify the action taken on certain matters.
(i) To report the decision by the Chairman, UGC regarding courses
run under distance mode by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Deemed
University, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
The Commission ratified the action taken by the Chairman, UGC." D
x) Various show-cause notices were thereafter issued by UGC
on 26.06.2008 and 21.08.2008 regarding alleged violation of UGC
Guidelines by concerned Deemed to be Universities but the record is
not clear what further steps were taken and what decisions were arrived
at. E
xi) On 27.06.2008, DEC issued a public notice titled "Recognition
of degree/diploma/certificates for employment and recognition and
distance education institutions" wherein it was clarified:-
"The provisional approval granted by DEC is not to be construed
F
to be in lieu of the approval required by the Institutions from the AICTE
in respect of the standards to be maintained for technical education
programmes and from the UGC for offering any programme in leading
to award of a degree which is at variance with the nomenclature of
degrees mentioned in the UGC Regulations under Section 22 of the
UGC Act, 1956." G

'Bachelor ofTechnology in (i) Mechanical Engineering; (ii) Chemical Engineering; · (iii)
Electrical Engineering; (iv) Computer Science; (v) Information Technology; (vi)
Electronics & Telecommunication; (vii) Civil Engineering; (viii) Electronics &
Conununication Engineering; (ix) Bio-Informatics. H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.

A xii) On 08.10.2008 DEC granted approval to JRN for the academic
year 2008-2.009. The relevant portion of the letter was as under:-
"This has reference to your letter No.JRNRVU/DEW/2008-2009/.
811, dated 8 May, 2008 requesting Distance Education Council
for continuation ofrecognition of your Institute for programmes
B offered through distance mode for the year 2008-09.
In this connection we would like to inform you that vide our letter
No.F.No.DEC/Univ/State/07/5739, dated 3.9.2007, your
University was accorded Provisional recognition for one academic
year i.e. 2007-08 for programmes offered through distance mode.
c Further, your proposal for grant of regular recognition of your
University is under process. Meanwhile, your University has been
granted continuation of provisional recognition till such time a
visiting committee visits your Institute and submits its
recommendation.
D With regards
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-

(Manjulika Srivastava)
E
Prof. L.S. Bhat,
Vice Chancellor,
Janaradan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth
(Deeded University), Pratap Nagar,
Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan"
F
xiii) On 29.07.2009, MHRD wrote to Chairman DEC as under:-
"D.No.6-7/2008-DL
Dear Prof. Pillai,
The matter regarding recognition of B.Tech Degrees
G
awarded by UGC recognised Universities through Distance
Education Mode was examined in the Ministry. After a detailed
examination of the subject matter referred above, the following
course of action has been approved at the highest level in the
Ministry.
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 971
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

(i) DEC should immediately withdraw pennission given to various A
institutions to conduct B. Tech/B.E. Programmes through Distance
Mode and no student should be admitted in the current year also.
(ii) Those who have already been admitted will have to pass both
practical and written examination as may be prescribed in this
regard so as to give validity to the B.Tech/B.E. degree acquired B
by them through distance education.
In view of the above, I would request you kindly to take further
necessary steps to implement the action mentioned at para (i)
above immediately and also further evolve a broad policy and
guidelines to give effect to the action as mentioned at para (ii) c
above. This being a very important and sensitive issue, an early
action in the matter will be highly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,
Sci/- D
(N. K. Sinha)
Prof. V. N. Rajasekharan Pillai,
Vice Chancellor & Chairman, DEC,
Indira Gandhi National Open University,
Maidan Garhi, NewDelhi-110068." E

xiv) Soon after the aforesaid letter, DEC informed JRN on
13.08.2009 as under:-
"Dear Sir/Madam
F
This has reference to the MHRD letter No.D.O.No.6-7/2009-
D.L. Dated 29,. July, 2009 vide which MHRD has directed the
DEC to immediately withdraw permission given to various
institutions to conduct B.Tech/BE programmes through distance
mode and also ensure that no students are admitted in the current
year. G
In this connection the Joint Committee ofUGC-AICTE and DEC
has not yet accorded any approval to B.E./B.Tech programme of
any University offered through distance mode. Any such
programmes offered by a University are hence illegal and are not
approved by the DEC. H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A Thus it is notified that the above notification of the MHRD is to
be strictly adhered to and no University should offer any B.E./
B. Tech programme through distance mode. Any deviation from
this policy may invite de-recognition of the concerned University
by the DEC.
B With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Sci/-
(Manjulika Srivastava)
C To

The Vice Chancellor,
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth,
Airport Road, Pratap Nagar,
D Udaipur-313001
Rajasthan."
xv) On 21.05.2010, the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be
Universities) Regulations, 2010( hereinafter referred to as ''2010 UGC
Regulations") were issued consolidating Guidelines issued from time to
E time in respect of factors to be taken in consideration before granting
the status of Deemed to be University. Regulation 2.14 which defined
statutory body includes interalia AICTE and Regulation 8.02 prescribes
that the Institution Deemed to be University shall submit a certificate
and an undertaking that the professional programmes being conducted
by it, if any, have the approval of the relevant statutory/regulatory body.
F Regulation 12 deals with "new departments, off campuses and off shore
campuses" and Regulation 12.11 is as under:-
"12.11. The off-Campus Centre/Off-shore Campus shall be
directly administered by the parent institution deemed to be
university in matters ofadmission, instruction, evaluation, conferring
G of degrees, etc. In case of the off-shore Campus, lease in the
name of the institution Deemed to be university may be acceptable
(as per the procedure of the country in which such off-shore
campus is proposed to be established). In case lease is not

H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 973
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

permissible in any particular country, land and other assets in the A
name of a Strategic Partner shall be accepted. For this, the
institution Deemed to be university shall have a duly registered
MoU/collaboration with the Strategic Partner which shall be
governed in accordance with the law for the time being in force,
in India."
B
Further, Regulati on 18 was as under:-
"18.0 DISTANCE EDUCATION
No institution Deemed to be university, so declared by the Central
Government subsequent to these Regulations, shall be allowed to
conduct courses in the Distance mode. Also, such institutions C
declared as such, prior to these Regulations, shall not be allowed
to conduct courses in the Distance mode from any of its off-
Campus Centre /off-shore Campus approved subsequent to these
Regulations."
xvi) On 23.09.2011, JRN requested DEC for continuation of its D
provisional recognition which was granted vide letter dated 08.10.2008.
In response, DEC replied,:-
"In this regard, I am to inform that the competent authority
has acceded to your request for continuation of provisional
recognition conveyed by DEC vide letter No.F.DEC/JRN/RJ/08/ E
14236 dated 08.10.2008 in order to ensure continuity of the
programmes offered by your University through distance mode,
till the date ,of visit/approval ofrecommendations of the Visiting
Expert Committee.
Further, it is the responsibility of the University to follow the norms F
prescribed by the concerned regulatory bodies and seek their
approval for professional/technical programmes as per the
requirement. Thus getting the approval of concerned statutory
apex body for relevant progaramme(s) will be the sole responsibility
of the University."
G
xvii) On 29.12.2012 an order was issued by MHRD as under:-
"In view of the recommendations of the Madhava Menon
Committee Report and Government's decision thereon, the

H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l3 S.C.R.

A Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open
University (IGNOU) created under Statute 28 of the IGNOU
Act cannot act as a regulator for other Universities as it creates
conflict of interest. The Distance Education Council and the Board
of Management of IGNOU have already passed resolution to
repeal the Statute 28 and dissolve DEC under IGNOU. Therefore,
B
the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub section 1 of section 20 of the UGC 1956 and theAICTEAct,
1987 hereby directs:-
(i) The UGC and AICTE as already empowered under their
respective Acts, would also act as a regulator for Higher
c Education (excluding Technical Education) and Technical
Education through open & Distance Learning (ODL) mode
respectively Universities are empowered under their respective
Act to offer any programme course including in Technical
Education in the conventional mode. However if they offer
D any programme/course in ODL mode they would require
recognition from the UGC, AICTE, NCTE and other such
regulators of the conventional mode of education in those areas
of study ...... "
xviii) On 01.05.2013, IGNOU dissolved DEC and regulatory
E functions of"Open and Distance Leaming Education" were taken over
by UGC, whereafter a notification was issued by UGC on 17.06.2013
that till it formulated Regulations for maintaining standards in Open and
Distance Leaming systems/courses, the UGC would adopt the Guidelines
of the DEC on minimum requirements for recognition oflnstitutions.

F xix) On 27.06.2013 a public notice was issued by UGC stating
that Deemed to be Universities were not allowed to take courses in
distance education mode. The relevant portion of public notice was to
the following effect:-
" A Deemed University shall operate only within its Headquarters
G or from those off campuses/off-shore campuses which are
approved by the Government of India through notification published
in the official gazette.
In case of distance education programmes, no institution Deemed
to be university, so declared by the Govt. oflndia after 26" May,
2010 [date of publication of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 975
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

Universities) Regulations, 20IO] is allowed to conduct courses in A
the distance mode.
The institutions Deemed to be universities declared before 26'"
May, 20 l 0 are not allowed to conduct courses in distance mode
from any of its off-campus centres/off-shore campuses approved
after 26'" May, 20 IO. B
Approval for new courses and extension of approval of the courses
already run by the Deemed to be Universities under distance mode
would be granted by the UGC subjectto the fulfillment of conditions
as laid down by the UGC.
The UGC has not granted approval to any Deemed to be university C
to establish Study Centres.
Any information/clarification with regard to recognition of Private
Universities/Deemed Universities and the courses offered by them
may be obtained from JS (CPP-I) UGC. Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi." D
xx) Despite the aforesaid policy statements that no Deemed to be
University was allowed to take technical courses in distance education
mode, JRN again requested UGC to grant approval in terms of the earlier
report of the Committee and when no response was received from UGC,
Civil Writ Petition No.13900of2013 was filed by JRN in the High Court E
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in which following order was
passed by the High Court on 26.11.2013:-
"Issue notice. Notice be also issued on the stay application. Rule
is made returnable on 16.12.2013.
F
In the meantime, the respondents shall not de-recognize the
courses run provisionally under the "distance education mode."
xxi) On 26.12.2014 JRN submitted further proposal to Distance
Education Bureau ofUGC for starting new courses in distance education
mode from academic session 2015-20I 6. Soon thereafter, on 28.02.2015
another letter was written by JRN to UGC to grant continuation of G
recognition to JRN for the academic session 2015-2016. According to
JRN, a further letter in reminder was sent on 17.06.2015 and when no
response was received from UGC, JRN filed Civil Writ Petition No.8832
of2015 in the High Court ofJudicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the
following order was passed by the High Court on 17.11.2015. H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.

A " .......... At this stage, Mr. Singhvi, Learned Senior Counsel, has
argued that some interim protection be granted to the petitioner,
which is a deemed university and involved in imparting education
through distance mode since 200 I of the approved programmed
ofUGC. Mr. Singhvi further submits that although there was an
interim protection by this Court not to take any coercive action
B
against the petitioner-University and not to de-recognize the
courses run by it, the respondent-UGC has issued communication
(Annex. 36) wherein the petitioner University has not been
mentioned to impart education through distance mode.
Considering the fact that petitioner-University is involved in
c imparting education by distance mode since 200 I and there is
interim protection granted to the University, the respondent-UGC
is directed to provisionally include the name of the petitioner-
deemed University in the list of the Universities, which are allowed
to offer the approved programmed through distance mode for the
D Academic Session 2015-16.
It is made clear that this interim arrangement shall not create
any right or equity in favour of the petitioner-University and shall
remain subject to the final decision of the writ petition. It is further
clarified that UGC shall be free to carry out the requisite inspection
E for verifying the requisite infrastructure available with the
petitioner-University for imparting education through distance
mode.
Stay petition is disposed off."
xxii) On 12.04.2016 JRN submitted further proposal seeking
F recognition for programmes offered by it through distance education
mode during the academic session 2016-2017. According to JRN, there
being no response from UGC, JRN filed Writ Petition No. I 0310of2016
in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpurto include name
of JRN in the list of recognized Universities in the academic year 2016-
G 2017 and following order was passed by the High Court on 15.09.2016:-
"Issue notice to the respondent No.I only. Issue notice of
stay petition as well and be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the
petitioner for service.

H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 977
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.)

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeks some A
more time to file reply to the writ petition. Time prayed for is
granted.
In the meantime, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to
provisionally include name of petitioner-Deemed University in the
list of universities, which are allowed to offer the approved B
programme for Distance Education mode for the Academic
Sessions 2016-2017.
Put up on 20.10.2016 along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition
Nos.5531/2015, 13900/2013, 5194/2014, 7419/2015 and 8832/
2015." c
24. In the aforementioned backdrop of facts leading to the ex-
post-facto approvals granted to JRN, !ASE, AA! and VMRF and the
subsequent facts, the stand of the authorities as taken in their affidavits
may now be adverted to. We have already quoted paragraph 19 of the
affidavit of Mr. Ved Prakash, Chairman, UGC. Since the stand of the D
UGC in the present matter is quite crucial, the relevant portions of the
affidavit starting from paragraphs 7 to 10 and 12 to 18 in relation to the
first question posed by this Court in its Order dated 11.12.2014 are
extracted as under:-
"7. Whether the UGC recognizes degrees in technical E
education by open and distant education mode. If so, subject
to what conditions, if any.
8. It is humbly submitted that the UGC used to consider the grant
of approval to programmes conducted by institutions Deemed to
be Universities for awarding B.E./B. Tech. degrees through ODL
F
mode. The conditions for granting such UGC approval to ODL
programmes conducted by institutions Deemed to be Universities
for awarding B.E./B. Tech. degrees are described below.
9. After the MHRD issued a notification dated 01.03.1995 (no.44,
F.No.18-15/93-TD.V/TS.IV.) making it mandatory to obtain G
approval for ODL qualifications from the DEC and, wherever
necessary, from the AICTE, for employment with the Central
Government, the UGC required the approval of AICTE wherever
necessary for programmes conducted by institutions Deemed to

H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A be Universities leading to the award of B.E./B.Tech degrees
through ODL mode, as an imperative for the validity of such
programmes .............. .
l 0. Then, in 2004, the UGC framed "Guidelines for Establishing
New Departments within the Campus, setting up of Off-campus
B Centre(s)/Institution(s)/Off-shore Campus and Starting Distance
Education Programmes by the Deemed Universities" [the "2004
UGC Guidelines"]. These guidelines were framed in keeping
with the UGC's mandate to maintain the standard of teaching and
research in universities and stipulated, ......... .

c 12. Thus, even as per the 2004 UGC Guidelines, the institutions
Deemed to be Universities were required to have the approval of
the AICTE, in addition to that of the UGC/DEC, for programmes
leading to the award ofB.E./B.Tech. degrees through ODL mode.
13 ......... Here, it may be briefly noted that the DEC had granted
D such ex-post facto approval because, as per the MHRD's gazette
notification No.44, dated 01.03.1995, qualifications were required
to have mandatory approval of the DEC and, wherever necessary,
AICTE to be valid for Central Government jobs. However, since
the DEC started giving such approvals in 2004-5 and the proper
mechanism could be put in place only in 2007, most universities/
E institutions were not recognized by the DEC though many
universities were offering programmes through correspondence
and distance mode even before the establishment of the DEC (or
its policy for giving recognitions). As a result, many students who
had obtained their qualifications through distance mode started
F facing problems because of non-recognition of their qualifications,
including many who were in employment for years. Therefore, in
order to safeguard the interest of these students, the DEC started
the process of ex-post facto approvals and, consequently, many
universities offering programmes through distance mode (including
technical programmes) were accorded ex-post facto approval.
G However, the universities concerned were required to follow the
norms of the appropriate regulatory bodies and seek their approval
wherever required.)
14. It is pertinent to note that the Joint Committee referred to in
the aforesaid letter dated 12.05 .2008 was formed pursuant to an
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 979
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

MoU dated 10.05.2007 between UGC, AICTE and DEC. The A
MoU was "aimed to avoid duplication of efforts in streamlining of
activities" between the three bodies who had "mutually agreed to
l) carry out various functions ofUGC & AICTE mandated under
the Acts, as decided by the UGC and AICTE from time to time
jointly with Distance Education Council to ensure coordinated and
B
integrated development and maintenance of norms and standards
of technical and general education through distance and mixed
mode in any form and format in the country .... " The Joint
Committee was "to oversee the implementation of MoU and to
design action plan for approval and monitoring of institutions
offering technical programmes through distance and mixed mode" c
and applications for approval of programmes in distance and mixed
mode in the field of technical and general education were to be
submitted to the Secretary to the Joint Committee ....... .
15. Therefore, since the AICTE was a member of the Joint
Committee, the UGC considered approval from the Joint Committee D
as tantamount to approval from AICTE as well. As such, the
aforesaid Jetter dated 12.05.2008 from the UGC actually nullified
an earlier decision to accept the recommendation to grant ex-
pos! facto approval to JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth and other
institutions Deemed to be universities taken at the third meeting
of the Joint Committee ofUGC-AICTE. DEC held on 17.08.2007 E
as well as a letter dated 13.11.2007 issued by the UGC which
stated that, in light of the DEC's approval, "no separate approval
from UGC is required" by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth for courses
under distance education mode.
16. It is also pertinent to note that, subsequent to the UGC's letter F
dated 12.05.2008, the Joint Committee ofUGC-AICTE-DEC; or
UGC independently, did not accord any approval to these
institutions Deemed to be Universities for starting programmes
leading to the award of degrees in technical education through
ODL mode. Therefore, till date, the deemed universities, namely, G
JRNVidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan; Vinayaka Mission's Research
Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu; !ASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir,
Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and Allahabad Agriculture Research
Institute, Allahabad, U.P. have not been accorded the UGC's
approval for their ODL programmes leading to the award ofB.E./
B. Tech. degrees. H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A 17. In any event, vide letter dated 29.07.2009, the MHRD had
informed the erstwhile DEC that the latter "should immediately
withdraw permission given to various institutions to conduct
B.Tech/B.E. Programmes through Distance Mode and no student
should be admitted in the current year also. Those who have
already been admitted wiU have to pass both practical and written
B
examination as may be prescribed in this regard, so as to give
validity to the B. Tech/B.E. degree acquired by them through
distance education." Accordingly, the erstwhile DEC had issued
a letter dated 13.08.2009 stating that "the Joint Committee ofUGC-
AICTE and DEC has not yet accorded any approval to BE/B. Tech
c programme of any University offered through distance mode. Any
such programmes offered by a University are hence illegal and
are not approved by the DEC. Thus it is notified that the above
notification of the MHRD is to be strictly adhered to and no
University should offer any BE/B. Tech programme through
distance mode. Any deviation from this policy may invite de-
D
recognition of the concerned University by the DEC."
18. Thereafter, in 2010, the UGC framed the UGC (Institutions
Deemed to be Universities) Regulations (the "2010 Deemed
Universities Regulations"). As per Regulation 18.0 therein.

E "No institution Deemed to be university, so declared by
the central Government subsequent to these Regulations, shall
be allowed to conduct courses in the Distance mode. Also
such institutions declared as such, prior to these Regulations,
shall not be allowed to conduct courses in the Distance mode
from any ofits off-Campus Centre/Off-shore Campus approved
F subsequent to these Regulations."
25. The AICTE in its affidavit in reply referred to its Regulations
and Guidelines. Adverting to the decision in Bharathidasan (supra), it
was submitted that after said decision,

G " ...... only the "Technical Institutions" other than University were
required to have prior approval of the AICTE. However, the
universities which applied for approval of the AICTE on their
own, were considered for grant of approval as per norms and
standards of AICTE in force. At this stage, it is necessary to
clarify that the study centers and campuses of universities which
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 981
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

were not the constituent units of the universities, were required to A
have prior approval of the Council for conducting any technical
course or programme .... "
Further, reference was made to notification dated 05.04.2006
issued by MHRD, which inter alia dealt with the issues concerning
maintenance or standards of education in institutions notified as Deemed B
to be universities. The affidavit further stated that:
"That it is respectfully submitted that it has been the policy
ofAICTE not to recognize qualification acquired through Distance
Education mode at Diploma, Bachelors and Master level in the
fields of Engineering, Technology and Architecture, Town Planning, c
Pharmacy, Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Applied
Arts and Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management
(PGDM). AICTE has the policy to consideronly MBAand MCA
through Distance Mode for its recognition. In these circumstances,
the AICTE has been issuing public notices from time to time
informing the public and students regarding the above and D
specifically informing all the existing students/prospective students
pursuing/wanted to pursue any educational programme in the above
mentioned fields to check the approval by Joint Committee of
DEC, UGC and AICTE on AICTE's web-portal at www.aicte-
india.org.. It is respectfully submitted that AICTE has given E
various public notices in different newspapers regarding its
aforesaid policy from time to time as per AICTE Act.
That it is submitted that in view of the position explained
hereinabove, the conduct of a technical course through distance
education mode other than a course in MBA and MCA is not F
permissible. Thus, any technical course conducted by the technical
institutions including the institution Deemed to be university
concerned through distance education mode, except a course in
MBA and MCA, is contrary to the policy of the AICTE. Hence,
degrees or diplomas in technical course through distance education
mode other than a course in MBA and MCA awarded by the G
technical institutions including the institution Deemed to be
university cannot be treated valid degree or diploma.
That it is submitted that in the present matter, the Private
Respondent has obtained degree in Engineering from JRN
H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.

A Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, an institution Deemed to be University,
through Distance Education Mode and through study centers which
is not permissible as per the policy of the A!CTE. Thus, such
degree in Engineering awarded by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth,
an institution Deemed to be university, through distance mode is
not valid."
B
26. DEC having been dissolved in May 2013, we do not have its
stand on record but the stand ofMHRD in its affidavit is to the following
effect:
"VIL I further submit that upto year 2007 Distance Education
c Council (DEC) used to give recognition to institution offering
general courses in the distance mode but during that year, Distance
Education Council (DEC) also started giving recognition to such
institutions to conduct technical programmes under the distance
mode. This was in contradiction to policy adopted by AICTE
which makes it mandatory to conduct technical programmes
D through the regular (Conventional) mode of education. This
created confusion amongst the stakeholders which gave unfair
advantage to unscrupulous institutions conducting such courses in
the distance mode. Accordingly, a Tripartite Committee ofUGC-
AICTE-DEC was constituted through an MOU in May, 2007 for
E a limited period of three years.
VIII. In the meantime, on 19.02.2008 a meeting of Secretary,
Department of Higher Education, MHRD was held with the
Heads of UGC, AICTE, IGNOU and Joint Secretary (DL) to
discuss the issue of co-ordination and maintenance of standards
F in Higher Education through distance. In the said meeting, it was
inter alia decided that the approvals should be granted to the
courses and no to the institute. However, all those aforesaid
arrangements did not live to the expectations."
27. The stand taken by the Deemed to be Universities in their
G respective affidavits and the documents on record is as under:-
A. JRN was founded in the year 193 7, was conferred Deemed to
be University status in January 1987 and is principally engaged in
teaching and research in the field of adult and continuing education
for working people. Following averments made in paragraphs 22
and 23 of its affidavit are noteworthy:-
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 983
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

"22. That after permission from DEC the University started A
the Distance Education programmes through its Study Centres
as per the guidelines prescribed by the DEC and UGC. ON
26"' October2002 the Academic Council of the University took
the decision to start the Engineering Courses (in all branches)
amongst others through Distance Education Mode from
B
academic year 2003 onwards.
23. The Faculty of Engineering and Technology of the University
in the year 2003 when the University started it's Engineering
Courses through distance education mode. Since the University
did not conduct any course through foll time mode the University
did not seek any approval from AICTE and the same was not c
mandatory in view of this Judgment of the Hon'ble Court in
Bharathidasan 's case as well as provisions of the AICTE Act
that does not envisage University seeking any approval from
the AICTE to offer technical programs. Further as
communicated it also did not consider Technical programs D
under distance education program mode for approval, which
was later held to be contrary to national policy."
As regards, its activities in the field of technical education at its
main campus, it is averred:-
"(i) The Institute of Management Studies has been granted E
approval by the AICTE for the Masters in Business Admission
program (Full Time) from the year 1998-99 onwards and
granted extension till current academic session.
(ii) The Department of Computer Science and Information
Technology has been granted approval by the AICTE for F
conducting the Master in Computer Application (Full time)
from the Academic Year 2003-04 onwards granted extension
till current academic session.
(iii) The Faculty of Engineering and Technology has been granted
approval by the AICTE for conducting the under graduate G
courses in Engineering and Technology [Electronics and
Communication Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer
Science Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Electrical
Engineering] (Full time) from the Academic Year 2010-11
onwards and granted extension till current academic session.
H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.

A (iv) The Rajasthan Vidyapeeth Technology College has been
granted approval by the AICTE for conducting the Diploma
in Engineering and Technology (Electronics and
Communication Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer
Science & Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and
Electrical Engineering) Master in Computer Application (Full
B
time) from the Academic Year 2012-13 onwards and granted
extension till current academic session."
After dealing with factual details leading to the ex-post-facto
approvals by UGC and DEC, JRN submitted that no approval from
AlCTE was required for a Deemed to be University. However despite
c order dated 26.04.2017 passed by this Court, nothing was placed on
record as to what type of infrastmcture is available with JRN and what
was the methodology followed for monitoring standard of education
imparted in its Study Centres. In response to queries from the Court, it
was submitted across the bar that JRN was conducting distance education
D programmes through 660 Study Centres out of which four centres were
being maintained and managed by JRN while 656 centres were
autonomous institutions. Though Study Centres would in turn employ
demonstrators/lecturers, they were not on the payroll of JRN but course
material would be provided by JRN. Further, though Faculty in
Engineering was set up in the year 2003 there was no regular Engineering
E College at the main campus of JRN and said Faculty received AICTE
approval to conduct regular four year degree courses in Engineering
only from the year 2010 and at Study Centres no regular four year degree
courses in Engineering were being conducted but students having
diplomas in engineering would be given lateral entry at second year level.
F B. !ASE submitted an application on 19.12.2002 with DEC for
starting distance education programme, copy of which was also sent to
UGC. According to !ASE, since there was neither any denial nor any
objection from these authorities, it started conducting B.Tech programmes
through distance education mode in 2003. It is stated that !ASE stopped
G B. Tech courses from the year 2005 through distance education mode
though it continues to conduct diploma courses in engineering through
dist3nce mode. It is further stated that its regular Engineering College
started functioning at main campus from 2005 after getting recognition
from AICTE. Like JRN, JASE has also not placed on record any
material regarding infrastmcture and methodology for monitoring standard
H of education in its Study Centres.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 985
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

C. The stand ofVMRF is that it conducts only diploma courses A
through distance education mode and it does not grant any degree in
professional courses through distance education mode. It however
submitted that it is on par with State Universities and therefore entitled
to conduct distance education programmes across the Country.
28. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that B
the ex-post-facto approvals for their degree courses in Engineering were
sought by JRN and !ASE only in the year 2005 when they had already
begun their courses two to three years earlier. No inspection of their
facilities or infrastructure available at the site was conducted by any
authority and the only inspection that was done was confined to checking
the documents. Any approval granted without any inspection, satisfaction
c
and recommendation of the AICTE was meaningless. According to
him, even assuming that the principle laid down by this Court in
Bharthidasan (supra) was to apply to Deemed to be Universities as
well, the UGC guidelines themselves required the application to be in
terms of specifications of AICTE and therefore even if one were to D
accept that satisfaction of AICTE was not required under the AICTE
Act, the UGC guidelines did contemplate the same. In his submission,
the Deemed to be Universities in question admitted students, conducted
courses and granted degrees without any statutory approvals and in the
teeth of numerous public notices. In the face of such blatant misuse, the
E
grant of ex-post-facto approvals was not called for. In his note the learned
Amicus Curiae submitted:-
"The further issue that arises is as to whether in technical education
and other specialized fields, the non-involvement of technical I
specialized body is permissible or advisable. There is a difference
between open distance learning in general fields and those in F
specialized fileds. While in Bharathidasan (supra), this Court
has held that the AICTE has no power of granting approvals to
Universities, it nonetheless recognizes the significant role played
by the AICTE as a recommendatory I advisory body. This would
necessarily mean that before any approvals are given, AICTE G
recommendation for grant of such approval ought to be obtained.
An approval granted without an inspection, satisfaction and
recommendation of the AICTE is itself meaningless. Therefore,
while the judgment in Bharathidasan (supra) has excluded the
requirement of approvals fromAICTE, the approval of a university
H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A or course cannot be granted without the recommendation and
satisfaction of all relevant competent bodies. In other words, in
the case of distance learning education for general courses, the
approval of UGC and IGNOU are required and in the case of
specialized technical courses, the satisfaction and recommendation
of AICTE or such other specialized body would be additionally
B
~ailed for."

29. UGC in its Written Submissions submitted:-
a) 1985 UGC Regulations did not include education programmes
in technical subjects leading to award of B.E. or B .Tech. degrees.
c b) In Bharathidasan (supra), this Court was not concerned with
the question of regulatory framework of Open Distance Learning.
c) 2004 UGC Guidelines required submission of information
whether the existing and proposed course curriculum was as per UGC/
AICTE/DEC specifications and approval/accredited by concerned
D statutory council. Thus there was a specific role of AICTE in respect
of technical courses through distance learning.
d) Taking advantage of Notification of MHRD dated 01.03.1995,
the DEC started giving approvals without any proper mechanism in place
and since its approvals were not getting recognized, it mooted the idea
E of ex-post-facto approval. But stand of UGC was clear in letter dated
12.05.2008 that approvals granted by DEC (including ex-post-facto) must
be reviewed and approval be granted to the courses and not to the
institute.
e) After 12 .05 .2008, neither the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-
F DEC nor UGC independently accorded any approval to JRN, IASE,
VMRF and AAI for their distance learning programmes leading to the
award of B.E./B. Tech. degrees.
f) In any case, letter dated 29.07.2009 of MHRD was clear that
DEC should withdraw permissions granted for conducting B. Tech/B.E.
G programmes through distance learning. This was followed by UGC
letter dated 13.08.2009.
The specific submission was:-
" It is humbly submitted that so far as UGC is concerned,
B.E./B.Tech. degrees awarded by institutions Deemed to be
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 987
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

Universities through ODL mode without AICTE approval wiJJ A
not be treated as valid qualifications by the UGC.
The UGC has never given any ex-post-facto approval to
the aforesaid institutions which are "deemed universities" including
JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, although the erstwhile DEC has given
such approval to many universities/deemed universities including B
JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth.
The ex-post-facto approval relied upon by the petitioner JRN
Rajasthan were not unconditional but were subject to approval of
relevant statutory bodies or councils [which can only mean bodies
like AICTE and such other similar regulatory bodies] wherever c
necessary."
30. In its written submissions, JRN submitted:
l) 1985 UGC Regulations applied and covered degrees in
Engineering as weJJ, since Engineering is an applied branch of science.
D
2) JRN was granted permission by DEC to commence distance
education programmes on 26.09.2001 pursuant to its application dated
17.08.2001 and in its Hand-book issued in May, 2003 by DEC, JRN was
included in the list along with details of courses offered by it.
3) It applied for ex-post-facto approval pursuant to DEC E
advertisement dated 03.03.2004, providing details of the Faculty of
Engineering and other details as per proforma.
4) From 31.08.2005 to 2007 no fresh admissions were made in
distance education.
5) UGC granted ex-post-facto approval of 03.07.2006 for students F
admitted between June 200 I to August, 2005 which decision was later
ratified by the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC and ex-post-
facto approval was accorded on 29.08.2007.
6) In respect of academic session after 2007, provisional
recognition was granted by DEC on 08.10.2008. G
7) JRN did not take any admissions in Engineering Courses from
31.08.2009 till I l.10.2011 in view ofletter dated 26.08.2009 issued by
DEC.

H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 13 S.C.R.

A 8) It also referred to interim orders passed by High Court of
Judicature at Rajasthan which are referred to hereinabove in respect of
subsequent academic years.
9) JRN was declared to be a Deemed to be University for its
experience and expertise in the field of admission and continuing
B education, and its expertise in a System of methodology of education/
learning and not in a particular subject or discipline.
10) It commenced its courses in Engineering through distance
education mode in the year 2003 for people who were already employed
in technical fields and had previous technical qualifications but could not
apply further due to various restraints.
c 11) It established Faculty of Engineering although there is no
perquisite for a university to have a full time faculty in a particular subject
to start its course through distance education mode and there were no
circulars/notices issued by any statutory body prohibiting a University to
offer distance education courses in Engineering stream.
D 12) A Deemed to be University is not confined to a state or region
like university created by state legislatures and it can open Off-Centres/
Campus Centres in any part of India with the approval ofUGC. Similarly,
Study Centres for distance education can be established and maintained
or recognized in any part oflndia for the assistance of students enrolled
E in distance learning programmes.
13) It gave a list of 18 Deemed to be Universities having Off
Campus Centres in various parts of the country including three such
Deemed to be Universities having Off Shore Campus outside the country.
14) It then referred to judgment of this Court in Bharathidasan
F (supra) in support of the submission that Universities do not require any
approval from AICTE for conducting technical courses. It also relied
upon the judgment of Madras High Court in Satyabama lnstitllte of
Science & Technology v. Union ofIndia' which held that Universities
including Deemed to be Universities could start a department or
commence new courses or programmes in technical education without
G approval of AICTE. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Delhi
High Court in Sam Higginbottom Institute ofAgriculture, Technology
and Sciences v. University Grants Commission' to the effect that
7
2006 (3) MRJ 870
'W.P. (C) 486/2015 decided on 4.12.2015
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 989
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.)

there was no restriction on a Deemed to be University to start new A
course or department until UGC Regulations of 20 JO were issued.
Further reliance was placed on Association ofManagement ofPrivate
Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.' to the
effect that universities, its colleges and institutes were exempted from
seeking prior approval of AICTE.
B
31. Appearing for JRN, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior
Advocate submitted that in terms of the decisions of this Court in
Bharathidasan (supra) and Association of Management of Private
Colleges (supra) no operational control could be exercised by AICTE
over Universities including Deemed to be Universities. However some
sort of cooperation was certainly envisaged in Bharathidasan (supra) c
which was purely in the nature of advisory role for AICTE. He further
submitted that power of a Deemed to be University to start new courses
was unlimited and a Deemed to be University would be bound by
regulatory mechanism only in two ways:-
a. Its recognition as a Deemed to be University could be withdrawn D
if it was found to be not functioning within the limits, and
b. Regular inspections in terms of statute could be undertaken by
UGC though as a matter of fact these inspections never take
place.
E
According to him though there was no express empowerment
under any statute enabling a Deemed to be University to initiate various
courses and disciplines outside its area of excellence, there was no
negative mandate either and as an extension of this principle a Deemed
to be University could enter the field of distance education in any subject
or discipline. Mr. M.L. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for F
JASE made his submissions on similar lines. ·
Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. Jayant Bhushan and
Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior Advocates and other learned
Advocates led by Mr. Ashok Mahajan, learned Advocate, appearing for
various candidates adopted the submissions of Dr. Dhavan and Mr. G
Verma. In their submissions, the concerned candidate-in-service diploma
holders took admission to degree courses in Engineering and have
successfully completed such courses and advanced in life. They

'(20l3J s sec 211
H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A submitted that in any view of the matter the degrees obtained by these
candidates may not be nullified.
32. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for OL!C reiterated the stand of OLIC that the degrees in Engineering
obtained by concerned in-service diploma holders through distance
B education were invalid and as such no benefit ought to accrue to such
candidates. Similar submission was advanced by Mr. V. K. Bali, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for State of Punjab in matters arising from
the decision of 1.-jigh Court of Punjab and Haryana.
33. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
c appearing for UGC submitted that inclusive definition of"University" in
UGC Act was in a completely different and limited context and the idea
was essentially to recognize Deemed to be University for the purposes
of funding and that such Deemed to be University is not a University for
all purposes. Jn his submission, if such Deemed to be University is
desirous of starting any technical course it ought to obtain express approval
D from AICTE. He also placed reliance on Section 23 to submit that a
University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a
Provincial Act or a State Act alone is entitled to have the word
"University" associated with its name which again signified the distinction
between a University established or incorporated under a legislation as
E against a Deemed to be University.
34. Thus, we are principally concerned in the present matters
with questions regarding validity of degrees in Engineering awarded by
the concerned Deemed to be Universities in two periods. a) Where
students were admitted during 200 I to 2005 in respect of which ex-post-
F facto approval was granted; and b) In respect of students admitted by
JRN during 2007-08, 2008-09 and from 2011-l 2 onwards.
The crucial facts as they emerge from the narration in the
preceding paragraphs are:-
a) The concerned Deemed to be Universities namely AA!, JRN
G and !ASE started distance education programmes leading to degrees in
Engineering, outside their field of specialization. Such programmes were
started without taking any approval from UGC and/or AJCTE and when
there was no approved engineering college or faculty at their main
campus.
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 991
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

b) Further, such programmes were being conducted in Study A
Centres, majority of which were not maintained and managed by the
concerned Deemed to be Universities. The demonstrators/lecturers
employed at such Study Centres were not on the payroll of and were not
selected by such Deemed to be Universities.
c) Those Study Centres were not inspected at any stage, nor any B
facilities therein were assessed to see if they meet the standards
prescribed for imparting courses in Engineering. Similarly, no authority
had checked what kind of courses were being conducted nor was there
any inspection at the time the examinations were said to have been
conducted.
c
d) The Visiting Committee of DEC had visited the main campus
of the concerned Deemed to be Universities and seen the record but not
visited any Study Centres. No member or representative of AICTE
was part of such Visiting Committee, the report of which was simply
endorsed by the Joint Committee ofUGC-DEC-AICTE.
D
e) Under 1985 UGC Regulations, minimum of 180 actual leaching
days in an academic year with 40 clock hours every week are required
for courses leading to degrees of B.A.!B.Sc./B.Com. Assuming that
these Regulations apply to courses in Engineering, this requirement would
be more pronounced and crucial when courses leading to award of
degrees in Engineering are in issue. Such technological programmes by E
very nature require extensive practical training.
f) The application preferred by JRN for ex-post-facto approval
shows that its Study Centres for programmes leading to degrees in
Engineering were located in institutions which themselves were running
independent courses. If 180 actual teaching days with 40 clock hours F
per week is the requirement which must be satisfied by those institutions
for running their own courses, no scope is left for any outside institution
such as JRN forusing such facilities for imparting any courses in technical
education. If the facilities were sufficient to justify the independent
strength ofthose institutions, the additional burden caused by students of G
JRN could not possibly be accommodated.
g) The inspection to ensure maintenance of standards was
specifically contemplated under the Notification of MHRD issued on
05.04.2006. Para 10 of the Memorandum of Undertaking dated
10.05.2007 also spoke of inspection for the purposes of continuation/ H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 13 S.C.R.

A withdrawal of approval. In the teeth of these Policy statements, the
Joint Committee of AICTE-DEC-UGC endorsed its acceptance on
07.08.2007 without there being inspections at all.
h) Aforesaid aspects regarding complete absence of any inspection
become crucial particularly when communications of DEC and UGC
B issued from time to time highlighted complaints regarding those Deemed
to be Universities.
i) As far as second period is concerned, again no inspections, at
any stage, were carried out. The provisional approval dated 03.09.2007
by DEC was completely mechanical and the assertion therein that DEC
c would not insist on territorial jurisdiction, was against the mandate of
MHRD in its letter dated 29.07.2009 and of the decision in the ninth
meeting of the Joint Committee ofUGC-DEC-AICTE. The consequent
approval dated 13.11.2007 by UGC is equally mechanical and suffers
from same infirmity.

D j) Though decision was taken in the meeting held on 19.02.2008
to review cases of ex-post-facto approvals within a month, nothing was
done. In fact, the first communication thereafter was three months after
on 12.05.2008. It spoke nothing about review of ex-post-facto approval
already granted. At this juncture, the logical exercise ought to have
been to consider and assess the claim course-wise, cause inspections
E and see whether ex-post-facto approvals were rightly granted or not.
However, that was not to be.
k) On the other hand, UGC in its meeting of2 l.05.2008 went on
to ratify the decision of the Chairman to accord approval. At the same
time, in response to application dated 08.05.2008 by JRN, DEC went on
F to grant provisional recognition for the year 2008-09.
1) In spite of clear instructions by MHRD in its letter dated
29.07.2009 to withdraw permissions already given to conduct B.Tech/
B.E. programmes through distance education and not to admit students
for current year, no steps were undertaken to implement those directions
G and withdraw permissions already given.
m) Even after dissolution of DEC and Public Notice dated
27.06.2013 issued by UGC that no Deemed to be University would be
allowed to take courses through distance education, when JRN again
applied to UGC for grant of approval, no reply was given by UGC; on
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 993
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

which score JRN was able to get an interim order dated 26.l l.2013 A
from the High Court. As a matter of fact in the face of Regulation 18 of
20 I 0 UGC Regulations, such a request or application could never have
been considered.
n) Similar is the case with regard to interim orders dated
17.12.2015 and 15.09.2016. Thus JRN could continue admitting students B
despite aforementioned Policy statements, on the strength of interim
orders.
o) During this period, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide
its decision dated 06.11.2012 had already held the degrees in Engineering
awarded by Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode c
to be invalid. That decision was appealed against by students and JASE
but not by JRN. In any case, the Interim Order of this Court only protected
concerned students whose degrees stood invalidated.
p) lfinterim orders dated 26.l l.2013, 17.11.2015 and 15.09.2016
by one High Court could become a justification for continuing to conduct D
courses leading to degrees in Engineering through distance education
mode across the country, the final declaration issued by another High
Court on 06.11.2012 and the policy statements referred to earlier, had
greater binding force.
q) On one hand it was being proclaimed by the concerned E
authorities in their public notices like 27 .06.2008 and 27.06.2013 or policy
statements such as 20 I 0 UGC Guidelines that no Deemed to be University
will be allowed to conduct courses in distance education mode, and on
the other hand DEC kept granting provisional approval and UGC helped
the concerned Deemed to be University by its total inaction.
F
35. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the learned Amicus Curiae
is right in his submission that the ex-post facto approvals granted in the
present matters were completely opposed to the policy statements
governing the matters in issue. He is right that the concerned Deemed
to be Universities admitted students, conducted courses and granted
degrees in the absence of statutory approvals. It is, however, the G
submission of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate that a
Deemed to be University is entitled to start new courses in technical
education (including through distance education mode) in terms of law
laid down by this Court inBharathidasan (supra) and that there was no
bar or prohibition in any statute or statutory instrument when the Deemed
H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A to be Universities started the instant courses in distance education mode.
According to him, the inspections could of course be undertaken by
UGC in terms of the Statute and if no inspections, as a matter of fact
were conducted, the Deemed to be Universities could not be at fault.
The following questions, therefore, arise for our consideration.
B A. Whether the concerned Deemed to be Universities in the
present case, could start courses through distance education in
subjects leading to award of degrees in Engineering -
a) Without any parameters or Guidelines having been laid down
by AICTE for conduct of such courses in technical education
c through distance education mode.
b) Without prior approval under the AICTE Act.
B. Whether DEC, on its own, was competent to grant permission
to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to start such courses
through distance education.
D
36. The definition of"Technical Education" in Section 2(g) of the
AICTE Act shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of education,
research and training in Engineering Technology in general and the idea
is not limited to the institutions where such programmes of education,
research and training are to be conducted or imparted. However, the
E definition of'Technical Institution" in Section 2(h) leaves out an institution
which is a University. The distinction between the broader concept of
"Technical Education" and the limited scope of"Technical Institution" is
clear from Section I 0 of the AlCTE Act where certain functions concern
the broader facets or aspects of technical education which by very nature
must apply to every single institution (whether university or not) where
F
such courses are conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain
functions are relatable to technical institutions alone, which by definition
are not applicable to universities. For example, Functions in sub-clauses
(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (I) and (n) are concerned with broader facets of
technical education, while functions in Clauses (k), (m), (p) and (q) deal
G with matters concerning technical institutions and thus may not apply to
universities, whereas there are certain functions as set out in Clauses
(g) and (o) which apply to both "Technical Institutions" and "Universities"
imparting technical education. Clauses (c), (d) and (f) of Section 10
deal with subjects, inter alia, coordination of the technical education in
the country at all levels; promoting innovation, research, development,
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 995
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

establishment of new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation A
of new technologies to meet the developmental requirements; and
promoting and effecting link between technical education and systems
and other relevant systems. AICTE is thus the sole repository of power
to lay down parameters or qualitative norms for "technical education".
What should be course content, what subjects be taught and what should
B
be the length and duration of the courses as well as the manner in which
those courses be conducted is a part of the larger concept of"technical
education". Any idea or innovation in that field is also a part of the
concept of"technical education" and must, as a matter of principle, be
in the exclusive domain of AICTE.
37. In Bharathidasan (supra) the issue was whether a University C
established under a State Law, within its area of operation, was entitled
to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University
itself without any approval of AICTE. The requirement of grant of
approval under Section 10( 1)(k) of the AICTE Act being specific in
respect of technical institutions alone, the conclusion was arrived at that D
theAICTE could not insist upon such grant of approval when a University
wished to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the
University itself. The discussion inBharathidasan shows that this Court
accepted the role of AICTE in laying down norms and standards in
technical education system which is evident from following portions from
paragraph Nos. I 0 and 16. E

"10 .................. A careful scanning-through of the provisions
of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in
juxtaposition, will show that the role of A!CTE vis-a-vis the
universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor
and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate F
standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered
to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a
report to UGC for appropriate action ..................... .
16 ............ We also place on record the statement of the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant, which, in our view, even otherwise G
is the correct position of law, that the challenge of the appellant
with reference to the Regnlation in question and claim of AICTE
that the appellant University should seek and obtain prior approval
of AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or
programme in technical education does not mean that they have
H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid
down by AICTE for the purpose of ensuring coordinated and
integrated development of technical education and maintenance
of standards ............. "
38. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in
B Engineering consists of imparting oflessons in theory as well as practicals.
The practicals form the backbone of such education which is hands-on
approach involving actual application of principles taught in theory under
the watchful eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting
of knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes.
The practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the technical education
c system. If this established concept of imparting technical education as a
qualitative norm is to be modified or altered and in a given case to be
substituted by distance education learning, then as a concept the AICTE
ought to have accepted it in clear terms. What parameters ought to be
satisfied if the regular course of imparting technical education is in any
D way to be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to decide. The decision
must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely because
of absence of any Guidelines in the matter. No such decision was ever
expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it has always maintained that
courses leading to degrees in Engineering cannot be undertaken through
distance education mode. Whether that approach is correct or not is not
E the point in issue. For the present purposes, if according toAICTE such
courses ought not to be taught in distance education mode, that is the
final word and is binding - unless rectified in a manner known to law.
Even National Policy on Education while emphasizing the need to have
a flexible, pattern and programmes through distance education learning
F in technical and managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTE
will be responsible for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms
and standards including maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring
coordinated and integrated development of technical and management
education. In our view whether subjects leading to degrees in
Engineering, could be taught in distance education mode or not is within
G the exclusive domain of the AICTE. The answer to the first limb of the
first question posed by us is therefore clear that without the Guidelines
having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree
courses in Engineering through distance education mode, the Deemed
to be Universities were not justified in introducing such courses.
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 997
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

39. We now move to the second limb of the first question. Under A
1994 AICTE, Regulations, "no courses or programmes shall be
introduced by any Technical Institution, University including a Deemed
University or University Department on College except with the approval
of the Council". Bharathidasan (supra) declared said Regulation to
the extent.it required a University to have approval for introducing any
B
courses or programmes in technical education, to be bad. Same thought
was amplified in Association of Management of Private Colleges
(supra) to say that affiliated colleges of the University were entitled to
the same protection. The question is, whether a Deemed to be University
is also entitled to the same protection. The matter can be considered
under two categories:- c
a. The first category could be of a Deemed to be University,
which was conferred such status for its excellence in a field of
technological subject, is now desirous of introducing courses or
programmes integrally connected with the area- in respect of
which it was conferred Deemed to be University status. For D
example, an Engineering College which because of its excellence
in the field was conferred Deemed University status, now wishes
to introduce courses in subjects like Robotics or Nano Technology
which are Engineering subjects and integrally connected with its
own field of excellence.
E
b. The second category could be of a Deemed to be University
which was conferred such status for its excellence in subjects
which are completely un-related to the field in which new courses
are sought to be introduced. For example an Institution engaged
in teaching Fine Arts and Music, for its excellence in that chosen
field- or for that matter an institution engaged in teaching Law F
had been conferred such status. Can such a Deemed to be
University claim immunity from regulatory control of AICTE and
say that it is entitled, as a matter of right, to introduce courses in
Engineering on the strength of the decision of this Court in
Bharathidasan. G
We are concerned in the present cases with the second category
of Deemed to be Universities. In the present cases, none of the Deemed
to be Universities was conferred such status for its excellence in the
field of Engineering. Their fields were completely un-related. As a
matter of fact, JRN and !ASE did not even have regular college or
H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A faculty for Engineering at its main campus. And yet, they started courses
in Engineering through distance education mode without the approval of
AICTE, relying on the dictum in Bharathidasan. According to Dr.
Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate, they were entitled as a matter
of right to start such courses.
B 40. The affidavit of Dr. Ved Prakash as referred to hereinabove
as well as the stand ofUGC and the submissions made by Mr. Maninder
Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General make it clear that such Deemed
Universities in the second category mentioned above are not entitled, as
a matter of right, to introduce courses leading to degrees in Engineering
without the approval of A!CTE. According to the submission of the
c learnedAdditional Solicitor General, the conferral of status is only because
of excellence in a particular field or subject which then entitles the
Deemed to be University to utilise its excellence to conduct research
and achieve advancement in that field. However merely because such
status was conferred on the concerned institution, in his submission, would
D not entitle it to similar protection in the second category cases, as available
to a University by virtue of the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan
(supra).
41. Paras 1 and 2 of Bharathidasan (supra) show that the
University constituted under the State law had its area of operation
E over three Districts of Tamil Nadu and by virtue of such State law could
provide among other things, instructions and training in such
branches of learning as it may determine. The express grant or
empowerment thus came from the State enactment to enter into any
field of learning as it may determine and introduce new courses in that
behalf. However the University would be bound by territorial restrictions,
F in that it could not go beyond the territory of three Districts over which
it was given Jurisdiction. But if we accept the submission of Dr. Rajeev
Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate, there would be no such territorial
restrictions on a Deemed University and it could open new departments,
introduce new courses in any field anywhere in the Country. By way of
G illustration, we can consider the case ofa private institution affiliated to
a University such as Bharathidasan University, which after some length
of time is conferred Deemed to be University status for excellence
achieved by such private institution, say in the field ofadult education.
If we accept the submission of Dr. Dhavan, upon such conferral of
Status as Deemed to be University, this originally affiliated private
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 999
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.)

institution can now introduce any courses in technical education anywhere A
in the Country but the original University would be bound by territorial
restriction.
42. The grant or empowerment inBharathidasan (supra) in favour
of the University in question came from the State enactment which was
its Charter. There is no such Charter or grant in favour of a Deemed to B
be University under any provision of the UGC Act. All that the UGC
Act does is to confer Deemed to be University status on an Institution
which has achieved excellence in its chosen field so that its development
in the concerned field and its attempts to attain excellence and conduct
research are not hampered on any count and at the same time it could
be extended the facilities ofAid. It is precisely for this that the distinction
c
between a regular University established under a Central Act, a Provincial
Act or a State Act and an Institution Deemed to be University is
maintained in the UGC Act. A Deemed to be University can certainly
award degrees but cannot use the word "'University" by virtue of Section
23 of the UGC Act. Even after conferral of such status it still continues D
to be "an Institution Deemed to be University" and if it is equated with a
University in every sense of the term it would lead to incoherent and
incongruous results, in that its area of operation or the field of its activity
would be completely unlimited and unregulated. In our view that is
certainly not the intent of the UGC Act.
E
43. Conceptually there is some difference between the status of
a University established under· a State law and that of a Deemed to be
University. Normally, a University is established with an idea that
particular areas or districts of the State need to be catered to. Such
University is expected to satisfy the needs or aspirations of people in the
area for education and correspondingly empowered to initiate new courses, F
keeping in tune with the needs of time. The expectations from a Deemed
to be University are of a different dimension. What is expected is
excellence, research and advancement in its chosen field for which such
status was accorded. There is no embargo on such Deemed to be
University in entering new areas of education or introducing new courses G
but in that case, it can't demand or receive complete relaxation from
regulatory regime. It must satisfy all those requirements which a normal
institution is required to. The stand taken by the UGC in the affidavit of
Dr. Ved Prakash, as well as its submissions in our view, are correct and
we reject the submission of Dr. Dhavan. The logical conclusion is that
H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.

A a Deemed to be University in the second category mentioned hereinabove
is still an institution of the stature of a "technical institution" and if it
desires to introduce new courses it must fulfill the requirements of 1994
AICTE Regulations. A Deemed to be University which has achieved
excellence in a particular field may be given deferential treatment but
nonetheless it has to satisfy the requirements for new technical institution.
B
Pertinently, both JRN and JASE, while establishing their faculty or
colleges in engineering at their main Campus sought approvals from
AICTE. Further, even for introducing courses in management which
come under the definition of technical education under the AICTE Act,
appropriate permissions were sought from AICTE. We therefore
c conclude that the Deemed to be Universities in the present case were
required to abide by the provisions of 1994 AICTE Regulations and could
not introduce courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering without
the approval of AICTE. 1994 AICTE Regulations or any subsequent
Regulations will have to be understood in the light of our decision.
D 44. Para 3 of the notification dated22.l 1.1991 which constituted
DEC shows that there was no representation for any Member or
representative of AICTE. The provisions of IGNOU Act show that the
Study Centres as defined in the !GNOU Act are that of IGNOU and not
of any other University or Institution. The concept of distance education
under sub-clause (v) of Section 5 is also in relation to the academic
E programmes of!GNOU. It undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii),
(xiii) and (xxiii) to cooperate with other Universities but the IGNOU Act
nowhere entitles IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of the entire
field of distance education ofleaming across the Country and in relation
to programmes of other Universities or Institutions as well. The Order
F dated 29.12.2012 issued by MHRD therefore correctly appreciated that
DEC created under statute 28 oflGNOlJ Act could not act as a regulator
for other Universities. In any event of the matter, the policy Guidelines
issued from time to time made it abundantly clear that DEC alone was
not entitled to grant permission for open distance learning and appropriate
permissions from the requisite authorities were always required and
G insisted upon. Despite such policy statements, DEC went on granting
permissions without even consulting AICTE. Such exercise on part of
DEC was completely without jurisdiction.
45. It was laid down by this Court in Annamalai University v.
Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 1001
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

and Others 10 that no relaxation could be granted in regard to the basic A
things necessary for conferment for a degree and if a mandatory provision
is not complied with by an administrative authority, the action would be
void. This leads us to conclude that the permissions granted by DEC in
the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities in question to
introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in engineering were
B
illegal and opposed to Law. The illegality in the exercise of power was
to such an extent that it could not be cured by ex post facto approvals
granted later. We have also seen that the exercise of grant of ex post
facto approvals, as a matter of fact, was only superficial and perfunctory.
Such exercise was done in the face of declared policy statements
governing the field and even when specific complaints were received c
about concerned Deemed to be Universities. Yet, without causing any
inspection such power was exercised which part is already dealt with
and the exercise of power has been found by us to be suffering from
illegality and infirmity. The only thing in favour of the concerned Deemed
to be Universities is the fact that the Joint Committee ofUGC-AICTE
D
- DEC had endorsed the decision though such exercise was also
completely flawed. That exercise was against Para 10 of the MoU
dated 10.05.2007, which contemplated causing of inspections and the
decision dated 11.05.2007 of the Joint Committee itself that for an
Institution/University to offer distance education programmes it was
mandatory to offer the same in face to face mode. E
46. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-facto
approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal
circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex-post-facto
approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees
granted in pursuance thereof in respect of Courses leading to award of F
degrees in Engineering. However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves
had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply
for ex-post-facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with
some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled
during the academic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot
wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universities G
flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience
and started conducting courses through distance education system
illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned students persuades

"(2009) 4 sec s90
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in
pursuance of said ex-post-facto approval. However, the fact remains
that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were never
checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this
length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence
and assurance about the worthiness of the concerned students. We,
B
therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned
students to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf.
We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students
who were enrolled during the academic years 200 I to 2005 shall stand
suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of
c AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single
advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.
47. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the
date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in
written examination as well as in practicals for the concerned students
D admitted during the academic sessions 200 l-2005 covering all the
concerned subjects. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come
out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that
behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in
respective States wherever the students are located. The choice may
be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should
E be conducted during May-June, 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may
determine. Not more than two chances be given to the concerned
students and if they do not pass the test/tests their degrees shall stand
recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear
in the test/tests, the entire money deposited by such student towards
F tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the
concerned Deemed to be University within a month of the exercise of
such option. The students be given time till 15'" of January, 2018 to
exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/
tests in respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be
recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018.
G If they clear the lest/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages
or benefits shall be restored to the concerned candidates. We make it
clear at the cost of repetition that if the concerned candidates do not
clear the test/tests within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at
the test/tests, their degrees in Engineering through distance education
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 1003
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]

shall stand recalled and cancelled. It goes with out saying that any A
promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall
also stand withdrawn, however any monetary benefits or advantages in
that behalf shall not be recovered from them.
48. As regards the students who were admitted after the ex-post-
facto approval granted in favour of such Deemed to be Universities, in B
our view, there was no sanction whatsoever for their admission. The
Policy Statements as well as warnings issued from time to time were
absolutely clear. The students were admitted on the strength either
provisional recognition or on the strength of interim orders passed by the
High Court. We therefore, declare that in respect of students admitted
after the academic sessions of 2001-2005, the degrees in Engineering c
awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through Distance
Education Mode shall stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. Any
benefit which a candidate has secured as a result of such degrees in
Engineering in the nature of promotion or advancement in career shall
also stand recalled. However, if any monetary benefit was derived by D
such candidates that monetary benefit or advantage will not be recovered
by the concerned departments or employers. We, further direct that
the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be
Universities towards tuition fee and all other expenditure for such courses
through distance education learning shall be returned by the concerned
Deemed to be Universities to the respective students. This direction E
shall be complied with by the concerned Deemed to be Universities
scrupulously and the amounts shall be returned by 31" of May, 2018 and
an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a
week thereafter.
49. The factual narration mentioned hereinabove makes certain F
things distinctly clear. The affidavit of Mr. Ved Prakash discloses how
permissions were granted to introduce courses in the present cases
without any authority. On one hand, the authorities were proclaiming
their policy statements and on the other, despite there being complaints,
they went about granting permissions. Their conduct and approach is G
difficult to explain on any rational basis and leaves much to be desired.
We are, prima facie of the view that the conduct of the concerned officials
needs to be looked into and investigated whether the exercise of power
by them was completely genuine or colourable. We do not express any
final opinion in that behalf but direct the CBI to carry out thorough
H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A investigation into the matter and to take appropriate steps after culmination
thereof.
50. The record further shows that time and again warnings were
issued to the concerned Deemed to be Universities. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan,
learned Senior Advocate is right in his submission that ifa Deemed to be
B University is not to be found functioning within the limits, its recognition
as Deemed to be University could be withdrawn. In our view, the
concerned Deemed to be Universities had gone far beyond their limits
and to say the least, had violated binding policy statements. Even when
they did not have any experience in the concerned field and had no
regular faculty or college in Engineering, they kept admitting students
c through distance education mode. When there was nothing at the core,
the expansion was carried at the tertiary levels in brazen violation. The
idea was not to achieve excellence in the field but the attempts appear
to be guided by pure commercial angle. We therefore, direct the UGC
to consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by the
D concerned institutions, namely, JRN, AA!, JASE and VMRF calls for
any such withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf. If the
concerned Deemed to be Universities fail to return the moneys to the
concerned students as directed above, that factor shall also be taken
into account while conducting such exercise.

E 5 l. We must also put on record what we have observed during
the course of the hearing and consideration of the present matters. It
has come to our notice that many institutions which are conferred the
status of Deemed to be Universities are using the word "University",
which in our view is opposed to the spirit ofSection23 of the UGCAct.
The UGC shall take appropriate steps to stop such practice.
F
52. The present case shows the extent of commercialization of
education by some of the Deemed Universities. The commercialization
of education seriously affects creditability of standards in education,
eroding power and essence of knowledge and seriously affecting
excellence and merit. The present case further displays lack of effective
G oversight and regulatory mechanism for the Deemed to be Universities.
The UGC had completely failed to remedy the situation. Serious question
has therefore arisen as to the manning of the UGC itself for its effective
working. We have already found that facilities at Study Centres were
never checked nor any inspections were carried out which has led us to
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 1005
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

direct suspension of degrees for the students enrolled during academic A
sessions 2001-2005 and annulment of degrees of students admitted after
academic sessions of 2001-2005. We have also found that there was
complete and flagrant violation of norms and policies laid down by the
authorities by the Deemed to be Universities. AICTE had been illegally
kept out.
B
Thus, interest ofjustice requires that the following issues also need to be
addressed:
(i) Action for failure of system, inter alia, on account of misconduct
of some of the functionaries who failed to uphold the law and
granted approvals contrary to the policy and the rules; c
(ii) Manning of the UGC;
(iii) Appropriate oversight and regulatory mechanism especially
for distance education degrees especially those relating to
technical education by the Deemed to be Universities in future;
D
(iv) Review of the Deemed to be Universities status granted to
the Deemed to be Universities in the past in the light of this
Judgment and in the light of their working; and
The above issues need immediate steps to be taken by the Union
of India. Review of oversight and regulatory mechanism is of utmost
E
priority for the future of technical and professional education at the hands
of Deemed Universities. In this regard, we may note the observations
of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Modern Dental College and
Research Centre and others v. State ofMadhya Pradesh and others 11
highlighting need for review of regulatory mechanism for medical
admissions and profession. We also note the observations in Mahipal F
Singh Rana, Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh" with regard to legal
profession.
53. Accordingly we direct:
I 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities
and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not G
justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education
without the approval of AICTE.

11
(2016) 7 SCC 353 -Paras 86 to 92, 108 IO 111
12 (2016) 6 sec 335 H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R.

A lI Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions
200 l-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted
by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside.
Ill Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in
Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities
B stand suspended.
IV The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an
appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option
be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended
by 15.0l.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in
C accordance with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be
given not more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do
not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, their
degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand
withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and 47 above. The entire
expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be recovered from
D the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018.
V Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be
refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and
other charges within one month of the exercise of such option.
Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all
E advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para
47.
VI If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time,
all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their
degrees will stand revived fully.
F
VII As regards students who were admitted after the Academic
Sessions 200 l-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the
concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education
mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits
secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in
G Para 48 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students
to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees
and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed
to be Universities by 3l.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48.

H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 1007
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

VIII By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities A
shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate
affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week
thereafter.
IX We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the
conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and B
went about the granting permissions against the policy statement,
as indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions
who abused their position to advance their commercial interest
illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after
culmination of such investigation.
c
X The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be
University status enjoyed by JRN, AA!, JASE and VMRF calls
for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by
30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above
are not refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be
taken into account while conducting such exercise. D

XI We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any
courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session
2018-2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct
such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions
are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in E
respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus
Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found
adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals
have to be course specific.
XII The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and F
implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be
Universities from using the word 'University' within one month
from today.
XIII The Union of India may constitute a three members
Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high G
positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or
law at national level within one month. The Committee may
examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for
strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism

H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 13 S.C.R.

A in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six
months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism
to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India
may examine the said report and take such action as may be
considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an
affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 31,
·s
2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect
on 11.09.2018.
54. Before we part, we express our sincere appreciation for the
efforts put in by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae. We are
extremely grateful for the assistance rendered by him. We are also
c thankful for the assistance given by all the learned counsel.
55. We thus accept the view taken by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh and set aside the decision of the High Court
of Orissa. With the aforementioned observations, appeals are disposed
of. No order as to costs. No orders are called for in.Contempt Petition
D Nos.194-19712016 which stands disposed of.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.