Holding

Degrees awarded by TIET, Patiala through distance mode without prior AICTE and UGC approval are invalid and cannot be recognised.

Summary

The petitioners, 92 diploma‑holding professionals, were admitted to B.Tech. programmes offered by Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (TIET), Patiala, through open and distance learning. TIET had obtained only provisional recognition from the Distance Education Council (DEC) but no prior approval from the University Grants Commission (UGC) or the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The petitioners sought a declaration that their degrees were valid and should be treated on par with regular degrees. The Court examined the statutory framework – the UGC Act, 1956; the AICTE Act, 1989; and the 2004 UGC‑AICTE guidelines – which mandate that any technical course offered by distance mode must obtain prior approval from both UGC and AICTE. Relying on the earlier judgments in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited‑I & II and related precedents, the Court held that TIET’s distance‑mode B.Tech. courses were commenced without the requisite approvals, rendering the degrees invalid. The Court dismissed the writ petition, offering no relief to the petitioners.

Issues considered

Whether B.Tech. degrees awarded by a deemed university through distance mode without prior AICTE and UGC approval are valid and recognisable.
Whether provisional recognition by the DEC suffices in lieu of AICTE and UGC approvals.
Whether the ex‑post‑facto approval provision in the 2004 Guidelines applies to the degrees in question.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief granted in the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation cases.

Legislation cited

All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1989s. 10, s. 20, s. 2(g), s. 2(h)
University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 12, s. 20, s. 22, s. 3

Subjects

distance educationtechnical educationAICTE approvalUGC approvaldeemed universityB.Tech degree validityregulatory compliancehigher education law

Judgment

[2019] 12 S.C.R. 1 1

VINIT GARG AND OTHERS A
v.
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1510 of 2018)
AUGUST 29, 2019 B
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Institutions offering
technical education programme through distance learning mode –
Approval of University Grants Commission (UGC) and All India
C
Council for Technical Education (AICTE) – Requirement of – Held:
UGC and AICTE, among other statutory regulators, have been vested
with the powers to regulate technical courses imparted through
distance learning mode – It is mandatory for institutions imparting
technical education programme through distance learning mode to
seek approval and recognition of UGC and AICTE – All India D
Council for Technical Education Act, 1989.
Education/Educational Institutions: College admission –
Institutions offering technical education programme through
distance learning mode – Approval of UGC and AICTE –
Requirement of – On facts, petitioners- diploma holders in technical E
field, working with the government, selected for the B.Tech. degree
course through the distance mode programme conducted by
Institute-TIET(deemed to be University) – Said Institute was granted
provisional recognition by Distance Education Council (DEC) to
start the course for one year – On the basis thereof, TIET offered F
B.Tech. degree to working professionals who had a diploma and
two years’ experience in the respective branches in engineering in
the academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09 – Petitioners took
admission believing that all approvals were in place – Writ petition
by petitioners seeking clarification that the B.Tech degrees acquired G
by them through distance learning mode from TIET are valid,
recognised and to be treated at par with degrees granted to regular
students – Refusal by UGC to treat the said degrees as valid since
the said courses were conducted without the approval of UGC and
AICTE – Held: Approval of UGC and AICTE was not obtained by
H
1
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A TIET which was held mandatory in Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Limited-I case – Petitioners and TIET misconstrued
the judgment in Orissa Lift-I case – They overlooked several
developments, correspondence, policy decisions and notification
noticed in Orissa Lift-I case– Furthermore, provisional recognition
B by the DEC was contrary to the law – Government had held that the
unilateral approvals of the DEC were invalid – In view thereof,
TIET not competent to award graduation degrees in technical courses
via distance mode.
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I’s case –
C Enunciation of dictum – Explained and clarified – Held: Approval
of the AICTE and UGC mandatory for starting the technical
education courses through distance learning mode.
University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Purpose of
enactment – Stated.
D
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Approval of AICTE was mandatory for starting
the Bachelor of Technology courses. Approval of the AICTE was
not obtained by TIET, Patiala. [Para 11][17-C]
E 1.2 Paragraph 4 of the ‘Guidelines for Establishing New
Departments Within the Campus, Setting Up of Off–Campus
Centre(s)/Institution(s)/Off–Shore Campus and Starting Distance
Education Programmes by the Deemed Universities’, issued by
the UGC makes it crystal clear that post the 2004 Guidelines,
F every deemed to be university would require approvals of the
UGC and DEC, for starting any degree course through open and
distance learning mode. The condition of approval was mandatory.
It is not the case of the petitioners or TIET, Patiala that the latter
had taken prior approval of the UGC for the B.Tech. degrees
G obtained through distance learning mode. Paragraph 5 relates to
ex–post facto approval of the UGC/DEC for continuation of
distance education programmes/study centres started without
specific approval of the UGC/DEC. Paragraph 5 is not applicable
in the instant case as the degree courses were started post
H enactment of the 2004 Guidelines. [Para 12][18-A-C]
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 3
COMMISSION AND OTHERS

1.3 The petitioners and TIET, Patiala misconstrued A
paragraph 49 of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I. The
said paragraph refers to the 1994 Regulations issued by the
AICTE under which no courses or programmes could be
introduced by any technical institution/ university, including a
deemed university or a university department or college, except B
with approval of the AICTE. Paragraph 49 deals with universities
including deemed to be universities imparting higher education
for degree courses/programmes through regular mode. This
paragraph does not specifically deal with or confer any right upon
the deemed to be universities to start distance education courses, C
even if integrally connected with the approved regular courses.
The foregoing analysis becomes clear when Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Limited-I is read in its entirety, particularly the
immediately preceding paragraph, i.e. paragraph 48, wherein it
has been specifically stipulated and mandated that whether
D
subjects leading to degrees in engineering would be taught in
distance education mode or not is within the exclusive domain of
the AICTE. Thus, in view of the statutory provisions and lack of
prior approval of the UGC or AICTE, TIET, Patiala was not
competent to award graduation degrees in technical courses via
distance mode. [Para 13–15][19-C-D; 20-A-D] E

1.4 The plea that the petitioners are entitled to relief as
was granted to the petitioners in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
Limited I and II is rejected since no relief was granted to the
candidates who had taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. Relief
F
in the form of one–time relaxation vide examination to be
conducted by the AICTE was granted to those candidates/
students who had taken admission in academic years beginning
from 2001 and till 2004–2005. [Para 18][22-G-H]
1.5 TIET, Patiala in their additional affidavit have referred G
to the correspondence with the DEC expressing their desire to
start B.Tech. courses in Civil Engineering/Computer Sciences
and Engineering/Electrical Engineering/Mechanical Engineering
through distance learning programme, vide their letter dated
17th May, 2006 and reply of the DEC vide its letter dated 16th
H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A June, 2006 that such approvals can only be granted after
evaluation of the course material by an expert committee and for
which TIET, Patiala should apply in the prescribed format with
requisite fee. Thereupon, TIET, Patiala had submitted an
application in the required format and an expert committee
B constituted by the Chairman of the DEC had evaluated
infrastructure and other services etc., provided by TIET, Patiala.
The expert committee, which included the Director, School of
Engineering and Technology, IGNOU, gave a favourable report
subsequent to which the letter of provisional recognition dated
C 31st August, 2007 was issued by the DEC permitting TIET, Patiala
to start the course. Reference was also made to the press note
dated 23 rd May, 2007 released by Press Information Bureau,
Government of India, which had published a list of universities
including deemed to be universities offering distance education.
This list also included TIET, Patiala. [Para 19][23-A-D]
D
1.6 The petitioners also relied upon letter dated 3 rd
September, 2007 written to TIET, Patiala by the DEC providing
them provisional recognition for one year in programmes offered
through distance mode. The said letter states that TIET, Patiala
E had made an application to the DEC requesting for recognition
of programmes offered through distance mode and that they had
been granted provisional recognition for offering such
programmes. The letter records that an application was submitted
by TIET, Patiala but no specific reference was made to the
programmes or courses offered nor the date when the application
F
was filed is indicated. The letter also does not refer to approval
by the AICTE or UGC. It had further required TIET, Patiala to
submit a fresh application for the next academic year from June–
July 2008. [Para 20][23-E; 24-G-H]

G 1.7 The 2004 Guidelines issued by the UGC and the AICTE
Act hold that TIET, Patiala had failed to take their prior approval
before starting B. Tech. degree courses through distance
education mode. Provisional recognition by the DEC being
contrary to the law would not matter for at best the DEC would
be equally guilty for violating the law in terms of 2004 Guidelines
H
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 5
COMMISSION AND OTHERS

issued by the UGC and the AICTE Act. In terms of the said A
notification issued by the Government of India on 1st March 1995
quoted in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I on distance
education programme by deemed to be universities etc. also
approval of the AICTE was required. [Para 21][25-A-C]
1.8 TIET, Patiala accepts that no approval, provisional or B
otherwise, was granted for the next academic year, i.e. June–
July 2008, yet B.Tech. degree programmes through distance
mode for the academic year June–July 2008 were offered by TIET,
Patiala contrary to the statutes and law. TIET, Patiala, to justify
admissions in the academic year 2008–2009 in their additional C
affidavit, have referred to correspondence and submission of
application to the UGC for offering B. Tech. degree courses
through distance education programme for the academic session
i.e. 2008–2009. This is surprising as TIET, Patiala had not applied
to the UGC for the previous academic session i.e. 2007–2008. D
Thereafter, the additional affidavit refers to correspondence
exchanged between the DEC and TIET, Patiala pursuant to which
a Joint Expert Committee was constituted comprising of members
of the UGC, DEC and AICTE to assess the administration and
management of distance learning programmes offered by TIET, E
Patiala, which panel had visited their premises on 2nd June, 2009
and had recommended the recognition of as many as seven
programmes for a period of five years. However, the Central
Government had, in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the
UGC Act and in terms of a policy decision, issued a notification
F
on 29th July, 2009 that the B.Tech. degrees would not be offered
through open distance learning programme. In view of this policy
decision, the DEC had to immediately withdraw the permission
to various institutions to conduct B.Tech. degree courses through
distance education mode and no further student was admitted in
the current year and thereafter. However, the notification states G
that those who had already been admitted would have to pass
practicals and written examination as may be prescribed so as to
obtain the B.Tech. degrees through distance education.
[Para 22, 23][25-F-H; 26-A-D]
H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A 1.9 The submission/contention of the petitioners and TIET,
Patiala completely overlooks several developments,
correspondence and policy decisions taken which have been
noticed in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I,
particularly the notification issued by the AICTE on 28 th
B November, 2005 clearly stating that no technical institution of
the Government/Government aided/private institution, whether
affiliated or not to any University, shall start new courses or
increase the intake for the same without approval of the AICTE.
Notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resource
C Development, Government of India on 5th April, 2006 in exercise
of powers vested in the Central Government under Section 20(1)
of the UGC Act and Section 20(1) of the AICTE Act had clarified
the role of the UGC and AICTE for maintaining standards of
education and that the deemed to be universities are required to
maintain minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE for various
D
courses within the jurisdiction of the said Council. This was
followed by a joint public notice issued by the AICTE, UGC and
DEC on 4th February, 2007. The public notice had cautioned that
the universities/ institutions/deemed to be universities offering
technical education programme through distance education mode
E without approval of concerned statutory authorities were doing
so in contravention of the law and would be treated severely.
The last sentence of the notification had made it clear that in
addition to the concerned statutory councils, all courses and the
programmes offered for study in distance mode would require
F approval of the DEC. A memorandum of understanding was
arrived at on 10th May, 2007 among the UGC, AICTE and DEC
to work in close co–operation in pursuit of excellence in technical
and general education being imparted through distance and mixed
mode in the country. These aspects and contentions were
G considered in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I and it
has been held that B.Tech. degrees could not have been awarded
through distance learning mode without the approval of the DEC
and without any specific approval of the AICTE and UGC and
award of such degrees without approval of the three were invalid
and cannot be recognised. [Para 24, 25][26-E-G; 27-E-G]
H
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 7
COMMISSION AND OTHERS

1.10 Functioning of the DEC has come in for rather strong A
criticism in several quarters. Till 2006, the DEC had approved
about 45 programmes of 23 universities out of applications for
approximately 200 programmes. In 2007, the DEC repealed the
programme approval process and the system of institutional
recognition was started. As per this decision, all programmes B
approved by respective authorities of the institution were deemed
to have recognition of the DEC. As a result of this decision, within
a short span, the number of approved programmes increased to
over 3000 in 2010. The provisional recognition letter of the DEC
would uniformly state that before starting such programmes, the C
required approvals from other regulatory bodies have to be
obtained but the said stipulation was not followed in most cases
and provisional recognition was granted by the DEC to technical
programmes through distance mode without recognition/approval
of the AICTE or UGC. This had paved way for commercialisation
D
and was a retrograde step which had resulted in deterioration of
the quality of open learning programmes/degrees. After burning
its fingers, the DEC switched back to programme recognition.
The DEC itself was finally wound up in 2013. [Para 26][27-H;
28-A-C]
E
1.11 In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited–I, this
Court, took note of the order dated 29th December, 2012 issued
by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government
of India for regulating the standards of education being imparted
through distance mode to hold that the unilateral approvals of
F
the DEC were invalid. The said order correctly appreciated that
DEC could not act as a regulator for other Universities. The said
order, the Court noted, had definitively vested the UGC and
AICTE, among other statutory regulators, with powers to regulate
technical courses imparted through distance learning mode and
made it mandatory for institutions intending to impart such G
courses to seek their approval and recognition. [Para 27]
[28-D-E; 29-B-C]
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi
Sankar Patro and Others (2018) 1 SCC 468 – Explained
and relied on. H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India
Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8
SCC 676 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253; Annamalai
University Represented by Registrar v. Secretary to
Government, Information and Tourism Department and
B Others (2009) 4 SCC 590 : [2009] 3 SCR 355; State of
Tamil Nadu and Another v. Adhiyaman Educational and
Research Institute and Others (1995) 4 SCC 104 : [1995]
2 SCR 1075; Osmania University Teachers’ Association
v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another (1987) 4 SCC
671 : [1987] 3 SCR 949; Association of Management
C of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical
Education and Others (2013) 8 SCC 271 : [2013] 6
SCR 1054; Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited
v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others (2018) 2 SCC 298 :
[2018] 1 SCR 839 – referred to.
D Case Law Reference
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253 referred to Para 3
[2009] 3 SCR 355 referred to Para 7
[1995] 2 SCR 1075 referred to Para 8
E
[1987] 3 SCR 949 referred to Para 8
[2013] 6 SCR 1054 referred to Para 13
[2018] 1 SCR 839 referred to Para 17
(2018) 1 SCC 468 explained Para 11-14,
F
& relied on 18, 21, 24, 25, 27.
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 1510 of 2018
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
G
C. U. Singh, Sr. Adv., D. Abhinav Rao, Adv. for the Petitioners.
Nikhil Nayyar, Sr. Adv., Apoorv Kurup, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Rajat
Khanna, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Mrs. Gayatri Gulati Sreyas, Anil
Soni, Harish Pandey, T.A. Khan, G.S. Makker, Advs. for the Respondents.
H
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 9
COMMISSION AND OTHERS

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. The petitioners, 92 in number, in this writ petition under Article
32 of the Constitution of India have prayed for directing the University
Grants Commission, (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC’) to issue a
B
clarification that the degrees of Bachelor of Technology (hereinafter
referred to as ‘B.Tech.’) acquired by them through open and distance
learning mode from the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Patiala, (hereinafter referred to as ‘TIET, Patiala’) are valid, recognised
and should be treated at par with degrees granted to regular students
who have undertaken such courses in TIET, Patiala and other recognised C
universities.
2. UGC is refusing to treat the technical degrees issued by TIET,
Patiala under distance learning mode as valid, primarily for the reason
that the B.Tech. courses conducted by TIET, Patiala were without their
D
approval and approval of the All India Council for Technical Education
(hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’).
3. The petitioners who are diploma holders in Civil/ Computer
Science/ Electrical/ Mechanical Engineering and working in the
Government of Punjab have stated that they were selected for the
E
B.Tech. degree course through the distance mode programme on the
basis of competitive examination conducted by TIET, Patiala, which is
deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC Act’). The
petitioners highlight that TIET, Patiala, rated as one of the premier
engineering universities/colleges by the Ministry of Human Resource F
Development, Government of India, was set up in 1956 for promoting
the study of technical education and has a 250 acre campus located in
Patiala with teaching faculty strength of 391, including 301 Ph.D. holders,
and undertakes 11 undergraduate courses and 23 postgraduate courses.
The total strength of students is more than 8000 with nearly 700 research G
students doing Ph.D. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council,
an autonomous body established by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India, has accredited the said institution/
deemed to be university Grade ‘A’ status besides placing the institution
in Tier-I accreditation. Distance Education Council (hereinafter referred H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A to as ‘DEC’) vide its letter dated 3rd September, 2007 had granted
provisional recognition to TIET, Patiala for offering programmes through
distance mode for a period of one year on the basis of which TIET,
Patiala had offered B.Tech. degree in Civil / Computer Science /
Electrical / Mechanical Engineering to working professionals who already
B had a diploma and had at least two years’ experience in the respective
branches in engineering in the academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
No admissions were made after 29th July, 2009. The petitioners had
taken admission in the prestigious deemed to be university verily believing
that all approvals were in place. The petitioners, relying on the judgment
of this Court in Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India
C
Council for Technical Education and Others,1 have argued that a
deemed to be university is not required to seek prior approval of the
AICTE to start a department for imparting a course or a programme in
technical education. Reference was made to paragraph 49 of the
judgment of this Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited
D v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others2 (hereinafter referred to as Orissa
Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I) to assert that TIET, Patiala,
being a premier institution authorised to undertake courses and issue
degrees in the aforesaid technical fields, was not required to take any
approval of the AICTE. Reliance was also placed on the order and
E judgment dated 10th April, 2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3697-3698 of 2018
in Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. The Chairman and
Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited.
There were no off-campus centres or study centres and all instruction,
practicals and examinations were conducted on the campus of TIET,
F Patiala using the same faculty and infrastructure as used in the traditional
B.Tech. courses. The studies were of high standard as the students had
to pass 42 subjects with practicals to earn the degree. Out of 1168
students admitted to the B.Tech. courses through distance learning mode,
only 822 students were awarded degree.

G 4. We may at the outset record that the petitioners have given up
and not raised the contention that the decision authored by one of us
(Uday Umesh Lalit, J.) in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-
I is per incuriam for the ratio is contrary to the decision in
1
(2001) 8 SCC 676
2
H (2018) 1 SCC 468
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 11
COMMISSION AND OTHERS [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

Bharathidasan University (supra). Indeed, such contention cannot be A
accepted as the latter decision has been considered in Orissa Lift
Irrigation Corporation Limited-I.
5. We record our inability to accept the contentions raised by the
petitioners, for they are misconstruing the judgment of this Court in Orissa
Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I which settles the controversy B
beyond any doubt and debate.
6. The UGC Act was legislated for coordination and determination
of standards of higher education in India with commandment to the UGC
to take such steps as may be necessary for promotion and coordination
of higher education in universities and institutions. The UGC, therefore, C
fixes and ensures maintenance of standards in teaching, examination
and research in higher education. To fix and enforce these standards,
the UGC has framed rules and regulations, and issues guidelines under
the UGC Act.
7. Referring to the UGC Act in Annamalai University D
Represented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information
and Tourism Department and Others,3 this Court had observed that
no relaxation can be granted with regard to the basic things necessary
for conferment of a degree and if the mandatory provisions are not
complied with by an administering authority, the action would be void.
Decision of this Court in Annamalai University (supra) has some E
relevance for it had examined the interplay between the provisions of
the UGC Act and Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Open University Act’) and the purported
repugnance between the two. The UGC Act, it was observed, was
enacted to make provisions for coordination and determination of F
standards in universities and for this purpose, the UGC was established
by the Central Government in terms of Section 4 of the UGC Act with
its powers and functions laid down in Chapter III. Section 12 of the
UGC Act provides for functions of the UGC, relevant provisions of which
are reproduced as under:
G
“12. Functions of the Commission.—It shall be the general
duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the
Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may
think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University education
3
(2009) 4 SCC 590 H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A and for the determination and maintenance of standards of
teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for the
purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the Commission
may—
x x x
B (d) recommend to any University the measures necessary for the
improvement of University education and advise the University
upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such
recommendation;
x x x
C
(i) require a University to furnish it with such information as may
be needed relating to the financial position of the University or the
studies in the various branches of learning undertaken in that
University, together with all the rules and regulations relating to
the standards of teaching and examination in that University
D respecting each of such branches of learning;”
Section 22 of the UGC Act relates to the rights of a university/
deemed university/institution to confer degrees and sub-section (1)
thereof reads as under:
“22. Right to confer degrees.—(1) The right of conferring or
E
granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established
or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a
State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under Section
3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament
to confer or grant degrees.”
F
In Annamalai University (supra), the Open University Act, it
was held, was enacted to establish and incorporate an open university at
the national level for the introduction and promotion of open university
and distance education systems in the educational pattern of the country
and for coordination and determination of standards in such system.
G Recording the contention that the distance education programme
attenuates the rigidity of the traditional system requiring attendance in
class rooms that disincentivises many learners, this Court in Annamalai
University (supra), referring to the UGC Act and the role of the UGC,
had observed as under:
H
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 13
COMMISSION AND OTHERS [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

“40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its A
power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to
the Constitution of India whereas the Open University Act
was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under
Entry 25 of List III thereof. The question of repugnancy of
the provisions of the said two Acts, therefore, does not arise.
It is true that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Open B
University Act shows that the formal system of education
had not been able to provide an effective means to equalise
educational opportunities. The system is rigid inter alia in
respect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of subjects
are also inflexible.
C
41. Was the alternative system envisaged under the Open
University Act in substitution of the formal system is the
question. In our opinion, in the matter of ensuring the standard
of education, it is not. The distinction between a formal system
and informal system is in the mode and manner in which
education is imparted. The UGC Act was enacted for D
effectuating co- ordination and determination of standards in
universities. The purport and object for which it was enacted
must be given full effect.
42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities
whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad.
The Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) E
and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude.
They apply equally to open universities as also to formal
conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it
is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions.
Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be
F
defined by UGC. The standards and the co- ordination of
work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for
that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC
under Sections 26(1) (f) and 26(1) (g) are very broad in nature.
[...]”
8. Annamalai University (supra) makes a reference to an earlier G
judgment in State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. Adhiyaman
Educational and Research Institute and Others4 in which this Court
had, with regard the enactment of the UGC Act by Parliament in exercise
of power under Entry 66 of List-I, observed as under:
4
(1995) 4 SCC 104 H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A “41. What emerges from the above discussion is as follows:
(i) The expression ‘coordination’ used in Entry 66 of the Union
List of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution does not merely mean
evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform
pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme
B or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for
removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the
occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include
power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would
make ‘coordination’ either impossible or difficult. This power is
absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid
C compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its
plain and express intention.”
Reference was also made to Osmania University Teachers’
Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another5 wherein, with
regard to the responsibility entrusted upon the UGC under the UGC Act,
D it was held as under:
“30. The Constitution of India vests Parliament with exclusive
authority in regard to coordination and determination of
standards in institutions for higher education. The Parliament
has enacted the UGC Act for that purpose. The University
E Grants Commission has, therefore, a greater role to play in
shaping the academic life of the country. It shall not falter or
fail in its duty to maintain a high standard in the universities.
Democracy depends for its very life on a high standard or
general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination
of learning with search for new knowledge with discipline
F all round must be maintained at all costs. It is hoped that
University Grants Commission will duly discharge its
responsibility to the nation and play an increasing role to bring
about the needed transformation in the academic life of the
Universities.”
G 9. Accordingly, in Annamalai University (supra) it was held that
the UGC Act would prevail over the Open University Act, observing:
“59. The provisions of the UGC Act are not in conflict with the
provisions of the Open University Act. It is beyond any cavil
of doubt that the UGC Act shall prevail over the Open
H 5
(1987) 4 SCC 671
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 15
COMMISSION AND OTHERS [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

University Act. It has, however, been argued that the Open A
University Act is a later Act. But we have noticed
hereinbefore that the nodal Ministry knew of the provisions
of both the Acts. The Regulations were framed almost at
the same time after passing of the Open University Act.
The Regulations were framed at a later point of time.
Indisputably, the Regulations embrace within its fold the B
matters covered under the Open University Act also.”
10. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, reference
was made to All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE Act’) and distinction was drawn
between ‘technical education’ and ‘technical institution’ as defined in C
Section 2(g) and 2(h) respectively to observe that functions of the AICTE
stipulated under sub-clauses (a), (d), (e), (f), (l) and (n) of Section 10 of
the AICTE Act are concerned with the broader facets of ‘technical
education’, while functions enumerated under sub-clauses (k), (m), (p)
and (q) deal with matters concerning ‘technical institutions’ and the D
functions as set out in sub-clauses (g) and (o) apply to both ‘technical
institutions’ and universities imparting ‘technical education’. Sub-clauses
(b), (d) and (f) of Section 10 deal with, inter alia, coordination of the
technical education in the country at all levels; promoting innovation,
research and development, establishment of new technologies, generation,
adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet the development E
requirements; and promoting effecting link between technical education
and systems and other relevant systems. Drawing on the distinction
between ‘technical education’ and ‘technical institution’ and multifarious
functions of the AICTE prescribed by Section 10 of the AICTE Act, it
was held that the AICTE is the sole repository of power to lay down F
parameters or qualitative norms for ‘technical education’ and it would,
therefore, not matter whether the term ‘technical institution’ would exclude
a university/deemed to be university. What should be course content,
what subjects should be taught and what should 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 G
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 the
AICTE.
11. Accordingly, the Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
Limited-I distinguished the decision in Bharathidasan University H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A (supra), which had, relying upon the definition in clause 2(h) on the
meaning of the term ‘technical institution’, held that a deemed to be
university established under a state law was entitled to start courses in
‘technical education’ without any approval of the AICTE. This was done
by limiting Bharathidasan University’s (supra) application to courses/
programmes integrally adjunct/connected to the sanctioned and permitted
B courses and programmes, and not to new and different courses/
programmes like award of B.Tech. degrees through distance learning
mode. On role of the AICTE and distance learning as a mode for acquiring
B. Tech degrees, it was held in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
Limited-I that:

C “48. 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 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
D 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 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 AICTE
E 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 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
F 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 the
point in issue. For the present purposes, if according to AICTE
such courses ought not to be taught in distance education
G mode, that is the final word and is binding—unless rectified
in a manner known to law. Even National Policy on Education
while emphasising the need to have a flexible, pattern and
programmes through distance education learning in technical
and managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTE
will be responsible for planning, formulation and maintenance
H
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 17
COMMISSION AND OTHERS [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

of norms and standards including maintenance of parity of A
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 the
exclusive domain of AICTE. The answer to the first limb of
the first question posed by us is therefore clear that without B
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.”
From the dictum laid down above, it is plainly clear that approval C
of the AICTE was mandatory for starting the aforesaid courses.
Admittedly, approval of the AICTE was not obtained by TIET, Patiala.
12. We would now revert to the question of approval of the UGC.
In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, reference was made
to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the ‘Guidelines for Establishing New
Departments Within the Campus, Setting Up of Off-Campus Centre(s)/ D
Institution(s)/Off-Shore Campus and Starting Distance Education
Programmes by the Deemed Universities’ (hereinafter referred to as
‘2004 Guidelines’), issued by the UGC which dealt with the procedure
to be followed by deemed to be universities offering distance education
programmes, which read as under:
E
“4. Distance education.—The deemed to be university could
offer the distance education programmes only with the specific
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. F
5. Ex post facto approval.—The deemed universities shall
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 G
the deemed universities and off-campus study centre(s)/
institutions/off-shore 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.” H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A Paragraph 4 makes it crystal clear that post the 2004 Guidelines,
every deemed to be university would require approvals of the UGC and
DEC, for starting any degree course through open and distance learning
mode. The condition of approval was mandatory. It is not the case of the
petitioners or TIET, Patiala that the latter had taken prior approval of the
B UGC for the B.Tech. degrees obtained through distance learning mode.
Paragraph 5 relates to ex-post facto approval of the UGC/DEC for
continuation of distance education programmes/study centres started
without specific approval of the UGC/DEC. Paragraph 5 is not applicable
in the present case as the degree courses were started post enactment
of the 2004 Guidelines.
C
13. Faced and conscious of the clear violation of paragraph 4 of
the 2004 Guidelines and absence of the AICTE’s approval, learned senior
counsel for the petitioners had relied on paragraph 49 of Orissa Lift
Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, which reads as under:

D “49. We now move to the second limb of the first question. Under
the 1994 AICTE Regulations, “no courses or programmes shall
be introduced by any technical institution, university including a
deemed university or university department or college except with
the approval of the Council”. Bharathidasan declared the said
Regulation to the extent it required a university to have approval
E for introducing any courses or programmes in technical education,
to be bad. Same thought was amplified in Assn. of Management
of Private Colleges 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.
F The matter can be considered under two categories:
(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
G it was conferred deemed to be university status. For 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.
H
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 19
COMMISSION AND OTHERS [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

(b) The second category could be of a deemed to be university A
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. 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
B
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?”
In our opinion, the petitioners and TIET, Patiala are misconstruing
paragraph 49 of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I. The C
aforesaid paragraph refers to the 1994 Regulations issued by the AICTE
under which no courses or programmes could be introduced by any
technical institution/ university, including a deemed university or a
university department or college, except with approval of the AICTE. In
Bharathidasan University (supra) this mandate of the 1994 Regulations D
was declared to be bad to the extent that it had required the university to
take approval for introducing any course or programme in technical
education. Same opinion was expressed in Association of Management
of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Education
and Others6 to state that affiliated colleges of the university are entitled
to the same protection. Thereupon, in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation E
Limited-I a distinction was made by creating two categories of deemed
to be universities – Category-I, i.e. such deemed to be universities that
have been conferred status of ‘excellence’ in the field of technical subjects
and desire to introduce courses or programmes ‘integrally connected’
with the area of subjects for which they had been conferred deemed to F
be university status. Clarifying this, the Court had cited an example of
an engineering college of excellence that has been conferred deemed to
be university status and now wish to introduce courses in new or
specialised subjects like robotics and nanotechnology, which subjects
were integrally connected to the university’s own field of excellence.
Category-II would be of those universities that have been conferred G
deemed to be university status for excellence in subjects, but want to
introduce new courses unrelated to the field for which they were conferred
status of excellence. In the latter category, the deemed to be university

6
(2013) 8 SCC 271 H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A cannot claim immunity from regulatory control of the AICTE and must
take approval of the AICTE. Paragraph 49, we would like to clarify,
deals with universities including deemed to be universities imparting higher
education for degree courses/programmes through regular mode. This
paragraph does not specifically deal with or confer any right upon the
deemed to be universities to start distance education courses, even if
B
integrally connected with the approved regular courses.
14. The foregoing analysis becomes clear when we read Orissa
Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I in its entirety, particularly the
immediately preceding paragraph, i.e. paragraph 48 as quoted above,
wherein it has been specifically stipulated and mandated that whether
C subjects leading to degrees in engineering would be taught in distance
education mode or not is within the exclusive domain of the AICTE.
15. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions and lack of prior
approval of the UGC or AICTE, we do not think that TIET, Patiala was
competent to award graduation degrees in technical courses via distance
D mode.
16. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, the Court
also made a distinction between students who had taken admission in
deemed to be universities offering technical degrees through distance
learning in the academic years 2001 to 2005 and 2005-2006 onwards.
E The reason for distinction was paragraph 5 of the 2004 Guidelines and
ex-post facto approvals granted by the UGC and DEC to deemed to be
universities that had offered technical degrees in the academic years
2001-2005. It was held that the said exercise of grant of ex-post facto
approvals was completely uncalled for and contrary to law and illegal.
F Accordingly, the ex post facto approvals were set aside with the
consequential directions to recall all the engineering degrees granted
pursuant to the said approvals. However, conscious that the ex post
facto approvals were in terms of paragraph 5 of the 2004 Guidelines,
while suspending the degrees awarded to students who had been enrolled
during the academic years 2001 to 2005, the Court had given these students
G an opportunity to appear and clear such examination under joint
supervision of the AICTE-UGC. It was observed:
“57. [T]he 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
H
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 21
COMMISSION AND OTHERS [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universities A
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 us not to resort to recall of all the
degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto
B
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,
therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the C
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 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass
such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in
D
the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage
on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.”
The aforesaid directions were not in respect of any engineering
degree granted by deemed to be universities to candidates admitted/
enrolled post the academic year 2004-2005. Grant of any degree for
students enrolled post the academic year 2004-2005 was held as contrary E
to law and illegal, and could not be treated as regular and at par with the
regular degrees. Therefore, paragraph 49 would not be of any avail to
the petitioners.
17. We would also refer to the second round of litigation as
applications were filed seeking clarification and modification of the F
directions in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I. The decision
dated 22nd January, 2018 in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited
v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others7 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Orissa
Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-II’) had decided several
applications of diploma holders who had enrolled for engineering or G
B.Tech. degree in deemed to be universities through distance learning
mode. One of the contentions raised in the applications was that the
deemed to be universities awarding engineering degrees through distance
learning mode in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I were
7
(2018) 2 SCC 298 H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A not institutes of excellence in the field of engineering and, thus, there
would be a distinction between engineering degrees awarded through
distance education mode by deemed to be universities declared as
institutions of excellence and the degrees awarded by other deemed to
be universities. This contention was squarely rejected by referring to the
fact that engineering degrees through distance education mode awarded
B by Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation in Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Limited-I had been also declared to be invalid, though the
said institution in its field of activity and excellence included the subject
of engineering. Dealing with other contentions raised by the applicants,
the Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-II held as
C under:
“25. We now turn to the general submission advanced by all the
learned counsel that the candidates after securing the degrees in
Engineering through distance education mode, have advanced in
career and that their ability was tested at various levels and as
such requirement of passing the examination in terms of the
D
judgment be dispensed within their case. We cannot make any
such exception. The infirmity in their degrees is basis and
fundamental and cannot be wished away. At the same time, we
find some force in their submission that if the suspension of their
degrees and all advantages were to apply as indicated in the
E judgment, the candidates concerned may lose their jobs and even
if they were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs
and present position would pose some difficulty.
The Court, therefore, granting a one-time relaxation to the
candidates who had enrolled themselves during the academic years 2001-
F 2005, held that candidates would, in terms of the judgment in Orissa Lift
Irrigation Corporation Limited I, be eligible to appear for the test
conducted by the AICTE.
18. Given the aforesaid ratio, we reject the plea that the petitioners
are entitled to relief as was granted to the petitioners in Orissa Lift
Irrigation Corporation Limited I and II. This contention is
G
unacceptable for the reason that in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
Limited I and II, no relief was granted to the candidates who had
taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. Relief in the form of one-time
relaxation vide examination to be conducted by the AICTE was granted
to those candidates/students who had taken admission in academic years
H beginning from 2001 and till 2004-2005.
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 23
COMMISSION AND OTHERS [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

19. TIET, Patiala in their additional affidavit have referred to the A
correspondence with the DEC expressing their desire to start B.Tech.
courses in Civil Engineering/ Computer Sciences and Engineering/
Electrical Engineering/ Mechanical Engineering through distance learning
programme, vide their letter dated 17th May, 2006 and reply of the DEC
vide its letter dated 16th June, 2006 that such approvals can only be
B
granted after evaluation of the course material by an expert committee
and for which TIET, Patiala should apply in the prescribed format with
requisite fee. Thereupon, TIET, Patiala had submitted an application in
the required format and an expert committee constituted by the Chairman
of the DEC had evaluated infrastructure and other services etc., provided
by TIET, Patiala. The expert committee, which included the Director, C
School of Engineering and Technology, IGNOU, gave a favourable report
subsequent to which the letter of provisional recognition dated 31st August,
2007 was issued by the DEC permitting TIET, Patiala to start the course.
Reference was also made to the press note dated 23rd May, 2007 released
by Press Information Bureau, Government of India, which had published
D
a list of universities including deemed to be universities offering distance
education. This list also included TIET, Patiala.
20. As already stated, the petitioners have also relied upon letter
dated 3rd September, 2007 written to TIET, Patiala by the DEC providing
them provisional recognition for one year in programmes offered through
distance mode. The said letter reads as under: E

“INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
Maindan Garhi, New Delhi – 110068, India
Phone: (O) 91-11-29535923-32, 29533340 (O)
F
Telefax: 91-11-295536668
Email: basuswaraj@hotmail.com
Website: www.ignou.ac.in/www.dec.ac.in
DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL
G
F.No. DEC/Univ/State/07/5580
Dated: 03.09.2007
Prof. Swaraj Basu
Director
H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A Sub: Provisional Recognition
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.
B
We would like to inform you that your university has been granted
provisional recognition for offering programmes (approved by the
statutory bodies of your university) through distance mode for a period
of one-year w.e.f. the date of issue of this letter.

C However, for recognition of your institution for offering
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.

D We would also like to inform you that that DEC has decided not
to insist on territorial jurisdiction to be allowed by institutions in offering
programmes through distance mode and on that matter, universities should
be governed by their own Acts and Statutes.
With regards,
E Yours sincerely
Sd/-
(Swaraj Basu)
The Vice Chancellor
F Thapar University
Patiala – 147004, Punjab”
The aforesaid letter states that TIET, Patiala had made an
application to the DEC requesting for recognition of programmes offered
through distance mode and that they had been granted provisional
G
recognition for offering such programmes. The letter records that an
application was submitted by TIET, Patiala but no specific reference
was made to the programmes or courses offered nor the date when the
application was filed is indicated. The letter also does not refer to approval
by the AICTE or UGC. It had further required TIET, Patiala to submit a
H fresh application for the next academic year from June-July 2008.
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 25
COMMISSION AND OTHERS [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

21. We have already referred to the 2004 Guidelines issued by A
the UGC and the AICTE Act to hold that TIET, Patiala had failed to
take their prior approval before starting B. Tech. degree courses through
distance education mode. Provisional recognition by the DEC being
contrary to the law would not matter for at best the DEC would be
equally guilty for violating the law in terms of 2004 Guidelines issued by
B
the UGC and the AICTE Act. The legal issue stands foreclosed and
cannot be argued in view of the clear dictum and ratio enunciated in
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I. We would also refer to
the notification issued by the Government of India on 1st March 1995
quoted in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I on distance
education programme by deemed to be universities etc., which was to C
the following effect:
“On the recommendation of the Board of Assessment 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 D
Deemed to be Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 and
Institutions of National importance declared under an Act of 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 Nation Open University,
K 76, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 and wherever necessary by All E
India Council for Technical Education, I.G. Sports Complex, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.”
Clearly, therefore, in terms of the said notification also approval
of the AICTE was required.
F
22. TIET, Patiala accepts that no approval, provisional or otherwise,
was granted for the next academic year, i.e. June-July 2008, yet B.Tech.
degree programmes through distance mode for the academic year June-
July 2008 were offered by TIET, Patiala contrary to the statutes and
law.
G
23. TIET, Patiala, to justify admissions in the academic year 2008-
2009 in their additional affidavit, have referred to correspondence and
submission of application to the UGC for offering B. Tech. degree courses
through distance education programme for the academic session i.e.
2008-2009. This is surprising as TIET, Patiala had not applied to the
H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A UGC for the previous academic session i.e. 2007-2008. Thereafter, the
additional affidavit refers to correspondence exchanged between the
DEC and TIET, Patiala pursuant to which a Joint Expert Committee
was constituted comprising of members of the UGC, DEC and AICTE
to assess the administration and management of distance learning
programmes offered by TIET, Patiala, which panel had visited their
B
premises on 2nd June, 2009 and had recommended the recognition of as
many as seven programmes for a period of five years. However, the
Central Government had, in exercise of powers under Section 20 of the
UGC Act and in terms of a policy decision, issued a notification on 29th
July, 2009 that the B.Tech. degrees would not be offered through open
C distance learning programme. In view of this policy decision, the DEC
had to immediately withdraw the permission to various institutions to
conduct B.Tech. degree courses through distance education mode and
no further student was admitted in the current year and thereafter.
However, the notification states that those who had already been admitted
would have to pass practicals and written examination as may be
D
prescribed so as to obtain the B.Tech. degrees through distance education.
24. The submission/contention of the petitioners and TIET, Patiala
completely overlooks several developments, correspondence and policy
decisions taken which have been noticed in Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Limited-I, particularly the notification issued by the AICTE
E on 28th November, 2005 clearly stating that no technical institution of the
Government/ Government aided/ private institution, whether affiliated
or not to any University, shall start new courses or increase the intake
for the same without approval of the AICTE. Notification issued by the
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India on 5th
F April, 2006 in exercise of powers vested in the Central Government
under Section 20(1) of the UGC Act and Section 20(1) of the AICTE
Act had clarified the role of the UGC and AICTE for maintaining
standards of education and that the deemed to be universities are required
to maintain minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE for various
courses within the jurisdiction of the said Council. This was followed by
G a joint public notice issued by the AICTE, UGC and DEC on 4th February,
2007 to the following effect:
“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 Universities,
H
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 27
COMMISSION AND OTHERS [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

Institutions Deemed to be Universities and other institutions are A
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 programmes
and giving misleading advertisements regarding unapproved B
‘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;
It is hereby clarified, in the public interest that there are a number
of courses or programmes of study leading to Degree/Diploma or C
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 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 D
‘distance mode’ require the approval of DEC.”
The public notice had cautioned that the universities/ institutions/
deemed to be universities offering technical education programme through
distance education mode without approval of concerned statutory
authorities were doing so in contravention of the law and would be treated E
severely. The last sentence of the notification had made it clear that in
addition to the concerned statutory councils, all courses and the
programmes offered for study in distance mode would require approval
of the DEC. A memorandum of understanding was arrived at on 10th
May, 2007 among the UGC, AICTE and DEC to work in close co- F
operation in pursuit of excellence in technical and general education
being imparted through distance and mixed mode in the country.
25. In any case these aspects and contentions were fully considered
in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I and it has been held
that B.Tech. degrees could not have been awarded through distance G
learning mode without the approval of the DEC and without any specific
approval of the AICTE and UGC and award of such degrees without
approval of the three were invalid and cannot be recognised.
26. Functioning of the DEC has come in for rather strong criticism
in several quarters. Till 2006, the DEC had approved about 45
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 12 S.C.R.

A programmes of 23 universities out of applications for approximately 200
programmes. In 2007, the DEC repealed the programme approval process
and the system of institutional recognition was started. As per this decision,
all programmes approved by respective authorities of the institution were
deemed to have recognition of the DEC. As a result of this decision,
within a short span, the number of approved programmes increased to
B
over 3000 in 2010. The provisional recognition letter of the DEC would
uniformly state that before starting such programmes, the required
approvals from other regulatory bodies have to be obtained but the said
stipulation was not followed in most cases and provisional recognition
was granted by the DEC to technical programmes through distance mode
C without recognition/approval of the AICTE or UGC. This had paved
way for commercialisation and was a retrograde step which had resulted
in deterioration of the quality of open learning programmes/degrees. After
burning its fingers, the DEC switched back to programme recognition.
The DEC itself was finally wound up in 2013.
D 27. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, this Court,
took note of the order dated 29th December, 2012 issued by the Ministry
of Human Resource Development, Government of India in view of the
recommendations suggested in the Madhava Menon Committee report
for regulating the standards of education being imparted through distance
mode to hold that the unilateral approvals of the DEC were invalid. It
E was observed:
“55. Para 3 of the notification dated 22.11.1991 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 IGNOU Act are that of
F 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 programmes of IGNOU. It undoubtedly
has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii) and (xxiii) to cooperate with
other Universities but the IGNOU Act nowhere entitles IGNOU
G to be the Controlling Authority of the entire field of distance
education of learning across the Country and in relation to
programmes of other Universities or Institutions as well. The Order
dated 29.12.2012 issued by MHRD therefore correctly appreciated
that DEC created under statute 28 of IGNOU Act could not act
as a regulator for other Universities. In any event of the matter,
H
VINIT GARG AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS 29
COMMISSION AND OTHERS [SANJIV KHANNA, J.]

the policy Guidelines issued from time to time made it abundantly A
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 granting permissions
without even consulting AICTE. Such exercise on part of DEC
B
was completely without jurisdiction.
The said order, the Court noted, had definitively vested the UGC
and AICTE, among other statutory regulators, with powers to regulate
technical courses imparted through distance learning mode and made it
mandatory for institutions intending to impart such courses to seek their
approval and recognition, observing as under: C

“[T]he Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section 1 of section 20 of the UGC 1956 and the AICTE
Act, 1987 hereby directs: -
The UGC and AICTE as already empowered under their D
respective Acts, would also act as a regulator for Higher 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 any programme/course in ODL mode they E
would require recognition from the UGC, AICTE, NCTE and other
such regulators of the conventional mode of education in those
areas of study.”
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit
in the present Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. However, in the F
facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain Writ petition dismissed.

G

H