Disposed

Jupalle Venkata Ramana Reddy Educational Society v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2019WP/2366/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the university's exclusion of a college's B.Ed. centre due to territorial jurisdiction and an expired MOU. Noting disputed factual questions and an alternative remedy, the Court freed the petitioner to approach the civil court under the MOU.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are given liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for redressal of their grievance regarding the renewing of MOU.

Jupalle Venkata Ramana Reddy Educational… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2366 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking to declare the impugned letter No.SKU/DDE/Admissions/D-17/2019, dated 15.02.2019 as illegal and arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Universities Act in violation of rules and regulations of LCD, and UGC and in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

¶5

The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 University authorities to include the petitioner’s college in the notification No. SKU/DDE/ B.Ed., Admn. Notification/2018-19 dated 07.01.2019 as one of the selecting study centers by extending the time for receiving applications for the course of B.Ed., program under open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode.

¶6

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

¶7

The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows :

¶8

The Petitioner’s College was established in the year 1984, vide G.O.Ms.No.236 dated 30.03.1984, of Educational Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh and since then it has been imparting B.Ed education.

¶9

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶10

¶11

On 26.05.1994, the Sri Krishnadevaraya University granted permanent Affiliation to the petitioner’s college to impart distance mode education for pursuing B.Ed., course as per existing N.C.T.E. norms 2009. Since then, the petitioner’s College has been continuing as one of the study centers of Sri Krishnadevaraya University.

¶12

The petitioner’s college paid the tuition fee for the academic years 2009 to 2011 to the respondents University authorities. The respondent University has to release some portion of tuition fee as per the MOU. In that connection, the petitioner has made several representations to the respondent No.3 and 4 requesting to release the arrears of tuition fee from the year 2012 onwards, but the University authorities have not responded to the representations made by the petitioner which led to the filing of Writ Petition No.1823 of 2017 wherein, interim orders were granted directing the Respondents authorities not to create any disturbance during pendency of the writ petition.

¶13

Pending disposal of the said writ petition, the respondents 3 and 4 University authorities have issued publication vide SKU/DDE/B.Ed., Admin Notification/2018-2019 dated 07.01.2019, inviting online applications from the eligible candidates for admission into 2 year B.Ed., program under Open and Distance Learning mode for the academic year 2018-2019. The academic session begins from January 2019 as per N.C.T.E 2014 regulations, as per the prescribed norms of UGC-DEB on or before 31.01.2019, and the last date for receipt of applications is

¶14

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶15

¶16

04.02.2019. In the said notification the petitioner’s College was not included for admission for grant of admission for the academic year 2018-2019 in spite of the petitioner having permanent affiliation. Therefore, the petitioner made several representations to the Respondents University to include the petitioner’s college as one of the study enters for admission into B.Ed., Course under ODL mode.

¶17

Thereafter, the petitioners have filed writ petition No. 425 of 2019 before this court wherein the respondents university informed that they would consider the representation of the petitioner College and will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This court recording the same disposed of the said writ petition on 25.01.2019 with the following directions.

¶18

“In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, since the petitioner College has forwarded the representation to the respondent University on 11.01.2019, in case the same is not reserved by the University learned standing counsel shall inform the same to the University and the University shall consider the representation, dated 11.01.2019 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the respondent University comes to a conclusion that the petitioner College is entitled for the relief claimed in this writ petition, the time specified in the notification may be extended for receiving applications''.

¶19

On 25.01.2019 the orders referred above have been communicated to the respondent 2 to 4 through e-mail, and they have also sent a copy of the above said order along with the representation to the respondents 2 to 4 by way of speed post, and the same was received by them, but deliberately they

¶20

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶21

¶22

have disobeyed the orders of the Court, which led the petitioners approach the respondent University authorities by way of a notice dated 11.02.2019 by speed post and the same was served on them on 14.02.2019.

¶23

After service of the notice on the respondents, the 4^th respondent has issued the impugned letter No.SKU/DDE/Admissions/D-17/2019 dated.15.02.2019 stating that "Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Andhra Pradesh shall adhere to the policy of territorial jurisdiction as specified in Annexure-IV of the UGC (ODL) Regulations 2017 and the JVRR Memorial College of Education, Nandyal had entered into agreement (MOU) with the university on 21.06.2008. The agreement with the JVRR Memorial College of Education, Nandyal has already expired. And accordingly, the petitioners’ request of including their College for B.Ed., Admissions was not considered. The same is challenged as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Universities Act and in violation of rules and regulations of NCTE and UGC.

¶24

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that, the MOU dated 21.06.2008, does not contain validity of time of MOU, and it does not contain the expiry date. Even if the extension of time for MOU is required, it is in the hands of the respondents University authorities and they may extend the same.

¶25

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶26

¶27

The Territorial jurisdiction as specified in annexure-IV

¶28

of UGC Regulations 2017 reads as follows:

¶29

“a) A Central or State Government University can conduct courses through its own departments, its constituent’s colleges or through its affiliated colleges.

¶30

b) A University established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory of the State of its location”

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Sri Krishnadevaraya University was established under Act 1981 (act 36 of 1981), which is repealed by virtue of section 57 of the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act 1991 and the Reconstruction of the Universities and its territorial jurisdictions are indicated U/s. 4 of the A.P. Universities Act, and it's schedule clearly shows that Sri Krishnadevaraya University area comprising the Districts of Ananthapur, Kurnool, and the Headquarters remains situated in Ananthapur. Since the petitioner's College is situated at Nandyal, Kurnool District, it comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Sri Krishnadevaraya University.

¶32

It is further submitted that the petitioners have submitted several representations to the respondent No. 3, explaining their present status in the light of the provisions governing the territorial jurisdiction norms as enumerated in the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act 1991. The Petitioner’s

¶33

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶34

¶35

college explained their predicament on account of the fact that the Rayalaseema University, Which is relevant to the territorial jurisdiction of Petitioners College situated in Nandyala, Kurnool District, is not offering B.Ed., ODL course.

¶36

The counsel for the petitioner submits that due to certain limitations the petitioner's College continued under ages of Sri Krishnadevaraya University only.

¶37

The counsel for the petitioner submits further that the Higher Education (U.E II) Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh vide its G.O. dated 07.08.2008 issued orders considering Six newly established Universities, including Rayalaseema University based in Kurnool, opined that these universities in nascent stage and need adequate time. Therefore, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, as one among established universities was permitted to continue the status till further orders of the Government. The students who are already studying in these universities were also granted permission in unequivocal terms. Accordingly the petitioner's College has been granting admissions into the B.Ed (ODL) mode under the Sri Krishnadevaraya University till 2017. The problem arose when University removed the name of the petitioner's College from the date of issuing the admission notification.

¶38

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶39

¶40

The submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents in the light of the Counter-affidavit filed by the respondents:

¶41

On behalf of the respondents, Counter affidavit has been filed by the Director, Director of Distance Education, Sri Krishnadevaraya University.

¶42

The learned standing counsel mainly submits that this Writ Petition is not maintainable on the ground that the Vice Chancellor of the University was made as 2^nd Respondent in this writ petition. As per section 3 sub-section (4) of the Universities Act, all proceedings by or against the University, the registrar only has to be made a party to represent the University. The Vice Chancellor cannot be made a party. On that ground alone the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶43

The petitioners have failed to establish any statutory violation and their eligibility of affiliation and on that ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

The learned standing counsel further submits that for distance learning education the temporary affiliation is granted by the director of distance education. The affiliation for the regular courses of study will be granted by the College development counsel CDC only. The respondents University is empowered to grant affiliation to the colleges as per the provisions under Section 5 of the University Act, as per sub-

¶45

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶46

¶47

section 13, with regard to affiliation or recognition of colleges and institutions and to withdraw such affiliation or recognition.

¶48

The affiliation was granted by the University to the petitioner College for running regular courses, when the petitioner College was under the territorial jurisdiction of the University.

¶49

After the formation of Rayalaseema University by Act No. 29 of 2008, all the colleges under the said Rayalaseema University have become affiliated to the said University. The Petitioners College was also affiliated to the said University. The petitioner is running the regular course of the B.Ed. College under the affiliation of the Rayalaseema University. Having suppressed the material facts the petitioner has claimed that the Petitioners College was affiliated to the respondent University.

¶50

The Director of Distance Education is a separate mode of education which imparts the education under the distance mode of learning for the benefit of those who can't pursue their education under regular mode. The prospectus of the University for the Distance Education for B.Ed., program for the academic year 2018–2019 is filed to show that the distance education has commenced in the University in the year 2000–2001. The prospectus further reveals that the territorial jurisdiction under column 3 at page 2, as per presidential order G.O.P. No. 646 Education (W) Dept., dated

¶51

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶52

¶53

10.07.1979, that the local area for Sri Krishnadevaraya University is consisting of Ananthapurum, Kurnool, Kadapa, Chittoor and Nellore.

¶54

Territorial jurisdiction:

¶55

It is further submitted that the University Institution offering Teacher Education Program through ODL will have territorial jurisdiction as defined in its Act or as decided by the concerned State Government. The study centers of the Universities/institution shall also be located in its territorial jurisdiction.

¶56

Recognition accorded to Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Sri Venkateswara University, Anantapuram District, Andhra Pradesh for B.Ed.-DE 500 students course for 2 years duration is hereby resorted/continued with effect from 2018 –2019 till further orders accordingly under the 2014 of Regulation.

¶57

The University has taken decision in the Executive Council meeting held on 13.10.2017 vide No. 159–2968 (A-8) and approved the Following 10 study centers, out of them 7 were new and 3 were existing to utilize the entire sanctioned intake of 500 seats, at the rate of 50% seats within the territorial jurisdiction of the University as per NCTE, 2014 Regulations.

¶58

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶59

¶60

The following are the 10 centers approved by the executive Council of the University.

¶61

B.Ed. Distance Education Centre, SKU Campus

¶62

SKU Colleges of Education, S.K. University, Ananthapuramu.

¶63

Little Flower College of Education, Ananthapuram (Existing study centre)

¶64

Linganna B.Ed. College of Education, Hindupur (Existing study centre)

¶65

K.C. Narayana College of Education, Guntakal (New study centre)

¶66

Sri Vyshnavi College of Education, Gooty (New study centre)

¶67

Sai Siddartha College of Education, Tadipatri (New study centre)

¶68

Vivekananda College of Education, Kalyandurg (New study centre)

¶69

Haindavi College of Education, Dharmavaram (New study centre)

¶70

Sri Balaji College of Education, Guntakal (New study centre)

¶71

The secretary UGC-DEB, New Delhi issued public notice No.F.No.1-22/2018(DEB-1) dated 31^st December, 2018 wherein:

¶72

C. For the HELs which have been recognized for offering ODL programs for 2018-2019, academic session beginning January, 2019 and onwards, as per the recognition list, UGC Orders having details of the programs recognized/found deficient/not recognized with reason(s) thereof are being issued separately.

¶73

D. UGC Recognition to the HEIs for the Academic year 20182019 and onwards for program through the Open and Distance Learning Mode for B.Ed. Program for the Period 2018-2019 to 2019-2020

¶74

The Education Officer UGC, DEB, New Delhi Letter No. F.No.11-8/2018 (DEB-1) dated 18-01-2019 addressed to the Registrar, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ananthapuramu wherein: Annexure-1, Conditions.

¶75

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶76

¶77

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Condition 8 which specifies the territorial jurisdiction of Sri Krishnadevaraya University.

¶78

Condition-8

¶79

The Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Andhra Pradesh shall adhere to the policy of Territorial Jurisdiction specified in Annexure-IV of the UGC (ODL) Regulations, 2017 .

¶80

The petitioner JVRR Memorial College of Education Nandyal entered into agreement (MoU) with the University on 21.06.2008, wherein:

¶81

The validity of the agreement reads as follows:

¶82

This agreement shall come into effect on and from 21.06.2008. This agreement shall be in force initially for three year and liable to be renewed at the end of the agreement subject to the satisfaction of Party No.1 If during the Period of this agreement, any action of Party No.2 is found to be not satisfactory in the opinion of Party No.1 will have the right to cancel this agreement.

¶83

Basing on terms of the agreement, the JVRR Memorial College of Education, Nandyal agreement time has already expired, and now there is no agreement between them. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner has no locusstandi as he has no MOU as the agreement has expired and also the territorial jurisdiction is lacking.

¶84

The learned standing counsel further submits that the letter addressed to the university dated 03.01.2017 is in the nature of clarification as to whether the petitioner college was under the territorial jurisdiction of the Rayalaseema University, Kurnool or not. It is further submitted that in view

¶85

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶86

¶87

of the coming into force of UGC Regulations dated 23.06.2017 the territorial Jurisdiction has been defined and came into existence. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for any benefit out of the letter addressed seeking clarification of territorial jurisdiction.

¶88

On the above grounds, the learned standing counsel for respondents have sought for dismissal of the writ petition with exemplary costs.

¶89

On consideration of submissions of both the counsel, it is obvious that the petitioner has not renewed the MOU on its expiry after two years. Therefore, there is no extension of MOU for extending the services by the University.

¶90

In the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, if the Memorandum of Understanding was only meant for 3 years as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, there was no necessity for addressing letters by the Director Distance mode Education to the University seeking for clarification with regard to the territorial jurisdiction, as to whether to continue the petitioner's College or not. Therefore it has to be understood that the University has permitted the petitioners to continue with the Distance mode Education till the year 2017. It is obvious that the University has not offered any explanation on the letter addressed by the Director of Distance Education clarifying with regard to the jurisdiction of the University as to whether the

¶91

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶92

¶93

petitioner's College can be continued with the University. The explanation offered at by the University in his Counter reveals that the letter is only clarificatory nature and the said letter reveals the jurisdiction of the petitioner’s college as that of Rayalaseema University cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the jurisdiction has been clarified subsequently in the year 2017.

¶94

At this juncture para 11 of the affidavit filed by the petitioners assumes importance.

¶95

Para 11 of the affidavit reads as under;

¶96

“The Higher Education (U.E.II) Department of Government of AP, vide its G.O. dt.07.08.2008 issued orders considering Six newly established Universities, including Rayalaseema University based in Kurnool, opined that these Universities in nascent stage and need adequate time. Therefore, Sri Krishnadevaraya University as one among established Universities was permitted to continue the status till further orders of the Government, the students who were already studding in these Universities were also granted permission in unequivocal terms. Accordingly, the petitioner college has been granting admissions into the B.Ed., ODL mode under the Sri Krishnadevaraya University till 2017. The problem arose when University removed the same of the petitioner College from while issuing the admission Notification.”

¶97

But however, in the light of the fact that as the dispute was in respect non renewal of the memorandum of understanding by the University, the same has to be agitated before a competent court. As there are several questions of facts to be considered in this matter and since the memorandum of understanding has got a recital to the effect that “both parties agree that, if any dispute arising between the

¶98

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶99

¶100

parties in respect of matters covered by this agreement shall be decided only by the court of law at anantapuram and no other court will have any jurisdiction to decide the matter in dispute.”

¶101

In the light of the recitals in Memorandum of Understanding, whenever there is a dispute with regard to the matters covered by Memorandum of Understanding, the parties have to go before the competent Court for resolving their disputes.

¶102

It is pertinent to note that by the time of filing this writ petition the notification has already been issued without showing the name of the petitioner's College. That was the cause of action for filing the writ petition inter alia the contentions with regard to the jurisdiction of the University and other aspects.

¶103

In fact the notification for the year 2018 -2019 has been issued by the University without showing the name of the petitioner's College. There are disputed questions of facts which have to be dealt with by the competent Civil Court. Therefore the petitioners have to go before the jurisdictional court for adjudication.

¶104

On two issues the request of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent university. The first ground is that the respondent’s university has no jurisdiction over the petitioner’s college as per Condition 8 of UGC ODL Regulations,

¶105

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶106

¶107

As per condition-8, Sri Krishnadevaraya University on the praise shall adhere to the policy of territorial jurisdiction specified in Annexure-IV of the UGC ODL Regulations, 2017.

¶108

The second ground is that the period of agreement entered into between the parties on 21.06.2008 has been expired after three years. Therefore the petitioners cannot seek for continuation of services of the University.

¶109

On these two grounds the respondent University has not considered the inclusion of petitioner’s College for B.Ed., admission.

¶110

In fact, as far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned it is a question of fact that has to be gone into basing on the various documents and the evidence. It requires a detailed examination. This aspect can be gone into by a competent civil court as such it cannot be considered under writ jurisdiction.

¶111

As far as the second aspect is concerned the memorandum of agreement has got a clause to the effect that the validity of the agreement was for a period of 3 years as per the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent.

¶112

Para 10 of the counter affidavit reads as under;

¶113

The petitioner JVRR Memorial College of Education

¶114

Nandyal entered into an agreement (MoU) with the University on 21.06.2008 wherein:

¶115

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶116

¶117

The validity of the agreement reads as follows:

¶118

¶119

The recital in the agreement shows that the term of the JVRR Memorial College of Education, Nandyal expires after three years of the execution of agreement. It is also obvious that after expiry of agreement there is no further written extension of agreement but it was only an understanding between the parties for continuing the petitioners college even after expiry of the agreement and it is also a question of fact that has to be considered by a competent civil court on adducing proper evidence by both the parties.

¶120

It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have got an alternative remedy of approaching a competent civil Court. It is obvious that the parties agreed with MOU that they have to approach the competent civil Court whenever there is any dispute with regard to the agreement between them.

¶121

It is also pertinent to note that according to the petitioners, the UGC regulations came into force on 23.06.2017 in respect of territorial jurisdiction, which has to be considered in the light of the UGC regulations, and other relevant documents. By and large on consideration of the material on record, it is obvious that as per the terms of the memorandum

¶122

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶123

¶124

of understanding, any dispute arises with regard to the matter pertaining to the memorandum of understanding, both the parties have agreed for subjecting themselves to their jurisdiction of Anantapuram Courts. This is a question of fact that has to be gone into only on a detailed enquiry.

¶125

The writ material papers do not contain one page in the memorandum of understanding, which is page No. 5 of the said agreement. The learned counsel for petitioner and respondent has stated in para 10 with regard to the particulars about the validity of the agreement. Unless the original memorandum of understanding is looked into the validity of the agreement cannot be decided.

¶126

In fact, the relief claimed by the petitioners has become infructuous as the notification dates have already been over, and on that ground the writ petition is not maintainable any longer. In the light of the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the competent courts for redressal of their grievances with regard to the renewing of MOU, in accordance with law, and also for payments due to them as per the MOU.

¶127

In view of the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the competent court as per the terms and conditions in the MOU for redressal of his grievance.

¶128

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶129

¶130

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional court for availing appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶131

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also

¶132

stand closed.

¶133

_______________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J

¶134

DATED: 16 -09-2019 Gvl/

¶135

GSP,J WP No.2366 of 2019

¶136

¶137

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶138

WRIT PETITION NO.2366 OF 2019

¶139

Date : 16-09-2019

¶140

Gvl

Jupalle Venkata Ramana Reddy Educational Society v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jupalle Venkata Ramana Reddy Educational Society v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dudala Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Sreekanth Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Golla Nagendra Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jupalle Venkata Ramana Reddy Educational Society, Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Potlabathini Siva Sankara Rao Alias Siva Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vinnakota Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh