Allowed

Sri. Om Singh Bhati v. Karnataka State Open University

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2023WP/24262/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition seeking an Executive MBA degree certificate. The Court held that the prospective de-recognition notice by UGC did not affect the legal validity of the petitioner's admission. Directing the University and UGC to issue the certificate. (45-56 words)

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Regional University to issue the Executive MBA degree certificate to the petitioner, and for the University Grants Commission to grant necessary 'No objection'.

Sri. Om Singh Bhati Vs Karnataka State Open… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 24262 OF 2022 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. OM SINGH BHATI AGED 38 YEARS S/O NARPAT SINGH BHATI PRESENTLY WORKING AS STORE KEEPER AIIMS, SAKETNAGAR

¶9

BHOPAL-462020, MADHYA PRADESH

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. KUMARI M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTHAGANGOTHRI MYSORE-575006 REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶14

2 . UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SAFAR MARG NEW DELHI-110 002

¶15

REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY T P, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶18

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 UNIVERSITY TO ISSUE EXECUTIVE MBA DEGEE CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONER, PURSUANT TO HIS ADMISSION DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2014-15 AND COMPLETION OF COURSE WITH REGISTER NO.13762EMBA0006, FORTH WITH AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.12.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner who is a resident of Rajasthan and claims that he has taken admission to Executive MBA in respondent No.1-University through collaborative institution through the study centre at Rajasthan. The petitioner has taken admission in the year 2014-15. The petitioner claims that he has attended the contact classes conducted by the study centre and has appeared for 1^st and 2^nd year examinations during October 2014 and May 2015 and has completed the course. The petitioner has further claimed that based on Executive MBA degree, he applied to the post of Store Keeper pursuant to the Notification dated 31.03.2018 issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The

¶23

¶24

petitioner was selected and offered appointment on

¶25

10.06.2019. The petitioner further claimed that he has reported to duty on 20.06.2019 and he is working since then and has completed his probation period on 20.06.2021.

¶26

The petitioner's grievance is that he along with similarly placed students have tendered several representations to respondent No.1-University requesting for issuance of degree certificate. The petitioner's grievance is that respondent No.1-University inspite of repeated requests has not taken any action in this regard. On the contrary, respondent No.1-University has informed students that unless respondent No.2-University Grants Commission (UGC) grants permission, the University would not be in a position to issue marks cards/degree certificates to them. On these set of grounds, the captioned petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent No.1-University to issue MBA degree certificate.

¶27

¶28

The respondent No.1-University on the contrary has

¶29

filed statement of objections and has contended that since petitioner has completed his course through study centre situated at Rajasthan which is obviously outside the State of Karnataka and he was admitted during the academic year 2014-15 during which period there was no recognition by respondent No.2, it is contended that petitioner is not entitled for a degree and has sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

Per contra, the respondent No.2-UGC has filed

¶31

counter affidavit in response to the claim made by the petitioner in the captioned petition. The respondent No.2 has contended that open and distance program of respondent No.1-University were recognized only upto 2012-13. Therefore, respondent No.2 contended that petitioner having taken admission for the year 2014-15 during which year respondent No.1-University did not have any recognition and therefore, respondent No.1-University had no authority to offer any course through ODL mode.

¶32

¶33

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

¶34

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶35

The contention of respondent No.2 that respondent No.1-University did not possess recognition for the academic year 2014-15 needs consideration in the light of observation made by the coordinate Bench in an identical case. The coordinate Bench in W.P.No.4560/2020 while examining the stand of respondent No.2 has held as under:

¶36

"7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, the said Public Notice dated 16.06.2015 issued by the UGC was not applicable to the students who have enrolled and taken admission prior to 16.06.2015; further, since the de-recognition of the KSOU by the UGC vide Public Notice dated 16.06.2015 was prospective and not retrospective, the same was not applicable to the petitioner, who has undisputedly completed the B.Com course in June/July 2015 itself, as held by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and consequently, the admission of the petitioner into the KSOU being legal, valid and proper, the said public

¶37

¶38

notice dated 16.06.2015 could not have been made the basis by the respondent No.1-KSLU to refuse to approve the admission of the petitioner to respondent No.3-College and as such, the impugned communication deserves to be quashed on this ground also."

¶39

The respondent No.1-University has approved the admission of the petitioner and has issued marks cards for the 1^st Semester and 2^nd Semester which is evident from Annexures-A and A1. The respondent No.1 has also issued a provisional pass certificate dated 23.05.2016 which is evident from Annexure-B. The respondent No.2's contention that open and distance programme of respondent No.1 were recognized only upto 2012-13 by erstwhile DEC and that there was no further recognition till 2017-18 for offering any programme in the Distance Education Mode cannot be acceded to in the present case on hand.

¶40

The respondent No.2 has issued public notice on

¶41

16.06.2015 and based on the said public notice, the

¶42

¶43

respondent No.1-Univeristy has issued Notification on 05.03.2016 thereby cautioning the general public, students

¶44

and other stake holder taking admissions to such programs may jeopardize the career of students in view of absence of recognition of programs by respondent No.2.

¶45

If these significant details are looked into, the petitioner who has secured admission and the same is approved by the respondent No.1 for the academic year 201415 cannot be found fault with. As held by the coordinate Bench in the culled out paragraph supra, the public notice issued by the respondent No.2 in 2015 in the considered opinion of this Court would not stand in the way of respondent No.1-University from releasing the results and issuing the degree certificate. The notification issued by the respondent No.2 notifying the pubic at large is dated 16.06.2015 and the respondent No.1-University has acted on the public notice by issuing a notification thereby terminating the memorandum of

¶46

¶47

understanding based on direction from the respondent No.2

¶48

and this notification is dated 05.03.2016.

¶49

From the materials placed on record by the petitioner, it is evident that petitioner has applied for the post of Store Keeper and petitioner is selected and offered appointment on 10.06.2019. If petitioner is reported to duty on 20.06.2019 and is working since then and has successfully completed the probation period on 20.06.2021, if appropriate directions are not issued that would seriously prejudice the petitioner's right. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case to issue mandamus.

¶50

Hence, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶53

ii) A direction is issued to the respondent No.1-University to issue Executive MBA degree certificate to the petitioner;

¶54

¶55

iii) The respondent No.2 shall issue necessary direction to the respondent No.1 and grant "No objection" to enable respondent No.1 to issue degree certificate;

¶56

iv) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶57

v) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Sri. Om Singh Bhati v. Karnataka State Open University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Om Singh Bhati v. Karnataka State Open University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anjinamma, Vs Sri. Mohammed Sajjad Sait

Sri. N. S. Srinivas Vs Sri. N. D. Surendra

Azeez Mohammed Vs Mr. Parameshwaran Subramani

Gangolli Saraswathi Vidyalaya School Education (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.P.R.Sundareshan Vs Karnataka Stae Open University

Sri Debasish Das Vs Karnataka State Open University