Disposed

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

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2023WP/5422/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by students seeking direction to Karnataka State Open University and AICTE to validate engineering degrees and issue certificates. The court directed respondents to investigate whether courses were approved by AICTE and conducted within territorial jurisdiction, instructing certificate issuance if approvals were established.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; directions issued to respondents to inquire and verify permits for technical courses in distance education, to issue certificates if approvals exist, within three months.

Sri.P.R.Sundareshan Vs Karnataka Stae 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. 5422 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI.P.R.SUNDARESHAN AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O K P RAMAKRISHNAN H NO P/93, TEJAS, GT ROAD ADKATHBAIL, P O KUDLU - 671121 KASARGOD DISTRICT, KERALA

¶9

2 . SRI SAURABH YADAV AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O PARAMDEV YADAV VILLAGE NEAR DEOKALI BYE AYODHYA - 224001, UTTAR PRADESH

¶10

3 . MR KHIROD PRADHAN AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O DHANURDHAR PRADHAN G G P COLONY, PLOT NO. L/50 RASULGARH, BHUBANESWAR KHURDHA, ODISHA - 751010

¶11

4 . SRI KARTIK GANESAN AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O SRI P S GANESAN DG-2, 33-B, VIKAS PURI, NEW DELHI - 110018

¶12

¶13

5 . SRI LAXMIKANTHA AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE ANANTHA BHAT NO 001, VENKATAGIRI APARTMENTS NEAR BAPPANADU TEMPLE, BAPPANADU MULKI POST DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574154

¶14

6 . MS SRIDEVI R AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS D/O RAGHAVENDRA G NO 128, 2^ND MAIN ROAD AVALAHALLI NEW BDA LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560085

¶15

7 . SRI DAYANANDA K AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O KRISHNA KRISHNA, BEJAI ANEGUNDI MANGALURU - 575004

¶16

8 . MR VINOD SHARMA AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE M L SUTHAR MITHILA (HOME), PADANNAKKARA PINARAYI (PO), THALASSERY KERALA - 670741

¶17

9 . SRI KUMARNAVEEN P AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O NANDABALAN P V NANDA VIHAR, POTTACHAL ROAD, NADAKKAVU, UDINUR POST, THRIKKARIPPUR KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE - 671310

¶18

10 . SRI ABHIJIT MOHARANA AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O GOLAK BIHARI MOHARANA

¶19

¶20

KADALIPAL, POST KOTTAM, VIA BHAPUR DISTRICT DHENKANAL, ODISHA - 759015

¶21

11 . MS SWAROOPA G AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS D/O GANGADHARAN G SAKETHAM HOUSE, KAIVATTAMOOLA PAZHUPATHOOR POST - 673592 WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA STATE

¶22

12 . SRI BYREGOWDA AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O VASANTHAPPA MARAGONDANAHALLI, SULIKERE POST KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH - 560060

¶23

13 . SRI DINEESH K S AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O K K SANKARANARAYANAN VIPANCHIKA, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR KERALA - 679531

¶24

14 . SRI GURPREET SINGH AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O SRI.ARJAN DASS VILL TILLUWAL, PO KHUN KHUN KALAN DASUYA, HOSHIARPUR, PUNJAB - 144305

¶25

15 . SRI JAI HIND PARETA AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O BRIJMOHAN PARETA, NAYAPURA, LAKHERI DISTRICT BUNDI, RAJASTHAN - 323603

¶26

16 . SRI JYOTHI PRAKASH SARANGI AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O SURENDRA SARANGI NUA BHADRA, POST KHASBAHAL

¶27

¶28

DISTRICT BALANGIR - 767032

¶29

17 . SRI KIRAN H S AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O SHIVANNA S SITE NOS 35 AND 36 SRI SIDDESHWARA NILAYA, 6^TH G CROSS GUTTEBASAVESHWARA NAGARA, CHIKKABANAVARA BANGALORE - 560090

¶30

18 . MS ARTHII R AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O RAVI G 1/1312, HIG, TNHB VIRUPATCHIPURAM, COLLECTORATE (PO), VENNAMPATTY ROAD, DHARMAPURI - 636705 TAMILNADU

¶31

19 . SRI NARESH KUMAR AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O SHYAM LAL, 271, PARTAP NAGAR, GALI - 3 BANGUR STADIUM ROAD, PALI (RAJ.) DISTRICT PALI, STATE: RAJASTHAN - 306401

¶32

20 . SRI NOORUDDIN M AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O M SULAIMAN C/O NOORUDDIN M DOOR NO 1 -14 (1), MANI HOUSE AND POST BANTWAL TALUK, D K - 574253

¶33

21 . SRI BHAVE OMKAR SUNIL AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶34

S/O SUNIL BALKRISHNA BHAVE, QTR NO P303/D SARVATRA VIHAR, MES DEFENCE COLONY, RANGE HILL ROAD, OPPOSITE TO RAJA BUNGLOW KIRKEE, PUNE- 411003 (MH).

¶35

¶36

22 . SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR K S AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O SHRIDHARA PUROHITH NO 145, NEMMADI NILAYA, 4^TH BLOCK, 4^TH CROSS JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT, NAGADEVANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560056

¶37

23 . SRI SANDEEP YADAV AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O OM PRAKASH V P O RAJGARH, DISTRICT BHIWANI STATE HARYANA - 127021

¶38

24 . SRI SHISHIR SRIVASTAVA AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O MR A K SRIVASTAVA 1401, ACE PLATINUM GREATER NOIDA - 201310

¶39

25 . SRI VINAY KUMAR K AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O VASANTHA DEVANGA NO 6, SHRUTHI, 1^ST E MAIN B K NAGAR, YESHWANTHPUR BENGALURU - 560022

¶40

26 . SRI BALVINDER KUMAR AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O KISHORE CHAND 13 PARMAR COLONY, GARHSHANKAR, DISTRICT HOSHIAR PUR, PUNJAB - 144527

¶41

27 . SRI ANJANI KUMAR SHARMA AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE K P SHARMA, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC CHANDAUSI, BUDAUN ROAD CHANDAUSI, SAMBHAL, UP - 244412

¶42

¶43

28 . JITHIN K C AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O VIJAYAN V MITHILA, PADANNAKKARA, PINARAYI POST THALASSERY, KERALA-670741

¶44

29 . SRI JAGRIT DAS MANIKPURI AGED MAJOR S/O MAHANGU DAS MANIKPURI III, B/4, RESIDENTIAL COLONY, RAJABHOJ AIRPORT, AAI, BHOPAL - 462030 MADHYA PRADESH

¶45

30 . MS MEENAKSHI AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS D/O R P KODATE NO 9/A, MUKHYA PRANA NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS R R LAYOUT, NAGADEVANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560056

¶46

31 . MS DIVYA P AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS D/O D P PRAKASH NO 586, AKUL, 1^ST FLOOR, SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM, HASSAN - 573201

¶47

32 . SRI KARTHIK RAO P S/O MURALIDHARA RAO SATWI VILLE, SY NO 502/1, B- 403, BEHIND GREEN GARDENIA BAR AND RESTAURANTS, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560043

¶48

33 . SRI ABILASH N B AGE ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O BALACHANDRAN N NHAREKKATU HOUSE, ETTAMPURAM, CHOWANNUR POST, KUNNAMKULAM

¶49

¶50

THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA - 680517

¶51

34 . SRI RAJASEKARAN M AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O MURUGAN, 64/34, EB COLONY, MAHARAJANAGAR TIRUNELVELI - 627011, TAMILNADU

¶52

35 . MS USHA M AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS D/O MUNIHANNAPPA M NO 102, ASHIRWADA, PATEL CHANNAPPA COMPOUND MANGAMMANAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560068

¶53

36 . SRI VELAYYA K AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O A KUPPUSAMY, 10/43C, NORTH KAMARAJAR STREET SANDHAPETTAI, LALGUDI TALUK TRICHIRAPPALLI - 621601

¶54

37 . SRI BHASKAR CHANDRA ROUT AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O PARSHURAM ROUT, AT BABALPUR POST, VIA MANJURI ROAD, BHADRAK - 756121

¶55

38 . MS DEEPARSREE T K AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O RAJEEVAN P K, SREERAGA HOUSE THEKKEKALATHINGAL, NANMINDA P O - 677361 CALICUT, KERALA

¶56

39 . SRI S NIZAR AHMAD AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O ABDUL SUBHAN, VELLORE DISTRICT TAMIL NADIU - 632107

¶57

¶58

40 . SUNIL KUMAR AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O SATISH CHANDER FLAT NO B -70, KENDRIYA VIHAR, SECTOR 51, NOIDA – 201303

¶59

41 . SRI RAJENDRA SINGH AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O SHRI PURAN SINGH, C - 48/14, LAB QUARTERS DRDO TOWNSHIP, KANCHANBAGH HYDERABAD - 500058

¶60

42 . SRI RITESH GUPTA AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O KANHAIYA LAL GUPTA, ECO VILLAGE - 1, FLAT NO A4/010, PLOT NO.8, SECTOR - 1 GREATER NOIDA WEST, UP - 201306

¶61

43 . SRI SHAJAHAN M M AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O MOHAMMED MYDEEN 58/168, NEW STREET KEDAYANALLUR - 627751, TENKASI TAMILNADU

¶62

44 . SRI S SAGAR AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O R SHIVA SHANKAR FLAT NO 103, GAYATRI APARTMENT, 891/1, KANTHARAJ URS ROAD LASKHMIPURAM, MYSORE - 570004

¶63

45 . SRI SUHAS B S AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O SANTHOSH, NO 992, 2^ND MAIN 3^RD CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURAM MYSURU - 570008

¶64

¶65

46 . SRI. VISHWANATH DC AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O CHANDRA SHEKAR, NO.584/150, VISHALA NILAYA, BEHIND PRERARANA MOTORS, NEAR VISHWA SHANTI ASHRAMA, ARISHINAKUNTE, BANGALORE RURAL-562 123.

¶66

47 . SRI ASHISH KUMAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O ARVIND KUMAR SINGH, PLOT NO.909/5, FLAT NO.301, STREET NO.7, PATEL NAGAR, GURUGRAM – 122 001. HARYANA.

¶67

...PETITIONERS

¶68

(BY SMT. KUMARI M., ADVOCATE)

¶69

AND:

¶70

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

¶71

2 . UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SAFAR MARG NEW DELHI - 110002 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶72

3 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES), M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶73

¶74

4 . ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION NELSON MANDELA MARG VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110070 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶75

…RESPONDENTS

¶76

(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-3; MS. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R-3; SMT. KSHAMA NARAGUND, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-4)

¶77

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 AICTE TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF R1 UNIVERSITY AND TREAT THE TECHNICAL DEGREES / DIPLOMAS AWARDED TO THE STUDENTS WHO HAVE ADMITTED DURING THE ACADEMIC YEARS 2007-08 TO 2012-13 AS VALID, IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN W.P.(C)382/2018, AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF IGNOU VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.,

¶78

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:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

The petitioners have filed the captioned petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶81

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the respondent No.4 AICTE to consider the case of 1^st respondent University and treat the Technical Degrees/Diplomas awarded to the students who have admitted during the academic years 2007-08 to 2012-

¶82

¶83

13 as valid, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(c) 382/2018, as has been done in the case of IGNOU vide Annexure-M, and;

¶84

b) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 University to issue/award Marks cards and Degree certificates to the petitioners who have successfully completed the courses, and;

¶85

c) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 University to conduct examination to the students who have not completed the courses, and;

¶86

d) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 University to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioners for loss of their future prospects and loss of their valuable time and money, and;

¶87

e) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶88

The petitioners herein are students of respondent No.1-University. The petitioners claim that Distance Education Council has accorded recognition to the respondent No.1-

¶89

¶90

University to offer various programs/courses approved by statutory body of University. The petitioners claim that they have completed B.Tech and Diploma Courses at various study centres of respondent No.1-University in collaboration with private institution named as Academic Collaborative Institution. The petitioners who claim that they have completed B.Tech and Diploma courses have joined the course between 2011-12 and 2012-13. The captioned petition is filed alleging that respondent No.1-University has withheld the marks cards and degree certificates of petitioners herein though they have completed their degree/diploma prior to 2011-12.

¶91

The respondent No.1-Univeristy has filed statement of objections and has contested the proceedings. The respondent No.1-University placing reliance on public notice issued by the respondent No.2 dated 24.06.2013 has declined to issue degree certificates and marks cards on the ground that all the courses offered by the respondent No.1 including

¶92

¶93

in-house technical courses conducted by the Academic Collaborative Institutions are withdrawn and therefore, the respondent No.1-University as per direction of respondent No.2 cannot issue degree certificates. The respondent No.1 has also contended that courses offered through collaborative institution under respondent No.1-University which is found to be beyond jurisdiction of the University is not recognized by respondent No.2. The respondent No.1-University has taken a stand that it has resolved to issue degree certificates only to in-house courses students who were admitted through Academic Collaborative Institution and a Circular to that effect is issued in that regard on 08.04.2021. The said Circular is also placed along with statement of objections at Annexure-R-10. The respondent No.1 has further contended that respondent No.2 has directed not to issue degree certificates for the years for which either University therein recognized by it or territorial jurisdiction has not been complied.

¶94

¶95

The respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit

¶96

refuting the claim made by the petitioners. The respondent No.2 has claimed that respondent No.1-University has violated the norms and guidelines and directives of the Distance Education Council. The respondent No.2 claimed that inspite of several reminders and show cause notice issued to respondent No.1-University, the respondent No.1 is found to be guilty of imparting education even beyond its territorial jurisdiction in collaboration with private institutions and therefore, respondent No.2 claimed that respondent No.1University was not given any recognition beyond 2012-13. The respondent No.2 has further contended that respondent No.1-University though was conferred with recognition upto 2012-13, however, no technical courses viz., B.E./B.Tech was given recognition by the joint committee of UGC-DEC-AICTE pursuant to issuance of public notice dated 13.08.2009.

¶97

¶98

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶99

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

¶100

The petitioners in the present petition are claiming that they have completed B.Tech and M.Tech as well as Diploma courses through various study centres within and outside State of Karnataka. The petitioners claim is that they have completed their course at various study centres of authorized University in collaboration with private institution named as Academic Collaborative Institution in face to face mode (ODL).

¶101

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 while placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others¹ and the judgment rendered in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi

¶102

1 (2005) 5 SCC 420

¶103

¶104

Sankar Patro and Others² has strongly resisted the petition by arguing that engineering degrees cannot be conducted by open and distance learning mode (ODL) and even if approved by Distance Education Council for want of approval from AICTE, the engineering degrees conferred through ODL mode was held to be illegal.

¶105

I have given my anxious consideration to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and

¶106

Others (supra). The Apex Court in the above cited judgment has clearly taken cognizance of the fact that Distance Education Council started giving approvals without any proper mechanism in place. Referring to the material on record, Apex Court held that B.E./B.Tech degrees awarded by institution deemed to be Universities through ODL mode without AICTE approval cannot be treated as valid qualification by UGC. Paras 45 to 48 of the said judgment are found to be relevant

¶107

2 (2018) 1 SCC 468

¶108

¶109

and therefore, I deem it fit to cull out these relevant paragraphs which would have a direct bearing on the present lis and the same reads as under:

¶110

" 45. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the learned Amicus Curiae is right in his submission that the ex post facto approvals granted in the present matters were completely opposed to the policy statements governing the matters in issue. He is right that the deemed to be universities concerned admitted students, conducted courses and granted degrees in the absence of statutory approvals. It is, however, the submission of Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate that a deemed to be university is entitled to start new courses in technical education (including through distance education mode) in terms of law laid down by this Court in Bharathidasan [Bharathidasan University v. AICTE, (2001) 8 SCC 676 : 1 SCEC 924] and that there was no bar or prohibition in any statute or statutory instrument when the deemed to be universities started the instant courses in distance education mode. According to him, the inspections could of course be undertaken by UGC in terms of the statute and if no inspections, as a matter of fact were conducted, the deemed to be universities could not be at fault. The following questions, therefore, arise for our consideration.

¶111

A.Whether the deemed to be universities concerned in the present case, could start courses through distance education in subjects leading to award of degrees in Engineering:

¶112

(a). Without any parameters or guidelines having been laid down by AICTE for conduct of such courses in technical education through distance education mode?

¶113

¶114

(b). Without prior approval under the AICTI Act?

¶115

B. Whether DEC, on its own, was competent to grant permission to the deemed to be universities concerned to start such courses through distance education?

¶116

46. The definition of “technical education” in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of education, research and training in Engineering Technology in general and the idea is not limited to the institutions where such programmes of education, research and training are to be conducted or imparted. However, the definition of “technical institution” in Section 2(h) leaves out an institution which is a university. The distinction between the broader concept of “technical education” and the limited scope of “technical institution” is clear from Section 10 of the AICTE Act where certain functions concern the broader facets or aspects of technical education which by very nature must apply to every single institution (whether university or not) where such courses are conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functions are relatable to technical institutions alone, which by definition are not applicable to universities. For example, functions in clauses (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (l) and (n) are concerned with broader facets of technical education, while functions in clauses (k), (m), (p) and (q) deal with matters concerning technical institutions and thus may not apply to universities, whereas there are certain functions as set out in clauses (g) and (o) which apply to both “technical institutions” and “universities” imparting technical education. Clauses (c), (d) and (f) of Section 10 deal with subjects, inter alia, coordination of the technical education in the country at all levels; promoting innovation, research, development, establishment of new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet the developmental requirements; and promoting and effecting link between technical education and systems and other relevant systems. AICTE

¶117

¶118

is thus the sole repository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative norms for “technical education”. What should be course content, what subjects be taught and what should be the length and duration of the courses as well as the manner in which those courses be conducted is a part of the larger concept of “technical education”. Any idea or innovation in that field is also a part of the concept of “technical education” and must, as a matter of principle, be in the exclusive domain of AICTE.

¶119

47. In Bharathidasan [Bharathidasan University v. AICTE, (2001) 8 SCC 676 : 1 SCEC 924] the issue was whether a university established under a State law, within its area of operation, was entitled to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the university itself without any approval of AICTE. The requirement of grant of approval under Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act being specific in respect of technical institutions alone, the conclusion was arrived at that AICTE could not insist upon such grant of approval when a university wished to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself. The discussion in Bharathidasan [Bharathidasan University v. AICTE, (2001) 8 SCC 676 : 1 SCEC 924] shows that this Court accepted the role of AICTE in laying down norms and standards in technical education system which is evident from the following portions from paras 10 and 16 : (SCC pp. 685 & 690)

¶120

“10. … A careful scanning-through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action.

¶121

¶122

***

¶123

16. … We also place on record the statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, which, in our view, even otherwise is the correct position of law, that the challenge of the appellant with reference to the Regulation in question and claim of AICTE that the appellant University should seek and obtain prior approval of AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or programme in technical education does not mean that they have no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by AICTE for the purpose of ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards.”

¶124

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 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 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 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

¶125

¶126

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 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 of norms and standards including maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education. In our view, whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering could be taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive domain of AICTE. The answer to the first limb of the first question posed by us is therefore clear that without the guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree courses in Engineering through distance education mode, the deemed to be universities were not justified in introducing such courses."

¶127

9. The Apex Court further held that if deemed

¶128

universities have introduced any course in technical education without approval of AICTE, all the degrees in engineering awarded by deemed Universities concerned stand suspended. The Apex Court further directed AICTE to devise modality to conduct appropriate test which was indicated in para 58 of the said judgment.

¶129

¶130

In the light of dictum laid down by the Apex Court

¶131

which is culled out supra, what this Court needs to examine is feasibility of pursuing technical courses through Distance Education at an open University. While the inherent practical nature of technical disciplines implies a substantial hands-on component, the assertion that such courses are incompatible with distance education warrants a more nuanced examination. The Apex Court in the judgment cited supra has dealt with the said issue exhaustively. The question that needs to be considered is as to whether deemed University through study centres can impart technical courses mainly B.Tech and B.E. Reputable open Universities, cognizant of the exigencies of technical education, have adeptly harnessed virtual labs, simulation software and interactive multimedia to simulate real-world scenarios and these Universities have the benefit of full-fledged laboratories and other infrastructures. Accreditation bodies and regulatory frameworks play a pivotal role in ensuring the equivalence and validity of qualifications

¶132

¶133

obtained through distance learning, thereby fortifying the credibility of such programs.

¶134

The petitioners are claiming that they have completed B.Tech and M.Tech as well as Engineering through private institutions. If such deemed Universities are permitted to impart technical courses through private study centres, it may cause a serious dent in the standard of education. The Apex Court while questioning the competence of these study centres has issued several directions to respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.4 to take remedial measures. A salient facet involves the scrutiny of degrees conferred through distance education in technical fields, which may encounter skepticism as there is every possibility of students securing fake degree certificates from the study centres which are not equipped with infrastructure. The respondent No.2 which provides regulatory mechanism and establishment for operation of private Universities is under a bounden duty to safeguard the interest of students community with adequate

¶135

¶136

emphasis on the equality of education and to avoid commercialization of higher education and also to maintain standard of teaching, research and examination.

¶137

Whether these study centres were equipped with all requisite infrastructure and collaborative and interactive dimensions to effectively conduct practical sessions which could have equipped the students with nuanced skills or whether these courses which are imparted through private study centres has virtually compromised with standard education is a matter to be looked into by respondent Nos.2 and 4. Whether the study centres displayed inherent deficiencies within the framework of technical courses offered through distance education has to be enquired into by respondent Nos.2 and 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 are required to enquire into and find out as to whether the intricate task of replicating authentic practical experiences which constitute an indispensable facet in imparting technical courses such as B.Tech and Engineering has to be enquired

¶138

¶139

into before the students who claim that they have undergone the courses of B.Tech and Engineering can be conferred with degree certificate and marks card.

¶140

In the light of discussion made supra, I pass the following:

¶141

ORDER

¶142

(i) The writ petition is disposed of;

¶143

(ii) The 1994 AICTE Regulations are applicable even to deemed to be Universities and therefore, the deemed to be Universities before introducing any new course in technical education were required to seek approval from respondent No.4-AICTE. Therefore, respondent Nos.2 and 4 shall enquire by securing the details of the approval of admissions with the respondent No.1University and examine whether the course in technical education were imparted through study centres with prior approval of AICTE;

¶144

(iii) The respondent No.4 shall also ensure that respondent No.1-University had recognition to impart distance education through study centres;

¶145

¶146

(iv) The respondent No.4 shall also enquire and ascertain as to whether there was approval from respondent No.2 and Distance Education Council enabling the study centres situated outside Karnataka in imparting education in technical courses and thereafter take appropriate action in the matter;

¶147

(v) In the event the petitioners have completed the courses which had a prior approval from the concerned competent authorities, the respondent No.1-University shall issue degree certificates/marks cards to the petitioners;

¶148

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

¶149

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

¶150

Sd/JUDGE

¶151

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.P.R.Sundareshan v. Karnataka Stae 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. Om Singh Bhati Vs Karnataka State Open University

Sri Debasish Das Vs Karnataka State Open University