Smt Saraswati Biradar Vs Karnataka State Open University

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 28903 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT SARASWATI BIRADAR, D/O. BHAGAWANT BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, LECTURER IN HISTORY, GOVERNMENT PRE UNIVERSITY COLLAGE, HONNUTAGI, BIJAPUR TALUK, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT – 586 127.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. NANDINI B. S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY, MUKTHAGANGOTHRI,

¶13

MYSORE – 570 006,

¶14

REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, NO.122-C, SHASTRI BHAWAN,

¶17

NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶18

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶19

THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BHAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 002.

¶20

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES), BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADV. FOR R1 SRI. VAIBHAV MALIMATH, ADV. FOR R2 SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, ADV. FOR R3

¶25

SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R4)

¶26

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶27

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENT DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE GENUINENESS CERTIFICATE (VIDE ANNEXURE-M) TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF HER M.A. (HISTORY) DEGREE OBTAINED WITH REG.NO. 13207MAHS024 DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-15 AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶32

“1) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to issue Genuineness Certificate (vide AnnexureM) to the Petitioner in respect of her M.A., (History) Degree obtained with Reg. No.13207MAHS024 during the academic year 2013-15, and;

¶33

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representations dated 06.07.2021 & 09.10.2024 vide Annexure-L & L1 and issue the M.A. (History) Degree Certificate for having completed the said course with Reg. No.13207MAHS024 during the academic year 2013-15, and;

¶34

(ii)(a): Issue writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Communication bearing NO. KSOU: EB: COLL.INST:202425dated 04.11.2024 issued by Deputy Registrar (Evaluation) of the Respondent University as arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law;

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶36

iii) Direct the respondent to award suitable compensation for having put the petitioner in the present situation without issuing Genuineness Certificate / Degree Certificate in spite of her completing M.A., (History) Degree during the academic year 2013-15, which has not been disputed by it and;

¶37

iv) Grant such other relief/s as deems fit by this Hon'ble Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs, in the interest of justice and equity

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶39

counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, respectively and perused the material on record.

¶40

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner obtained BA degree from the Women’s University, Bijapur and post graduate degree in MA (History) from respondent No.1-Karnataka State Open University (KSOU) in the year 2015. In pursuance of the notification issued by the Karnataka Education Authority (KEA) dated 13.06.2016, the petitioner was selected to the post of Lecturer in History in Government PU College, Honnutagi, Bijapur Taluk, Vijayapur District, on 20.11.2020 and she reported to duty on 07.12.2020. Since the petitioner was not paid her salary, she approached the KSAT in Application

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶43

No.20737/2021, which was partly allowed by the Tribunal, which issued directions against the KSOU and the State Government in this regard.

¶44

Subsequently, respondent No.4 – State issued a show-

¶45

cause notice dated 29.09.2024 to the petitioner calling upon her to explain and show-cause as to why her appointment should not be cancelled on the ground that respondent No.1-KSOU had not issued genuineness certificate in respect of her MA (History) Course. The petitioner having submitted her reply dated 08.10.2024, she approached this Court by way of the present petition on 16.10.2024 by impleading/arraying only respondent No.1 – KSOU as a party. During the pendency of the present petition, respondent No.1-University issued a communication dated 04.11.2024 intimating the petitioner that it was not possible to issue the genuineness certificates and other certificates. Accordingly, the petitioner got the present petition amended and has challenged the said communication also in the present petition in which she has sought for the aforesaid reliefs by placing reliance upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gangamma and others Vs. KSOU and others –

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶47

W.P.No.32792/2019 and Con. Matters, dated 03.08.2022 , which

¶48

was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.906/2022 and Con. Matters, dated 19.12.2024.

¶49

Respondent No.1 – KSOU and respondent No.3 – UGC have filed separate Statements of Objections to the petition. It is contended that when the petitioner joined the MA Course in history, respondent No.1 – KSOU was not duly recognised by the KSOU and by referring to various documents including notifications, notices, circulars, communications etc., it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present petition.

¶50

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

¶51

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner got enrolled/admitted as a student of respondent No.1-KSOU in the year 2014 and successfully passed/completed her post graduate course in MA History in 2015 as evidenced by the marks sheet/statement at Annexure-A dated 30.10.2014 pertaining to first year and Annexure-A1 dated 06.01.2016 issued by respondent No.1 –

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶54

KSOU. In Gangamma’s case supra, while dealing with students admitted to KSOU during the same period for post graduation, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:

¶55

“Various petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are affected by the public notice dated 16.06.2015 issued by the University Grants Commission (for short ‘UGC’) in the purported exercise of its power under University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short ‘UGC Act, 1956’). They had pursued various courses under the aegis of Karnataka State Open University (for short ‘KSOU’), which is created under the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992 (‘KSOU Act, 1992’ for short) under ‘In-House System’ (admission of students directly by the KSOU to the courses offered by it). The details of courses taken by the various petitioners under the ‘In-House System’ are as follows:

¶56

SL. NO.	CASE NO	NO. PETITIONER	^COURSE	YEAR
01.	W.P.NO. 32792/2019	26	B.ED, B.ED SPECIAL	2013-2014 2014-2015
02.	W.P.NO. 53527/2017	01	BA	2013-2014
03.	W.P.NO. 1666/2018	02	MA	2013-2014 2014-2015
04.	W.P.NO. 13951/2019	01	MA	2015-2016
05.	W.P.NO. 13953/2019	01	B.ED	2014-2015 2015-2016
06.	W.P.NO. 14903/2019	11	M.A, M.SC, BA, B.ED SPECIAL, B.COM	2013-2014 2014-2015
07.	W.P.NO. 29605/2019	21	B.ED, M.A	2013-2014 2014-2015
08.	W.P.NO.	08	NON-TEACHING,	2013-2014

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶59

	29878/2019		TECHNICAL COURSE, BA, B.COM
09.	W.P.NO. 30121/2019	01	M.A IN KANNADA	2014-2015
10.	W.P.NO. 30278/2019	13	B.A, B.ED, MA	2013-2014 2014-2015
11.	W.P.NO. 30808/2019	08	M.A, M.SC & B.A	2013-2014 2014-2015
12.	W.P.NO. 31121/2019	04	B.A, M.A, PGDHRM, DEGREE COURSES	2013-2014 2014-2015
13.	W.P.NO. 32729/2019	38	B.ED	2013-2014 2014-2015
14.	W.P.NO. 32767/2019	20	M.A, M.COM, LLM & PG DIPLOMA COURSES	2013-2014 2014-2015
15.	W.P.NO. 33066/2019	07	B.A, B.COM	2012-2013 2013-2014
16.	W.P.NO. 35151/2019	42	B.ED, B.ED SPECIAL, M.A, B.A	2013-2014 2014-2015
17.	W.P.NO. 35193/2019	36	M.A. M.COM, LLM & P.G. DIPLOMA	2013-2014 2014-2015
18.	W.P.NO. 35230/2019	01	M.ED	2014-2015
19.	W.P.NO. 36727/2019	16	B.ED	2013-2014 2014-2015
20.	W.P.NO. 36743/2019	16	B.A, M.A, B.ED, B.ED SPECIAL & M.ED	2013-2014 2014-2015
21.	W.P.NO. 41143/2019	03	B.A, B.ED	2013-2014 2014-2015
22.	W.P.NO. 50044/2019	07	B.COM, B.A, B.ED, B.ED SPECIAL	2013-2014 2014-2015

¶60

2. Petitioners are having 3 sets of grievances:

¶61

(a) On account of public notice dated 16.06.2015 issued by the UGC, petitioners are virtually deprived of the fruits of the educational degree to which they are entitled to as courses were offered by a regularly established University

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶64

namely, KSOU under its ‘In-House System’. As

¶65

a consequence, they have not been issued marks cards for the various courses undertaken by them even though they have passed the examination held by the KSOU successfully and further they are not awarded the degree certificates to which they are otherwise entitled.

¶66

(b) The petitioners are denied the opportunity of earning promotions in the Departments where they are working and large number of them are deprived of the opportunity of seeking employment under the State, various instrumentalities of the State and also under the Union of India and its instrumentalities.

¶67

(c) They are deprived of the opportunity of pursuing higher education for which the courses they have successfully completed under the aegis of KSOU, is the qualifying course.

¶68

They heavily place reliance on the Government Order dated 05.03.2018.

¶69

These petitioners are students enrolled for the various courses offered by KSOU under the In-House System for the Academic Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. In view of their grievances as indicated above, petitioners, in sum and substance are seeking writ of certiorari for quashing

¶70

9 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶72

the public notice issued by UGC on 16.06.2015 and further they are seeking a writ of mandamus to KSOU directing it to issue marks cards and degree certificates for the concerned courses taken and passed by them and also a writ of mandamus to the UGC to recognize the degrees earned by the petitioners through the ‘In-House System’ of KSOU and also writ of mandamus to the Government of Karnataka to consider the concerned candidates, who are the petitioners herein for the services for which they are the aspirants.

¶73

The petitioners have stated in these writ petitions that they were qualified and eligible to pursue the courses undertaken by them under ‘In-House System’ of KSOU and they were admitted in accordance with the provisions of KSOU Act, 1992 and thereafter, they had pursued the courses as per the syllabus and curriculum and they had taken examinations held by the KSOU and the KSOU had declared them to have successfully completed the course by passing examinations held by it. They have further stated in these writ petitions that in view of the subsequent public notice issued by the UGC on 16.06.2015, by which time they had already taken admission and started the course for the Academic Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and therefore, if they are denied the benefits of the courses passed by them regularly held by KSOU under the ‘In-House System’, they would be deprived of the opportunity of earning livelihood in violation of their right to “life”.

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶76

KSOU in the statement of objections filed by it has essentially taken a position that upto the Academic Year 2012-13, it had recognition granted by Distance Education Council (for short ‘DEC’) of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (for short ‘IGNOU’), which is a creation of Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985. Subsequently, the DEC was taken over by the UGC. It has further not disputed the fact that DEC, which was earlier an authority of the IGNOU after its taking over by UGC, had the power to require recognition for all the Universities created by a statute of the Central Government or the statute of the State Legislature, etc. properly obtained from UGC. It has also stated that by the time the public notice was issued by the UGC on 16.06.2015 the admissions for the Academic Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 had already been completed for the ‘In-House System’ and courses had also commenced. KSOU has further taken the position that a reading of impugned public notice issued by the UGC clearly shows that raison d'être for issuing same was essentially for admission of students and offering courses through Academic Collaborative Institutions System (for short ‘ACIS’). Its further position is that these petitioners being students of the ‘In-House System’ for non technical courses, UGC should not have any objections for recognizing the courses and awarding degrees to the petitioners for the Academic Years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

¶77

UGC has filed its statement of objections contending that under UGC Act, 1956, it has the mandate to ensure that all the Universities in the country maintain proper

¶78

11 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶80

academic standards and in order to further effectuate the same, it has the duty to take appropriate action. KSOU sometime after 2008-09 started flouting the norms for Open and Distance Learning (ODL) set by the DEC, which was earlier an authority of the IGNOU and ever since 2012 it has become a part of UGC. KSOU started indiscriminately opening collaborative institutions like study centres, franchises, etc. in various parts of the country and also started offering technical courses through such agencies. UGC has further stated that after fixing certain fees for such technical courses in the study centres and franchises of KSOU outside the State, it was sharing 80% of the fees with such franchisees leading to lack of control over the standards of education imparted through such agencies in particular and commercialization in general. It has also taken the position that most of the technical courses required face to face instructions and they are not suited for imparting under ODL system and therefore, UGC had set a clear standard that no University in the country should run technical courses through ODL. It has stated that UGC had issued several communications to the KSOU calling upon it to obtain recognition/approval from UGC for the courses and cease imparting technical courses in its study centres and franchises. It has stated that in view of KSOU not seeking and securing recognition from UGC for its courses from the Academic Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 and also on account of it admitting students for technical courses through ACIS, it had to issue the public notice dated 16.06.2015 to prevent gullible students from falling into a trap.

¶81

12 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶83

KPSC is a party respondent in some of the writ petitions and it has justified its action on the ground that KSOU was derecognized under the public notice dated 16.06.2015 for the courses run by it beyond Academic Year 2012-13.

¶84

The State has taken the position before this Court that insofar as the present petitioners are concerned they are students under the ‘In-House System’ for non technical courses and therefore, upon detailed consideration of the entire facts, it has issued Government Order dated 05.03.2018 permitting the students of the Academic Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 to apply for positions under the State and its instrumentalities and also secure promotions on the strength of examinations passed by them.

¶85

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners

¶86

have respectively urged grounds taken by them in the writ petitions and have submitted that writ petitions are required to be allowed and the reliefs sought for by them granted to them.

¶87

10. Sri.Showri, learned counsel for the UGC strenuously contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS¹ the UGC has the power over all Universities including the University created under statute of a State like KSOU in the matter of setting academic standards and

¶88

1 (2009) 4 SCC 590

¶89

13 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶91

maintaining the same. He took the Court through the various provisions of IGNOU Act, 1985, KSOU Act, 1992 and also UGC Act, 1956 and submitted that UGC is a premier academic regulatory institution of the country whose mandate is not merely to release grants to the universities in the country but also it has the over-arching responsibility to set academic standards and maintain the same in all the universities. It had come to the notice of the UGC that KSOU in violation of its power was offering technical courses through ODL and imparting the same through study centres and franchises leading to commercialization of education. He also highlighted that KSOU had failed to secure the recognition/approval from UGC for its courses/programmes for the Academic Years beyond 2012-13. Therefore, it was constrained to issue public notice dated 16.06.2015 in order to safeguard the interest of students, who may fall victim to the malpractices facilitated by KSOU. He submitted that KSOU had not even sent an application seeking recognition/approval for the Academic Years commencing from 2013-14. He pointed out that after KSOU submitted the application UGC has taken steps as contemplated under UGC Act, 1956, issued recognition/approval to the KSOU from the Academic Year 2017-18. He therefore contended that UGC having acted fully within its power and under the mandate of UGC Act, 1956, public notice issued is in accordance with law and further in any case same being only a notice, there is no case made out to find fault with any of the steps taken by UGC and therefore writ petitions are required to be dismissed.

¶92

14 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶94

Sri.B.V.Krishna, learned AGA submitted that since these petitioners are ‘In-House System’ students, the State having considered the hardships faced by them issued a Government Order dated 05.03.2018 permitting them to take the benefit of examinations passed by them by way of seeking appointments under the State and its instrumentalities and also for earning promotions in the Departments where they are already serving.

¶95

Learned counsel for the KPSC submitted that it had taken steps fully in accordance with the directions of the UGC and also on account of the fact that KSOU was derecognized beyond Academic Year 2012-13.

¶96

Essential facts namely, that the KSOU is a creature under the KSOU Act, 1992, enacted by the Karnataka State Legislature and it had received the assent of the Governor of the State with due gazette publication and that these petitioners are students duly admitted to non technical courses through the ‘In-House System’ are not in dispute. So also the fact that petitioners have all fulfilled the requirements under KSOU Act, 1992, the relevant statutes etc., in regard to their completion of the course and further that they had duly passed the examinations are not in dispute. The petitioners have approached the Court with these writ petitions on account of the fact that inspite of their due admission to the ‘In-House System’ for non technical courses offered by the KSOU, which is created under a statute enacted by State Legislature, they have not been issued the marks cards and degree certificates in relation to respective courses duly completed by them. The only

¶97

15 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶99

reason adduced by the KSOU for not issuing marks cards and degree certificates in the statement of objections filed is that UGC had issued a public notice dated 16.06.2015 and further that UGC has not issued the recognition/approval for the courses beyond the Academic Year 2012-13.

¶100

Section 5 of the KSOU Act reads as follows:

¶101

“ 5. Powers of the University.-(1) The University shall have the following powers namely :-

¶102

(i) …………

¶103

(ii) to plan and prescribe courses of study for degrees, diplomas, certificates and for research or any other purpose;

¶104

(iii) to hold examinations and confer degrees, diplomas, certificates or other academic distinctions or recognitions including Ph.D on persons who have pursued a course of study or conducted research in the manner laid down by the statutes and Ordinances”

¶105

It is not the position of KSOU as reflected from its statement of objections that it did not have the power to offer non technical courses through ODL and In-House System nor that it did not have the power to hold examinations and confer degrees. The KSOU Act, 1992 is a self contained enactment. The only requirement for the KSOU in order to issue marks card and confer degrees for the courses run and examinations held is that the students should have successfully completed the course in

¶106

16 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶108

accordance with its statutes and the ordinances and thereafter insofar as KSOU is concerned it cannot withhold issue of marks cards and conferment of degree certificates on the ground that an agency however superior it may be has some objections to the manner of running the University namely, KSOU in this case. If the KSOU has flouted any norms fixed by a regulatory agency like UGC, which has over all power and mandate to set academic standards in all the Universities in the country and ensure that such standards are maintained and in this behalf if UGC issues directives or advisory, that may affect the efficacy of the degree conferred by KSOU in terms of eligibility of holders of such degrees to either prosecute further studies in educational institutions based on such degrees or to seek employment and for such other purposes. In other words, KSOU Act, 1992, being a self contained enactment, if the students have fulfilled all the requirements to earn the degree from the courses undertaken by them, KSOU which has offered the courses, held the examinations and awarded marks, cannot legally withhold issuing of marks cards and the degree certificates. In that view of the matter, especially since KSOU and UGC have not pointed out any disabling factor disentitling the petitioners from receiving the marks cards and their degree certificates, the KSOU is under legal obligation to issue the marks cards and award degree certificates to the petitioners and consequently, such a direction is required to be issued at the instance of the petitioners. This is also the view taken by the Government as per its order dated 05.03.2018 which reads as follows:

¶109

17 -

¶110

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶111

“PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ

¶112

«µÀAiÀÄ: PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÄÄPÀÛ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¥ÀzÀ«UÀ¼À ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ §UÉÎ.

¶113

NzÀ¯ÁVzÉ: (1) «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ zsÀ£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ DAiÉÆÃUÀªÀÅ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄªÀ ¥ÀwæPÁ

¶114

¥ÀæPÀluÉ

¶115

¸ÀASÉå: F.NO.UGC/DEB8/KSOU/1/2015, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16.06.2015 (2) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: Er 49 AiÀÄÄN« 2014(¨Ás ), ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.12.2015

¶116

(3) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: Er 54 AiÀÄÄN« 2017, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.10.2017

¶117

¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É:-

¶118

ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ(1)gÀ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ zÀs£À¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ DAiÉÆÃUÀªÀÅ ¥ÀwæPÁ ¥ÀæPÀluÉAiÀÄ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÄÄPÀÛ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄªÀÅ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ AiÀÄ±ï¥Á¯ï ±ÀªÀiÁð V/s s bÀwÛÃ¸ïUÀqï ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ wÃ¦ð£À «gÀÄzÀÝªÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdåzÀ ¨sËUÉÆÃ½PÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ vÁAwæPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÈw¥ÀgÀ PÉÆÃ¸ÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ, 2013-14£ÉÃ ¸Á°¤AzÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÄÄPÀÛ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶119

ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ (2)gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ zÀs£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ DAiÉÆÃUÀ¢AzÀ (AiÀÄÄf¹) ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ £À«ÃPÀgÀtªÁUÀÄªÀªÀgÉUÉ 2015-16£ÉÃ ¸Á°UÉ ºÉÆ¸À PÉÆÃ¸ÀÄðUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀæªÉÃ±À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F »AzÉ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ zÀs£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ DAiÉÆÃUÀªÀÅ (AiÀÄÄf¹) C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¤ÃrzÀ PÉÆÃ¸ÀÄðUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¥ÀæªÉÃ±Áw ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀ «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ CªÀgÀ ±ÉÊPÀëuÉ »vÀzÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À 2£ÉÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£ÉÃ ªÀµÀðzÀ ¥ÀæªÉÃ±À ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸À®Ä C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÄÄPÀÛ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁzÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀqÉzÀ ®PÁëAvÀgÀ «zÁåyðUÀ¼À G£ÀßvÀ ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ/GzÉÆåÃUÀPÉÌ vÉÆAzÀgÉ GAmÁV, ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¨sÀ«µÀåªÀÅ DvÀAPÀªÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ/¥ÉÆÃµÀPÀgÀÄ, ªÀiÁzÀåªÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ eÁ®vÁtUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ªÀÄ£À«UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀÄvÁÛ, ¸ÀzÀj «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¥ÀzÀ«UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ MvÁÛ¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸À£Áä£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀÄªÀgÀ CzÀsåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15-09-2017 ºÁUÀÆ 27-09-2017 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÄÄPÀÛ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ°è ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¥ÀzÀ«UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ ZÀað¹, wÃªÀiÁð¤¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ.

¶120

ªÉÄÃ¯É NzÀ¯ÁzÀ (3)gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdÓ ªÀÄÄPÀÛ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ CzsÀåAiÀÄ£À £ÀqÉ¹ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀiðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀgÀ CzsÀåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ°è vÀdÕgÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀa¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30-11-2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ gÀa¹gÀÄªÀ F ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÄÄPÀÛ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ²PÀëPÉÃvÀgÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀAWïzÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è jmï Cfð ¸ÀA.48379/2017 C£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. «zÁåyðUÀ¼À »vÀzÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ PÀArPÉ: 5.2 C£ÀÄß C£ÀÄµÁÖ£ÀUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ, CfðzÁgÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ vÉÆAzÀgÉ GAmÁUÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01-02-2018gÀ ªÀÄzsÀåAvÀgÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è wÃ¥ÀÄð ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶121

ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹gÀÄªÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£Éß®AiÀÄ°è, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀgÀ CzÀsåPÀvÉAiÀÄ°è gÀa¹gÀÄªÀ vÀdÕgÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ PÀArPÉ: 5.2gÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¸Àì£ÀÄß C£ÀÄµÁÖ£ÀUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀ wÃªÀiÁð¤¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ DzÉÃ±À.

¶122

18 -

¶123

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶124

¸PÁðj DzÀ Ã±É ¸À ASÀ å: Er 54 AiÉ ÄÄN« 2017 (¨sÁUÀ À-1), ¨AUÉ ¼À ÆgÀ Ä, ¢£ÁAPÀ : 05À -

¶125

03-2018

¶126

¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀi°è «ªÀj¹gÀÄªÀ PÁgÀtUÀ¼À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16-062015gÀAzÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ zsÀ£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ DAiÉÆÃUÀªÀÅ (AiÀÄÄ.f.¹) PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÄÄPÀÛ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ ¥ÀÆªÀðzÀ°èAiÉÄÃ AiÀÄÄ.f.¹ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀ vÁAwæPÉÃvÀgÀ (Non-technical) ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdåzÉÆ¼ÀUÉ ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ E£ï-ºË¸ï PÉÆÃ¸ÀÄðUÀ½UÉ 2013-14 ºÁUÀÆ 2014-15£ÉÃ ±ÉÊPÀëuÉPÀ ªÀµÀðzÀ°è ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ/£ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄA§rÛUÁV ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À®Ä DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.

¶127

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÄÄPÀÛ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è 2013gÀ ¸Á°£À ¥ÀÆªÀðzÀ°è ¥ÀæªÉÃ±Áw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ GwÛÃtðgÁV CAPÀ¥ÀnÖ/¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀæªÀiÁt/CAPÀ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «vÀj¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ vÁAwæPÉÃvÀgÀ PÉÆÃ¸ÀÄðUÀ¼À°è (Non-technical courses) ºÀ®ªÀÅ ¨ÁåZÀUÀ¼À°è ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ºÁUÀÆ PÉÆÃ¸ÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¥ÀÆtðUÉÆ½¹zÀ «zÁåyðUÀ½UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀj¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «vÀj¸À®Ä ¥Àj¤AiÀÄªÀiÁªÀ½ C£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ªÀÄÄPÀÛ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄªÀÅ CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸À®Ä DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.

¶128

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉÃ±Á£ÀÄ¸ÀÄgÀ

¶129

ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è. Sd/- (J£ï. «ÃgÀ§æºÀäZÁj)

¶130

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À PÁAiÀiðzÀ²ð G£ÀßvÀ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ («±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ-1)”

¶131

(Emphasis supplied)

¶132

Sri.Showri, learned counsel for the UGC has strenuously contended that KSOU has indulged in serious malpractices, which have deleterious effect on maintenance of academic standards in the country. He elaborated the said submission by pointing out that KSOU has indiscriminately facilitated the opening of study centres and frachises all over the country offering technical courses through ODL mode with the result there was mushrooming of ACIS all over the country with further sharing of the fees liberally with them and the end result was two fold namely, commercialization of the education and candidates earning technical degrees without proper and requisite training. On the second aspect, learned counsel Sri.Showri particularly

¶133

19 -

¶134

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶135

emphasized that most of the technical courses required imparting of the instructions on face to face mode. He also submitted that UGC had corresponded with the KSOU to stop such courses and inspite of the same technical courses were continued with ACIS not being disbanded.

¶136

As already noticed by me, this contention does not detract from the fact that KSOU Act, 1992, is a self contained enactment and it has the power and mandate to run permissible courses, specifically non technical courses, in the ‘In-House System’. The fact that UGC is the summit academic regulatory body created under UGC Act, 1956, with the mandate of setting and maintaining academic standards in the field of higher education is no longer open to question. It is not necessary to refer to the various provisions of UGC Act, 1956, for the current purpose in view of catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court.

¶137

In ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS² the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the interplay of the IGNOU Act, 1985 and the provisions of UGC Act, 1956, and thereafter has unequivocally declared that the Universities constituted under the State Universities Act and also the Universities constituted by the parliament are all amenable to the regulatory control of UGC, insofar as, setting academic standards and maintenance of same is concerned.

¶138

2 (2009) 4 SCC 590

¶139

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶140

“40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its 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 the Open 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.

¶141

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 an informal system is in the mode and manner in which education is imparted. The UGC Act was enacted for effectuating coordination and determination of standards in universities. The purport and object for which it was enacted must be given full effect.

¶142

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) 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 defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination 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. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of UGC are allpervasive in respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section

¶143

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶144

12-A and clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof.

¶145

43. Indisputably, as has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Solicitor General that the Open University Act was enacted to achieve a specific object. It opens new vistas for imparting education in a novel manner. Students do not have to attend classes regularly. They have wide options with regard to the choice of subjects but the same, in our opinion, would not mean that despite a parliamentary Act having been enacted to give effect to the constitutional mandate contained in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, activities and functions of the private universities and open universities would be wholly unregulated.

¶146

44. It has not been denied or disputed before us that in the matter of laying down qualification of the teachers, running of the University and the matters provided for under the UGC Act (sic the Regulations) are applicable and binding on all concerned. The Regulations framed, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly aimed at the open universities. When the regulations are part of the statute, it is difficult to comprehend as to how the same which operate in a different field would be ultra vires the parliamentary Act. IGNOU has not made any regulation; it has not made any ordinance. It is guided by the Regulations framed by UGC. The validity of the provisions of the Regulations has not been questioned either by IGNOU or by the appellant University. From a letter dated 5-5-2004 issued by Mr H.P. Dikshit, who was not only the Vice-Chancellor but also the Chairman of DEC of IGNOU it is evident that the appellant University has violated the mandatory provisions of the Regulations.

¶147

45. The amplitude of the provisions of the UGC Act vis-à-vis the universities constituted under the State Universities Acts which would include within its purview a university made by Parliament also is now no longer res integra.

¶148

22 -

¶149

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶150

55. The submission of Mr K. Parasaran that as in compliance with the provisions contained in Regulation 7, UGC had been provided with information in regard to instructions through nonformal/distance education relating to the observance thereof by itself, in our opinion, would not satisfy the legal requirement. It is one thing to say that informations have been furnished but only because no action had been taken by UGC in that behalf, the same would not mean that an illegality has been cured. The power of relaxation is a statutory power. It can be exercised in a case of this nature.

¶151

56. Grant of relaxation cannot be presumed by necessary implication only because UGC did not perform its duties. Regulation 2 of the 1985 Regulations being imperative in character, noncompliance therewith would entail its consequences. The power of relaxation conferred on UGC being in regard to the date of implementation or for admission to the first or second degree courses or to give exemption for a specified period in regard to other clauses in the Regulations on the merit of each case do not lead to a conclusion that such relaxation can be granted automatically. The fact that exemption is required to be considered on the merit of each case is itself a pointer to show that grant of relaxation by necessary implication cannot be inferred. If mandatory provisions of the statute have not been complied with, the law will take its own course. The consequences will ensue.

¶152

57. Relaxation, in our opinion, furthermore cannot be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for conferment of a degree. When a mandatory provision of a statute has not been complied with by an administrative authority, it would be void. Such a void order cannot be validated by inaction .

¶153

58. The only point which survives for our consideration is as to whether the purported post facto approval granted to the appellant University of programmes offered through distance modes is valid. DEC may be an authority under the Act,

¶154

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶155

but its orders ordinarily would only have a prospective effect. It having accepted in its letter dated 5-52004 that the appellant University had no jurisdiction to confer such degrees, in our opinion, could not have validated an invalid act. The degrees become invalidated in terms of the provisions of the UGC Act. When mandatory requirements have been violated in terms of the provisions of one Act, an authority under another Act could not have validated the same and that too with a retrospective effect.

¶156

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 UGA Act shall prevail over the Open University Act. It has, however, been argued that the Open University Act is a later Act. But we have noticed hereinbefore that the nodal Ministry knew of the provision 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 matters covered under the Open University Act also.”

¶157

19. The public notice dated 16.06.2015 issued by the

¶158

UGC reads as follows:

¶159

“F.No.UGC/DEB/8/KSOU/1/2015 16^th June,2015

¶160

Public Notice

¶161

Karnataka State Open University, MysoreDiscontinuation of recognition of programmes through ODL mode

¶162

Karnataka State Open University, Mysore, in collaboration with private institutions/entities/coaching centres spread all over the country and even abroad, has been offering programmes through distance learning

¶163

24 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶164

mode by blatantly flouting the norms, guidelines and directives of University. Grants Commission and erstwhile Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open Universtiy, New Delhi. Taking cognizance of this fact, the programmes offered by KSOU, Mysore has not been recognized by UGC beyond 2012-13. This has been done after issue of a Show Cause notice to them on 10.06.2011 and after considering their response including personal hearing of the official of the University.

¶165

It has, however, been noticed that despite this the university remained underterred and is continuing to offer programmes through distance learning mode in violation of the UGC policy on territorial jurisdiction vide UGC public notice dated 27^th June, 2013. The university has also been offering professional/technical programmes in violation of the norms of the concerned regulatory bodies and without their approval. Moreover, the university has been offering engineering programmes, despite clear directions of Ministry of Human Resource of Development vide their D.O. letter No.6-7/2009-DL dated 29^th July, 2009 and DEC letter dated 13^th August, 2009 and recent UGC public notice dated 11^th March, 2015 (All the three letters available on UGC DEB website). The university has also started offering online programmes, which are not recognized by UGC, as an exclusive method of distance education.

¶166

The General Public, students and other stake holders are, therefore, cautioned through this public notice against the wrong reporting/publicity in newspaper and television by the university about its territorial jurisdiction and about validity of the recognition of its programmes, including professional/technical programmes. Taking admissions to such programmes may jeopardize the career of the students, in view of the absence of recognition of the programmes of the university by UGC.

¶167

Sd/-

¶168

25 -

¶169

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶170

(Jaspal S. Sandhu) Secretary, UGC”

¶171

A close reading of the above public notice shows that UGC has rightly taken umbrage at the KSOU offering its courses through ACIS by facilitating opening of study centres/franchises all over the country and also through them offering technical courses to large number of students. UGC has also taken exception to KSOU offering such courses beyond its territorial jurisdiction, understably, because it is well-neigh impossible for the KSOU with its limited resources to oversee the standard of instructions imparted in such farflung centres. However, the present petitioners are all ‘InHouse System’ students, who have taken non technical courses and as per the norms fixed under KSOU Act, 1992 and its statutes and ordinance and students have successfully completed the course and have passed the examinations. It is also true that in view of the superior regulatory position accorded to UGC and in view of the DEC forming a part of UGC itself and same requiring the KSOU seeking formal recognition/approval for the programmes run by it, there was an obligation on the KSOU to formally apply and secure recognition/approval from DEC of the UGC. Admittedly for the courses for Academic Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 to which these petitions belong KSOU had not taken such recognition.

¶172

At this stage, it is necessary to make reference to UGC Regulations, 1985 regarding the Minimum Standards of Instructions for the Grant of the First Degree Through Non-Formal/Distance Education (‘UGC

¶173

26 -

¶174

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶175

Regulations, 1985’ for short) dated 25.11.1985. These Regulations were framed under Clause (f) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 26 of UGC Act, 1956. They read as follows:

¶176

“ UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI

¶177

UGC Regulations, 1985 regarding the Minimum Standards of Instructions for the Grant of the First Degree through Non-formal/Distance Education 25^th November 1985

¶178

No.F1117/83(CP)? In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (f) of subsection (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (No.3 of 1956), the University Grants Commission makes the following regulations, namely:-

¶179

1. Short title, application and commencement:-

¶180

(1)These regulations may be called the University Grants Commission (the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of the first degree through non formal/distance education in the faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences) Regulations, 1985.

¶181

(2)They shall apply to every university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or of a Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every institution deemed to be University under Section 3 of the said Act.

¶182

(3)They shall come into force on June 1, 1986.

¶183

2. Admission/Students:

¶184

(1) No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1^st Degree Course through non-formal/distance education unless he has successfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by a Board/University. In case there is no previous academic record, he shall be eligible for admission if he has passed an entrance test conducted by the University provided that he is not below the age of21 yearson July 1 of the year of admission.

¶185

27 -

¶186

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶187

(2) No student shall be eligible for the award of the first degree unless he has successfully completed a three year course; this degree may be called the B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. (General Honours/Special) degree as the case may be.

¶188

Provided that no student shall be eligible to seek admission to the Master’s Course in these faculties, who has not successfully pursued the first Degree Course of three years duration.

¶189

Provided further that, as a transitory measure where the universities are unable to change over to a three year degree course, they may award a B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. (Pass) degree on successful completion of two year course, but that no student of this stream shall be eligible for admission to the Master’s course unless he has undergone a further one year bridge course and passed the same. The three year degree course after 10+2 stage should in no case be termed as B.A./B.Sc./B.com. (Pass) degree.

¶190

3. Programme of study:

¶191

1. Each lesson shall constitute approximately one week’s reading and there shall be at least 25 lessons in each main subject of study. The lessons shall be dispatched to the student at regular intervals.

¶192

2. The University shall set up study centres (outside the headquarters) in areas where there is a reasonable concentration of students. Each study centre shall have adequate library facilities (text books, reference materials and lessons and supporting materials). They shall also have qualified parttime instruction/counselling staff to advise and assist the students in the studies and remove individual difficulties.

¶193

3. A contract programmed of 810 days shall be organised in different places where there is a reasonably good number of students, to include lectures and discussion in support of the studies. Classes may be arranged on Sundays and other holidays at the headquarters.

¶194

28 -

¶195

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶196

4. Adequate number of practicals shall be provided in all courses involving such work and if necessary, these may be arranged in the evening, during holidays or vacations in the existing institutions.

¶197

5. Every student at the undergraduate level shall be required to do at least five home assignments in each subject which shall be made available to him at regular intervals, received back, corrected, graded and returned to the student at regular intervals. The University shall maintain a record of the progress of studies of each student.

¶198

6. The minimum number of assignments performed by a student for each subject shall be 3 in order to be eligible for appearing in the examination in the concerned subject.

¶199

4. Examination:

¶200

1. The University shall adopt the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission from time to time in regard to the conduct of examinations.

¶201

2. There shall be home assignments, students response sheets, contact programmes and semester/year end examination. The marks or grades obtained in home assignment and response sheets shall be shown separately in the grade card along with percentile ranking. Further more, the University shall develop a dependable system of checks and controls on marks or grades awarded in home assignment and response sheets.

¶202

Explanations:

¶203

3. Percentile rank refers to the percentage of all the examinees in the course who had the same or higher percentage of marks or grade in the examination.

¶204

4. The examination question papers shall be framed so as to ensure that no part of the syllabus is left out of study by a student.

¶205

5. No Semester/Yearend examination shall be held in a subject unless the University is satisfied that at least 75% of the programme of study indicated under

¶206

29 -

¶207

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶208

subregulations 3, and 3(4) have been actually conducted”.

¶209

22. In terms of the above Regulations, it is applicable to every University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or those which come under Section 2 of UGC Act, 1956. Section 2(f) of UGC Act, 1956, reads as follows:

¶210

“2.(a) ……

¶211

(f) “University” means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act.”

¶212

Regulation 2 of UGC Regulations, 1985, deals with conditions for admission of students to the degree courses. Regulation 3 of UGC Regulations, 1985, deals with the program of study and Regulation 4 of UGC Regulations, 1985, deals with the examination in all the universities. There cannot be any dispute that KSOU is an university within the meaning of Section 2(f) of UGC Act, 1956 and therefore, in regard to admission of students for programmes and examination for the degree courses offered through ‘InHouse System’ for non technical courses in KSOU to which categories all these petitioners belong, in addition to requirement under KSOU Act, the statutes and the ordinances framed thereunder they also have to fulfill the aforementioned regulations under UGC Act. As already noticed, the infraction alleged against KSOU during

¶213

30 -

¶214

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶215

Academic Years beyond 2012-13 till the recognition earlier granted was renewed with effect from Academic Year 201718 was that University was facilitating imparting of education under ACIS for technical courses through study centres or frachises all over the country, which contributed to dilution of the academic standards. UGC has not at all taken a position that KSOU in regard to these petitioners during their pursuit of studies in non technical courses through ‘In-House System’ had fallen short of any of the standards set by it under the provisions of UGC Act, 1956, UGC Regulations, 1985, or under the provisions of KSOU Act, 1992, and statutes or ordinances framed thereunder. UGC has not placed any inspection report or any other material to substantiate the same.

¶216

Sri.Showri, learned counsel for UGC however points out that while UGC has not pointed out any infraction of provisions of UGC Act, 1956, of UGC Regulations, 1985, or the provisions of KSOU Act, 1992, itself insofar as ‘InHouse System’ for non technical courses pursued by the petitioners during Academic Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 is concerned, KSOU having not obtained recognition/approval for those relevant Academic Years from DEC of UGC, ex post facto approval/recognition cannot be issued by UGC. In support of the same, Sri.Showri, learned counsel places reliance on the decision rendered in ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED v. RABI SANKAR PATRO AND OTHERS³ .

¶217

3 (2018) 1 SCC 468

¶218

31 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶219

“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 the IGNOU Act show that the study centres as defined in the IGNOU Act are that of IGNOU and not of any other university or institution. The concept of distance education under 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 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 the IGNOU Act could not act as a regulator for other universities. In any event of the matter, the policy guidelines issued from time to time made it abundantly clear that DEC alone was not entitled to grant permission for open and 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 the Part of DEC was completely without jurisdiction.

¶220

56. It was laid down by this Court in Annamalai University v. Deptt. of Information and Tourism that no relaxation could be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for conferment of a degree and if a mandatory provision is not complied with by an administrative authority, the action would be void. This leads us to conclude that the permissions granted by DEC in the first instance allowing the deemed to be universities in question to introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in Engineering were illegal and opposed to law. The illegality in the exercise of power was to such an extent that it could not be cured by ex post facto approvals granted later. We have also seen that the exercise of grant of ex post facto approvals, as a matter of fact, was only superficial and perfunctory. Such exercise was done in the face of declared policy statements governing the field and even when specific complaints were received about deemed to be universities concerned. Yet, without causing any inspection such power was exercised which part is already dealt with and the exercise of power has been found by us to be suffering from illegality and

¶221

32 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶222

infirmity. The only thing in favour of the deemed to be universities concerned is the fact that the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC had endorsed the decision though such exercise was also completely flawed. That exercise was against Para 10 of the MoU dated 10-5-2007, which contemplated causing of inspections and the decision dated 11-5-2007 of the Joint Committee itself that for an institution/university to offer distance education programmes it was mandatory to offer the same in face to face mode.

¶223

57. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex post facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex post facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, since the 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the deemed to be universities concerned to apply for ex post facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the deemed to be universities concerned flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the overbearing interest of the students concerned persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of the said ex post facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the study centres concerned 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 students concerned. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the students concerned 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 the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.

¶224

58. AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct

¶225

33 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶226

appropriate test(s) both in written examination as well as in practicals for the students concerned admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the subjects concerned. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in the respective States wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during May-June 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the students concerned and if they do not pass the test(s) their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the test(s), the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the deemed to be university concerned within a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15-1-2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) in respect of students who wish to undergo test(s) shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018. If they clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the candidates concerned. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the candidates concerned do not clear the test(s) within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test(s), their degrees in Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and cancelled. It goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however, any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.”

¶227

(Emphasis supplied)

¶228

I have carefully perused the above decision which in turn places reliance on a previous decision of the Apex Court in ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS⁴ . In the said cases it was brought out before the Hon’ble Apex Court that certain mandatory provisions were

¶229

4 (2009) 4 SCC 590

¶230

34 -

¶231

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶232

not complied with by the administrative authority and in such an event, the action taken itself being void cannot be approved or regularized ex post facto. As an example, in ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION case, it was noticed that there was no representation for any member or representative of AICTE and such other defects which go to the substratum of the matter. As records now placed before the Court reflect, the only reason why the UGC had clamped down on KSOU is that it was running ACIS with the technical courses through the franchisees and study centres all over India. There is absolutely no material placed regarding ‘InHouse System’ students like the petitioners who have taken non technical courses, as to whether in regard to the course taken by them there was any infraction of the substantive provisions of UGC Act, 1956 or its Regulations, 1985 having a bearing on the academic standards. Therefore, with the materials now placed before the Court by the learned counsel for the UGC there is nothing to infer that any substantial provisions or UGC Act, 1956 or Regulations thereunder was violated by KSOU in running its ‘In-House System’ imparting instructions for non technical course during Academic Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The principal pre-condition for denying “ex post facto approval” postulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision is the violation of mandatory substantial provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, which has a bearing on maintenance of academic standards by the University, in this case KSOU vis-à-vis the courses taken by the petitioners. Therefore, these courses being non technical in nature imparted through ‘In-House System’ UGC is required to redecide the entire question

¶233

35 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶234

within a reasonable time frame and take a decision as to whether any disability should attach to the qualification earned by these petitioners under the provisions of KSOU Act, 1992 and statues and ordinances framed thereunder.

¶235

In view of the above, these writ petitions are entitled to succeed in terms as below and I proceed to pass the following:

¶236

ORDER

¶237

(1) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the KSOU to issue marks cards and degree certificates to these petitioners, if the petitioners or such among them have undergone the courses prescribed and passed the examinations in terms of KSOU Act, 1992, statutes and ordinances framed thereunder within a period of 2 months.

¶238

(2) Issue a writ of mandamus to State of Karnataka or KPSC, as the case may be, or to both, to consider the applications of such of the petitioners as have obtained marks cards and degree certificates in terms of (1) above for the purpose of employment under the State of Karnataka and its instrumentalities.

¶239

(3) Issue a writ of mandamus to UGC to consider the cases of the petitioners, who have taken the courses as indicated in the writ petitions through instructions imparted by ODL and InHouse System of KSOU during the Academic

¶240

36 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶241

Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 in accordance with law after holding enquiry regarding violations of any substantial provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 and UGC Regulations, 1985, for the specific purpose of ascertaining whether KSOU has committed any infraction in imparting instructions, which has bearing on the maintenance of academic standards.

¶242

(4) The enquiry shall be finalized within 6 weeks after giving full opportunity to KSOU to place all the necessary material before the Enquiring Committee of UGC.”

¶243

The aforesaid order in so far as it relates to directions issued to the KSOU by the learned Single Judge to issue marks cards, degree certificates etc., was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench as hereunder:

¶244

“The Writ Appeals No.906/2022, 909/2022, 912/2022, 924/2022, 926/2022, 930/2022 and 931/2022, are filed challenging the Order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.14903/2019 and connected matters, 13951/2019 and connected matters, 1666/2018 and connected matters, 41143-45/2019, 33066/2019 and connected matters, 5044/2019 and connected matters and 1395/2019 and connected matters, respectively.

¶245

37 -

¶246

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶247

We have heard Shri. Showri H.R., learned counsel appearing for UGC, Shri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel appearing for KSOU, Shri. Vikas Rajipura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Smt. Kumari. M, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

¶248

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.906/2022 that the respondents No.1 to 11 had filed W.Ps.No.14903/2019 and connected matters before the learned Single Judge, asserting that they were students of the Karnataka State Open University (KSOU)-Respondent No.12, having been admitted to various courses in distance education mode for the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the KSOU to issue their degree certificates and a further direction to the appellant-University Grants Commission (UGC) to recognize the courses undertaken by them with the KSOU.

¶249

It is submitted that the learned Single Judge by his order dated 03.08.2022, by allowing the writ petitions, issued a writ of mandamus directing the KSOU to issue marks cards and degree certificates to the petitioners (respondents herein), or such among them who had completed the prescribed courses and examinations as per the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992, within two months.

¶250

It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge issued a writ of mandamus to the appellant to

¶251

38 -

¶252

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶253

consider the case of the petitioners (respondents herein) who had pursued courses under the KSOU's Open Learning System (OLS) and in-house systems during the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appellant was directed to conduct an enquiry within six weeks, specifically to ascertain whether KSOU had violated substantial provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, or the University Grants Commission Regulations, 1985, thereby affecting the maintenance of academic standards. The enquiry was to be conducted in accordance with law, providing KSOU with a full opportunity to present all relevant materials before the enquiry committee. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.08.2022, the appellant has preferred this writ appeal.

¶254

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, despite specific pleadings and arguments before the learned Single Judge, critical aspects of the regulatory framework governing distance education were not duly considered. It was highlighted that:

¶255

(a) Until 2012, the Distance Education Council (DEC), established under Section 16 of the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, by enacting statute No.28 of IGNOU, regulated distance education across India;

¶256

(b) KSOU was granted institutional recognition by DEC in 2007 for one year, which was extended for five years in 2008 and expired in 2012-13;

¶257

(c) subsequently, DEC policy mandated programwise recognition for universities offering distance mode courses, a requirement duly communicated to all universities, including KSOU;

¶258

39 -

¶259

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶260

(d) KSOU failed to apply for such program-wise recognition and continued offering courses without compliance;

¶261

(e) In 2012, the DEC framework was repealed, and regulatory powers were vested in UGC;

¶262

(f) despite repeated violations of UGC regulations, KSOU continued offering unrecognized courses, prompting UGC to issue several public notices, including one dated 30.06.2015, declaring that courses offered by KSOU beyond 2012-13 were not recognized; and

¶263

(g) The Hon’ble Apex Court had categorically ruled against retrospective or post-facto approval in multiple instances.

¶264

It is contended that the learned Single Judge, however, allowed the writ petitions and passed the impugned directions. This decision overlooked the actionable points communicated by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) based on the recommendations of the Prof. Madhava Menon Committee and the Apex Court's judgment in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information to Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590, which expressly disallowed ex-post facto recognition of courses. Furthermore, the UGC, in its counter-affidavit submitted before the Apex Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. and others v. Sri Rabi Sankar Patro and others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468, reiterated its stance against granting ex-post facto or conditional approval for Open and Distance Learning (ODL) Programmes.

¶265

It is contended that the MHRD, vide letter dated 07.10.2018, conveyed the recommendations of the Justice

¶266

40 -

¶267

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶268

Reddy Committee, constituted on the directions of the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd 's case, (supra), emphasizing that UGC must not grant retrospective or ex-post facto recognition for ODL courses under any circumstances. Consequently, UGC issued a public notice dated 20.11.2018, informing all stakeholders of this directive. Additionally, the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, and its amendments also do not provide for such retrospective or ex-post facto recognition. It is further contended that the UGC had as a matter of fact filed an affidavit before the Apex Court specifically undertaking no ex-post facto sanction would be accorded to any courses offered in the distance mode after the academic year 201213 by any University.

¶269

It is also contended that the learned Single Judge failed to anticipate the broader implications and nationwide consequences of the impugned order, which could adversely impact the regulatory framework for distance education. Additionally, it is pertinent to note that KSOU itself has not sought recognition for courses offered during the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15, and its writ petition seeking recognition for courses from 2015-16 onwards was withdrawn. In view of the aforementioned legal and factual inconsistencies, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

¶270

The learned counsel appearing for the KSOU submits that the KSOU had institutional recognition till the academic year 2012-13 and that even thereafter requests

¶271

41 -

¶272

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶273

had been made by the KSOU before the DEC and the UGC for permission to conduct the courses. It is submitted that there is absolutely no allegation that the KSOU was not compliant with any of the legal requirements and that it was only on account of the refusal to grant course wise recognition that the KSOU could not grant the degree certificates as required by the students. There was no violation of the minimum standards required to be maintained by the University and that the University could issue degree certificates only if the UGC grants the permission, as directed.

¶274

It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.A.No.906/2022 that the respondents No.1 to 12, were admitted to non-technical, inhouse courses of KSOU, a State University. Their admissions were based on notifications published in newspapers and information provided on the official websites of KSOU and the UGC. The recognition was initially granted to KSOU on 31.08.2007, by the DEC, without insisting for territorial jurisdiction. This recognition was renewed for five years in the year 2008, covering academic years upto 201213, pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420. The recognition granted was an Institutional Recognition, permitting KSOU to conduct courses approved by its academic bodies, subject to obtaining necessary statutory approvals.

¶275

It is further contended that the UGC failed to diligently oversee KSOU's compliance. Despite granting and

¶276

42 -

¶277

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶278

renewing recognition, it did not ascertain whether KSOU had secured the necessary statutory approvals. Though UGC withheld renewal of recognition starting from academic year 2013-14, this information was made public only on 16.06.2015, after two academic years had lapsed. By that time, many students, including the respondents No.1 to 12, had completed their courses. UGC neither raised any contentions as to maintenance of educational standards by KSOU's nor any allegation of malpractice or misrepresentation by the students. The respondents, as bonafide students, were entitled to a legitimate expectation of receiving duly recognized degree certificates upon completing their courses. Yet, even a decade later, they remain deprived of these essential documents, critically affecting their career prospects.

¶279

It is contended that the respondents emphasize the urgency of obtaining degree certificates for employment purposes. As admitted by KSOU, there are approximately 90,000 similarly affected students. The State Government cannot provide employment to all such students and private sector opportunities also necessitate verification of their degrees by KSOU. The outcome of this case holds wider implications, affecting not only the respondents but also numerous students enrolled through KSOU’s study centers. Penalizing the students, who acted bonafide and committed no fault, would violate their legitimate expectations and fundamental rights. These respondents and other similarly placed students have already lost their precious years in

¶280

43 -

¶281

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶282

their career and future prospects due to the inaction and lapses on the part of KSOU and UGC.

¶283

It is contended that the dereliction of the DEC, UGC and KSOU have caused irreversible harm to students’ careers. They seek action against the responsible officers and demand compensation for the affected student community and prayed this Court to dismiss the appeals, uphold the order of the learned Single Judge and direct KSOU to promptly issue and verify degree certificates to ensure justice and equity. ]

¶284

We have considered the contentions advanced. The respondents are students, who were admitted to in house non-technical courses offered by the KSOU during the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is now beyond cavil that the KSOU had recognition and permission to conduct such courses only till the end of academic year 2012-13. It is also not in dispute that the permission granted by the DEC to the KSOU was in operation only till 2012-13. If that be so, it is absolutely clear that there was no recognition available for the KSOU for conducting such courses during the academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is admitted that after the UGC issued public notice on 16.06.2015, the KSOU had not conducted the courses or granted admissions. However, the UGC contends that the notices were issued as early as in 2011 and thereafter on 27.06.2013, specifically informing the KSOU that programme-wise recognition was required to be obtained by them, which was never done by the KSOU.

¶285

44 -

¶286

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶287

Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, the appellant would contend that the question of granting expost facto approval to the courses in question would not arise since the Apex Court had specifically held that such an exercise is impermissible in the light of the Regulations issued by the UGC. It is further clear that the State Government has passed orders recognizing the courses conducted by the KSOU during the years 2012-13 and 201314, as valid for all purposes within the State of Karnataka. The learned Single Judge has also directed the issuance of marks cards and degree certificates by the KSOU.

¶288

The learned counsel appearing for the KSOU as well as the private respondents would contend that the observations made by the Apex Court with regard to ex-post facto approval are specifically made in cases involving technical courses conducted through off campus centers by the Universities in question. It is contended that the present case is of a State University conducting In-House nontechnical courses and the interdiction would not apply in such a case. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no provision in the UGC Regulations for the grant of ex-post facto approval and that the University could not have conducted the courses without obtaining course wise approval. It is further submitted that an affidavit has been placed on record by the Chairman of the UGC before the Apex Court on 30.01.2015, where it has been specifically stated that no ex-post facto approval would be issued by the UGC for institutions or courses in future. It is submitted that the fact of filing such an affidavit has also

¶289

45 -

¶290

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶291

been noticed by the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. 's case, (supra).

¶292

In the above factual situation, we are of the opinion that the directions issued to the KSOU are legal and valid. However, we are further of the opinion that the UGC which had been pre-empted by binding directions by the Apex Court not to grant ex-post facto approvals to courses conducted even by statutory Universities could not have been directed to grant such sanction by this Court.

¶293

In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be allowed. Accordingly:-

¶294

(i) The appeals are allowed.

¶295

(ii) The directions issued to the UGC to conduct inspections and to grant approval to the courses conducted by the KSOU during the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, shall stand vacated.

¶296

(iii) However, it is made clear that this judgment will not affect the directions issued to the KSOU and the orders already passed by the State Government.

¶297

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, in all the appeals stand disposed of.”

¶298

As can be seen from the aforesaid order and judgment

¶299

of this Court, the KSOU has been specifically directed to issue marks card, degree certificate etc., in favour of students, who had

¶300

46 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶301

undergone the prescribed courses and passed examinations within a stipulated timeframe; in the instant case, as stated supra, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is identically/similarly situated to some of the students, who were the petitioners in the aforesaid matters, who had also completed their MA course from KSOU in 2015-16 and in the light of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned communication issued by the KSOU declining to issue genuineness certificate etc., in favour of the petitioner deserves to be quashed and necessary directions be issued in this regard to the KSOU.

¶302

A perusal of the material on record will also indicate that the petitioner having enrolled/admitted as a student for MA course in History during the period 2013-14 to 2014-15 and also having successfully completed/passed the examination/course, pursuant to which the KSOU has issued marks card/sheet in her favour duly acknowledging the same, respondent No.1-KSOU is clearly estopped from declining/refusing to issue a genuineness certificate in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner has changed her stance and obtained employment as a lecturer of History in Government PU College on the basis of her having

¶303

47 -

¶304

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶305

studied and successfully completed MA Course in History pursuant to the representation made by the KSOU, whose contention is barred by the principles of estoppel and acquiescence and on this ground also, the impugned communication deserves to be quashed.

¶306

In so far as the contention urged by the KSOU that there cannot be estoppel against law since the KSOU was not duly recognised by the UGC during the period from 2013 to 2015 when the petitioner had got admitted/enrolled and completed her course in MA (History) and as such, the KSOU is not under an obligation to issue a genuineness certificate in favour of the petitioner is concerned, it is relevant to state that the conduct of the KSOU in holding out and representing that it was entitled to enroll/admit the petitioner as a student to MA course and its subsequent conduct in not only permitting the petitioner to complete the course successfully, but also by issuing marks cards/sheets in favour of the petitioner, who had undisputedly relied upon and utilized the same for the purpose of obtaining employment in Government PU College is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the KSOU is estopped by the principles of promissory estoppel, in as much as

¶307

48 - NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶308

the KSOU specifically promised, held out and represented to the petitioner that the MA course conducted by it was legal, valid and proper and also issued marks card/sheet in favour of the petitioner and the genuineness certificate sought for by the petitioner was merely/also an additional document in this regard, which the KSOU was bound to issue having regard to its conduct in favour of the petitioner and as such, this contention urged by respondent No.1KSOU cannot be accepted.

¶309

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am

¶310

of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed and necessary directions be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 4 in this regard.

¶311

In the result, I pass the following:

¶312

ORDER

¶313

i. The petition is allowed .

¶314

ii. The impugned order/communication at Annexure-P dated 04.11.2024 passed by respondent No.1-KSOU is hereby quashed and respondent No.1-KSOU is directed to issue genuineness certificate in favour of the

¶315

49 -

¶316

NC: 2025:KHC:15742 WP No. 28903 of 2024

¶317

petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶318

iii. Respondent No.4 – PU Board is directed to consider the

¶319

petitioner’s reply at Annexure-K dated 08.10.2024 and her representations at Annexure-L and L1 dated 06.07.2021 and 09.10.2024 and proceed further in accordance with law, by considering the genuineness certificate to be issued by respondent No.1-KSOU and by providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the

¶320

petitioner and hearing her, in accordance with law.

¶321

iv. It is made clear that this order is passed in the peculiar/special facts and circumstances of the instant case and the same shall not be treated as a precedent nor the same shall have any precedential value for any

¶322

purpose, whatsoever.

¶323

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶324

BMC

¶325

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Smt Saraswati Biradar v. Karnataka State Open University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Saraswati Biradar v. Karnataka State Open University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.S.a. Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S. Uno Minda Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Thimmareddy Munjula Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Sri G H Prakash Vs Central Board of Secondary Education(Cbse Board)

Sharadayane Laxmi Ceramics LLP Vs Union of India

Mr Ayan Nagpal Vs Mr a M Sridhar