The court dismissed writ petitions challenging the rejection of candidates' computer diplomas from off-campus study centres of Makhanlal Chaturvedi University for LDC posts, following Prof. Yashpal and UGC guidelines requiring prior approval for off-campus centres.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJD/001954]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7320/2019
Giriraj Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Kalyan Sahai Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village And Post- Ghevar, TehsilRajgarh, District- Alwar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13458/2013
Vikram Singh Devra And Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10057/2017
Bheru Lal Sonwal S/o Shri Jagdish Chander, By Caste Harijan Sc, R/o Near Kailash Takij, Ward No. 2, Post Kapasan, District Chittorgarh Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
(2 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10127/2017
Kishan Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, R/o 133, Dungroto Ka Vas, Vpo Chelawas, Marwar Junction, District Pali Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10283/2017
Nandkishor Kumhar S/o Shri Jamna Lal, By Caste Kumhar, R/o Tamboli Chowk, Begun, District Chittorgarh, Raj.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10297/2017
Jabbar Singh Charan S/o Shri Dan Singh Charan, R/o Near Karani Mata Temple, Amet, District Rajsamand, Raj.
----Petitioner
(3 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10299/2017
Dilip Singh S/o Shri Kishore Singh, R/o Behind Shiv Temple, Chandpole, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10339/2017
Balveer Singh Badgujar S/o Shri Ummed Singh Badgujar, By Caste Badgujar, R/o Kanwar Pado Ka Mohalla, Masuda, Ajmer, District Ajmer Raj..
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10355/2017
Rawal Ram Suthar S/o Shri Padma Ram Suthar, R/o Vp Sukhmandla, Post Natharu, Th. Balesar District Jodhpur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
(4 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10370/2017
Ishwar Lal Purohit S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Purohit, By Caste Purohit, R/o Dev Nagari Colony, Tankariya Gali No. 1, Sirohi, District Sirohi Raj..
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10371/2017
Harish Kumar Nyati S/o Shri Shankar Lal Nyati, By Caste Nyati, R/o Vp Dindoli, Tehsil Rashmi, District Chittorgarh Raj.
----Petitioner
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10397/2017
Uttam Kumar S/o Shri Kishan Chand, By Caste Soni, R/o Ramdeo Colony, In Front Of Hanuman Mandir, By Pass Road
(5 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
Jalore, Bhinmal, District Jalore Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10453/2017
Aatma Ram S/o Shri Sahab Ram, By Caste Jat, R/o Village Chanderi Bari, Post Purabsar, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh Raj..
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10493/2017
Jai Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Kesar Singh Chouhan, R/o Village Gada Mahiyala, Vp Lilawas, Tehsil Aspur, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
(6 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10494/2017
Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Narayan Lal Sharma, R/o Ganesh Chouk, Antri, Tehsil And District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10495/2017
Bhupendra Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Bhawan Singh Chouhan, R/o House No. 158-B, Subhash Nagar, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10496/2017
Bhaskar Kumar S/o Shri Goverdhan Lal Trivedi, R/o Village And Post Dhambola, Tehsil Simalwara Dhambola, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
(7 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
Versus
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10569/2017
----Petitioners
Versus
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11138/2017
Rajendra Son Of Shri Bheru Ram, By Caste Jat, R/o Village And Post Padu Kallan, Tehsil Rinya Badi, Distirct Nagaur. Raj..
----Petitioner
Versus
(8 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11454/2017
Ayub S/o Shri Bundu Kha, R/o 32, Sindhiyo Ka Bas, Mandiya Road, Pali, District- Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Petitioners
(9 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13238/2017
Doonga Ram S/o Sooja Ram, R/o Village- Doongarli, Post Lairai, District Pali Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14472/2017
----Petitioners
(10 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6375/2019
Bheru Lal Jat S/o Shri Ladulal Jat, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Near Ramdeoji Temple, Village- Pander, Tehsil- Jahajpur, District- Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7163/2019
Smt. Meeta Bhatt W/o Shri Hemank Bhatt, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Gayatri Colony, Tehsil And Village- Bagidora, District Banswara.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14067/2022
Rajendra Jajra S/o Ramdev, Aged About 42 Years, Village And Post Jayal, Suwadia Was, Tehsil Jayal, Dist. Nagaur.
----Petitioner
(11 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15730/2022
Mukul Sharma S/o Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 354, Master Colony, Ambamata Scheme, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16346/2022
Nand Kishor Kumhar S/o Shri Jamna Lal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Tamboli Chowk, Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16381/2022
Dhirendra Kumar Solanki S/o Shri Prakash Chandra Solanki, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Near Bada Mandir, Mandawari, Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
(12 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17319/2022
Shyam Lal Lohar S/o Onkar Lal Lohar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Azad Mohalla, Salumber, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17742/2022
Anil Kumar S/o Shri Birbal Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o V.p.o. Satjanda, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17748/2022
Man Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Mohakamwala 6/8 Lpm, Chak 2 Spsm, Tehsil Raisinghnagar District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
(13 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Vineet Dave Mr. JS Bhaleria Mr. Khet Singh Mr. Deepak Pareek Mr. DS Sodha Mr. Ramesh Kumar Prajapat Mr. Kuldeep Solanki Mr. Pawan Singh Mr. Tanwar Singh Mr. Shreyash Ramdev |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG a/w Mr. Kunal Upadhaya Mr. Girish Joshi |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 24/01/2023 Pronounced on 09/02/2023
(14 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner to have been appointed against the vacancies of the year 2013, with all consequential benefits;
ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to not to treat the petitioner as ineligible for the purpose of serving on the post of Lower Division Clerk;
iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner;
iv) costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”
3.1 As per the said advertisement, in order to be eligible for participating in the selection process (as reproduced in the writ petition), a candidate seeking recruitment on the post in question, was required to possess -
“Senior Secondary or equivalent examination passed from a recognized board;
and
‘O’ or higher level Certificate Course conducted by the DOEACC as under the control of Electronics Department, Government of India,
or
Computer Operator or Programming Assistant (COPA)/ Data Preparation or Computer Software Certificate as
(15 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
organized under National / State Commercial Training Scheme;
or
Diploma in Computer Science / Computer Application from a university established under the laws of India of from any institution recognized by the Government;
or
Diploma in Computer Science or Engineering from a Polytechnic Institution recognized by the Government;
or
Certificate Course in Information Technology (RSCIT) as organized by Vadhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota under the control of Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Limited.”
3.2 As per the petitioner, being eligible the petitioner submitting his application in the prescribed format for District Banswara as well as District Alwar in the category of Unreserved (Male); subsequently, the merit list for the District Banswara came to be published by the respondents, and the cut off marks for the category of Unreserved (Male) was fixed as 65.970, and the petitioner having secured 66.40 marks was placed at Serial No.190 in the said merit list.
3.3 Accordingly, the petitioner, vide order dated 01.07.2013, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk under the Panchayat Samiti Kushalgarh, District Banswara; since the petitioner was not in good health at the relevant time and suffering from an ailment, he moved an application with a request to permit him to join his duty after recovery from the ailment.
3.4 However, after the first lot of selection, the recruitment initiated in the year 2013 got entangled in the litigation with
(16 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
respect to bonus marks for the experience gained by the candidates in various Schemes. Thus, the weightage as required to be granted in view of Rule 273 of the Rules of 1996 came to be examined and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 29.11.2016 concluded the litigation in that regard. Apart therefrom, litigations were also pending before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court with the same set of facts i.e. with regard to the weightage to be granted to the concerned candidates, who have gained experience in various other programmes, namely, Integrated Watershed Programme / National Watershed Development Programme / Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan etc.;
3.4.1. The said litigating pursuits were set at rest vide the judgment dated 30.07.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court; the said judgment was challenged by the State Government before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and vide its judgment dated 17.02.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench.
3.5 As a consequence of the above, the State Government vide its communication dated 24.03.2017 issued to the Chief Executive Officers of all the concerned Zila Parishads, issued guidelines to undertake and complete the recruitment process initiated in the year 2013; as per the said guidelines, the candidates who had already applied by way of offline/online mode by 18.04.2013 were required to to be conferred the benefit arising out of the aforementioned judgments.; detailed guidelines with respect to preparation of the amended merit was to be issued after receiving the necessary approval from the Finance Department of the State.
(17 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
3.6 So far as the issue in relation to consideration of the candidature of the candidature who had acquired eligibility condition with respect of the Computer Diploma is concerned, the order dated 04.08.2017 came to be issued by the State Government, as per which, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Prof. Yashpal & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 420 , were required to be adhered to and therefore, it was decided in principle to cancel the selection and appointment of all the candidates who had not acquired the requisite qualification from a deemed or private university by way of regular studies in campus. So far as the State Universities are concerned, it was decided that only such candidates would be approved for selection who have acquired the requisite qualification by campus or off campus centres of such State Universities within the territories of the respect State(s) as approved by the University Grants Commission
3.7. In the meanwhile, the State Government, after seeking and obtaining an opinion by the Additional Advocate General of the State of Rajasthan, in the matter of considering the candidature of the candidates who have already been appointed as well as who are now to be considered for appointment on the vacant posts as available, issued a communication dated 01.11.2017, whereby further guidelines were given to the Chief Executive Officers of all the Zila Parishads in the State of Rajasthan, to the effect that the concerned officials were required to proceed in the matter by treating those applications as not eligible for consideration wherein the candidates have acquired the Computer Diploma
(18 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
eligibility from off campus study centres from Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishvavidhyalaya, Bhopal from outside the territories of the State.
3.7.1 Consequently, the petitioner came to know that he has been treated to be ineligible on the ground that his Diploma in Computer Application has been acquired from the Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishvavidhyalaya, Bhopal, though he has not been served with any communication/order in that regard.
5.1 In support of such submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of rendered by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Iaan School of Mass Communication & Ors. Vs. Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashitriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyalaya & Ors (Writ Petition
(19 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
No. 6740 of 2006 and other connected matters) decided on 07.09.2022.
Relevant portion of which reads as under:
“7.(b) The same is part of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra). Paragraph-60 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
“60. Dr. Dhawan has also drawn the attention of the Court to certain other provisions of the Act which have effect outside the State of Chhattisgarh and thereby give the State enactment an extra territorial operation. Section 2(f) of the amended Act defines 'off-campus centre' which means a centre of the University established by it outside the main campus (within or outside the State) operated and maintained as its constituent unit having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 2(g) defines "off-shore campus" and it means a campus of the university established by it outside the country, operated and maintained as its constituent unit, having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 3(7) says that the object of the University shall be to establish the main campus in Chhattisgarh and to have study centres at different places in India and other countries. In view of Article 245 (1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. The impugned Act which specifically makes a provision enabling a University to have an off-campus centre outside the State is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh legislature.”
(20 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
8. What is stated in the impugned communication is an extract of a part of paragraph-60 of the aforesaid judgment. The said extracted portion is only a contention urged by the learned counsel therein. It is not the decision or the finding of the Court in that particular paragraph. Therefore, we are of the view that so far as the extracted portion of the paragraph is concerned, the same is not the pronouncement of the Court.
10. In terms of the said enactment various Universities were created in the State of Chhattisgarh. In a short span of about one year as many as 112 Universities were established. Many of them did not even have any building or campus and were running from one-room tenements. In paragraph-3 of the judgment the address of the Universities have also been shown which are functioning in rooms as narrated therein. That the created Universities were offering courses and degrees on their own. That most of the Universities did not have basic infrastructure for imparting any kind of education. That the creation of such Universities would result in complete chaos in the system of higher education in the country. It is under these circumstances that the Hon’ble Supreme Court were concerned with the power of the State to establish Universities which do not even have infrastructures etc. Therefore, one of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pertaining to establishment of Universities under a State enactment without any sanction or approval by the UGC. That it was the UGC that had to maintain the standards of education and it is they who were to monitor Universities etc. However, in the instant case, the question is not one of establishment of any University. The petitioners are only institutes which function under the respondent Makhan Lal Chaturvedi
(21 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishwadidyalaya. The said University is governed by the Central Statutes including the UGC. The petitioners are not Universities. They are only institutes under the Universities. Therefore, the subject matter involved in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in our considered view, may not have a nexus with the instant case. The instant case is only with regard to institutes under the Universities in the State of Madhya Pradesh, which are functioning outside the State of Madhya Pradesh.
11. Therefore when the impugned communication was made, the reference was to a part of paragraph-60 as narrated hereinabove. That part of the paragraph-60 as quoted in the impugned communication is only an extract of an argument and not the finding of the Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the reliance placed by the respondents on the extracted portion of paragraph-60 may not have a direct bearing on the instant case.
12. Therefore, on this limited ground the reliance placed on the contention of the counsel before the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be applied. We are of the considered view that the impugned communication requires to be set aside on this ground alone.
13. Therefore, for all these aforesaid reasons, the impugned communication passed by the University becomes unsustainable in view of the fact that reliance is placed on a contention urged and not on a finding or a declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
14. Consequently, the Writ Petition Nos.6740 of 2006, 7210 of 2006 and 7673 of 2006 are allowed. The impugned communication dated 26.04.2006 is quashed.
(22 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
15. The respondent-University is at liberty to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.”
In this regard, he also relied upon the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, (2016) 1 SCC 294.
6.1 So far as the Post Grade Diploma in Computer Application from Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishvavidhyalaya, Bhopal is concerned, it was submitted that the same has been approved for the purpose of appointment of various candidates in the recruitment process pertaining to the Department of Information and Technology of the State of Rajasthan for the post of Information Assistant. The appointments granted by the Department of Information and Technology were never disputed by the State Government on count of acquisition of qualification from Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishvavidhyalaya, Bhopal.
(23 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
number of similarly situated candidates in various districts of the State in the present selection process.
7.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the NIELIT is established at various places across India; NIELIT, Chandigarh is offering ‘O’ Level, ‘A’ Level and PGDCA Course of Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishvavidhyalaya, Bhopal by way of its extension centres in Shimla.
(a) Chhoga Lal Kharol Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14761/2013, decided by this Hon’ble Court on 03.03.2017).
(b) Tulsi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15221/2017, decided by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 10.01.2023).
(c) Ved Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Ors. (WP No.810/2010(S), decided by the Hon’ble High Court of MP on 21.01.2011).
(24 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
Legislature cannot pass any act and permit a university registered in a particular state to run off campus study centres beyond the boundaries of a particular State; it has also been observed that the UGC Guidelines also do not permit setting up of such centres beyond the boundaries outside the State.
Relevant portion of the said judgment, as relied by the learned counsel, reads as under:
“ 4. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 565 of 2003 has been filed by Gopalji Agarwal with the same prayer, namely, that the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidhyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 be declared as ultra vires being violative of the Constitution, and also contrary to the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the Bar Council of India Act, 1956. A further prayer has been made that a writ of prohibition may be issued restraining the private universities incorporated under the aforesaid Act from imparting any education and conferring any degrees or diplomas. The averments made in the writ petition are substantially the same as made in the writ petition filed by Prof. Yashpal, that a large number of universities have been incorporated by merely issuing gazette notifications though they do not have any kind of infrastructure or teaching facility and are functioning from a one-room tenement in a second or third floor in a residential or commercial building and without any teaching staff. The universities have been established merely to confer degrees and they have on their own created a large number of degrees and diplomas which are totally unheard of. The universities had issued advertisements for opening up study centres in different parts of the country for award of any number of degrees and diplomas. By way of illustration, copies of advertisements issued by some of the universities have been filed. One of such universities, namely, Indian
(25 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
University, issued an advertisement inviting applications for Nodal Service Centres/University Centres for awarding the following kind of degrees and diplomas. . .
28. Though incorporation of a university as a legislative head is a State subject (Entry 32 List II) but basically a university is an institution for higher education and research. Entry 66 of List I is coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. There can thus be a clash between the powers of the State and that of the Union. The interplay of various entries in this regard in the three lists of the Seventh Schedule and the real import of Entry 66 of List I have been examined in several decisions of this Court. In Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar [1963 Supp (1) SCR 112 : AIR 1963 SC 703] a decision by a Constitution Bench rendered prior to the Forty-second Amendment when Entry 11 of List II was in existence, it was held that Items 63 to 66 of List I are carved out of the subject of education and in respect of these items the power to legislate is vested exclusively in Parliament. The use of the expression “subject to” in Item 11 of List II [ Ed. : Prior to its omission — now in List III Entry 25.] of the Seventh Schedule clearly indicates that the legislation in respect of excluded matters cannot be undertaken by the State Legislatures. In AIR para 23, the Court held as under: (SCR pp. 137-38)
“Power of the State to legislate in respect of education including universities must to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parliament, whether such power is exercised or not, be deemed to be restricted. If a subject of legislation is covered by Items 63 to 66 even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of ‘education including universities’ power to legislate on that subject must lie with Parliament. … Item 11 of List II and Item 66 of List I must be harmoniously construed. The two entries undoubtedly overlap: but to the extent of overlapping, the power conferred by Item 66 List I must prevail over the power of the State under Item 11 of List II. It is manifest
(26 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
that the excluded heads deal primarily with education in institutions of national or special importance and institutions of higher education including research, sciences, technology and vocational training of labour.”
33. The consistent and settled view of this Court, therefore, is that in spite of incorporation of universities as a legislative head being in the State List, the whole gamut of the university which will include teaching, quality of education being imparted, curriculum, standard of examination and evaluation and also research activity being carried on will not come within the purview of the State Legislature on account of a specific entry on coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical education being in the Union List for which Parliament alone is competent. It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that proper standards are maintained in institutions for higher education or research throughout the country and also uniformity in standards is maintained.
54. In exercise of power conferred by Section 26 of the UGC Act, the University Grants Commission has made the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. The Regulations have been made with the object of providing for a regulatory mechanism for establishment and operation of private universities and for safeguarding the interests of the student community with adequate emphasis on the quality of education and to avoid commercialisation of higher education and also to maintain standards of teaching, research and examination. Regulation 1.2 provides that the same shall apply to every private university established by or incorporated under a State Act, before or after the commencement of these Regulations. Regulation 1.5 provides that any private university which has started functioning before the commencement of these Regulations shall ensure adherence to these Regulations within a period of three months from the notification thereof and failure to comply
(27 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
with this requirement shall render any degree/diploma awarded by a private university as unspecified in terms of Section 22(3) of the UGC Act and shall invite penalty under Section 24 of the said Act. Regulations 3.1, 3.2, 3.6 and 3.7 are important and they are being reproduced below:
“3.1. Each private university shall be established by a separate State Act and shall conform to the relevant provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, as amended from time to time.
3.2. A private university shall be a unitary university having adequate facilities for teaching, research, examination and extension services.
3.6. The programmes of study leading to a degree and/or a postgraduate degree/diploma offered by a private university shall conform to the relevant regulations/norms of UGC or the statutory body concerned as amended from time to time.
3.7. A private university shall provide all the relevant information relating to the first degree and postgraduate degree/diploma programme(s) including the curriculum structure, contents, teaching and learning process, examination and evaluation system and the eligibility criteria for admission of students, to UGC on a pro forma prescribed by UGC prior to starting of these programmes.”
55. Regulation 3.3 puts restriction on establishment of a university outside the State. Regulation 5 provides consequences of violation and lays down that if the Commission is satisfied that a private university has, even after getting an opportunity to do so, failed to comply with the provisions of any of the Regulations, the Commission may pass orders prohibiting the private university from offering any course for award of the degree or diploma. Similarly, UGC is empowered to take action against a private university awarding first degree and/or a postgraduate degree/diploma, which is not specified by UGC and any private university continuing such
(28 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
programme and awarding unspecified degree shall be liable for penalty under Section 24 of the UGC Act.
60. Dr. Dhavan has also drawn the attention of the Court to certain other provisions of the Act which have effect outside the State of Chhattisgarh and thereby give the State enactment an extraterritorial operation. Section 2(f) of the amended Act defines “off-campus centre” which means a centre of the university established by it outside the main campus (within or outside the State) operated and maintained as its constituent unit having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 2(g) defines “off-shore campus” and it means a campus of the university established by it outside the country, operated and maintained as its constituent unit, having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 3(7) says that the object of the university shall be to establish the main campus in Chhattisgarh and to have study centres at different places in India and other countries. In view of Article 245(1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. The impugned Act which specifically makes a provision enabling a university to have an off-campus centre outside the State is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh Legislature.”
(29 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
well as the State Government is necessary before opening any such study centre. The relevant portion of the guidelines, as referred to by the learned counsel reads as under:
“3.3 A private university established under a State Act shall operate ordinarily within the boundaries of the State concerned. However, after the development of main campus, in exceptional circumstances, the university may be permitted to open off campus centres, off shore campuses and study centres after five years of its coming into existence, subject to the following condition:
3.3.1 The off-campus centre(s) and / or the study centre(s) shall be set up with the prior approval of the UGC and that of the State Government(s) where the centre(s) is/are proposed to be opened.”
(30 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
13.1 Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the respondent-State vide order dated 02.12.2022 has already directed all the Zila Parishads to take appropriate action against the candidates who have been granted appointment on the post of LDC in pursuance of the subject advertisement of recruitment of LDC-2013.
13.2 In compliance of the order dated 02.12.2022, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur, vide order dated 14.12.2022, had initiated proceedings against the candidates who were granted appointment on the basis of the Degree obtained from MLC University.
(31 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
Advocate General submitted that a bare perusal of the said judgment makes it clear that the aspect of candidate(s) obtaining diploma from an off-campus study centre had come up before this Hon’ble Court and the same was examined after considering the judgment rendered in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra) ; this Hon’ble Court, after considering the said aspect had dismissed the writ petition, wherein, the similarly situated candidate was having a computer diploma from an off-campus study centre situated at Balotra and affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University situated in Meghlaya.
(32 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
(33 of 33)
[2023/RJJD/001954]
[CW-7320/2019]
Court does not find any case to be made out so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners' computer diploma from off-campus study centres of Makhanlal Chaturvedi University is a valid qualification for appointment as Lower Division Clerk under the Rajasthan Panchaya
Whether the respondents' rejection of the petitioners' candidature based on the judgment in Prof. Yashpal and UGC guidelines is justified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prof. Yashpal & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Followed¶455
Prof. Yashpal & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 420 · Who else cites this
Dave Nandini Ben @ Nandini Ben Avasthi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶464
Dave Nandini Ben @ Nandini Ben Avasthi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11480/2019, decided on 15.01.2020)
Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of KeralaReferred¶389
Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, (2016) 1 SCC 294 · Who else cites this
Chhoga Lal Kharol Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶399
Chhoga Lal Kharol Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14761/2013, decided by this Hon’ble Court on 03.03.2017)
Tulsi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶400
Tulsi Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15221/2017, decided by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 10.01.2023)
Ved Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Ors.Referred¶401
Ved Prakash Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Ors. (WP No.810/2010(S), decided by the Hon’ble High Court of MP on 21.01.2011)
Iaan School of Mass Communication & Ors. Vs. Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashitriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyalaya & OrsReferred¶367
Iaan School of Mass Communication & Ors. Vs. Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashitriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyalaya & Ors (Writ Petition No. 6740 of 2006 and other connect
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Giraj Prasad Sharma @ Shri Kalyan Sahai Sharma
State of Rajasthan
The Zila Parishad- Banswara
The University Grants Commission
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
