# • ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY. TO GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2009] 3 S.C.R. 355
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-02-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4173 of 2008
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/annamalai-university-rep-by-registrar-v-secy-to-govt-infn-tourism-dept-ors-25583
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

-
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 355
•
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR
A
v.
SECY. TO GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4173 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 25, 2009
B
· [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
University Grants Commission (the minimum standards
of instructions for the grant of the first degree through nonformal/distance education in the faculties of Arts, Humanities, c
Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences)
Regulations, 1985:
Regulation 2 - University awarding M.A. degree through
"
Open University System without the candidate having passed D
Bachelor's degree course - HELD: The M.A. degree so
awarded to the candidate being in violation of the Regulations,
he was rightly held by High Court not eligible for appointment
to the post of Principal of the Film and Television Institute -
Service Law.
E
The instant appeals were filed by the Annamalai
University and a candidate whose appointment as
Principal in the Film and Television Institute, Tamil Nadu,
was challenged by the respondent-candidate in a writ
petition before the High Court. The Division Bench of the F
High Court held that the appellant was not eligible to be
considered for the post, as the M.A. degree obtained by
him through Open University System without there being
a first (Bachelor's) degree was not a valid one and,
consequently, directed the State to take steps to fill up G
-"
>
the post in accordance with law.
It was contended for the appellant-University that the
University Grants Commission (the minimum standards
355
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
A 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, framed by the UGC
both providing for the eligibility to seek admission to the
B Master's degree as also information required to be
furnished thereabout by the State Universities to the UGC,
the latter must be held to have relaxed the conditions as
no direction in that behalf was communicated to the
University. The contention on behalf of the appellantC candidate, was that the Master's degrees awarded upto
30.6.1989 were treated to be valid and the UGC
Regulations were amended only in the year 2003. F o r
the respondents it was contended that the purported ex
post facto recognition of the MA degree granted by the
0
Distance Education Council was wholly without
jurisdiction.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1 In the matter of higher education, it is
E 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.
F [Para 23] [381-E-F]
1.2. In the matter of laying down qualification of
teachers, running of the University and the matters
provided for under the UGC Act, the 1985 Regulations are
applicable and binding on all concerned. The
G Regulations clearly aimed at the Open Universities.
IGNOU has not made any regulation; nor has it issued
any Ordinance; it is guided by the Regulations framed by
the UGC. The validity of the provisions of the 1985
Regulations has not been questioned either by IGNOU or
H by the appellant-University. From a letter dated 5.5.2004
-
'.
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY.
357
....
TO GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS .
~
issued by the authority who was not only the ViceA
Chancellor but also the Chairman of the Distance
Education Council of IGNOU it is evident that the
appellant-University has violated the mandatory
provisions of the 1985 Regulations. [Para 23] [382-C-F]
1.3. Indisputably, the fact that the appellantB
University had been granting postgraduate degrees to
~
the candidates concerned, although they had not
completed three years' graduate degree course, in
violation of Regulation 2 of the 1985 Regulations, came

## Text

_Characters 0–39,915 of 68,452. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39915 for what follows._

-
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 355
•
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR
A
v.
SECY. TO GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4173 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 25, 2009
B
· [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
University Grants Commission (the minimum standards
of instructions for the grant of the first degree through nonformal/distance education in the faculties of Arts, Humanities, c
Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences)
Regulations, 1985:
Regulation 2 - University awarding M.A. degree through
"
Open University System without the candidate having passed D
Bachelor's degree course - HELD: The M.A. degree so
awarded to the candidate being in violation of the Regulations,
he was rightly held by High Court not eligible for appointment
to the post of Principal of the Film and Television Institute -
Service Law.
E
The instant appeals were filed by the Annamalai
University and a candidate whose appointment as
Principal in the Film and Television Institute, Tamil Nadu,
was challenged by the respondent-candidate in a writ
petition before the High Court. The Division Bench of the F
High Court held that the appellant was not eligible to be
considered for the post, as the M.A. degree obtained by
him through Open University System without there being
a first (Bachelor's) degree was not a valid one and,
consequently, directed the State to take steps to fill up G
-"
>
the post in accordance with law.
It was contended for the appellant-University that the
University Grants Commission (the minimum standards
355
H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
A 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, framed by the UGC
both providing for the eligibility to seek admission to the
B Master's degree as also information required to be
furnished thereabout by the State Universities to the UGC,
the latter must be held to have relaxed the conditions as
no direction in that behalf was communicated to the
University. The contention on behalf of the appellantC candidate, was that the Master's degrees awarded upto
30.6.1989 were treated to be valid and the UGC
Regulations were amended only in the year 2003. F o r
the respondents it was contended that the purported ex
post facto recognition of the MA degree granted by the
0
Distance Education Council was wholly without
jurisdiction.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1 In the matter of higher education, it is
E 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.
F [Para 23] [381-E-F]
1.2. In the matter of laying down qualification of
teachers, running of the University and the matters
provided for under the UGC Act, the 1985 Regulations are
applicable and binding on all concerned. The
G Regulations clearly aimed at the Open Universities.
IGNOU has not made any regulation; nor has it issued
any Ordinance; it is guided by the Regulations framed by
the UGC. The validity of the provisions of the 1985
Regulations has not been questioned either by IGNOU or
H by the appellant-University. From a letter dated 5.5.2004
-
'.
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY.
357
....
TO GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS .
~
issued by the authority who was not only the ViceA
Chancellor but also the Chairman of the Distance
Education Council of IGNOU it is evident that the
appellant-University has violated the mandatory
provisions of the 1985 Regulations. [Para 23] [382-C-F]
1.3. Indisputably, the fact that the appellantB
University had been granting postgraduate degrees to
~
the candidates concerned, although they had not
completed three years' graduate degree course, in
violation of Regulation 2 of the 1985 Regulations, came c
to the notice of the UGC as also IGNOU. A meeting was
held in March 2004. It was agreed in the said meeting that
the admission to the Masters' Degree Programme under
the OUS without requiring the three years graduate
degree qualification be discontinued with effect from July, D
2004. It, however, appears that the degrees obtained after
1.3.1995 upto 20.6.2007 have been recognized by the
DEC. [Para 20 and 21] [376-D-F; 377-E]
Prem Chand Jain Anr. vs. R.K. Chhabra (1984) 2 SCR
883; University of Delhi vs. Raj Singh & Ors. 1994 Suppl (3)
E
SCC 516; State of T.N. & Anr. vs. Adhiyaman Educational &
Research Institute & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 104; State of A.P. vs.
K. Purushotham Reddy & Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 564 and
...
Osmania University Teachers Association vs. State of Andhra
....
Pradesh & Anr. (1987) 4 SCC 671, referred to.
F
Guru Nank Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal &
Anr. 2008(13) SCALE 760, distinguished.
2.1. It may be that informations had been furnished
by the appellant- University, but only because no action
G
-
>
was taken by UGC in that behalf, the same would not
mean that an illegality stood cured. The power of
relaxation is a statutory power. Grant of relaxation cannot
be presumed by necessary implication only because
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 3 S.C.R.
A UGC did not perform its duties. Regulation 2 of the 1985
~
Regulations being imperative in character, noncompliance thereof would entail its consequences. The
power of relaxation conferred on UGC being in regard the
date of implementation or for admission to the first or
B second degree courses or to give exemption for a
specified period in regard to other clauses in the
regulation on the merit of each case, does not lead to a
conclusion that such relaxation can be granted
automatically. The fact that exemption is required to be
c considered on 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. Relaxation,
D furthermore, cannot be granted in regard to the basic
things necessary for conferment of a degree. An order
passed by an administrative authority without complying
with mandatory provision of a statute would be void.
Such a void order cannot be validated by inaction. [Para
E 28] [389-D-H; 390-A]
2.2. DEC may be an authority under the Act, but its
orders ordinarily would only have a prospective effect. It
having accepted in its letter dated 5.5.2004 that the
appellant-University had no jurisdiction to confer such
*'
F degrees could not have validated an invalid act. The
degrees become invalidated in terms of the provisions of
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
G that too with a retrospective effect. The provisions of UGC
Act are not in conflict with the provisions of Open
'
-.,._
University Act. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that UGC
Act shall prevail over Open University Act. [Para 29] [3908-D]
H
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY.
359
TO GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS.
'I
2.3. Regulations were framed at a later point of time
A
i.e. after passing of the Open University Act. Indisputably,
the regulations embrace within its fold the matters
covered under Open University Act also. [Para 30) [390E-F]
B
Indian Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
(1985) 1 SCC 641 and Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (3)
""
vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group & ors. (2006) 3 SCC
...
434, held inapplicable.
3. The High Court is correct in rendering the opinion c
in the manner it did in its judgment. It is also not a case
where the Court should invoke jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India. In view of the long
pending litigation, it will be unjust to deprive the writ
.,
"'
petitioner-respondent from his lawful demand. It is not a D
,
case where discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be invoked.
Writ petitioners-respondent had moved the High Court at
the earliest possible opportunity, It is a case of
promotion. It is not a case of fresh entry in service. The
E
judgment would not affect the service of the appellant. He
cannot only be promoted to the post of Principal of the
Institute. (Para 32 and 33) (391-H; 392-A-C]
'
Case Law Reference:
F
-
2008(13) SCALE 760
distinguished
para 10
(1984) 2 SCR 883
referred to
para 24
1994 Suppl (3) SCC 516 referred to
para 24
(1995) 4 sec 104
referred to
para 24
G
•
~
(2003) 9 sec 564
referred to
para 24
(1987) 4 sec 671
referred to
pctra 27
(1985) 1 sec 641
held inapplicable
para 30
H
A
8
c
D
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 3 S.C.R.
(2006) 3 sec 434
held inapplicable
para 30
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4173 of 2008.
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.2.08 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 36307/
2004.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 4189-4191 of 2008.
K. Parasaran, V. Balachandran.·P.R. Kovilan Poonguntran,
N. Prakesh and R.V. Kameshwaran for the Appellant.
G.E. Vahanvati, SG(A.C.) for the Respondent.
Amitesh Kumar, Gopal Singh, B.D. Sharma, Narottam
Vyas, Sohan Singh and Deep Shikha Bharati for U.G.C.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Interpretation and application of 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)
F Regulations, 1985 (for short, "1985 Regulations") framed by
the University Grants Commission (for short, "UGC") in exercise
of its powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of
Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
(for short, "the UGC Act") vis-a-vis the provisions of the Indira
Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Open
G University Act") is in question in these appeals. They arise out
of a common judgment and order dated 4.2.2008 passed by
a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
Writ Appeal Nos. 1221 of 2005 and 82 of 2006 and Writ
Petition No. 36307 of 2004.
H
•
4-
-
'
-
•
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY. TO 361
GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
2. Indisputably, N. Ramesh (Ramesh) and Sibi Madan A
Gabriel (Gabriel) were candidates for appointment to the post
of Principal in Film and Television Institute (for short, "the
Institute") of Tamil Nadu. Gabriel was appointed temporarily as
a 'Lecturer in Acting' in the Institute on or about 26.5.1982. His
services were regularized with retrospective effect from the
B
date of his joining by an order dated 20.2.1992. He was
subsequently promoted as Head of Section by G.O.Ms. No.
236 dated 17.8.1993. The next avenue of promotion from the
post of Head of Section is the post of Principal in the Institute.
In the year 2000, Ramesh was given the additional charge to c
the post of Principal. Gabriel filed an Original Application before
the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (for short, ''the Tribunal'),
which was marked as O.A. No. 5275 of 2000 questioning the
legality of the said appointment on the ground that Ramesh
did not have the requisite essential educational qualification
D
for the post of Principal.
3. The Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 14.8.2000,
directed the State to consider the objections of Gabriel having
regard to the qualifications prescribed for the said post vis-avis those possessed by Ramesh. The challenge to the
E
qualification of Ramesh was that he did not possess a basic
graduation degree and, thus, the post-graduation degree
.,
conferred on him by appellant - University is invalid in law. At
that stage, the State appointed one Mr. K. Loganathan, which
was challenged by Ramesh by way of O.A. No. 2085 of 2003
F
before the Tribunal. Said application was dismissed by the
Tribunal by reason of an order dated 5.1.2004. Ramesh
challenged the said order of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition
marked as Writ Petition No. 841 of 2004, which had become
infructuous as after retirement of said Mr. K. Loganathan,
G
_,,.
>
Ramesh was appointed as the Principal by order dated
6.12.2004. Gabriel challenged the said appointment of Ramesh
by filing Writ Petition No. 36307 of 2004.
4. Indisputably, during the pendency of the said writ petition,
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
A Gabriel filed W.M.P. No. 43649 of 2004 for stay, which was
granted. Ramesh filed W.V.M.P. No. 2428 of 2004 for vacating
the stay which was rejected by the learned single judge by
order dated 21.6.2005. Writ appeals were preferred
thereagainst by Ramesh as also State Government and the
B Director of Information and Public Relation, which were marked
as Writ Appeal No. 1221 of 2005 and Writ Appeal No. 82 of
2006. By reason of judgment and order dated 14.2.2006, while
allowing the writ appeals, writ petition preferred by Gabriel
was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
c
5. Indisputably, the said decision of the Division Bench of
the High Court had been challenged in this Court by way of
Civil Appeal No. 3178 of 2007, which by reason of a judgment
and order dated 20.7.2007 was disposed of by remanding
the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration observing
D that UGC as well as appellant - University should be impfeaded
as parties in the writ petition.
6. Indisputably, the post of Principal in the Institute is
governed by Rules made under the proviso appended to Article
E 309 of the Constitution of India. Rufe 4 fays down the
qualifications for the said post, which reads as under:
Method of Recruitment
Promotion
F
G
H
Qualification
(i) a degree in Science
or Arts of any
recognized University
(ii) A diploma in any
branch of Film
Technology awarded by
any recognized Institution
in India, and
(iii) Service as Head of
Section in any branch of
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY. TO 363
GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.)
Film Technology in the
A
Recruitment by Transfer
Government Institute of
Film Technology, Madras
for not less than five
years.
(i) a degree in Science or
Arts of any recognized
University
B
(ii) A diploma in any
C
branch of Film Technology
awarded by any
recognized Institute in
India, and
(iii) Experience for a
D
period of not less than ten
years in film Technology,
of which at least five
years shall be in teaching
in a Film Institute.
E
7. Indisputably, Ramesh holds a diploma in Film
Technology. He also has the requisite experience of five years
as Head of Section. He, however, has obtained M.A. Degree
in Open University System (OUS) in an examination held by
the appellant - University.
F
8. The Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the
impugned judgment allowed the writ petition and disposed of
the writ appeals pend;ng before it holding that Ramesh was
not eligible to be considered for the post of Principal as the
G
M.A. Degree obtained by him through OUS, without there being
a first (Bachelor's) degree, was not a valid one. Consequently,
the State was directed to take steps to fill up the post of
Principal in accordance with law.
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
A
9. Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, the
University as also Ramesh are before us.
10. Mr. K. Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant - University would submit:
B
i.
The system of imparting education between a
conventional University and an Open University
being different and being governed by the UGC Act
and the Open University Act respectively, the High
Court committed a serious error in passing the
c
impugned judgment.
ii.
Regulations framed by the UGC both providing for
the eligibility to seek admission to the Masters'
degree as also information required to be furnished
D
thereabout by the State Universities to the UGC, the
later must be held to have relaxed the conditions
as no direction in that behalf has been
communicated to the University. In any event, as
Distance Education Council (DEC) of IGNOU,
E
being an authority constituted under Statute 28 of
the Open University Act, having granted post-facto
approval to the courses of studies of the University
by a letter dated 21.7.2008 this Court should set
aside the impugned judgment.
F
iii.
In view of the decision of this Court in Guru Nanak
,,,.
Dev University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr.
reported in 2008 (13) SCALE 760, the decision of
the High Court has been rendered erroneous as
therein Master's degree under the OUS by the
G
appellant - University has been held to be valid
stating that although one University is entitled not
to recognize the said degree as an equivalent to
the qualification it may have prescribed for eligibility
to a higher course.
H
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY. TO 365
GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
iv.
Regulations framed by UGC in any event being in
A
conflict with the Open University Act must be held
to be ultra vires the same particularly in view of the
fact that sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the Open
University Act provides for a non-obstante clause.
In any event, Open University Act being a later
B
enactment and both statutes having been passed
by the Parliament, the provisions of Open University
Act would prevail over the UGC Act.
v.
In any view of the matter as from 1995 till 2005 c
several persons have received degrees issued by
the University and if they are disqualified at this
stage, a large number of persons would suffer
'
irreparable injury, this Court should issue
..
appropriate directions in this behalf .
D
11. Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant - Ramesh would contend:
i.
Having regard to the provisions of the UGC Act and
in particular Section 27 thereof providing for
E
delegation of power to the authority, and as a
Notification dated 1.3.1995 has been issued
directing that the degrees issued by the Universities
would stand automatically recognized for the
purpose of employment to posts and services under
F
~'
the Central Government subject to approval of the
DEC, IGNOU, the High Court must be held to have
committed a serious error in holding contra.
ii.
From various correspondences, it would appear
)
that the UGC Regulations were amended only in
G
the year 2003 and the Master's degree awarded
upto 30.6.1989 were treated to be valid.
iii.
Many established Universities like that of
Annamalai University across the country, having
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
A
conducted such courses under OUS and such
degrees having been accepted by Public Service
Commission, the High Court's judgment even in
equity should be set aside.
B
12. Mr. G.E. Vahanwati, learned Solicitor General who
appeared at the request of the Court would contend that from
the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Open University Act
it is evident that the Parliament made a distinction between
formal and non-formal education and UGC Act being concerned
c with formal education, IGNOU and particularly the DEC had
the requisite jurisdiction to lay down syllabus as also duration
of such courses.
13. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the UGC would urge:
D
i.
Regulations framed by the UGC being statutory in
nature and in any event the constitutionality of the
said Regulations having not been challenged, the
High Court's judgment must be held to be wholly
E
sustainable.
ii.
In view of the fact that the Vice-Chancellor and the
Chairman DEC of IGNOU having accepted in its
letter dated 5.5.2004 that the UGC Regulations
shall prevail, the contentions raised on behalf of the
F
appellants must be held to be wholly misconceived.
iii.
As Regulations framed by the UGC are required to
be laid before the Houses of the Parliament in
terms of Section 28 of the Act and furthermore the
G
Ministry of Human Resource Development being a
./
Nodal Ministry of both UGC as also IGNOU, the
..
Regulations having been made at its instance,
cannot be said to be subservient to the provisions
of the Open University Act.
H
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY. TO 367
GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
iv
UGC having the requisite jurisdiction inter alia to lay
A
down the minimum standard, Regulations framed
by it are binding on all Universities and, thus, it
would not be correct to contend that Open
University Act shall prevail over the regulations
·f
framed by the UGC.
B
,
14. Mr. B.D. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the writ petitioners -
respondents submitted that the
purported ex post facto recognition of the M.A. degrees granted
by the DEC is wholly without jurisdiction. There being no conflict c
between the UGC Act and the Open University Act in respect
of laying minimum standard, the question declaring the
regulations ultra vires of the Open University Act does not
arise.
15. Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
D
Constitution of India reads thus:
"66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in
institutions for higher education or research and scientific
and technical institutions."
E
'Education' is also in the Concurrent List; Entry 25 whereof
reads as under:
"25. Education, including technical education, medical
education and universities, subject to the provisions of
F
entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical
training of labour."
The Central Government as also the State Governments
in exercise of their legislative competence in terms of Entry 25
G
-
~
are entitled to make legislations. Pursuant thereto, and in
furtherance thereof, Universities like IGNOU had been enacted
by the Parliament again in exercise of its legislative
competence in terms of Entry 25. UGC Act, on the other hand,
comes within the purview of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 3 S.C.R.
A Schedule to the Constitution of India. It was enacted to make
provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards
in Universities and for that purpose, to establish a UGC.
UGC was established by the Central Government in terms .
8 of Section 4 of the UGC Act. Powers and functions of the
Commission have been laid down in Chapter Ill thereof. Section
12 provides for functions of the Commission; some of the
relevant provisions whereof are:
"12. It shall be the general duty of the Commission to take,
C
in consultation with the Universities or other bodies
concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the
promotion and co-ordination of University education and
for the determination and maintenance of standards of
teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for
D
the purpose of performing its functions under this Act, the
Commission mayE
F
G
(d)
recommend to any University the measures
necessary for the improvement of University
education and advise the University upon the action
to be taken for the purpose of implementing such
recommendation;
(i)
require a University to furnish it with such
information as may be needed relating to the
financial position of the University or the studies in
the various branches of learning undertaken in that
University, together with all the rules and regulations
relating to the standards of teaching and
examination in that University respecting each of
such branches of learning;"
H
Section 12A provides for regulation of fees and prohibition
1'
(
L
>
...
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY. TO 369
GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
of donations in certain cases. Clause (c) whereof reads as A
under:
"(c)
"prosecution" in relation to a course of study,
includes promotion from one part or stage of the
course of study to another part or stage of the 8
course of study;"·
Section 22 provides for right to confer degrees. Subsection (1) and reads as under:
"(1) The right of conferring or granting degrees shall be c
exercised only by a University established or incorporated
by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act
or an institution deemed to be a University under section
3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of
Parliament to confer or grant degrees."
o
The Commission is empowered to make regulations by
notification in terms of Section 26, inter alia, for the following
purposes:
"26(1 )(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily E
be required of any person to be appointed to the
teaching staff of the University, having regard to the
branch of education in which he is expected to give
instructions;
(f)
F
defining the minimum standards of instruction for the
(g)
grant of any degree by any University;
regulating the maintenance of standards and the
co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities.
~
(h)
regulating the establishment of institutions referred
to in clause (ccc) of section 12 and other matters
relating to such institutions;"
Section 28 mandates that every rules and regulations must
G
H.
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
A be placed before each House of Parliament.
16. Open University Act was enacted to establish and
incorporate an open University at the national level for the
introduction and promotion of open university and distance
education systems in the educational pattern of the country
8
and for the co-ordination and determination of standards in
such systems.
c
D
E
F
G
H
We may also notice the Statement of Objects and
Reasons of the said Act, which reads as under:
"Despite the tremendous expansion of the formal system
of higher education since independence, the pressure on
the system is continuously increasing. Indeed, the system
has not been able to provide an effective means to
equalize educational opportunities. The rigidity of the
system requiring, among others, attendance in classrooms
have been a disincentive to many learners. Moreover the
combinations of subjects are inflexible and are often not
relevant to the needs of the learners. This has resulted in
a pronounced mismatch between the contents of most
programmes and the needs of the development sectors.
The experience of several developed or developing
countries indicate that distance education programmes
can provide an alternative system that will be cost-effective
and relevant, while at the same time ensuring effective
equaliza!ion of opportunities. Though a diversity of means,
including the utilization of modern communication
technology, the distance education can provide more
flexible and open learning programmes that will suit the
needs of various categories of learners, especially the
weaker sections of society. The introduction and promotion
of distance education in the educational system of the
country is, therefore, of great significance."
We may also notice some provisions of the Open
'
..
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY. TO 371
GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.)
University Act.
A
"2(e) "distance education system" means the system of
imparting education through any means of communication,
such as broadcasting, telecasting, correspondence
courses, seminars, contact programmes or the 8
combination of any two or more of such means;
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
3.
Establishment and incorporation of the University.-
(1) There shall be established a University by the name of c
"the Indira Gandhi National Open University".
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
4. The objects of the University.- The objects of the
University shall be to advance and disseminate learning D
and knowledge by a diversity of means, including the use
of any communication technology, to provide opportunities
for higher education to a larger segment of the population
and to promote the educational well being of the community
generally, to encourage the Open University and distance
E
education systems in the educational pattern of the country
and to co-ordinate and determine the standards in such
systems, and the University shall, in organizing its
activities, have due regard to the objects specified in the
First Schedule.
F
5. Powers of the University.- (1) The University shall have
the following powers, namely:-
G
,,
~
(iii)
to hold examinations and confer degrees,
diplomas, certificates or other academic
distinctions or recognitions on persons who have
pursued a course of study or conducted research
in the manner laid down by the Statutes and
H
372
A
B
c
D
(v)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
Ordinances;
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
to determine the manner in which distance
education in relation to the academic programmes
of the University may be organised;
)()()(
)()()(
)()()(
(xiii) to recognise examinations of, or periods of study
(whether in full or part) at, other universities,
institutions or other places of higher learning as
equivalent to examinations or periods of study in the
University, and to withdraw such recognition at any
time;
)()()( xxx
xxx
(xxiv) to determine standards and to specify conditions
for the admission of students to courses of study
of the University which may include examination,
E
evaluation and any other method of testing;
F
G
H
xxx xxx
xxx
)()()( xxx
)()()(
5(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, but without prejudice to the
provisions of sub-section. (1 ), it shall be the duty of the
University to take all such steps as it may deem fit for the
promotion of the open university and distance education
systems and for the determination of standards of
teaching, evaluation and research in such systems, and for
the purpose of performing this function, the University shall
have such powers, including the power to allocate and
disburse grants to Colleges, whether admitted to its
privileges or not, or to any other university or institution of
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY. TO · 373
GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
higher learning, as may be specified by the Statutes."
A
In terms of Section 6 thereof, IGNOU has jurisdiction over
the whole of India. Section 16 lays down the Authorities of the
IGNOU, clause (7) whereof reads as under:
"(7) Such other authorities as may be declared by the
8
Statutes to be the authorities of the University."
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said power read with
Statute 28 and 28(2A), DEC had been constituted. DEC has
been declared as the authority of the IGNOU. Whereas Section c
25 provides for the statute making power, Section 27 provides
for the Ordinances making power. It has, however, been stated
at the Bar that the IGNOU has neither made any regulations
nor any statutes.
The First Schedule appended to the Open University Act
D
provides for the objects of IGNOU, the relevant provisions
whereof read as under:
"1(e) contribute to the improvement of the educational
system in India by providing a non-formal channel
E
complementary to the formal system and encouraging
transfer of credits and exchange of teaching staff by
making wide use of texts and other software developed
by the University;
2. The University shall strive to fulfil the above objects by
F
a diversity of means of distance and continuing education,
and shall function in co-operation with the existing
Universities and Institutions of higher learning and make
full use of the latest scientific knowledge and new G
,·
'
educational technology to offer a high quality of education
which matches contemporary needs."
17. Indisputably, UGC in exercise of the powers conferred
upon it by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the
UGC Act, made the 1985 regulations. A notification in this
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
A behalf was published by the UGC on 25.11.1985. It, however,
was given effect from 1.1.1986.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
We may notice some of the provisions of 1985
Regulations.
"2. Admission!Students:-(1) No student shall be eligible for
admission to the 1st 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 of 21 years on July 1 of the year
of admission.
(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:
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:
Provided further that, as a transistory 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 years
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."
6. Information.- Every University providing instruction -
•
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY. TO 375
~
GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
through non-formal/distance education shall furnish to the
A
University Grants Commission information relating to the
observance of these Regulations in the form prescribed
for the purpose. The information shall be supplied to the
University Grants Commission within 60 days of the close
of the academic Year'.
B
7. The University Grants Commission shall have the right
to grant relaxation to a university 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 c
in regard to other clauses in the regulations on the merit
of each case."
Regulations 6 and 7 were renumbered as Regulations 7
....
and 8 at a later stage .
D
18. Indisputably, Ministry of Human Resource Development
(Department of Education) is the Nodal Ministry. The Central
Government, therefore, was aware of the provisions of both
the Open University Act as also the 1985 Regulations.
The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued a
E
communication on or about 25.11.1988 stating that the
·-
degrees/diplomas awarded by the Universities established
'
inter alia by a State Legislature will stand automatically
recognized for the purpose of employment under the Central
Government
F
-
19. Indisputably, appellant - University established a
separate Directorate for Distance Education Programme
offering different courses of studies. It, however, started
functioning in the year 1991. Offering courses of studies under
G
·(
-I
the OUS is said to be in line with the one followed by the
IGNOU in terms whereof anyone who had completed Plus Two
(+2) or undergone the preparatory course and passed the
written test become eligible to join the undergraduate
programme of his or her choice. Similarly, those who had
H
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
•
A undergone the preparatory course and written test and was of
21 years of age and above became eligible for undertaking
the postgraduate course. The said programme is said to have
been introduced on an experimental basis. Similar programmes
offering courses of undergraduate and post-graduate levels
B through the OUS were also adopted and followed by various
other UniVE3rsities in India. It is stated that UGC was being
apprised of the activities of the appellant - University in regard
)
to instructions/courses offered by it through the non-formal/
distance education including the OUS in terms of Regulation
c 6 of the 1985 Regulations. The Government of Tamil Nadu
allegedly at the request of the appellant - University and on
the basis of the recommendations made by a Committee
constituted by them for the aforementioned purpose directed
that the bachelor and postgraduate degrees and diplomas
D awarded by the Open Universities be treated on par with those
awarded under regular stream for any appointment to the post
in public service.
20. Indisputably, the fact that the appellant - University
had been granting postgraduate degrees to the candidates
E concerned although they had not completed three years' course
in violation of the Regulation 2 of the 1985 Regulations came
to the notice of the UGC as also IGNOU officials. A meeting
was held in March 2004. It was agreed in the said meeting
that the admission to the Masters' Degree Programme under
F the OUS without requiring the three years graduate degree
"
qualification be discontinued with effect from July, 2004 as
-
would appear from a letter issued by the IGNOU to the ViceChancellor of the appellant - University, the relevant portion
whereof reads as under:
G
"In the meeting, both the undersigned as Chairman DEC
•
l'
and Chairman UGC had emphasized the need to
discontinue the Master's Degree Programme without
requiring 3 years graduate degree qualification under
H
Open education stream, which is in practice in some
~
ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY REP. BY REGISTRAR v. SECY. TO 377
-'
GOVT. INFN. & TOURISM DEPT. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
Universities of Tamil Nadu.
A
...
We drew your kind attention to the UGC regulation 1985
regarding the minimum standard of instructions for the
grant of the first degree through non-formal/distance
education dated 25th November, 1985 according to which
B
no student shall be eligible to seek admission to the
Master's Degree Programme who has not completed first
degree course of three years duration. This clearly
stipulates that the practice of admitting students of Master's
Degree Programme who have not undergone 3 years c
undergraduate programme successfully is against the
provisions of the above regulation. In view of this, it was
agreed in the meeting of March 11, 2004 that new
admission to the Master's Degree Programme under
' "'
open education scheme as prevailing in some Universities
in Tamil Nadu should be discontinued with effect from the D
forthcoming session starting from July 2004. I would feel
grateful to receive your confirmation on this matter."
21. It, however, appears that the degrees obtained after
1.3.1995 upto 20.6.2007 have been recognized by the DEC e
as would appear from a letter issued by the said DEC dated
21.7.2008, which reads as under:
'
"This has reference to your application requesting for postfacto recognition of Distance Education Council for
F
programmes offered through distance mode by Directorate
of Distance Education of your university.
In this connection, we would like to inform you that based
on the recommendation of the expert committee that
J
•
visited your university, the Chairman, Distance G
Education Council has accorded post-facto approval to
your university for programmes offered through distance
mode with effect from 1st March. 1999 to aofldemio year
2006-2007. Prior to March 1995, there was no ~ystem for
giving recognition to correspondence courses or distance
H
A
B
c
D
E
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 3 S.C.R.
education programmes and therefore the issue of postfacto approval for such courses during that period does
not arise. The certificates issued by the university stand
automatically recognized if they were approved by the
relevant authorities of the university.
Further, we would also like to inform that, it is the
responsibility of the university to follow the norms
prescribed by the concerned regulatory bodies or seek
their recognition for professional/technical programme/s as
per the requirements. Getting approval of concerned
statutory apex body for relevant programme/s will be the
sole responsibility of the university.