# ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD v. RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS

- **Citation:** [2017] 13 S.C.R. 921
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017-11-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870of2017
- **Bench:** Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Laut
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/orissa-lift-irrigation-corp-ltd-v-rabi-sankar-patro-ors-31948
- **Pages:** 88

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions:
Technical education - Through distant education mode - Imparted
A
B
by Deemed to be University - Respondent-employees acquired C
Engineering degree through distance education mode, from Deemed
to be Universities - Thereafter, filed Writ Petition seeking promotion
on the basis of engineering degree - Plea of appellant-employer
that the employees were not qualified for promotion as degrees
acquired by them was from such institutions which were not approved D
by AICTE and hence not recognized - High Court allowed the case
of employees holding that service rules did not specify that
qualifications obtained through distance education was not
permissible and that the degree was required to be obtained fi'om
the approved Universities of AICTE - On appeal, held: Decision as
to whether subjects leading to degrees in engineering, could be
taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive
domain of AICTE - The Deemed to be universities in question had
started the courses in Engineering through distance education mode
without the approval of AICTE - 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 - Therefore,
Distance Education Council (DEC) created u/s. 28 of IGNOU Act
cannot act as a regulator for other Universities - Despite several
policy guidelines that DEC alone was not entitled to grant
permission for open distance learning, DEC went on granting G
permission without consulting AICTE - Such exercise on part of
DEC was without jurisdiction - Therefore, the permission granted
E
F
by DEC in the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities
in question to introduce courses leading to award of degrees in
engineering were illegal and opposed to law - Such illegality could
H
921
922
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
not be cured by ex post facto approvals granted later - The grant of
ex post facto approval were also superficial and perfimctory -
However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty
to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post
facto approval, the matter is considered with sympathy in the interest
of students who were enrolled during the academic session 20012005 - it would be appropriate to grant some chance to the
concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities
competent in thrit behalf' - Therefore, the degrees qf' such students
shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the
joint supervision of AJCTE-UGC - Degrees of students who were
admitted after ex-post facto approval, shall stand recalled and be
treated as cancelled - Direction to CBJ to carry out investigation
as regards the conduct of the concerned officials who granted
permission - UGC is directed to consider withdrawal of Deemed to
be University status to the concerned institutions - UGC is also
directed to stop the practice of using the word "University "by the
Deemed to be Universities as this is opposed to the spirit of' s. 23 of
UGC Act -- All lndia Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - s. 23 - lndira Gandhi
National Open University Act, 1985 - s. 28 - All lndia Council for
Technical Education (Grant of Approval for Starting New Technical
Institutions, Introduction of Courses or Programmes and Approval
of Intake Capacity of Seats for Courses or Programmes)
Regulations, 1994 - National Policy on Education. 1986 -
Guidelines for establishing new departments within the campus,
setting up of off-campus centre(s)linstitutions(s)lqff-shore campus
and starting distance education programmes by the Deemed to be
universities, 2004 - Orissa Service Engineering Rules, 1941.
'University' and Deemed to be University' - Distinction
between - Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The definition of"Technical Educatio

## Text

_Characters 0–39,655 of 195,361. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39655 for what follows._

[2017] 13 S.C.R.921
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD.
v.
RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870of2017)
NOVEMBER 3, 2017
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Technical education - Through distant education mode - Imparted
A
B
by Deemed to be University - Respondent-employees acquired C
Engineering degree through distance education mode, from Deemed
to be Universities - Thereafter, filed Writ Petition seeking promotion
on the basis of engineering degree - Plea of appellant-employer
that the employees were not qualified for promotion as degrees
acquired by them was from such institutions which were not approved D
by AICTE and hence not recognized - High Court allowed the case
of employees holding that service rules did not specify that
qualifications obtained through distance education was not
permissible and that the degree was required to be obtained fi'om
the approved Universities of AICTE - On appeal, held: Decision as
to whether subjects leading to degrees in engineering, could be
taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive
domain of AICTE - The Deemed to be universities in question had
started the courses in Engineering through distance education mode
without the approval of AICTE - 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 - Therefore,
Distance Education Council (DEC) created u/s. 28 of IGNOU Act
cannot act as a regulator for other Universities - Despite several
policy guidelines that DEC alone was not entitled to grant
permission for open distance learning, DEC went on granting G
permission without consulting AICTE - Such exercise on part of
DEC was without jurisdiction - Therefore, the permission granted
E
F
by DEC in the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities
in question to introduce courses leading to award of degrees in
engineering were illegal and opposed to law - Such illegality could
H
921
922
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
not be cured by ex post facto approvals granted later - The grant of
ex post facto approval were also superficial and perfimctory -
However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty
to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post
facto approval, the matter is considered with sympathy in the interest
of students who were enrolled during the academic session 20012005 - it would be appropriate to grant some chance to the
concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities
competent in thrit behalf' - Therefore, the degrees qf' such students
shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the
joint supervision of AJCTE-UGC - Degrees of students who were
admitted after ex-post facto approval, shall stand recalled and be
treated as cancelled - Direction to CBJ to carry out investigation
as regards the conduct of the concerned officials who granted
permission - UGC is directed to consider withdrawal of Deemed to
be University status to the concerned institutions - UGC is also
directed to stop the practice of using the word "University "by the
Deemed to be Universities as this is opposed to the spirit of' s. 23 of
UGC Act -- All lndia Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - s. 23 - lndira Gandhi
National Open University Act, 1985 - s. 28 - All lndia Council for
Technical Education (Grant of Approval for Starting New Technical
Institutions, Introduction of Courses or Programmes and Approval
of Intake Capacity of Seats for Courses or Programmes)
Regulations, 1994 - National Policy on Education. 1986 -
Guidelines for establishing new departments within the campus,
setting up of off-campus centre(s)linstitutions(s)lqff-shore campus
and starting distance education programmes by the Deemed to be
universities, 2004 - Orissa Service Engineering Rules, 1941.
'University' and Deemed to be University' - Distinction
between - Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The definition of"Technical Education" in Section
2(g) of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987
(AICTE Act) shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of
education, research and training in Engineering Technology in
general and the idea is not limited to the institutions where such
programmes of education, research and training are to be
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
923
PATRO & ORS.
'
conducted or imparted. However, the definition of "Technical A
Institution" in Section 2(h) of AICTE Act leaves out an institution
which is a University. The distinction between the broader
concept of "Technical Education" and the limited scope of
"Technical Institution" is clear from Section 10 of the AICTE
Act where certain functions concern the broader facets or aspects
B
of technical education which by very nature must apply to every
single institution (whether university or not) where such courses
are conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functions
are relatable to technical institutions alone, which by definition
are not applicable to universities. [Para 36) [994-D-F)
2. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is
the sole repository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative
norms for "technical education". What should be course content,
what subjects be taught and what should be the length and
duration of the cours~.s as well as the manner in which those
courses be conducted is a part of the larger concept of "technical
education". Any idea or innovation in that field is also a part of
the concept of "technical education" and must, as a matter of
principle, be in the exclusive domain of AICTE. [Para 36) [995B-C
Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India
Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8
SCC 676 : [2001) 3 Suppl. SCR 253 - referred to.
3. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in
Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as
practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education
which is hands-on approach involving actual application of
principles taught in theory under the watchful eyes of
Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge
in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes. The
practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the technical
education system. If this established concept of imparting
technical education as a qualitative norm is to be modified or
altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance education
learning, then as a concept the AICTE ought to have accepted it
in clear terms. What parameters ought to be satisfied if the
regular course of imparting technical education is in any way to
c
D
E
F
G
H
924
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 13 S.C.R.
be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to decide. The decision
must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely
because of absence of any Guidelines in the matter. No such
decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it
has always maintained that courses leading to degrees in
Engineering c::innot be undertaken through distance education
mode. If according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught
in distance education mode, that is the final word and is binding -
unless rectified in a manner known to law. [Para 38) )996-B-E)
4. Even National Policy on Education while emphasizing
the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes through
distance education learning in technical and managerial education,
laid down in Para 6.19 thatAICTE will be responsible for planning,
formulation and maintenance of norms and standards including
maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring coordinated
and integrated development of technical and management
education. Whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering,
could be taught in distance education mode or not is within the
exclusive domain of the AICTE. Therefore, without the
Guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly
permitting degree courses in Engineering through distance
education mode, the Deemed to be Universities were not justified
in introducing such courses. [Para 38)
[996-F-H)
5. In the present cases, none of the Deemed to be
Universities was conferred such status for its excellence in the
field of Engineering. Their fields were completely un-related.
As a matter of fact, two of the institutions in question did not
even have regular college or faculty for Engineering at its main
campus. And yet, they started courses in Engineering through
distance education mode without the approval of AICTE, relying
on the dictum in *Bharathidasan case. [Para 39) [997-H; 998-AJ
6.
The grant or empowerment in* Bharathidasan case in favour
G of the University in question came from the State enactment which
was its Charter. There is no such Charter or grant in favour of a
Deemed to be University under any provision of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act). All that the UGC Act
does is to confer Deemed to be University status on an Institution
H
which has achieved excellence in its chosen field so that its
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
PATRO & ORS.
development in the concerned field and its attempts to attain
excellence and conduct research are not hampered on any count
and at the same time it could be extended the facilities of Aid. It
is precisely for this that the distinction between a regular
University established under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a
State Act and an Institution Deemed to be University is maintained
in the UGC Act. A Deemed to be University can certainly award
degrees but cannot use the word "University" by virtue of Section
23 of the UGC Act. Even after conferral of such status it still
continues to be "an Institution Deemed to be University" and if
925
A
B
it is equated with a University in every sense of the term, it would
lead to incoherent and incongruous results, in that its area of C
operation or the field of its activity would be completely unlimited
and unregulated. That is certainly not the intent of the UGC Act.
[Para 42) (999-B-E]
Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India
Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8
SCC 676: (2001) 3 Suppl. SCR 253 - distinguished.
7. Conceptually there is some difference between the status
of a University established under a State law and that of a Deemed
to be University. Normally, a University is established with an
idea that particular areas or districts of the State need to be
catered to. Such University is expected to satisfy the needs or
aspirations of people in the area for education and correspondingly
empowered to initiate new courses, keeping in tune with the
needs of time. The expectations from a Deemed to be University
are of a different dimension. What is expected is excellence,
research and advancement in its chosen field for which such status
was accorded. There is no embargo on such Deemed to be
University in entering new areas of education or introducing new
courses but in that case, it can't demand or receive complete
relaxation from regulatory regime. It must satisfy all those
requirements which a normal institution is required to. A Deemed
to be University which was conferred such status for its
excellence in subjects which are completely unrelated to the field
in which new courses are sought to be introduced, is still an
institution of the stature of a "technical institution" and if it desires
to introduce new courses, it must fulfill the requirements of
AICTE (Grant of Approval for Starting New Technical Institutions,
D
E
F
G
H
926
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017) 13 S.C.R.
Introduction of Courses or programmes and Approval of Intake
Capacity of Seats for Courses or Programmes) Regulations, 1994.
A Deemed to be University which has achieved excellence in a
particular field may be given deferential treatment but nonetheless
it has to satisfy the requirements for new technical institution.
Pertinently, two of the institutions concerned, while establishing
their faculty 0r colleges in engineering at their main Campus
sought approvals from AICTE. Further, even for introducing
courses in management which come under the definition of
technical education under the AJCTE Act, appropriate
permissions were sought from AICTE. The Deemed to be
Universities in the present case were required to abide by the
provisions of 1994 AJCTE Regulations and could not introduce
courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering without the
approval of AJCTE. [Para 431 [999-E-H; 1000-A-Cj
8. Para 3 of the Notification dated 22.11.1991 which
constituted Distance Education Council (DEC) shows that there
was no representation for any Member or representative of
AICTE. The provisions of Indira Gandhi National Open
University Act, 1985
(JGNOU Act) show that the Study Centres
as defined in the JGNOU Act are that of Indira Ganchi National
Open University (IGNOU) and not of any other University or
Institution. The concept of distance education under sub-clause
(v) of Section j5 is also in
relation to the academic programmes
of JGNOU. It undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii)
and (xxiii) to co-operate with other Universities but the IGNOU
Act nowhere entitles IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of
the entire field of distance education oflearning across the Country
and in relation to programmes of other Universities or Institutions
as well. The Order dated 29.12.2012 issued by Ministry of Human
Resources and Development (MHRD) therefore correctly
appreciated that DEC created under statute 28 of JGNOU 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 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
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
927
PATRO & ORS.
exercise on part of DEC was completely without jurisdiction. [Para A
44] [ 1000-D-G I
Annama/ai University v. Secretary to Government,
Information and Tourism Department and Others (2009)
4 SCC 590 : (2009] 3 SCR 355 - relied on.
9. Therefore, 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. The exercise of grant of ex post c
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 concerned Deemed to be Universities. Yet,
without causing any inspection such power was exercised which
B
D
is suffering from illegality and infirmity. The only thing in favour
of the concerned Deemed to be Universities 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 10.05.2007, which
contemplated causing of inspections and the decision dated
E
11.05.2007 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. [Para 45] (1001B-E]
10. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-postF
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 Guidelines for establishing new departments within the G
campus, setting up of off-campus centre(s)/institutions(s)/offshore campus and starting distance education programmes by
the Deemed to be universities, 2004 (2004 UGC Guidelines)
themselves had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be
Universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval, the matter is
H
928
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUP~EME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest
of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions
2001-2005 is protected. However, the fact" remains that the
facilities available at the concerned Study Centres 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 concerned
students. Therefore, it would be appropriate to grant some chance
to the concerned students to have their ability tested by
authorities competent in that behalf. It is, therefore, directed
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. [Para 46] [1001-E-H; 1002-A-C]
ll. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from
the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/
tests both in written examination as well as in practicals for the
concerned students admitted during the academic sessions 20012005 covering all the concerned subjects. 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 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
concerned students and if they do not pass the test/tests their
degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. lf a particular student
does not wish to appear in the test/tests, the entire money
deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall
be refunded to that student by the concerned Deemed to be
University within a month of the exercise of such option. The
students be given time till 15 .. of January, 2018 to exercise such
G option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests in
respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be
recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by
31.03.2018. If they clear the test/tests within the stipulated time,
all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the concerned
H
candidates. If the concerned candidates do not clear the test/
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
929
PATRO & ORS.
tests within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the A
test/tests, their degrees in Engineering through distance
education shall stand recalled and cancelled. 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. [Para 471 [1002D-H; 1003-A)
B
12. As regards the students who were admitted after the
ex-post-facto approval granted in favour of such Deemed to be
Universities, there was no sanction whatsoever for their
admission. The Policy Statements as well as warnings issued
from time to time were absolutely clear. The students were C
admitted on the strength either provisional recognition or on the
strength of interim orders passed by the High Court. Therefore,
it is declared that in respect of students admitted after the
academic sessions of 2001-2005, the degrees in Engineering
awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through D
Distance Education Mode shall stand recalled and be treated as
cancelled. Any benefit which a candidate has secured as a result
of such degrees in Engineering in the nature of promotion or
advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any
monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary
benefit or advantage will not be recovered by the concerned
departments or employers. It is further directed that the entire
amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be
Universities towards tuition fee and all other expenditure for such
courses through distance education learning shall be returned
by the concerned Deemed to be Universities to the respective
students. [Para 481 [1003-B-EI
13. On one hand, the authorities were proclaiming their
policy statements and on the other, despite there being
complaints, they went about granting permissions. Their conduct
and approach is difficult to explain on any rational basis and leaves
much to be desired. The conduct of the concerned officials needs
to be looked into and investigated whether the exercise of power
by them was completely genuine or colourable. CBI is directed
to carry out thorough ·investigation into the matter and to take
appropriate steps after culmination thereof. [Para 49) [1003-GH; 1004-AI
E
F
G
H
930
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
14. UGC is directed to consider whether the Deemed to be
University status enjoyed by the concerned institutions, calls for
any such withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf. If the
concerned Deemed to be Universities fail to return the moneys
to the concerned students as directed above, that factor shall
also be taken into account while conducting such exercise. Many
institutions which are conferred the status of Deemed to be
Universities are using the word "University", which is opposed
to the spirit of Section 23 of the UGC Act. The UGC shall take
appropriate steps to stop such practice. [Paras 50 and 511 [1004D-F]
15. The present case shows the extent of commercialization
of education by some of the Deemed Universities. The
commercialization of education seriously affects creditability of
standards in education, eroding power and essence of knowledge
and seriously affecting excellence and merit. The present case
further displays lack of effective oversight and regulatory
mechanism for the Deemed to be Universities. The UGC had
completely failed to remedy the situation. Serious question has
therefore arisen as to the manning of the UGC itself for its
effective working. As the facilities at Study Centres were never
checked nor any inspections were carried out which has led the
Court to direct suspension of degrees for the students enrolled
during academic sessions 2001-2005 and annulment of degrees
of students admitted after academic sessions of 2001-2005. There
was complete and flagrant violation of norms and policies laid
down by the authorities by the Deemed to be Universities. AlCTE
F
had been illegally kept out. Thus, interest of justice requires that
the following issues also need to be addressed: (1) Action for
failure of system, inter alia, on account of misconduct of some of
the functionaries who failed to uphold the law and granted
approvals contrary to the policy and the rules; (ii) Manning of
the UGC; (iii) Appropriate oversight and regulatory mechanism
G especially for distance education degrees especially those relating
to technical education by the Deemed to be Universities in future;
(iv) Review of the Deemed to be Universities status granted to
the Deemed to be Universities in the past in the light of this
Judgment and in the light of their working. The above issues
H
need immediate steps to be taken by the Union of India. Review
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
931
PATRO & ORS.
of oversight and regulatory mechanism is of utmost priority for A
the future of technical and professional education at the hands of
Deemed Universities. [Para 52] [1004-F-H; 1005-A-B]
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2016) 7 SCC
353; Mahipal Singh Rana. Advocate v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2016) 6 SCC 335; Satyabama Institute of
Science & Technology v. Union of India 2006 (3) MRJ
870; Association of Management of Private Colleges v.
All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. (2013)
8 SCC 271 : [2013] 6 SCR 1054 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253
referred to
Para 19
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253
distinguished
Para 42
2006 (3) MRJ 870
referred to
Para 30
[2013] 6 SCR 1054
referred to
Para 30
[2009] 3 SCR 355
relied on
Para 45
(2016) 1 sec 353
referred to
Para 52
(2016) 6 sec 335
referred to
Para 52
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1786917870 OF 2017
B
c
D
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2010 in Writ Petition
F
(C) No. 3848 of2010 and Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2012 in
Review Petition No. 58 of2012 of the High Court ofOrissa at
Cuttack
WITH
CivilAppea!Nos.17871-17872, 17899-17900, 17897-17898, 17879-17880,
G
17895-17896, 17885-17886,17881-17882, 17883-17884, 17893-17894,
17877-17878,17889-17890,17875-17876,17873-17874, 17887-17888,
17891-17892, 17901 of2017
H
932
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Civil Appeal Nos. 17902-17905 of2017
WITH
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
Civil Appeal Nos. 17906, 17907, 17908, 17910, 17909, 17912,
1791l,17913, 17915, 17916-17917, 17918, 17914, 17921, 17920, 17919,
17926-17950, 17922, 17923,17924, 17925, 17951, 17952, 17953-17960
of2017
Contempt Petition (CJ Nos. 194-197 of 2016 in Special Leave
Petition (CJ Nos. 35793-35796 of2012
Maninder Singh, Tushar Mehta, A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASGs. Arnn
C
Bhardwaj, AAG, C. A. Sundaram, (A.C.), Rajuramachandran, Dr. Rajeev
Dhawan, Sanjay R. Hegde, Mrs. V. Mohana, Nidhesh Gupta, M. L.
Verma, Jayant Bhushan, V.K. Bali, Sr. Advs., Ms. Rohini Musa,
Ms. Aakanksha Kaur, Zafar lnayat, Abhishek Gupta, Apoorv Tripathi,
Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha Nandini V, Deepak
Kanwar, Sudhir Kumar, S. Vijay Kanth, Ms. Sudarshan Singh Rawat,
D
Apoorv Kump, V.C. Shukla, Manoj R. Sinha, Ms. Vikas Singh Jangra,
M. P. Gupta, Vijay Prakash, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Swarupma
Chaturvedi, Shadman Ali, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Ms. Rukrnini Bobde,
Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Vijay Kumar, Raj Bahadur Yadav, GS. Makker,
Ms. Kirti Dua, Anmol Chandan, Ms. A. Chaturvedi, Ms. D. S. Mahra,
E
Umesh Ch. Mohanty, P.K. Pattanaik, Kumar Gaurav, Ms. Anil Kumar
Tandale, Ms. Arjun Harkauli, Anil Soni, Ms. Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Raj
Kumar Mehta, Ms. Himanshi Andley, Ms. Kedar Nath Tripathy,
Ms. Gopal Singh, Vikas Singh Jangra, Nilotpal Sharma, Ms. Awanish
Sinha, Himanshu Upadhaya, Shivam Tripathi, Atul Kumar, R. C. Kaushik,
Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Deepak Kanwar, Girjapati K, Sudhir Kumar,
F
Vinay Garg, Ashok K. Mahajan, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, A. Tewari,
Ms. Eliza Bar, Shree Pal Singh, Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati, Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal, Santosh Kumar - I, Apoorv Kump, V.C. Shukla, A.C.
Boxipatro, Prabhas Bajaj, Vikas Singh Jhangra, Karan Bharihoke, Ronak
Karanpuria,Ashish Pandey, Vishwa Pal Singh, Chandra Prakash, Rituraj
G
Biswas, Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal,
Mrs. Rani Mishra, Piyush Hans, Dr. Monika Gusain, Shekhar Raj Shanna,
San jay Kumar Visen, N.M. Popli, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Jayant Sud, Kuldip
Singh, Tarjit Singh Chikara, Satish Kumar, Gopal Singh, Ms. T. Mahipal,
Rauf Rahim, Amit Kumar, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
Gaurav Shanna, Anubha Agrawal, Rakesh K. Shanna, Satyendra Kumar,
H
A. V. Rangam, S. L. Aneja, D. Bharathi Reddy, Rameshwar Prasad
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
933
PATRO & ORS.
Goyal, C. S. N. Mohan Rao, Balaji Srinivasan, Gagan Gupta, G Umapathy,
A
Rakesh K.Sharma, A. Leo G Rozario, Aditya Singh, Subhasish Bhowmick,
Tanm Gupta, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Randhir Singh, Anuj Aggarwal,
Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Ms. Pawan Kishore Singh, B. D. Vivek, P. N.
Puri, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Respondent-in-person.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. !. Leave to appeal granted in all
Special Leave Petitions.
2. These are two groups ofappeals, one arising from the Judgment
and Order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack while the
other arising from the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh. Since the issues involved in these matters are same, both
sets of matters are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
3. The Directorate of Lift Irrigation in the Government ofOdisha
was converted into Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (hereinafter
referred to as the "OLIC"). The service conditions of Engineers including
Junior Engineers which is the base cadre in the Engineering Wing of
OLIC are governed byOrissa Service of Engineers' Rules, 1941 ("1941
Rules" for short) as amended from time to time. Junior Engineers form
the feeder cadre for promotion to the next level, namely, that of Assistant
Engineers. Respondent No. l 1-Rabi Sankar Patro, a Diploma holder in
Electrical Engineering, joined OLIC as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and
while in service, he acquired B.Tech (Civil) Degree from a Deemed to
be University namely JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur,
through Distance Education in the year 2009 and thereafter filed Writ
Petition No.3848 of20l 0 in the High Court Orissa. According to him, he
being an in-service graduate Engineer was entitled to be promoted as
Assistant Engineer. Said writ petition was allowed without issuing notice
to the respondents, placing reliance on an earlier order dated 14.12.2009
passed by the High Court in OJC No.13251 of 2001 by which OLIC
was directed to consider the case of the concerned candidates as inservice graduate Engineers. OLIC being aggrieved, filed Review Petition
No.58 of2012 which was dismissed by the High Court on 15.03.2012
along with certain similar review petitions. The submissions recorded in
'In the matter arising out ofSLP(C) No.19807-19808 of2012
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
934
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] l3 S.C.R.
support of the review petitions in the order of the High Court were as
under:-
"The argument advanced by Mr. Ashok Mohanty learned
Sr. Counsel for the review petitioners that the opposite partiesemployees have acquired Degree Qualification of distance/
correspondence education course from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth
which is not recognized by AICTE. Therefore, they are not
qualifi(ld ................ Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Mohanty placed
much reliance upon the letter issued by AICTE on 6'h October,
2010 wherein the AICTE has categorically stated as under:
"It has been the policy of the AICTE, not to recognize
the qualifications acquired through distance education mode at
Diploma, Bachelors & Master's level in the fields of Engineering
Technology including Architecture, Town Planning, Pharmacy,
Hotel Management & Catering Technology, Applied Arts &
Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM).
AICTE only recognizes MBA and MCA programme through
distance mode." "
The Review Petition was dismissed by the High Court, observing
inter alia,
".,..... Substantial number of persons have also acquired
Engineering Degree through Universities providing Distance
Education which are also Indian Universities. Further Clause ( d)
of Rule 9 of the Rules, I 94 I does not specify that the qualifications
obtained through distance education is not permissible & the
Degree should be obtained from the approved Universities of the
AICTE."
F
4. Disposal of Review Petition and similar such petitions led to
the filing of these appeals, by special leave, by OLIC. It is principally
submitted by OL!C that the degrees in Engineering obtained by the
concerned candidates by distance education from JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth University and similar Deemed to be Universities are not
G
recognized degrees and as such the concerned candidates cannot be
said to be Graduate Engineers eligible for benefits under the concerned
Rules. It is further submitted that in its Circular dated 09.08.2005 the
University Grants Commission ("UGC" for short) had notified that JRN
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur was neither permitted to
affiliate any colleges or institutes nor allowed to conduct any course
H
through distance education.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
935
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.]
5. While issuing notice in the matters, All India Council ofTechnical
A
Education ("AICTE" for short) and UGC were added as partyrespondents, whereafter AICTE filed its counter affidavits. The matters
were taken up on 11.12.2014 when the following Order was passed by
this Court:-
"In the course of hearing of these cases we noticed that the
B
UGC even though impleaded as a party respondent had not filed
any counter affidavit. We would have proceeded with the hearing
even in the absence of a counter affidavit but for the fact that
additional documents filed by Respondent No. I include several
documents concerning the UGC some of them in the nature of
letters, circulars and communications addressed to several other
C
authorities. It was in that backdrop that we required the personal
presence of the Chairman of the UGC, Professor Ved Prakash
who has appeared and broadly explained the UGC stand on the
questions that fall for determination. According to Professor Ved
Prakash the UGC recognises technical degrees by the distant
D
mode only if the University concerned awards such degrees after
obtaining the permission of the AICTE for offering such degrees/
courses by distance education. Professor Ved Prakash further
states that wherever the UGC notices that technical educational
degrees are being awarded by deemed university without the
approval of the AICTE, it can and does take action against the
defaulting university by reporting the matter to the Central
Government who confers the status of deemed university on
such institutions. When asked whether Professor Ved Prakash
E
can on affidavit state the above position, Prof. Prakash was
more than willing to do so. Needless to say some of the counsel
appearing in these cases were critical of the stand taken by the
UGC and argued that the same was not the true position either on
facts or in law. Be that as it may, we deem it just and proper to
permit the UGC to file a detailed counter affidavit to this SLP
which shall apart from answering other submissions made in the
SLP elaborate on the following aspects:
I) Whether the UGC recognises degrees in technical education
by open and distance education mode. If so, subject to what
conditions, if any.
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 13 S.C.R.
A
2) If such degrees are recognised only when they are awarded
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
after obtaining the permission of the AICTE, what happens
when the Universities award degrees without obtaining such
permission.
3) What action, if any, is the UGC empowered to take under the
UGC Act or any other provision of law against the University
awarding degrees without the approval of the AICTE and
whether any such action has been taken in the past or is
proposed to be taken against such Universities hereafter.
4) Whether the Government of India have issued any instructions/
circulars regarding recognition of technical education degrees
through ODL mode offered by the deemed or statutory
universities. If so, what are these instructions/circulars and
what is the action/steps to be taken in regard to the degrees
awarded or status of such degrees as have already been
issued before the issue of such instructions.
5) How does UGC explain its stand in view of the documents
filed by respondent No. l in I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2014 in
these petitions or those enclosed with the SLP or counter
affidavit.
6) Since the controversy relates to different deemed universities
namely Vinayaka Mission's research Foundation, Salem, Tamil
Nadu, JASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr Rajasthan,
JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan and Allahabad,
Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad, U.P. the proposed
affidavit by Professor Ved Prakash shall state whether the
UGC recognises the degrees awarded by the said Universities
by ODL mode even when the same are degrees in technical
education including degrees that have already been awarded.
We grant to Professor Ved Prakash, Chairman of the UGC
four weeks' time to file the affidavit copy whereof shall be
served upon learned counsel for the counsel opposite who
shall have two weeks' time thereafter to file their response."
6. Prof. Ved Prakash, Chairman, UGC, filed an affidavit on
30.01.2015 dealing with the aforesaid questions. The subsequent Order
dated 04.08.2015 of this Court was as under:
"There are a large number of cases pending on the principal
issue raised in SLP (C) Nos.19807-19808 of 2012 (Orissa Lift
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
937
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
Irrigation Corporation Ltd. & Ors.). Mr. Raju Ramachandran,
A
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the principal issue is whether degrees given by some
institutions/universities through distant education ought to be
recognized by the employer. He submits that All India Council for
Technical Education (AICTE) and University Grants Commission
B
(UGC) have taken the stand that such degrees in technical courses
are not recognized by AICTE and therefore not recognized by
UGCaswell.
Mr. Raj iv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for UGC
affirms that the UGC does not recognize the degrees. It is the
submission of Mr. Raj iv Dutta, learned senior counsel that in a
C
meeting convened by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD) on 19th February, 2008 it was decided
that the approval granted by Distant Education Council (including)
must be reviewed and the approval should be granted to the courses
and not to the Institute.
D
That being the position, we are of the opinion that the
concerned Secretary in the MHRD should be impleaded as a party
so that the stand of the Government oflndia is clear.
Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel makes an
oral request for impleadment of the concerned Secretary in the
E
MHRD as a party respondent. On his oral request, the concerned
Secretary in the MHRD is impleaded as a party respondent.
Amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks."
7. An affidavit has since then been filed on behalf of MHRD2• In
the Order dated 26.04.2017 it was recorded:-
F
" ......... Our attention was drawn to letter dated 03.12.2007
addressed to UGC seeking ex post facto approval annexing a list
of 295 courses run by the JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University
under Distance Education system.
From the record, it is not clear what type of expertise the
said University has, for granting degrees for such large number
of courses by distance education mode. It is also not clear as to
what is the methodology followed for monitoring the standard of
2 Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of Jndia
G
H
938
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
education imparted by its centres on the basis of which such
professional degrees are granted. It is also not clear what type of
infrastructure is available with the said University."
8. Civil Writ Petition No.1640 of 2008 was filed by one Kartar
Singh in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in public interest. Certain
Deemed to be Universities, such as JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University,
Udaipur, Vinayak Mission Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu, !ASE
Deemed University, Rajasthan were respondents in the petition.