As per case facts, an employee sought regularization after being appointed as Punjabi Mistress on a contractual basis, but her claim was rejected because her M.Ed. qualification was obtained through ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Reserved on: 07.03.2025
Pronounced on: 09.04.2025
Sr. No. Case Number Title of the case
1. LPA-1843-2019 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
KARAMJEET KAUR
2. CWP-2438-2021 KOMILA CHOPRA Vs STATE OF
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
3. LPA-116-2021 PUNJAB SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD Vs KAMAL
KRISHAN AND OTHERS
4. LPA-129-2021 SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD Vs KULDEEP
SINGH AND OTHERS
5. LPA-157-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
HARVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER
6. LPA-164-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
JATINDER KAPOOR AND OTHERS
7. LPA-128-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
RAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS
8. LPA-197-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
AMANDEEP AND OTHERS
9. LPA-198-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
GURNAM SINGH
10. LPA-2003-2019 LAKHVIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
11. LPA-213-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
SILVI
12. LPA-242-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs
TALWINDER SINGH BUTTER AND
OTHERS
13. LPA-293-2021 DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND OTHERS Vs
PURNEET KAUR
14. LPA-314-2021 SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD PUNJAB AND
ORS Vs SANDEEP KUMAR
15. LPA-381-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
ANOOP SINGH
16. LPA-606-2020 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
NEERU BALA AND OTHERS
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -2-
17. LPA-654-2020 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs
AMANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER
18. LPA-800-2020 SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD, PUNJAB AND
OTHERS Vs GAGANDEEP MEHTA
AND ANOTHER
19. LPA-856-2020 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs
GURVINDER PAL SINGH
20. LPA-857-2020 SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD AND ANOTHER
Vs SUKHCHAIN SINGH
21. LPA-465-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
SUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS
22. LPA-466-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
SUKHDEV RAJ
23. LPA-500-2021 SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD, PUNJAB AND
OTHERS Vs JAGJEET SINGH
24. LPA-501-2021 SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD, PUNJAB AND
ANOTHER Vs SANDEEP SINGH
KAURA
25. LPA-503-2021 SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD PUNJAB Vs
RAJINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS
26. LPA-521-2021 SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD Vs HARBANS
LAL AND OTHERS
27. LPA-529-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
NIRVAIR SINGH AND ANOTHER
28. LPA-530-2021 THE SUBORDINATE SERVICES
SELECTION BOARD Vs DEEPAK AND
OTHERS
29. LPA-533-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
DHEERAJ KHURANA AND OTHERS
30. LPA-561-2021 STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs
PUNAM ARORA AND OTHERS
31. CWP-27015-2021 RANJIT KAUR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB
AND OTHERS
32. LPA-450-2021 TANBIR SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB
AND OTHERS
33. LPA-1105-2021 MALKEET SINGH Vs STATE OF
PUNJAB AND OTHERS
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -3-
34. LPA-645-2023 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs
VANITA VERMA AND ANOTHER
35. LPA-516-2025 STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs
SUKHWINDER SINGH
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
VIKAS SURI
Argued by: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in LPAs-450 and 1105-2021.
Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CWP-27015-2021.
Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate
for the appellant in LPA-2003-2019.
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners in LPA-1843-2019 and CWP-2438-2021
and for respondent No.8 in LPA-561-2021.
Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate and
Mr. Shreesh Kakkar, Advocate
for the respondents in LPA-129-2021.
Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate and
Mr. Nikhil Singh, Advocate
for the respondents
in LPAs-381, 128, 197, 198, 533 of 2021 and 856-2020.
Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the applicants in CMs-95-96-
LPA- 2021 in LPA-1843-2019.
Mr. B.S.Rana, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Manav Dhull, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in LPA-128-2021.
Mr. Amit Kumar Ganga, Advocate
for respondent No.1 in LPA-157-2021.
Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate and
Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate
for the respondent in LPA-529-2021.
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate and
Ms. Chandanpreet Kaurah Lawalia, Advocate
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -4-
for respondent No.1 in LPA-116-2021.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Tarun Vir Singh, Advocate
for the respondent-UGC.
Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the respondents in LPAs-857-2020, 213, 465, 213 &
501-2021.
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in LPA-242-2021.
Mr. Charanpal Singh Bagri, Advocate
for respondent in LPA-293-2021.
Mr. Sonu Bhatia, Advocate for
Mr. Madhav Pokhrel, Advocate for respondents No.5 in
LPA-561-20221 and for respondent No.8
in LPA-606-2020.
Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate
for respondent No. 4 in LPA-516-2025.
Mr. Ankit Bhardwaj, Advocate with
Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate
for the respondent in LPA-466-2021.
Mr. S.S.Sarwara, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2 in LPA-645-2023.
Mr. Khushika Setia, Advocate
for the respondent in LPA-1843-2019.
Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate
for the Caveator in LPA-157-2021.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate and
Ms. Shreya Kaushik, Advocate
for the respondents in LPAs-1843, 2003-2019, 242, 606,
465, 503, 521, 529, 561-2021.
Mr. Anurag Chopra, Addl. AG, Punjab in
LPAs-856-2020, 197, 213, 242, 381-2021.
Mr. Prabhat Kashyap, Advocate
for private respondents in LPAs-654-2020, 530 and
800-2021.
****
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -5-
SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.
1. Since all the instant letter patent appeals (supra) besides
the writ petition(s) (supra) herein involve common questions of facts
and law, as such, they are liable to be decided through a common
verdict.
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts of the lead appeal i.e. LPA
No. 1843 of 2019 are being taken here for deciding the instant
controversy.
Factual Backdrop of the case.
3. Initially, a CWP No. 11049 of 2017 titled as Karamjeet
Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Another became filed before this
Court, whereins, the writ petitioner thereins sought regularization of her
service alongwith all consequential benefits.
4. An advertisement was issued in the year 2011 for filling up
3442 vacancies of Masters in various subjects. The petitioner was vide
order dated 31.12.2012, thus appointed as Punjabi Mistress against the
apposite post(s) on contractual basis. The Government issued a
notification/order dated 03.08.2015 (Annexure P-3), wherebys, it was
directed to regularize the services of the employees (master and
mistresses) on completion of three years of their contractual service.
The claim of the petitioner herein for being regularized was rejected by
the Department concerned, thus on the ground, that the petitioner had
acquired her M.Ed. qualification through Non-Conventional
Mode/Distance Education mode, from the Vinayaka Misson University
in the Session 2009-2011.
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -6-
5. The said writ petition became allowed vide order dated
06.06.2019 and the services of the petitioner therein, was regularized
from 02.04.2016 as Pujabi Mistress, from the date when similarly
situated persons/junior persons, became regularized in service
alongwith all consequential benefits, besides in the verdict made on the
said writ petition, in paragraph No. 52 thereof, the hereinafter extracted
parameters/directions were made with regard to the degrees (non-
technical) as became acquired through Distance Education Mode.
PARAMETERS / DIRECTIONS WITH REGARD TO DEGREES
(NON-TECHNICAL) THROUGH DISTANCE EDUCATION MODE
52. Upon consideration of facts, developments and change in
distance education policies over the time and the findings recorded under
different heads from HEAD “A” To “G” following parameters/directions are
issued:-
(i) In case of Deemed Universities and Private Institutions
(other than Universities) the cut-off date with regard to territorial jurisdiction
and study centre will be 29.3.2010, all admissions made prior to 29.3.2010 to
obtain degrees awarded through use of study centres, off-campus centres of
Deemed Universities and Private Institutions (other than Universities) will be
valid, subject to the statutes/ MOA (Memorandum of Association) of
University permitting opening up of Centres in the territory from which it was
operating or permits opening up of centres at any place where there are
reasonable concentration of students (as permitted by UGC in 1985
Regulations, Annexure P-34).
(ii) In case of State Universities (both Government funded or
Private funded) the cut-off date will be 1.11.2012 , therefore all admissions
made prior to 1.11.2012 to obtain degrees awarded through use study
centres/off campus centres of State Universities or Private Universities will
be valid, subject to the statutes/ MOA of University permitting opening up of
Centre in the territory from which it is operating or permits opening up of
centres at any place where there are reasonable concentration of students (as
permitted by UGC in 1985 Regulations, Annexure P-34).
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -7-
(iii) The qualifications attained after the cut-off date
mentioned above will stand de-recognised for all purposes. However as
opening up of study centers was permitted after prior approval from UGC, it
is clarified that even after the cut-off date if the qualification attained through
distance education mode from Institutions (other than University) /
Universities (Central University, State University, Deemed University or
Private University) is in consonance with the regulations/
notifications/policies of DEC/ UGC with regard to territorial jurisdiction and
study centres prevailing at the relevant time and the study centre is approved
by the UGC, then the qualification will be recognised and valid. This
observation has been made due to lack of complete Information before this
Court, as no list of approved study centres has been brought before this
Hon’ble Court.
(iv) With regard to First degrees awarded by Universities
[including Central Universities, State Universities, Private Universities,
Deemed Universities] by way of Distance Education in the faculties of Arts,
Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences are
concerned, the same shall be valid in light of the 1985 regulations (Annexure
P-34) permitting imparting education though distance mode via study centres,
subject to being admitted in the University prior to the cut-off date mentioned
above in para no. (i) & (ii) of parameters laid above, as the case may be.
(v) With regard to Post graduation degrees awarded by way of
distance education in non-technical field (such as Arts, Humanities, Fine
Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences etc.) in cases where
Institutional Recognition has been granted, if the qualification is in terms of
MOA (Memorandum of Association) / Acts/ Statute of the University viz the
field of specialization and the degree is notified under Section 22 of the UGC
Act (List of degrees specified under Section 22 of UGC Act is on record as
Annexure P-38) the same shall stand validated, subject to being admitted in
the University prior to the cut-off date mentioned above in para no. (i) & (ii)
of parameters laid above, as the case may be.
(vi) With regard to post graduation degrees awarded by way
of distance education in Non-Technical Field (such as Arts, Humanities, Fine
Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences etc.) where programme
wise recognition has been granted, only those qualifications will be valid
which have been mentioned in the list of approved/recognised qualifications,
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -8-
subject to being admitted in the University prior to the cut-off date mentioned
above in para no. (i) & (ii) of parameters laid above, as the case may be.
(vii) The qualifications which have been held to be valid
above be treated as at par with the degrees awarded by way of conventional
mode/ regular mode of education.
(viii) The State Government is directed to take necessary
action in terms of the above findings within a period of 6 months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The State government can verify
the recognition list [whether University (Central, State, Deemed or Private)
/Institution (other than University) had “Institutional Recognition”at
particular time or “Programme-wise Recognition”] uploaded by the
Distance Education Bureau, UGC on its website, which is also on record as
Annexure P-57. Further the State government can also verify as to whether
degree has been mentioned in the list of degree specified under Section 22 of
UGC Act or not from the list uploaded on the website of UGC which is also
on record as Annexure P-38. With regard to Memorandum of Association, Act
and Statutes of the universities, the State government can obtain the same
from the students whose cases are pending at the level of the government or
from the concerned universities or from the UGC.
(ix) The State government after completing the exercise in
terms of Para No. (viii) hereinabove would start a portal/webpage/ website
wherein information with regard to recognition of different types of degrees
from various universities is uploaded, so that not only general public is aware
with regard to recognition of degrees, but also uniformity & transparency can
be maintained with regard to implementation of the aforesaid directions, in
all the departments of the State Government right down till the field level.
For clarity an illustration is being given hereunder:-
To verify the qualification of a candidate who has
attained qualification of M.A. through distance education mode from a
University in Rajasthan having centre in Punjab, the state will firstly check
the status of the University viz if the university is a Deemed University then
cut-off date mentioned above in para no. (i) of parameters laid above will be
applicable and in case of state universities and private universities cut-off
date mentioned above in para no. (ii) of parameters laid above will be
applicable.
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -9-
In case the candidate has got admission in the course after the
cut-off date, the same shall be invalid, however if he was admitted in the
course prior to the cutoff date in that case the state will then verify the
statutes/MOA of the University and if the degree is in the field mentioned in
the statutes/ MOA and is also mentioned in the list of degree specified under
Section 22 of the UGC, then the qualification will be considered as valid
subject to the territory from which University is operating is in consonance
with the Acts/ Statutes / MOA of the University. As in the present Illustration
if in the statutes/MOA of University field of Arts is mentioned and the degree
of M.A. is also mentioned in the list of degree specified under Section 22 and
in the Statute/ MOA of University it is mentioned that territorial jurisdiction
of University is throughout the territory of India or that it can open centres
where ever there are reasonable concentration of students, then the
qualification attained from centre at Punjab shall be considered as valid.
(x) In view to reduce litigation and hardship of the
candidates/ students liberty is being granted to all the students/candidates
who will be affected on account of non-compliance of the aforesaid
directions, by the State Government, to adopt appropriate recourse of law
including filing of the contempt petition.
(xi) It is clarified for all purposes, that the candidates whose
degree will stand invalidated in view of the parameters mentioned above, all
benefits secured by such candidates/ employees shall stand withdrawn,
however if any monetary benefit has been drawn such as salary etc. the same
shall not be recovered. In such cases the employees /candidates will be at the
liberty to take appropriate action, as available under law, so as to recover the
amount paid towards tuition fees, expenditure incurred, damages etc. etc.
from the University/ Institution concerned. The above said direction is being
given on the lines of directions, in similar situation issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in paragraph 53 (vii) of the judgment reported as
2017 (4) SCT 683: 2017 AIR (SC) 5179 titled as Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp.
Ltd V. Rabi Sankar Patro.
However this Court considering the hardships to be faced by the
employee for no fault of his and who on the basis of the above said
qualification which is not in terms of the aforesaid parameters, had secured
jobs (on regular basis/ permanent basis as per Recruitment Rules) and had
settled in their life and have attained ample experience while performing the
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -10-
duties on the post which he/ she is holding for a substantial period of time,
considers it appropriate that a one-time concession be granted to the effect,
that the persons who are already in job on the basis of the qualification which
might be invalidated on account of above said directions, be permitted to
continue in job, but in the cases where the qualification if invalidated was
essential qualification to hold the post, they shall not be granted any further
benefits, viz promotion etc. etc. In the cases where qualification which does
not fulfil the above said parameters is not an essential qualification and has
been utilized only for securing higher marks at the time of selection, their
case be treated separately as they fulfill the requisite qualification in terms of
the statutory rules governing the post, therefore they will be entitled for all
further benefits subject to that even in case of promotion the qualification so
invalidated is not an essential qualification.
Similarly in cases where an employee was recruited on
temporary basis after due selection process based upon distance education
degrees (now invalidated in view of the parameters laid above) but has been
denied regularization of services on account of such distance education
degrees despite otherwise being eligible, suitable for regularization, while
other persons recruited along with such employee have been regularized in
service, in such cases benefit of regularization be extended if the qualification
(attained through distance education mode) so invalidated is not an essential
qualification to hold the post in terms of statutory rules and is an additional
qualification which may have been used for attaining additional marks at the
time of initial selection. All benefits of service will be extended as have been
granted to other employees recruited in the same selection or appointment
made at the same time. However, if the qualification from distance education
mode (which now stands invalidated in view of above parameters) is essential
qualification to hold the post, in that case NO benefit will be granted
including benefit of regularization. It is so being laid down as temporary
employee has no vested right to hold the post.
Note:-
(a) It is clarified that, in case where the respondent State did not
consider any person for appointment by way of direct recruitment or by
promotion on account of possessing qualification through distance education
mode, but has been issued orders pursuant to interim orders issued by the
Hon’ble Court or has been issued conditionally subject to outcome of any
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -11-
petition pending before the Hon’ble Court, in that case concession granted
hereinabove will not be extended. The concession has been given on the
rationale that there was complete disclosure on part of employee and state
having found eligible, permitted employee to work for a considerable period,
irrespective of holding a distance education degree.
(b) In a situation where the graduation or post-graduation
has been attained through distance education mode and higher qualification
has been attained through normal mode/conventional mode but his
graduation or postgraduation degree attained through distance education
mode stands invalidated in view of the aforesaid parameters, then the higher
qualification attained on the basis of the degree so invalidated will also stand
invalidated, as illegality at the original/ foundation stage being a nullity
cannot be cured by subsequent acquisition of valid higher degree based upon
such invalid degree. It is well settled that in case of foundation being a nullity
the whole edifice constructed thereupon has to fall. This view finds support
from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.P. State
Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav 2007 (4) SCT 464 and by this
Court in Jagir Singh v. State of Haryana reported as 2006 (7) SCT 386.
(c) Needless to say, that in case where candidate has
obtained a degree by attending the PCPs and has undertaken exams in the
main campus or within the State where the University (as defined under
Section 2 (f) and Section 3 of UGC Act) is situated, in that case their degree
shall be valid, as no question of territorial jurisdiction arises. This is subject
to the University, having recognition to impart education in such field (at the
time of institutional recognition, MOA/Statutes of University permits
imparting education in such field and at the time of programme-wise
recognition such course had been permitted).”
6.
The summarization of principles as embodied in paragraph
No. 52 of the judgment (supra) are inter alia that :
a) All admissions made prior to 29.03.2010 to obtain
degrees being awarded through use of study centres, off-campus centres of
deemed Universities and Private Institutions (other than Universities) shall
be valid subject to the statutes/Memorandum of Association of Universities
permitting opening of Centres in the territory from which it was operating or
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -12-
permits opening up of centres at any place where there are reasonable
concentration of students.
b) All admissions made prior to 01.11.2012 to obtain
degrees being awarded through use of study centres/off-campus centres of
State Universities or Private Universities shall be valid subject to the
statutes/Memorandum of Association of such Universities permitting opening
of Centres in the territory from which it was operating or permits opening up
of centres at any place where there are reasonable concentration of students.
c) The qualifications attained after the cut-off date (supra)
will stand de-recognized for all purposes. Further, it was declared thereins
that even after the cut-off date, if the qualification attained through distance
education mode from Institutions (other than University)/ Deemed University
or Private University is in consonance with the
regulations/notifications/policies of Distance Education Council/University
Grants Commission with regard to territorial jurisdiction and study centres
prevailing at the relevant time and the said study centre is approved by the
UGC, then the acquired qualification will be recognized and is valid.
d) The first degrees awarded by Universities (including
Central Universities, State Universities, Private Universities, Deemed
Universities) by way of Distance Education in the faculties of Arts,
Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences shall
be valid in the light of the 1985 regulations of the UGC, wherebys, education
through distance mode via study centres has been permitted. However, the
said degrees shall be valid subject to admission in the University prior to the
cut off date mentioned in the supra paragraphs.
e) Now in respect to post graduation degrees awarded by
way of distance education in non-technical field, in cases where institutional
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -13-
recognition has been granted besides if the qualification is in terms of
Memorandum of Association/Acts/Statute of the University vis-a-vis the field
of specialization and the degree is notified under Section 22 of the UGC Act,
the same shall stand validated subject to being admitted in the University
prior to the cut-off date (supra).
f) Similarly, with regard to post graduation degrees
awarded by way of distance education in non-technical field, where
programme wise recognition has been granted, only those qualifications shall
be valid which have been detailed in the list of approved/recognized
qualifications but subject to being admitted in the University prior to the cut
– off date mentioned (supra).
g) Further, it was declared that the qualifications which
have been held to be valid above shall be treated as at par with the degrees
awarded by way of conventional mode/regular mode of education.
h) Moreover, it was directed that the State Government can
verify the recognition list uploaded by the Distance Education Bureau, UGC
on its website. In addition, the State Government can also verify as to
whether the degree has been mentioned in the list of degree specified under
Section 22 of the UGC Act or not from the list uploaded on the website of
UGC besides with regard to the Memorandum of Association, Act and
Statutes of the Universities, the State Government can obtain the same from
the students whose cases are pending at the level of the Government or from
the concerned Universities or from the UGC.
i) Furthermore, in terms of sub para (ix) of paragraph
No.52 of the judgment (supra), a direction was made upon the State
Government, to after completing the exercise in terms of para (viii), it would
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -14-
start a portal/webpage/website wherein information with regard to
recognition of different types of degrees from various universities is uploaded.
7. Feeling aggrieved from the afore said verdict, the
appellant-State of Punjab, has filed thereagainst the instant letter patent
appeal(s) before this Court.
8. Moreover, the writ petitioner(s) (in CWP-2438-2021 and
CWP-27015-2021) claim that, their qualification as became obtained
through distance mode education, be declared to be a validly obtained
qualification, and, further pray for a mandamus being passed upon the
authority concerned to accordingly issue them appointment letters.
9. Further, the appellants (in LPA-2003-2019) are aggrieved
from the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge, in the
impugned judgment, wherebys, it has been held, that the qualifications
acquired by an employee after 29.03.2010 (through distance mode)
rather acquire no validity, thus while relying upon a notification dated
29.03.2010 (Annexure P-51).
10. The appellant ( in LPA- 450-2021) is aggrieved by the
impugned verdict dated 20.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge,
wherebys, the writ petition became dismissed, thus on the ground that
the petitioner was found to be lacking the minimum educational
qualification, as, required for the appointment concerned.
11. The appellant (in LPA-1105-2021) becomes aggrieved by
the impugned verdict dated 20.04.2021, passed by the learned Single
Judge, wherebys, the writ petition became remanded for passing a fresh
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -15-
order after taking into considerations the parameters/directions issued
in Karamjeet Kaur's case (supra).
Grounds of Appeal filed by the State of Punjab.
12. (i) That while allowing the above said writ petition, the
Ld. Single Judge, has completely ignored the factual as well as the
settled legal position, as borne in the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10
CPC, wherebys, it becomes mandatorily enjoined, that both just and
necessary party(ies) become arrayed as such for a just and fair
adjudication becoming made on the lis. The interpretation given by the
Ld. Single Judge is merely reduced to an academic exercise, as the
State was not in a position to either put forth, the stand of the
University Grants Commission (UGC)/ Distance Education Council
(DEC), nor was it in a legal position to defend the various policies
instructions/ letters issued by the UGC, especially without the UGC
becoming impleaded as a necessary party.
(ii) The learned Single Judge has completely ignored the
pleadings put forth by the appellants in the writ petition, to the extent
that, the claim of the petitioner for regularization had been rejected, on
the ground, that she had acquired her post-graduate qualification,
through distance mode from the University, which was not authorized
to conduct courses through study centres located beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of such University. Resultantly, there was no requirement
for recognizing those degrees which were obtained prior to the cut off
date and for de-recognizing those degrees which were acquired post the
cut off date. Hence, the degree of M.Ed of the petitioner therein was
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -16-
invalid. After deducting the marks of this degree, her merit score i.e.
53.14 was lesser than the last selected candidate in general category
with merit score 53.635. Hence, she fell out of the selection zone.
(iii) That Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ
petition of the petitioner has failed to appreciate the fact, that the main
issue involved in the present case, is the, appraisal of the guidelines
issued by the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, whereins, as
per the extant policy of the UGC, the Universities/ Deemed
Universities, cannot conduct courses through distance education
without the approval of the specific courses and further that these
Deemed Universities are unauthorized to conduct courses through study
centres beyond their territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner in the present
case had appeared in the examination centre in the year 2009-11, which
was outside the territorial jurisdiction of her University i.e. Vinayaka
Mission University.
(iv) The Ld. Single Judge has erred in law by interpreting
the Act establishing the UGC, as well as the Indira Gandhi National
Open University Act, 1985, which are statutes laying down the
standards, thus for open university(ies) and distance education, as well
as, the existing policies and guidelines of the UGC, but without even
hearing or giving an opportunity of hearing to the UGC, whose
guidelines and policy(ies) are merely being implemented by the
department(s) of the appellants-State of Punjab.
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -17-
Inferences of this Court.
13. Initially, there is no material placed on record, suggestive
that the State Government has complied with the directions borne in
sub para (ix) of paragraph No. 52 of the impugned judgment, wherebys,
a portal/webpage/website was required to be started, wherein,
information was to be uploaded, thus with regard to recognition of
different types of degrees from various universities nor any material has
been put forth suggestive, that the authorities concerned have verified
the degrees obtained by the writ petitioner(s) herein through distance
education mode.
14. The lack of the supra evidence, but, manifests that at this
stage, qua thus without the makings of the apposite verifications vis-a-
vis the degrees obtained by the writ petitioner(s) rather being infected
by the vice(s) of fraud, whereupons, they may not be amenable to be
declared to be vitiated on the said score.
15. The argument raised before this Court by the learned
Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State of
Punjab, that for want of impleadment of the University Grants
Commission rather in the array of respondents, therebys, when the
norm qua the essentiality of impleadment of the said just and proper
party to the lis, rather becoming breached, thus, also resulting in want
of adherence to the principles of natural justice, but is an argument
which warrants rejection and is as such rejected.
16. Even otherwise the said arguments looses its vigor on the
trite factum, that in various writ petition(s) i.e. LPA No.465, 503, 521
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -18-
and 529 of 2021) the University Grants Commission, was impleaded as
a party and after notice being issued to the University Grants
Commission, though an appearance was made on behalf of the
University Grants Commission, but yet subsequently no reply to the
averments made in the writ petition become furnished by the UGC.
Moreover, no appeal till date has been preferred by the UGC against the
decision passed by this Court in Karamjeet Kaur's case (supra),
wherebys, conclusivity is acquired to the said verdict, especially
appertaining to the recognition of degrees obtained by the employees
concerned but with prescription therein of a cut off date, prescription
whereof for reasons assigned hereafter is untenable.
17. The effect of lack of the counsel engaged by the UGC, to
post, his putting in appearance on behalf of the UGC in writ petition(s)
(supra), thus, file an effective response to the averments made in the
writ petition(s) but naturally, is that, the University Grants Commission,
waiving and abandoning its right, thus to contest the averments in the
writ petition(s) (supra). The further consequence thereof, is that, the
University Grants Commission, also acquiescing to the validity of the
averments and also waiving the right to contest the reliefs ventilated in
the writ petition. Resultantly therebys this Court finds no strength in the
argument raised before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate
General, Punjab, that for want of impleadment of the UGC, despite it
being a necessary party, therebys, the impugned judgment suffers from
invalidity.
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -19-
18. Conspicuously also there is no material placed on record
that the Deemed University(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities
were neither affiliated nor become recognized by the UGC. As such,
with no dispute emerging with respect to the validity of the recognition
or affiliation endowed qua the Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities, thus by the UGC.
19. Therefore, the only issue which is to be resolved appertains
to the validity of the UGC, thus guidelines mandating that even upon
adoptions of remote distance learning by the students concerned, thus
there was any requirement for study Centres being located outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities and/or if they did so become established
whether prior approval thereto was required.
20. Moreover, the further issue which requires to be resolved
appertains to the undertakings of the examination(s) by the students
who adopted the remote distance learning, thus at those examination
centres which became located outside the territorial domain of the
Deemed university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities.
21. Furthermore, since the issue involved in the said writ
petition(s) is also analogous to the issues involved in the other
connected writ petition(s), therebys, the effect of active waiver(s),
abandonment(s) as became indulged into by the University Grants
Commission, besides the effect of acquiescence(s) of the University
Grants Commission, as manifested through the supra omission, but also
makes the connected writ petition(s), to become covered by the
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -20-
principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. In sequel, therebys, the
University Grants Commission rather is deemed to accept the validity
of the averments besides also is deemed to accept the reliefs canvassed
in the instant connected bunch of writ petition(s). Moreover reiteratedly
therebys, no ground can be agitated before this Court by the learned
Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of
Punjab, that on account of non impleadment of University Grants
Commission, there is non adherence to the principles of natural justice
nor he can argue that therebys the impugned judgment, is but, on the
said ground rather required to be quashed and set aside, with an order
of remand being made to the learned Single Bench concerned.
22. The appellants (in LPA-2003-2019) become aggrieved
from the setting up of a cut off date in paragraph No. 52 of the
impugned judgment, wherebys, the academic qualifications as obtained
through the mode of remote distance learning or through the Indira
Gandhi Open University or from the deemed Universities concerned,
rather ipso facto became de-recognized, despite the fact that for all the
supra stated reasons, the University Grants Commission, waiving,
abandoning rather acquiescing to the validity of the averments, and,
also qua the reliefs agitated in the writ petition(s) concerned.
23. Moreover, for an incisive analysis in respect thereof being
made, it is apt to refer to the relevant notification(s), to which
respectively Annexure P-51 and Annexure P-53 becomes assigned. The
relevant contents of the said notification(s) become extracted
hereinafter.
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -21-
Annexure P-51
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
Prof. Manjulika Srivastava
Director F.No. DEC/2010
Dated : 29.03.10
NOTIFICATION
Sub: Territorial Jurisdiction in offering programmes through distance
mode-reg.
The council in its 28th meeting held on 23rd March, 2007, had decided that
the jurisdiction for offering programmes through distance mode will be as per
the Acts and Statutes of the concerned university. However, In the ninth Joint
Committee of UGC-AICTE & DEC held on 17.08.2009, regarding territorial
jurisdiction for offering programmes through distance mode, it was decided
that the latest UGC notifications will prevail over all previous notifications
and circulars of the DEC.
On the requests received from various institution offering programmes
through distance mode requesting DEC to reconsider its decision on
territorial Jurisdiction the matter was referred to the Council for its
consideration. In Its 35th meeting the Council noted that distance education
and online education cannot have territorial jurisdiction. Further, it was
decided that in case of Central Universities and the State Universities, the
Territorial Jurisdiction will be as per the Acts and Statutes for offering
programmes through distance mode. The territorial jurisdiction in case of
Deemed Universities will be as per UGC, which mandates the prior approval
of the UGC for opening Centres/off Campus Centres outside the
Headquarters. The territorial Jurisdiction is case of private Institutions
(other than universities) will be as decided by the Joint Committee.
This is issued with the approval of the Chairman, DEC.
Annexure P-53
DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
F.No.DEC/Notification/40.5/2012
Dated : 01.11.2012
NOTIFICATION
Sub : Policy on Territorial Jurisdiction – regarding
The Distance Education Council in its 40th meeting held on 08.06.2012 has
decided on the policy of territorial jurisdiction in respect of the open and
distance learning institutions which is stated as under;
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -22-
In case of Central Universities, the Territorial Jurisdiction will be as per their
Acts and Statutes for offering programmes through distance mode.
In case of State Universities (both government funded & private), the
Territorial Jurisdiction will be as per their Acts and Statutes but not beyond
the boundaries of their respective states.
In case of Deemed to be Universities, the Territorial Jurisdiction will be as
per the notification of Government of India to accord them this status until a
policy decision is taken by the UGC.
The Territorial Jurisdiction in case of Private Institutions (other than
Universities) will be headquarters. In case any such institution desires to
offer programmes beyond its headquarters then it should establish its new
institutions as per norms.
The study centres are simply facilitators in programme delivery. No
University/Institution will be allowed to franchise Study centres, the
Universities/Institutions will have to operate the study centres themselves.
This is for information and adherence by all concerned.
24. Though, from a reading of the above extracted contents, as
occur in Annexure P-51, it emanates that distance education and online
education rather cannot have territorial jurisdiction, but yet it became
ordained therein, that in case of Central Universities and the State
Universities, the Territorial Jurisdiction will be as per the Acts and
Statutes by offering programmes through distance mode. Moreover, it
was also ordained that the territorial jurisdiction in case of Deemed
Universities will be as per the UGC guidelines, besides thereins
mandate(s) occur, that the prior approval of the UGC rather is
necessary, thus for the opening of Study Centres/Off Campus Centres
outside the Headquarters concerned.
25. Further, from a reading of the contents of Annexure P-53, it
becomes revealed, that it also became decided, that in case of Central
Universities, the territorial jurisdiction will be as per their Acts and
Statutes. Moreover, in case of State Universities (both government
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -23-
funded & private), the territorial Jurisdiction, will be as per their Acts
and Statutes but not beyond the boundaries of their respective states.
Further, it became ordained that in case of Deemed Universities, the
Territorial Jurisdiction will be as per the notification of the Government
of India, wherebys, the said status becomes conferred upon such
University(ies) and the apposite notification holding clout, thus until a
policy decision is made by the UGC. Moreover, the Territorial
Jurisdiction in case of Private Institutions (other than Universities) is
ordained to be the headquarters concerned. In case any such institution
desires to offer programmes beyond its headquarters, then it had to
establish its new institution(s) as per norms.
26. In addition, it became declared that the study centres are
simply facilitators in programme delivery. No University/Institution
shall be allowed to franchise Study centres, and the
Universities/Institutions will have to operate the study centres
themselves.
27. Now, after making an interpretation of the above, since
there is no evidence adduced on record suggestive, qua the study
centres/examination centres housed within brick-and-mortar buildings,
did become established outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
Deemed university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities.
Moreover, when there is also no evidence on record suggestive, that the
supra established study centres/examination centres, did become so
established, at the instance of the Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities concerned, rather without such
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -24-
Universities/Private Institutions becoming endowed valid affiliations by
the Universities Grants Commission. Therefore, in the absence of the
said evidence, prima facie, it appears that the State of Punjab, is ideally
raising a contention for de-stabilizing the academic qualification(s)
obtained by the students concerned from Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities concerned, who
took to impart education through remote distance learning nor therebys
any breach is made to the apposite thereto UGC guidelines.
28. Be that as it may, even if assumingly, the study
centres/examination centres, as became purportedly housed within the
precincts of brick-and-mortar buildings, did become purportedly
established at the instance of the Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities, besides the supra becoming established
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the deemed Universities,
whereupon, the said established study centres/examination centres, may
invite the embargo created by the relevant guidelines against theirs
being so established. Nonetheless, the establishment(s) of the supra
study centres/examination centres, when but naturally is antithetical to
the concept of remote distance learning or remote distance impartings
of education. Conspicuously when the norm thereof, is that, there is no
requirement of attending physical classes at Study Centres, which
become housed in brick-and-mortar buildings raised by the Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities concerned, thus
beyond the apposite territorial domains. Significantly also, when the
imperative apposite affiliations become granted by the University
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -25-
Grants Commission to the Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities for operating remote distance education.
As such, the said concept is also completely irrational nor does it
require any executory effectiveness.
29. It appears that the said has been created only for adding
financial burden upon Deemed university(ies)/Private Institutions/State
Universities to establish Study Centres outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the apposite Headquarters. The said additional financial
encumbrance but would cause immense financial strain upon the
Deemed university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities and also
would diminish the aspiration of the students to adopt the mode of
acquiring academic qualifications, through remote distance learning
from Deemed university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities, to
which affiliation is granted by the UGC.
30. Resultantly there was no requirement of any approval to
the said effect becoming granted nor also the condition relating to the
study centres/examination centres, if were/are existing outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities, but requiring prior approval theretos by
the UGC, thus has any rationale. The establishment of the examination
centres outside the headquarters of the Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities naturally facilitates the students to
undertake examination in proximity to their homes and as such the
location of examination centres outside the headquarters, thus is in
alignment with the concept of remote distance learning. Emphasizingly,
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -26-
the undertaking of examination(s), when but is the necessary precursor
for academic qualification(s) becoming successfully obtained through
remote distance learning. Resultantly in the Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities, purportedly
without the requisite approval, thus establishing examination centres
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the headquarters concerned, rather
would but render unproductive the success of the students who
undertake such examination(s). Nonetheless, the said has to be made
subject to the condition that qua such examination centres, permission
shall be henceforth sought and shall be granted by the District
Administration concerned, besides subject to an adequate number of
independent invigilators becoming appointed by the District
Administration, thus for making a keen invigilation of the apposite
examinations, so that, therebys the menace of mass cheating and mass
copying becomes decimated besides when therebys the undertakings of
the examination does not become a mere charade.
31. The concept of the remote distance learning, is through
written text on the subjects concerned, becoming transmitted to the
students concerned, besides also now in the age of electronic
advancements, rather online imparting of instructions, to the students
concerned, thus is the apt mode of remote distance learning. As such,
online impartings of education to the students concerned, thus,
naturally breaks the territorial barriers, wherebys, the said concept of
remote distance learning, when rather is but analogous to remote
working, therebys, it becomes the acceptable mode of undertakings of
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -27-
education by the students or even for rendition of employments through
remote distance working by the employees concerned, as had happened
during the pandemic and may now also be in existence in some of the
countries. Naturally therebys, the academic interests of students, who
opt for remote distance learning, through undertaking online classes,
but naturally gets fully ensured to be protected as such.
32. In the face of the supra inferences, in case qua any want of
permission being granted by the UGC to the Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities, which become
validly affiliated to it, to operate online classes, but would be
antithetical to the supra concept of remote learning, therebys, even if no
challenge is made to the supra notification(s) on the ground, that it
militates qua the right to education. Nonetheless, to the considered
mind of this Court, the provision therein that post 29.03.2010 and
01.11.2012, the online remote education imparted by the Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities, through users of
online study centres/Off Campus Centres outside the Headquarters
concerned, yet requiring approval from the UGC, but is required to be
quashed and set aside. However, the apposite verification(s) on a case
to case basis be henceforth made to the extent, that such courses
organized by the Deemed university(ies)/Private Institutions/State
Universities, thus evidently are at the optimum/escalated scale of
education, emphasizingly at par with par excellence institutions
imparting such courses. The said verification shall also entail a
necessity, that the UGC makes audit verifications with respect to the
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -28-
state of Art established apparatus' for the said purpose, thus by the
appositely recognized Universities, wheretos also affiliation is granted
by the UGC.
33. Resultantly therebys the cut off dates, as mentioned in
the impugned judgment, wherebys, the degrees or qualification(s)
(through use of online study centres/off-campus centres located
remotely) obtained prior to 29.03.2010 (in case of deemed
Universities and Private Institutions) and prior to 01.11.2012 (in
case of State Universities both Government funded or private
funded), thus becoming conferred recognition, whereas, subsequent
to the cut off dates (supra), the educational qualifications acquired
by the candidates concerned through the mode (supra) becoming
de-recognized, but is required to be quashed and set aside, to the
extent, that the academic qualifications acquired through remote
distance learning under Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities are validly acquired qualifications.
However, subject to the verification of the degrees being made by
the Government Departments concerned/UGC.
34. Now, this Court is to examine the notification/policy(ies)
relating to Distance Education Council (DEC)/ University Grants
Commission (UGC), as appertain to the Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities, rather becoming forbidden to create
study centres/examination centres outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the Deemed university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities
concerned. The said stipulation is an ill thought stipulation. The reason
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -29-
for making the supra inferences becomes sparked from the factum that
it collides with the concept of remote distance learning. Moreover, it
makes an ill impigning effect upon the acquisition of academic
qualification(s) by the students who undertake examination(s) at study
centres/examination centres located close to their homes, than theirs
being driven to reach study centres/examination centres, which are
located at the headquarters of the Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities concerned, especially when the supra
may be remotely located from their respective homes'.
35. If the study centres/examination centres are as such easily
accessible to the students, who undertake studies through online classes
or through other modes of remote distance learning, therebys, the policy
condition that such examination centres are to be necessarily located at
the Headquarters of the Deemed University(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities concerned, which may be remotely
located from the homes' of the students concerned, wherebys, they may
put to extreme trauma besides when therebys the pockets of
marginalized students may become ill affected. As such, the conducting
of examinations by the Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities at examination centres, closer to the
homes of students, but dehors the fact that such study
centres/examination centres may be located outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the Deemed university(ies)/Private Institutions/State
Universities concerned, thus naturally is an apt facilitator to the
students/employees concerned. Naturally the supra also advances, the
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -30-
cause of education besides naturally facilitates the fundamental right to
education. In case, the said constitutional right to education is snatched
from the students through theirs being led to, in terms of the policy
decision reach examination centres remotely located from their homes,
therebys, the ire of the constitutional mandate rather purveying the right
to education, thus would be attracted against such a policy stipulation.
36. Since there is no evidence, that there was any lack of
proper invigilation at the examination centres located outside the
territorial jurisdiction of Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities concerned, therebys, to yet score of the
undertakings of examinations by the students at examination centres
located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities concerned, rather
would be grossly arbitrary and unreasonable.
37. The further reason for stating so emanates, from the factum
that since the validly run deemed Universities, who purvey remote or
distance education to the students concerned, rather forward the
purposeful effect of remote distance education becoming imparted to
the students concerned, besides when the further well purpose thereof,
thus is to ensure, that the hereinafter extracted aims and objectives of
remote distance learning, as enumerated by Dr. Amaresh Chandra
Sahoo, Faculty, Capital Law College, Bhbaneswar, Odisha,
published in International Journal of Development Research (Vol. 14,
Issue, 01 pp. 64620-64622, January, 2024) also necessarily becoming
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -31-
fully potentialized, therebys also the said conclusion, does therebys get
firmly augmented.
●Distance education provides opportunities for higher education
e.g. undergraduate courses, post-graduate, diploma, career
oriented courses, vocational courses etc.
●It allows the students to learn according to their own time and
place because of its flexibility.
●Distance education aims to provide freedom to the learner to
carry on self directed learning.
●Distance education aims to help the learner to actively involve
himself/herself in the learning situation.
●Its aims and objectives are to provide efficient and less
expensive method of education. It provides opportunity of
learning for qualified persons who is interested to upgrade
his/her knowledge.
●It promotes educational well-being of both urban and rural
areas students.
●Distance education provides flexible system of education.
●Distance education provide the opportunity to the entire willing
person to join courses who on account of personal, social and
also economic reasons could not complete the education.
●Universalisation of education is one of the major objectives of
the Distance education. It eradicates mass illiteracy.
●Distance education provides both in-service and pre-service
education.
●Distance education aims to provide opportunity to in-service
personnel to update their knowledge and skills.
●Distance education uses learning psychology in the teaching
learning process.
●Distance education uses maximum educational technology in
the teaching learning process.
38. The reason for stating so becomes grooved, in the factum
that the expostulations of law approbating remote distance learning, are
additionally, to the considered mind of this Court, but useful,
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -32-
handmaids, thus in sub serving the cause of education. They also sub
serve the cause of those employees, who during the course of their
employment, thus are granted permission to opt for remote distance
learning, so that therebys their increased educational qualification,
rather can be optimally utilized by the employer, besides may also
increase the chances of the employees to escalate onto the higher steps
in the ladder of promotion.
39. Moreover, since qua those in employment or those who for
well made reasons, become deterred to make regular physical
attendances on the taught subjects, thus in the educational institutions
concerned, rather become endowed the benefits of remote distance
learning, for therebys theirs enhancing their educational qualifications,
either through correspondence courses becoming run by deemed or
regular Universities or through online education becoming purveyed.
Resultantly they cannot become ill precluded, to enhance their
academic qualifications, for all the relevant purposes rather through the
impugned stipulations and guidelines, as laid in the UGC, thus
becoming asked to be strictly adhered to.
40. If the said is the objective and well purpose of establishing
remote distance classes or teachings through corresponding
courses/online courses, therebys, when the said augments, the right to
education, as enshrined in Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
Since the said right to education also facilitates the right to enhance the
educational qualifications, wherebys, the employees can seek their
advancements in their respective careers, wherebys, their right to seek
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -33-
promotions to promotional posts, does also become naturally
facilitated. The said constitutional principle(s), when but become
achieved through the said courses. Resultantly if the guidelines,
instructions and regulations/notifications issued from time to time by
the UGC relating to the validly established Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities, becoming
permitted, to impart remote distance education and/or when education
is permitted to be imparted, through correspondence courses, or through
online classes or even when Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities, do likewise. Therefore, if yet merely, on
account of the lack of approvals to the offline study
centres/examination centres, as may become respectively established
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University(ies) (supra), thus the
courses run in such offline study centres and also the successful
examination(s) undertaken by the students concerned, at examination
centres concerned located outside the headquarters concerned, rather all
become ill awashed. Naturally therebys, an ill impigning effect would
become encumbered upon students/employees, who respectively may
choose to seek employment from qualifications acquired by them
through the supra mode or to seek promotions, wherebys, the right of
the supra for theirs respectively being considered for promotion to
public posts and for appointments theretos but would become direly
prejudiced.
41. Resultantly therebys there would be a cascading ill effect
both upon learnings being acquired through remote distance, besides it
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -34-
would untenably set at naught the successful examination(s) undertaken
at the examination centres located outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the Deemed university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities,
despite the fact that their existing no evidence, that the courses run
were deficit in academic standards nor there existing any evidence that
mass cheating or mass copying becoming indulged into at the
examination centres concerned. As such the academic standards of the
apposite courses, run at the instance of the Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities, are to be regularly
verified, besides keenest invigilation is required to be imperatively
done of the examination(s) conducted at examination centres, thus
located outside the territorial jurisdiction of such Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities. Resultantly,
without at this stage, the supra auditings being done and also without
any evidence emerging against the students/employees concerned qua
theirs indulging in mass copying, thereupons, no omnibus direction(s)
as such could have been passed in the impugned verdict, wherebys, cut
off dates have been prescribed.
42. In aftermath, the said is arbitrary and defeats the right to
education as enshrined in Article 21-A of the Constitution of India
besides defeats the right to be considered for appointment and for
promotion. The said also casts an ill effect upon the educational
qualifications acquired by the appointees, through theirs undertaking
examinations, after receiving education, through remote distance
learning, irrespective of the fact, that examination centres were located
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -35-
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University(ies) concerned,
besides irrespective of the fact that study centres/examination centres,
but for a limited purpose, were also located outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the University concerned.
43. Moreover, irrespective of the fact, that without approval
thereto being granted to the supra examination centres concerned, the
examinations were held at examination centres, thus located outside the
territorial jurisdiction.
Conclusions/Guidelines
44. 1. Verification(s) on a case to case basis henceforth is
required to be made by the UGC, whether in fact the courses organized
by the Deemed university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities
are of the optimum academic standards. The said verification shall also
entail a necessity that the UGC make audit verification(s) that the state
of Art apparatus becomes established by the supra, for the said purpose,
at their respective headquarters concerned. Moreover, audit verification
in respect of valid affiliations and recognitions being endowed by the
UGC to the supra but is also a dire necessity.
2. A keenest invigilation is required to be done qua the
conducting of examination(s) at examination centres, located outside
the territorial jurisdiction of Deemed university(ies)/Private
Institutions/State Universities concerned. In the said regard, prior
intimation(s)/request letters be made to the Collector(s) concerned,
where such examination centres are located, thus by such Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities concerned, so that
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -36-
an adequate number of invigilators become appointed by the District
Administration, rather for making a keen invigilation of the
examination, so that, therebys the menace of mass cheating and mass
copying becomes decimated, besides, when therebys the undertakings
of the examination does not become a mere farce. The expenses for the
appointments of such invigilators shall be borne by the Deemed
university(ies)/Private Institutions/State Universities concerned.
Final Order of this Court.
45. In aftermath, LPA-2003-2019 for the reason aforesaid is
allowed to the extent that the cut off dates, as made in paragraph No. 52
of the impugned judgment, for all the reasons (supra) are quashed and
set aside besides the notification(s) (supra) (Annexures P-51 and P-53),
as issued by the Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National
Open University for all the reasons (supra) are also quashed and set
aside.
46. The respondent-State is directed to decide the claims of the
appellants herein (LPA-2003-2019) without considering the cut off
dates besides in view of the observation(s) made by this Court in the
instant verdict and subject to the verification of the degrees by the
Universities concerned/Government Departments concerned.
47. The letter patent appeal(s) filed by the State of Punjab, are
disposed of but with a direction to the State to decide the claim(s) of
each of the writ petitioner(s) herein, but without considering the cut off
dates besides in view of the observation(s) made by this Court in the
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -37-
instant verdict and subject to the verification of the degrees by the
Universities concerned/Government Departments concerned.
48. Furthermore, the writ petition(s) [CWP-27015-2021 &
CWP-2438-2021] become disposed of but with a direction to the
respondent-State to decide the claims of the writ petitioners herein
without considering the cut off dates besides in view of the
observation(s) made by this Court in the instant verdict and subject to
the verification of the degrees by the Universities
concerned/Government Departments concerned.
49. LPA-1105-2021 is allowed to the extent that the impugned
order is quashed and set aside. However, the respondent-State is
directed to decide the claim of the appellant herein afresh but without
considering the cut off dates besides in view of the observation(s) made
by this Court in the instant verdict and subject to the verification of the
degree(s) by the University concerned/Government Departments
concerned.
50. With regard to LPA-450-2021, it is relevant to extract the
echoings as made at page 66 and 67 of the paper book.
“This office vide letter No. 2/11/2016-3A2/6122 dated
28.3.2016 required the employee to submit the original educational
qualification certificate by 4.4.2016 and appear in this office. This letter was
received by the employee on 29.3.2016 and appeared before the undersigned
in the office on 4.4.2016 and the employee produced three year detail mark
sheet of educational qualification of B.Com and provisional degree, but the
employee did not produce the original degree certificate. Thereafter the
undersigned discussed the matter with G.M. Punjab Roadways Jagraon, as
well as officials of this office and granted three months time to produce the
original degree, but the employee still did not produce the original degree
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -38-
certificate of B.Com. The GM PR Jagraon recommended taking action against
the employee. Thereafter, status report of EILM University Sikkim was
searched on the net and the below mentioned remarks were found :-
“Students are suggested to approach Director (Higher
Education) Human Resources Development Department Govt.
of Sikkim, Gangtok, Sikkim for any information related to
EILM University, validity of its course and verification of
degrees.”
Thereafter this office vide letter No. 2/12/16/3A2/16679 dated
7.8.2017 sent the three years detail mark sheet and the provisional degree
certificate submitted by you for verification.
The concerned department of Government of Sikkim made the
following remarks in its enquiry report :-
“The name of Tanbir Singh son of Surjit Singh is not
available in the EIILM University registration record
available with the directorate of higher education office,
Government of Sikkim. Therefore, his mark sheet of
Bachelor of Commerce bearing enrolment No.
EIILMU/09/F14291 is not valid/genuine. He must have
acquired his B.Com Degree under EIILMU through distance
mode from outside the territorial jurisdiction of Sikkim
State which is not valid.”
In this manner as per the remarks in the report the UGC/DEC do
not recognize Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com) Course of the ELLM
University.”
51. Be that as it may, since the fact (supra) (in LPA-450-2021 )
appears to be a disputed question of fact besides when no opportunity
in the instant proceedings can be assigned to the aggrieved concerned
to lead apposite rebuttal evidence. As such, after dismissing LPA-450-
2021, liberty is given to the appellant-petitioner herein, to avail civil
Court remedies, wherebys, he may seek a declaration that the said
reason qua the acquisition of 'his mark sheet of Bachelor of
LPA-1843-2019 and connected cases -39-
Commerce bearing enrolment No. EIILMU/09/F14291 being not
valid/genuine', thus is illegal and non-est.
52. The afore said decisions on the respective claims of each of
the appellants-writ petitioners (respectively in the LPA(s) and writ
petition(s) (supra), as directed (supra), be decided by the Competent
Authority concerned but within a period of four months from today.
53. Since the main case(s) itself have been decided, thus, all
the pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
54. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected cases.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(VIKAS SURI)
09.04.2025 JUDGE
kavneet singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....