W.P.(S)No.6033of2010

InthematterofanapplicationunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndia

1.OmPrakash2.SidhiPaswan3.ChandraBhushanPaswan4.SudarshanSingh5.DeoBihariYadav6.UmeshwarRam7.KumarAmarendraNarayanSingh8.ShyamDasSingh Petitioners

Versus

1.TheStateofJharkhand2.Secretary,RoadConstructionDepartment,Govt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi3.SpecialSecretary,RoadConstructionDepartment,Govt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi4.UnderSecretary,RoadConstructionDepartment,Govt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi5.Secretary,ScienceandTechnologyDepartmentGovt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi6.Director,Science&TechnologyDepartment,Govt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi7.YamunaPrasadSingh8.AllIndiaCouncilforTechnicalEducation,NewDelhi ... Respondents

ForthePetitioners :Mr.SumeetGadodia,AdvocateMr.N.K.Sahni,Advocate

FortheState :Mr.SumirPrasad,S.C.IFortheRespondentNo.7 :Mr.IndrajitSinha,AdvocateFortheAICTE :Mr.JaiPrakashGupta,Advocate

Ms.MohiniGupta,Advocate

PresentHON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR

ByCourt: ThevalidityofdegreeinEngineeringawardedbytheJ.R.N.

Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is in issue in the present

proceeding.

2. Thebrieffactsofthecasearethat,theinstitutenamely,J.R.N.

Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur was granted a 'deemed to be

university' status bynotification dated12.01.1987 issuedby the

Department of Human Resources Development, Government of

2IndiaunderSection3of theUniversity Grants CommissionAct,

1956. Thepetitionerswereadmittedin'BachelorofEngineering'

courseintheacademicyear,200508andtheyweregranteddegree

ofBachelorsofEngineeringintheyear,2009.Thepetitionersare

employed under the Department of RoadConstruction, State of

Jharkhand.Asenioritylistwaspublishedon27.10.2009however,

when a dispute arose with respect to the validity of degree of

Engineeringawardedtothepetitioners,ashowcausenoticewas

issued on 29.10.2010 and thereafter, an order was passed on

20.12.2010 whereunder the Under Secretary, Road Construction

Departmentfoundthatthedegreeawardedtothepetitionersare

not recognised by All India Council for Technical Education (in

short'AICTE')andtherefore,suchdegreeisnotvalid.Thereafter,a

revised gradation list was published and by notification dated

13.04.2011,theprivaterespondentwasmadeInchargeAssistant

Engineer.

3. By orders dated 01.09.2011 and 22.09.2011, the private

respondent as well as AICTE have been impleaded as

partyrespondent in the present proceeding and they have filed

theiraffidavits.

4. A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the

respondentStateofJharkhandstatingthat,therecruitmenttothe

BiharEngineeringServicesClassIIisthroughdirectappointment

andbywayofpromotionfromJuniorEngineersasperseniority

however,10%ofthepostinpromotionquotaisreservedforthe

diplomaholderswhoobtaineddegreeinEngineeringorAMIE.The

department accorded permission to 23 persons including the

petitioners for undertaking further studies. A gradation list was

publishedon27.10.2009inwhich45JuniorEngineerswhohad

obtaineddegreeinEngineeringorAMIEwereincluded.Thesaid

gradationlistwaschallengedinW.P.(S)No.5400of2009onthe

groundthatseveralpersonswhodonotpossessEngineeringdegree

3from AICTE approved institute, have been included in the

gradation list. The department made enquiries andwrote letter

dated 24.11.2009 to the Distance Education Council seeking

information regarding approval of the degree in Engineering

awardedbyJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeeth,Udaipur,Rajasthanand

I.A.S.E. Deemed University, Rajasthan. The Department of Road

Construction wrote letter to theAICTEalsoseekingclarification

about the degree of Engineering awarded by J.R.N. Rajasthan

Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan. By letter dated23.07.2010, the

Distance Education Council informed that it has not accorded

approval to anyspecific programmeofferedbyJ.R.N. Rajasthan

Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan. The AICTE vide letter dated

13.09.2010 informed that it recognises only M.B.A. and M.C.A.

Programmes through distance mode. In view of the aforesaid

communications,ashowcausenoticewasissuedtothepetitioners

andothersimilarlysituatedpersonsfordeletingtheirnamesfrom

thesenioritylistpublishedon27.10.2009andthereafter,arevised

gradationlistwaspublishedon20.12.2010removingthenameof

thepersonswhohadobtainedEngineeringdegreeorAMIEfrom

J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur and I.A.S.E. Deemed

University,Rajasthan.

5. AcounteraffidavithasbeenfiledonbehalfoftheRespondent

No. 7 supporting the revised gradation list dated 20.12.2010.

Relying on notification dated 01.03.1995, it is stated that the

approvaloftheDistanceEducationCouncilandAICTEwithrespect

totheDeemedUniversityismandatoryforacourserunordegree

awardedbyaUniversity.

6. Asupplementarycounteraffidavitdated23.09.2012hasbeen

filedbyRespondentNo.7bringingonrecordthecommunication

dated18.11.2009whereundertheDirector,DepartmentofScience

andTechnologyhascommunicatedthattheStudyCentrewherea

technical course is allegedly conducted by the J.R.N. Rajasthan

4Vidyapeeth, Udaipur does not belong to it and facilities for

laboratoryetc.arenotavailablethere.Itisalsopointedoutthat

someofthecandidateshavetakenadmissionstraightwayinthe5th

semesterandsomeofthemhavecompletedtheircourseindegree

inEngineeringfromJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeeth withinashort

periodof14to15months.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

contended that, since the institute namely, J.R.N. Rajasthan

Vidyapeeth,Udaypurhasbeengrantedthestatusof'deemedtobe

university' under Section3of theUniversity Grants Commission

Act,1956,itwouldhavecompletefreedominsofaras,runningof

courses and grant of degree are concerned. He has further

submittedthatthecourseoftheUniversityinquestionhasbeen

recognised by the Distance Education Council and in a joint

meeting of the UGC, the AICTE and the Distantance Education

Council,thecoursesrunbytheJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeethhave

been approved till the academic year, 2005 and a provisional

affiliationwasgrantedfortheacademicyear,2007andtherefore,

thedegreeawardedbytheJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeethisavalid

degree.RelyingonthedecisionrenderedbytheHon'bleSupreme

CourtinBharathidasanUniversityandAnr.Vs.AllIndiaCouncilFor

TechnicalEducationandOrs.reportedin(2001)8SCC676which

hasbeenapprovedinAssociationofManagementofPrivateColleges

Vs.AllIndiaCouncilForTechnicalEducationandOrs. reportedin

(2013) 8 SCC 271, the learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that, there is no requirement in law for obtaining

recognition from the AICTE for a degree awarded by a

university/deemed to be university and therefore, the degree

awarded by J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth cannot be held to be

invalidonthegroundthatAICTEhasnotgrantedrecognitionto

the courses run by the Institute under the J.R.N. Rajasthan

Vidyapeeth.Thelearnedcounselhasassailedtheletterwrittenby

5theDepartmentofScienceandTechnologywhereunderithasbeen

foundthattheinstituterunbytheJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeethhas

no proper facility. The learned counsel has challenged the

credibility of the private respondent andhis competence to file

affidavitsanddocumentswhichaccordingtohimshouldhavebeen

filedbytherespondentStateofJharkhand.

8. ThelearnedcounselappearingfortheStateofJharkhandhas

supported the impugned order on the ground that the degree

awardedbytheJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeethisnotrecognisedby

the AICTE and therefore, it is not a valid degree for obtaining

appointment.

9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondentno.7hascontendedthatinviewofthejudgmentin

Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. All India Council For

TechnicalEducationandOrs.reportedin(2013)3SCC385which

has been approved in Association of Management of Private

Colleges (supra), there is nodoubt withrespect to therole of

AICTE. Though, theAICTEhasasupervisory role insofar as, a

universityisconcerned,andthoughaffiliationtotheAICTEisnot

necessaryforthecoursesrunbytheuniversity, itsrecognitionis

necessarybecausetheCouncilhasbeenestablishedbyanActof

Parliament with an object to ensure proper planning and

coordinated development of the technical education system

throughoutthecountry. Hehasfurthersubmittedthatinviewof

thejudgmentin KurumanchalInstituteofDegree&Diplomaand

Ors.Vs.Chancellor,M.J.P.RohilkhandUniversityandOrs.reported

in (2007)6SCC35, auniversityhasnopowertorunaDistant

EducationCentrebeyondtheterritorialjurisdictionoftheStatein

which the university is situated. Hehas further submitted that

even in letter dated07.08.2007whereunder the joint inspection

report of AICTE, University Grant Commission and the Distance

EducationCentrehasbeendeliberated, it hasbeencategorically

6stated that the Distance Education Council does not approve

franchiseofStudyCentres.Hehasfurtherpointedoutthat,since

thecoursewhichthe J.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeethwasrunning,

was approved only till academic year, 2005 and a provisional

approval was granted for the academic year, 2007, the degree

awardedtothepetitionersfortheacademicyear,200507would

notbeavaliddegree.

10. Beforeadvertingtotherivalcontentionsraisedbythecounsel

for the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant

provisionsundertheAICTEAct,1987andUGCACT,1956.

The 'statementof object andreasons' for settingupAICTE

reads;'tosetupanationalexpertbodytoadvicetheCentralandthe

StateGovernmentforensuringthecoordinateddevelopmentfor

technical education in accordance with the approvedstandards'.

ThepreambletotheAICTEActstatesthat, 'theAICTEhasbeen

established with a view to ensure the proper planning and

coordinateddevelopment of the technical education throughout

thecountryandwithaviewtopromotequalitativeimprovements

ofsucheducationinrelationtoplannedquantitativegrowthand

theregulationandpropermaintenanceofnormsandstandardsin

thetechnical system.' Section10(1)(c)of theAICTEActdeals

with power of the Council with respect to university, which is

extractedbelow:

10.(1)..............................................................................(c)allocateanddisburseoutoftheFundoftheCouncil

suchgrants,onsuchtermsandconditionsasitmaythinkfitto(i) Technicalinstitutions,and(ii) Universities imparting technical education in

coordinationwiththeCommission;..................

11. Section2(i)oftheAICTEActdefinesuniversitytomeana

universitydefinedunderclause(f) ofSection2oftheUniversity

Grants Commission Act, 1956. The definition includes an

institution 'deemed to be a university' under Section 3 of the

7UniversityGrantsCommissionAct. Section10(1)(k)dealswith

thepowerofAICTEtograntapprovalforstartingnewtechnical

institutionsandforintroductionofnewcoursesorprogrammesin

consultationwiththeagenciesconcerned.Variousprovisionsinthe

AICTEActwouldindicatethat,forallpurposestheActmaintains

thedistinct identity andexistenceof technical institutions and

universities and that is the reason, wherever the university or

activitiesoftheuniversityarealsotobesupervisedorregulated

and guided by AICTE, specific mention has been made of the

universityalongsidethetechnicalinstitutions. Section10(1)(c),

(g),(o)wouldindicatethatuniversitiesarementionedalongside

thetechnicalinstitutionswhereas,clauses(k),(m),(p),(q),(s)

and (u) refers to technical institutions alone and there is no

referencetouniversities.

12. TheUniversityGrantsCommissionhasbeenestablishedbyan

ActofParliamentforensuringcoordinationanddeterminationof

standards in universities. Section 22 of the University Grants

Commission Act, 1956 confers power on a University to confer

degree.Section22isextractedbelow:

22. Right to confer degrees (1) The right of conferringorgrantingdegreesshallbeexercisedonly by a University established or incorporated by or underaCentralAct,aProvisionalActoraStateAct oraninstitutiontobeaUniversityundersection3or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliamenttoconfertograntdegrees.(2) Saveasprovidedinsubsection(1),nopersonorauthorityshallconfer,orgrant,orholdhimselforitselfoutasentitledtoconferorgrant,anydegree.(3) Forthepurposesofthissection,degreemeans anysuchdegreeasmay,withthepreviousapproval oftheCentralGovernment,bespecifiedinthisbehalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette.

13. Section 12A of the UGC Act deals with the powers and

functions of the University Grants Commission. Clause (a) of

Section 12A speaks of affiliation and Clause (d) speaks of

8qualification which means a degree or any other qualification

awardedbyauniversity.Section12BoftheUGCActdealswiththe

powersoftheCommissiondeclaringauniversitynotfittoreceive

grant. Section 13 confers power of inspection upon UGC and

Section14providesforconsequencesoffailurebytheuniversities

tocomplywiththerecommendationsofUGC.

14. In State of T.N. Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research

Institute reportedin (1995)4SCC104,theprovisionsoftheAll

India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) came up for

considerationbeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtandit hasbeen

heldthatinsofaras,thequestionofapprovalforestablishmentof

technicalinstitutionsisconcerned,theAICTEActvestedthepower

ofgrantingapprovalintheCouncil.

15. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar

ShikshanShastraMahavidyalaya,reportedin (2000)5SCC231,

theappellantTrustwasgrantedconditionalapprovaloftheAICTE

for setting up a selffinancing engineering college however, the

StateGovernmentrefusedtheTrustpermissionforestablishingthe

college.TheHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthus,

22.............Nodoubtthequestionofaffiliation wasadifferentmatterandwasnotcoveredbytheCentralActbutinT.N.caseitwasheldthat theUniversitycouldnotimposeanyconditionsinconsistentwiththeAICTEActoritsRegulationortheconditionsimposedbyAICTE.Therefore, theprocedure forobtainingtheaffiliationandanyconditionswhichcouldbeimposedbytheUniversity, could not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act. The University couldnot,therefore, inanyeventhavesought forapprovaloftheStateGovernment.

23.Thuswehold,inthepresentcasethattherewasnostatutoryrequirementforobtainingtheapprovaloftheStateGovernmentandevenif therewasone,itwouldhavebeenrepugnanttothe AICTE Act. The University Statute 9(7) merelyrequiredthat theviewsof theState

9Government be obtained before grantingaffiliation and this did not amount toobtainingapproval.IftheUniversitystatute required approval, it would have been repugnanttotheAICTEAct.Point1isdecided accordingly.

16. In Bharathidasan University (supra), the issue before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the AICTE Act requires a

university to obtain prior approval of AICTE before starting a

department or a unit as an adjunct to the university itself to

conducttechnicaleducationcoursesofitschoiceandtheHon'ble

SupremeCourthasheldasunder:

10. ................. All these vitally importantaspectsgotoshowthatAICTEcreatedunderthe Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universitiesandtherebysuperimposeitselfuponsuchuniversitiesmerelyforthereasonthatitis imparting teaching in technical education or programmesinanyofitsdepartmentsorunits. Acarefulscanningthroughoftheprovisionsof theAICTEActandtheprovisionsoftheUGCAct in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTEvisvistheuniversitiesisonlyadvisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor andthereby subserves the cause of maintainingappropriate standards and qualitative normsandnotasanauthorityempoweredtoissueandenforceanysanctionsbyitself,exceptsubmittingareporttoUGCforappropriateaction...........12. ..............AcarefulanalysisofthevariousprovisionscontainedinSections10,11and22will further go to show that the role of interaction conferred upon AICTE visavis universitiesislimitedtothepurposeofensuring thepropermaintenanceofnormsandstandards in the technical education system so as toconformtothestandardslaiddownbyit,withnofurtherordirectcontroloversuchuniversities orscopeforanydirectactionexceptbringingit tothenoticeofUGCorotherauthoritiesonly,of any lapses in carrying out any directions of AICTEinthisregard,forappropriateaction.....

10

15.Toputitinanutshell,areadingofSection 10 of the AICTE Act will make it clear that whenevertheActomitstocoverauniversity, the samehas been specifically provided in the provisionsoftheAct.Forexample,whileunder clause (k) of Section 10 only technical institutionsarereferredto,clause(o)ofSection10providesfortheguidelinesforadmissionof students to technical institutions anduniversities imparting technical education. If we look at the definition of a technical institutionunderSection2(h)oftheAct,itis clear that a technical institution cannot includeauniversity.Theclearintentionofthelegislature is not that all institutions whetheruniversity or otherwise ought tobe treated astechnical institutions covered by the Act. If that wasthe intention, therewasnodifficultyfor the legislature to have merely provided adefinition of technical institution by notexcludinguniversityfromthedefinitionthereof and thereby avoided the necessity to usealongsideboththewordstechnicalinstitutionsanduniversityinseveralprovisionsintheAct. Thedefinitionoftechnicalinstitutionexcludesfrom its purview a university. When bydefinition a university is excluded from atechnicalinstitution,tointerpretthatsuchaclause or such an expression wherever the expression technical institution occurs will include auniversity will be reading into the Actwhatisnotprovidedtherein.Thepowerto grant approval for starting new technical institutionsandforintroductionofnewcourses orprogrammesinconsultationwiththeagencies concerned is covered by Section 10(k) which would not cover a university but only a technicalinstitution.IfSection10(k)doesnot cover a university but only a technical institution, a regulation cannot be framed insuch a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of technical institution to applytouniversitieswhentheActmaintainsacompletedichotomybetweenauniversityandatechnicalinstitution.

17. In Parshvanath Charitable Trust Vs. All India Council for

11

Technical Education, reported in (2013) 3SCC 385, the Hon'ble

SupremeCourthasobservedasunder;

20. AICTE Act is not intended to be anauthorityeithersuperiortoortosuperviseandcontrol the universities and therebysuperimposeitselfuponsuchuniversitiesmerely forthereasonthattheyareimpartingteachingintechnicaleducationorprogrammesinanyof theirdepartmentsorunits............

18. InAssociationofManagementofPrivateCollegesVs.AllIndia

CouncilForTechnicalEducationandOrs.reportedin(2013)8SCC

271, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the questions, '(i)

whether the colleges affiliated to a University come within the

purviewofexclusionofthedefinitionoftechnicalinstitutionas

defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, 1987? and, (ii)

whether AICTE has got the control and supervision upon the

affiliated colleges of the respective universities of the member

collegesoftheappellantinCANo.1145of204andtheappellants

inconnectedappeals?'.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtheldthatthe

AICTEActdoesnotcontainanyevidenceofanintentiontobelittle

anddestroytheauthorityandautonomyofotherstatutorybody.

Further,theAICTEActdoesnotintendtobeanauthorityeither

superior or to supervise or control the universities and thereby

superimposeitselfuponthesaiduniversitiesmerelyforthereason

that it is laying down certain teaching standards in technical

educationorprogrammesformulatedinanyofthedepartmentor

unit.Ithasbeenheldthus,

53. A cumulative reading of the aforesaidparagraphs of Bharathidasan University case whichareextractedabove makes it very clearthat this Court has exempted universities, its colleges,constituentinstitutionsandunitsfromseekingpriorapprovalfromAICTE.Also, fromthereadingofparas19and20ofParshvanathCharitable Trust case it is made clear after carefulscanningoftheprovisionsoftheAICTEActandtheUniversityGrantsCommissionAct,

12

1956thattheroleofAICTEvisvisuniversities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of providing guidance and has no authority empoweringittoissueorenforceanysanctions byitself.....................................................................................................................................................60. A reading of the aforesaid paragraphsextracted from T.M.A. Pai case makes it very clearthatinviewofthedecisionoftheelevenJudge Constitution Bench of this Court, thescheme framedunder Unni Krishnan case has beenoverruled.Therefore,theautonomyofthe universityisrecognisedinthesaidcaseandtheobject and intendment of Parliament inexcludingtheuniversitiesfromthedefinitionof technicalinstitutionasdefinedunderSection2(h)oftheAICTEActmakesitexplicitlyclear, after scanning the definition of educationinstitution with reference to the exclusion of universitiesandSections10,11,12and13of the AICTE Act. The object of the statutory enactment made by Parliament has beensuccinctly examined by this Court inBharathidasan University and ParshvanathCharitableTrustcasesreferredtosuprathereforethey have rightly made observations that theroleoftheAICTEActinviewoftheUGCActand thepowersandfunctionsconferredbyUGCfor controllingandregulating the universities anditsaffiliatedcollegeshasbeenexplicitlyconferredupon UGC. Hence, they have been given the power to regulate such universities andregulations in relation to grantingsanctions/approvals and also maintainingeducational standards and overseeing theprescription of the fee structure including the admission of students in various courses andprogrammes that will be conducted by the universityanditsinstitutions, constituentcolleges, units and the affiliated colleges. Therefore,wehavetoholdthatBharathidasanUniversitycaseonallfoursbeapplicabletothe factsituationoftheseappealsandwehaveto apply the said principle in the cases in handwhereas in the decisions of AdhiyamanEducational and Research Institute case andJaya Gokul Educational Trust case this Court

13

hasnotexaminedthecasesfromtheaforesaidperspective. Therefore, the same cannot be appliedtothefactsituation.Therelianceplacedupon those judgments by the learned Senior CounselonbehalfofAICTEismisplaced.

61. Accordingly, Points 47.1 and 47.2 are answeredinfavouroftheappellants.

19. Fromtheaforesaiddiscussionitisthusclearthat,theroleof

AICTEis supervisory.Itcannotimposeitsownconditionsinsofar

as, thetechnicalcourserunbyauniversity isconcerned.Ona

conjointreadingoftheprovisionsundertheAICTEAct,1987and

UGCAct,1956,Ifindthatthepowertoconferdegreeisexclusively

conferredupontheuniversitiesandmerelybecauseadegreehas

not been recognised by AICTE, it would not render the degree

invalidonsuchgroundalone.

20. The letter dated 07.08.2007 indicates that the Distance

Education Council does not approve franchise of study centres.

FromthedecisioninKurunanchalInstituteofDegreeandDiploma

andOthers(supra),IfindthatauniversitycannotrunaDistance

EducationCentrebeyondtheterritorialjurisdictionoftheStatein

whichtheuniversityissituated.Inthepresentproceedingnothing

has been brought on record to indicate that J.R.N. Rajasthan

Vidyapeeth, Udaipur can setup and run education centre for

runningregularcoursesoutsidetheStateofRajasthan. Itisalso

notindisputethatfortheacademicyear, 200506and200607

eventheprovisionalapprovalhasnotbeengrantedbytheDistance

EducationCouncil.Further,examinationfortwodifferentcourses

hadbeen taken together. Itisalsoamatterofrecordthatthe

degreeinengineeringcoursehasbeenawardedbyJ.R.N.Rajasthan

Vidyapeeth,Udaipurwithinaspanof1415months. Ithasalso

been found that the J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is

running a study centre which does not have proper facilities.

Referringtothecontentionofthelearnedcounselforthepetitioner

14

that,postfactoapprovalofDistanceEducationCouncilwasgranted

toJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeeth,Udaipurinoffering programmes

andtherefore,thedegreeawardedbytheuniversityisvalidone,I

findthatthecommunicationdated03.09.2007referstoprovisional

recognitionanditisalsomentionedthereinthattheprogrammes

mustbeapprovedbythestatutorybodies.Ithasnotbeenbrought

on record whether the programmes conducted by the said

universityhavebeenapprovedbythestatutorybodies.Itisalsoa

matter of record that it has been communicated to the J.R.N.

RajasthanVidyapeeth, Udaipur that theuniversity is requiredto

followthenormsandguidelinesoftheApexBodywithrespectto

course, design, duration, eligibility etc. for offering programmes

throughdistance mode. The learnedcounsel appearing for the

petitionersfurthersubmittedthat,theDistanceEducationCouncil

itself has indicated that it does not insist upon territorial

jurisdiction and therefore, the university is authorised to run

regularcourseintheStateofJharkhandalso.Fromthedecisionin

KurananchalInstituteofDegreeandDiplomaandOthers(Supra)

asnoticedhereinabove,Ifindthatithasbeenheldthatauniversity

recognised under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956

would have its own territorial jurisdiction except, the Central

Universities.

21. Inviewoftheaforesaiddiscussion,Iamoftheviewthat a

degreeawardedbyauniversitycannotberenderedinvalidmerely

becauseithasnotbeenrecognisedbytheAICTE.Section22ofthe

UniversityGrantsCommissionAct,1956providesthatauniversity

isempoweredtoconferdegreeandtherefore,thepowerconferred

onauniversityundertheUniversityGrantsCommissionAct,1956

cannot be taken away by superimposing the authority of the

AICTE. However,inviewofthevariouspronouncementsof the

Hon'bleSupremeCourtitcannotbesaidthatAICTEhasnoroleat

all to play in so far as, technical course run by a university is

15

concerned. If such an interpretation is given to the various

provisionsunder theAICTEAct, theveryobject of enacting the

AICTEAct,1987wouldbefrustrated.

22. InMaaVaishnaviDeviMahilaMahavidyalayaVs.StateofU.P.

&Ors.reportedin(2013)2SCC617,theHon'bleSupremeCourt

hasheldasunder:

70. .............Recognition and affiliation areexpressions of distinct meaning andconsequences.InBhartiaEducationSocietyVs. StateofH.P., reportedin(2011)4SCC527, thisCourtheldthat:

19. The purpose of 'recognition' and'affiliation'isdifferent.Inthecontextofthe NCTE Act, 'affiliation' enables andpermitsaninstitutiontosentitsstudentsto participate in public examinationsconducted by the examining body andsecurethequalificationinthenatureofdegrees, diplomas and certificates. Onthe other hand, 'recognition' is thelicencetotheinstitutiontoofferacourseortraininginteachingeducation.

23. Thefactswhichhavebeenbroughtonrecordinthepresent

proceedingfurtherstrengthenmyviewthattheroleofAICTEinso

faras,universityisconcernedcannotbewipedoutaltogether. If

themannerinwhichtheBachelorinEngineeringcourseisrunby

J.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeeth, Udaipur, is ignored, it wouldbring

disastertotheTechnicalEducationSystemintheCountry.

24. Itiswellsettledthatevenifthereasoninggivenintheorder

isnotappropriateandtheordermaynotsustainthescrutinyin

law, the Court would not interfere with the order as, such

interference would perpetuate illegality. The orders under

challenge in the present proceeding have been passed after

consideringvariousaspectsofthematterandtherefore,evenafter

holding that the degree awarded by the J.R.N. Rajasthan

Vidyapeeth,Udaipurcannotbeheldinvalidonthegroundthatit

has not been recognised by the AICTE, I am not inclined to

16

interfereinthematter.

25. In Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,

reportedin(2003)6SCC545,theHon'bleSupremeCourthasheld

asunder:

43. Issuance of a writ of certiorari is adiscretionary remedy. The High Court andconsequently this Court while exercising their extraordinaryjurisdictionunderArticle226or 32oftheConstitutionofIndiamaynotstrike down an illegal order although it would belawfultodoso.Inagivencase,theHighCourt orthisCourtmayrefusetoextendthebenefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant. Furthermore, this Court exercised its discretionaryjurisdictionunderArticle136of the Constitution of India which need not be exercised in a case where the impugnedjudgmentisfoundtobeerroneousifbyreason thereofsubstantialjusticeisbeingdone..........

26. In the result, this writ petition fails and accordingly, it is

dismissed.

(ShreeChandrashekhar,J.)

JharkhandHighCourtatRanchiThe28thdayofNovember,2013Manish/A.F.R.