SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Special Original Jurisdiction) W.P.No. of 2022 Annamalai University, Rep. by its Registrar, Annamalai Nagar, Chidhambaram, Cuddalore District – 608 002 …Petitioner Vs 1).University Grants Commission,

by ·

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.P.No. of 2022
Annamalai University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Annamalai Nagar,
Chidhambaram,
Cuddalore District – 608 002 …Petitioner
Vs
1).University Grants Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg,
New Delhi – 110 002
2).The Distance Education Bureau,
Rep. by its Joint Secretary,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg,
New Delhi – 110 002 …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE REGISTRAR
I, , S/o, , Hindu, aged about years, having office at Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District – 608 002, now temporarily comedown to Chennai, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-

1. I am the Registrar (In-charge) of the Petitioner’s University and competent to file this affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner’s University, as such I am well acquainted with the facts stated hereunder.

2. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s University is one of the premier Universities in the Country and it was established consequence upon the (Madras Act 1 of 1929) Annamalai University Act, 1928 enacted by the then Presidency of Madras. The University is recognized by the 1strespondent herein under section 12 (B) of the UGC Act is the only unitary residential University with more than 90 years standing in India with 52 Departments, 19 Hostels and has been imparting education in all branches of study.

3. It is submitted that during the year 1978 the Petitioner’s University decided to start UG Courses through correspondence and accordingly they approached the 1strespondent for necessary permission for introducing the UG Courses through correspondence system. The 1strespondent has granted permission by its letter dated 10.08.1978 for introduction of correspondence courses which is called Open and Distance Education System.

4. It is submitted that the permission granted by the 1strespondent was placed before the syndicate meeting of the Petitioner University held on 30.11.1978 and it was resolved, by resolution No.75, to introduce correspondence education for UG Degree and Diploma, from the academic year 1979-1980. From then onwards the Petitioner University is conducting Distance Education Courses at U.G and P.G levels as well as Diploma Courses. The PetitionerUniversity is the one and only University to introduce the Correspondence Course (Open and Distance Learning System) and role model for all other Universities. The object of introducing Correspondence Courses was to encourage and promote the education for disadvantaged section and downtrodden community who are not able to pursue the higher studies, in order to help them the system of Correspondence Courses was introduced by the Petitioner University. As on date the Petitioner University is conducting 255 courses in UG, PG and Diploma Courses under Correspondence studies.

5. It is submitted that in the year of 1985 the Parliament enacted the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, known as IGNOU Act, to establish an Open University at National Level for introducing and promoting the distance education in the Country. Later, under section 5 (2) of the IGNOU Act, the Distance Education Council (DEC) was established under statue 28. After the establishment of DEC under the IGNOU Act, the power and function pertaining to grant of permission/recognition to various university to conduct Open University and Distance Learning program was vested with the DEC.

6. It is submitted that in the year of 1985 the 1st respondent passed a regulation known as UGC (minimum standard of instruction for the grant of 1st degree through non formal Distance Education in the faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social science, Commerce and Science) regulations. The said regulation have been framed under section 26 (1) (f) of the UGC Act. In terms of regulations 3 (2) the university is mandated to set up study centres outside the Head Quarters in areas where there is a reasonable constriction of students. Such study centre is to have adequate library facilities and qualified part time instructors, counseling staffs to advice and assist the students Regulation 3 (3) stipulate to conduct the program of 8 to 10 days to be organized in different places where there is a number of students studying in that area. In view of the above regulations the Petitioner University had been established study centres throughout the country and at present it has 73 study centres, out of which 18 centres are in other states and presently more than 1.24 lakh students are studying under the open and distance learning system.

7. It is submitted that the Petitioner University obtained recognition from the distance education council from year to year and renewed till 2012. On 29.03.2010 the DEC has issued a notification stating that there in 35th meeting of the council it has noted that the Distance Education and online Education cannot exceed their territorial Jurisdiction. Further it is stated that it was decided in case of Central Universities, the territorial Jurisdiction will be as per their Act and statues for offering program through distance mode.

8. It is submitted that the Petitioner University is concerned with section 1 (2) that deals with the Territorial Jurisdiction only relating to formal Education to the effect that it shall not extent beyond a radius of 16 kilometers from its convocation hall in Annamalai Nagar. Now the same was amended in Annamalai University Act, 2013, through Act No.32 of 2021 in Section 3 (4) (ia) extended that University area that the area comprising the districts of Villupuram, Cuddalore, kallakurichi and Mayiladuthurai. While so, the DEC when granting recognition for the Academic year 2012-2015 has imposed condition Sr.No. B(8) to the effect that the territorial Jurisdiction for offering programs will be as per the decision of the council meeting No.40 and the Territorial Jurisdiction of the state university will be as per their Acts and statues, but not beyond the boundaries of their respective states. Aggrieved against the said condition the Petitioner University filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.30039 of 2012 and prayed a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the condition under clause B (8) is being illegal, irrational and consequently to forbear the respondents there in from in any manner intervening the rights of the Petitioner in conducting various programs in P.G and U.G levels in distance education mode without any territorial limit. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Hon’ble Court by order dated 12.03.2013 and the said clause B (8) was quashed.

9. It is respectfully submitted that the DEC established by the statute 28 of the IGNOU Act, was repealed by the notification dated 04.05.2013. Therefore the Central Government has exercised the power conferred under section 20 (1) of the UGC Act, 1956 directed vide its order dated 29.12.2013 that the UGC shall act regulator for higher education through open and distance education mode and the Petitioner University has come under the purview of the Respondent from June 2013 onwards and the Respondent issued a Notification in F.No.1-4/2013 (CPP-2), dated 17-06-2013 adopted the earlier guidelines of DEC under IGNOU for the continuance recognition of Open and Distance Learning System of Higher Education in the Country. The Distance Education Bureau, by its Deputy Director of the UGC, vide order dated 20-08-2013 for grant of extension of recognition for the academic year 2013-14 imposed clause 3 (vi) that territorial jurisdiction in respect of Universities offering program through Distance Education mode will be as per the policy of the UGC on territorial Jurisdiction. The said clause 3(vi) is similar to the Condition B(8) issued by the Distance Education Council and the same was quashed by this Hon’ble High Court in the Order made in W.P.No.30039 of 2012, dated 12-03-2013. The Petitioner University had also applied to the Respondent for grant of continuance of recognition and approval for Distance Education courses for the academic year 2014-15. The 2nd the Respondent University vide order dated 28-05-2014 stating that maintain Status Quo for 2014-15 as that of the approval granted for the academic year 2013-14. As far as the academic year 2015-16 is concerned, the petitioner university applied on 01-04-2015 for recognition, the same was considered by the 2ndRespondent and it was again decided to maintain Status Quo. Further, the letter issued by the 2ndRespondent dated 26/29 May 2015, stating that the petitioner university to be filed an affidavit in prescribed form and accordingly filed an affidavit therein except clause XVI all the conditions are accepted, which relates to territorial jurisdiction.

10. It is submitted that in the meanwhile UGC filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.606 of 2015 along with M.P.No.1 of 2015 as against the order made in W.P.No.30039 of 2012, dated 12-03-2013, seeking stay the operation of the order. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court while admitting the W.A. passed interim order dated 29-04-2015 as follows:-
“All admissions made by the University in respect of Distance Education Program for the centre’s situated outside the territorial jurisdiction, shall be subject to final decision of the pending Appeal”.

11. It is submitted that for the academic year 2015-16 is concerned, the Distance Education Bureau of UGC/2nd Respondent herein issued a letter vide his proceedings No. F-1-2/2015 (DEB-III) dated 14-08-2015, mentioned in final para that directed the University not to admit any students for ODL program during the academic year 2015-16 and the Petitioner University will be held responsible if any student is admitted without getting any prior approval from UGC. The said order was challenged by way of Writ Petition in W.P.No.27185 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 that prayed interim stay of the impugned order dated 14-08-2015. This Hon’ble Court by order dated 31-08-2015 granted interim Stay of the impugned Order therein in the M.P.No.1 of 2015 and posted the Writ Petition along with the Writ Appeal No.606 of 2015. Thereafter, the 2nd Respondent notice F.No.12-9/2016 (DEB-III) dated 19-07-2016 restricted the exam centre outside the State of Tamil Nadu and the said notice was challenged by way of Writ Petition in W.P.No.43404 of 2016 and this Hon’ble granted stay of the said notice. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner’s University conducted the exams on their own study centre itself.

12. It is submitted that under ODL system the Petitioner University had student strength of 2,39,590 for the academic year 2015-16, for the academic year 2016-17 about 2,14,088 students were studied their courses, for the academic year 2017-18 total strength was 1,81,514, For the academic year 2018-19 total strength was 1,82,959 and for 2019-20 strength was 1,66,891, for the academic year 2020-21 the strength was 1,43,887 and forth current year 2021-22 the strength of the students is 1,24,044. The Petitioner University applied for recognition before the
2nd Respondent for all the years, except last 2 years and on receipt of the same no orders were issued, since the interim order granted by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Appeal 606 of 2015 that all admissions are subject to outcome of the Writ Appeal. The petitioner’s University complied all the requirements for getting recognition to run the Distance Education, except the territorial issue and therefore, the University continues their admission till the current academic year.

13. It is submitted that the National Assessment Accreditation Council (NAAC) herein was established in the year of 1994 and it is an independent body funded by UGC. The Higher Education Institution can apply to the NAAC for getting accreditation and after inspection they issue grade to the respective institution. The petitioner’s University was inspected by the NAAC in the year of 2014 and accredited A Grade for scoring 3.09 out of 4 points. Therefore, the next accreditation shall be taken place only after 5 years, i.e only on 2019.

14. It is submitted that in the mean while the 1st Respondent issued a notification dated 06-02-2018 by invoking the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 26 read with clause (j) of Section 12 of the University Grants Commission Act,1956 (3 of 1956), made an amendment by substituting in regulation 3 (1) (viii) the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning)Regulations, 2017, namely :-
“ (viii) The Higher Educational Institution has valid accreditation from National Assessment and Accreditation Council with minimum Cumulative Grade Point Average of 3.26 on a 4 point scale and has completed five years of existence:
Provided that the Higher Educational Institutes that are either State or Central or State Private Universities and were given permission by the University Grants Commission to offer programmes in open and distance learning mode for the academic session 2017-18 will be allowed to impart open and Distance Learning Education till the academic session 2019-20 to enable them reach the prescribed quality National Assessment and Accreditation Council benchmark.
Provided further, that the Higher Educational Institutes falling in the above category but currently not accredited with National Assessment and Accreditation Council shall apply for National Assessment Accreditation council within three years from the date of issue of this regulation,etc.
That being so, the petitioner’s University was taken over by the State Government in the year of 2013 and as per the above proviso they are eligible to run ODL system till the academic year 2019-20.
15. It is submitted that the 1st Respondent issued a public notice dated 21-02-2018 in F.No.74-8/2017 (DEB-IV) inviting all the Higher Education Institutions to apply for recognition for Distance Learning Programmes for the academic year 2018-19 (beginning July 2018) as per clause 3 (2) of UGC (Open and Distance Learning) Second Amendment Regulations, 2018. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner’s University applied for recognition before the 2nd Respondent through letter dated 31-03-2018, further submitted online application on 27-04-2018 and 3 sets of hard copies of application have been sent on 04-05-2018. On receipt of such application, the 2nd Respondent rejected the application by order dated 06-06-2018 in F.No.2-3/2018(DEB-II) only on the ground that the petitioner University not secured 3.26 points in the NAAC and refused the recognition for conduction ODL for the academic year 2018-19. Therefore the petitioner university filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.15203 of 2018 by challenging the 2nd amendment dated 06-02-2018, Regulation 3, in sub-regulation 1, clause (viii) of the University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017 and consequential order of rejection of recognition issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 06-06-2018 in F.No.2-3/2018 (DEB-II) and this Hon’ble Court pleased to grant a interim stay for the period of weeks by its order dated 25-06-2018.

16. It is submitted that from the academic year 2016 the petitioner university applied for recognition before the UGC for conducting the open and Distance Learning Courses and the 1st Respondent not granted recognition and maintained status quo. For the academic year 2021-22 the 2nd Respondent issued a Public Notice – F.No.1-23/2021 dated 14-07-2021 the applications for recognition to the ODL invited only through online. In which NAAC accreditation allowed only from January 2020 onwards, however the petitioner University NAAC accreditation validity was ended December 2019. The 2nd Respondent also not provided Username and Password and therefore, the Petitioner University not in a position to apply for the past 2 years.

17. It is submitted that in the meantime NAAC peer team visited the petitioner university from 14th March to 16th March 2022 and they are going to award scores based on the inspection report. Pending accreditation report the 1st Respondent issued a public notice F.No.1-2/2015 (DEB-III), dated 25-03-2022 stating that Annamalai University is running the distance education programmes and admitting students in Open and Distance Learning (ODL) programmmes without approval of UGC is gross violations of all conditions laid down under UGC (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations,2017. Further it was mentioned that Annamalai University was only recognized to offer any programme in ODL mode till Academic year 2014-15 and no further recognition has been accorded and therefore cautioned through public notice not to take admissions in any programmes offered by Annmalai University through ODL mode. The said public notice was put it in the UGC website and the petitioner university after seeing the website issued a detailed letter dated 31-03-2022 stating that the petitioner University is running the Open and Distance Learning courses pursuant to the Court orders in W.A.No.606 of 2015, W.P.No.27185 of 2015, W.P.No.43404 of 2016 and W.P.No.15203 of 2018 and all the admissions are made pending W.A. and other Writ Petitions and requested the 1st Respondent to withdraw the public notice dated 25-03-2022. The Petitioner is left with no other option except to challenge the public notice issued by the 1st Respondent in F.No.1-2/2015 (DEB-III), dated 25-03-2022 and after receipt of reply from the petitiner’s University, the subsequent communication of the 1st Respondent in F.No.10-1/2021 (DEB-IV), dated 30-03-2022 by invoking the Article 226 of the Constitution for the following among
GROUNDS
a) The impugned public notice issued by the 1st Respondent in F.No.1-2/2015 (DEB-III) dated 25-03-2022 stating that not to take admission in any programme offered by Annmalai University on the ground that from 2014-15 onwards no recognition was obtained from the UGC/1st Respondent is totally against the facts and circumstances of this case.
b) The Petitioner University applied for a recognition every year and the respondent maintained a status quo knowing very well that interim order made in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.A.No.606 of 2015 that “all admissions made by the University in respect of Distance Education Program for the centre’s situated outside the territorial jurisdiction, shall be subject to final decision of the pending Appeal”. In view of the interim order, the petitioner university applied for recognition for every year and the Respondents neither granted approval nor rejected. Thus, the impugned public notice dated 25-03-2022 is spoiling the reputation of the University name in the public and creating fear to the students who are studying their courses through ODL.
c) The National Assessment Accreditation Council already inspected the Petitioner’s University and they are going to give accreditation score. In the meanwhile, the Respondents are preventing the petitioner university to apply for recognition by not providing the username and password the institution for the academic years 2021-22 and the current year for the reason that NAAC score not been provided. It is pertinent to mention that from March 2020 onwards lockdown was declared and therefore all the courses and classes including exams where conducted through online mode. Thus, the NAAC have inspected the petitioner’s University only on March 2022 and awaiting for the score.
d) The Petitioner’s University started the Open and Distance Education system during 1979 with the permission of UGC, which is the First institute to introduce the system in India for to reach the Education system to poor people. The present impugned regulation restricts 45 years of impartial education provided by the University.
e) The impugned public notice, failed to note that the petitioner University has admitted the students based on the Writ Appeal order in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.A.No.606 of 2015 that all the admission made subject to the final decision. Subsequently, the 1st and 2nd Respondents derecognizing the petitioner University by proceedings No.F-1-2/2015, dated 14-08-2015 for conducting the Distance Education was also challenged by way of another Writ Petition in W.P.No.27185 of 2015 and this Hon’ble Court by order dated 31-08-2015 made it clear that all the admissions subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal No.606. Thereafter yet another Writ Petition filed by the University in W.P.No.15203 of 2018 also granted a interim order with time frame manner and the same is pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench. Therefore, the public notice is clear violative of the interim order in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in W.A.No.606 of 2015.
f) The concept of conducting Higher Education courses through correspondence course and Distance Education mode are well accepted not only in India, but in the entire globe. Therefore, numbers of foreign Universities are conducting various Higher Learning programmes almost in every field of study through Distance Education or Correspondence Education, where students from various parts of the world are pursuing their studies. In fact, most of the foreign Universities are offering correspondence and distance mode of education. In respect of these foreign Universities, large number of students from our country joined and pursuing their courses and degrees are awarded. However, the 1st and 2nd Respondents imposing conditions without any basis and not given recognition unjustifiable.
g) The Learning of Education and higher learning are the right of every citizen guaranteed under the Constitution of India. If a Citizen fails to learn through conventional mode or is not able to learn through the conventional scheme of education, especially the Higher Education, the Respondents cannot shut its door for providing opportunity to such innocent citizens. In order to bring them the main stream of higher learning, the distance education mode was introduced longtime back and the Petitioner University is one of the pioneer institute in introducing the Distance Education system for higher education in the late 70s. Such a pioneer institution since paving way for lakhs and lakhs of aspiring students to pursue their studies through Distance Education Mode for all these years, cannot be lightly dealt with as has been done in the impugned order issued by the Respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the impugned orders are nothing but a colorable exercise of power in an autocratic manner. Hence it is not only arbitrary, but also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it does not stand in the scrutiny of Wednesbury Principles of Reasonableness. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
h) The Petitioner University is at present offering 255 UG, PG and Diploma courses through Distance Education mode and more than 1.24 lakh students (on-roll) studying the course for the each academic year. However without knowing the factual aspect, the Respondents 1 and 2 restrict the admissions for the present academic year is erroneous and unjustifiable.
i) The Petitioner University ranked 56th in India in NIRF-2017 by the Ministry of Human Resource Development and in Pharmacy category ranking 13th in India. The Times Higher Education World University Ranking – 2018, the petitioner University in 801-1000 for overall category and 401-500 for life Science. The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2017 on scientific impact of Universities and on universities involvement in scientific collaboration & scientific performance, has ranked the University at 14th based on the number of publications and 3rd based on the proportion of publications that, compared with other publications in the same field and in the same year, belong to the top 10% most frequently cited. Further CII,in its report based on “Indian Citation Index” database has ranked Annamalai University second among the Top 50 State universities in Research Productivity, Ranking based on Articles, Citations and paper. “The Nielsen – India Today Ranking” 2017 has ranked Annamalai University 11th among the top 30 Universities in India. “The SCImago Institutional Ranking” 2016 has ranked the University 4th in Tamil Nadu and 20th among the top 100 institutions for Higher Education in India. Likewise various awards and ranks were obtained by the petitioner University within the Country. However, the 3rd Respondent awarded CGPA of 3.09 out 4 point scale for the inspection held on December 2014, the Respondents 1 and 2 shall not refuse the recognition for the present academic year.

16) It is further submitted that from the academic year 2015- 2022 more than 12.5 lakhs students studied through Open and Distance Learning ODL in the Petitioner University. Some of them joined in the Government services based on the degree obtained from the Petitioner’s University. The Respondents only grievance that no university shall conduct the courses outside the State and the petitioner university accepts all the conditions except the territorial issue which is already sub-judice before this Hon’ble Court.

17. It is submitted that the petitioner university is not having the original impugned public notice of the 1st Respondent inF.No.1-2/2015 (DEB-III), dated 25-03-2022 and the subsequent communication of the 1st Respondent in F.No.10-1/2021 (DEB-IV), dated 30-03-2022 filing the Xerox copy of the same. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to DISPENSE with the production of the 1st Respondent impugned notice F.No.1-2/2015 (DEB-III), dated 25-03-2022 and the subsequent communication F.No.10-1/2021 (DEB-IV), dated 30-03-2022 filing the Xerox copy of the same and thus render justice.

18. It is submitted that the petitioner university after seeing the website of the 1st Respondent issued a detailed representation dated 31-03-2022 stating that all the admissions made by the University only subject to the pending appeal and moreover the application for recognition is pending before the UGC and request the 1st Respondent/UGC to withdraw the public notice immediately. Despite of the representations, the Respondent have not withdrawn the public notice dated 25-03-2022. However, issued another letter dated 30-03-2022 stating that the petitioner university is directed to respond immediately otherwise punitive action will be taken. Therefore, petitioner university made yet another representation dated 06-04-2022 stating that the ODL courses are run by the university as per the directions above orders made in W.A and other W.Ps pending before this Hon’ble court.

For the interest of justice, pending disposal of this Writ Petition, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to STAY the impugned public notice of the 1st Respondent F.No.1-2/2015 (DEB-III), dated 25-03-2022 and the subsequent communication in F.No.10-1/2021 (DEB-IV), dated 30-03-2022 any other suitable order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

It is further submits that, pending disposal of this Writ Petition, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to DIRECT the 1stRespondent to permit the petitioner University to admit the students under Open and Distance Learning programmes from the academic year 2022-23 and thus render justice

In these circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS, calling for the records relating to the 1st Respondent in the impugned public noticein F.No.1-2/2015 (DEB-III), dated 25-03-2022 and the subsequent communication in F.No.10-1/2021 (DEB-IV), dated 30-03-2022 quash the same, consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to issue recognition of Open and Distance Learning programmes for the current academic year 2022-23 and pass any such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirm and signed in
My presence at Chennai BEFORE ME
On this the 12th day of April
2022.
ADVOCATE: CHENNAI

You may also like...