Letters Patent Appeal No.1502 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1502 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.5.2011 Vijay Laxmi ...Appellant Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab through its Registrar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. H.P.S.Rahi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13.7.2010 dismissing the writ petition against refusal for enrollment for Ph.D. on the basis of degree possessed by the appellant by distance education. 2. Case of the appellant is that she obtained B.Ed. degree through distance education programme of the Annamalai University in Tamilnadu while working as a teacher in the State of Punjab. He also obtained M.Ed. degree from the same university through the same mode in the year 1997. On that basis, she applied for enrollment for Ph.D. in the year 2006. The Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU) rejected the said prayer vide letter dated 4.8.2006 on the ground that degree of the appellant could not be treated as equivalent to the degree of the said university Letters Patent Appeal No.1502 of 2010 -2- **** rendering the appellant eligible for enrollment for Ph.D. Aggrieved thereby the writ petition was filed in this Court relying upon instructions of the University Grants Commission (UGC). The university contested the petition by stating that recognition by the UGC or any other body for the purpose of obtaining employment was not relevant for enrollment for Ph.D. The university constituted an equivalence committee and the said committee held that M.Ed. degree of Annamalai University through distance education could not be treated as M.Ed. degree of the GNDU. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. It was held that the university could adopt its own standard for equivalence of a particular degree for the purpose of enrollment for Ph.D. and judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tariq Islam Vs. Aligarh Muslim University 2001 (4) S.C.T. 818 and Dhan Raj Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1994(2) S.C.T. 205 on the issue of recognition of a degree for appointment could not be applied to equivalence for academic pursuit. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that degree could not be nullified after course is completed as held in Tariq Islam Vs. Aligarh Muslim University 2001 (4) S.C.T. 818 and B.L.Asawa Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others 1982 AIR (SC) 933. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Shyam Kumar Vyas and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others 2006(4) S.C.T. 106 on the same issue. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. The judgments relied upon are distinguishable. 7. In Tariq Islam the question was of eligibility for the post of lecturer. The appointment of the candidate was not approved on the ground that degree of the appellant was not equivalent to required degree Letters Patent Appeal No.1502 of 2010 -3- **** as per book published by the Association of Indian Universities. On appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the book could not be treated to be binding. In that case, the degree of the candidate had been duly recognised for higher study in the concerned university. It was held that contrary stand could not be taken at the time of appointment. 8. In B.L.Asawa the degree of the candidate was duly recognised for enrollment with the Medical Council and it was held that the said degree could not be ignored after higher degree had been obtained on that basis. Equivalence could be considered only if there was a corresponding qualification laid down. In Shyam Kumar Vyas it was observed that in absence of any express provision, degree or diploma awarded by any university had to be treated to be equivalent to degree/diploma of any other university. 9. In the present case, the question is of equivalence of a degree obtained through distance education. The degree is awarded by university in the State of Tamilnadu when the appellant was serving in the State of Punjab at the time of study. Admittedly, the appellant did not attend any class. Such situation has been dealt with in judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma V. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University (2007) 6 SCC 35 wherein it was observed:- “18. ....Each university in the country which is recognised under the University Grants Commission Act must have their own territorial jurisdiction save and except for the Central Universities or specified in the legislative or parliamentary Act. 19. The submission of the learned counsel that for the purpose of running a distance education course, extraterritorial activities must be carried out may not be Letters Patent Appeal No.1502 of 2010 -4- **** entirely correct. It is one thing to say that the university takes recourse to the correspondence courses for conferring degrees or diplomas but it would be another thing to say that study centres would be permitted to operate which requires close supervision of the university. In a study centre, teachers are appointed, practical classes are held and all other amenities which are required to be provided for running a full-fledged institution or college are provided. Such an establishment, in our opinion, although named as a study centre, and despite the fact that the course of study and other study materials are supplied by the university cannot be permitted to be established beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the university. Nainital is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University. In fact it is not situated in the State of U.P. and, thus, is beyond the provisions of the Act.” 10. In view of the above, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. 11. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 02, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge