Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 13, 2010 Vijay Laxmi .....Petitioner VERSUS Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. M.S.Rahi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the decision of the respondent- University in not recognising the M.Ed. Degree held by the petitioner, and thereby declining her prayer to enroll for Ph.D, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the said order. The facts, noticed in brief, are that the petitioner has obtained a degree of B.Sc. (Hons.) Math from Delhi University and thereafter joined M.Sc. (Hons.) Math in the year 1992 at Mirinda Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 2 : House under Delhi University. From November, 1992 to September, 1994, the petitioner was employed as a Teacher in D.A.V.Public School at Delhi. During this period, petitioner did her B.Ed. Degree from Annamalai University through Distance Education. While being employed as Teacher in Government Girls High School, New Delhi from September, 1994 to August, 1997, the petitioner obtained a degree of M.Ed. from Annamalai University through the same mode of Distance Education. In 1997, the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Lecturer in Khalsa College of Education, Amritsar, which is affiliated to Guru Nanak Dev University. From 1998 to 2005, the petitioner served as Lecturer in D.A.V.College of Education, Amritsar. In 2005-2006, she remained Lecturer in Anand College of Education, Amritsar. The petitioner was again appointed as Lecturer in Khalsa College of Education in the year 2006, where she is continuing till date. In the year 2006, the petitioner applied to the respondent- University for enrolment for a degree of Ph.D. in subject of Education. The University informed the petitioner through a communication dated 4.8.2006 that the degree from Annamalai University done by her under Distance Education was not recognised equivalent to M.Ed. Degree of Guru Nanak Dev University. On 24.4.2007, the petitioner approached the Vice-Chancellor pointing out that M.Ed. Degree issued by Annamalai University was recognised by the University Grants Commission, Human Resource Development, NCTC, AIU as well as by the Punjabi University, Patiala. Still, the petitioner received a response that this degree was not recognised as equivalent to the degree by the respondent- Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 3 : University. The petitioner would make reference to an information supplied by Deputy Director, Distance Education Council that all qualifications awarded through Distance Education are valid for the purpose of employment to the posts and services under the Central Government. Even University Grants Commission has so intimated to the father of the petitioner. To same effect is stated to be the reply of National Council of Education. Even the Association of Indian Universities of New Delhi has written to the Registrar of respondent- University on 26.6.2008 that the case of the petitioner be decided in the light of clarification given and referred to above. Still, the University informed the petitioner that M.Ed. Degree possessed by her is not equivalent to M.Ed. Regular degree having issued by Guru Nanak Dev University and so the petitioner was not registered for degree of Ph.D. The petitioner, thus, has approached this Court through the present writ petition. While issuing notice of motion, detailed reference was made to the submissions and the documents placed on record by the petitioner. The order passed by this Court on 18.8.2009 is as under:- “The petitioner is aggrieved of the letters (Annexures P-12 to P-14) whereby the petitioner has been denied enrollment as Ph.D student in the discipline of Education on the ground that the M.A. Education qualification obtained by the petitioner by way of Distance Education Programme from Annamalai University has not been recognized by the State of Punjab. The petitioner has placed on record the communication dated 1.3.1995 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Ministry of Human Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 4 : Resource Development (Department of Education), which, inter-alia, provides for recognition of the qualification acquired through Distance Education from Universities established by Act of Parliament or State Legislature, Institutions deemed to be Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 and other bodies etc. provided the same has been approved by the Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University. Another letter dated 25.10.2007 (Annexure P- 4) has been issued by the University Grants Commission showing recognition granted to the Annamalai University by the UGC, subject to approval of the courses by Distance Education Council IGNOU. A communication dated 10.2.2007 (Annexure P-5) issued by IGNOU further establishes that the degrees awarded through the mode of Distance Education by the Annamalai University has the approval of the Distance Education Council w.e.f. 15.2.2007. The letter further clarifies that in view of the Gazette Notification of MHRD No.44 dated 1.3.1995, all the qualifications awarded through Distance Education by the Annamalai University are valid for the purpose of employment etc. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the above notifications, the impugned communicates (Annexures P-12 to P-14) are not valid and the petitioners have been wrongly denied the opportunity to be enrolled as Ph.D. Student. Notice of motion returnable on 18.9.2009.” Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 5 : University has now filed reply to the writ petition. In the short reply, the respondent has stated that there is no dispute that the degree of M.Ed. Degree possessed by the petitioner through Distance Education mode is duly recognised by the Government of India, U.G.C. and National Council of Teachers Association and so also by the Association of Indian Universities. It is, however, stated that this recognition is only for the purpose of obtaining employment and service as a Teacher/Lecturer. It is pointed out that this recognition does not ipso facto be a certificate or entitlement to the petitioner to seek equivalence with the M.Ed. Degree awarded by the respondent-University for the purpose of enrolling her academically as a student for its Ph.D. Degree. Reference is made to a decision in the case of A.P.Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, (1986) 2 SCC 667 to urge that the court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statue to which it owes its existence and the regulation made by the University itself. It is stated that it would be destructive of rule of law. Reference is then made to the provisions of the University Statute, which prescribes the following eligibility conditions for enrollment as a Student of its Ph.D. Degree. “(i) That he/she must have done Master's degree with at least 55% marks (50% marks for SC/ST candidates) of Guru Nanak Devi University; (ii)That (a) he/she must have done Master's degree with at least 55% marks (50% marks for SC/ST candidates) of a recognised Indian Foreign University; Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 6 : AND (b) the said Master's degree done by him/her from a recognized Indian or Foreign University must also be recognized as equivalent to the Master's Degree of the Guru Nanak Devi University in the subject concerned or allied subject.” Thus, a person for being enrolled as a student of Ph.D. Degree must possess Master's degree with at least 55% marks of the respondent University and that such degree must be recognised as equivalent to Master Degree by Guru Nanak Dev University. As per the reply, the petitioner may be fulfilling the first condition, but she does not fulfill the second condition about the eligibility and in this regard, reference is made to a decision taken by the Equivalence Committee constituted by the University for judging the equivalence of the degree possessed by the petitioner. The Committee had decided as under:- “The committee considered the recognition of M.Ed. Degree from Annamalai University through Distance Education as equivalent to M.Ed. Degree of this University. After some discussion, it was decided that the recognition of M.Ed. Degree from Annamalai University through Distance Education be not recognised as equivalent to M.Ed. Degree of this University.” This decision was accordingly conveyed to the petitioner on 4.8.2006 (Annexure P-12) and subsequent responses were given on the same lines and basis. Accordingly, it is prayed that the prayer Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 7 : made in the writ petition cannot be granted. Prayer is also objected to on the ground of delay and laches, as the petitioner has statedly raised challenge belatedly against the order dated 4.8.2006 after nearly three years. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Akshita Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(6) S.L.R. 243, where eligibility on the basis of Bachelor Degree of Textile through Distance Education mode was under consideration and it is held that it cannot be suggested that such degree is not acceptable merely because it has been awarded under a distance education programme. The question before the Division Bench in Akshita Gupta's case (supra) was for accepting the degree for the purpose of eligibility and appointment. It has been conceded by the respondents that such a degree possessed by the petitioner obtained through Distance Education mode is acceptable for the purpose of appointment. However, the question involved here is to see equivalence of this degree for the purpose of registering the petitioner as a student for Ph.D. There can not be much dispute that the University is entitled to adopt its own standards for equivalence of a particular degree issued by the respondent-University and once the expert committee has gone into this aspect to hold that the degree possessed by the petitioner cannot be treated as equivalent to the M.Ed. Degree issued by the University for registering a student of Ph.D., the same may not be open to a judicial scrutiny. It is the job of an expert body to see equivalence of the degree and once such a body has viewed that particular degree not to be treated as Civil Writ Petition No.12438 of 2009 : 8 : equivalent to a degree being issued by the University for the purpose of further studies, it may not be appropriate for the Courts to review the same and substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the expert body. The other judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the cases of 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 are also relating to the cases where the issue was regarding the appointment only and not for the purpose of academic pursuits. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. July 13, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE