-ry< f 39# %12.10.2011 Present: Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anupam Lai Dass and Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj and Mr. Preteek Tewari for the petitioner. Mr. Jatan Singh for UOI. Mr.Amitesh Kumar for the respondents UGC and AlCTE. Mr. Aly Mirza for the respondent No.4. +CM No. 16856/2011 in W.P.(C) No. 7435/2011 Allowed subject to all Just exceptions. W.P.(C) No. 7435/2011 & CM No. 16855 & CM No. 16857/2011 By. this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent no.4 to amend the impugned list of approved institutions/universities as published on the official website of the •ii Distance Education Council as on 16.8.2011 by incorporating the name of the Petitioner in the list of recognized institutions and approved courses. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that on the official website of the Distance Education Council, in the relevant column, the DEC has indicated the provisional recognition granted in favour of the petitioner for the year 2007-2008 and then :f\ Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified o t :n in the other column, under the heading 'Continuance of Provisional Recognition', it has been stated 'Till the committee visits and submits its recommendations' and this as per the petitioner has been causing confusion to the students seeking admissions in the various courses of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said T- insertion by the DEC on their official website has created confusion amongst the students seeking admission in various courses being conducted by the petitioner society and due to such confusion, the number of students in the distance education centre of the petitioner society has gone considerabiy reduced. Counsel also submits that the respondent no.4 has agreed to take a decision on the renewal of the recognition of the petitioner society and the various courses conducted by it and the necessary inspection has already been carried out by the committee of experts in the month of January, 2010. Counsel also submits that vide letter dated 7.1.2009 issued by the respondent no.4, the petitioner society was conveyed continuation of provisional recognition till such time the Expert committee visits their institution and submits its recommendations and then the decision is taken by the joint committee on the same. Counsel thus submits that pending final decision of the respondent, the said provisional recognition granted by the respondent still continued in favour of the petitioner in terms of the letter dated 7.1.2009. Mr. Jatan Singh, counsel for respondent no.l, Mr. Amitesh Kumar counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr. Aly Mirza, counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 enter appearance on advance y notice. I Mr. Aly Mirza, counsel for respondents 4 and 5 on instructions submits that the provisional recognition in favour of the petitioner society has still not been withdrawn and the same still subsists. Counsel also submits that as per his instructions, the expert committee had inspected the petitioner institute in the month of June, 2010 and the recommendations of the expert committee were placed before the Tripartite Committee in the month of December, 2010 and thereafter the Tripartite Committee ^ has referred the matter to the AlCTE for certain clarifications. 4 M Counsel thus submits that a final decision so far continuation of the recognition of the petitioner institute is concerned is yet to be taken. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The principal grievance raised by the petitioner is that on the official website of the Distance Education Council, in the relevant column, the DEC has indicated the provisional recognition r\ granted in favour of the petitioner for the year 2007-2008 and then in the other column, under the heading 'Continuance of Provisional ( Recognition', it has been stated 'Till the committee visits and submits its recommendations' and this inappropriately worded information has been causing confusion to the students seeking .0: admission in the various courses of the petitioner. Since Mr. Mirza, 'i' counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 on instructions has taken a stand that the provisional recognition was earlier granted by the respondent no.4 and it was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.1.2009 that the recognition is still continuing, therefore necessary correction/clarification to this effect shall be carried out by the respondent no.4 on their official website. Let the necessary correction/clarification be carried out by the respondent no.4 on their official website so as to clearly indicate that the provisional ' recognition in favour of the petitioner in terms of letter dated 7.1.2009 still continues. The same be done by the respondent no.2 within a period of three days from the date of this order. So far the controversy raised by the petitioner with regard to the various courses being conducted by the petitioner is concerned, it is made clear that whatever recognition was earlier granted to the petitioner for the year 2007-2008 for the various courses, only for the said courses the recognition would ■f continue and not for the courses for which earlier the recognition was not granted to the petitioner, it is also directed that the Tripartite Committee constituted by the respondents shall take a final decision, as already the provisional recognition has been continuing for the last more than three years. The said final decision be taken by the said committee within a period of three months from the date of this order. DASTI under the signature of Court Master. October 12, 2011 mg KAILA^ GAMBHIR, J rN Ci jy) 0-mo( \J^ I ^ i) 23. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7435/2011 SYMBIOSIS OPEN EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR Petitioners Through: Mr. Anupam La! Das, Advocate with Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj and Mr. Atrabhavan Singh, Advocates versus UNIION OF INDIA AND ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC with f Mr. Prashant Ghai, Advocate for R-l/UOI. Mr. Mayank Manish, Advocate for Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for R-2/UGC and R-3/AICTE. Mr. Ali Mirza, Advocate for R-4 and R-5. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER % 21.11.2011 CM 17374/2011 fbv the petitioners for directions) Counsels for*the parties jointly state that an order dated 14.11.2011 has been passed in CONT.CAS(C) 802/2011 filed by the -.7 petitioners against the respondents stating inter alia that respondent No.4 has not complied with the directions issued on 12.10.2011 in the present case, while disposing of the writ petition. It is stated that by the aforesaid order dated 14.11.2011, the Court recorded as below:- "Mr. Mirza has tendered in Court the amended entry made on the website of the respondent DEC. The only issue that remains outstanding is in relation to W.P.(C) 7435/2011 1 of 2 the entry made in column 5 with the heading "post facto recognition". The said entry, as displayed by the respondents, presently reads "1995-2007-08". The purport of the said entry is that post facto recognition for the period 1995 onwards, upto 2007- 08 was granted in 2008. For sake of clarity and so that the students are not in any manner misled/confused, it is agreed that the said entry may read as "granted in 2008 since 1995, upto 2007-08".,, The petitioner is satisfied with the aforesaid change in the entry. The aforesaid change be carried within three days. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. Petition stands disposed of." In view of the aforesaid order, no further orders are required to be passed in this application. The application is disposed of. % HIMA KOHLI,J / NOVEMBER 21, 2011 rkb W.P.(C) 7435/2011 Page 2 of 2