Civil Writ Petition No.14311 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14311 of 2007 Date of decision: 28th April, 2008 Parminder Kaur … Petitioner Versus Guru Nanak Dev University and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. H.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Petitioner is aggrieved against the action of Guru Nanak Dev University, which has not finally approved her appointment as a lecturer in education in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College of Education, Patti, Amritsar made by managing committee of the college. University has found that the degree of M.Ed. obtained by the petitioner from Jammu University through distance education is not equivalent to the corresponding degree of M.Ed. granted by the respondent, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. By way of present writ petition, we have been called upon to say that since the petitioner has acquired UGC – NET exam and the degree of M.Ed. obtained by the petitioner from distance education Jammu University is recognized by Panjab University and Punjabi University, therefore respondent- Guru Nanak Dev University should also recognize the same and consequently petitioner’s selection as lecturer in the Civil Writ Petition No.14311 of 2007 2 respondent No.4 – College be approved. In the written statement filed in the preliminary objections, it has been stated as under: “2. That in order to consider the equivalence of the degree of M.Ed. obtained by the petitioner under Distance Education Programme from University of Jammu, the said degree was placed before the equivalence committee constituted by the Academic Council which as per Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar is responsible for over all maintenance of the education standard of the respondent university. The Academic Council considered the fact that the degree of the petitioner has been obtained under Distance Education Programme whereas the corresponding degree of the answering respondent University is being imparted only by a regular course and not under distance education programme. It is in this view of the matter that the degree obtained by the petitioner i.e. M.Ed (Distance Education Programme) was considered to be not equivalent to the corresponding degree of M.Ed. being granted by the answering respondent. There is no discrimination met out to the petitioner. In other case also where similarly situated persons like the petitioner who have obtained the degree from the university of Jammu under Distance Education Programme were placed before a meeting of the Academic Council held on 31.1.2006. The Academic Council did not approve the recognition of M.Ed. degree under the Distance Education Programme of University of Jammu as equivalent to the regular M.Ed. University of this University. Answering respondent is placing on record the speaking order passed in both the above referred cases wherein similar decisions have been taken by the answering respondent is attached as Annexure R-1/1 and R1/2 to this written statement. Still further it is submitted that the basis of the decision of the Academic Council is that under Distance Education Programme the courses are conducted are more or less like the corresponding programme. The students do not attend the classes regularly and are situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the University. Only study material is sent by the University to the students to prepare the same without Civil Writ Petition No.14311 of 2007 3 attending the regular classes with the University. On the other hand in case of regular degree, regular classes are being held and the teaching is by exclusive and extensive course of teaching. In view of the above, it is apparent that the degree possessed by the petitioner from university corresponding degree granted by the answering respondent university since the variance is writ large in respect of the general standard of method of teaching, number of classes, mode of imparting education and the contact with the University. The action of the answering respondents in passing the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal in view of the substantial reasons as dilated here in above.” Counsel for the respondent-university has also relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in Sunaina Verma v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others, CWP No. 10432 of 2007 decided on 01.11.2007 (Annexure R1/3), wherein it was held as under: “Even though, it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that in the Distant Education Programme undertaken by the petitioner, class level teaching was also imparted through qualified faculties of study centre, there is no material to show who are the faculty members and where the class level teaching was imparted. According to the affidavit of the Vice Chancellor, equivalence of personal contract programme and practical work was not established. In absence of adequate material, we are unable to hold that the finding recorded by the Vice Chancellor is perverse. On the material before the Court, it is not possible to give a clear finding that the petitioner was imparted studies in classes through qualified faculties. In these circumstances, we are unable to set aside the finding recorded by respondent No.1 University. We may also refer to recent judgment of the 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 Civil Writ Petition No.14311 of 2007 4 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 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. 20. The submission of the learned counsel that the UGC Regulations, 1985 provide for study centres of this nature cannot be countenanced. The UGC Regulations being a subordinate legislation must be read with the principal Act. The subordinate legislation will be ultra vires if it contravenes the provisions of the principal Act. (See Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India, 2006(12) SCC 753) A statutory authority, it is well known, must act within the four corners of the statute. A fortiori it has to operate within the boundaries of the territories within which it is to operate under the statute. Such territorial jurisdiction of the university must be maintained as otherwise chaos would be created. If distance education of such a nature is to be encouraged, the only course would be to suitably amend the provisions of the Act.” Civil Writ Petition No.14311 of 2007 5 In the present case, distance education course was conducted by Jammu University. Each University is autonomous. Academic Council of Guru Nanak Dev University has fixed its own parameters as how to treat degree of any other university equal to a degree awarded by the respondent-university. Syllabi, curriculum and method of teaching differ. Guru Nanak Dev University, if after due consideration and examination of the issue, is of the view that degree obtained by the petitioner without attending necessary classes, which according to Guru Nanak Dev University is necessary, cannot be approved, we in the writ petition cannot direct them to treat M.Ed. degree of the petitioner equivalent to a degree awarded by the respondent-university, especially when there are no allegations of mala fide leveled against any body. Consequently, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE April 28, 2008 rps