ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD.  versus RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS.
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 921, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 13 S.C.R.921 
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. 
v. 
RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870of2017) 
NOVEMBER 3, 2017 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
Technical education - Through distant education mode - Imparted 
A 
B 
by Deemed to be University - Respondent-employees acquired C 
Engineering degree through distance education mode, from Deemed 
to be Universities - Thereafter, filed Writ Petition seeking promotion 
on the basis of engineering degree - Plea of appellant-employer 
that the employees were not qualified for promotion as degrees 
acquired by them was from such institutions which were not approved D 
by AICTE and hence not recognized - High Court allowed the case 
of employees holding that service rules did not specify that 
qualifications obtained through distance education was not 
permissible and that the degree was required to be obtained fi'om 
the approved Universities of AICTE - On appeal, held: Decision as 
to whether subjects leading to degrees in engineering, could be 
taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive 
domain of AICTE - The Deemed to be universities in question had 
started the courses in Engineering through distance education mode 
without the approval of AICTE - IGNOU Act nowhere entitles 
IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of the entire field of distance 
education of learning across the country and in relation to 
programmes of other
Universities or institutions - Therefore, 
Distance Education Council (DEC) created u/s. 28 of IGNOU Act 
cannot act as a regulator for other Universities - Despite several 
policy guidelines that DEC alone was not entitled to grant 
permission for open distance learning, DEC went on granting G 
permission without consulting AICTE - Such exercise on part of 
DEC was without jurisdiction - Therefore, the permission granted 
E 
F 
by DEC in the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities 
in question to introduce courses leading to award of degrees in 
engineering were illegal and opposed to law - Such illegality could 
H 
921
922 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
not be cured by ex post facto approvals granted later - The grant of 
ex post facto approval were also superficial and perfimctory -
However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty 
to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post 
facto approval, the matter is considered with sympathy in the interest 
of students who were enrolled during the academic session 2001-
2005 - it would be appropriate to grant some chance to the 
concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities 
competent in thrit behalf' - Therefore, the degrees qf' such students 
shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the 
joint supervision of AJCTE-UGC - Degrees of students who were 
admitted after ex-post facto approval, shall stand recalled and be 
treated as cancelled - Direction to CBJ to carry out investigation 
as regards the conduct of the concerned officials who granted 
permission - UGC is directed to consider withdrawal of Deemed to 
be University status to the concerned institutions - UGC is also 
directed to stop the practice of using the word "University "by the 
Deemed to be Universities as this is opposed to the spirit of' s. 23 of 
UGC Act -- All lndia Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 -
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - s. 23 - lndira Gandhi 
National Open University Act, 1985 - s. 28 - All lndia Council for 
Technical Education (Grant of
Approval for Starting New Technical 
Institutions, Introduction of Courses or Programmes and Approval 
of Intake Capacity of Seats for Courses or Programmes) 
Regulations, 1994 - National Policy on Education. 1986 -
Guidelines for establishing new departments within the campus, 
setting up of off-campus centre(s)linstitutions(s)lqff-shore campus 
and starting distance education programmes by the Deemed to be 
universities, 2004 - Orissa Service Engineering Rules, 1941. 
'University' and Deemed to be University' - Distinction 
between - Discussed. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The definition of"Technical Education" in Section 
2(g) of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 
(AICTE Act) shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of 
education, research and training in Engineering Technology in 
general and the idea is not limited to the institutions where such 
programmes of education, research and training are to be
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
923 
PATRO & ORS. 
' 
conducted or imparted. However, the definition of "Technical A 
Institution" in Section 2(h) of AICTE Act leaves out an institution 
which is a University. The distinction between the broader 
concept of "Technical Education" and the limited scope of 
"Technical Institution" is clear from Section 10 of the AICTE 
Act where certain functions concern the broader facets or aspects 
B 
of technical education which by very nature must apply to every 
single institution (whether university or not) where such courses 
are conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functions 
are relatable to technical institutions alone, which by definition 
are not applicable to universities. [Para 36) [994-D-F) 
2. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is 
the sole repository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative 
norms for "technical education". What should be course content, 
what subjects be taught and what should be the length and 
duration of the cours~.s as well as the manner in which those 
courses be conducted is a part of the larger concept of "technical 
education". Any idea or innovation in that field is also a part of 
the concept of "technical education" and must, as a matter of 
principle, be in the exclusive domain of AICTE. [Para 36) [995-
B-C 
Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India 
Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8 
SCC 676 : [2001) 3 Suppl. SCR 253 -
referred to. 
3. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in 
Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as 
practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education 
which is hands-on approach involving actual application of 
principles taught in theory under the watchful eyes of 
Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge 
in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes. The 
practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the technical 
education system. If this established concept of imparting 
technical education as a qualitative norm is to be modified or 
altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance education 
learning, then as a concept the AICTE ought to have accepted it 
in clear terms. What parameters ought to be satisfied if the 
regular course of imparting technical education is in any way to 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
924 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 13 S.C.R. 
be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to decide. The decision 
must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely 
because of absence of any Guidelines in the matter. No such 
decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it 
has always maintained that courses leading to degrees in 
Engineering c::innot be undertaken through distance education 
mode. If according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught 
in distance education mode, that is the final word and is binding -
unless rectified in a manner known to law. [Para 38) )996-B-E) 
4. Even National Policy on Education while emphasizing 
the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes through 
distance education learning in technical and managerial education, 
laid down in Para 6.19 thatAICTE will be responsible for planning, 
formulation and maintenance of norms and standards including 
maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring coordinated 
and integrated development of technical and management 
education. Whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering, 
could be taught in distance education mode or not is within the 
exclusive domain of the AICTE. Therefore, without the 
Guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly 
permitting degree courses in Engineering through distance 
education mode, the Deemed to be Universities were not justified 
in introducing such courses. [Para 38) 
[996-F-H) 
5.
In the present cases, none of the Deemed to be 
Universities was conferred such status for its excellence in the 
field of Engineering. Their fields were completely un-related. 
As a matter of fact, two of the institutions in question did not 
even have regular college or faculty for Engineering at its main 
campus. And yet, they started courses in Engineering through 
distance education mode without the approval of AICTE, relying 
on the dictum in *Bharathidasan case. [Para 39) [997-H; 998-AJ 
6. 
The grant or empowerment in* Bharathidasan case in favour 
G of the University in question came from the State enactment which 
was its Charter. There is no such Charter or grant in favour of a 
Deemed to be University under any provision of the University 
Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act). All that the UGC Act 
does is to confer Deemed to be University status on an Institution 
H 
which has achieved excellence in its chosen field so that its
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
PATRO & ORS. 
development in the concerned field and its attempts to attain 
excellence and conduct research are not hampered on any count 
and at the same time it could be extended the facilities of Aid. It 
is precisely for this that the distinction between a regular 
University established under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a 
State Act and an Institution Deemed to be University is maintained 
in the UGC Act. A Deemed to be University can certainly award 
degrees but cannot use the word "University" by virtue of Section 
23 of the UGC Act. Even after conferral of such status it still 
continues to be "an Institution Deemed to be University" and if 
925 
A 
B 
it is equated with a University in every sense of the term, it would 
lead to incoherent and incongruous results, in that its area of C 
operation or the field of its activity would be completely unlimited 
and unregulated. That is certainly not the intent of the UGC Act. 
[Para 42) (999-B-E] 
Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India 
Council for Technical Education and Others (2001) 8 
SCC 676: (2001) 3 Suppl. SCR 253 - distinguished. 
7. Conceptually there is some difference between the status 
of a University established under a State law and that of a Deemed 
to be University. Normally, a University is established with an 
idea that particular areas or districts of the State need to be 
catered to. Such University is expected to satisfy the needs or
aspirations of people in the area for education and correspondingly 
empowered to initiate new courses, keeping in tune with the 
needs of time. The expectations from a Deemed to be University 
are of a different dimension. What is expected is excellence, 
research and advancement in its chosen field for which such status 
was accorded. There is no embargo on such Deemed to be 
University in entering new areas of education or introducing new 
courses but in that case, it can't demand or receive complete 
relaxation from regulatory regime. It must satisfy all those 
requirements which a normal institution is required to. A Deemed 
to be University which was conferred such status for its 
excellence in subjects which are completely unrelated to the field 
in which new courses are sought to be introduced, is still an 
institution of the stature of a "technical institution" and if it desires 
to introduce new courses, it must fulfill the requirements of 
AICTE (Grant of Approval for Starting New Technical Institutions, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
926 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 13 S.C.R. 
Introduction of Courses or programmes and Approval of Intake 
Capacity of Seats for Courses or Programmes) Regulations, 1994. 
A Deemed to be University which has achieved excellence in a 
particular field may be given deferential treatment but nonetheless 
it has to satisfy the requirements for new technical institution. 
Pertinently, two of the institutions concerned, while establishing 
their faculty 0r colleges in engineering at their main Campus 
sought approvals from AICTE. Further, even for introducing 
courses in management which come under the definition of 
technical education under the AJCTE Act, appropriate 
permissions were sought from AICTE. The Deemed to be 
Universities in the present case were required to abide by the 
provisions of 1994 AJCTE Regulations and could not introduce 
courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering without the 
approval of AJCTE. [Para 431 [999-E-H; 1000-A-Cj 
8. Para 3 of the Notification dated 22.11.1991 which 
constituted Distance Education Council (DEC) shows that there 
was no representation for any Member or representative of 
AICTE. The provisions of Indira Gandhi National Open 
University Act, 1985 
(JGNOU Act) show that the Study Centres 
as defined in the JGNOU Act are that of Indira Ganchi National 
Open University (IGNOU) and not of any other University or 
Institution. The concept of distance education under sub-clause 
(v) of Section j5 is also
in 
relation to the academic programmes 
of JGNOU. It undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), (xiii) 
and (xxiii) to co-operate with other Universities but the IGNOU 
Act nowhere entitles IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of 
the entire field of distance education oflearning across the Country 
and in relation to programmes of other Universities or Institutions 
as well. The Order dated 29.12.2012 issued by Ministry of Human 
Resources and Development (MHRD) therefore correctly 
appreciated that DEC created under statute 28 of JGNOU Act 
could not act as a regulator for other Universities. In any event 
of the matter, the policy Guidelines issued from time to time made 
it abundantly clear that DEC alone was not entitled to grant 
permission for open distance learning and appropriate 
permissions from the requisite authorities were always required 
and insisted upon. Despite such policy statements, DEC went on 
granting permissions without even consulting AICTE. Such
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
927 
PATRO & ORS. 
exercise on part of DEC was completely without jurisdiction. [Para A 
44] [ 1000-D-G I 
Annama/ai University v. Secretary to Government, 
Information and Tourism Department and Others (2009) 
4 SCC 590 : (2009] 3 SCR 355 - relied on. 
9. Therefore, the permissions granted by DEC in the first 
instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities in question to 
introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in engineering 
were illegal and opposed to Law. The illegality in the exercise of 
power was to such an extent that it could not be cured by ex post 
facto approvals granted later. The exercise of grant of ex post c 
facto approvals, as a matter of fact, was only superficial and 
perfunctory. Such exercise was done in the face of declared policy 
statements governing the field and even when specific complaints 
were received about concerned Deemed to be Universities. Yet, 
without causing any inspection such power was exercised which 
B 
D 
is suffering from illegality and infirmity. The only thing in favour 
of the concerned Deemed to be Universities is the fact that the 
Joint Committee of UGC - AICTE - DEC had endorsed the 
decision though such exercise was also completely flawed. That 
exercise was against Para 10 of the MoU dated 10.05.2007, which 
contemplated causing of inspections and the decision dated 
E 
11.05.2007 of the Joint Committee itself that for an Institution/ 
University to offer
distance education programmes it was 
mandatory to offer the same in face to face mode. [Para 45] (1001-
B-E] 
10. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-
F 
facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in 
normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such 
ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions 
to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect 
of Courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, 
since Guidelines for establishing new departments within the G 
campus, setting up of off-campus centre(s)/institutions(s)/off-
shore campus and starting distance education programmes by 
the Deemed to be universities, 2004 (2004 UGC Guidelines) 
themselves had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be 
Universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval, the matter is 
H
928 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUP~EME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest 
of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 
2001-2005 is protected. However, the fact" remains that the 
facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were never 
checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible 
at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be 
confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the concerned 
students. Therefore, it would be appropriate to grant some chance 
to the concerned students to have their ability tested by 
authorities competent in that behalf. It is, therefore, directed 
that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were 
enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand 
suspended till they pass such examination under the joint 
supervision of AICTE-UGC. [Para 46] [1001-E-H; 1002-A-C] 
ll. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from 
the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/ 
tests both in written examination as well as in practicals for the 
concerned students admitted during the academic sessions 2001-
2005 covering all the concerned subjects. It is entirely left to the 
discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may 
think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted 
in the National Institutes of Technology in respective States 
wherever the students are
located. The choice may be given to 
the students to appear at the examination which ideally should 
be conducted during May-June, 2018 or on such dates as AICTE 
may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the 
concerned students and if they do not pass the test/tests their 
degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. lf a particular student 
does not wish to appear in the test/tests, the entire money 
deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall 
be refunded to that student by the concerned Deemed to be 
University within a month of the exercise of such option. The 
students be given time till 15 .. of January, 2018 to exercise such 
G option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests in 
respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be 
recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 
31.03.2018. If they clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, 
all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the concerned 
H 
candidates. If the concerned candidates do not clear the test/
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
929 
PATRO & ORS. 
tests within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the A 
test/tests, their degrees in Engineering through distance 
education shall stand recalled and cancelled. Any promotion or 
advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also 
stand withdrawn, however any monetary benefits or advantages 
in that behalf shall not be recovered from them. [Para 471 [1002-
D-H; 1003-A) 
B 
12. As regards the students who were admitted after the 
ex-post-facto approval granted in favour of such Deemed to be 
Universities, there was no sanction whatsoever for their 
admission. The Policy Statements as well as warnings issued 
from time to time were absolutely clear. The students were C 
admitted on the strength either provisional recognition or on the 
strength of interim orders passed by the High Court. Therefore, 
it is declared that in respect of students admitted after the 
academic sessions of 2001-2005, the degrees in Engineering 
awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through D 
Distance Education Mode shall stand recalled and be treated as 
cancelled. Any benefit which a candidate has secured as a result 
of such degrees in Engineering in the nature of promotion or 
advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any 
monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary 
benefit or advantage will not be recovered by the concerned 
departments or employers. It is
further directed that the entire 
amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be 
Universities towards tuition fee and all other expenditure for such 
courses through distance education learning shall be returned 
by the concerned Deemed to be Universities to the respective 
students. [Para 481 [1003-B-EI 
13. On one hand, the authorities were proclaiming their 
policy statements and on the other, despite there being 
complaints, they went about granting permissions. Their conduct 
and approach is difficult to explain on any rational basis and leaves 
much to be desired. The conduct of the concerned officials needs 
to be looked into and investigated whether the exercise of power 
by them was completely genuine or colourable. CBI is directed 
to carry out thorough ·investigation into the matter and to take 
appropriate steps after culmination thereof. [Para 49) [1003-G-
H; 1004-AI 
E 
F 
G 
H
930 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
14. UGC is directed to consider whether the Deemed to be 
University status enjoyed by the concerned institutions, calls for 
any such withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf. If the 
concerned Deemed to be Universities fail to return the moneys 
to the concerned students as directed above, that factor shall 
also be taken into account while conducting such exercise. Many 
institutions which are conferred the status of Deemed to be 
Universities are using the word "University", which is opposed 
to the spirit of Section 23 of the UGC Act. The UGC shall take 
appropriate steps to stop such practice. [Paras 50 and 511 [1004-
D-F] 
15. The present case shows the extent of commercialization 
of education by some of the Deemed Universities. The 
commercialization of education seriously affects creditability of 
standards in education, eroding power and essence of knowledge 
and seriously affecting excellence and merit. The present case 
further displays lack of effective oversight and regulatory 
mechanism for the Deemed to be Universities. The UGC had 
completely failed to remedy the situation. Serious question has 
therefore arisen as to the manning of the UGC itself for its 
effective working. As the facilities at Study Centres were never 
checked nor any inspections were carried out which has led the 
Court to direct suspension of degrees for the students enrolled 
during academic sessions 2001-2005 and
annulment of degrees 
of students admitted after academic sessions of 2001-2005. There 
was complete and flagrant violation of norms and policies laid 
down by the authorities by the Deemed to be Universities. AlCTE 
F 
had been illegally kept out. Thus, interest of justice requires that 
the following issues also need to be addressed: (1) Action for 
failure of system, inter alia, on account of misconduct of some of 
the functionaries who failed to uphold the law and granted 
approvals contrary to the policy and the rules; (ii) Manning of 
the UGC; (iii) Appropriate oversight and regulatory mechanism 
G especially for distance education degrees especially those relating 
to technical education by the Deemed to be Universities in future; 
(iv) Review of the Deemed to be Universities status granted to 
the Deemed to be Universities in the past in the light of this 
Judgment and in the light of their working. The above issues 
H 
need immediate steps to be taken by the Union of India. Review
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
931 
PATRO & ORS. 
of oversight and regulatory mechanism is of utmost priority for A 
the future of technical and professional education at the hands of 
Deemed Universities. [Para 52] [1004-F-H; 1005-A-B] 
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others 
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2016) 7 SCC 
353; Mahipal Singh Rana. Advocate v. State of Uttar 
Pradesh (2016) 6 SCC 335; Satyabama Institute of 
Science & Technology v. Union of India 2006 (3) MRJ 
870; Association of Management of Private Colleges v. 
All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. (2013) 
8 SCC 271 : [2013] 6 SCR 1054 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253 
referred to 
Para 19 
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 253 
distinguished 
Para 42 
2006 (3) MRJ 870 
referred to 
Para 30 
[2013] 6 SCR 1054 
referred to 
Para 30 
[2009] 3 SCR 355 
relied on 
Para 45 
(2016) 1 sec 353 
referred to 
Para 52 
(2016) 6 sec 335 
referred to 
Para 52 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-
17870 OF 2017 
B 
c 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2010 in Writ Petition 
F 
(C) No. 3848 of2010 and Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2012 in 
Review Petition No. 58 of2012 of the High Court ofOrissa at 
Cuttack 
WITH 
CivilAppea!Nos.17871-17872, 17899-17900, 17897-17898, 17879-17880, 
G 
17895-17896, 17885-17886,17881-17882, 17883-17884, 17893-17894, 
17877-17878,17889-17890,17875-17876,17873-17874, 17887-17888, 
17891-17892, 17901
of2017 
H
932 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Civil Appeal Nos. 17902-17905 of2017 
WITH 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 17906, 17907, 17908, 17910, 17909, 17912, 
1791l,17913, 17915, 17916-17917, 17918, 17914, 17921, 17920, 17919, 
17926-17950, 17922, 17923,17924, 17925, 17951, 17952, 17953-17960 
of2017 
Contempt Petition (CJ Nos. 194-197 of 2016 in Special Leave 
Petition (CJ Nos. 35793-35796 of2012 
Maninder Singh, Tushar Mehta, A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASGs. Arnn 
C 
Bhardwaj, AAG, C. A. Sundaram, (A.C.), Rajuramachandran, Dr. Rajeev 
Dhawan, Sanjay R. Hegde, Mrs. V. Mohana, Nidhesh Gupta, M. L. 
Verma, Jayant Bhushan, V.K. Bali, Sr. Advs., Ms. Rohini Musa, 
Ms. Aakanksha Kaur, Zafar lnayat, Abhishek Gupta, Apoorv Tripathi, 
Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha Nandini V, Deepak 
Kanwar, Sudhir Kumar, S. Vijay Kanth, Ms. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, 
D 
Apoorv Kump, V.C. Shukla, Manoj R. Sinha, Ms. Vikas Singh Jangra, 
M. P. Gupta, Vijay Prakash, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Swarupma 
Chaturvedi, Shadman Ali, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Ms. Rukrnini Bobde, 
Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Vijay Kumar, Raj Bahadur Yadav, GS. Makker, 
Ms. Kirti Dua, Anmol Chandan, Ms. A. Chaturvedi, Ms. D. S. Mahra, 
E 
Umesh Ch. Mohanty, P.K. Pattanaik, Kumar Gaurav, Ms. Anil Kumar 
Tandale, Ms. Arjun Harkauli, Anil Soni, Ms. Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Raj 
Kumar Mehta, Ms. Himanshi Andley, Ms. Kedar Nath Tripathy, 
Ms. Gopal Singh, Vikas Singh Jangra, Nilotpal Sharma, Ms. Awanish 
Sinha, Himanshu Upadhaya, Shivam Tripathi,
Atul Kumar, R. C. Kaushik, 
Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Deepak Kanwar, Girjapati K, Sudhir Kumar, 
F 
Vinay Garg, Ashok K. Mahajan, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, A. Tewari, 
Ms. Eliza Bar, Shree Pal Singh, Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati, Rameshwar 
Prasad Goyal, Santosh Kumar - I, Apoorv Kump, V.C. Shukla, A.C. 
Boxipatro, Prabhas Bajaj, Vikas Singh Jhangra, Karan Bharihoke, Ronak 
Karanpuria,Ashish Pandey, Vishwa Pal Singh, Chandra Prakash, Rituraj 
G 
Biswas, Ms. Sujaya Bardhan, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, 
Mrs. Rani Mishra, Piyush Hans, Dr. Monika Gusain, Shekhar Raj Shanna, 
San jay Kumar Visen, N.M. Popli, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Jayant Sud, Kuldip 
Singh, Tarjit Singh Chikara, Satish Kumar, Gopal Singh, Ms. T. Mahipal, 
Rauf Rahim, Amit Kumar, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Kamal Mohan Gupta, 
Gaurav Shanna, Anubha Agrawal, Rakesh K. Shanna, Satyendra Kumar, 
H 
A. V. Rangam, S. L. Aneja, D. Bharathi Reddy, Rameshwar Prasad
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
933 
PATRO & ORS. 
Goyal, C. S. N. Mohan Rao, Balaji Srinivasan, Gagan Gupta, G Umapathy, 
A 
Rakesh K.Sharma, A. Leo G Rozario, Aditya Singh, Subhasish Bhowmick, 
Tanm Gupta, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Randhir Singh, Anuj Aggarwal, 
Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Ms. Pawan Kishore Singh, B. D. Vivek, P. N. 
Puri, Advs. for the appearing parties. 
Respondent-in-person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. !. Leave to appeal granted in all 
Special Leave Petitions. 
2. These are two groups ofappeals, one arising from the Judgment 
and Order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack while the 
other arising from the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 
at Chandigarh. Since the issues involved in these matters are same, both 
sets of matters are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 
3. The Directorate of Lift Irrigation in the Government ofOdisha 
was converted into Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (hereinafter 
referred to as the "OLIC"). The service conditions of Engineers including 
Junior Engineers which is the base cadre in the Engineering Wing of 
OLIC are governed byOrissa Service of Engineers' Rules, 1941 ("1941 
Rules" for short) as amended from time to time. Junior Engineers form 
the feeder cadre for promotion to the next level, namely, that of Assistant 
Engineers. Respondent No. l 1-Rabi Sankar Patro, a Diploma holder in 
Electrical Engineering, joined OLIC as Junior
Engineer (Electrical) and 
while in service, he acquired B.Tech (Civil) Degree from a Deemed to 
be University namely JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur, 
through Distance Education in the year 2009 and thereafter filed Writ 
Petition No.3848 of20l 0 in the High Court Orissa. According to him, he 
being an in-service graduate Engineer was entitled to be promoted as 
Assistant Engineer. Said writ petition was allowed without issuing notice 
to the respondents, placing reliance on an earlier order dated 14.12.2009 
passed by the High Court in OJC No.13251 of 2001 by which OLIC 
was directed to consider the case of the concerned candidates as in-
service graduate Engineers. OLIC being aggrieved, filed Review Petition 
No.58 of2012 which was dismissed by the High Court on 15.03.2012 
along with certain similar review petitions. The submissions recorded in 
'In the matter arising out ofSLP(C) No.19807-19808 of2012 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
934 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] l3 S.C.R. 
support of the review petitions in the order of the High Court were as 
under:-
"The argument advanced by Mr. Ashok Mohanty learned 
Sr. Counsel for the review petitioners that the opposite parties-
employees have acquired Degree Qualification of distance/ 
correspondence education course from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth 
which is not recognized by AICTE. Therefore, they are not 
qualifi(ld ................ Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Mohanty placed 
much reliance upon the letter issued by AICTE on 6'h October, 
2010 wherein the AICTE has categorically stated as under: 
"It has been the policy of the AICTE, not to recognize 
the qualifications acquired through distance education mode at 
Diploma, Bachelors & Master's level in the fields of Engineering 
Technology including Architecture, Town Planning, Pharmacy, 
Hotel Management & Catering Technology, Applied Arts & 
Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM). 
AICTE only recognizes MBA and MCA programme through 
distance mode." " 
The Review Petition was dismissed by the High Court, observing 
inter alia, 
".,..... Substantial number of persons have also acquired 
Engineering Degree through Universities providing Distance 
Education which are also Indian Universities. Further Clause ( d) 
of Rule 9 of the Rules, I 94 I does not specify that the qualifications 
obtained through distance education is not permissible & the 
Degree should be obtained from the
approved Universities of the 
AICTE." 
F 
4. Disposal of Review Petition and similar such petitions led to 
the filing of these appeals, by special leave, by OLIC. It is principally 
submitted by OL!C that the degrees in Engineering obtained by the 
concerned candidates by distance education from JRN Rajasthan 
Vidyapeeth University and similar Deemed to be Universities are not 
G 
recognized degrees and as such the concerned candidates cannot be 
said to be Graduate Engineers eligible for benefits under the concerned 
Rules. It is further submitted that in its Circular dated 09.08.2005 the 
University Grants Commission ("UGC" for short) had notified that JRN 
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur was neither permitted to 
affiliate any colleges or institutes nor allowed to conduct any course 
H 
through distance education.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
935 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
5. While issuing notice in the matters, All India Council ofTechnical 
A 
Education ("AICTE" for short) and UGC were added as party-
respondents, whereafter AICTE filed its counter affidavits. The matters 
were taken up on 11.12.2014 when the following Order was passed by 
this Court:-
"In the course of hearing of these cases we noticed that the 
B 
UGC even though impleaded as a party respondent had not filed 
any counter affidavit. We would have proceeded with the hearing 
even in the absence of a counter affidavit but for the fact that 
additional documents filed by Respondent No. I include several 
documents concerning the UGC some of them in the nature of 
letters, circulars and communications addressed to several other 
C 
authorities. It was in that backdrop that we required the personal 
presence of the Chairman of the UGC, Professor Ved Prakash 
who has appeared and broadly explained the UGC stand on the 
questions that fall for determination. According to Professor Ved 
Prakash the UGC recognises technical degrees by the distant 
D 
mode only if the University concerned awards such degrees after 
obtaining the permission of the AICTE for offering such degrees/ 
courses by distance education. Professor Ved Prakash further 
states that wherever the UGC notices that technical educational 
degrees are being awarded by deemed university without the 
approval of the AICTE, it can
and does take action against the 
defaulting university by reporting the matter to the Central 
Government who confers the status of deemed university on 
such institutions. When asked whether Professor Ved Prakash 
E 
can on affidavit state the above position, Prof. Prakash was 
more than willing to do so. Needless to say some of the counsel 
appearing in these cases were critical of the stand taken by the 
UGC and argued that the same was not the true position either on 
facts or in law. Be that as it may, we deem it just and proper to 
permit the UGC to file a detailed counter affidavit to this SLP 
which shall apart from answering other submissions made in the 
SLP elaborate on the following aspects: 
I) Whether the UGC recognises degrees in technical education 
by open and distance education mode. If so, subject to what 
conditions, if any. 
F 
G 
H
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 13 S.C.R. 
A 
2) If such degrees are recognised only when they are awarded 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
after obtaining the permission of the AICTE, what happens 
when the Universities award degrees without obtaining such 
permission. 
3) What action, if any, is the UGC empowered to take under the 
UGC Act or any other provision of law against the University 
awarding degrees without the approval of the AICTE and 
whether any such action has been taken in the past or is 
proposed to be taken against such Universities hereafter. 
4) Whether the Government of India have issued any instructions/ 
circulars regarding recognition of technical education degrees 
through ODL mode offered by the deemed or statutory 
universities. If so, what are these instructions/circulars and 
what is the action/steps to be taken in regard to the degrees 
awarded or status of such degrees as have already been 
issued before the issue of such instructions. 
5) How does UGC explain its stand in view of the documents 
filed by respondent No. l in I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 2014 in 
these petitions or those enclosed with the SLP or counter 
affidavit. 
6) Since the controversy relates to different deemed universities 
namely Vinayaka Mission's research Foundation, Salem, Tamil 
Nadu, JASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr Rajasthan, 
JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan and Allahabad, 
Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad, U.P. the proposed 
affidavit by Professor Ved Prakash
shall state whether the 
UGC recognises the degrees awarded by the said Universities 
by ODL mode even when the same are degrees in technical 
education including degrees that have already been awarded. 
We grant to Professor Ved Prakash, Chairman of the UGC 
four weeks' time to file the affidavit copy whereof shall be 
served upon learned counsel for the counsel opposite who 
shall have two weeks' time thereafter to file their response." 
6. Prof. Ved Prakash, Chairman, UGC, filed an affidavit on 
30.01.2015 dealing with the aforesaid questions. The subsequent Order 
dated 04.08.2015 of this Court was as under: 
"There are a large number of cases pending on the principal 
issue raised in SLP (C) Nos.19807-19808 of 2012 (Orissa Lift
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
937 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
Irrigation Corporation Ltd. & Ors.). Mr. Raju Ramachandran, 
A 
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 
submits that the principal issue is whether degrees given by some 
institutions/universities through distant education ought to be 
recognized by the employer. He submits that All India Council for 
Technical Education (AICTE) and University Grants Commission 
B 
(UGC) have taken the stand that such degrees in technical courses 
are not recognized by AICTE and therefore not recognized by 
UGCaswell. 
Mr. Raj iv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for UGC 
affirms that the UGC does not recognize the degrees. It is the 
submission of Mr. Raj iv Dutta, learned senior counsel that in a 
C 
meeting convened by the Ministry of Human Resource 
Development (MHRD) on 19th February, 2008 it was decided 
that the approval granted by Distant Education Council (including) 
must be reviewed and the approval should be granted to the courses 
and not to the Institute. 
D 
That being the position, we are of the opinion that the 
concerned Secretary in the MHRD should be impleaded as a party 
so that the stand of the Government oflndia is clear. 
Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel makes an 
oral request for impleadment of the concerned Secretary in the 
E 
MHRD as a party respondent. On his oral request, the concerned 
Secretary in the MHRD is impleaded as a
party respondent. 
Amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks." 
7. An affidavit has since then been filed on behalf of MHRD2• In 
the Order dated 26.04.2017 it was recorded:-
F 
" ......... Our attention was drawn to letter dated 03.12.2007 
addressed to UGC seeking ex post facto approval annexing a list 
of 295 courses run by the JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University 
under Distance Education system. 
From the record, it is not clear what type of expertise the 
said University has, for granting degrees for such large number 
of courses by distance education mode. It is also not clear as to 
what is the methodology followed for monitoring the standard of 
2 Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of Jndia 
G 
H
938 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
education imparted by its centres on the basis of which such 
professional degrees are granted. It is also not clear what type of 
infrastructure is available with the said University." 
8. Civil Writ Petition No.1640 of 2008 was filed by one Kartar 
Singh in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in public interest. Certain 
Deemed to be Universities, such as JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, 
Udaipur, Vinayak Mission Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu, !ASE 
Deemed University, Rajasthan were respondents in the petition. It was 
submitted that th~se Deemed to be Universities had set up "off campus 
centers" and "study centers" in violation of the Regulations framed by 
the UGC; that very same study center, at times was operating for more 
than one Deemed to be University; that these study centers completely 
lacked infrastructure and facilities for courses in Engineering and that 
the programmes through distance education mode were illegal and without 
approval. Appropriate reliefs were prayed for, including directions that 
degrees in Engineering obtained through distance education be declared 
to be invalid for the purposes of Government jobs in the State. 
This 
Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court vide its decision dated 
06.11.2012. Para 184 sums up the decision as under:-
" 184. In terms of the directions of the Commission, it was 
necessary for the Deemed to the Universities to seek approval 
from
AICTE. In view of the above, we hold that the Deemed to 
be Universities have started courses in technical education in 
violation of the guidelines, instructions, circulars and regulations 
framed by the Commission not only when they started such courses 
but also in establishing Study Centres outside their territorial limits 
and in subjects for which they were not granted Deemed to be 
university status. Therefore, degrees awarded by such Deemed 
to be Universities is an illegal act and such illegality cannot be 
removed or cured by the actions of either the Commission or 
DEC." 
9. The declaration invalidating the degrees in Engineering obtained 
G 
through distance education mode has been the subject matter of challenge 
by various students-candidates and institutions. Since the issues raised 
in those petitions are same as raised in matters arising out of the decision 
of the High Court of Orissa, these matters were taken up soon after the 
matters from Orissa. We are principally concerned in these cases only 
with courses leading to the degrees in Engineering through distance 
H 
education mode.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
939 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
10. Thus, the degrees in Engineering obtained by serving diploma 
A 
holders through Open Distance Learning mode offered by certain 
Deemed to be Universities through "off campus Study Centres" have 
been found valid entitling the concerned candidates to benefits available 
for any serving graduate engineers by the High Court of Orissa whereas 
the decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana is to the 
contrary. Considering the importance of the issues involved in the matters, 
this Court vide Order dated 04.05.2017 appointed Mr. C.A. Sundaram, 
learned Senior Advocate to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. 
11. It may be appropriate at this stage to quote Para 19 of the 
affidavit filed by Mr. Ved Prakash Chairman UGC:-
"It is pertinent to note that, while bringing the 2010 Deemed 
Universities Regulations to the notice of the general public, 
including vide public notice No.F.27-112012 (CPP-II), dated 
27.06.2013 [annexed and excerpted later in the instant affidavit], 
B 
c 
the UGC has also clarified that "the UGC has not granted approval 
to any institution Deemed to be university to establish Study 
D 
Centres." This is relevant because, firstly, Deemed to be university 
status is conferred on academic programmes in specific domains 
of knowledge. In this case, four Deemed to be universities were 
conferred that status to offer programmes in the following areas. 
S.No.
Deemed University 
Field of specialization for 
institutions Deemed to 
be 
Universities status 
l. 
JRN 
Rajasthan 
Social Work, Education, Arts 
Vidyapeeth, 
Udaipur, and Commerce 
Rajasthan 
2 
Institute of Advanced Education 
Studies in Education, 
Sardarshahr, Raiasthan 
3 
Allahabad Agricultural Agricultural 
Engineering 
Institute, 
Allahabad, Food 
& 
Nutrition 
Uttar Pradesh 
Biotechnology, 
Dairy 
Technologv 
4. 
Vinayaka 
Mission's Medical 
Science, 
Dental 
Research 
Foundation Science, 
Nursing, 
Salem, Tamil Nadu 
Engineering & Technology, 
Pharmacy, Pysiotherapy and 
Homoeooathv 
E 
F 
G 
H
940 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
Yet, three institutions- Deemed to be Universities (namely, 
JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan; IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, 
Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and Allahabad Agriculture Research 
Institute, Allahabad, U.P.) overstepped their mandate and started 
distance education programmes, including for award of B.E./ 
B. Tech degrees outside their field of specialization without UGC/ 
AICTE approval. 
Secondly, vi de letter dated 09 .08 .200 1 [annexed and excerpted 
later in the instant affidavit], the UGC has made it clear that 
franchising of education through private agencies/establishment 
is not permitted. In addition, the UGC, AICTE and DEC have 
issued a joint letter dated 13 .05 .2003 [annexed and excerpted later 
in the instant affidavit] to Vice-Chancellors/Heads oflnstitutions 
asking them to limit the system/programme of delivery of distance 
education of their institution to the neighbourhood of the location 
of their main campus or at the most within the State. And, as 
mentioned earlier, vide public notice dated 27.06.2013, the UGC 
has stated that institutions Deemed to be Universities can operate 
only within its headquarters or from those off campuses/off-shore 
campuses which are approved by the Government of India through 
notification published in the official gazette, though the UGC has 
not granted approval to any institutions Deemed to be Universities 
offered distance education mainly
through franchisee 
arrangements and Study Centres which are not established with 
the permission of the UGC." 
12. The aforesaid chart shows that the "Deemed to be University" 
status was conferred keeping in view the potential to offer academic 
programs in specific domains of knowledge. For example institutions at 
serial Nos. I and 2 in the aforesaid table had specialized in Social Work, 
Education, Arts and Commerce. However by virtue of their "Deemed 
to be University" status, these institutions thereafter started distance 
education programs in subjects or courses leading to award ofB.E. and 
B.Tech degrees which were not within their field of specialization. 
Whether the Deemed to be Universities concerned were within their 
rights to do so is the basic question. We, therefore, need to consider the 
statutory framework governing "Deemed to be Universities" and 
'Distance Education' more specifically in the field of technical education.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
941 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
13. "The University Grants Commission Act, 1956" (hereinafter 
A 
referred to as "the UGC Act") was enacted to make provisions for co-
ordination and determination of standards in universities and for that 
purpose, to establish University Grants Commission ("UGC for short"). 
Section 2(f) defines "University" to mean" ... a University established 
or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State 
Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the 
University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance 
with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act". Section 3 
contemplates conferral of"Deemed to be University" status upon certain 
institutions for higher studies other than universities. Section 12 delineates 
functions of the UGC while Section 13 deals with power of inspection 
for the purposes of ascertaining the financial needs of the university or 
its standards of teaching, education and research. 
Section 26 empowers the UGC to make regulations consistent 
with the Act and with the Rules made thereunder which include, inter 
B 
c 
alia:-
D 
"(f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the 
grant of any degree by any University; 
(g) Regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-
ordination of work or facilities in Universities." 
14. In the year 1985, the Indira Gandhi National Open University 
Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the IGNOU Act") was enacted 
to establish and incorporate Open University at the national level, for the 
introduction and promotion of distance education systems in the 
educational pattern of the country and for co-ordination and determination 
of standards in such systems. Section 2( e) defines "Distance Education 
System" to mean" .. the system of imparting education through any means 
of communication, such as broadcasting, telecasting, correspondence 
courses, seminars, contact programmes or the combinations of any two 
or more of such means". The definitions of "Study Centre" and the 
"University" are as under-
"Study Centre" means a centre established, maintained or 
recognized by the University forthe purpose ofadvising, counseling 
or for rendering any other assistance required by the students; 
E 
F 
G 
H
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
"University" means the Indira Gandhi National Open 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
University established under the Act." 
Study Centre referred to in the IGNOU Act is a centre established 
by IGNOU and not by any other University. Section 5 then deals with 
powers ofIGNOU and sub-Clauses (i), (iii) and (v) are:-
"(i) To provide for instruction in such braches of knowledge, 
technology, vocations and professions as the University may 
determine from time to time and to make provision for research; 
(iii) to hold examinations and confer degrees, diplomas, 
certificates or other academic distinctions or recognitions on 
persons who have pursued a course of study or conducted research 
in the manner laid down by the Statutes and Ordinances. 
(v) to determine the manner in which distance education in 
relation to the academic programmes of the University may be 
organized." 
Sub clause (v) speaks of 'distance education' in relation to the 
academic programme of IGNOU. Few other clauses of Section 5 
however refer to other universities and institutions of higher learning 
and they are:-
"(vii) to co-operate with, and seek the co-operation of, other 
universities and institutions of higher learning, professional bodies 
and organizations for such purposes as the University considers 
necessary; 
(xiii) to recognize examinations of, or periods of study 
(whether in full or part) at, other universities, institutions or other 
places of higher
learning as equivalent to examinations or periods 
of study in the University, and to withdraw such recognition at 
anytime; 
(xxiii) to recognize persons working in other universities, institutions 
or organizations as teachers of the University on such terms and 
conditions s may be laid down by the Ordinances" 
At this stage Clauses (i) and Ul of Section 24 of!GNOU Act also need 
to be noted. 
"Section 24 subject to provisions of this Act, the Statutes may 
provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
943 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
(i) The confennent of autonomous status on Colleges and Study 
A 
Centres; 
(j) the co-ordination and detennination of standards in the open 
University and distance education systems and the allocation and 
disbursement of grants to Colleges and other universities and 
institutions." 
15. Section 16 of IGNOU Act deals with authorities of the 
University and clause (7) deals with "such other authorities" as may be 
/ 
declared by the 'Statutes to be the authorities of the University. In 
pursuance of powers conferred under Section 16(7) read with Section 
B 
24 and 2•• Schedule to the IGNOU Act, Distance Education Council c 
("DEC", for short) was constituted vide Notification dated 22.11.1991. 
Para 3 of the Notification stated that DEC would consist of certain 
members including Secretary of UGC and a member to be nominated 
by the Chairman, UGC. However, there was nothing in this Para 
requiring any member or representative of AICTE (which by 1991 was 
a Statutory Authority) to be member of DEC. Para 4 dealt with powers 
D 
and functions of DEC and the relevant portion of said Para is to the 
following effect:-
"4. Powers and Functions of the Distance Education Council 
a) 
It shall be the general duty of the Distance Education Council 
E 
to take all such steps as are consistent with the provisions of 
this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances for the promotion 
of the open
university/distance education systems, its 
coordinated development, and the determination of its 
standards and in particular: 
(i) To develop a network of open universities/distance education 
institutions in the country in consultation with the State 
Governments, Universities and other concerned agencies; ....... . 
(viii) To take such steps as are necessary to ensure the coordinated 
development of the open university/distance education system in 
the country. 
(xiii) To advise State Governments, universities and other 
concerned agencies on their proposals to set up open universities 
or to introduce programmes of distance education;" 
F 
G 
H
944 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 13 S.C.R. 
16. The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 
(hereinafter referred to as the "AICTE Act") was enacted to provide 
for the establishment of AICTE with a view to proper planning and 
coordinated development of the technical education system throughout 
the country, the promotion of qualitative improvement of such education 
in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper 
maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system 
and for matters connected therewith. Terms "Technical Education", 
"Technical Institution" and "University" as defined in the AICTE Act 
are as under: 
"(g) "technical education" means programmes of education, 
research and training in engineering technology, architecture, town 
planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and 
such other programme or areas as the Central Government may, 
in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official 
Gazette, declare; 
(h) "technical institution" means an institution, not being a University, 
which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and 
shall include such other institutions as the Central Government 
may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official 
Gazette, declare as technical institutions; 
(i) "University" means a University defined under clause (f) of 
Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 
1956) and
includes an institution Deemed to be a University under 
Section 3 of that Act." 
17. Chapter II of the AICTE Act speaks of "Establishment of the 
Council", namely AICTE and Section I 0 deals with the "Powers and 
Functions of the Council". Section 10 is as under: 
"I 0. (I) It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as 
it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development 
of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the 
G 
purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council 
H 
may-
( a) undertake survey in the various fields of technical education, 
collect data on all related matters and make forecast of the 
needed growth and development in technical education;
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
945 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
(b) coordinate the development of technical education in the A 
country at all levels; 
( c) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council, such 
grants on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to-
(i) technical institutions, and 
(ii) Universities imparting technical education in 
coordination with the Commission; 
( d) promote innovations, research and development in established 
B 
and new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of 
new technologies to meet developmental requirements and 
C 
for overall improvement of educational processes; 
( e) formulate schemes for promoting technical education for 
women, handicapped and weaker sections of the society; 
( f) promote an effective link between technical education system 
and other relevant systems including research and D 
development organisations, industry and the community; 
(g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical 
institutions and Universities imparting technical education, 
incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing 
accountability; 
E 
(h) formulate schemes for the initial and in-service training of 
teachers and identify institutions or centres and set up new 
centres for offering staff development programmes including 
continuing education of teachers; 
(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical 
and instructional facilities, staff pattern,
staff qualifications, 
quality instructions, assessment and examinations; 
(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees; 
F 
(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for 
G 
introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation 
with the agencies concerned; 
(l) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter 
to any professional body or institution in the field of technical 
education conferring powers, rights and privileges on it for 
H
946 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
the promotion of such profession in its field including conduct 
of examinations and awarding of membership certificates; 
(m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions; 
(n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialization of 
technical education; 
( o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical 
institutions and Universities imparting technical education; 
(p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution; 
(q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses, 
C 
programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply 
with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated 
period of time and take such other steps as maybe necessary 
for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council; 
(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organisations, and to set 
D 
up new organisations to ensure effective discharge of the 
Council's responsibilities and to create positions of professional, 
technical and supporting staff based on requirements; 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types offering 
courses in technical education fit to receive grants; 
(t) advice the Commission for declaring any institution imparting 
technical education as a deemed University; 
(u) set up a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct 
evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis 
of guidelines, norms and
standards specified by it and to make 
recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission 
or to other bodies, regarding recognition or de-recognition of 
the institution or the programme; 
(v) perform such other functions as may be prescribed." 
18. UGC, DEC and AICTE as well as MHRD Government of 
India have issued various Notifications, Circulars and Guidelines touching 
upon the issues involved in the present cases, which may now be referred 
to: 
A. On 25.11.1985, UGC (the minimum standards of instructions 
for the grant of the first degree through formal education in the
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
947 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, 
A 
Commerce and Science) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter referred 
to as 1985 UGC Regulations) came into force which applied to 
every University including a Deemed to be University. The relevant 
portion of these Regulations are:-
"2(3). No student shall be eligible for the award of the first 
B 
degree unless he has successfully completed a three year 
course; this degree may be called the B.A./B.SC/B.Com. 
(General/Honors/Special) degree as the case may be .... 
3(1). Every University enrolling students for the 1" Degree 
Course shall ensure that the number of actual teaching days c 
does not go below 180 in an academic year. .... 
3(2). The total periods provided in the timetable shall not be 
less than 40 clock hours a week. The timetable on working 
days shall be so drawn up that physical facilities are adequately 
utilized and not used only for a few hours a day." 
D 
B. In 1986, National Policy on Education was published by 
Government oflndia, Part VI of which dealt with Technical and 
Management Education, Paras 6.6, 6.8 and 6.19 of the Policy 
were:-
"6.6. In view of the present rigid entry requirements to 
formal courses restricting the access of a large segment of 
people to technical and managerial education, programmes 
through a distance learning process, including use of the mass 
media will be offered.
Technical and management education 
programmes, including education in polytechnics, will also be 
on a flexible modular pattern based on credits, with provision 
for multi-point entry. A strong guidance and counseling service 
will be provided. 
6.8. Appropriate formal and non-formal programmes of 
technical education will be devised for the benefit of women, 
the economically and socially weaker sections, and the 
physically handicapped. 
6.19. The All India Council for Technical Education, which 
has been given statutory status, will be responsible for planning, 
formulation and maintenance of norms and standards, 
E 
F 
G 
H
948 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 13 S.C.R. 
accreditation, funding of priority areas, monitoring and 
evaluation, maintaining parity of certification and awards and 
ensuring the coordinated and integrated development of 
technical and management education. Mandatory periodic 
evaluation will be carried out by a duly constitutedAccreditation 
Board. The Council will be strengthened and it will function in 
a decen1ralized manner with greater involvement of State 
governments and technical institutions of good quality." 
C. The AICTE (Grant of Approval for starting new Technical 
Institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and approval 
of intake capacity of seats for courses or programmes) Regulations 
were issued in 1994 ( 1994 AICTE Regulations, for short). Clause 
4 of these Regulations was to the following effect-
"4.0 Requirement of Grant of Approval 
4.1 After the commencement of these regulations, 
a) No new Technical Institution or University Technical 
Department shall be started; or 
b) No course or programme shall be introduced by any 
Technical Institution, University including a Deemed University 
or University Department or College or; 
c) No Technical Institution, University or Deemed University 
or University Department or College shall continue to admit 
students for Degree or Diploma courses or programmes; 
d) No approved intake capacity of seats shall be increased or 
varied; 
Except with the approval of the Council." 
D.
On 01.03.1995, a notification was issued by Government of 
India to the following effect:-
"On the recommendation of the Board of Assessment 
for Education Qualifications, the Government of India has 
decided that all the qualifications awarded through Distance 
Education by the Universities established by an Act of 
Parliament or State Legislature, Institutions Deemed to be 
Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 and
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
949 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.) 
Institutions of National importance declared under an Act of A 
Parliament stand automatically recognized for the purpose of 
employment to posts and services under the Central 
Government, provided it has been approved by Distance 
Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University, K 
76, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 and wherever necessary 
B 
by All India Council for Technical Education, I.G. Sports 
Complex, LP. Estate, New Delhi-110 002." 
E. On 03.07.1997, DEC published Guidelines for Design, 
Development and Delivery of programmes/courses through 
distance mode. These were essentially dealing with distance c 
education as a concept without specifying the details or mechanism 
as to how and in what circumstances the concerned universities 
and institutions were expected to initiate courses in distance 
education. 
F. In 2004, UGC issued Guidelines for establishing new 
departments within the campus, setting up of off-campus centre( s )I D 
institution(s)/off-shore campus and starting distance education 
programmes by the Deemed to be universities, 2004 (2004 UGC 
Guidelines, for short). The terms institution, off-campus centre, 
off-shore campus and Study Centre were defined by these 
Guidelines as under:-
E 
"(a) "Institution" means an institution set up by the same 
management to impart studies in a specialized branch of study 
and registered under the same society or
trust under which the 
existing deemed university is registered. 
(b) "Off-campus centre" means a center of the university 
located outside its main campus (within or outside the State 
where the deemed university is located)' operated and 
maintained as its constituent unit by the resources of the 
university, having the centre's own compliment of facilities, 
faculty and staff. 
(c) "Off-shore Campus" means a campus of the university 
located outside the country, established and maintained as its 
constituent unit by the resources of the university having its 
own compliment of facilities, faculty and staff. 
F 
G 
H
950 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
( d) "Study Centre" means a centre established and maintained 
or recognized by the university for the purpose of advising, 
counseling or for rendering any other assistance required by 
the students used in the context of distance education." 
It was laid down that a Deemed to be University shall normally 
be authorized to operate within its own campus to conduct the authorized 
courses falling within the area of their specialization. However, in 
deserving case~, the Deemed to be University could start new 
departments within the university campus or start off-campus centre( s )/ 
institutions/off-shore campus(s) on selective basis with prior specific 
permission of the UGC in each and every individual case. The procedure 
in that behalf was laid down as under: 
"2. All Deemed to be universities intending to set-up new 
departments within their campus, off-campus centre(s) or an 
institution outside the main campus of the deemed university may 
apply as follows: 
2.1 The deemed university intending to open a new department 
in its campus or an off-campus center/ institution shall approach 
the University Grants Commission (UGC) at least six months 
prior to opening such center on a proforma prescribed for this 
purpose (Annexure-1). The deemed university desirous of 
starting the new off-campus center I institution or introducing 
a new course/ programme in a professional subject, shall comply 
with all
the requirements as required by statutory professional 
Councils and obtain their prior approval before approaching 
theUGC. 
2.2 The new Departments, new off-campus center/ institution 
shall be set up only after obtaining approval of the UGC and 
that of the concerned state Government where such a center 
is proposed to be established. The UGC shall cause spot visit/ 
verification of the proposed new departments, new off-campus 
center/institutions to verify its infrastructure facilities, 
programmes, faculty, financial viability, etc. before giving 
permission to start the centre. The report of the committee 
shall be considered by the Commission for its approval. 
2.3 An off-shore campus shall be set up only after due 
permission from the Government of India on the
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
951 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT,'J.] 
recommendations of the UGC and also that of the Government 
A 
of the host country" 
Paras 3.3, 3.4 and 3.8 were as under: 
"3.3 The off-campus centre/institution/off-shore campus shall 
conform to the relevant regulations/norms of the UGC and 
other statutory bodies concerned regarding minimum standards 
B 
of instruction, qualifications of teachers, merit-based admission 
of students on an all India basis and the fee structure etc. and 
shall have adequate number of qualified teachers. 
3.4 The new off-campus centre/institution/off-shore campus 
shall offer only those courses which are approved by the 
C 
appropriate bodies of the deemed university. If the course to 
be offered in the centre is in technical/professional subject, its 
academic programmes shall have to be approved by the 
concerned statutory professional council. 
3.8. The over-all performance of the off-campus centre/ D 
institution/off-shore campus shall be monitored annually, initially 
for three years, and subsequently after every five years by the 
UGC whose directions for management, academic development 
and improvement shall be binding. The UGC shall associate 
the nominee(s) of the concerned statutory professional council 
E 
in the monitoring process." 
Paras 4 and 5 dealt with Distance Education and Ex-Post-Facto 
Approval in following terms: 
"4. Distance Education: The Deemed to be University could 
offer
the distance education programmes only with the specific 
F 
approval of the Distance Education Council (DEC) and the 
University Grants Commission (UGC). As such, any Study 
Centre(s) can be opened only with the specific approval of 
Distance Education Council and UGC. 
5. Ex-Post-Facto Approval: The Deemed Universities shall 
G 
obtain the ex-post-facto approval of the GOI/UGC/DEC, 
whichever applicable within a period of six months in the 
following cases: 
I. 
Continuation of all the Departments opened in the campus 
of the Deemed Universities and off-campus Study H
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
Centre(s)/ institutions I offshore campus started without 
the prior approval of the UGC. 
B 
c 
D 
II 
Distance education programme(s)/Study Centre(s) started 
without the specific approval of the DEC/UGC." 
G. On 03.02.2004 DEC published an advertisement that it was 
mandatory for all Centres/Institutions/Directorates offering 
programmes through Distance Education mode to apply to DEC 
and obtain prior approval before starting any new Centres/ 
Institutions/Directorates of programme. It further stated that the 
Distance Education Centres/Institutions/Directorates already 
offering programmes through distance mode should submit their 
applications for approval of DEC in the prescribed format. 
H. A circular was issued by the UGC on 16.03.2004 directing 
Deemed to be Universities conducting courses through Distance 
Education mode to seek ex post facto approval for the courses 
conducted by such Deemed to be Universities. 
19. We have referred to the notifications, circulars and guidelines 
as were in existence and in force in 2004. The Deemed to be Universitieb 
in the present case had started their distance education programmes 
without taking any prior approval from any of the authorities including 
E 
UGC,AICTE or DEC. However, it appears that in terms of paragraphs 
4 and 5 of 2004 UGC Guidelines, the advertisement of DEC dated 
03.02.2004 and circular of UGC dated 16.03.2004, the concerned 
Deemed to be Universities
sought ex-post-facto approval for courses 
conducted by them through distance education mode. Before we deal 
with the facts leading to the consideration of such ex-post-facto approval, 
F 
an important development must be adverted to. On 24.09.2001 a decision 
was rendered by this Court in Bharathidasan University and Another 
v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others'. The 
appellant therein, created under Bharathidasan University Act with its 
area of operation over three districts in the State of Tamil Nadu had 
G 
commenced courses in Technological subjects in its own departments 
as an adjunct to the University without any approval of AICTE. A writ 
petition was filed by AICTE submitting that no such courses could be 
started without its prior approval. The plea was accepted by the High 
Cowt of Madras which view was challenged in this Court. While dealing 
H 
'(2001) s sec 676
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
953 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
with question whether prior approval of AICTE was required for a 
A 
"University" to start courses in technical education, this Court held that 
the definition of "Technical Institution" under the AICTE Act excludes 
a "University" and since the power of grant of approval for starting new 
"technical institution" and for introduction of new courses or programmes 
under Section IO(k) of the AICTE Act would not cover a "University" 
but only a technical institution, the appellant-university was within its 
rights to start such courses without the prior approval of the AICTE. 
20. Bharathidasan (supra) having laid down that prior approval 
of AICTE was not required for a University to start technical courses, 
the subsequent guidelines, notifications issued by the UGC, AICTE and 
B 
c 
the Government of India were framed in the light of said decision. The 
understanding entertained by all the authorities was that AICTE was not 
competent to deal with issues of prior approval in respect of 
"Universities" for technical courses and since the term "University" 
under the UGC Act includes Deemed to be Universities, AICTE has no 
power to deal with issues of prior approval for technical courses in respect 
D 
of Deemed to be Universities as well. 
21. We now tum to the aspect of consideration by the concerned 
authorities of request for grant of ex-post facto approval for courses in
Technology/Engineering conducted by Deemed to be Universities, 
namely, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan ('JRN' for short), Institute 
of Advanced Studies in Education, Rajasthan ('!ASE' for short), Allahabad 
Agricultural Institute, Allahabad(' AA!' for short) and Vinayaka Mission 
Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu ('VMRF' for short). None of these 
Deemed to be Universities had taken any prior permission from any of 
the authorities, namely, UGC, AICTE and DEC, nor had they even 
intimated at any juncture the fact that they were conducting such courses 
in Technology/Engineering through distance education mode. Pertinently, 
JRN, !ASE and AA! had no expertise or specialization in the fields of 
Technology/Engineering. None of these three Deemed to be Universities 
was having any regular Engineering college or Faculty in Technology/ 
Engineering at their own campus when they commenced courses in 
Technology/Engineering by distance education mode through Study 
Centres all over the Country. The facts stated hereinafter narrate how 
their applications for ex-post facto approval were dealt with and by way 
of illustration the facts pertaining to JRN, are dealt with in detail. 
E 
F 
G 
H
954 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A. On 10.05.2004 JRN sought approval of DEC for courses 
conducted by it under distance education. The information supplied 
in regard to technical courses leading to degrees in Engineering in 
various disciplines' show that details of 19 Study Centres with 
names of Coordinators and Counsellors were given. Said Co-
ordinators and Counsellors were common for all disciplines and 
courses. At the same time there was no Study Centre in the 
Slate of Orissa. 
B. On 27.07.2004, UGC asked JRN to submit a complete list of 
its off campus centres giving details of its courses/infrastructure 
within 21 days of the receipt of the letter failing which public 
notice would be issued that such degrees were not recognized by 
UGC. The relevant portion of the letter was to the following 
effect: 
"!.The Commission vide its letter of even number dated 5'" 
May, 2003 and subsequent reminders dated 6th August, 2003 
and 13'" October, 2003 had requested the Vidyapeeth to submit 
the details of its Study Centres. In response to that the 
Vidyapeeth vide its letter No.RVUNC/2004-2005/26 dated 2"" 
April, 2004 submitted a list of 517 centres, but did not furnish 
any details about the approval ofUGC, the statutory Councils 
and the concerned State Governments nor did the Vidyapeeth 
submit any information about the Infrastructural facilities, 
faculty 
etc. 
provided 
in 
these 
Centres
........................................................... . 
5. The Commission has been receiving a numberofcomplaints 
that Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is engaged in offering 
Undergraduate and Postgraduate level courses in various 
disciplines including Computer Science, Business Studies, Para-
medical Studies and Physiotherapy etc. through Study Centre(s) 
spread all over the country which do not have required 
infrastructure to maintain the standard of education. 
6. A warning was also issued to the Vidyapeeth vide this office 
letter of even number dated 11 '" June, 2004 that the degrees 
awarded in violation of the instructions contained in the 
'B.Tech (Computer Science), M.Tech (Computer Science) 
H 
B.Tech (Civil) and M.Tech (Civil)
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
955 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
Guidelines shall be regarded as unspecified and render the 
A 
Vidyapeeth to be punishable under relevant provisions of the 
UGC Act, 1956. 
' 
7. The Study Centre/off-campus centres in distance mode 
opened by Rajiisthan Vidyapeeth are without prior approval of 
UGC. 
B 
8. The Vidyapeeth is silent on furnishing the details of fulfilling 
the norms as laid down by the Distance Education Council nor 
has attached specific approval of Distance Education Council 
andUGC. 
9. It may be pointed out that unless the Vidyapeeth is fully 
C 
·prepared in terms of faculty and infrastructure laid down by 
the Statutory bodies, it would not be desirable to start any 
graduate and postgraduate level courses." 
C. In response to a query from Commissioner (Higher Education) 
Government of Gujarat, IGNOU informed vide its letter dated D 
03.08.2005 that DEC had not recognized JRN and AA! to offer 
Distance Education programmes anywhere in the Country as major 
deficiencies were found in their delivery system and self 
instructional materials. 
D. On 09.08.2005, a notice/circular was issued by UGC to the 
E 
following effect: 
"UNNERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION 
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG 
NEW DELHI - 110 002 
F-6-9/2004(CPP-I) 
9'' August, 2005 
F' 
Subject: Non-Recognition of Study Centres of Deemed 
Universities-(i) JRN Rajasthan Vtdyapeeth, Udaipur (ii) Allahabad 
G 
Agricultural Institute (AA!),
Allahabad & (iii) JASE Gandhi Vidya 
Mandir (JASE) (Deemed'University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan 
The University Grants Commission has been receiving a large 
number of letters from individuals and organizations seeking 
H
956 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
clarification about Study Centres of Deemed Universities 
particularly those associated with (i) Janardan Rai Nagar 
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur (ii) Allahabad 
Agricultural Institute (Deemed University), Allahabad (iii) Institute 
of Advanced Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir (JASE) 
(Deemed University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan. 
It is hereby informed that (i) Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan 
Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur (ii) Allahabad 
Agricultural Institute (Deemed University), Allahabad (iii) Institute 
of Advance Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir (JASE) 
(Deemed University), Sardarshahr, Rajasthan have been declared 
as Deemed to be Universities by the Government of India under 
Section3 of the UGCAct 1956. These Institutions are empowered 
to award degrees as specified by the UGC under Section 22 of 
the UGC Act 1956. 
However above three Deemed Universities have not been 
D 
permitted to affiliate a College/Institute. These Institutions have 
also not been allowed to conduct any course through Distance 
Education Study Centre so far, by the Distance Education Council/ 
UGC. 
Needless to mention that prior approval of Distance Education 
E 
Council, IGNOU Campus, New Delhi-ll 0 067 is also required 
for starting courses offered under Distance Education mode. 
F 
G 
It is for the information of all concerned that no Deemed to 
be University can start Study
Centres/franchises without the prior 
approval of UGC and that of State Government where the 
Centre(s) is/are proposed to be opened. Private franchising is 
not allowed. Moreover, for starting any UGC approved degree 
course through Distance mode, prior approval of the Distance 
Education Council is mandatory. 
Students are advised to keep these things in mind while getting 
admission in Deemed to be Universities. 
Publication Officer 
UGCWebsite 
(V.K. Jaiswal) 
Under Secretary 
Ph: 011-23235640 
H 
New Delhi"
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
957 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
E. On 30.08.2005 a communication was addressed by UGC to 
A 
JRN, the relevant portions of which were:-
" ........................ The Vidyapeeth has reportedly been running 
649 Study Centres/off campus centres under Distance Education 
mode without the approval of UGC/Statutory councils/State 
Government. The Distance Education Council (IGNOU, New 
B 
Delhi) has not recognized Rajasthan Vidyapeeth to offer Distance 
Education Programme anywhere in the country so far because 
major deficiencies have been found in the delivery system and 
self instructional materials. (Ref.IGNOU/DEC Jetter No.IG/PVC/ 
05 dated 3"' August, 2005). 
The Vidyapeeth may please ensure compliance of the following: 
I. 
AU off-campus centres/Extension Centres/Study 
Centres and Academic Centres offering distance 
education programmes of the Vidyapeeth running without 
c 
the approval of UGC and Distance Education Council 
D 
be closed down immediately. 
A list of such centres may also please be sent to UGC 
along-with the documentary evidence of closure of these 
centres. 
2. 
Awarding of X and XII certification be stopped 
E 
immediately and a public notice to this effect may be 
published in National Newspapers. 
3. 
An explanation/comments may also be furnished on 
complaint(s) regarding Study Centres particularly those 
operating in Gujarat." 
F 
F. A show-cause notice dated 27.10.2005 was thereafter
issued 
by UGC to JRN for non-adherence to UGC norms regarding Study 
Centres and an explanation was sought within 15 days failing 
which appropriate action could be taken by UGC. 
G. On 28.11.2005, All India Council for Technical Education 
G 
(AICTE) Grant of Approval for starting new technical institutions, 
introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of 
intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes and 
Extension of approval for the existing technical institutions and 
H
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
maintenance of norms and standards in Universities including 
Deemed to be Universities Regulations, 2005 (2005 AICTE 
Regulations, for short) were issued. Para 2.5 of the Regulations 
dealing with grant of approval was to the following effect:-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
"2.5 
Requirement of grant of approval 
( 1) No new technical institution of Government, Government 
Aided or Private (self financing) institution, whether affiliated 
or not affiliated to any University shall be started and no new 
courses or programs shall be introduced and no increase and/ 
or variation of intake in the existing Courses/Programmes shall 
be effected at all levels in the field of 'Technical Education' 
without obtaining prior approval of the Council. The Council 
may take Legal action against such defaulting Institution/ 
Society/Company/ Associated Individuals as the case may be 
for contravening provisions of this regulations by conducting 
courses/programmes in "Technical Education" without obtaining 
prior approval from AICTE. 
(2) No existing technical institution of Government, Government 
Aided or Private (self financing) institution whether affiliated 
or not affiliated to a University shall conduct any technical 
course/programme without prior approval of the Council. 
(3) No University including Deemed University shall conduct 
technical courses/programmes without ensuring maintenance 
of the norms and standards prescribed by AICTE. 
( 4) No
University, Board or any other body shall affiliate 
technical courses/programmes not approved by the AICTE. 
(5) No admission authority/body/institution shall admit students 
to a course/programme of technical education not approved 
by AICTE." 
H. On 05.01.2006 a circular was issued by DEC stating that the 
G 
programmes of JRN through Distance Mode were not approved 
by DEC. 
I.On 01.02.2006 a letter was addressed by JRN to UGC 
undertaking to close its Distance Education Programme but 
requesting UGC to grant one time specific approval insofar as 
H 
existing students in the programmes currently in operation.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
959 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
J.On 05.04.2006 a Notification was issued by MHRD, Government 
A 
of India in exercise of powers vested in the Central Government 
under Section 20( 1) ofUGC Act and under Section 20( I) of AICTE 
Act clarifying the role of the UGC and AICTE in maintaining 
standards of education in institutions notified as deemed to be 
universities. The relevant portion of the notification is as under: 
B 
"It is not a pre-requisite for an institution notified as a "Deemed 
to be University to obtain the approval of the AICTE, to start 
any programme in technical or management education leading 
to an award, including degrees in disciplines covered under the 
AICTE Act, 1987. However, institutions notified as 'Deemed 
to be University' are required to ensure the maintenance of C 
the minimum standards prescribed.by the AICTE for various 
courses that come under the jurisdiction of the said Council. It 
is expected that the institutions notified as 'Deemed to be 
University' maintain their standards of education higher than 
the minimum prescribed by the AICTE. 
D 
In accordance with provisions under Section 11 (1) of the AICTE 
Act, 1987, the AICTE may cause an inspection of the relevant 
departments of the institution declared as 'Deemed to be 
University" offering the courses that come under the 
jurisdiction of the AICTE Act, 1987 in order to ensure the 
E 
maintenance of standards by them" 
K.
The application preferred by JRN for ex-post facto approval 
was considered by UGC in its meeting dated 11.06.2006 and the 
Chairman was authorized to do the needful through appropriate 
mechanism. The Chairman, UGC accordingly constituted a two 
F 
members Committee with Legal Consultant, UGC, as Special 
Invitee. This Committee held meeting in the UGC office on 
30.06.2006 and interacted with representatives of JRN. The 
decision of the Committee was as under:-
"After examining all the aspects regarding one time ex-post-
G 
facto approval to Sri Janardan Rai N agar Raj as than 
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur for the students admitted in various Degree 
courses under Distance Education Mode from I" June, 200 I 
to 31" August, 2005 as also keeping in view the future of a 
large number of innocent students, the Committee 
H
960 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
recommended one-time ex-post-facto approval for the students 
admitted under the distance education mode by Sri Janardan 
Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur in Degree Courses 
from l" June, 2001 to 31" August, 2005 subject to strict 
compliance and fulfillment of the following conditions: 
1. The one time approval will cover students admitted between 
l" June, 2001 and 31" August, 2005 admitted in Degree courses 
under Distance Education Mode only subject to the condition 
that Sri Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur 
shall ensure that it has permission ofrelevant Statutory Bodies 
or Councils wherever necessary and shall maintain the norms 
and standards laid down by the relevant Statutory Bodies and 
Councils. 
2. Only such students shall be considered for regularization 
who fulfill the eligibility conditions, prevalent in other universities 
and prescribed by the statutory authorities for the courses they 
have been admitted. Non-eligible candidates shall be offered 
alternative courses according to their eligibility or the entire 
fee shall be refunded by the Vidyapeeth along with the 
compensation claimed ....................... " 
L. Thereafter, on 03.07.2006 UGC granted one time ex-post facto 
approval in respect of courses conducted by Distance Education 
Mode by JRN from 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2005. The conditions 
mentioned by the Committee in its recommendations dated 
30.06.2006
were incorporated in this communication. 
M. On 03.11.2006 a letter was addressed by the UGC to JRN 
that the conditions of approval as incorporated in the 
communication dated 03.07.2006 had not been complied with. It 
appears that on 29.12.2006 an Expert Committee was constituted 
by UGC to look into the documents/information received from 
JRN. 
N. On 04.02.2007 a public notice was issued jointly by AICTE, 
UGC and DEC. The notice stated as under: 
"It has come to the notice of the University Grants Commission 
(UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) 
and the Distance Education Council (DEC), that some
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
961 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
Universities, Institutions Deemed to be Universities and other 
A 
institutions are offering technical education programmes in the 
'distance mode' without the approval of the concerned Statutory 
Council. 
All Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities 
and other institutions are hereby cautioned that running such 
B 
programmes and giving misleading advertisements regarding 
unapproved 'distance mode courses and programmes of study, 
shall attract severe action under the provisions of applicable 
laws, including that of de-recognition and withdrawal of 
institutional approval; 
c 
It is hereby clarified, in the public interest that there are 
a number of courses or programmes of study leading to Degree/ 
Diploma or other awards in Engineering & Technology, 
Management, Computer Applications, Architecture & Town 
Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management & Catering 
Technology, Applied Arts and Crafts, etc. which have not been 
D 
approved by the appropriate Statutory Council for being 
conducted in the 'distance mode'. It is also reiterated that all 
courses or programmes of study in the 'distance mode' require 
the approval of DEC." 
E 
0. On 15.06.2007 JRN filed an application with DEC seeking 
approval to start 69 programmes in Distance Education from the 
Session 2007-2008. 
The letter stated that as directed by the 
UGC, JRN had stopped new admissions after August 2005.
The 
letter requested for ex-post facto approval for the programmes/ 
students between 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2005 and approval for 
F 
programmes proposed to be started from the Session 2007-2008. 
69 Programmes indicated in the application comprised of six 
programmes leading to the award of Bachelors Degree in 
Technology in the disciplines of Computer Science, Information 
Technology, Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical 
Engineering and Electronics/Tele- Communications. List of Study 
G 
Centres numbering 3 8 was also appended. 
P. A Visiting Committee constituted by the Chairman, DEC, had 
visited the main campus of JRN on 15.06.2007 itself. Some of 
the relevant portions from the report of the Visiting Committee 
are as under: 
H
962 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
" ........... The University has large infrastructure of Study 
Centres totaling 852. These Care located mostly in private 
institutions. It has also Study Centres at its headquarter. 
The details of facilities available at each Centre along with the 
list of equipments is given in Annexure - VIII. 
The university now proposes to reduce the number of Study 
Centre significantly and offer programmes through a network 
of 38 Study Centres only. (list enclosed)" 
After making above observations, the Committee made the 
following recommendations: 
· "Keeping in view the above facts the committee recommends 
that the request of the university for post facto approval may 
be favorably considered. It also submits that the request of 
the university for continuation of its programmes may be 
considered by DEC as per norms being adopted for institutional 
recognition." 
Q. In its meeting dated 01.08.2007 and 02.08.2007 the reports 
submitted by the Visiting Committee in respect of AA! (visit dates 
26'" and 27'" October, 2004), JRN (visit dates 15" and 16'" June, 
2007), VMRF (visit date 04.02.2007) and JASE (visit dates 3'' 
and 4'" September, 2004) were considered by the DEC. The 
minutes of the meeting of DEC were:-
"The Committee deliberated upon the recommendations of the 
visiting committees with respect to each institution and came 
up with the following recommendations: 
I. The above four institutions may
be given ex-post facto 
sanction till the academic session June-July 2007 only. 
2. These institutions should be communicated the deficiencies/ 
improvements identified by the visiting committees. 
3. For recognition of the institution from next academic calendar 
i.e. from June-July 2008 another visiting committee may be 
constituted by the Competent Authority to visit and submit 
a fresh report on the basis of which further decision on 
recognition may be taken."
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
963 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
The minutes further show that ex-post facto approval granted to 
A 
the aforesaid institutions was to be a one time measure and not to be 
treated as a precedent in future. 
22. At this stage, while ex-post facto approval sought by JRN, 
JASE, AA! and VMRF was under consideration, a Memorandum of 
Understanding was arrived at on 10.05.2007 among UGC, AICTE and 
B 
DEC to work in close co-operation in pursuit of excellence in technical 
and general education through distance and mixed mode in the country. 
Para I 0 of the Memorandum of Understanding was as under: 
"(10) The Joint Committee shall also evolve a mechanism for 
monitoring the existing institutions conducting courses/programmes c 
in 'distance and mixed mode' for ensuring maintenance ofnorms 
& standards provided UGC, AICTE and DEC. It will also cause 
inspections to existing institutions conducting technical and general 
education to courses/programmes through distant and mixed mode 
for the purpose of continuation/withdrawal of approval by AICTE 
in respect of technical institutions and UGC in respect of D 
Universities including Deemed to be Universities." 
This Joint Committee held several meetings and the decisions in 
some of them were as under:-
i) In the first meeting held on 11.05.2007, the Chairman stated 
E 
that a large number of distance education programmes were being 
offered for commercial purposes; that
there was deterioration of quality 
particularly in technical and professional programmes that were being 
offered through distance mode and the joint committee was expected to 
ensure quality of all distance education programmes in general and 
professional & technical programmes in particular. 
F 
The decision taken in the meeting included inter alia: 
"For any institution/university to offer distance education 
programmes, it is mandatory for them to offer the same 
programme in face to face mode. 
Study Centres should be managed by the institution and no 
franchising of any kind would be allowed." 
G 
ii) The recommendations made by the DEC on l" and 2"" of August 
2007 ratifying the recommendation of the Visiting Committee of DEC to 
H
964 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
grant ex-post facto approval to JRN, JASE, AAI and VMRF as mentioned 
hereinabove, were then placed before and accepted by this Joint 
Committee in its third meeting held on 07 .08.2007. The relevant minutes 
of the meeting were:-
"3. Institutions applied for ex-post facto approval. The Joint 
Committee accepted the recommendations of the Committee 
appointed by DEC. It accepted the recommendations of granting 
ex-post-facto approval to all the four institutions namely JRN 
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Allahabad Agriculture Institute Deemed 
University,Vinayaka Mission University, Punjab Technical 
University and !ASE Deemed University up to the current 
academic year i.e. 2007-08 and the suggestions made by the visiting 
Expert Committee should be made known to them which should 
be strictly adhered to. However, they need to apply for formal 
recognition to DEC for the next academic year." 
iii) In the fifth meeting held on 17.04.2008, convened on the 
requisition of AICTE, complaints against JASE and VMRF were 
discussed and it was decided to constitute Visiting Committees to review 
their programmes. 
iv) In the sixth meeting held on 28.07.2008, following decisions 
were taken:-
"(i) It was decided that the Chairman, Joint Committee will write 
to the Chairman, UGC and the Chairman, AICTE communicating 
that once the decision on approval is taken by the Joint Committee, 
it should be considered as approval
given by the UGC, AICTE 
and DEC and the same should not be referred to the respective 
Commission and Councils; otherwise the entire purpose of the 
Joint Committee will be defeated. 
(ii) Copies of all applications for approval of programmes in 
technical and professional areas will be sent to the AICTE and 
AICTE will send its recommendations to the Joint Committee for 
further processing. 
v) In the ninth meeting held on 05.08.2009, the stand taken by 
MHRD vide letter dated 29 .07 .20095 regarding withdrawal of 
permission given to institutions to conduct B.Tech/B.E. 
programmes through distance mode and to stop admissions to 
' Referred to in Para 23(xiii)
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
965 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
such programmes was noted. The unanimous decision was taken 
A 
that till such time the matter was resolved, the Joint Committee 
would not accord any approval to B.Tech/B.E. programmes. 
23. After the Joint Committee of UGC, AICTE and DEC had 
accepted the recommendations of DEC for granting ex-post facto 
approval to JRN, JASE, AA! and VMRF in its meeting held on 07.08.2007, 
B 
the further factual developments were as under:-
i) The formal approval was communicated by IGNOU to JRN in 
following terms vide its letter dated 29.08.2007 
"In connection with ex-post-facto recognition, we would like to 
convey that all programmes (that were approved by the statutory 
C 
bodies of your institute) are approved till date. As you have not 
been offering education through distance mode since 2005, all 
your programmes (approved by the statutory bodies of your 
institute) till 2005 happen to be approved by the DEC. 
However, for recognition of your institution for offering 
D 
programmes through distance mode from next academic year, 
i.e. from June-July, 2008, you are requested to submit fresh 
application in the prescribed format developed by DEC." 
ii) JRN thereafter applied to UGC for approval for academic 
Session 2007-08 submitting that "one time ex-post-facto approval" vide 
letter dated 03.07.2006 was already granted by UGC and that DEC had 
also granted ex-post-facto approval for
programmes offered by JRN 
through distance education mode till date. Thereafter, JRN addressed a 
communication to UGC on 02.09.2007 submitting compliance for final 
ex-post-facto approval in terms of approval dated 03.07.2006. 
iii) On 03.09.2007 DEC granted provisional recognition to JRN in 
respect of programmes offered through distance education mode for a 
period of one year from the date of its letter in following terms: 
"Dated 03.09.2007 
Sub.: Provisional Recognition 
Dear Sir, 
This has reference to your application to the Distance 
Education Council requesting for recognition of programmes 
offered through distance mode by your university. 
E 
F 
G 
H
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
We would like to inform you that your university has been 
granted provisional recognition foroffering programmes (approved 
by the statutory bodies ofyouruniversity) through distance mode 
for a period of one year w.e.f. the date of issue of this letter. 
However, for recognition of your institution for offering 
B 
programmes through distance mode in the next academic year 
i.e. from June-July, 2008, you are requested to submit a fresh 
application in the prescribed format developed by the DEC which 
may be downloaded from the DEC website: www.dec.ac.in. 
We would also like to inform you that the DEC has decided 
c 
not to insist on territorial jurisdiction to be followed by institutions 
in offering programmes through distance mode and on that matter 
universities should be governed by their own Acts and Statutes. 
D 
With regards 
Prof. L.S. Bhat 
Vice Chancellor 
Yours sincerely, 
Sd/-
(SWARAJ BASU) 
E 
Janaradan Rai Nagar Rajasthan 
Vidyapeeth (Deemed University) 
Pratap Nagar, Udaipur- 313 001, Rajasthan." 
iv) Having received provisional recognition for the academic year 
2007-2008 from DEC, JRN then applied to UGC on 13.09.2007 and on 
F 
13.11.2007 UGC sent a letter in reply to JRN as under: 
G 
H 
"UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION 
BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG 
NEW DELHI 110 002 
No.F.6.3(Centre)/2003 (CPP-I) November 13, 2007 
The Vice-Chancellor 
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth 
(Deemed University) 
Pratapnagar,
Udaipur-313 001 
(Rajasthan)
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
967 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
Subject: Courses under Distance mode -Regarding 
A 
Sir, 
With reference to your proposal on the subject cited above. I am 
directed to inform you that the Commission has noted that DEC, 
a statutory council in regular distance education, has already 
conveyed the approval (ex-post-facto as well provisional approval 
B 
for the year 2007-2008) to certain courses run by your University 
under distance mode based on the approval of the UGC-AICTE-
DEC joint committee. Therefore, no separate approval from UGC 
is required for the same. You are requested to send list of the 
courses (year-wise) run by the Deemed University under distance c 
mode as approved by the Joint Committee. 
This issues with the approval of Chairman, UGC. 
Yours faithfully 
(K.P. Singh) 
Joint Secretary" 
v) On 05.12.2007 JRN informed UGC that in view of the approval 
dated 29.08.2007 granted by DEC, JRN would be offering distance 
education programmes in the year 2007-08 as well. 
D 
vi) At a meeting held on 19.02.2008 wherein Secretary, Department 
E 
of Higher Education (Distance Learning Division), MHRD, Heads of 
UGC, AICTE & IGNOU and Joint Secretary (Distance Education) 
participated, it was decided that the approvals should be granted to the 
courses and not to the institute. The following decisions, were inter 
alia, taken in the meeting: 
F 
"e. In addition to existing agreement of AICTE for conduct of
MCA and MBA programs by distance mode, AICTE must 
also consider to agree to allow conduct of B. Tech. 
programmes through distance mode for Diploma holders in 
Engineering/Technology with work experience. Similarly, 
distance education programmes for !TI certificate holder, with 
G 
some work experience, leading to award of Diploma could 
be allowed and encouraged for their vertical academic 
mobility. 
f. The approvals should be granted to the courses and not to the 
institute. 
H
968 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
g. The approval, including the cases of granting of ex-post-facto 
approvals conveyed by the DEC, to Allahabad Agricultural 
Institute, Allahabad, Annamalai University, TN, !ASE 
Sardarshahr, Raj, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, 
Vinayaka Mission, Salem must be reviewed within the next 
month." 
vii) Though the decision was taken in the meeting of 19.02.2008 a 
Jetter was addressed only on 12.05.2008 by UGC to various institutions 
including JRN, AA!, AISE and VMRF as follows:-
"Sir, 
With reference to your proposal for ex-post-facto approval 
to the courses run under distance mode by the deemed university, 
I am directed to inform you that the Government of India, MHRD 
convened a meeting on 19" February, 2008 which was chaired by 
Secretary, Department of Higher Education. It was decided that 
the approval granted by Distance Education Council (including 
ex-post-facto) must be reviewed and the approval should be 
granted to the courses and not to the institute. Distance Education 
Counail has also been requested to give approval strictly as per 
the provisions contained in the MOU signed between UGC, 
AICTE and DEC. The relevant clause of the MOU is reproduced 
as under: 
"Based on the recommendations of Joint Committee, the 
letter of approval may be issued by the Joint Committee. The 
letter should explicitly state: This has the approval ofUGC, AICTE 
F 
and DEC. The letter should be jointly signed by
Secretary, UGC, 
Member Secretary, AICTE and Director, DEC." 
G 
H 
In view of the above mechanism and instructions issued by 
MHRD, you are advised to approach the Joint Committee through 
Distance Education Council, IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi. 
Yours faithfully 
(S.C.Chadha) 
Deputy Secretary"
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.) 
viii) In the meantime, on 08.05.2008 JRN sought approval for the 
year 2008-09 from DEC for its courses in distance education mode. 
Nine professional/technical programmes' leading to the award of degrees 
in engineering were listed in respect of which approval was sought. In 
Table 3.12 Programme-wise student enrolment in respect of said 
programmes was mentioned as 4142, 1258,3166, 1380,312, 1792,4216, 
516 and I 03 respectively; which in effect aggregated to 16885 for all 9 
courses put together. 
(ix) In the 447~ meeting of the UGC held on 21.05.2008 decision 
was taken in respect of report submitted by the Chairman, UGC as 
under: 
"I .02(a) to ratify the action taken on certain matters. 
(i) To report the decision by the Chairman, UGC regarding courses 
run under distance mode by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Deemed 
University, Udaipur, Rajasthan. 
969 
A 
B 
c 
The Commission ratified the action taken by the Chairman, UGC." 
D 
x) Various show-cause notices were thereafter issued by UGC 
on 26.06.2008 and 21.08.2008 regarding alleged violation of UGC 
Guidelines by concerned Deemed to be Universities but the record is 
not clear what further steps were taken and what decisions were arrived 
at. 
xi) On 27.06.2008, DEC issued a public notice titled "Recognition 
of degree/diploma/certificates for employment and recognition and 
distance education institutions" wherein it was clarified:-
"The provisional approval granted by DEC is not to be construed 
to be in lieu of the approval required by the Institutions from the AICTE 
in respect of the standards to be maintained for technical education 
programmes and from the UGC for offering any programme in leading 
to award of a degree which is at variance with the nomenclature of 
degrees mentioned in the UGC Regulations under Section 22 of the 
UGC Act, 1956." 
'Bachelor ofTechnology in (i) Mechanical Engineering; (ii) Chemical Engineering; · (iii) 
Electrical Engineering; (iv) Computer Science; (v) Information Technology; (vi) 
Electronics & Telecommunication; (vii) Civil Engineering; (viii) Electronics & 
Conununication Engineering; (ix) Bio-Informatics. 
E 
F 
G 
H
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
xii) On 08.10.2008 DEC granted approval to JRN for the academic 
year 2008-2.009. The relevant portion of the letter was as under:-
"This has reference to your letter No.JRNRVU/DEW/2008-2009/. 
811, dated 8 May, 2008 requesting Distance Education Council 
for continuation ofrecognition of your Institute for programmes 
B 
offered through distance mode for the year 2008-09. 
In this connection we would like to inform you that vide our letter 
No.F.No.DEC/Univ/State/07/5739, dated 3.9.2007, your 
University was accorded Provisional recognition for one academic 
year i.e. 2007-08 for programmes offered through distance mode. 
c 
Further, your proposal for grant of regular recognition of your 
University is under process. Meanwhile, your University has been 
granted continuation of provisional recognition till such time a 
visiting committee visits your Institute and submits its 
recommendation. 
D 
With regards 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Yours sincerely, 
Sd/-
(Manjulika Srivastava) 
Prof. L.S. Bhat, 
Vice Chancellor, 
Janaradan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth 
(Deeded University), Pratap Nagar, 
Udaipur-313001, Rajasthan" 
xiii) On 29.07.2009, MHRD wrote to Chairman DEC as under:-
"D.No.6-7/2008-DL 
Dear Prof. Pillai, 
The matter regarding recognition of B.Tech Degrees 
awarded by UGC recognised Universities through Distance 
Education Mode was examined in the Ministry. After a detailed 
examination of the subject matter referred above, the
following 
course of action has been approved at the highest level in the 
Ministry.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
971 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
(i) DEC should immediately withdraw pennission given to various 
A 
institutions to conduct B. Tech/B.E. Programmes through Distance 
Mode and no student should be admitted in the current year also. 
(ii) Those who have already been admitted will have to pass both 
practical and written examination as may be prescribed in this 
regard so as to give validity to the B.Tech/B.E. degree acquired 
B 
by them through distance education. 
In view of the above, I would request you kindly to take further 
necessary steps to implement the action mentioned at para (i) 
above immediately and also further evolve a broad policy and 
guidelines to give effect to the action as mentioned at para (ii) c 
above. This being a very important and sensitive issue, an early 
action in the matter will be highly appreciated. 
Yours sincerely, 
Sci/-
D 
Prof. V. N. Rajasekharan Pillai, 
Vice Chancellor & Chairman, DEC, 
Indira Gandhi National Open University, 
Maidan Garhi, NewDelhi-110068." 
(N. K. Sinha) 
xiv) Soon after the aforesaid letter, DEC informed JRN on 
13.08.2009 as under:-
"Dear Sir/Madam 
This has reference to the MHRD letter No.D.O.No.6-7/2009-
D.L. Dated 29,. July, 2009 vide which MHRD has directed the 
DEC to immediately withdraw permission given to various 
institutions to conduct B.Tech/BE programmes through distance 
mode and also ensure that no students are admitted in the current 
year.
In this connection the Joint Committee ofUGC-AICTE and DEC 
has not yet accorded any approval to B.E./B.Tech programme of 
any University offered through distance mode. Any such 
programmes offered by a University are hence illegal and are not 
approved by the DEC. 
E 
F 
G 
H
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
Thus it is notified that the above notification of the MHRD is to 
be strictly adhered to and no University should offer any B.E./ 
B. Tech programme through distance mode. Any deviation from 
this policy may invite de-recognition of the concerned University 
by the DEC. 
B 
With regards, 
Yours sincerely, 
Sci/-
(Manjulika Srivastava) 
C 
To 
The Vice Chancellor, 
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, 
Airport Road, Pratap Nagar, 
D 
Udaipur-313001 
Rajasthan." 
xv) On 21.05.2010, the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be 
Universities) Regulations, 2010( hereinafter referred to as ''2010 UGC 
Regulations") were issued consolidating Guidelines issued from time to 
E 
time in respect of factors to be taken in consideration before granting 
the status of Deemed to be University. Regulation 2.14 which defined 
statutory body includes interalia AICTE and Regulation 8.02 prescribes 
that the Institution Deemed to be University shall submit a certificate 
and an undertaking that the professional programmes being conducted 
F 
G 
H 
by it, if any, have the approval of the relevant statutory/regulatory body. 
Regulation 12 deals with "new departments, off campuses and off shore 
campuses" and Regulation 12.11 is as under:-
"12.11. The off-Campus Centre/Off-shore Campus shall be 
directly administered by the parent institution deemed to be 
university in matters ofadmission, instruction, evaluation, conferring 
of degrees, etc. In case of
the off-shore Campus, lease in the 
name of the institution Deemed to be university may be acceptable 
(as per the procedure of the country in which such off-shore 
campus is proposed to be established). In case lease is not
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
973 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
permissible in any particular country, land and other assets in the 
A 
name of a Strategic Partner shall be accepted. For this, the 
institution Deemed to be university shall have a duly registered 
MoU/collaboration with the Strategic Partner which shall be 
governed in accordance with the law for the time being in force, 
in India." 
Further, Regula ti on 18 was as under:-
"18.0 DISTANCE EDUCATION 
B 
No institution Deemed to be university, so declared by the Central 
Government subsequent to these Regulations, shall be allowed to 
conduct courses in the Distance mode. Also, such institutions 
C 
declared as such, prior to these Regulations, shall not be allowed 
to conduct courses in the Distance mode from any of its off-
Campus Centre /off-shore Campus approved subsequent to these 
Regulations." 
xvi) On 23.09.2011, JRN requested DEC for continuation of its 
D 
provisional recognition which was granted vide letter dated 08.10.2008. 
In response, DEC replied,:-
"In this regard, I am to inform that the competent authority 
has acceded to your request for continuation of provisional 
recognition conveyed by DEC vide letter No.F.DEC/JRN/RJ/08/ 
E 
14236 dated 08.10.2008 in order to ensure continuity of the 
programmes offered by your University through distance mode, 
till the date ,of visit/approval ofrecommendations of the Visiting 
Expert Committee. 
Further, it is the
responsibility of the University to follow the norms 
prescribed by the concerned regulatory bodies and seek their 
approval for professional/technical programmes as per the 
requirement. Thus getting the approval of concerned statutory 
apex body for relevant progaramme(s) will be the sole responsibility 
of the University." 
xvii) On 29.12.2012 an order was issued by MHRD as under:-
"In view of the recommendations of the Madhava Menon 
Committee Report and Government's decision thereon, the 
F 
G 
H
974 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] l3 S.C.R. 
Distance Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open 
University (IGNOU) created under Statute 28 of the IGNOU 
Act cannot act as a regulator for other Universities as it creates 
conflict of interest. The Distance Education Council and the Board 
of Management of IGNOU have already passed resolution to 
repeal the Statute 28 and dissolve DEC under IGNOU. Therefore, 
the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by 
sub section 1 of section 20 of the UGC 1956 and theAICTEAct, 
1987 hereby directs:-
(i) The UGC and AICTE as already empowered under their 
respective Acts, would also act as a regulator for Higher 
Education (excluding Technical Education) and Technical 
Education through open & Distance Learning (ODL) mode 
respectively Universities are empowered under their respective 
Act to offer any programme course including in Technical 
Education in the conventional mode. However if they offer 
any programme/course in ODL mode they would require 
recognition from the UGC, AICTE, NCTE and other such 
regulators of the conventional mode of education in those areas 
of study ...... " 
xviii) On 01.05.2013, IGNOU dissolved DEC and regulatory 
functions of"Open and Distance Leaming Education" were taken over 
by UGC, whereafter a notification was issued by UGC on 17.06.2013 
that till it formulated Regulations for maintaining standards in Open and 
Distance Leaming systems/courses, the UGC
would adopt the Guidelines 
of the DEC on minimum requirements for recognition oflnstitutions. 
xix) On 27.06.2013 a public notice was issued by UGC stating 
that Deemed to be Universities were not allowed to take courses in 
distance education mode. The relevant portion of public notice was to 
the following effect:-
" A Deemed University shall operate only within its Headquarters 
or from those off campuses/off-shore campuses which are 
approved by the Government of India through notification published 
in the official gazette. 
In case of distance education programmes, no institution Deemed 
to be university, so declared by the Govt. oflndia after 26" May, 
2010 [date of publication of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
975 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
Universities) Regulations, 20IO] is allowed to conduct courses in 
A 
the distance mode. 
The institutions Deemed to be universities declared before 26'" 
May, 20 l 0 are not allowed to conduct courses in distance mode 
from any of its off-campus centres/off-shore campuses approved 
after 26'" May, 20 IO. 
B 
Approval for new courses and extension of approval of the courses 
already run by the Deemed to be Universities under distance mode 
would be granted by the UGC subjectto the fulfillment of conditions 
as laid down by the UGC. 
The UGC has not granted approval to any Deemed to be university 
C 
to establish Study Centres. 
Any information/clarification with regard to recognition of Private 
Universities/Deemed Universities and the courses offered by them 
may be obtained from JS (CPP-I) UGC. Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, 
New Delhi." 
D 
xx) Despite the aforesaid policy statements that no Deemed to be 
University was allowed to take technical courses in distance education 
mode, JRN again requested UGC to grant approval in terms of the earlier 
report of the Committee and when no response was received from UGC, 
Civil Writ Petition No.13900of2013 was filed by JRN in the High Court 
E 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in which following order was 
passed by the High Court on 26.11.2013:-
"Issue notice. Notice be also issued on the stay application. Rule 
is made returnable on
16.12.2013. 
In the meantime, the respondents shall not de-recognize the 
courses run provisionally under the "distance education mode." 
F 
xxi) On 26.12.2014 JRN submitted further proposal to Distance 
Education Bureau ofUGC for starting new courses in distance education 
mode from academic session 2015-20I 6. Soon thereafter, on 28.02.2015 
another letter was written by JRN to UGC to grant continuation of G 
recognition to JRN for the academic session 2015-2016. According to 
JRN, a further letter in reminder was sent on 17.06.2015 and when no 
response was received from UGC, JRN filed Civil Writ Petition No.8832 
of2015 in the High Court ofJudicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the 
following order was passed by the High Court on 17.11.2015. 
H
976 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 13 S.C.R. 
" .......... At this stage, Mr. Singhvi, Learned Senior Counsel, has 
argued that some interim protection be granted to the petitioner, 
which is a deemed university and involved in imparting education 
through distance mode since 200 I of the approved programmed 
ofUGC. Mr. Singhvi further submits that although there was an 
interim protection by this Court not to take any coercive action 
against the petitioner-University and not to de-recognize the 
courses run by it, the respondent-UGC has issued communication 
(Annex. 36) wherein the petitioner University has not been 
mentioned to impart education through distance mode. 
Considering the fact that petitioner-University is involved in 
imparting education by distance mode since 200 I and there is 
interim protection granted to the University, the respondent-UGC 
is directed to provisionally include the name of the petitioner-
deemed University in the list of the Universities, which are allowed 
to offer the approved programmed through distance mode for the 
Academic Session 2015-16. 
It is made clear that this interim arrangement shall not create 
any right or equity in favour of the petitioner-University and shall 
remain subject to the final decision of the writ petition. It is further 
clarified that UGC shall be free to carry out the requisite inspection 
for verifying the requisite infrastructure available with the 
petitioner-University for imparting
education through distance 
mode. 
Stay petition is disposed off." 
xxii) On 12.04.2016 JRN submitted further proposal seeking 
F 
recognition for programmes offered by it through distance education 
mode during the academic session 2016-2017. According to JRN, there 
being no response from UGC, JRN filed Writ Petition No. I 0310of2016 
in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpurto include name 
of JRN in the list of recognized Universities in the academic year 2016-
G 
2017 and following order was passed by the High Court on 15.09.2016:-
H 
"Issue notice to the respondent No.I only. Issue notice of 
stay petition as well and be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the 
petitioner for service.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
977 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.) 
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeks some 
A 
more time to file reply to the writ petition. Time prayed for is 
granted. 
In the meantime, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to 
provisionally include name of petitioner-Deemed University in the 
list of universities, which are allowed to offer the approved 
B 
programme for Distance Education mode for the Academic 
Sessions 2016-2017. 
Put up on 20.10.2016 along with S.B. Civil Writ Petition 
Nos.5531/2015, 13900/2013, 5194/2014, 7419/2015 and 8832/ 
2015." 
c 
24. In the aforementioned backdrop of facts leading to the ex-
post-facto approvals granted to JRN, !ASE, AA! and VMRF and the 
subsequent facts, the stand of the authorities as taken in their affidavits 
may now be adverted to. We have already quoted paragraph 19 of the 
affidavit of Mr. Ved Prakash, Chairman, UGC. Since the stand of the 
D 
UGC in the present matter is quite crucial, the relevant portions of the 
affidavit starting from paragraphs 7 to 10 and 12 to 18 in relation to the 
first question posed by this Court in its Order dated 11.12.2014 are 
extracted as under:-
"7. Whether the UGC recognizes degrees in technical E 
education by open and distant education mode. If so, subject 
to what conditions, if any. 
8. It is humbly submitted that the UGC used to consider the grant 
of approval to programmes conducted by institutions Deemed to 
be
Universities for awarding B.E./B. Tech. degrees through ODL 
mode. The conditions for granting such UGC approval to ODL 
programmes conducted by institutions Deemed to be Universities 
for awarding B.E./B. Tech. degrees are described below. 
F 
9. After the MHRD issued a notification dated 01.03.1995 (no.44, 
F.No.18-15/93-TD.V/TS.IV.) making it mandatory to obtain G 
approval for ODL qualifications from the DEC and, wherever 
necessary, from the AICTE, for employment with the Central 
Government, the UGC required the approval of AICTE wherever 
necessary for programmes conducted by institutions Deemed to 
H
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
be Universities leading to the award of B.E./B.Tech degrees 
through ODL mode, as an imperative for the validity of such 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
programmes .............. . 
l 0. Then, in 2004, the UGC framed "Guidelines for Establishing 
New Departments within the Campus, setting up of Off-campus 
Centre(s)/Institution(s)/Off-shore Campus and Starting Distance 
Education Programmes by the Deemed Universities" [the "2004 
UGC Guidelines"]. These guidelines were framed in keeping 
with the UGC's mandate to maintain the standard of teaching and 
research in universities and stipulated, ......... . 
12. Thus, even as per the 2004 UGC Guidelines, the institutions 
Deemed to be Universities were required to have the approval of 
the AICTE, in addition to that of the UGC/DEC, for programmes 
leading to the award ofB.E./B.Tech. degrees through ODL mode. 
13 ......... Here, it may be briefly noted that the DEC had granted 
such ex-post facto approval because, as per the MHRD's gazette 
notification No.44, dated 01.03.1995, qualifications were required 
to have mandatory approval of the DEC and, wherever necessary, 
AICTE to be valid for Central Government jobs. However, since 
the DEC started giving such approvals in 2004-5 and the proper 
mechanism could be put in place only in 2007, most universities/ 
institutions were not recognized by the DEC though many 
universities were offering programmes through correspondence 
and distance
mode even before the establishment of the DEC (or 
its policy for giving recognitions). As a result, many students who 
had obtained their qualifications through distance mode started 
facing problems because of non-recognition of their qualifications, 
including many who were in employment for years. Therefore, in 
order to safeguard the interest of these students, the DEC started 
the process of ex-post facto approvals and, consequently, many 
universities offering programmes through distance mode (including 
technical programmes) were accorded ex-post facto approval. 
However, the universities concerned were required to follow the 
norms of the appropriate regulatory bodies and seek their approval 
wherever required.) 
14. It is pertinent to note that the Joint Committee referred to in 
the aforesaid letter dated 12.05 .2008 was formed pursuant to an
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
MoU dated 10.05.2007 between UGC, AICTE and DEC. The 
MoU was "aimed to avoid duplication of efforts in streamlining of 
activities" between the three bodies who had "mutually agreed to 
l) carry out various functions ofUGC & AICTE mandated under 
the Acts, as decided by the UGC and AICTE from time to time 
jointly with Distance Education Council to ensure coordinated and 
integrated development and maintenance of norms and standards 
of technical and general education through distance and mixed 
mode in any form and format in the country .... " The Joint 
Committee was "to oversee the implementation of MoU and to 
design action plan for approval and monitoring of institutions 
offering technical programmes through distance and mixed mode" 
and applications for approval of programmes in distance and mixed 
mode in the field of technical and general education were to be 
submitted to the Secretary to the Joint Committee ....... . 
979 
A 
B 
c 
15. Therefore, since the AICTE was a member of the Joint 
Committee, the UGC considered approval from the Joint Committee 
D 
as tantamount to approval from AICTE as well. As such, the 
aforesaid Jetter dated 12.05.2008 from the UGC actually nullified 
an earlier decision to accept the recommendation to grant ex-
pos! facto approval to JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth and other 
institutions Deemed to be universities taken at the third meeting 
of the Joint
Committee ofUGC-AICTE. DEC held on 17.08.2007 
as well as a letter dated 13.11.2007 issued by the UGC which 
stated that, in light of the DEC's approval, "no separate approval 
from UGC is required" by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth for courses 
under distance education mode. 
16. It is also pertinent to note that, subsequent to the UGC's letter 
dated 12.05.2008, the Joint Committee ofUGC-AICTE-DEC; or 
UGC independently, did not accord any approval to these 
institutions Deemed to be Universities for starting programmes 
leading to the award of degrees in technical education through 
ODL mode. Therefore, till date, the deemed universities, namely, 
JRNVidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan; Vinayaka Mission's Research 
Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu; !ASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, 
Sardarshahr, Rajasthan; and Allahabad Agriculture Research 
Institute, Allahabad, U.P. have not been accorded the UGC's 
approval for their ODL programmes leading to the award ofB.E./ 
B. Tech. degrees. 
E 
F 
G 
H
980 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
17. In any event, vide letter dated 29.07.2009, the MHRD had 
informed the erstwhile DEC that the latter "should immediately 
withdraw permission given to various institutions to conduct 
B.Tech/B.E. Programmes through Distance Mode and no student 
should be admitted in the current year also. Those who have 
already been admitted wiU have to pass both practical and written 
examination as may be prescribed in this regard, so as to give 
validity to the B. Tech/B.E. degree acquired by them through 
distance education." Accordingly, the erstwhile DEC had issued 
a letter dated 13.08.2009 stating that "the Joint Committee ofUGC-
AICTE and DEC has not yet accorded any approval to BE/B. Tech 
programme of any University offered through distance mode. Any 
such programmes offered by a University are hence illegal and 
are not approved by the DEC. Thus it is notified that the above 
notification of the MHRD is to be strictly adhered to and no 
University should offer any BE/B. Tech programme through 
distance mode. Any deviation from this policy may invite de-
recognition of the concerned University by the DEC." 
18. Thereafter, in 2010, the UGC framed the UGC (Institutions 
Deemed to be Universities) Regulations (the "2010 Deemed 
Universities Regulations"). As per Regulation 18.0 therein. 
"No institution Deemed to be university, so declared by 
the central Government subsequent to these Regulations, shall 
be
allowed to conduct courses in the Distance mode. Also 
such institutions declared as such, prior to these Regulations, 
shall not be allowed to conduct courses in the Distance mode 
from any ofits off-Campus Centre/Off-shore Campus approved 
subsequent to these Regulations." 
25. The AICTE in its affidavit in reply referred to its Regulations 
and Guidelines. Adverting to the decision in Bharathidasan (supra), it 
was submitted that after said decision, 
" ...... only the "Technical Institutions" other than University were 
required to have prior approval of the AICTE. However, the 
universities which applied for approval of the AICTE on their 
own, were considered for grant of approval as per norms and 
standards of AICTE in force. At this stage, it is necessary to 
clarify that the study centers and campuses of universities which
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
981 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
were not the constituent units of the universities, were required to 
A 
have prior approval of the Council for conducting any technical 
course or programme .... " 
Further, reference was made to notification dated 05.04.2006 
issued by MHRD, which inter alia dealt with the issues concerning 
maintenance or standards of education in institutions notified as Deemed 
B 
to be universities. The affidavit further stated that: 
"That it is respectfully submitted that it has been the policy 
of AICTE not to recognize qualification acquired through Distance 
Education mode at Diploma, Bachelors and Master level in the 
fields of Engineering, Technology and Architecture, Town Planning, c 
Pharmacy, Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Applied 
Arts and Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management 
(PGDM). AICTE has the policy to consideronly MBAand MCA 
through Distance Mode for its recognition. In these circumstances, 
the AICTE has been issuing public notices from time to time 
informing the public and students regarding the above and 
D 
specifically informing all the existing students/prospective students 
pursuing/wanted to pursue any educational programme in the above 
mentioned fields to check the approval by Joint Committee of 
DEC, UGC and AICTE on AICTE's web-portal at www.aicte-
india.org.. It is respectfully submitted that AICTE has given 
E 
various public notices in
different newspapers regarding its 
aforesaid policy from time to time as per AICTE Act. 
F 
That it is submitted that in view of the position explained 
hereinabove, the conduct of a technical course through distance 
education mode other than a course in MBA and MCA is not 
permissible. Thus, any technical course conducted by the technical 
institutions including the institution Deemed to be university 
concerned through distance education mode, except a course in 
MBA and MCA, is contrary to the policy of the AICTE. Hence, 
degrees or diplomas in technical course through distance education 
mode other than a course in MBA and MCA awarded by the 
G 
technical institutions including the institution Deemed to be 
university cannot be treated valid degree or diploma. 
That it is submitted that in the present matter, the Private 
Respondent has obtained degree in Engineering from JRN 
H
982 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 13 S.C.R. 
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, an institution Deemed to be University, 
through Distance Education Mode and through study centers which 
is not permissible as per the policy of the A!CTE. Thus, such 
degree in Engineering awarded by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, 
an institution Deemed to be university, through distance mode is 
not valid." 
26. DEC having been dissolved in May 2013, we do not have its 
stand on record but the stand ofMHRD in its affidavit is to the following 
effect: 
"VIL I further submit that upto year 2007 Distance Education 
Council (DEC) used to give recognition to institution offering 
general courses in the distance mode but during that year, Distance 
Education Council (DEC) also started giving recognition to such 
institutions to conduct technical programmes under the distance 
mode. This was in contradiction to policy adopted by AICTE 
which makes it mandatory to conduct technical programmes 
through the regular (Conventional) mode of education. This 
created confusion amongst the stakeholders which gave unfair 
advantage to unscrupulous institutions conducting such courses in 
the distance mode. Accordingly, a Tripartite Committee ofUGC-
AICTE-DEC was constituted through an MOU in May, 2007 for 
a limited period of three years. 
VIII. In the meantime, on 19.02.2008 a meeting of Secretary, 
Department of Higher Education, MHRD was held with the 
Heads of UGC, AICTE, IGNOU and Joint Secretary (DL)
to 
discuss the issue of co-ordination and maintenance of standards 
in Higher Education through distance. In the said meeting, it was 
inter alia decided that the approvals should be granted to the 
courses and no to the institute. However, all those aforesaid 
arrangements did not live to the expectations." 
27. The stand taken by the Deemed to be Universities in their 
G 
respective affidavits and the documents on record is as under:-
H 
A. JRN was founded in the year 193 7, was conferred Deemed to 
be University status in January 1987 and is principally engaged in 
teaching and research in the field of adult and continuing education 
for working people. Following averments made in paragraphs 22 
and 23 of its affidavit are noteworthy:-
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
983 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
"22. That after permission from DEC the University started 
A 
the Distance Education programmes through its Study Centres 
as per the guidelines prescribed by the DEC and UGC. ON 
26"' October2002 the Academic Council of the University took 
the decision to start the Engineering Courses (in all branches) 
amongst others through Distance Education Mode from 
academic year 2003 onwards. 
23. The Faculty of Engineering and Technology of the University 
in the year 2003 when the University started it's Engineering 
Courses through distance education mode. Since the University 
did not conduct any course through foll time mode the University 
did not seek any approval from AICTE and the same was not 
mandatory in view of this Judgment of the Hon'ble Court in 
Bharathidasan 's case as well as provisions of the AICTE Act 
that does not envisage University seeking any approval from 
the AICTE to offer technical programs. Further as 
communicated it also did not consider Technical programs 
under distance education program mode for approval, which 
was later held to be contrary to national policy." 
As regards, its activities in the field of technical education at its 
main campus, it is averred:-
"(i) The Institute of Management Studies has been granted 
approval by the AICTE for the Masters in Business Admission 
program (Full Time) from the year 1998-99 onwards and 
granted extension till
current academic session. 
(ii) The Department of Computer Science and Information 
Technology has been granted approval by the AICTE for 
conducting the Master in Computer Application (Full time) 
from the Academic Year 2003-04 onwards granted extension 
till current academic session. 
(iii) The Faculty of Engineering and Technology has been granted 
approval by the AICTE for conducting the under graduate 
courses in Engineering and Technology [Electronics and 
Communication Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer 
Science Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Electrical 
Engineering] (Full time) from the Academic Year 2010-11 
onwards and granted extension till current academic session. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
984 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 13 S.C.R. 
(iv) The Rajasthan Vidyapeeth Technology College has been 
granted approval by the AICTE for conducting the Diploma 
in Engineering and Technology (Electronics and 
Communication Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer 
Science & Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and 
Electrical Engineering) Master in Computer Application (Full 
time) from the Academic Year 2012-13 onwards and granted 
extension till current academic session." 
After dealing with factual details leading to the ex-post-facto 
approvals by UGC and DEC, JRN submitted that no approval from 
AlCTE was required for a Deemed to be University. However despite 
order dated 26.04.2017 passed by this Court, nothing was placed on 
record as to what type of infrastmcture is available with JRN and what 
was the methodology followed for monitoring standard of education 
imparted in its Study Centres. In response to queries from the Court, it 
was submitted across the bar that JRN was conducting distance education 
D 
programmes through 660 Study Centres out of which four centres were 
being maintained and managed by JRN while 656 centres were 
autonomous institutions. Though Study Centres would in turn employ 
demonstrators/lecturers, they were not on the payroll of JRN but course 
material would be provided by JRN. Further, though Faculty in 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Engineering was set up in the year 2003 there was no regular Engineering 
College at the main campus of JRN and
said Faculty received AICTE 
approval to conduct regular four year degree courses in Engineering 
only from the year 2010 and at Study Centres no regular four year degree 
courses in Engineering were being conducted but students having 
diplomas in engineering would be given lateral entry at second year level. 
B. !ASE submitted an application on 19.12.2002 with DEC for 
starting distance education programme, copy of which was also sent to 
UGC. According to !ASE, since there was neither any denial nor any 
objection from these authorities, it started conducting B.Tech programmes 
through distance education mode in 2003. It is stated that !ASE stopped 
B. Tech courses from the year 2005 through distance education mode 
though it continues to conduct diploma courses in engineering through 
dist3nce mode. It is further stated that its regular Engineering College 
started functioning at main campus from 2005 after getting recognition 
from AICTE. Like JRN, JASE has also not placed on record any 
material regarding infrastmcture and methodology for monitoring standard 
of education in its Study Centres.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
C. The stand ofVMRF is that it conducts only diploma courses 
through distance education mode and it does not grant any degree in 
professional courses through distance education mode. It however 
submitted that it is on par with State Universities and therefore entitled 
to conduct distance education programmes across the Country. 
28. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that 
the ex-post-facto approvals for their degree courses in Engineering were 
sought by JRN and !ASE only in the year 2005 when they had already 
begun their courses two to three years earlier. No inspection of their 
facilities or infrastructure available at the site was conducted by any 
authority and the only inspection that was done was confined to checking 
the documents. Any approval granted without any inspection, satisfaction 
and recommendation of the AICTE was meaningless. According to 
him, even assuming that the principle laid down by this Court in 
Bharthidasan (supra) was to apply to Deemed to be Universities as 
well, the UGC guidelines themselves required the application to be in 
terms of specifications of AICTE and therefore even if one were to 
accept that satisfaction of AICTE was not required under the AICTE 
Act, the UGC guidelines did contemplate the same. In his submission, 
the Deemed to be Universities in question admitted students, conducted 
courses and granted degrees without
any statutory approvals and in the 
teeth of numerous public notices. In the face of such blatant misuse, the 
grant of ex-post-facto approvals was not called for. In his note the learned 
Amicus Curiae submitted:-
"The further issue that arises is as to whether in technical education 
and other specialized fields, the non-involvement of technical I 
specialized body is permissible or advisable. There is a difference 
between open distance learning in general fields and those in 
specialized fileds. While in Bharathidasan (supra), this Court 
has held that the AICTE has no power of granting approvals to 
Universities, it nonetheless recognizes the significant role played 
by the AICTE as a recommendatory I advisory body. This would 
necessarily mean that before any approvals are given, AICTE 
recommendation for grant of such approval ought to be obtained. 
An approval granted without an inspection, satisfaction and 
recommendation of the AICTE is itself meaningless. Therefore, 
while the judgment in Bharathidasan (supra) has excluded the 
requirement of approvals fromAICTE, the approval of a university 
985 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
986 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
or course cannot be granted without the recommendation and 
satisfaction of all relevant competent bodies. In other words, in 
the case of distance learning education for general courses, the 
approval of UGC and IGNOU are required and in the case of 
specialized technical courses, the satisfaction and recommendation 
of AICTE or such other specialized body would be additionally 
~ailed for." 
29. UGC in its Written Submissions submitted:-
a) 1985 UGC Regulations did not include education programmes 
in technical subjects leading to award of B.E. or B .Tech. degrees. 
b) In Bharathidasan (supra), this Court was not concerned with 
the question of regulatory framework of Open Distance Learning. 
c) 2004 UGC Guidelines required submission of information 
whether the existing and proposed course curriculum was as per UGC/ 
AICTE/DEC specifications and approval/accredited by concerned 
statutory council. Thus there was a specific role of AICTE in respect 
of technical courses through distance learning. 
d) Taking advantage of Notification of MHRD dated 01.03.1995, 
the DEC started giving approvals without any proper mechanism in place 
and since its approvals were not getting recognized, it mooted the idea 
of ex-post-facto approval. But stand of UGC was clear in letter dated 
12.05.2008 that approvals granted by DEC (including ex-post-facto) must 
be reviewed and approval be granted to the courses and not to the
institute. 
e) After 12 .05 .2008, neither the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-
F 
DEC nor UGC independently accorded any approval to JRN, IASE, 
VMRF and AAI for their distance learning programmes leading to the 
award of B.E./B. Tech. degrees. 
f) In any case, letter dated 29.07.2009 of MHRD was clear that 
DEC should withdraw permissions granted for conducting B. Tech/B.E. 
G 
programmes through distance learning. This was followed by UGC 
letter dated 13.08.2009. 
H 
The specific submission was:-
" It is humbly submitted that so far as UGC is concerned, 
B.E./B.Tech. degrees awarded by institutions Deemed to be
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
987 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
Universities through ODL mode without AICTE approval wiJJ 
A 
not be treated as valid qualifications by the UGC. 
The UGC has never given any ex-post-facto approval to 
the aforesaid institutions which are "deemed universities" including 
JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, although the erstwhile DEC has given 
such approval to many universities/deemed universities including 
B 
JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth. 
The ex-post-facto approval relied upon by the petitioner JRN 
Rajasthan were not unconditional but were subject to approval of 
relevant statutory bodies or councils [which can only mean bodies 
like AICTE and such other similar regulatory bodies] wherever c 
necessary." 
30. In its written submissions, JRN submitted: 
l) 1985 UGC Regulations applied and covered degrees in 
Engineering as weJJ, since Engineering is an applied branch of science. 
2) JRN was granted permission by DEC to commence distance 
education programmes on 26.09.2001 pursuant to its application dated 
17.08.2001 and in its Hand-book issued in May, 2003 by DEC, JRN was 
included in the list along with details of courses offered by it. 
D 
3) It applied for ex-post-facto approval pursuant to DEC 
E 
advertisement dated 03.03.2004, providing details of the Faculty of 
Engineering and other details as per proforma. 
4) From 31.08.2005 to 2007 no fresh admissions were made in 
distance education. 
5) UGC granted ex-post-facto
approval of 03.07.2006 for students 
F 
admitted between June 200 I to August, 2005 which decision was later 
ratified by the Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC and ex-post-
facto approval was accorded on 29.08.2007. 
6) In respect of academic session after 2007, provisional 
recognition was granted by DEC on 08.10.2008. 
G 
7) JRN did not take any admissions in Engineering Courses from 
31.08.2009 till I l.10.2011 in view ofletter dated 26.08.2009 issued by 
DEC. 
H
988 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 13 S.C.R. 
8) It also referred to interim orders passed by High Court of 
Judicature at Rajasthan which are referred to hereinabove in respect of 
subsequent academic years. 
9) JRN was declared to be a Deemed to be University for its 
experience and expertise in the field of admission and continuing 
education, and its expertise in a System of methodology of education/ 
learning and not in a particular subject or discipline. 
10) It commenced its courses in Engineering through distance 
education mode in the year 2003 for people who were already employed 
in technical fields and had previous technical qualifications but could not 
apply further due to various restraints. 
11) It established Faculty of Engineering although there is no 
perquisite for a university to have a full time faculty in a particular subject 
to start its course through distance education mode and there were no 
circulars/notices issued by any statutory body prohibiting a University to 
offer distance education courses in Engineering stream. 
12) A Deemed to be University is not confined to a state or region 
like university created by state legislatures and it can open Off-Centres/ 
Campus Centres in any part of India with the approval ofUGC. Similarly, 
Study Centres for distance education can be established and maintained 
or recognized in any part oflndia for the assistance of students enrolled 
in distance learning programmes. 
13) It gave a list
of 18 Deemed to be Universities having Off 
Campus Centres in various parts of the country including three such 
Deemed to be Universities having Off Shore Campus outside the country. 
14) It then referred to judgment of this Court in Bharathidasan 
F 
(supra) in support of the submission that Universities do not require any 
approval from AICTE for conducting technical courses. It also relied 
upon the judgment of Madras High Court in Satyabama lnstitllte of 
Science & Technology v. Union of India' which held that Universities 
including Deemed to be Universities could start a department or 
commence new courses or programmes in technical education without 
G 
approval of AICTE. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Delhi 
High Court in Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology 
and Sciences v. University Grants Commission' to the effect that 
7 2006 (3) MRJ 870 
H 
'W.P. (C) 486/2015 decided on 4.12.2015
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.) 
there was no restriction on a Deemed to be University to start new 
course or department until UGC Regulations of 20 JO were issued. 
Further reliance was placed on Association of Management of Private 
Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.' to the 
effect that universities, its colleges and institutes were exempted from 
seeking prior approval of AICTE. 
31. Appearing for JRN, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior 
Advocate submitted that in terms of the decisions of this Court in 
Bharathidasan (supra) and Association of Management of Private 
Colleges (supra) no operational control could be exercised by AICTE 
over Universities including Deemed to be Universities. However some 
sort of cooperation was certainly envisaged in Bharathidasan (supra) 
which was purely in the nature of advisory role for AICTE. He further 
submitted that power of a Deemed to be University to start new courses 
was unlimited and a Deemed to be University would be bound by 
regulatory mechanism only in two ways:-
a. Its recognition as a Deemed to be University could be withdrawn 
if it was found to be not functioning within the limits, and 
b. Regular inspections in terms of statute could be undertaken by 
UGC though as a matter of fact these inspections never take 
place. 
According to him though there was no express empowerment 
under any statute enabling a Deemed to be University to initiate
various 
courses and disciplines outside its area of excellence, there was no 
negative mandate either and as an extension of this principle a Deemed 
to be University could enter the field of distance education in any subject 
or discipline. Mr. M.L. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for 
JASE made his submissions on similar lines. · 
Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Mr. Jayant Bhushan and 
Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior Advocates and other learned 
Advocates led by Mr. Ashok Mahajan, learned Advocate, appearing for 
various candidates adopted the submissions of Dr. Dhavan and Mr. 
Verma. In their submissions, the concerned candidate-in-service diploma 
holders took admission to degree courses in Engineering and have 
successfully completed such courses and advanced in life. They 
'(20l3J s sec 211 
989 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
990 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
submitted that in any view of the matter the degrees obtained by these 
candidates may not be nullified. 
32. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Advocate appearing 
for OL!C reiterated the stand of OLIC that the degrees in Engineering 
obtained by concerned in-service diploma holders through distance 
education were invalid and as such no benefit ought to accrue to such 
candidates. Similar submission was advanced by Mr. V. K. Bali, learned 
Senior Advocate appearing for State of Punjab in matters arising from 
the decision of 1.-jigh Court of Punjab and Haryana. 
33. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General 
appearing for UGC submitted that inclusive definition of"University" in 
UGC Act was in a completely different and limited context and the idea 
was essentially to recognize Deemed to be University for the purposes 
of funding and that such Deemed to be University is not a University for 
all purposes. Jn his submission, if such Deemed to be University is 
desirous of starting any technical course it ought to obtain express approval 
from AICTE. He also placed reliance on Section 23 to submit that a 
University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a 
Provincial Act or a State Act alone is entitled to have the word 
"University" associated with its name which again signified the distinction 
between a University established or incorporated under a legislation as
against a Deemed to be University. 
34. Thus, we are principally concerned in the present matters 
with questions regarding validity of degrees in Engineering awarded by 
the concerned Deemed to be Universities in two periods. 
a) Where 
students were admitted during 200 I to 2005 in respect of which ex-post-
facto approval was granted; and b) In respect of students admitted by 
JRN during 2007-08, 2008-09 and from 2011-l 2 onwards. 
The crucial facts as they emerge from the narration in the 
preceding paragraphs are:-
a) The concerned Deemed to be Universities namely AA!, JRN 
and !ASE started distance education programmes leading to degrees in 
Engineering, outside their field of specialization. Such programmes were 
started without taking any approval from UGC and/or AJCTE and when 
there was no approved engineering college or faculty at their main 
campus.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
991 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
b) Further, such programmes were being conducted in Study 
A 
Centres, majority of which were not maintained and managed by the 
concerned Deemed to be Universities. The demonstrators/lecturers 
employed at such Study Centres were not on the payroll of and were not 
selected by such Deemed to be Universities. 
c) Those Study Centres were not inspected at any stage, nor any 
facilities therein were assessed to see if they meet the standards 
prescribed for imparting courses in Engineering. Similarly, no authority 
had checked what kind of courses were being conducted nor was there 
any inspection at the time the examinations were said to have been 
conducted. 
d) The Visiting Committee of DEC had visited the main campus 
of the concerned Deemed to be Universities and seen the record but not 
visited any Study Centres. No member or representative of AICTE 
was part of such Visiting Committee, the report of which was simply 
endorsed by the Joint Committee ofUGC-DEC-AICTE. 
e) Under 1985 UGC Regulations, minimum of 180 actual leaching 
days in an academic year with 40 clock hours every week are required 
for courses leading to degrees of B.A.!B.Sc./B.Com. Assuming that 
these Regulations apply to courses in Engineering, this requirement would 
B 
c 
D 
be more pronounced and crucial when courses leading to award of 
degrees in Engineering are in issue. Such technological programmes by 
E
very nature require extensive practical training. 
f) The application preferred by JRN for ex-post-facto approval 
shows that its Study Centres for programmes leading to degrees in 
Engineering were located in institutions which themselves were running 
independent courses. If 180 actual teaching days with 40 clock hours 
F 
per week is the requirement which must be satisfied by those institutions 
for running their own courses, no scope is left for any outside institution 
such as JRN forusing such facilities for imparting any courses in technical 
education. If the facilities were sufficient to justify the independent 
strength ofthose institutions, the additional burden caused by students of G 
JRN could not possibly be accommodated. 
g) The inspection to ensure maintenance of standards was 
specifically contemplated under the Notification of MHRD issued on 
05.04.2006. Para 10 of the Memorandum of Undertaking dated 
10.05.2007 also spoke of inspection for the purposes of continuation/ 
H
992 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 13 S.C.R. 
withdrawal of approval. In the teeth of these Policy statements, the 
Joint Committee of AICTE-DEC-UGC endorsed its acceptance on 
07.08.2007 without there being inspections at all. 
h) Aforesaid aspects regarding complete absence of any inspection 
become crucial particularly when communications of DEC and UGC 
issued from time to time highlighted complaints regarding those Deemed 
to be Universities. 
i) As far as second period is concerned, again no inspections, at 
any stage, were carried out. The provisional approval dated 03.09.2007 
by DEC was completely mechanical and the assertion therein that DEC 
would not insist on territorial jurisdiction, was against the mandate of 
MHRD in its letter dated 29.07.2009 and of the decision in the ninth 
meeting of the Joint Committee ofUGC-DEC-AICTE. The consequent 
approval dated 13.11.2007 by UGC is equally mechanical and suffers 
from same infirmity. 
j) Though decision was taken in the meeting held on 19.02.2008 
to review cases of ex-post-facto approvals within a month, nothing was 
done. In fact, the first communication thereafter was three months after 
on 12.05.2008. It spoke nothing about review of ex-post-facto approval 
already granted. At this juncture, the logical exercise ought to have 
been to consider and assess the claim course-wise, cause inspections 
and see whether ex-post-facto approvals were rightly granted or not. 
However, that was not
to be. 
k) On the other hand, UGC in its meeting of2 l.05.2008 went on 
to ratify the decision of the Chairman to accord approval. At the same 
time, in response to application dated 08.05.2008 by JRN, DEC went on 
to grant provisional recognition for the year 2008-09. 
1) In spite of clear instructions by MHRD in its letter dated 
29.07.2009 to withdraw permissions already given to conduct B.Tech/ 
B.E. programmes through distance education and not to admit students 
for current year, no steps were undertaken to implement those directions 
and withdraw permissions already given. 
m) Even after dissolution of DEC and Public Notice dated 
27.06.2013 issued by UGC that no Deemed to be University would be 
allowed to take courses through distance education, when JRN again 
applied to UGC for grant of approval, no reply was given by UGC; on
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
which score JRN was able to get an interim order dated 26.l l.2013 
from the High Court. As a matter of fact in the face of Regulation 18 of 
20 I 0 UGC Regulations, such a request or application could never have 
been considered. 
n) Similar is the case with regard to interim orders dated 
17.12.2015 and 15.09.2016. Thus JRN could continue admitting students 
despite aforementioned Policy statements, on the strength of interim 
orders. 
o) During this period, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide 
its decision dated 06.11.2012 had already held the degrees in Engineering 
awarded by Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode 
to be invalid. That decision was appealed against by students and JASE 
but not by JRN. In any case, the Interim Order of this Court only protected 
concerned students whose degrees stood invalidated. 
p) lfinterim orders dated 26.l l.2013, 17.11.2015 and 15.09.2016 
by one High Court could become a justification for continuing to conduct 
courses leading to degrees in Engineering through distance education 
mode across the country, the final declaration issued by another High 
Court on 06.11.2012 and the policy statements referred to earlier, had 
greater binding force. 
q) On one hand it was being proclaimed by the concerned 
authorities in their public notices like 27 .06.2008 and 27.06.2013 or policy 
statements such as 20 I 0 UGC Guidelines that
no Deemed to be University 
will be allowed to conduct courses in distance education mode, and on 
the other hand DEC kept granting provisional approval and UGC helped 
the concerned Deemed to be University by its total inaction. 
35. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the learned Amicus Curiae 
is right in his submission that the ex-post facto approvals granted in the 
present matters were completely opposed to the policy statements 
governing the matters in issue. He is right that the concerned Deemed 
to be Universities admitted students, conducted courses and granted 
degrees in the absence of statutory approvals. It is, however, the 
submission of Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate that a 
Deemed to be University is entitled to start new courses in technical 
education (including through distance education mode) in terms of law 
laid down by this Court inBharathidasan (supra) and that there was no 
bar or prohibition in any statute or statutory instrument when the Deemed 
993 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
to be Universities started the instant courses in distance education mode. 
According to him, the inspections could of course be undertaken by 
UGC in terms of the Statute and if no inspections, as a matter of fact 
were conducted, the Deemed to be Universities could not be at fault. 
The following questions, therefore, arise for our consideration. 
B 
A. Whether the concerned Deemed to be Universities in the 
present case, could start courses through distance education in 
subjects leading to award of degrees in Engineering -
c 
D 
a) Without any parameters or Guidelines having been laid down 
by AICTE for conduct of such courses in technical education 
through distance education mode. 
b) Without prior approval under the AICTE Act. 
B. Whether DEC, on its own, was competent to grant permission 
to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to start such courses 
through distance education. 
36. The definition of"Technical Education" in Section 2(g) of the 
AICTE Act shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of education, 
research and training in Engineering Technology in general and the idea 
is not limited to the institutions where such programmes of education, 
research and training are to be conducted or imparted. However, the 
E 
definition of'Technical Institution" in Section 2(h) leaves out an institution 
which is a University. The distinction between the broader concept of 
"Technical Education" and the limited
scope of"Technical Institution" is 
clear from Section I 0 of the AlCTE Act where certain functions concern 
the broader facets or aspects of technical education which by very nature 
F 
must apply to every single institution (whether university or not) where 
such courses are conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain 
functions are relatable to technical institutions alone, which by definition 
are not applicable to universities. For example, Functions in sub-clauses 
(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (I) and (n) are concerned with broader facets of 
technical education, while functions in Clauses (k), (m), (p) and (q) deal 
G 
with matters concerning technical institutions and thus may not apply to 
universities, whereas there are certain functions as set out in Clauses 
(g) and ( o) which apply to both "Technical Institutions" and "Universities" 
imparting technical education. Clauses (c), (d) and (f) of Section 10 
deal with subjects, inter alia, coordination of the technical education in 
H 
the country at all levels; promoting innovation, research, development,
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
establishment of new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation 
of new technologies to meet the developmental requirements; and 
promoting and effecting link between technical education and systems 
and other relevant systems. AICTE is thus the sole repository of power 
to lay down parameters or qualitative norms for "technical education". 
What should be course content, what subjects be taught and what should 
be the length and duration of the courses as well as the manner in which 
those courses be conducted is a part of the larger concept of"technical 
education". Any idea or innovation in that field is also a part of the 
concept of"technical education" and must, as a matter of principle, be 
in the exclusive domain of AICTE. 
995 
A 
B 
37. In Bharathidasan (supra) the issue was whether a University C 
established under a State Law, within its area of operation, was entitled 
to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University 
itself without any approval of AICTE. The requirement of grant of 
approval under Section 10( 1 )(k) of the AICTE Act being specific in 
respect of technical institutions alone, the conclusion was arrived at that 
theAICTE could not insist upon such grant of approval when a University 
wished to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the 
University itself. The discussion inBharathidasan shows that this Court 
accepted
the role of AICTE in laying down norms and standards in 
technical education system which is evident from following portions from 
paragraph Nos. I 0 and 16. 
"10 .................. A careful scanning-through of the provisions 
of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in 
juxtaposition, will show that the role of A!CTE vis-a-vis the 
universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor 
and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate 
standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered 
to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a 
report to UGC for appropriate action ..................... . 
16 ............ We also place on record the statement of the learned 
Senior Counsel for the appellant, which, in our view, even otherwise 
is the correct position of law, that the challenge of the appellant 
with reference to the Regnlation in question and claim of AICTE 
that the appellant University should seek and obtain prior approval 
of AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or 
programme in technical education does not mean that they have 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
996 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid 
down by AICTE for the purpose of ensuring coordinated and 
integrated development of technical education and maintenance 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
of standards ............. " 
38. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in 
Engineering consists of imparting oflessons in theory as well as practicals. 
The practicals form the backbone of such education which is hands-on 
approach involving actual application of principles taught in theory under 
the watchful eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting 
of knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes. 
The practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the technical education 
system. If this established concept of imparting technical education as a 
qualitative norm is to be modified or altered and in a given case to be 
substituted by distance education learning, then as a concept the AICTE 
ought to have accepted it in clear terms. What parameters ought to be 
satisfied if the regular course of imparting technical education is in any 
way to be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to decide. The decision 
must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely because 
of absence of any Guidelines in the matter. No such decision was ever 
expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it has always maintained that 
courses leading to degrees in Engineering cannot be
undertaken through 
distance education mode. Whether that approach is correct or not is not 
the point in issue. For the present purposes, if according toAICTE such 
courses ought not to be taught in distance education mode, that is the 
final word and is binding - unless rectified in a manner known to law. 
Even National Policy on Education while emphasizing the need to have 
a flexible, pattern and programmes through distance education learning 
in technical and managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTE 
will be responsible for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms 
and standards including maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring 
coordinated and integrated development of technical and management 
education. 
In our view whether subjects leading to degrees in 
Engineering, could be taught in distance education mode or not is within 
G 
the exclusive domain of the AICTE. The answer to the first limb of the 
first question posed by us is therefore clear that without the Guidelines 
having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree 
courses in Engineering through distance education mode, the Deemed 
to be Universities were not justified in introducing such courses. 
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
997 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
39. We now move to the second limb of the first question. Under A 
1994 AICTE, Regulations, "no courses or programmes shall be 
introduced by any Technical Institution, University including a Deemed 
University or University Department on College except with the approval 
of the Council". Bharathidasan (supra) declared said Regulation to 
the extent.it required a University to have approval for introducing any 
courses or programmes in technical education, to be bad. Same thought 
was amplified in Association of Management of Private Colleges 
(supra) to say that affiliated colleges of the University were entitled to 
the same protection. The question is, whether a Deemed to be University 
is also entitled to the same protection. The matter can be considered 
under two categories:-
B 
c 
a. The first category could be of a Deemed to be University, 
which was conferred such status for its excellence in a field of 
technological subject, is now desirous of introducing courses or 
programmes integrally connected with the area- in respect of 
which it was conferred Deemed to be University status. For 
D 
example, an Engineering College which because of its excellence 
in the field was conferred Deemed University status, now wishes 
to introduce courses in subjects like Robotics or Nano Technology 
which are Engineering subjects and integrally connected with its 
own field of excellence.
b. The second category could be of a Deemed to be University 
which was conferred such status for its excellence in subjects 
which are completely un-related to the field in which new courses 
are sought to be introduced. For example an Institution engaged 
in teaching Fine Arts and Music, for its excellence in that chosen 
field- or for that matter an institution engaged in teaching Law 
had been conferred such status. Can such a Deemed to be 
University claim immunity from regulatory control of AICTE and 
say that it is entitled, as a matter of right, to introduce courses in 
Engineering on the strength of the decision of this Court in 
Bharathidasan. 
We are concerned in the present cases with the second category 
of Deemed to be Universities. In the present cases, none of the Deemed 
to be Universities was conferred such status for its excellence in the 
field of Engineering. Their fields were completely un-related. As a 
matter of fact, JRN and !ASE did not even have regular college or 
E 
F 
G 
H
998 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
faculty for Engineering at its main campus. And yet, they started courses 
in Engineering through distance education mode without the approval of 
AICTE, relying on the dictum in Bharathidasan. According to Dr. 
Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate, they were entitled as a matter 
of right to start such courses. 
40. The affidavit of Dr. Ved Prakash as referred to hereinabove 
as well as the stand ofUGC and the submissions made by Mr. Maninder 
Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General make it clear that such Deemed 
Universities in the second category mentioned above are not entitled, as 
a matter of right, to introduce courses leading to degrees in Engineering 
without the approval of A!CTE. According to the submission of the 
learnedAdditional Solicitor General, the conferral of status is only because 
of excellence in a particular field or subject which then entitles the 
Deemed to be University to utilise its excellence to conduct research 
and achieve advancement in that field. However merely because such 
status was conferred on the concerned institution, in his submission, would 
not entitle it to similar protection in the second category cases, as available 
to a University by virtue of the decision of this Court in Bharathidasan 
(supra). 
41. Paras 1 and 2 of Bharathidasan (supra) show that the 
University constituted under the State law had its area of operation 
over three Districts of
Tamil Nadu and by virtue of such State law could 
provide among other things, instructions and training in such 
branches of learning as it may determine. The express grant or 
empowerment thus came from the State enactment to enter into any 
field of learning as it may determine and introduce new courses in that 
behalf. However the University would be bound by territorial restrictions, 
in that it could not go beyond the territory of three Districts over which 
it was given Jurisdiction. But if we accept the submission of Dr. Rajeev 
Dhavan, learned Senior Advocate, there would be no such territorial 
restrictions on a Deemed University and it could open new departments, 
introduce new courses in any field anywhere in the Country. By way of 
illustration, we can consider the case ofa private institution affiliated to 
a University such as Bharathidasan University, which after some length 
of time is conferred Deemed to be University status for excellence 
achieved by such private institution, say in the field ofadult education. 
If we accept the submission of Dr. Dhavan, upon such conferral of 
Status as Deemed to be University, this originally affiliated private
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
999 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.) 
institution can now introduce any courses in technical education anywhere 
A 
in the Country but the original University would be bound by territorial 
restriction. 
42. The grant or empowerment inBharathidasan (supra) in favour 
of the University in question came from the State enactment which was 
its Charter. There is no such Charter or grant in favour of a Deemed to 
be University under any provision of the UGC Act. All that the UGC 
Act does is to confer Deemed to be University status on an Institution 
which has achieved excellence in its chosen field so that its development 
in the concerned field and its attempts to attain excellence and conduct 
research are not hampered on any count and at the same time it could 
be extended the facilities of Aid. It is precisely for this that the distinction 
between a regular University established under a Central Act, a Provincial 
Act or a State Act and an Institution Deemed to be University is 
maintained in the UGC Act. A Deemed to be University can certainly 
award degrees but cannot use the word "'University" by virtue of Section 
23 of the UGC Act. Even after conferral of such status it still continues 
to be "an Institution Deemed to be University" and if it is equated with a 
University in every sense of the term it would lead to incoherent and 
incongruous results, in that its area of operation or the field of its activity 
would
be completely unlimited and unregulated. In our view that is 
certainly not the intent of the UGC Act. 
43. Conceptually there is some difference between the status of 
a University established under· a State law and that of a Deemed to be 
University. Normally, a University is established with an idea that 
particular areas or districts of the State need to be catered to. Such 
University is expected to satisfy the needs or aspirations of people in the 
area for education and correspondingly empowered to initiate new courses, 
keeping in tune with the needs of time. The expectations from a Deemed 
to be University are of a different dimension. What is expected is 
excellence, research and advancement in its chosen field for which such 
status was accorded. There is no embargo on such Deemed to be 
University in entering new areas of education or introducing new courses 
but in that case, it can't demand or receive complete relaxation from 
regulatory regime. It must satisfy all those requirements which a normal 
institution is required to. The stand taken by the UGC in the affidavit of 
Dr. Ved Prakash, as well as its submissions in our view, are correct and 
we reject the submission of Dr. Dhavan. The logical conclusion is that 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1000 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 13 S.C.R. 
a Deemed to be University in the second category mentioned hereinabove 
is still an institution of the stature of a "technical institution" and if it 
desires to introduce new courses it must fulfill the requirements of 1994 
AICTE Regulations. A Deemed to be University which has achieved 
excellence in a particular field may be given deferential treatment but 
nonetheless it has to satisfy the requirements for new technical institution. 
Pertinently, both JRN and JASE, while establishing their faculty or 
colleges in engineering at their main Campus sought approvals from 
AICTE. Further, even for introducing courses in management which 
come under the definition of technical education under the AICTE Act, 
appropriate permissions were sought from AICTE. We therefore 
conclude that the Deemed to be Universities in the present case were 
required to abide by the provisions of 1994 AICTE Regulations and could 
not introduce courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering without 
the approval of AICTE. 1994 AICTE Regulations or any subsequent 
Regulations will have to be understood in the light of our decision. 
44. Para 3 of the notification dated22.l 1.1991 which constituted 
DEC shows that there was no representation for any Member or 
representative of AICTE. The provisions of IGNOU Act show that the 
Study Centres as defined in the !GNOU Act are that of IGNOU and not 
of any other University or
Institution. The concept of distance education 
under sub-clause (v) of Section 5 is also in relation to the academic 
programmes of!GNOU. It undoubtedly has powers under Clauses (vii), 
(xiii) and (xxiii) to cooperate with other Universities but the IGNOU Act 
nowhere entitles IGNOU to be the Controlling Authority of the entire 
field of distance education ofleaming across the Country and in relation 
to programmes of other Universities or Institutions as well. The Order 
dated 29.12.2012 issued by MHRD therefore correctly appreciated that 
DEC created under statute 28 oflGNOlJ Act could not act as a regulator 
for other Universities. In any event of the matter, the policy Guidelines 
issued from time to time made it abundantly clear that DEC alone was 
not entitled to grant permission for open distance learning and appropriate 
permissions from the requisite authorities were always required and 
G 
insisted upon. Despite such policy statements, DEC went on granting 
permissions without even consulting AICTE. Such exercise on part of 
DEC was completely without jurisdiction. 
45. It was laid down by this Court in Annamalai University v. 
Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department 
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
1001 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
A 
B 
c 
and Others 10 that no relaxation could be granted in regard to the basic 
things necessary for conferment for a degree and if a mandatory provision 
is not complied with by an administrative authority, the action would be 
void. This leads us to conclude that the permissions granted by DEC in 
the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities in question to 
introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in engineering were 
illegal and opposed to Law. The illegality in the exercise of power was 
to such an extent that it could not be cured by ex post facto approvals 
granted later. We have also seen that the exercise of grant of ex post 
facto approvals, as a matter of fact, was only superficial and perfunctory. 
Such exercise was done in the face of declared policy statements 
governing the field and even when specific complaints were received 
about concerned Deemed to be Universities. Yet, without causing any 
inspection such power was exercised which part is already dealt with 
and the exercise of power has been found by us to be suffering from 
illegality and infirmity. The only thing in favour of the concerned Deemed 
to be Universities is the fact that the Joint Committee ofUGC-AICTE 
D 
- DEC had endorsed the decision though such exercise was also 
completely flawed. That exercise was against Para 10 of the MoU 
dated 10.05.2007, which contemplated
causing of inspections and the 
decision dated 11.05.2007 of the Joint Committee itself that for an 
Institution/University to offer distance education programmes it was 
mandatory to offer the same in face to face mode. 
E 
46. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-facto 
approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal 
circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex-post-facto 
approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees 
granted in pursuance thereof in respect of Courses leading to award of F 
degrees in Engineering. However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves 
had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply 
for ex-post-facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with 
some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled 
during the academic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot 
wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universities 
flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience 
and started conducting courses through distance education system 
illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned students persuades 
"(2009) 4 sec s90 
G 
H
1002 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in 
pursuance of said ex-post-facto approval. However, the fact remains 
that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were never 
checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this 
length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence 
and assurance about the worthiness of the concerned students. We, 
therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned 
students to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. 
We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students 
who were enrolled during the academic years 200 I to 2005 shall stand 
suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of 
AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single 
advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended. 
47. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the 
date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in 
written examination as well as in practicals for the concerned students 
admitted during the academic sessions 200 l-2005 covering all the 
concerned subjects. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come 
out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that 
behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology
in 
respective States wherever the students are located. The choice may 
be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should 
be conducted during May-June, 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may 
determine. Not more than two chances be given to the concerned 
students and if they do not pass the test/tests their degrees shall stand 
recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear 
in the test/tests, the entire money deposited by such student towards 
tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the 
concerned Deemed to be University within a month of the exercise of 
such option. The students be given time till 15'" of January, 2018 to 
exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/ 
tests in respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be 
recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. 
G If they clear the lest/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages 
or benefits shall be restored to the concerned candidates. We make it 
clear at the cost of repetition that if the concerned candidates do not 
clear the test/tests within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at 
the test/tests, their degrees in Engineering through distance education 
H
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
1003 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LAUT, J.] 
shall stand recalled and cancelled. It goes with out saying that any A 
promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall 
also stand withdrawn, however any monetary benefits or advantages in 
that behalf shall not be recovered from them. 
48. As regards the students who were admitted after the ex-post-
facto approval granted in favour of such Deemed to be Universities, in 
our view, there was no sanction whatsoever for their admission. The 
Policy Statements as well as warnings issued from time to time were 
absolutely clear. The students were admitted on the strength either 
provisional recognition or on the strength of interim orders passed by the 
High Court. We therefore, declare that in respect of students admitted 
after the academic sessions of 2001-2005, the degrees in Engineering 
awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through Distance 
Education Mode shall stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. Any 
benefit which a candidate has secured as a result of such degrees in 
Engineering in the nature of promotion or advancement in career shall 
also stand recalled. However, if any monetary benefit was derived by 
such candidates that monetary benefit or advantage will not be recovered 
by the concerned departments or employers. 
We, further direct that 
the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be 
Universities towards
tuition fee and all other expenditure for such courses 
through distance education learning shall be returned by the concerned 
Deemed to be Universities to the respective students. This direction 
shall be complied with by the concerned Deemed to be Universities 
scrupulously and the amounts shall be returned by 31" of May, 2018 and 
an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a 
week thereafter. 
49. The factual narration mentioned hereinabove makes certain 
things distinctly clear. The affidavit of Mr. Ved Prakash discloses how 
permissions were granted to introduce courses in the present cases 
without any authority. On one hand, the authorities were proclaiming 
their policy statements and on the other, despite there being complaints, 
they went about granting permissions. Their conduct and approach is 
difficult to explain on any rational basis and leaves much to be desired. 
We are, prima facie of the view that the conduct of the concerned officials 
needs to be looked into and investigated whether the exercise of power 
by them was completely genuine or colourable. We do not express any 
final opinion in that behalf but direct the CBI to carry out thorough 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1004 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
investigation into the matter and to take appropriate steps after culmination 
thereof. 
50. The record further shows that time and again warnings were 
issued to the concerned Deemed to be Universities. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, 
learned Senior Advocate is right in his submission that ifa Deemed to be 
University is not to be found functioning within the limits, its recognition 
as Deemed to be University could be withdrawn. In our view, the 
concerned Deemed to be Universities had gone far beyond their limits 
and to say the least, had violated binding policy statements. Even when 
they did not have any experience in the concerned field and had no 
regular faculty or college in Engineering, they kept admitting students 
through distance education mode. When there was nothing at the core, 
the expansion was carried at the tertiary levels in brazen violation. The 
idea was not to achieve excellence in the field but the attempts appear 
to be guided by pure commercial angle. We therefore, direct the UGC 
to consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by the 
concerned institutions, namely, JRN, AA!, JASE and VMRF calls for 
any such withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf. If the 
concerned Deemed to be Universities fail to return the moneys to the 
concerned students as directed above, that factor shall also be taken 
into account while conducting such exercise. 
5 l. We must also put on
record what we have observed during 
the course of the hearing and consideration of the present matters. It 
has come to our notice that many institutions which are conferred the 
status of Deemed to be Universities are using the word "University", 
which in our view is opposed to the spirit ofSection23 of the UGCAct. 
The UGC shall take appropriate steps to stop such practice. 
52. The present case shows the extent of commercialization of 
education by some of the Deemed Universities. The commercialization 
of education seriously affects creditability of standards in education, 
eroding power and essence of knowledge and seriously affecting 
excellence and merit. The present case further displays lack of effective 
oversight and regulatory mechanism for the Deemed to be Universities. 
The UGC had completely failed to remedy the situation. Serious question 
has therefore arisen as to the manning of the UGC itself for its effective 
working. We have already found that facilities at Study Centres were 
never checked nor any inspections were carried out which has led us to
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
direct suspension of degrees for the students enrolled during academic 
sessions 2001-2005 and annulment of degrees of students admitted after 
academic sessions of 2001-2005. We have also found that there was 
complete and flagrant violation of norms and policies laid down by the 
authorities by the Deemed to be Universities. AICTE had been illegally 
kept out. 
Thus, interest of justice requires that the following issues also need to be 
addressed: 
(i) Action for failure of system, inter alia, on account of misconduct 
of some of the functionaries who failed to uphold the law and 
1005 
A 
B 
granted approvals contrary to the policy and the rules; 
c 
(ii) Manning of the UGC; 
(iii) Appropriate oversight and regulatory mechanism especially 
for distance education degrees especially those relating to 
technical education by the Deemed to be Universities in future; 
(iv) Review of the Deemed to be Universities status granted to 
the Deemed to be Universities in the past in the light of this 
Judgment and in the light of their working; and 
The above issues need immediate steps to be taken by the Union 
of India. Review of oversight and regulatory mechanism is of utmost 
priority for the future of technical and professional education at the hands 
of Deemed Universities. In this regard, we may note the observations 
of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Modern Dental College and
Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others11 
highlighting need for review of regulatory mechanism for medical 
admissions and profession. We also note the observations in Mahipal 
Singh Rana, Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh" with regard to legal 
profession. 
53. Accordingly we direct: 
I 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities 
and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not 
justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education 
without the approval of AICTE. 
11 (2016) 7 SCC 353 -Paras 86 to 92, 108 IO 111 
12 (2016) 6 sec 335 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
lI 
Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 
200 l-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted 
by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside. 
Ill Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in 
Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities 
B 
stand suspended. 
IV The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an 
appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option 
be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended 
by 15.0l.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in 
C 
accordance with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be 
given not more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do 
not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, their 
degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand 
withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and 47 above. The entire 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be recovered from 
the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. 
V Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be 
refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and 
other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. 
Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all 
advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 
47. 
VI If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time,
all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their 
degrees will stand revived fully. 
VII As regards students who were admitted after the Academic 
Sessions 200 l-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the 
concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education 
mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits 
secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in 
Para 48 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students 
to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees 
and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed 
to be Universities by 3l.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR 
1007 
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
VIII By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities 
A 
shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate 
affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week 
thereafter. 
IX We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the 
conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and 
B 
went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, 
as indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions 
who abused their position to advance their commercial interest 
illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after 
culmination of such investigation. 
X The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be 
University status enjoyed by JRN, AA!, JASE and VMRF calls 
for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 
30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above 
are not refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be 
taken into account while conducting such exercise. 
XI We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any 
courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 
2018-2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct 
such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions 
are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in 
respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus 
Centres/Study Centres are
individually inspected and found 
adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals 
have to be course specific. 
XII The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and 
implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be 
Universities from using the word 'University' within one month 
from today. 
XIII The Union of India may constitute a three members 
Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high 
positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or 
law at national level within one month. The Committee may 
examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for 
strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
1008 
A 
·s 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 13 S.C.R. 
in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six 
months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism 
to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India 
may examine the said report and take such action as may be 
considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an 
affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 31, 
2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect 
on 11.09.2018. 
54. Before we part, we express our sincere appreciation for the 
efforts put in by Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Amicus Curiae. We are 
extremely grateful for the assistance rendered by him. We are also 
thankful for the assistance given by all the learned counsel. 
55. We thus accept the view taken by the High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana at Chandigarh and set aside the decision of the High Court 
of Orissa. With the aforementioned observations, appeals are disposed 
of. No order as to costs. No orders are called for in.Contempt Petition 
Nos.194-19712016 which stands disposed of. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals disposed of.