Presidency Educational Trust v. Indira Gandhi Natioinal Open University

JUDGMENT V.K.JAIN. J. (ORAL) On 26.05.2008,a Memorandumof Understandingwas executed between IGNOU, The AmericanHotel and LodgingEducationInstitute(AH&LEI)and the petitioner-PresidencyEducationalTrust to offer athree year programmein B.A.. (InternationalHospitalityAdministration).Thepetitionerstartedadmittingstudents to the said course in April, 2012. On 30.05.2012, AH&LEI received a communicationaskingfor the admissionsto the said courseto be kept in abeyance and the samewas forwardedto the petitioneron 12.06.2012. On receiptofthe said letter,the petitionerwroteto the Universityexpressinggrievancewith respectto its Page Iof7 decisionto keep the admissionin abeyance.Sincetherewas no responsefrom the University,thepetitionercameto this Courtby way ofthiswritpetition.

¶2Whenthe writpetitioncame up for preliminaryhearingon 20.07.2013,Shri Sandeep Sethi, senior counsel, who represented the University, stated, on instructions,thatUniversityhad no objectionwithregardto studentswho had been . admittedup to 12.06.2012. It was also agreedbetweenthe partiesthat no further admissionwouldbe made fromthat day onwards. However,the said orderdid not address the issue of students who were admitted after 12.06.2012,but before

20.07.2012.

¶3In its counter-affidavit,the respondents-Universityhas statedthat it is not within its mandate to conduct face to face programme beyond its campus in collaborationwith institutessuch as the petitioneror to enter into MOUs or other arrangementsfor impartingeducationby way offaceto faceprogrammes.

¶4Almost similar issues came up for considerationbefore this Court in HINDUSTANAVIATIONACADEMY VS. THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, W.PfC) No. 5789/2012 and connected matters, decided on

23.07.2013and thefollowingviewtakenby this Courtispertinent:- "16. It would thus be seen that the University was set up for impartinghighereducationthroughan alternative system of education which dispensed with the requirementsof attendancein classrooms,since a large number of persons otherwisedesirous of taking higher educationwere unable to get such educationon account ^ oftheir inabihtyto attendthe regularclassrooms.It was felt that such an alternativesystem would prove to be cost-effective,besides equalizing the opportunitiesto receive higher educationthrough the mode of distance education.

¶18Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, contains no provision for setting up colleges havingclassroomson the linesofregularcolleges,where attendanceto the classesis a mandatoryrequirementfor the studentsand ifthey do not attendspecifiedpercentof the total classes, in a term/year,they are not allowedto sit in the examination conducted by the university/ college. In fact, imparting education through regular classroomsis notat all envisagedin the Act. Therefore, it is not to the universityto imparteducationthroughthe system of regular classrooms where the students are mandatorilyrequiredto attendsuch classes. Though,the university is empowered to set up 'study certres as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act, such centres cannot impart education through regular classrooms, their purposebeing only to advise or counselthe studentsoi render any assistancewhichthey,requirefor the purpose of pursuing their studies through Distance Education System. Such study centres cannot be converted into regularcollegeswherethe studentsare requiredto attend the classesduringthe hoursprescribedby the university/ college for the purpose. The very definitionof 'study centre' as given in the Act, is a clear indicatorwith respectto the role such centres are expectedto play in relationto the educationtobe impartedbytheuniversity.

¶19Section 2(e) of the said Act defines "Distance education systems" to mean the system of imparting educationthroughany means of communicationsuch as broadcasting, telecasting, correspondence courses, seminars,contactprogrammesor the combinationof any two or more of suchmeans. It would therefore be difficult to dispute that the university had no legal authorityto enterinto any agreement/MoU/arrangement. Page3of7 to set up study centres/ institutions/ colleges, for impartingeducationby way ofaface to face programme, where the studentsare requiredto attendregularclasses and are taughtin person,nor canthe universityofits own imparteducationby way ofsuch a classroomprogamme. The universityis mandated,by its Charteri.e. the Act by which it was set up, to impart educationonly through openschool/distancemodeoflearning.

¶24Under the MoU, the petitioner institutes were entitledto admit studentto the courseswhich the MoU permitted them to offer. Therefore, suspension of^ admissionby way of communicationsdated 9 August, 2012, 1August, 2012 and 22'""August,2012 couldnot have'beendirected without first terminatingthe MoU, pursuantto which the students are stated to have been admitted. In any case, the respondentIGNOU being State within the meaning of Article 12 _of the Constitution,it could not have suspendedadmissionto the programmesbeingofferedby the petitionerInstitutes withoutfollowingthe principlesofnaturaljusticewhich required issue of a show cause notice followed by an. opportunityofhearingto the petitionerInstitutes.

¶32More importantly,ifthe universityhad decidedon

8.5.2012 and/or 31.5.2012to suspend admissionfor the academic year 2012-2013, it was duty bound to issue advertisementin leadingnewspapersinformingpublicat largethat it had suspendedadmissionsfor the year2012-2013 and any person taking admission with the petitionersinstituteswouldbe doing so at his own peril. This was necessary considering the fact that in the previousyears, the universityitselfhad been advertising theseprogrammesbesidesissuingregistrationnumbersto the students admitted in the preceding years and conductingexaminationsforthem." The next questionwhicharosefor considerationis as to whathappensto the students,who were admittedby the institutepriorto 20.07.2012. Page4of7 nA Admittedly, even while addressing communicationdated 31.05.2012 to AH&LEI,the Universitydidnotadvertisein the newspapersthatithaddirectedthe instituteswith which it had enteredinto arrangementssuch as MOU for imparting educationby way of face to face programmesto keep the admissionto such programmesin abeyance,nor was any suchpublicnoticedisplayedon the website of the University. As a result, the candidatesseeking admissionto such face to face programmeswouldnot be aware ofthe orderofthe Universitykeepingsuch programmes in abeyance. Had the Universityissued public notices cautioning againsttaking admissionto such programmes,probablyit would not have been possible for institutes such as the petitionerto admit students on receipt of . communicationissuedby the University.

¶5The MOU executedin this caseadmittedlywas for aperiodoffive yearsand came to be prematurelyterminatedwithout given any show cause notice and/or opportunityofhearingto the instituteswho werepartyto the saidMOU. This is yet another reason why the University should at least protect the interests of the studentswho have alreadytakenadmissionwiththe petitioner-institute;

¶6In these circumstances,the writ petitionis disposedof with the following directions:.

(i) the petitionershallsubmitthe listofstudentsadmitted by it for the academic year 2012-2013, to the IV.p.(C) 4297/2012 Page5of? respondent-university,withineightweeks, alongwith the requisite documents such as admission forms, copies of fees receiptsissued to them and shall also remit, within that period, the fees and other charges which the institute was required to pay to the universityin terms ofthe MoU pursuantto whichthe students were admitted by it for the academic year 2012-2013.

(ii) The University shall verify within four weeks thereafter,the documentssubmittedby the petitioner institutes and shall also be entitled to require the students whose names fmd mention in the list furnishedby the petitionersinstitutesto appearbefore its officers for the purpose of verificationby the university.The studentswho are found to have been genuinely admitted by the petitioners during the academicyear 2012-2013,will be issued registration numbers etc and other documents required for the purpose within two weeks of completing the verification process. mP.(C) 4297/2012 n/'

(iii) If the petitioner institutes have collected fees from the students for the academic year 2013-2014, such fee shall be refunded by them to the students within a period of four weeks from today.

(iv) The respondent university shall hold examinations for the academic year 2012-2013, and those students to whom registration numbers are issued by the university, shall be permitted to appear in the said examination. The examination shall be held within eight weeks of issuing the registration numbers. The learned counsel for the University states that since they are not running this course at all even through ODL system, they have not admitted any student to the aforesaid course. He also submits that completion of the aforesaid course requires some practical tests which the students have to clear before they can get the degree of the aforesaid course. The University shall make necessary arrangementwith some college/University/studycentre,suitablefor the purp^ of practical tests for such students. JULY 31, 2013 bg K. JAIN, J W.p.(C) 4297/2012

% IN THEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIAT NEWDELHI Date of Decision: 31.07.2013 + W.P.(C) 4297/2012 PRESIDENCYEDUCATIONALTRUST Petitioner Through: Mr AjayKapur, Sr. Adv withMr Harshbir SinghKohliand Mr DineshKumar,Advs. versus INDIRAGANDHINATIOINALOPENUNIVERSITY Respondent Through:MrAly Mirza,Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN