IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07/01/2005
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
WRIT PETITION No.7399 OF 2001
AND
W.M.P.No.10566 OF 2001.
1. R.Kumar
2. M.Malathi
3. C.Munirathina Praba
4. M.Gurunathan
5. A.Narasimhan
6. S.S.Sridhar
7. M.Mohamed Ismail
8. B.Sasikala
9. A.Sultan Saleem
10. V.Chandrasekaran
11. G.Sankara Subramanian
12. V.Malarvizhi
13. K.Jayashree
14. V.Thulasi Bai
15. A.R.Rajani
16. K.S.Vishvaksenan
17. A.Stephen Arputharaj
18. S.Ramesh
19. Manjula Pramod
20. R.Kalavathy
21. S.Ramamoorthy
22. E.Logashanmugam
23. C.D.Suriyakala
24. T.Nageswara Rao
25. M.A.Dorairangaswamy
26. M.Sumathi
27. M.Sundararajan
28. G.Padmavathi
29. Chaya Kulkarni
30. N.Muthukrishnan
31. D.Jessintha
32. S.Ramalatha
33. Latha Parthiban
34. P.Angusta Sophy
35. Usha Bhanu N.
36. V.Murali Bhaskaran
37. A.M.J.Md.Zubair Rahman
38. S.Varadhaganapathy
39. N.K.Karthikeyan
40. S.Pasupathy
41. S.Venkatasalam
42. S.Palanisamy
43. V.Balaji
44. C.Jegadheesan
45. V.Balasubramanian
46. A.S.Rajavenkata Subramanian
47. A.Somasundaram
48. K.R.Baskaran
49. S.Devaki
50. C.Kalaiarasan
51. R.Sivasubramanian
52. P.Sathiamurthi
53. S.P.Arul
54. R.Ashokan
55. Mrs.Devika Sivakumar
56. I.S.Avinan
57. Nasreen Kaleem
58. Sharmila Sankar
59. H.Jain Alaudeen
60. P.K.Kumaresan
61. A.Nagappan
62. M.Kannan
63. G.Maria Dhayana Latha
64. P.Selvam
65. R.Samson Ravindaran
66. J.Joshva Gnana Sekaran
67. S.Mohan
68. T.Sheela ... Petitioners
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by The Secretary,
Higher Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai-25.
3. The Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Department of Education,
New Delhi.
4. The Registrar,
Birla Institute of Technology and Science
Pilani, Rajasthan.
5. The Registrar,
University of Madras, Madras.
6. The All India Council for
Technical Education,
Shastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road,
Chennai-34.
7. The Registrar,
Anna University,
Chennai.
8. Association of Indian
Universities,
AIU House,
No.16 Kotla Marg,
New Delhi-2. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the relief as stated therein.
For petitioners : Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior counsel
for M/s. L.Chandrakumar
^For R.1 & R.2 : Mr.R.Lakshmi Narayanan
For R.3 : Mr.R.Santharaman,
S.C.G.S.C.
For R.4 : Mr.Vedavalli Kumar
For R.5 : Mr.N.Rajan
For R.6 : Mr.Vijay Narayan, S.C.
for M/s.R.Parthiban
For R.7 : Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal for
M/s.G.M.Mani Associates
For R.8 : No appearance
:O R D E R
The above Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of
the second respondent made in Letter No.5000/CDC/2000, dated –.10.2000 and
quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to recognize the degree
of the 4th respondent for all purposes including appointments, promotions,
higher studies and for doing Ph.D. etc. with all consequential benefits.
2. Petitioners, numbering 68, are all B.E/B.Tech. graduates and are
all working as Lecturers in various colleges and with permission from their
respective college they joined the M.S. Degree Course ( Computer Science,
Electronics Control etc., systems and Information, Software System and
Technological Operations) by distance education system of the BITS, Pilani
(Rajasthan) and have completed the course also and when it came to the matter
of recognition, the Director of Technical Education, by the impugned order,
has informed the petitioners that the M.S. Degree awarded by BITS, Pilani
through correspondence programme is not considered as equivalent degree to
that of M.E. Degree awarded by the Tamil Nadu Universities. Challenging the
said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the said degree was obtained
by them by undergoing the regularly sponsored distance learning programmes of
the BITS, Pinali, while being employed as Lecturers in various Engineering
Colleges and Polytechnics in pursuance of the employers having met the entire
academic pursuit to do the M.S. sponsored distance learned programme of BITS,
Pilani; that BITS Pilani is a ‘ Deemed University’ and the degrees which are
awarded are automatically recognized and no formal orders of recognition are
required, as per Office Memorandum No.6/1/64-Estt.D. dated 29.4.1964; that
the order of second respondent in treating the degree awarded by the pioneer
Universities to have been not equivalent to the M.E./M.Tech Degree which
hitherto was considered equivalent is illegal and that apart, the said
Institution has been established by an Act of Parliament in the year 1971 and
was accorded the status of ‘Deemed University’ under the Universities Grants
Commission Act, and hence the order of the second respondent suffers
jurisdictional and for non-application of mind.
4. The petitioners would further submit that any degree set up by an
Act of Parliament or a State Legislature are automatically recognized and the
M.S. Degree of the BITS, Pilani was recognized equivalent to M.E/M.Tech
degree of various other Universities; that the Madras University and Anna
University are, by and large, slowly and steadily adopting the system that has
been in vogue in BITS, Pilani and convert to that of the BITS system, but
insofar as the recognition and equalisation is concerned, the second
respondent would say that the number of subjects is 12 insofar as regular
class candidates are concerned and as far as BITS, they are eight inclusive of
project work ( desertion) in III Semester like all other Universities whereas
the fact remains that in Anna University and Indian Institute of Technology,
Chennai, the subjects are only five and the total number of credits that are
accorded for consideration are 25 units insofar as BITS and 15 units insofar
as the Anna University and the Indian Institute of Technology are concerned.
5. During arguments, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the impugned order suffers for the following reasons:
1. The second respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to pass the
impugned order.
2. Even assuming that he got the jurisdiction, he cannot straight away pass
the order, without giving an opportunity and hearing to the petitioners and
therefore it is in violation of the principles of natural justice since the
very same Degree had been recognised by them for the past six years; and
3. Even assuming that the second respondent has jurisdiction and he can pass
the order, the impugned order can have only a prospective operation and cannot
affect the degrees already received and recognised by them, being an
administrative order and not a statutory power.
6. The learned senior counsel would refer to the Official Memorandum
No.GAD 6 SDR 71, Bangalore, dated 16.11.1971 published in the Mysore Gazette
and submit that BITS, Pilani is a ‘deemed University’. The learned senior
counsel would further cite a letter No.F-18-15/82/T-7, dated 7.6.1982 of the
Government of India addressed to all the Vice Chancellors of the Universities
wherein i t has been mentioned that ‘ as per the Ministry of Home Affairs
O.M.No.6-1-64 Estt.D dated the 19 th April 1964 in the case of
degrees/diplomas awarded by Universities in India which are incorporated by an
Act of the Central or State Legislature in India and other educational
Institutes, established by an Act of Parliament or declared to be deemed as
Universities under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act (1956), no
formal orders recognising such degrees/diplomas need be issued by Govt. Such
degrees/diplomas should be recognised automatically for the purpose of
employment under the Central Government….’
7. The learned senior counsel would also cite the Office Memorandum
in Ref.Senate 77/MS, dated 26th August 1988 issued by the Registrar of BITS,
Pilani wherein it has been stated that ‘The Master of Science (M.S.) degrees
awarded by the Birla Institute of Technology & Science are Higher Degrees
operated through Distance Learning Programmes. All the M.S.degrees in the
specific branches are equivalent to M.E./ M.Phil./M.Pharm. in the
corresponding branches of the formal system. The holders of M.S. Degrees are
eligible to seek admission to Ph.D. Programmes of the Institute.’
8. The learned senior counsel would also refer to a letter NO.F.19-1
/90/TD-V, dated 13.11.1991 addressed by the Deputy Educational Adviser (Tech),
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of
Education) to one V.Senthur wherein it has been stated that ‘… degrees
awarded by a University set up under an Act of Parliament or a State
Legislature are automatically recognised for purpose of employment under
Central Government. The Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani is
such a University’. The learned senior counsel would further submit that one
of the Tamil nadu Universities has recognised the M.S. computer science
degree given by BITS and would refer to the Letter in Ref:MSU/BS 1/93, dated
1.4.1993 issued by the Registrar of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Kokkirakulam, Tirunelveli wherein it has been mentioned that ‘for
recruitment/promotion/higher studies, the M.S. Computer Science degree given
by Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, may be treated on par
with PG Computer Science degree’.
9. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the
Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi by their letter No.EV/VII(5)/95
/11664 dated 26.9.1995 has also clarified that ‘the certificate issued by the
BITS Pilani on the equivalence of their MS degree should be acceptable to all
concerned. In case of any further information, kindly request your employer
to write to us.’
10. The learned senior counsel would further refer to the letter in
O.No.410/Raj-16/BOS (PG)/92, dated 31.7.1995 of the Adviser of the All India
Council for Technical Education addressed to The Registrar, Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra wherein it has been clarified in the following manner:
“The Council has received some queries regarding the equivalence of M.S.degree
of BITS, Pilani, which is not included in the list of approved courses of
AICTE. In this regard, I may clarify that as council has not received any
proposal from BITS, Pilani for approval of above programme. However, as per
Govt. of India communication No.F.19-3/9 0-TD dated July 13, 1990 addressed
to the Commissioner and Director of Technical Education Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh it has been made clear that
The Degrees awarded by the Universities set up under an Act of
Parliament or a State Legislature are automatically recognised for the purpose
of employment under Central Govt. The Birla Institute of Technology &
Science, Pilani, is such a University.
I hope that this resolves the question of its recognition by Govt. of
India’
11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would further
refer to a letter addressed by BITS, Pilani to one Mrs.Asha Maria, 32 Venu
Gopalsamy Street, Perambur, Chennai-11 which reads as follows:
“BITS is a deemed University and is authorized to offer any degree programme.
Being a deemed university all degrees offered by BITS are to be automatically
recognised. Please find enclosed papers to support this view.
The UGC does not recognise specific degree programmes. However, UGC
recognises BITS to be a deemed university.
AICTE is to grant recognition to degree programmes offered by engineering
colleges or polytechnics. Universities do not have to take any specific
recognition from AICTE. This is according to Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act.”
12. Citing all the above correspondences, the learned senior counsel
would request the Court to consider the language employed in the impugned
order in the light of the above submitted factual position and would submit
that absolutely no reason as to why having recognised and accepted those
degrees as a an equivalent to M.E. for more than six years, the respondents
have issued the impugned order and would pray to allow the above writ
petition.
13. The first respondent would file a counter wherein it has been
stated that the All India Council for Technical Education has stated in its
letter No.410/Rej.16/BOS(pa)/92 dated 31st July 1995 that the Council has not
received any proposal from Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani
for approval of the above programmes and the degrees awarded by the
Universities set up under an Act of Parliament or as State Legislature are
automatically recognised for the purpose of employment under Central
Government and not for the State Government (State Level Committee); that the
Sub-Committee’s report constituted by the University of Madras in this
connection is awaited; that in the resolution of General Academic Matters of
the Syndicate Meeting of the University of Madras held on 22.12.1999 it was
resolved that ‘ the number of subjects in M.S. Degree offered by BITS,
Pilani, through Distance Education in various discipline contains only eight
subjects which is less when compared to M.E. Degree course which offers 12
subjects in two Semester and Project work for one full semester by the Madras
University and also the duration of M.S.Programme in BITS, Pilani is two to
four Semesters and hence the M.S. Degree offered by BITS, Pilani through
Distance Education cannot be considered as equivalent to M.E./M.Tech. Degree
of respective discipline of Madras University for the purpose of
appointment/Higher Studies’. Relying on the said resolution, this respondent
would pray to dismiss the above writ petition.
14. The fourth respondent/BITS, Pilani would file a counter thereby
supporting the case of the petitioners and further submitting that BITS has
been established by the Act of Parliament and was accorded the status of
‘Deemed University’ by the Act of Parliament under the Universities Grants
Commission Act; that the degrees awarded by the 4th respondent are
automatically recognized for the purpose of employment; that as per the
Central Government Act, BITS, Pilani is a recognized University and the M.S.
Degree of the said University has been recognized as equivalent to M.E./M.Tech
degree of various other Universities; that BITS as a Deemed University is
empowered to conduct degree programmes and offer degrees and hence it is not
necessary for Director of Technical Education, Tamilnadu to specifically
recognize these degrees; that BITS as a Deemed University started offering
programmes under Distance Learning Scheme specifically for Human Resources
Development of the collaborating organizations with the same rigour in terms
of duration, number of courses, course contents, evaluation of the students
etc. as that of the programmes offered on campus.
15. This respondent would further submit that the Distance Learning
Programmes in technological areas have not only the approval of the nation but
the institute has been given fund support by the UGC, MHRD etc.; that these
programmes aim at Manpower development of employed personnel who are duly
sponsored by their employers; that many countries conduct such programmes and
there are also institutions in India like Jawaharlal Nehru Technological
University, Saifabad which conducts Distance Learning Programmes in
engineering Sciences; that it enables the favourable interaction between the
Institute and Industries and paves way for the Institute’s participation in
the continuing education of working Manpower with an aim of human resource
development; that BITS has framed regulations with regard to DLP and this
brochure gives details of the regiment and rigor which a student undergoes to
get the degree under this programme; that DLP Division also issues course
handout to the students for each semester for each course and apart from, each
student has a mentor and he is evaluated through credit based system of
evaluation under CGPA; that BITS degree is recognized throughout the world;
that the Tamil Nadu Services annual Schedule II to Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Service Rules in relation to recognized Units and Institute by UGC
are concerned would recognize the BITS Pilani at Sl.No.1 in the institution to
be a recognized one and MHRD had also reiterated that BITS is recognized for
all purposes including that of Ph.D. and M.Phil; that the impugned order
derecognizing the degree awarded by BITS is illegal and without any authority
of jurisdiction; that the impugned order has not assigned any reason; that
right from the inception of BITS, it has been recognized by the second
respondent and all of a sudden, the second respondent chose to de-recognize
the degree and the same is unsustainable since amounting to discrimination if
it is made operative.
16. This respondent would further submit that BITS is a deemed
University and it does not receive any maintenance grant either from the State
of Rajasthan or from the Central Government and is controlled and managed by
itself and there is no interference of the State in any manner in the
day-to-day affairs, administration and management of the institute; that it is
not creation of any statute, as such, it is not a State within the definition
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is not amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of this Court and this Court should be slow to interfere in the
day-to-day affairs of the institute in its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On such grounds, this respondent
would pray to quash the impugned order.
17. The fifth respondent/University of Madras would file a counter
thereby submitting that the writ petition is not maintainable in law; that the
Principal, Thanthai Periyar Government Institute of Technology, Vellore in his
letter dated 13.1.1993 and the Registrar, Hindustan Institute of Engineering
Technology, Chennai in his letter dated 6.12.1993 had sought a clarification
whether the M.S. Degree awarded by the 4th respondent under the distance
learning programme could be considered as equivalent to the M.E./M.Tech degree
of respective discipline of the University of Madras and this was referred to
the then Chairman, Board of Studies in Engineering for his remarks and
thereafter as per his suggestion, the matter was placed before the meeting of
the Board of studies in Engineering held on 31.3.1994 and the Board had
constituted a Sub-Committee to go into the details such as entrance
qualification, curriculum content, regulations, scheme of examination, passing
requirements etc. under the chairmanship of Dr.S. Natarajan, but the
Sub-Committee did not convene the meeting; that the Board of Studies in
Engineering in its meeting held on 30.7.1999 resolved that if the M.S. of
specific discipline has comparable subjects of study both in number and
contents in corresponding discipline of M.E. in Madras University and if the
M.S. Programme is done after a four year degree programme in Engineering in
the respective branches of study, then such individual cases may be considered
as equivalent for the purpose of appointment/higher studies and such
individual cases have to be referred to and assessed by the Board of
Engineering of respective branch and the said resolution was approved by the
Syndicate on 20.8.1999; that the said matter was once again referred to the
Chairman, Board of Studies in Engineering, since there is only one Board of
studies in Engineering and no separate Board of Engineering for each branch at
that time, for his suggestion and the Chairman in his letter No.9970/Z/99
dated 30.11.1999 has suggested as follows:
“… granting of recognition to M.S. degree in various discipline awarded by
BITS, Pilani, through distance learning programme as equivalent to M.E./M.Tech
Degree of the discipline concerned of Madras University is a major policy
decision to be taken and to be approved by the appropriate bodies of the
University. Hence it is suggested that this issue may be placed before the
ensuing Board of Studies in Engineering Meeting”.
18. This respondent would further submit that the Board of Studies in
Engineering at its meeting held on 8.12.1999 has considered the above matter
and resolved as follows:
“The number of subjects in M.S. Degree offered by BITS, Pilani through
Distance Education in various discipline contains only eight subjects which is
less when compared to M.E. degree course which offers 12 subjects in two
semester and a project work for one full semester by the Madras University.
19. Also the duration of M.S. Programme in BITS, Pilani is two to
four semesters. Hence the M.S. degree offered by BITS, Pilani, through
Distance Education cannot be considered as equivalent to M.E./M. Tech.
Degree of respective discipline of Madras University for the purpose of
appointments/higher studies.”
20. This respondent would further submit that the above
recommendation of the Board of studies in Engineering was approved by the
Syndicate at its meeting held on 22.12.1999; that the Board of Studies can be
substituted by the Syndicate by means of an ordinance under Section 25-A of
the Madras University Act, 1923; that it is an expert body consisting of
eminent academicians; that it has power, among others, to make recommendations
in regard to courses of study and examinations in the subject, with which it
deals; that inasmuch as the said recommendation of the Board of studies in
Engineering dated 8.12.1999, is approved by the Syndicate by its resolution
dated 22.12.1999, it is binding on the University of Madras; that the above
writ petition is not maintainable in law inasmuch as there is no provision
under the University Grants Commission Act 1956 requiring the fifth respondent
University to recognize the degree of other Universities; that Section 22 of
the said Act vests only the right on Universities and other institutions
recognized as such under Section of the Act to confer or grant degrees; that
it does not create a corresponding obligation on the part of other
Universities to recognize those degrees; that other Universities will
recognize the degree of another University only when they conform to the
standard, prescribed by them under their statutes or regulations or if they
are found to be equivalent by the expert bodies like the Board of studies of
the fifth respondent University; that inasmuch a decision has been taken by
the Syndicate of the fifth respondent University that the M.S.degree conferred
by the fourth respondent is not equivalent to its M.E./M.Tech degree, on the
basis of the resolutions of the Board of studies, dated 8.12.1999, no legal
obligation to recognize the said degree, arises as far as the fifth respondent
University is concerned and as a result, no writ would lie as against the
fifth respondent University and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.
21. The seventh respondent/Anna University would file a counter
thereby submitting that since the above Writ Petition has been filed
challenging the communication of the Director of Technical Education, this
respondent cannot be held responsible for the same; that as far as this
respondent is concerned, the Syndicate of Anna University after perusing the
report of the Expert Committee have resolved vide Syndicate Resolution
No.105.13.1 dated December 1995 not to recognise BITS, Pilani M.S. Degree as
equivalent to other M.E./M.Tech degrees and hence the graduate with M.S.
Degree from BITS, Pilani are not entitled to be admitted into the Ph.D.
programme of the respondent University; that various distance education
programmes are normally equivalent to only part-time degree programmes and
mostly teachers of Engineering colleges and persons who are employed in
industries undergo the M.S.Distance education programme in BITS Pilani; that
the M.S. Degree programme is a specially designed programme conducted to
cater to the specific needs of various industries as per their requirements,
funding and the course is also sponsored by the industries and therefore,
there is no fixed syllabi or curriculum that is being followed for the purpose
of awarding M.S. Degree in BITS, Pilani.
22. This respondent would further submits that to the knowledge of
this respondent, the courses offered by BITS, Pilani have not got the approval
of AICTE; that since M.S. degree programme of BITS, Pilani being primarily a
sponsored programme, the rigor of test and required level of competence
applicable to regular M.E. Degree programmes are not present in the M.S.
Degree programme; that the petitioners have also not presented the
authenticated syllabi, the qualification of teaching faculty, duration of
teaching and practical training of various subjects, the examination
administered, the marks required for pass and class for categorization etc.
applicable to the degree course undergone by the petitioners.
23. Further giving the example of M.E./M.Tech part-time programme as
of 5 semesters with Regular campus attendance of the Anna University whereas
it is only 3 semesters for the M.S. of BITS, Pilani and giving a comparative
chart of both the courses; this respondent has bodies such as Academic Council
and Syndicate which are vested with the powers of evaluating, deciding
matters, such as recognising degrees awarded by various Universities in India
and abroad as recognised and equivalent for the purpose of higher education in
the University and accordingly, the University after due deliberation and
application of mind have decided not to consider M.S. Degree awarded by BITS
Pilani and certain other Universities as equivalent to M.E/M.Tech. degrees
awarded by Anna University. On such grounds, this respondent would pray to
dismiss the above writ petition.
24. The petitioner would file a rejoinder as against the above
counter filed by the 7th respondent thereby submitting that the statement of
the 7th respondent that insofar as the impugned order is concerned it cannot
be held responsible is false in view of the fact that the admission to the
Engineering Courses, approval of the students, grant of various
courses,monitoring of all Technical Institutions with the qualifications of
the Lecturers, Assistant Professors and Professors etc. are checked and
inspected by the second respondent and the same is forwarded for approval to
the respective affiliating Universities and without approval of the second
respondent, no technical Institute can be affiliated to the University; that
the Syndicate of the Anna University is said to have resolved vide Resolution
No.105.13.1 during December 1995 not to recognise BITS, Pilani M.S. degree as
equivalent to M.E./M.Tech degree and that the said Graduates of BITS, Pilani
are not entitled to be admitted into the Ph.D. courses of Anna University and
the said resolution having been passed during December 1995 and that all the
petitioners having possessed M.S. degree prior to the said resolution can
have only prospective operation without in any way affecting the accrued
rights of the petitioners; that the Government by an Act had affiliated all
the Engineering Colleges throughout the Tamil Nadu to the Anna University and
consequent upon that, no orders have been issued to persons who are undergoing
Ph.D. degree on the basis of M.S. degree of BITS, Pilani and in fact, the
Director of Technical Education had sponsored few Central Polytechnic Staff
for admission to the said courses and the 7th respondent had also sponsored
and therefore, having chosen to do so, there cannot be a different treatment
to similarly placed persons, which would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India apart from resulting in hostile discrimination; that the
comparison made by the seventh respondent is a farce since M.S., BITS, Pilani
is a full time sponsored programme with a fixed syllabi having been approved
by Distant Education Council (DEC) and Ministry of Human Resources Development
had accepted and given that the said qualification as equivalent to M.E.
25. The fourth respondent/BITS, Pilani would also file a rejoinder to
the counter filed by the 7th respondent thereby furnishing the list of various
authorities and
Universities which have recognized BITS, Pilani and the unique features of the
off-campus distance learning and collaborative programmes. This respondent
would further submit that BITS, Pilani being a deemed University, it does not
require any approval from AICTE; that under clause 10(k) of the AICTE Act,
1987 it is empowered to grant approval for starting courses in ‘Technical
Institutions’ which are other than ‘Universities’ as per definitions 2(h) and
(i) of the said Act; that the Universities do not come under the purview of
the clause 10(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 for approval and the same view has
been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in its judgment delivered in
BHARATHIDASAN UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER vs. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL
EDUCATION AND OTHERS reported in (2001) 8 SCC 676.
26. The seventh respondent would also file a reply affidavit to the
rejoinder filed by the petitioners thereby reiterating their stand and further
submitting that the University which conferred a degree on the petitioners
alone is to answer the petitioners grievance; that the petitioners before
pursuing the degree programme ought to have verified the recognition of the
degree and accordingly decided not to opt for the degree and there is neither
any privity of contract nor legal right to seek the prayer in the writ
petitioner against the seventh respondent; that no University or a deemed
University or its graduates can compel or demand as a matter of fact the 7th
respondent University to recognise the degrees of such University and the
petitioners have no right to invoke writ jurisdiction.
27. This respondent would further submit that assuming without
admitting that the impugned order is quashed, it would not automatically
confer any right on the petitioners for their degrees to be recognised as
equivalent by the concerned University since considering equivalence of
degrees is a matter of academic expertise which has to be done by the experts
of the respective University concerned because certain other Universities have
recognised the degree of the University wherein the petitioners had studied,
it is not incumbent on every University to likewise recognise since
recognition and equivalence being academic matters have to be done by the
respective University for which powers are conferred in the University Act;
that the Anna University is acting as a nodal agency for and on behalf of
Government of Tamil Nadu for engineering admission and is not in-charge of
granting approval of students, which is done by the Directorate of Technical
Education and the prescription of qualifications of faculty is within the
purview of AICTE; that the University is empowered to grant and withdraw
affiliation as per the provisions of the University Act; that the petitioners
are not entitled to question the validity of the Syndicate resolution of the
University in a writ petition wherein it is not the subject matter of
challenge; that it is not obligatory on the University to grant recognition
for a course on the sole ground that other non-statutory bodies such as
Association of Indian Universities have granted recognition.
28. During arguments, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners
would submit that no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order and
would cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in MOHINDER SINGH
GILL AND ANOTHER vs. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 wherein it has been held:
“When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its
validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented
by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order
bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a
challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.”
29. On behalf of the learned counsel for the 7th respondent/Anna
University, the learned counsel would cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex
Court delivered in RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY AND
ANOTHER reported in AIR 1986 SC 1448 wherein it has been held:
“It is for each University to decide the question of equivalence of
examinations and it would not be right for the Supreme Court to sit in
judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on
which the Court possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to
decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is
equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the
courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard
of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should not
disturb the decision taken by the University.”
30. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the
materials placed on record and upon hearing the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioners and the respondents as well what comes to be known
is that the petitioners have filed the above writ petition praying to quash
the proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in letter No.5000/CDC/2000 dated
–.10.2000 and consequently direct the respondents to recognise the degree of
the 4th respondent for all purposes including appointments, promotions, higher
studies and for doing Ph.D. etc. with all consequential benefits
31. The petitioners numbering 68, all of whom are B.E/B.Tech.
graduates and working as Lecturers in various colleges under the control of
the respondents 1, 2, 5 and 7 have joined M.S. degree courses in Computer
Science, Electronics Control etc., systems and Information, Software System
and Technological Operations and when it came into question of recognition,
the second respondent by the impugned order has informed the petitioners that
the MS Degree awarded by BITS, Pilani (Rajasthan) through correspondence
programme is not equivalent to that of M.E., degree awarded by the Tamilnadu
Universities and hence the above writ petition praying for the relief
extracted supra.
32. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would argue to the
effect that the said degree was conferred on them by regularly undergoing
sponsored Distance Learning Programme of the BITS, Pilani in pursuance of the
employer having met the entire Academic pursuit to do the said programme; that
BITS, Pilani is a ‘Deemed University’ and the degrees awarded by it are
recognised and no formal orders are required as per the Official Memorandum
No.6/1/64 Estt. D. dated 19.4.1964 and that the order of the 2nd respondent
in treating the degrees awarded by the such pioneer universities as not
equivalent to the M.E./M.Tech. Degrees which hitherto were considered
equivalent and since the said institution has been established by the Act of
Parliament and was accorded status of ‘Deemed universities’ under the
Universities-Grants-Commission Act, the order of the 2nd respondent suffers
jurisdictional and for non-application of mind.
33. The petitioners besides the other arguments would cite letter
dated 13.11.1991 addressed by the Deputy Educational Adviser ( Technical)
Government of India to an individual stating that the degrees awarded by a
University set up under an Act of Parliament or State Legislature are
automatically recognised for the purpose of employment under Central
Government and another letter dated 1.4.1993 issued by the Registrar,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University equivalent wherein it has been mentioned
that for recruitment/promotion/higher studies, the MS Computer Science degree
given by BITS, Pilani may be treated on par with P.G. Computer Science
Degree. The petitioners counsel would further cite such instances of letters
addressed by the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi, The Adviser of
All India Council for Technical Education and from BITS, Pilani would state
that the certificates and degrees issued by the BITS, Pilani are equivalent to
that of the M.S. Degree should be accepted by the Universities of Tamilnadu
since it is a ‘Deemed university’ and is authorised to offer any degree
programme and on such arguments the petitioners counsel would request the
Court to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the factual
position since according to them, there is absolutely no reason as to why
having recognized and accepted those degrees awarded by BITS, Pilani as
equivalent to M.E.Degree for nearly six years, the respondents have now issued
the impugned order contrarily and would ultimately pray to allow the above
writ petition, quashing the impugned letter dated –.10.2000.
34. On the other hand on behalf of the respondents 1,2, 5 and
7 it would be strongly argued to the effect that by the communication received
from the AICTE dated 31.7.1995, when it is stated that the council has not
received any proposal plan from the BITS, Pilani for approval of the
programmes and the degrees awarded by the Universities set up under the Act of
Parliament or a State Legislature are automatically recognised for the purpose
of employment. In this connection, a resolution of the General Academic
matters of the syndicate meeting of the University of Madras held on
22.12.1999 cast resolving number of subjects in M.S. Degrees offered by BITS,
Pilani. Therefore distance education in various disciplines contained only 8
subjects which is less when compared through M.E. Degree Courses which offers
12 subjects in two semesters and a project work for one full semester by the
Madras University and the duration of M.S. Degree in BITS,Pilani is 2 to 4
semesters and hence M.S. Degree offered by BITS, Pilani through distance
Education cannot be considered as equivalent to M.E./M. Tech degree of
respective discipline of Madras University for the purpose of
appointment/higher studies. Various instances would be cited by these
respondents in consummation of their arguments that the degrees awarded by
BITS, Pilani are not equivalent to that of the M.E./M.Tech degrees of the
respective discipline of Madras University.
35. It would further be submitted on the part of these respondents
that the courses offered by BITS, Pilani have not got the approval from AICTE;
that since the MS Degree Programmes of BITS, Pilani being primarily a
sponsored programme, the rigor of test and required level of competence
applicable to regular M.E. Degree Programmes are not present in M.S. Degree
programme; that the petitioners have also not presented the authenticated
syllabi, the qualification of teaching faculty, duration of teaching and
practical training of various subjects, the examination administered, the
marks required for pass and class for categorization etc., applicable to the
degree course undergone by the petitioners.
36. Cases would also be cited on the part of the petitioners and the
respondents as well, so far as the proposition alleged to have been held in
the case cited by the petitioners counsel reported in MOHINDER SINGH GILL AND
ANOTHER VS. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND OTEHRS (AIR 1978
SC 851) are only suggestion in nature and not held as ruling so as to help the
petitioners nor could it be done in the circumstances of the case. On the
other hand, in the case cited on the part of the respondents reported in
RAJENDRA PRASAD MATHUR vs. KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER (AIR 1986 SC
1448), it has been held that it is for each University to decide the question
of equivalence of examinations and it would not be right for the Supreme Court
to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a
matter on which the Court possesses any expertise but the University is best
fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the
State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to
the courses; the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the
standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should
not disturb the decision taken by the University.
37. The above judgment of the Honourable Apex Court is not only the
law of the land but also squarely applies to the case in hand and needless to
mention that the petitioners cannot compel the respondents particularly the
respondents 1, 2, 5 and 7 with such impositions that they should recognise the
degree conferred by the BITS, Pilani for any purpose much less for the purpose
of appointment/ promotions/ higher studies for doing Ph. D. etc., It is
relevant to mention that no University or ‘Deemed University’ or its graduates
could compel or demand any other university to recognise the degrees of other
universities. It aptly applies to the petitioners as well and therefore no
mention need be necessary that the petitioners have no case to offer. Hence
the above writ petition becomes only liable to be dismissed.
In result,
(i) The above writ petition, for all the above reasons assigned, does
not merit acceptance but only becomes liable to be dismissed and is dismissed
accordingly;
(ii) Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.10566 of 2001 is also
dismissed;
(iii) There shall be or order as to costs.
07.01.2005
ks
Index:Yes
Internet: Yes
Copy to:
1. The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Technical Education,
Guindy, Chennai-25.
3. The Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Department of Education,
New Delhi.
4. The Registrar,
Birla Institute of Technology and Science
Pilani, Rajasthan.
5. The Registrar,
University of Madras, Madras.
6. The All India Council for
Technical Education,
Shastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road,
Chennai-34.
7. The Registrar,
Anna University,
Chennai.
8. Association of Indian Universities,
AIU House,
No.16 Kotla Marg,
New Delhi-2.