Supreme Court Clarifies Validity of Engineering Degrees Awarded Through Distance Education: Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd vs. Rabi Sankar Patro (22 January 2018)

LEGAL ISSUE: Clarification on the validity of engineering degrees obtained through distance education from deemed universities and the applicability of a mandatory test.

CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Case Name: Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors.

Judgment Date: 22 January 2018

Date of the Judgment: 22nd January 2018

Citation: Not Available in the source

Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. and Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of applications seeking clarification and modification of its earlier judgment concerning the validity of engineering degrees obtained through distance education from deemed universities. The core issue revolved around whether the directions in the original judgment, particularly regarding a mandatory test for degree holders, should apply uniformly to all candidates, including those who secured jobs based on these degrees and those with higher qualifications. This judgment clarifies the scope of the earlier ruling and provides some relaxations for candidates enrolled during specific academic years.

Case Background

The case arises from a series of applications seeking clarification and modification of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 03.11.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of 2017. The original judgment dealt with the validity of engineering degrees awarded by deemed universities through distance education. The applicants in the present case are individuals who obtained such degrees and are now seeking exemptions or relaxations from the directions issued in the original judgment, particularly the requirement to pass a test conducted by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The present proceedings are a result of multiple miscellaneous applications filed in the Supreme Court seeking clarification and modification of the directions issued in the judgment dated 03.11.2017. These applications were filed by individuals who were affected by the original judgment, which had declared certain engineering degrees obtained through distance education invalid. The applicants sought various forms of relief, including exemptions from the mandatory test and recognition of their degrees based on their subsequent career advancements.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily addresses the implications of the earlier ruling concerning the validity of engineering degrees awarded by deemed universities through distance education. The core issue was whether these degrees were valid, given that they were not approved by the AICTE. The judgment also touches upon the powers and functions of the AICTE in regulating technical education in India.

Arguments

The applicants presented various arguments, which can be summarized as follows:

• Applicants with UPSC Selection: Some applicants argued that their degrees were independently considered by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) during their selection process. They contended that their selection through a competitive process should exempt them from the mandatory test. They argued that unlike in-service candidates, they would lose their jobs if their degrees were suspended.

• ITM International Candidates: Some applicants who completed their B.Tech courses through ITM International argued that it was a reputable institution and their degrees should not be questioned. They also contended that they had undergone further selection processes, proving their knowledge and skills.

• Master’s Degree Holders: Some applicants argued that the original judgment was concerned with first degrees in engineering and not with Master’s degrees. They contended that those who had acquired Master’s degrees in engineering through distance education should not be covered by the judgment.

• Diploma Holders: Some applicants argued that the judgment was concerned with degrees in engineering and not with diplomas. They submitted that the AICTE’s public notice, which included diploma courses, was beyond the scope of the matter.

• VMRF Candidates: Applicants who obtained degrees from Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation (VMRF) argued that VMRF was granted deemed university status for its excellence in engineering and technology, unlike other universities. They contended that their degrees should be treated differently.

• Candidates with Higher Qualifications: Some applicants argued that weightage should be given to the higher qualifications they had acquired after obtaining their engineering degrees through distance education.

• NMDC Employees: Applicants employed by NMDC, a statutory corporation, argued that their abilities were tested by the organization and they should be exempted from the test.

The AICTE, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that the mandatory test should apply to all candidates who obtained engineering degrees through distance education from deemed universities, as the degrees were not approved by the AICTE.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this order. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:

1. Whether the directions in the original judgment apply to diploma holders.
2. Whether the directions in the original judgment apply to Master’s degree holders.
3. Whether the directions in the original judgment should be relaxed for candidates who were selected through competitive exams like UPSC or who had advanced in their careers.
4. Whether the degrees awarded by VMRF should be treated differently.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court did not cite any specific authorities in this order. The primary focus was on clarifying the directions issued in its previous judgment and addressing the various arguments presented by the applicants.

Judgment

The court clarified that the core issue was the validity of engineering degrees obtained through distance education from deemed universities, which were not approved by the AICTE. The court rejected most of the submissions for exemption from the mandatory test, but granted a one-time relaxation for candidates enrolled during 2001-2005.

The court stated:

“We, therefore, as a one-time relaxation in favour of those candidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 and who, in terms of the judgment, are eligible to appear at the test to be conducted by AICTE, direct:- a]All such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcoming test to be conducted by AICTE in May-June 2018 and who exercise option to appear at the test in terms of the judgment, can retain the degrees in question and all the advantages flowing therefrom till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018 whichever is earlier.”

“This facility is given as one-time exception so that those who have the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt itself, should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the advantages. But if they fail or choose not to appear, the directions in the judgment shall apply, in that the degrees and all advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn.”

“At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that no more such chances or exceptions will be given or made. They will undoubtedly be entitled to appear on the second occasion in terms of the judgment but this exception shall not apply for such second attempt.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fundamental issue of the lack of approval from AICTE for engineering degrees obtained through distance education from deemed universities. The court emphasized that the infirmity in these degrees was basic and could not be overlooked, regardless of the candidates’ subsequent career advancements or selection through competitive exams.

The court, however, also considered the practical implications of its decision, particularly the potential job losses for candidates who had secured employment based on these degrees. This led to the one-time relaxation, allowing candidates to retain their jobs until the results of the AICTE test were declared, provided they appeared for the test in the first attempt.

The court’s reasoning was a combination of upholding the regulatory framework for technical education and addressing the immediate concerns of the affected candidates.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Diploma Courses Excluded: The judgment does not apply to diploma courses in engineering awarded through distance education.

• Master’s Degrees Included: The judgment applies to both graduate and postgraduate degrees in engineering obtained through distance education from deemed universities.

• One-Time Relaxation: Candidates enrolled in engineering degree courses through distance education during the academic years 2001-2005, who choose to appear for the AICTE test in May-June 2018, can retain their degrees and associated advantages until one month after the declaration of results or 31.07.2018, whichever is earlier.

• Test Mandatory: If candidates fail the test or do not appear for it, their degrees will be suspended and all advantages withdrawn.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed AICTE to conduct the test in May-June 2018 and declare the results in time. AICTE was also directed to extend the time for candidates to exercise their option to appear for the test.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that degrees in engineering obtained through distance education from deemed universities without AICTE approval are not valid. This judgment clarifies the scope of the previous judgment and provides a one-time relaxation for candidates enrolled during 2001-2005, but it does not change the fundamental position of the law regarding the requirement of AICTE approval for such degrees.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order clarified that its previous judgment on the invalidity of engineering degrees obtained through distance education applies to both graduate and postgraduate degrees, but not to diplomas. While the court provided a one-time relaxation for candidates enrolled during 2001-2005, it upheld the requirement for a mandatory test by AICTE for all such degree holders. This decision underscores the importance of regulatory compliance in technical education and the need for valid approvals for educational programs.