Supreme Court Invalidates Engineering Degrees via Distance Education Programs: Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. (2017) INSC 920 (3 November 2017)

Date of the Judgment: 3 November 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 920
Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J. (authored the judgment)
Can a deemed university offer engineering degrees through distance education without proper approvals? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical issue, invalidating such degrees and emphasizing the need for stringent regulatory oversight. This judgment impacts thousands of students who pursued technical education through distance learning programs from certain deemed universities.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute involving the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (OLIC) and several of its employees who had obtained engineering degrees through distance education. The Directorate of Lift Irrigation in the Government of Odisha was converted into OLIC. The service conditions of engineers, including Junior Engineers, were governed by the Orissa Service of Engineers’ Rules, 1941.

Rabi Sankar Patro, a Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering, joined OLIC as a Junior Engineer. While in service, he obtained a B.Tech (Civil) degree from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University through distance education in 2009. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa, claiming entitlement to promotion as an Assistant Engineer based on his in-service graduate engineer status. The High Court allowed his petition, relying on a previous order directing OLIC to consider such cases.

OLIC filed a review petition, arguing that the degrees obtained through distance education from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University were not recognized by the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE). The High Court dismissed the review petition, stating that the rules did not specify that distance education was impermissible and that the degrees were obtained from Indian Universities. This decision led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Orissa initially allowed the writ petition filed by Rabi Sankar Patro, directing OLIC to consider his case as an in-service graduate engineer. OLIC’s review petition was dismissed, with the High Court noting that the rules did not explicitly prohibit degrees obtained through distance education.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a separate case, declared that degrees in engineering obtained through distance education from certain deemed universities were invalid for government jobs. These conflicting decisions led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legislations:

• ✓ The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act): This act establishes the University Grants Commission (UGC) to coordinate and maintain standards in universities. Section 2(f) defines “University,” and Section 3 allows for the conferral of “Deemed to be University” status. Section 12 outlines the functions of UGC, and Section 26 empowers it to make regulations for maintaining standards.

  Section 2(f): “University” means 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.

• ✓ The Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 (IGNOU Act): This act established the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) to promote distance education. Section 2(e) defines “Distance Education System,” and Section 5 outlines the powers of IGNOU.

  Section 2(e): “Distance Education System” means 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 All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (AICTE Act): This act established the AICTE to ensure the coordinated development of technical education. Section 2 defines “Technical Education,” “Technical Institution,” and “University.” Section 10 outlines the powers and functions of the AICTE.

  Section 2(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.

  Section 2(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.

  Section 2(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.

The court also referred to various notifications, circulars, and guidelines issued by the UGC, AICTE, and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) regarding distance education and the recognition of degrees.

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellants (OLIC and others):

• ✓ The degrees in engineering obtained by the employees through distance education from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University and similar deemed universities are not recognized degrees.
• ✓ The University Grants Commission (UGC) had notified that JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University was not permitted to conduct any courses through distance education.
• ✓ The All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) does not recognize degrees in technical courses obtained through distance mode.

Submissions by the Respondents (Employees and Deemed Universities):

• ✓ The employees were in-service diploma holders who obtained graduate degrees to enhance their qualifications and career prospects.
• ✓ The deemed universities had obtained ex-post facto approvals for their distance education programs from the Distance Education Council (DEC) and UGC.
• ✓ The AICTE Act does not require universities, including deemed universities, to obtain prior approval for starting technical courses. Reliance was placed on the decision in Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others [ (2001) 8 SCC 676].
• ✓ The UGC’s regulations did not explicitly prohibit distance education degrees, and the universities were following the guidelines of the regulatory bodies.

Submissions by the UGC:

• ✓ The UGC used to consider granting approvals to deemed universities for B.E./B.Tech degrees through distance mode, requiring AICTE approval where necessary.
• ✓ The UGC’s 2004 guidelines mandated prior approval from AICTE for technical programs offered through distance education.
• ✓ The UGC does not recognize B.E./B.Tech. degrees awarded by deemed universities through distance mode without AICTE approval.

Submissions by the AICTE:

• ✓ The AICTE’s policy does not recognize qualifications acquired through distance education mode in engineering, technology, and related fields.
• ✓ The AICTE only recognizes MBA and MCA programs through distance mode.
• ✓ Technical courses through distance education mode, other than MBA and MCA, are not permissible.

Submissions by the Amicus Curiae:

• ✓ The ex-post facto approvals were granted without proper inspection or verification of the infrastructure and facilities at the study centers.
• ✓ The deemed universities admitted students, conducted courses, and granted degrees without statutory approvals and in violation of public notices.
• ✓ Even if prior approval from AICTE was not required for universities, the UGC guidelines required compliance with AICTE norms.

Innovativeness of the argument: The arguments presented by the deemed universities and the employees centered around the interpretation of the AICTE Act and the UGC guidelines, particularly the extent to which deemed universities were exempt from AICTE approval. The innovative aspect was their reliance on the Bharathidasan University case to argue that deemed universities should be treated on par with regular universities and not be subjected to AICTE’s regulatory control.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. 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 –
   1. Without any parameters or Guidelines having been laid down by AICTE for conduct of such courses in technical education through distance education mode.
   2. Without prior approval under the AICTE Act.
2. Whether DEC, on its own, was competent to grant permission to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to start such courses through distance education.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• ✓ Section 2(f) of the UGC Act, defining “University.”
• ✓ Section 3 of the UGC Act, regarding conferral of “Deemed to be University” status.
• ✓ Section 5 of the IGNOU Act, outlining the powers of IGNOU.
• ✓ Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act, defining “Technical Education.”
• ✓ Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, defining “Technical Institution.”
• ✓ Section 2(i) of the AICTE Act, defining “University.”
• ✓ Section 10 of the AICTE Act, outlining the powers and functions of the AICTE.
• ✓ Section 23 of the UGC Act, concerning the use of the word “University.”

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others [(2001) 8 SCC 676]: The court clarified that this case did not deal with distance education and that the role of AICTE was advisory.
• Association of Management of Private Colleges v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. [(2013) 8 SCC 271]: The court clarified that this case was about affiliated colleges and not deemed universities offering technical courses outside their field of expertise.
• Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 590]: The court relied on this case to emphasize that mandatory provisions must be complied with for a degree to be valid.
• Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2016) 7 SCC 353] and Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2016) 6 SCC 335]: The court referred to these cases to emphasize the need for review of regulatory mechanisms in education and professions.
• Satyabama Institute of Science & Technology v. Union of India [2006 (3) MRJ 870] and Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences v. University Grants Commission [W.P. (C) 486/2015 decided on 4.12.2015]: The court disagreed with the conclusions in these cases.

The Supreme Court held that the deemed universities were not justified in introducing courses in technical education without the approval of AICTE. The court stated that AICTE is the sole authority for setting standards in technical education. The court also held that DEC was not competent to grant permission for distance education in technical fields independently.

The court found that the ex-post facto approvals granted to the deemed universities were illegal and opposed to policy statements. The court, however, decided to protect the interests of the students enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 by allowing them to appear for a test conducted by AICTE.

The court directed that all degrees in engineering granted to students enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 would be suspended until they pass the test. For students admitted after the academic sessions 2001-2005, the court declared the degrees in engineering awarded through distance education as cancelled.

The court also directed the CBI to investigate the conduct of the officials who granted permissions against policy statements and the conduct of institutions that abused their position for commercial gain. The UGC was directed to consider withdrawing the deemed university status of JRN, AAI, IASE, and VMRF.

The Supreme Court also directed the Union of India to constitute a committee to examine the issues and suggest a roadmap for strengthening the oversight and regulatory mechanism for higher education.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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.”

“In our view whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering, could be taught in distance education mode or not is within 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.”

“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.”

There were no dissenting opinions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the quality and standards of technical education, the importance of regulatory compliance, and the protection of students’ interests. The court emphasized that AICTE is the sole authority for setting standards in technical education and that distance education in technical fields requires specific guidelines. The court also noted that the deemed universities had acted in violation of policy statements and that the ex-post facto approvals were not valid.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court considered the factual aspects of the case, such as the lack of proper inspections and the manner in which approvals were granted. However, the legal considerations, such as the interpretation of the AICTE Act and the UGC Act, played a more significant role in the court’s decision.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Engineering degrees obtained through distance education from certain deemed universities between 2001 and 2005 are suspended and require students to pass a test conducted by AICTE.
• ✓ Degrees obtained after 2005 through distance education from these deemed universities are cancelled.
• ✓ Deemed universities are not exempt from AICTE regulations, particularly when offering technical courses outside their field of specialization.
• ✓ Distance education in technical fields requires specific guidelines from AICTE.
• ✓ The Distance Education Council (DEC) was not competent to grant independent permission for distance education in technical fields.
• ✓ The UGC and AICTE must strengthen their oversight and regulatory mechanisms for distance education.
• ✓ The commercialization of education is a serious concern.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• ✓ AICTE: To devise modalities for conducting tests for students enrolled between 2001 and 2005 and to recover the costs from the deemed universities.
• ✓ UGC: To consider withdrawing the deemed university status of JRN, AAI, IASE, and VMRF and to ensure that deemed universities do not use the word “University.”
• ✓ CBI: To investigate the conduct of officials who granted permissions against policy and the conduct of institutions who abused their position for commercial gain.
• ✓ Union of India: To constitute a committee to examine the issues and suggest a roadmap for strengthening oversight and regulatory mechanisms.
• ✓ Deemed Universities: To refund fees to students whose degrees are cancelled and to cease distance education programs without proper approvals.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that deemed universities are not exempt from the regulatory oversight of AICTE, particularly when offering technical courses outside their field of specialization. The judgment clarifies that the AICTE is the sole authority for setting standards in technical education and that distance education in technical fields requires specific guidelines. This ruling changes the previous understanding that deemed universities could operate with the same autonomy as regular universities in starting new courses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. is a landmark decision that has far-reaching implications for technical education in India. The court’s decision to invalidate engineering degrees obtained through distance education from certain deemed universities underscores the importance of regulatory compliance and quality standards in higher education. The judgment also highlights the need for greater oversight and accountability in the administration of distance education programs, particularly in technical fields.