Sh. Saurabhh Shukla vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University And Anr.

2023:DHC:7363


$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14054/2018 & CM APPLs. 27104/2019, 39221/2019

Date of Decision: 27.09.2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

SH. SAURABH SHUKLA
SON OF SH. YOGENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA,
RESIDENT OF A-1016,
FIRST FLOOR, G. D. COLONY,
MAYUR VIHAR PHASE- III,
DELHI - 110096. ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. L.B. Rai and Mr. Kartik Rai,
Advocates

Versus
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY,
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
93, MAIDAN GARHI ROAD,
PRAJAPATI MOHALLA,
MAIDAN GARHI,
NEW DELHI-110068 …RESPONDENT NO. 1

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
6, BENITO JUAREZ MARG,
SOUTH CAMPUS,
SOUTH MOTI BAGH,
NEW DELHI- 110021 …RESPONDENT NO. 2

Through: Mr.Aly Mirza, Advocate for respondent
No.1
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Ms. Gauri and Mr. Shivansu
Dwivedi, Advocates for UGC/respondent No.2

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[2]

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition is aggrieved by the email
dated 29.09.2018, whereby, his application for admission in Postgraduate
Diploma in Book Publishing (PGDBP) has been rejected by respondent
no.1-Indira Gandhi National Open University (hereinafter as „IGNOU‟) for
the academic session 2018-19. He further prays for direction to respondent
no.1-IGNOU to grant him admission in the said course.
2. The facts of the case show that the petitioner took admission in an
offshore campus of Sikkim Manipal University, Gangtok, Sikkim
(hereinafter as „SMU‟) located in Noida, Uttar Pradesh in the year 2014 in
Bachelor of Computer Application (hereinafter as „BCA‟ ) Programme . He
obtained his degree for the said course on 10.05.2018.
3. Thereafter, being desirous of securing admission in the online PGDBP
course, he applied for the same in respondent no.1-IGNOU on 10.08.2018.
However, on 29.09.2018, his application for the online PGDBP course has
been rejected. The petitioner forthwith filed an RTI application on the even
date, seeking the reasons for rejection of his application for admission in the
said course.
4. On 07.10.2018, the petitioner received a reply to the said RTI
application, whereby, it was informed that SMU is a private University
established under the State enactment known as Sikkim Manipal University
of Health, Medical and Technological Sciences Act, 1995 and hence, the
operation of SMU is restricted within the territorial jurisdiction of the State
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[3]

of Sikkim only. It was also stated in the email that the degrees obtained from
SMU through an off campus centre situated beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the State of Sikkim are not acceptable for academic purposes
in respondent no.1-IGNOU.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has illegally been denied the admission by respondent no.1-
IGNOU. According to him, the BCA Programme degree obtained by the
petitioner does not disentitle him from securing admission in an online
course run by respondent no.1-IGNOU. He also submits that the reason
provided by respondent no.1-IGNOU vide aforementioned rejection letter is
not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the decision of rejection
deserves to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel also emphasizes on the notification dated 19.12.2014
issued by respondent no.2-UGC, to submit that the programme pursued by
the petitioner was valid for students who had taken admission till 2014-15.
He submits that respondent no.2-UGC has also written various letters at
regular intervals to SMU, informing them about the continuation of
recognition for offering programmes through open and distance learning
mode for academic year 2016-17 and even for session 2017-18 as well.
7. According to him, it was only on 03.10.2018 that the programmes
conducted through distance mode by SMU were derecognised by respondent
no.2-UGC vide notification dated 03.10.2018. He, therefore, contends that
since the petitioner was admitted in the year 2014, when the distance mode
programmes were recognized, there is no reason to reject the petitioner’s
application for PGDBP course. He further submits that such a rejection is
bad in law and is causing a great prejudice to the petitioner by jeopardizing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[4]

his professional endeavours.
8. While advancing the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel places
reliance on paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the decision of the High Court of
Sikkim in W.P.(C) No. 04 of 2013 titled as Sikkim Manipal University v.
Indira Gandhi National Open University & Ors. and paragraph nos. 9 to 14
of the decision of the same High Court in W.P.(C) No. 08 of 2015 titled as
Mr. Pralhad Dani Chhetri v. Union of India & Ors. It is contended by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner in
the instant petition is similarly placed with the aggrieved petitioners in the
aforementioned decisions and therefore, the relief granted in the said cases
must be extended to the petitioner herein as well.
9. Learned counsel, while taking this court through the counter affidavit
of respondent no.2-UGC, highlights that in terms of paragraph no.7, it is
clear that the recognition of the petitioner’s degree has been affirmed in the
case of Mr. Pralhad Dani (supra) and the same has been admitted by
respondent no.2-UGC as well. He then refers to the notification issued by
respondent no.2-UGC dated 19.12.2014 at Annexure-P4 to submit that if the
remarks of status of recognition of SMU is seen, it explicitly states that the
nd
period from 22 February, 2013 (stay granted by High Court of Sikkim)
upto end of May, 2015 is to be regulated as per orders of High Court of
Sikkim in aforementioned cases i.e., Sikkim Manipal University (supra)
and Mr. Pralhad Dani (supra). It is, therefore, submitted by the learned
counsel that there are no cogent reasons which warrant the non-recognition
of petitioner’s BCA programme degree by respondent no.1-IGNOU.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1-IGNOU
vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[5]

petitioner. He submits that, at the outset, the instant petition is a proxy
litigation initiated for the benefit of SMU to legitimize the recognition of its
degree.
11. According to him, SMU is a private State University which has a study
centre beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Sikkim in Noida and the
petitioner has secured his BCA programme degree from the off campus
situated in Noida, which is impermissible in law. He submits that despite
being a State University, SMU has illegally set up study centres beyond the
territorial jurisdiction of the State of Sikkim, which is in complete
dissonance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena
of judgments. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
1
Court in the cases of Prof. Yashpal & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
2
and Rai University v. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors. , to support his
submissions. Additionally, he has also relied upon the decision of the High
Court of Sikkim in the case of Sikkim Manipal University v. Union of India
3
and Ors. , to submit that the vires of the public notice dated 19.07.2016
issued by respondent no.2-UGC proscribing State universities from
conducting examinations for their open and distance learning programmes
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University’s location has already
been unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court of Sikkim and thus,
there is no merit in the case of the petitioner.
12. Learned counsel further submits that the approval accorded by
respondent no.2-UGC vide letters dated 21.03.2016 and 21.03.2017 to SMU
for offering its academic programmes through open and distance learning

1
(2005) 5 SCC 420
2
(2005) 7 SCC 330
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[6]

mode for the academic year 2016-17 and 2017-18, respectively, was subject
to the terms and conditions mentioned in the respective letters of respondent
no.2-UGC. He specifically points out Clause xiv of Clause 3 of both the
letters, which reads as under:
“The territorial jurisdiction in respect of University for offering
programmes through distance mode will be as per the policy of UGC on
territorial jurisdiction and opening of “off campus centres/study centres
as mentioned in the UGC notification No. F.27-1/2012/(CPP-II) dated
th
27 June, 2013 , a copy of which is also posted on the UGC
website: www.ugc.ac.in/deb . ”
13. Learned counsel for respondent no.1-IGNOU submits that the
notification dated 19.12.2014 relied upon by the petitioner, unequivocally
restrains the territorial jurisdiction of State universities beyond the
boundaries of their respective States. He, therefore, submits that the BCA
degree obtained by the petitioner is in toto violation of the UGC
(Establishment of & Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities)
Regulations, 2003 and in the teeth of various notifications issued by
respondent no.2-UGC over the passage of time.
14. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
15. The main thrust of the petitioner in the instant case is that the BCA
programme degree obtained by him from SMU does not suffer from any
legal infirmity and resultantly, he must not be denied an opportunity to
pursue PGDMS course in respondent no.1-IGNOU on the pretext of having
an unrecognized degree.
16. The limited questions that fall for consideration of this court are
delineated hereunder as:-

3
2020 SCC OnLine Sikk 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[7]

I. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s admission in PGDMS
programme on the ground of his BCA programme degree being
contrary to the extant regulations and settled position of law, is
sustainable in the eyes of law?
II. Whether the petitioner has any legitimate expectation for being
admitted in the concerned course, which is otherwise denied due to a
sea change in the policy or past practices of the respondents?
17. It is appropriate to primarily advert to the constitutional scheme
regarding extent of laws made by the legislatures of States. A reference to
the said aspect can be drawn from the mandate of Article 245 of the
Constitution of India, which reads as under:
“245. Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make
laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature
of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State
(2) No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the
ground that it would have extra territorial operation”
18. It is seen from the language of Clause (1) of Article 245 of the
Constitution of India that the State Legislature may make laws for the whole
or any part of the State and hence, State laws are operable only within the
territorial limits of the concerned State. Therefore, the legitimate
competence of a private University established under the State Act, to
operate its study centres beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State, can
be determined on the touchstone of Article 245(1) of the Constitution of
India. The said exercise, however, has already been done by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a catena of judgments.
19. In the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[8]

paragraph no.60, has held that the enactment which specifically makes a
provision enabling a University to have an off campus centre outside the
State is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature.
The relevant paragraph reads as under:

20. In the case of Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma v.
4
Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University , while deprecating the
establishment of offshore study centres, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a
view that territorial jurisdiction of the University must be maintained to
prevent chaos. Paragraph nos.19 and 20 are reproduced as under:
“19. The submission of the learned counsel that for the purpose of running
a distance education course, extraterritorial activities must be carried out
may not be entirely correct. It is one thing to say that the university takes
recourse to the correspondence courses for conferring degrees or
diplomas but it would be another thing to say that study centres would be
permitted to operate which requires close supervision of the university. In
a study centre, teachers are appointed, practical classes are held and all

4
(2007) 6 SCC 35
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[9]

other amenities which are required to be provided for running a full-
fledged institution or college are provided. Such an establishment, in our
opinion, although named as a study centre, and despite the fact that the
course of study and other study materials are supplied by the university
cannot be permitted to be established beyond the territorial jurisdiction
of the university. Nainital is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
University. In fact it is not situated in the State of U.P. and, thus, is beyond
the provisions of the Act.
20. The submission of the learned counsel that the UGC Regulations, 1985
provide for study centres of this nature cannot be countenanced. The UGC
Regulations being a subordinate legislation must be read with the
principal Act. The subordinate legislation will be ultra vires if it
contravenes the provisions of the principal Act. (See Vasu Dev
Singh v. Union of India [(2006) 12 SCC 753 : (2006) 11 Scale 108] .) A
statutory authority, it is well known, must act within the four corners of the
statute. A fortiori it has to operate within the boundaries of the territories
within which it is to operate under the statute. Such territorial
jurisdiction of the university must be maintained as otherwise chaos
would be created. If distance education of such a nature is to be
encouraged, the only course would be to suitably amend the provisions
of the Act.”
[Emphasis supplied]
21. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in the case of University Grants Commission v. Annamalai
5
University , succinctly encapsulates the rationale behind the need to curb the
mushrooming of offshore study centres running without the requisite
approvals. Paragraph no.49 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
“49. The very necessity for such Regulations has come up only because of
the attempt made by some of the Universities to commercialise education
by engaging in indiscriminate franchisee agreements with persons who do
not have expertise or infrastructure to provide quality education to
students. The fact that some of the franchisees are before us challenging
the Regulations of the University Grants Commission itself is a proof to
the fact that the entire system of education, particularly, open distance
learning has been made a commercial venture by the Universities in their
desire to make education a profitable venture. It is quite surprising that

5
2023 SCC OnLine Mad 567
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[10]

even state funded universities have ventured into such unethical
practices.”
22. In the present case, a bare perusal of the letter dated 07.10.2018 sent
by respondent no.1-IGNOU to the petitioner would indicate that the
petitioner had admittedly obtained his BCA programme degree from SMU
in the year 2018 through its off-campus study centre located in Noida. The
said position is also, undisputedly, accepted by the petitioner during the
course of hearing. Paragraph no.3.1 of the said letter is culled out as under:
“3.1. In this context, it is also pertinent to mention that the erstwhile
Distance Education Council while communicating the approval for
offering the academic programmes through Distance education mode to
SMU, Gangtok, has incorporated the following clause vide para-6 of its
letter dated 15.10.2009, which reads;
“Regarding territorial jurisdiction for offering programmes
through distance mode, the latest UGC notifications will prevail
over all previous notifications and circulars. As per the UGC
Notification, State Universities (both private as well as Govt.
funded) can offer programmes only within the State and Deemed
Universities from the Headquarters and in no case outside the
state. However, Deemed Universities may seek the permission to
open off campus centres in other states and offer distance
education programmes through the approved off campuses only
after approval of UGC and DEC Central Universities will also
adhere to the UGC norms. The territorial jurisdiction for the
institutions (both private as well as Govt. funded) shall be the
Headquarters, and in no case outside the State.”
23. It is observed from the aforementioned paragraph of the letter dated
07.10.2018 that while communicating the grant of approval to SMU for
conducting the distance learning programmes, it was clearly stated in terms
of paragraph no.6 that the territorial jurisdiction for the institution shall in no
case be outside the State i.e., State of Sikkim.
24. Further, the „Territorial Jurisdiction‟ Clause of respondent no.2-
UGC’s notification dated 19.12.2014 regarding recognition accorded to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[11]

universities/institutions for offering programmes through distance mode
expressly mentions that the State universities must not extend their arms
beyond the periphery of their concerned States. The said Clause is extracted
as under:
“Territorial Jurisdiction: In case of Central Universities the Territorial
Jurisdiction will be as per their Acts and Statutes for offering programmes
through distance mode. In case of State Universities (both Govt and
Private) the Territorial Jurisdiction will be as per their Acts and statutes
but not beyond the boundary of the respective states. The Territorial
Jurisdiction in case of Deemed Universities will be as per UGC mandates
and prior approval of the UGC is required for opening Study Centres / Off
Campus Centres outside the HQs. The territorial jurisdiction in case of
Private Institutions (other than Universities) shall be their HQs and in no
case outside the State concerned. For recent notification of UGC on
Territorial Jurisdiction, please refer UGC website www.ugc.ac.in”
[Emphasis supplied]
25. It is, therefore, explicitly clear that the concerned regulations
governing the institution from which the petitioner had obtained his BCA
programme degree through distance education, categorically restrain SMU
in clear and unambiguous terms from conducting the said courses outside
the periphery of the State of Sikkim. The petitioner, by virtue of completing
his education through the mode which was neither prescribed nor considered
legal, cannot claim admission in the PGDMS course without fulfilling the
requisite eligibility.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the
decision in Sikkim Manipal University (supra) and more specifically, on
paragraph nos.24 and 25, which read as under:
24(i). Before finally concluding, it is essential to record here that some
students of the Petitioner-University who have undergone studies in the
DEP have approached this Court as Intervenors and were represented by
Mr. P. N. Misra, Learned Senior Counsel. The Intervenors are students
who passed out degree courses from the Petitioner-University through
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[12]

their Study Centre set up in Nepal, a foreign country. They have
approached this Court in the present proceedings as the degrees issued by
the Petitioner-University were not recognised by the Australian
Government where they intended to pursue higher studies.
(ii) On a perusal of the application for intervention and the records, the
Intervenors appear to be students who had commenced with their degree
courses on and from the year 2010. While the Intervenors No.1, 2 and 3
had commenced with their courses with effect from August, 2010 to July,
2013, the Intervenor No.4 from February 2011 to January, 2013. The
Intervenors No.1 and 3 had undergone Bachelor of Business
Administration (BBA), Intervenor No.2 had undertaken bachelor of
Science in Information Technology (BScIT) and the Intervenor No.4 in
Master of Business Administration (MBA) examinations. Thus, having
undergone the courses when the Petitioner-University was offering
programmes on the recognition granted by the Respondent No.1 through
its Chairman for 3 (three) academic years commencing from 2009-10 to
2011-12, which was ratified by the Council in its 35th Meeting, they
cannot be denied recognition of the degrees awarded to them by the
Petitioner-University. This fact also appears to have been conveyed to the
Respondent No.1 by the Petitioner-University through its letter dated 25-
10-2012, Annexure P27, apart from the fact that it had directed a freeze
on new admissions on 09- 10-2012 even before direction to that effect was
issued by the Respondent No.1 in its letter dated 10-10-2012, Annexure
P26.
25(i). That apart, by order dated 22-02-2013, this Court in this very
proceeding had stayed the operation of the condition “but not beyond the
boundary of their respective States” contained in the minutes of the 40th
Meeting of the DEC held on 08-06-2012 and that any consequential
directions in this regard shall remain stayed and further that the
Petitioner-University shall be permitted to continue to act in accordance
with the communication dated 15-10-2009, Annexure P17. This interim
order which was extended by order dated 19- 07-2013 was confirmed on
07-11-2013 after impleadment of the UGC-Respondent No.3 as a party
after notice.
(ii) By order dated 13-04-2015 of this Court in CM Appl No. 33 of 2015
had further confirmed the aforesaid two orders, the relevant portion of
which is as follows:-
“6. At this stage, Mr. Misra submits that by making an observation of
derecognition of the degrees of the intervenors, their job prospects
are being jeopardized and they are being deprived of prosecuting
their further studies, therefore, some protection may be granted to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[13]

them.
7. There is no occasion for this Court to deliberate on this point in an
application field for permission to intervene in the main writ petition.
However, it is observed that by interim order dated 22.02.2013
passed in W.P. (C) No.04/2013, it has clearly been held by this Court
that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the operation of the
condition “but not beyond the boundary of their respective States”,
which clearly relates to the territorial jurisdiction of the Petitioner-
University, contained in the Minutes of 40th Meeting of the Distance
Education Council of Indira Gandhi National Open University held
on 08.06.2012, and any consequential direction in this regard shall
remain stayed and the same order by a subsequent order dated
07.11.2013 has also been held to be binding on all the parties
including the University Grants Commission (UGC). We are of the
view that the earlier two interim orders would make the situation very
clear and it is expected that all the parties concerned, including the
UGC, would implement the said orders in their letter and spirit.”
(iii) None of the Respondents have taken any steps to approach this Court
for either alternation/ modification or vacation of this order. They also do
not appear to have approached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court to get the
above orders set aside. Thus these orders having been confirmed, are held
to be binding on all parties including the Respondent No.3 as observed in
order dated 13-04-2015.
(iv) So far as the case of the Intervenors are concerned, considering the
facts and circumstances set out above, we are of the view that their
degrees should stand protected as valid. This order would also apply to all
the students who are in similarly placed as the Intervenors although they
are not before us.
27. He has also placed reliance on the case of Mr. Pralhad Dani (supra) ,
particularly paragraph nos.9 to 14, which read as under:
“9. As the Petitioners had undergone the courses during the period when
the DEP of the Respondent No.4-University was being run under valid
recognition of the UGC and the DEC, their cases would be fully covered
by the aforesaid decision.
10. It is relevant to note that there are 3 (three) categories of students who
stand thus protected. They are (i) those who had commenced and
completed their DEP anytime prior to the academic session 2011- 12; (ii)
those who had commenced with their DEP prior to the academic session
2011-12 but, completed after that; and (iii) those who were admitted to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[14]

DEP any day after the interim order of this Court dated 22-02- 2013
passed during the proceedings of Sikkim Manipal University (supra) by
which operation of the condition “but not beyond the boundary of their
respective States” stipulated in the decision of the DEC in its 40th
Meeting dated 08-06-2012, Annexure P34, was stayed and the Respondent
No.4-University was permitted to continue to act in accordance with the
communication dated 15-10-2009, Annexure P27, subject to compliance of
the terms thereof. The case of the Petitioners would certainly fall within
the purview of the judgment in Sikkim Manipal University (supra)
extracted above.
11. Apart from the above, the interim order of stay dated 22-02-2013 that
was directed to be continued by a subsequent order dated 07-11-2013,
was later confirmed by order dated 13-04-2015 in CM Appl No.33 of 2015
arising out of WP(C) No.04 of 2013 in Sikkim Manipal University (supra).
Therefore, as a natural corollary and by necessary implication, the
degrees in respect of the students, who were admitted to the DEP of the
Respondent No.4-University after the order of stay, one of whom appears
to be the Petitioner No.4, shall also be protected.
12. The information conveyed in letter dated 11- 05-2011, Annexure P32,
issued by the Respondent No.1 to the Royal Danish Embassy, being in
conflict with the decision of the DEC, firstly, in ratifying the decision of its
Chairman granting recognition to the DEP of the Respondent No.4-
University for the academic years 2009-10 to 2011-12 and, secondly, its
own grant of recognition, be it provisional or regular, for the preceding
years, would be rendered a nullity, non est and, therefore, unenforceable
and is accordingly, ordered so.
13. Consequently, the DEP of the Respondent No.4-University undergone
by the Petitioners and the degrees awarded to them are treated as valid
and deserving to be equated on terms with an Indian degree/programme.
14. It is needless to state that this order would also apply to all the
students who are similarly placed as the Petitioners although they are not
before us.”
28. However, as it has been held in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Valliamma Champaka Pillai v. Sivathanu Pillai &
6
Ors. , the position is well settled that the decision of one High Court is not a
binding precedent upon another High Court and at best, it can only have a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[15]

persuasive value. In the given facts and circumstances where a larger public
interest is involved, it is not appropriate to take a similar view qua the
petitioner as has been enunciated in the aforementioned decisions relied
upon by the petitioner. It is to be noted that the relaxation offered to certain
categories of students was done only as an interim measure and thus, it
ought not to be allowed to be followed in perpetuity as it would be
detrimental to uphold the ideals of quality education.
29. A subsequent decision of the High Court of Sikkim in the case of
7
Sikkim Manipal University v. Union of India , as pointed out by the
learned counsel for respondent no.1-IGNOU, dismissed a writ petition
wherein the vires of the public notice dated 19.07.2016 which proscribed
institutions from conducting their open and distance learning programmes
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University was challenged. The
court in terms of paragraph nos.40 to 42 has held as under:
“40. These Regulations were not disputed by the Petitioner University
save to the extent that the Regulations were in vogue prior to the Judgment
of this Court dated 26.06.2015 and is no longer relevant. I find that such
declaration of irrelevance cannot wish away the contents thereof which at
Regulations 2.4 and 2.6 indicate that the Petitioner University was
conducting the examinations in the Learning Centres and therefore well-
aware that when the Notifications confining territorial jurisdiction were
issued they ought to have confined all activities of the Study
Centres/Learning Centres to the jurisdiction of the State. The insistence of
the Petitioner University that prohibition on Examination Centres was
being introduced for the first time on 27.06.2013 appears to be incorrect
in view of the fact that it was well within the knowledge of the Petitioner
University prior in time as can be deducted from their own Regulations
that the Learning Centers conducted the examinations.
41. The Petitioner had also contended that the Madhava Menon
Committee Report stated that there had to be provision for despatch of

6
(1979) 4 SCC 429
7
2020 SCC OnLine Sikk 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[16]

sealed scripts immediately to Headquarters, indicating that Study Centres
were envisaged as being outside the territorial limits appears to be based
on assumptions favourable to itself but belied by the Report itself.
42. The argument that the Respondent No. 2 has not been able to advance
any reason why restricting examinations to the limits of the State is
necessary to maintain standards is also answered by the Judgment of this
Court in WP(C) No. 4 of 2013 besides which in Modern Dental College
and Research Centre (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court would
observe inter alia as follows;
“69. Apart from the material placed before the High Court, our
attention has also been drawn to a recent report of the
Parliamentary Committee to which we will refer in later part of this
judgment. The Report notes the dismal picture of exploitation in
making admissions by charging huge capitation fee and
compromising merit. This may not apply to all institutions but if the
legislature which represents the people has come out with a
legislation to curb the menace which is generally prevalent, it
cannot be held that there is no need for any regulatory
measure. “An enactment is an organism in its environment” [Justice
Frankfurter, “A Symposium of Statutory Construction : Forward”,
(1950) 3 Vand L Rev 365, 367]. It is rightly said that the law is not
an Eden of concepts but rather an everyday life of needs, interests
and the values that a given society seeks to realise in a given time.
The law is a tool which is intended to provide solutions for the
problems of human being in a society.”

30. In the light of the foregoing decisions and the scheme of the
Constitution of India, it is observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
taken a consistent view that the State Universities established through the
State Legislature must not be allowed to operate beyond the territorial limits
of the concerned State.
31. The next question which requires consideration is whether the
petitioner is entitled for admission as a necessary sequitur to doctrine of
legitimate expectations because of the existence of a regular practice which
the petitioner can reasonably expect to continue. As per the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[17]

8
Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries , such a question has to be determined
not according to the claimant's perception but in the larger public interest.
9
32. In the case of State of Bihar & Anr. v. Sachindra Narayan & Ors. ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“23. In view of the above judgments, legitimate expectation is one of the
grounds of judicial review but unless a legal obligation exists, there
cannot be any legitimate expectation. The legitimate expectation is not a
wish or a desire or a hope, therefore, it cannot be claimed or demanded as
a right”
33. While striking a distinction between anticipation and legitimate
expectation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India &
10
Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corporation & Ors. has held as under:
“28. Time is a three-fold present: the present as we experience it, the past
as a present memory and future as a present expectation. For legal
purposes, the expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It is different
from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can it amount to a claim or demand on
the ground of a right. However earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a
hope may be and however confidently one may look to them to be fulfilled,
they by themselves cannot amount to an assertable expectation and a mere
disappointment does not attract legal consequences. A pious hope even
leading to a moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation.
The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on
the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in
regular and natural sequence. Again, it is distinguishable from a genuine
expectation. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and
protectable. Every such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify
into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional
sense.”
34. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Suseela
11
& Ors. v. University Grants Commission & Ors. also exemplifies the
proposition that legitimate expectation must always yield to larger public

8
(1993) 1 SCC 71
9
(2019) 3 SCC 803
10
(1993) 3 SCC 499
11
(2015) 8 SCC 129
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[18]

interest. If the facts of the present case are perused, it is clear that the letter
dated 21.03.2016 sent by respondent no.2-UGC to the Vice-Chancellor,
SMU, in terms of paragraph no. 4(xiv) clearly states that the territorial
jurisdiction in respect of university for offering programmes through
distance mode will be as per the policy of respondent no.2-UGC on
territorial jurisdiction and opening of off campuses/study centres as
mentioned in respondent no.2-UGC’s notification dated 27.06.2013.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondent no.2-UGC
allowed to recognize such courses till the year 2018 does not hold any water.
35. In the case of Rai University (supra), the students studying in the
centres established outside the State of Chhattisgarh, after passing of the
judgment in Prof. Yashpal (supra), were praying for protection in the form
of admissions in any State University of Chhattisgarh. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, however, while denying the relief, observed that at best, the
concerned offshore centres may apply for affiliation with any other
university which has jurisdiction over their respective places of functioning.
36. Considering the foregoing, the petitioner might have an anticipation
for securing admission in PGDMS course, however, the same would not
yield a crystallised or an indefeasible right on the part of the petitioner
against the admission in the said course without fulfilling the prescribed
eligibility.
37. This court is also of the considered opinion that an untrammelled
proliferation of offshore study centres, without the requisite approvals from
the concerned authorities, would lead to devaluation of academic
credentials. An even-handed assessment of potential consequences of such a
phenomenon would suggest that it would adversely impact the aspirations of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

[19]

students who invest their time and resources into pursuing education through
legitimate means. It would, therefore, be unwise to allow expansion of such
study centres which could flourish a market of substandard education and
consequently, deprive countless individuals from seeking quality education.
38. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed being bereft of
merits. Pending application(s), if any are also disposed of.


PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
SEPTEMBER 27, 2023
p‟ma/shs

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV