University may regulate academic training through Regulations where no specific Ordinances have been framed.

The Petitioner challenged the validity of Regulations 1(1), 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, and 3C framed by the Board of Management of the Respondent-University (Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University) in September 2024

These Regulations introduced the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS), Multiple Entry and Exit options, and Continuous Assessment in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020

The Petitioner contended that under the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University Act, 2019 (the "2019 Act"), matters such as admissions, courses of study, and qualifications must be prescribed via "Ordinances" under Section 31, which require government approval and legislative laying, rather than through "Regulations"

1. Whether the subject matters covered by the impugned Regulations (admissions, academic programs, and credit systems) are the exclusive domain of "Ordinances" under Section 31 of the 2019 Act

2. Whether the University is empowered under Section 32 of the 2019 Act to frame Regulations for subjects listed in Section 31 if no corresponding Ordinance exists

3. Whether the impugned Regulations are void for failing to comply with the publication and legislative laying requirements mandated for Statutes and Ordinances under Section 45

Section 22 designates the Board of Management as the principal executive authority with the power to make Ordinances and Regulations

Section 31(1) enlists matters that may be provided for by Ordinances

Section 32 grants a residual power to frame Regulations for the conduct of University business "not provided for" by the Act, Statutes, or Ordinances

Section 8(1) stipulates that training and teaching for degree/diploma programs shall be conducted in accordance with both Ordinances and Regulations

The Court rejected the Petitioner's contention that the subjects listed in Section 31 can only be governed by Ordinances.

It reasoned that Section 32 allows the University to frame Regulations to conduct its business whenever a vacuum exists because no Ordinance or Statute has been framed on that subject

The Court observed that while Section 31(1) identifies the preferred instrument (Ordinance) for certain academic matters, it does not bar the use of Regulations in their absence

Regarding the distinction in Section 8, the Court noted that Section 8(1) permits both Ordinances and Regulations to govern the "conduct" of training and teaching

While Section 8(2) requires "courses and curricula" to be prescribed by Ordinances, the Court found that the impugned Regulations merely provided the framework for CBCS, credit distribution, and academic sessions, rather than prescribing the actual syllabus or curriculum itself

Consequently, because the instruments were validly framed as "Regulations," they were not subject to the mandatory publication and legislative laying requirements of Section 45, which apply strictly to Statutes and Ordinances

The Court held that in the absence of existing Ordinances, the University is competent to regulate its academic and administrative business via Regulations

Furthermore, the Court concluded that the measures regarding the conduct of training and teaching fall within the scope of Section 8(1), which expressly permits regulation through Regulations

No order as to costs was made