Navjot Singh v. Union Of India And ORS

[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:20.07.2015 Navjot Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Dr. Rau P.S.Girwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The Sikkim Government established the Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University at Jorethang (hereinafter referred to as the "EIILM University") in terms of the Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University, Sikkim Act, 2006. The EIILM University was accorded regular recognition by the Joint Committee of the UGC-AICTE-DEC for a period of one year i.e. from 2009-2010 to offer programmes through distance mode.

The petitioner got admission in B.A. (General) course in the year 2009 through distance mode and after completing 3 years course, obtained the degree.

The University Grants Commission (UGC), vide its letter written to the EIILM University in October, 2013, directed it to adhere to the following:-

[ 2 ] "1.

Conduct courses in regular mode only at its main campus at Jorethang only. The courses should be run with the prior approval of the statutory council (s), wherever required. The degrees awarded should be as specified by the UGC under Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956.

2.

Take prior approval of UGC before starting courses under distance mode.

3.

Strictly follow UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003.

4.

Study Centre(s), Off-Shore Campus Centre(s) and/or Admission-cum-Counselling Centre(s) shall be established only with the prior approval of UGC and that too within the State of Sikkim only. 5.

Prior approval of UGC and Government of India is required to establish off-shore campus as per UGC Regulations, 2003.

The University to submit undertaking in respect of the above."

The petitioner has alleged that the UGC has shut down all the study centres of respondents no.7 to 9 and stopped the distance courses. The petitioner has alleged that respondents no.7 to 9 are not confirming/verifying his degree despite the fact that he had made the representation twice.

Counsel for the petitioner was repeatedly asked by the Court to show as to whether the University has been given recognition by the UGCAICTE-DEC beyond the period of one year, i.e. after 2009-2010, to offer programmes through distance mode but he could not produce anything.

[ 3 ] Moreover, the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy to seek information about genuineness of his degree from the EIILM University by taking recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Thus, I do not find any reason to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, as prayed for.

Dismissed.

July 20, 2015 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge