W.P.(S)No.

6033of2010
InthematterofanapplicationunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndia

1.OmPrakash
2.SidhiPaswan
3.ChandraBhushanPaswan
4.SudarshanSingh
5.DeoBihariYadav
6.UmeshwarRam
7.KumarAmarendraNarayanSingh
8.ShyamDasSingh

Petitioners

Versus

1.TheStateofJharkhand
2.Secretary,RoadConstructionDepartment,
Govt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi
3.SpecialSecretary,RoadConstructionDepartment,
Govt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi
4.UnderSecretary,RoadConstructionDepartment,
Govt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi
5.Secretary,ScienceandTechnologyDepartment
Govt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi
6.Director,Science&TechnologyDepartment,
Govt.ofJharkhand,Ranchi
7.YamunaPrasadSingh
8.AllIndiaCouncilforTechnicalEducation,
NewDelhi
...
Respondents

ForthePetitioners
FortheState
FortheRespondentNo.7
FortheAICTE

:Mr.SumeetGadodia,Advocate
Mr.N.K.Sahni,Advocate
:Mr.SumirPrasad,S.C.I
:Mr.IndrajitSinha,Advocate
:Mr.JaiPrakashGupta,Advocate
Ms.MohiniGupta,Advocate

Present
HON'BLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR

ByCourt:
ThevalidityofdegreeinEngineeringawardedbytheJ.R.N.
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is in issue in the present
proceeding.
2.

Thebrieffactsofthecasearethat,theinstitutenamely,J.R.N.

Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur was granted a 'deemed to be

university' status by notification dated 12.01.1987 issued by the
Department of Human Resources Development, Government of

India under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act,

1956. Thepetitionerswereadmittedin'BachelorofEngineering'
courseintheacademicyear,200508andtheyweregranteddegree
ofBachelorsofEngineeringintheyear,2009.Thepetitionersare
employed under the Department of Road Construction, State of
Jharkhand.Asenioritylistwaspublishedon27.10.2009however,
when a dispute arose with respect to the validity of degree of
Engineeringawardedtothepetitioners,ashowcausenoticewas
issued on 29.10.2010 and thereafter, an order was passed on
20.12.2010 whereunder the Under Secretary, Road Construction
Departmentfoundthatthedegreeawardedtothepetitionersare
not recognised by All India Council for Technical Education (in
short'AICTE')andtherefore,suchdegreeisnotvalid.Thereafter,a
revised gradation list was published and by notification dated
13.04.2011,theprivaterespondentwasmadeInchargeAssistant
Engineer.
3.

By orders dated 01.09.2011 and 22.09.2011, the private

respondent as well as AICTE have been impleaded as

partyrespondent in the present proceeding and they have filed
theiraffidavits.
4.

A counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of the

respondentStateofJharkhandstatingthat,therecruitmenttothe
BiharEngineeringServicesClassIIisthroughdirectappointment
andbywayofpromotionfromJuniorEngineersasperseniority
however,10%ofthepostinpromotionquotaisreservedforthe
diplomaholderswhoobtaineddegreeinEngineeringorAMIE.The
department accorded permission to 23 persons including the
petitioners for undertaking further studies. A gradation list was
publishedon27.10.2009inwhich45JuniorEngineerswhohad
obtaineddegreeinEngineeringorAMIEwereincluded.Thesaid
gradationlistwaschallengedinW.P.(S)No.5400of2009onthe
groundthatseveralpersonswhodonotpossessEngineeringdegree

from AICTE approved institute, have been included in the

gradation list. The department made enquiries and wrote letter
dated 24.11.2009 to the Distance Education Council seeking
information regarding approval of the degree in Engineering
awardedbyJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeeth,Udaipur,Rajasthanand
I.A.S.E. Deemed University, Rajasthan. The Department of Road
Construction wrote letter to the AICTE also seeking clarification
about the degree of Engineering awarded by J.R.N. Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan. By letter dated 23.07.2010, the
Distance Education Council informed that it has not accorded
approval to any specific programme offered by J.R.N. Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan. The AICTE vide letter dated
13.09.2010 informed that it recognises only M.B.A. and M.C.A.
Programmes through distance mode. In view of the aforesaid
communications,ashowcausenoticewasissuedtothepetitioners
andothersimilarlysituatedpersonsfordeletingtheirnamesfrom
thesenioritylistpublishedon27.10.2009andthereafter,arevised
gradationlistwaspublishedon20.12.2010removingthenameof
thepersonswhohadobtainedEngineeringdegreeorAMIEfrom
J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur and I.A.S.E. Deemed
University,Rajasthan.
5.

AcounteraffidavithasbeenfiledonbehalfoftheRespondent

No. 7 supporting the revised gradation list dated 20.12.2010.

Relying on notification dated 01.03.1995, it is stated that the
approvaloftheDistanceEducationCouncilandAICTEwithrespect
totheDeemedUniversityismandatoryforacourserunordegree
awardedbyaUniversity.
6.

Asupplementarycounteraffidavitdated23.09.2012hasbeen

filedbyRespondentNo.7bringingonrecordthecommunication
dated18.11.2009whereundertheDirector,DepartmentofScience
andTechnologyhascommunicatedthattheStudyCentrewherea
technical course is allegedly conducted by the J.R.N. Rajasthan

Vidyapeeth, Udaipur does not belong to it and facilities for

laboratoryetc.arenotavailablethere.Itisalsopointedoutthat
someofthecandidateshavetakenadmissionstraightwayinthe5th
semesterandsomeofthemhavecompletedtheircourseindegree
inEngineeringfromJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeeth withinashort
periodof14to15months.
7.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

contended that, since the institute namely, J.R.N. Rajasthan

Vidyapeeth,Udaypurhasbeengrantedthestatusof'deemedtobe
university' under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission
Act,1956,itwouldhavecompletefreedominsofaras,runningof
courses and grant of degree are concerned. He has further
submittedthatthecourseoftheUniversityinquestionhasbeen
recognised by the Distance Education Council and in a joint
meeting of the UGC, the AICTE and the Distantance Education
Council,thecoursesrunbytheJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeethhave
been approved till the academic year, 2005 and a provisional
affiliationwasgrantedfortheacademicyear,2007andtherefore,
thedegreeawardedbytheJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeethisavalid
degree.RelyingonthedecisionrenderedbytheHon'bleSupreme
CourtinBharathidasanUniversityandAnr.Vs.AllIndiaCouncilFor
TechnicalEducationandOrs.reportedin(2001)8SCC676which
hasbeenapprovedinAssociationofManagementofPrivateColleges
Vs.AllIndiaCouncilForTechnicalEducationandOrs. reportedin
(2013) 8 SCC 271, the learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that, there is no requirement in law for obtaining
recognition from the AICTE for a degree awarded by a
university/deemed to be university and therefore, the degree
awarded by J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth cannot be held to be
invalidonthegroundthatAICTEhasnotgrantedrecognitionto
the courses run by the Institute under the J.R.N. Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth.Thelearnedcounselhasassailedtheletterwrittenby

theDepartmentofScienceandTechnologywhereunderithasbeen
foundthattheinstituterunbytheJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeethhas
no proper facility. The learned counsel has challenged the
credibility of the private respondent and his competence to file
affidavitsanddocumentswhichaccordingtohimshouldhavebeen
filedbytherespondentStateofJharkhand.
8.

ThelearnedcounselappearingfortheStateofJharkhandhas

supported the impugned order on the ground that the degree

awardedbytheJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeethisnotrecognisedby
the AICTE and therefore, it is not a valid degree for obtaining
appointment.
9.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondentno.7hascontendedthatinviewofthejudgmentin
Parshvanath Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. All India Council For
TechnicalEducationandOrs.reportedin(2013)3SCC385which
has been approved in Association of Management of Private
Colleges (supra), there is no doubt with respect to the role of
AICTE. Though, the AICTE has a supervisory role insofar as, a
universityisconcerned,andthoughaffiliationtotheAICTEisnot
necessaryforthecoursesrunbytheuniversity,itsrecognitionis
necessarybecausetheCouncilhasbeenestablishedbyanActof
Parliament with an object to ensure proper planning and
coordinated development of the technical education system
throughoutthecountry. Hehasfurthersubmittedthatinviewof
thejudgmentin KurumanchalInstituteofDegree&Diplomaand
Ors.Vs.Chancellor,M.J.P.RohilkhandUniversityandOrs.reported
in (2007)6SCC35,auniversityhasnopowertorunaDistant
EducationCentrebeyondtheterritorialjurisdictionoftheStatein
which the university is situated. He has further submitted that
even in letter dated 07.08.2007 whereunder the joint inspection
report of AICTE, University Grant Commission and the Distance
Education Centre has been deliberated, it has been categorically

stated that the Distance Education Council does not approve

franchiseofStudyCentres.Hehasfurtherpointedoutthat,since
the course which the J.R.N. RajasthanVidyapeethwas running,
was approved only till academic year, 2005 and a provisional
approval was granted for the academic year, 2007, the degree
awardedtothepetitionersfortheacademicyear,200507would
notbeavaliddegree.
10.

Beforeadvertingtotherivalcontentionsraisedbythecounsel

for the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant

provisionsundertheAICTEAct,1987andUGCACT,1956.
The 'statement of object and reasons' for setting up AICTE
reads;'tosetupanationalexpertbodytoadvicetheCentralandthe
StateGovernmentforensuringthecoordinateddevelopmentfor
technical education in accordance with the approved standards'.
ThepreambletotheAICTEActstatesthat,'theAICTEhasbeen
established with a view to ensure the proper planning and
coordinated development of the technical education throughout
thecountryandwithaviewtopromotequalitativeimprovements
ofsucheducationinrelationtoplannedquantitativegrowthand
theregulationandpropermaintenanceofnormsandstandardsin
the technical system.' Section 10 (1)(c) of the AICTE Act deals
with power of the Council with respect to university, which is
extractedbelow:
10.(1)..............................................................................
(c)allocateanddisburseoutoftheFundoftheCouncil
suchgrants,onsuchtermsandconditionsasitmay
thinkfitto
(i) Technicalinstitutions,and
(ii) Universities imparting technical education in
coordinationwiththeCommission;..................
11.

Section2(i)oftheAICTEActdefinesuniversitytomeana

universitydefinedunderclause(f) ofSection2oftheUniversity
Grants Commission Act, 1956. The definition includes an
institution 'deemed to be a university' under Section 3 of the

UniversityGrantsCommissionAct. Section10(1)(k)dealswith
thepowerofAICTEtograntapprovalforstartingnewtechnical
institutionsandforintroductionofnewcoursesorprogrammesin
consultationwiththeagenciesconcerned.Variousprovisionsinthe
AICTEActwouldindicatethat,forallpurposestheActmaintains
the distinct identity and existence of technical institutions and
universities and that is the reason, wherever the university or
activitiesoftheuniversityarealsotobesupervisedorregulated
and guided by AICTE, specific mention has been made of the
universityalongsidethetechnicalinstitutions. Section10(1)(c),
(g),(o)wouldindicatethatuniversitiesarementionedalongside
thetechnicalinstitutionswhereas,clauses(k),(m),(p),(q),(s)
and (u) refers to technical institutions alone and there is no
referencetouniversities.
12.

TheUniversityGrantsCommissionhasbeenestablishedbyan

ActofParliamentforensuringcoordinationanddeterminationof
standards in universities. Section 22 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 confers power on a University to confer
degree.Section22isextractedbelow:
22. Right to confer degrees (1) The right of
conferringorgrantingdegreesshallbeexercisedonly
by a University established or incorporated by or
underaCentralAct,aProvisionalActoraStateAct
oraninstitutiontobeaUniversityundersection3or
an institution specially empowered by an Act of
Parliamenttoconfertograntdegrees.
(2) Saveasprovidedinsubsection(1),noperson
orauthorityshallconfer,orgrant,orholdhimselfor
itselfoutasentitledtoconferorgrant,anydegree.
(3) Forthepurposesofthissection,degreemeans
anysuchdegreeasmay,withthepreviousapproval
oftheCentralGovernment,bespecifiedinthisbehalf
by the Commission by notification in the Official
Gazette.
13.

Section 12A of the UGC Act deals with the powers and

functions of the University Grants Commission. Clause (a) of

Section 12A speaks of affiliation and Clause (d) speaks of

qualification which means a degree or any other qualification

awardedbyauniversity.Section12BoftheUGCActdealswiththe
powersoftheCommissiondeclaringauniversitynotfittoreceive
grant. Section 13 confers power of inspection upon UGC and
Section14providesforconsequencesoffailurebytheuniversities
tocomplywiththerecommendationsofUGC.
14.

In State of T.N. Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research

Institute reportedin (1995)4SCC104,theprovisionsoftheAll

India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) came up for
considerationbeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtandithasbeen
heldthatinsofaras,thequestionofapprovalforestablishmentof
technicalinstitutionsisconcerned,theAICTEActvestedthepower
ofgrantingapprovalintheCouncil.
15.

In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar

ShikshanShastraMahavidyalaya,reportedin (2000)5SCC231,
theappellantTrustwasgrantedconditionalapprovaloftheAICTE
for setting up a selffinancing engineering college however, the
StateGovernmentrefusedtheTrustpermissionforestablishingthe
college.TheHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthus,
22.............Nodoubtthequestionofaffiliation
wasadifferentmatterandwasnotcoveredby
theCentralActbutinT.N.caseitwasheldthat
theUniversitycouldnotimposeanyconditions
inconsistentwiththeAICTEActoritsRegulation
ortheconditionsimposedbyAICTE.Therefore,
theprocedure for obtainingtheaffiliation and
any conditions which couldbeimposed by the
University, could not be inconsistent with the
provisions of the Central Act. The University
couldnot,therefore, inany event have sought
forapprovaloftheStateGovernment.
23.Thuswehold,inthepresentcasethatthere
wasnostatutoryrequirementforobtainingthe
approvaloftheStateGovernmentandevenif
therewasone,itwouldhavebeenrepugnantto
the AICTE Act. The University Statute 9(7)
merely required that the views of the State

Government be obtained before granting

affiliation and this did not amount to
obtainingapproval.IftheUniversitystatute
required approval, it would have been
repugnanttotheAICTEAct.Point1isdecided
accordingly.
16.

In Bharathidasan University (supra), the issue before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the AICTE Act requires a

university to obtain prior approval of AICTE before starting a
department or a unit as an adjunct to the university itself to
conducttechnicaleducationcoursesofitschoiceandtheHon'ble
SupremeCourthasheldasunder:
10. ................. All these vitally important
aspectsgotoshowthatAICTEcreatedunderthe
Act is not intended to be an authority either
superior to or supervise and control the
universitiesandtherebysuperimposeitselfupon
suchuniversitiesmerelyforthereasonthatitis
imparting teaching in technical education or
programmesinanyofitsdepartmentsorunits.
Acarefulscanningthroughoftheprovisionsof
theAICTEActandtheprovisionsoftheUGCAct
in juxtaposition, will show that the role of
AICTEvisvistheuniversitiesisonlyadvisory,
recommendatory and a guiding factor and
thereby subserves the cause of maintaining
appropriate standards and qualitative norms
andnotasanauthorityempoweredtoissueand
enforceanysanctionsbyitself,exceptsubmitting
areporttoUGCforappropriateaction...........
12. ..............A careful analysis ofthevarious
provisionscontainedinSections10,11and22
will further go to show that the role of
interaction conferred upon AICTE visavis
universitiesislimitedtothepurposeofensuring
thepropermaintenanceofnormsandstandards
in the technical education system so as to
conformtothestandardslaiddownbyit,with
nofurtherordirectcontroloversuchuniversities
orscopeforanydirectactionexceptbringingit
tothenoticeofUGCorotherauthoritiesonly,of
any lapses in carrying out any directions of
AICTEinthisregard,forappropriateaction.....

10

15.Toputitinanutshell,areadingofSection
10 of the AICTE Act will make it clear that
whenevertheActomitstocoverauniversity,
the same has been specifically provided in the
provisionsoftheAct.Forexample,whileunder
clause (k) of Section 10 only technical
institutionsarereferredto,clause(o)ofSection
10providesfortheguidelinesforadmissionof
students to technical institutions and
universities imparting technical education. If
we look at the definition of a technical
institutionunderSection2(h)oftheAct,itis
clear that a technical institution cannot
includeauniversity.Theclearintentionofthe
legislature is not that all institutions whether
university or otherwise ought to be treated as
technical institutions covered by the Act. If
that was the intention, there was no difficulty
for the legislature to have merely provided a
definition of technical institution by not
excludinguniversityfromthedefinitionthereof
and thereby avoided the necessity to use
alongsideboththewordstechnicalinstitutions
anduniversityinseveralprovisionsintheAct.
Thedefinitionoftechnicalinstitutionexcludes
from its purview a university. When by
definition a university is excluded from a
technicalinstitution,tointerpretthatsucha
clause or such an expression wherever the
expression technical institution occurs will
include a university will be reading into the
Actwhatisnotprovidedtherein.Thepowerto
grant approval for starting new technical
institutionsandforintroductionofnewcourses
orprogrammesinconsultationwiththeagencies
concerned is covered by Section 10(k) which
would not cover a university but only a
technicalinstitution.IfSection10(k)doesnot
cover a university but only a technical
institution, a regulation cannot be framed in
such a manner so as to apply the regulation
framed in respect of technical institution to
applytouniversitieswhentheActmaintainsa
completedichotomybetweenauniversityand
atechnicalinstitution.
17. In Parshvanath Charitable Trust Vs. All India Council for

11

Technical Education, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 385, the Hon'ble

SupremeCourthasobservedasunder;
20. AICTE Act is not intended to be an
authorityeithersuperiortoortosuperviseand
control the universities and thereby
superimposeitselfuponsuchuniversitiesmerely
forthereasonthattheyareimpartingteaching
intechnicaleducationorprogrammesinanyof
theirdepartmentsorunits............
18. InAssociationofManagementofPrivateCollegesVs.AllIndia
CouncilForTechnicalEducationandOrs.reportedin(2013)8SCC
271, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the questions, '(i)
whether the colleges affiliated to a University come within the
purviewofexclusionofthedefinitionoftechnicalinstitutionas
defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, 1987? and, (ii)
whether AICTE has got the control and supervision upon the
affiliated colleges of the respective universities of the member
collegesoftheappellantinCANo.1145of204andtheappellants
inconnectedappeals?'.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtheldthatthe
AICTEActdoesnotcontainanyevidenceofanintentiontobelittle
anddestroytheauthorityandautonomyofotherstatutorybody.
Further,theAICTEActdoesnotintendtobeanauthorityeither
superior or to supervise or control the universities and thereby
superimposeitselfuponthesaiduniversitiesmerelyforthereason
that it is laying down certain teaching standards in technical
educationorprogrammesformulatedinanyofthedepartmentor
unit.Ithasbeenheldthus,
53. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid
paragraphs of Bharathidasan University case
which are extracted above makes it very clear
that this Court has exempted universities, its
colleges,constituentinstitutionsandunitsfrom
seekingpriorapprovalfromAICTE.Also,from
thereadingofparas19and20ofParshvanath
Charitable Trust case it is made clear after
carefulscanningoftheprovisionsoftheAICTE
ActandtheUniversityGrantsCommissionAct,

12

1956thattheroleofAICTEvisvisuniversities
is only advisory, recommendatory and one of
providing guidance and has no authority
empoweringittoissueorenforceanysanctions
byitself.
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
60. A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs
extracted from T.M.A. Pai case makes it very
clearthatinviewofthedecisionoftheeleven
Judge Constitution Bench of this Court, the
scheme framed under Unni Krishnan case has
beenoverruled.Therefore,theautonomyofthe
universityisrecognisedinthesaidcaseandthe
object and intendment of Parliament in
excludingtheuniversitiesfromthedefinitionof
technicalinstitutionasdefinedunderSection
2(h)oftheAICTEActmakesitexplicitlyclear,
after scanning the definition of education
institution with reference to the exclusion of
universitiesandSections10,11,12and13of
the AICTE Act. The object of the statutory
enactment made by Parliament has been
succinctly examined by this Court in
Bharathidasan University and Parshvanath
CharitableTrustcasesreferredtosupratherefore
they have rightly made observations that the
roleoftheAICTEActinviewoftheUGCActand
thepowersandfunctionsconferredbyUGCfor
controlling and regulating the universities and
itsaffiliatedcollegeshasbeenexplicitlyconferred
upon UGC. Hence, they have been given the
power to regulate such universities and
regulations in relation to granting
sanctions/approvals and also maintaining
educational standards and overseeing the
prescription of the fee structure including the
admission of students in various courses and
programmes that will be conducted by the
universityanditsinstitutions,
constituent
colleges, units and the affiliated colleges.
Therefore,wehavetoholdthatBharathidasan
Universitycaseonallfoursbeapplicabletothe
factsituation oftheseappealsandwehaveto
apply the said principle in the cases in hand
whereas in the decisions of Adhiyaman
Educational and Research Institute case and
Jaya Gokul Educational Trust case this Court

13

hasnotexaminedthecasesfromtheaforesaid
perspective. Therefore, the same cannot be
appliedtothefactsituation.Therelianceplaced
upon those judgments by the learned Senior
CounselonbehalfofAICTEismisplaced.
61. Accordingly, Points 47.1 and 47.2 are
answeredinfavouroftheappellants.
19.

Fromtheaforesaiddiscussionitisthusclearthat,theroleof

AICTEis supervisory.Itcannotimposeitsownconditionsinsofar
as, the technical course run by a university is concerned. On a
conjointreadingoftheprovisionsundertheAICTEAct,1987and
UGCAct,1956,Ifindthatthepowertoconferdegreeisexclusively
conferredupontheuniversitiesandmerelybecauseadegreehas
not been recognised by AICTE, it would not render the degree
invalidonsuchgroundalone.
20. The letter dated 07.08.2007 indicates that the Distance
Education Council does not approve franchise of study centres.
FromthedecisioninKurunanchalInstituteofDegreeandDiploma
andOthers(supra),IfindthatauniversitycannotrunaDistance
EducationCentrebeyondtheterritorialjurisdictionoftheStatein
whichtheuniversityissituated.Inthepresentproceedingnothing
has been brought on record to indicate that J.R.N. Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur can setup and run education centre for
runningregularcoursesoutsidetheStateofRajasthan. Itisalso
notin dispute that for the academicyear, 200506 and200607
eventheprovisionalapprovalhasnotbeengrantedbytheDistance
EducationCouncil.Further,examinationfortwodifferentcourses
hadbeen taken together. Itisalsoamatterofrecordthatthe
degreeinengineeringcoursehasbeenawardedbyJ.R.N.Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth,Udaipurwithinaspanof1415months. Ithasalso
been found that the J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is
running a study centre which does not have proper facilities.
Referringtothecontentionofthelearnedcounselforthepetitioner

14

that,postfactoapprovalofDistanceEducationCouncilwasgranted
toJ.R.N.RajasthanVidyapeeth,Udaipurinoffering programmes
andtherefore,thedegreeawardedbytheuniversityisvalidone,I
findthatthecommunicationdated03.09.2007referstoprovisional
recognitionanditisalsomentionedthereinthattheprogrammes
mustbeapprovedbythestatutorybodies.Ithasnotbeenbrought
on record whether the programmes conducted by the said
universityhavebeenapprovedbythestatutorybodies.Itisalsoa
matter of record that it has been communicated to the J.R.N.
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur that the university is required to
followthenormsandguidelinesoftheApexBodywithrespectto
course, design, duration, eligibility etc. for offering programmes
through distance mode. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitionersfurthersubmittedthat,theDistanceEducationCouncil
itself has indicated that it does not insist upon territorial
jurisdiction and therefore, the university is authorised to run
regularcourseintheStateofJharkhandalso.Fromthedecisionin
KurananchalInstituteofDegreeandDiplomaandOthers(Supra)
asnoticedhereinabove,Ifindthatithasbeenheldthatauniversity
recognised under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
would have its own territorial jurisdiction except, the Central
Universities.
21.

Inviewoftheaforesaiddiscussion,Iamoftheviewthat a

degreeawardedbyauniversitycannotberenderedinvalidmerely
becauseithasnotbeenrecognisedbytheAICTE.Section22ofthe
UniversityGrantsCommissionAct,1956providesthatauniversity
isempoweredtoconferdegreeandtherefore,thepowerconferred
onauniversityundertheUniversityGrantsCommissionAct,1956
cannot be taken away by superimposing the authority of the
AICTE. However,inviewofthevariouspronouncementsof the
Hon'bleSupremeCourtitcannotbesaidthatAICTEhasnoroleat
all to play in so far as, technical course run by a university is

15

concerned. If such an interpretation is given to the various

provisions under the AICTE Act, the very object of enacting the
AICTEAct,1987wouldbefrustrated.
22.

InMaaVaishnaviDeviMahilaMahavidyalayaVs.StateofU.P.

&Ors.reportedin(2013)2SCC617,theHon'bleSupremeCourt
hasheldasunder:
70. .............Recognition and affiliation are
expressions of distinct meaning and
consequences.InBhartiaEducationSocietyVs.
StateofH.P.,reportedin(2011)4SCC527,
thisCourtheldthat:
19. The purpose of 'recognition' and
'affiliation'isdifferent.Inthecontextof
the NCTE Act, 'affiliation' enables and
permitsaninstitutiontosentitsstudents
to participate in public examinations
conducted by the examining body and
securethequalificationinthenatureof
degrees, diplomas and certificates. On
the other hand, 'recognition' is the
licencetotheinstitutiontoofferacourse
ortraininginteachingeducation.
23.

Thefactswhichhavebeenbroughtonrecordinthepresent

proceedingfurtherstrengthenmyviewthattheroleofAICTEinso
faras,universityisconcernedcannotbewipedoutaltogether. If
themannerinwhichtheBachelorinEngineeringcourseisrunby
J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, is ignored, it would bring
disastertotheTechnicalEducationSystemintheCountry.
24.

Itiswellsettledthatevenifthereasoninggivenintheorder

isnotappropriateandtheordermaynotsustainthescrutinyin
law, the Court would not interfere with the order as, such
interference would perpetuate illegality. The orders under
challenge in the present proceeding have been passed after
consideringvariousaspectsofthematterandtherefore,evenafter
holding that the degree awarded by the J.R.N. Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth,Udaipurcannotbeheldinvalidonthegroundthatit
has not been recognised by the AICTE, I am not inclined to

16

interfereinthematter.
25.

In Chandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,

reportedin(2003)6SCC545,theHon'bleSupremeCourthasheld
asunder:
43. Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a
discretionary remedy. The High Court and
consequently this Court while exercising their
extraordinaryjurisdictionunderArticle226or
32oftheConstitutionofIndiamaynotstrike
down an illegal order although it would be
lawfultodoso.Inagivencase,theHighCourt
orthisCourtmayrefusetoextendthebenefit
of a discretionary relief to the applicant.
Furthermore, this Court exercised its
discretionaryjurisdictionunderArticle136of
the Constitution of India which need not be
exercised in a case where the impugned
judgmentisfoundtobeerroneousifbyreason
thereofsubstantialjusticeisbeingdone..........
26.

In the result, this writ petition fails and accordingly, it is

dismissed.
(ShreeChandrashekhar,J.)
JharkhandHighCourtatRanchi
The28thdayofNovember,2013
Manish/A.F.R.