Deemed Universities must share information with State Government: MHRD

With a view to address the issue of difficulty faced by students of Deemed Universities regarding authentication of educational certificates by the State Government for the purpose of Higher Education or employment abroad, MHRD has directed the University Grants Commission (UGC) to communicate to all the Deemed Universities and direct them to provide details about their recognition status and other information to state governments to enable them authenticate degrees of students going abroad.

The necessity for the direction arose on a background that Rajasthan government, in absence of information regarding the Deemed University, as obviously such Universities does not come under its jurisdiction, refused to authenticate the degrees of students granted by deemed universities operating in the state, complaining that they were not cooperating and sharing information required for process. Government of Rajasthan accordingly expressed its inability to MHRD vide a letter and requested MHRD to ask UGC to take up the responsibility of authentication and issue necessary instructions to UGC.

Procedurally, a student, going abroad either for the purpose of employment or higher education, has to get his educational certificates authenticated. The state governments authenticate their certificates after verifying the details about the universities. However, in Rajasthan it was becoming a difficulty and therefore the Government finally decided to stop authenticating degrees issued by them.

MHRD, taking strong cognizance of the issue and the Complaint from the Rajasthan Government has asked the UGC secretary to extend all support to the state government in this regard. The commission has also been asked to issue a directive to all deemed universities to ensure that state governments do not face such difficulty and students do not suffer.

Ravi Bhardwaj | mail@edulegal.in

Karnataka State’s attempt to regulate entrance test, admission process of Deemed Universities, halted by High Court

Government of Karnataka, while amending the Karnataka Professional Education Regulation (Regulation of Admissions and Determination of Fee) Act of 2006, vide Karnataka Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Determination of Fee) (Amendment) Act, 2015 made an attempt to interfere and regulate the admission and entrance test procedure of the Deemed Universities.

The amended sections Section 2(ff) included the definition of deemed-to-be-universities treating them at par with private and professional colleges in the State and Section 4B, apart from specifying methods of admission, also mandates constitution of an association for conduct of common entrance test besides directing for 25 per cent seats to be filled by CET conducted by the state government and quota for the State Government.

Some of the Deemed Universities based in Karnataka approached Karnataka High Court and challenged the action of the State Government. It was contended by the Universities that Deemed Universities having come into existence by Notification issued by the Central Government under a Central Statute, cannot be restricted by State Government by imposing rules regulating their entrance procedure and admission process. It was also argued that these regulations are against the law settled by the Supreme Court and also ultravires to the Constitution of India. It was also contended that the amendments breaches the academic and operational autonomy of the Institutions.

A vacation bench of Justice Anand Byrareddy and Justice P S Dinesh Kumar on hearing the Deemed Universities by way of an Interim Order permitted the Deemed Universities to publish their own calendar of events and conduct their own entrance tests for post-graduate and under-graduate courses to select candidates for admission to professional courses offered by them.

 

EduLegaL View:

This time for an exception, instead of having my own view, I choose the echo the observations of the Supreme Court in the famous TMA Pai’s Foundation Case:

  1. Private education is one of the most dynamic and fastest growing segments of post-secondary education at the turn of the twenty-first century. A combination of unprecedented demand for access to higher education and the inability or unwillingness of government to provide the necessary support has brought private higher education to the forefront……. 
  1. The right to establish and administer broadly comprises of the following rights:- 

 (a) to admit students: 

 (b) to set up a reasonable fee structure: 

 (c) to constitute a governing body; 

 (d) to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching); and 

 (e) to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any employees. 

  1. The right to establish an educational institution can be regulated; but such regulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance of proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructure (including qualified staff) and the prevention of mal-administration by those in charge of management. The fixing of a rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and composition of a government body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for appointment or nominating students for admissions would be unacceptable restrictions. 
  1. Merit is usually determined, for admission to professional and higher education colleges, by either the marks that the student obtains at the qualifying examination or school leaving certificate stage followed by the interview, or by a common entrance test conducted by the institution, or in the case of professional colleges, by government agencies. 

I therefore rest my case !

Ravi Bhardwaj | mail@edulegal.in

UGC’s Order to close alleged unauthorized Campus to BITS Pilani stayed by High Court

The Delhi High Court has stayed the Order / Notice issued by UGC to BITS, Pilani to close its Goa and Hyderabad Campus, issued allegedly on the ground that these campuses have not been approved by UGC / MHRD and the campus are being in run in violation of UGC Guidelines of 2000, UGC Guidelines of 2004 and UGC Regulations of 2010.

On November 9, 2015, UGC, Higher Education Regulatory Authority in the Country had issued Notices to 10 Deemed Universities directing them to close down their off-campus, which have not been permitted / approved by UGC / MHRD.

The Institutes, which received notices were Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies University, BITS, Pilani, Indian School of Mines-Dhanbad, Banasthali University (Rajasthan), Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science & Technology, Indian Veterinary Research Institute (UP) and Lakshmibai National University of Physical Education-Gwalior.

The Notice has created furor in the academic circles as it involved career of many students pursuing their education and several of those who have graduated. All the concerned Deemed Universities protested the Notice and also met the concerned officials and expressed their grievance.

However, BITS Pilani went on aggressive pitch and filed a Petition challenging the closure order before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. While seeking setting aside of the Order dated 09.11.2015, BITS, Pilani had also sought stay on the Notice. Shri Harish Salve, Sr. Adv., was leading the arguing team in the High Court.

The matter came up before the Bench of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Justice Jayant Nath on 22.12.2015. Interestingly, there was no representation from UGC, the principal Respondent in the matter.

The Hon’ble High Court after hearing Mr. Salve, issued Notice to UCG returnable on 09.02.2016 and passed the following order:

“Issue notice to the respondent returnable by 09.02.2016. 

 Pending further orders, no coercive steps shall be taken pursuant to the impugned notice dated 09.11.2015.”

 The order of “no coercive steps shall be taken” basically means that the operation and implementation of UGC’s Order dated 09.11.2015, of closure of Off-Campus shall not come into effect and will be treated as stayed. 

Interestingly, few weeks back, Delhi High Court in another matter relating to a Deemed University had observed that UGC Guidelines of 2000 and UGC Guidelines of 2004 are ultravires the UGC Act, 1956 and had held that prior to 2010, i.e., before passing of the Regulations, a Deemed University did not require prior approval of UGC to start new Department / Programme.

EduLegaL View:

The action or rather ill-action of UGC was completely an ill-prepared action. After having given Deemed University/s “legitimate expectation” by not taking any action when they had full knowledge of existence of Off-Campus/es, UGC was disabled by principle of “promissory estoppel” from taking any action against the Deemed Universities much less abrupt closure of the running Institutions at the Off-Campus/es. But wisdom was not on their side and they took hasty decision.

The fate of the unfortunate order was known from the time it was issued and it has turned out to be as expected.

Ravi Bhardwaj

Founder & Principal Consultant

EduLegaL | mail@edulegal.in

Advertising Council finds major Coaching classes Ads to be misleading

Advertising Standards Council of India [ASCI] has been receiving several complaints from parents and students against misleading claims being made in advertisement of various educational institutions pertaining to claims of success in competitive examinations, guaranteed placement and passing, recognition and affiliation institution, ranking of the institutions, nomenclature of degrees etc.

In September 2015, ASCI’s Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld complaints against major Coaching Institutions which operate in MBA / Engineering Domain relating to misleading advertisements and unsubstantiated claims in nature of Ranking / Award / Recognitions/ Placement Claim / Success Claim / Skill Acquisition / Achievements in Competitive Examinations.

The CCC found that claims in the advertisements were not substantiated and, thus, violated ASCI Guidelines for Advertising of Educational Institutions.

  1. CL Educate Limited (CAT Coaching): The claim in the advertisement, “5911 IIM Calls by 973 CL students from Delhi/NCR in CAT 2014”, was not substantiated.
  1. Shri Maharana Pratap Private ITI: The claims in the advertisement, “100% Government Job provided if they do courses from Shri Maharana Paratap ITI” and “Number of jobs in govt. sector 15000 and private sector 5,00,000”, were not substantiated. Also, the advertisement was designed to look like editorial matter, which was found to be misleading.
  1. Sea Academy- The claim in the Advertisement, “100% Pass Guarantee Coaching”, was not substantiated.

false advertisement

  1. Aakash Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. (Aakash Institute): The advertiser claiming that Twins, Rahul Bansal and Sahil Bansal (AIIMS-2015 ranks 23 and 40) were from their coaching institutes was not substantiated with authentic evidence.
  1. Institute of Advance Network Technology: The claims mentioned in the advertisement and cited in the complaint, “only institute in India which offers to students five international, nine participation and one IANT totaling 15 certificates”, “A student may get only one IANT Certificate or depending on the courses he chooses, participating companies be offering their certificates”, “100% job guarantee”, “its IT Job Portal is the only one available in India”, “Once they complete the course, they can earn annually from Rs.78000/- to Rs. 4,60,000/- as salary”, “No.1 Hardware Networking and Software training institute”, “No.1 Infrastructure” and “No.1 Quality Education”, were not substantiated.
  1. CL Educate Ltd. (All India Mock IBPS PO Preliminary examination): The claims in the advertisement, “Compete with aspirants from 200 cities” and “Over 1.2 million students trust CL with their exam preparation every year”, were not substantiated.
  1. AIM Study Center: The claim in the Advertisement, “100% Job Guarantee or else money back”, was not substantiated.

EduLegaL View:

An old marketing strategy saying goes “ Jo Dikhta wahi bikta hai”, it would not be out of place to improvise it to say “Jo Dikhaya Jata hai, wahi bikta hai”.

Coaching Classes and Institutions have overgrown in India due to huge peer pressure and parental aspirations. It is one of the biggest sector, but still unregulated in majority part of the Country. It is high time that this sector is regulated.

Advertisements surprisingly have become one of most important medium to attract students recently amongst educational institutions. Advertisements play a big role in deciding an Institution and it is required that it should be a responsible step devoid of inducements and falsehoods.

But my issue is, what next, what is the action that will be taken against these educational institutions, who have indulged in misleading publications and advertisements and what about the students who found themselves on the wrong side relying upon the advertisements.

There is no effective legislation in place, which deals with these situations. MHRD look into the matter and bring effective legislation to ban such ads and take effective actions against the Institutions.

Ravi Bhardwaj | mail@edulegal.in

Deemed Universities are state / public authority, within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court while deciding the issue of maintainability of a Writ Petition against a Deemed University has held that a Deemed University being created / established for imparting education, which is an important public function, therefore it comes within the ambit of Article 12 of Constitution of India and hence amenable to Writ Jurisdiction of High Court / Supreme Court.

The case relates to a Faculty of a Deemed University, who was terminated after disciplinary proceedings. She successfully challenged the termination before the Single Judge in Madras High Court and her termination was set aside. The University then challenged the order of the Single Judge in Appeal. The Division Bench set aside the order and held that a Deemed University is neither a State nor an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence it cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the legality and correctness of the dismissal order.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Faculty challenged the Judgement in Supreme Court.

As significant legal issue was involved in the matter and the aggrieved faculty had no legal assistance, the Court requested Mr. Harish Salve, Senior counsel, to assist the Court to enable us to properly appreciate and decide the issues arising in the case.

Shri Salve submitted to the Court the test as to whether any person/body/organization/authority, would be subjected to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, can be done asking as whether the concerned body has been formed for discharging any “Public function” or “Public duty” and if so, whether it is actually engaged in any public function or/and performing any such duty.

He also submitted that in the light of several judgements “imparting education to students at large” is a “public function” and, therefore, if any body or authority, as the case may be, is found to have been engaged in the activity of imparting education to the students at large then irrespective of the status of any such authority, it should be made amenable to writ jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court agreed with submission of Shri Harish Salve and ruled that Respondent Deemed University can be subjected to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, for following reasons:

[A] Firstly, Respondent Deemed University is engaged in imparting education in higher studies to students at large.

[B] Secondly, it is discharging “public function” by way of imparting education.

[C] Thirdly, it is notified as a “Deemed University” by the Central Government under Section 3 of the UGC Act.

[D] Fourthly, being a “Deemed University”, all the provisions of the UGC Act are made applicable to Respondent University, which inter alia provides for effective discharge of the public function – namely education for the benefit of public.

[E] Fifthly, once Respondent University is declared as “Deemed University” whose all functions and activities are governed by the UGC Act, alike other universities then it is an “authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

The Court thus observed that once a Deemed University is held to be an “authority” as provided in Article 12 then as a necessary consequence, it becomes amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court thus set aside the Judgement of Division Bench of High Court and remanded the matter to the Division of the High Court to decide the respondent’s appeal on merits on the question as to whether the Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition on merits.

EduLegaL View

There is a legal distinction between “authority” under Article 12 and Article 226. A Statute does not create a Deemed University; rather it is created under a Statute. There is a well-marked distinction between a body, which is created by the statute and a body, which is given a legal status under a Statute.

A Deemed University, only because it has been brought into existence by virtue of notification u/s 3 of UGC Act, 1956 and UGC Act, 1956 and its functions are regulated by  UGC, it does not become “authority” for the purpose of Article 12. The test under “Article 12” is much higher than “Article 226”.

When a law provides that something shall be deemed to exist, the court is bound to ascertain the purpose for which the fiction was created and the parties between whom the fiction was to operate, so that full effect may be given to the intention of the legislature and the purpose may be carried to its logical conclusion. The legal fiction of “Deemed University” was created for the purpose of making the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 to the Institution enabling it to conduct courses and impart degrees and nothing beyond that.

Public function and Public Duty test may be adequate for bringing a Deemed University within the ambit of Article 226 but that cannot be true for Article 12 as well.

Now that SUPREME COURT has settled an issue, the Argument can continue!

RTE Act does not guarantee admission to school of choice: HC

Himachal Pradesh High Court while answering a question, “Whether children through their parents have unfettered right to choose a school, in which they wish to study?” has held that free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school as guaranteed under the RTE Act does not mean that a child has unfettered right to admission in the school of one’s choice.

In this case, the petitioner father had approached Respondent school for admitting his younger child in class 3, but was denied the admission on the ground that the child did not make a grade and therefore, could not be selected. It was claimed that Respondent school is hardly at a distance of 75 meters from his residence and as per the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, his child has an unfettered right to be admitted in the school and the respondents have no discretion whatsoever to deny him admission.

The respondent-School contested the Petition and stated that it is a non-aided school and that the admissions made by it are strictly in conformity with the Act. It is further averred that the son of the petitioner had competed with the other children who were desirous of being admitted in class 3, but failed to make a grade and therefore, could not granted admission.

Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh considered the argument of the parties and disposed off the Writ Petition by observing that Section 3(i) of the Act provides that every child of the age of six to fourteen years shall have right to free and compulsory education in a neighborhood school till completion of elementary education ensuring that a school is available in the neighborhood and free and compulsory education in neighborhood school is available to every child of the age group to which statute applies, but then this provision, in no manner gives a right to the child or parents to pick and choose a particular school, which falls under Section 12 of the Act, except to the extent of the provisions contained in this Section read with Section 2(n) of the Act.

The Court was also of the view that any direction to admit the student belonging to non-minority, then the same would lead to an invasion of its right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to the Schools.

The High Court was clear to observe that school’s responsibility for free and compulsory education is governed by Section 12 of the Act and sub-section 1(c) thereof provides the extent to which provisions have to be made in favour of the weaker section, disadvantaged group etc., but right to free and compulsory education in a neighborhood school does not include the right to insist on any school of choice under the Act. The High Court accordingly dismissed the Petition.

Promoting AYUSH Education

The Central Government has approved setting up of (i) All India Institute Ayurveda at SaritaVihar, New Delhi to conduct Post-graduate and Ph.D. courses in Ayurveda and (ii) North Eastern Institute of Ayurveda and Homeopathy at Shillong in Meghalaya to conduct Under-graduate, Post-graduate, Doctoral and Post-doctoral courses both in Ayurveda and Homoeopathy.Further, under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme of the Ministry, there is a component of Development of AYUSH Educational Institutions under the National AYUSH Mission (NAM) where, there is a provision of grant in aid upto the maximum of Rs. 10.50 crore for setting up of new AYUSH Educational Institutions/Colleges in the states where such Institution does not exists in Government Sector. The grant-in-aid provided by the Government of India is supplementary to the State contribution to complete the project.

Furthermore, there is a provision of assistance of Rs. 3 crore for Under-graduate (UG) Institutions and Rs. 4 crore for Post-graduate (PG) Institutions of AYUSH for upgradation/infrastructural development.The Central Government has taken steps for the improve the quality of AYUSH educational institutions already in existenceby approving the regulations for Ayurveda, Unani Siddha and Homoeopathy colleges notified by the CCIM and CCH as per details given below:

i. The Indian Medicine Central Council (Permission to Existing Medical Colleges) Regulations, 2006.

ii. Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirement of Ayurveda Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2012 with Amendment Regulations, 2013.

iii.Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirements of Unani Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2013.

iv. Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standard Requirements of Siddha Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2013.

v. Homoeopathy Central Council (Minimum Standards Requirement of Homoeopathic Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2013.

vi. Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine (Amendment) Regulations, 2012 with further amendment in 2013 for Ayurveda undergraduate course.

vii. Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2013 for Unani undergraduate course.

viii. Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2013 for Siddha undergraduate course.

ix. Homoeopathy (Degree Course) Regulations, 1983 with amendments in 2003 and 2005.

x. Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2012.

xi. Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Unani Education) Regulations, 2007.

xii. Homoeopathy (Post Graduate Degree Course) M.D.(Hom.) Regulations, 1989 with amendments in 1993 and 2012.

xiii. Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Diploma Course) Regulations, 2010 with amendment in 2013 for Ayurveda.

xiv. Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Diploma Course in Unani Medicine) Regulations, 2015.

xv. Indian Medicine Central Council (Post-Graduate Diploma Course in Siddha) Regulations, 2015.

Further, the assistance given by the Government of India under the component of Development of AYUSH Institutions of NAM is facilitating improvement in infrastructure in AYUSH Colleges and attached Hospital and thereby improving quality of existing educational Institutions.

This information was given by the Minister of State (Independent Charge) for AYUSH, Shri Shripad Yesso Naik in reply to a question in Lok Sabha today. 

HC says Deemed Universities are at par with Statutory Universities, overrules UGC Guidelines restricting starting new campus and programmes, restricts UGC from disturbing pre-2010 status

In a landmark Judgement, Delhi High Court has ruled that Deemed Universities though established by a Notification u/s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 is to be treated at par with other Universities which are established statutes of Central / State Government.

The High Court has also held that UGC Act, 1956 does not bar a deemed university from commencing any new course / programme of study or from establishing any new department i.e. other than the one in which a deemed university is already imparting education at the time of being notified as a deemed university, to confer degrees specified in Notifications under Section 22(3).

The High Court was hearing a challenge by a Deemed University to communication by UGC that it had never granted any permission / approval to the University to start certain Departments and that as per the UGC norms a deemed university can on its own start only those courses which are allied to courses already approved by the UGC and that for all those courses which are not allied to the courses already approved with prior approval of UGC is required. UGC had also directed the University not to admit students.

It was argued by the University that there is no provision in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 which requires an institution, once conferred the status of deemed University, to seek prior approval of the UGC for starting a course / programme. It was also argued that neither the 1992 Guidelines nor the 2000 Guidelines formulated by the UGC for declaring an institution as deemed university also included any provision / condition requiring deemed university to obtain prior approval to start Programmes / Courses / Departments.

UGC contended that 2000 Guidelines required deemed universities to submit proposals for starting various academic courses. Similarly 2004 Guidelines “for establishing of new departments within the Campus, setting up of Off-Campus Center(s) / Institution(s) / Off- shore Campus and starting Distance Education Programmes by the Deemed Universities” also provided inter alia that the deemed universities intending to open a new department in its campus or an Off-Campus Centre / Institution shall approach the UGC at least six months prior to opening of such center and that the deemed universities desirous of introducing a new Course / Programme in a professional subject shall comply with all the requirements of the Statutory Professional Councils and obtain their approval before approaching UGC.

It was emphatically submitted that UGC is empowered by Section 12(j) of the Act to perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of its functions and in exercise of which powers, had issued the Guidelines aforesaid. UGC also said that it is entitled to treat deemed Universities as a separate and distinct class and to require them to seek prior approval before starting new Courses/Departments, because deemed Universities are fundamentally different from Universities; while a University is established under a Central or a State Act and does not require recommendations of the UGC, a deemed University is not so established and requires recommendation of the University to function as a University.

The Hon’ble Court rejected the contention of UGC, that Section 22 prohibits deemed Universities from setting up a new department or commencing a new course or programme and held that once an institution of higher education has been declared as a deemed University, it can confer the degrees specified in the notifications issued in exercise of power under Section 22(3) and the said Section cannot be read as restricting the right of a deemed University to confer degrees only in those courses/programmes in which it was imparting education in at the time of being declared a University.

The Court also categorically observed that UGC Act, 1956 does not contain any distinction between a university established or incorporated by a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and a deemed university. Rather, Section 3 of the Act, as aforesaid, expressly provides that an institution of high education once declared and notified as a deemed university shall be treated as if a university as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act.

Having settled this position of law, the Court proceeded to examine, whether the Act empowers the UGC to impose any such condition on deemed Universities, as was done vide Guidelines of 2000 and 2004?

The Court though generally while interpreting powers and functions of UGC of determination of standards in Universities observed that it certainly includes within its sweep a provision requiring Universities / deemed Universities to obtain approval or prior approval for commencing a new course/programme or for establishing a new department.

The Court on reading of Section 12 of the Act held that UGC could not have in exercise of powers under Section 12 issued a direction / Guideline prohibiting deemed Universities from establishing new department or commencing new programme / course, as Section 12 anything done under Section 12 is to be done in consultation with Universities. The Court noted that it is not the case of UGC that the directives / Guidelines on which it relies to contend that it had prohibited deemed Universities from commencing new course / programme or from establishing new department were issued in consultation with deemed Universities.

The Court thus held that said Guidelines / directives thus cannot be held to be in accordance with Section 12 and thus are of no avail and UGC could not have insisted requiring the deemed Universities to obtain its prior approval before commencing a new course on basis of Guidelines.

The Court though held that it can be done on basis of Regulations, which UGC has framed in year 2010. However, the Court also held that 2010 Regulations have not been given retrospective effect  the same could not have prejudiced the new departments established or new courses/programmes commenced by the deemed University and in establishing/commencing which the deemed University spent considerable effort and money and/or the students admitted thereto or had been conferred degrees thereunder.

The Court eventually felt that subject University is entitled to the declaration that the new departments established by it and the new courses commenced by it (to confer degrees specified in Notifications under Section 22(3) of the UGC Act) prior to coming into force on 21st May, 2010 of the 2010 Regulations are valid. However any course commenced by the petitioner University after the coming into force on 21st May, 2010 of the 2010 Regulations and without obtaining the prior approval of the UGC shall be invalid.

EduLegaL View:

I wish the Petitioners and the Respondents, would have equally pointed out to the Court that Regulations of 2010 is also under litigation and its constitutional validity has been challenged. We would have been entitled by some adjudicatory observations in this case as well.

This Judgement is going to have huge bearing in the cases, wherein UGC has recently issued Notice to 10 Deemed Universities asking them to shut thier off-campuses. This Judgement basically nullifies the notice.