PRESIDENCY EDUCATIONAL TRUST v. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

2. When the writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 20.07.2013, Shri Sandeep Sethi, senior counsel, who represented the University, stated, on instructions, that University had no objection with regard to students who had been. admitted up to 12.06.2012. It was also agreed between the parties that no further admission would be made from that day onwards. However, the said order did not address the issue of students who were admitted after 12.06.2012, but before 20.07.2012.

3. In its counter-affidavit, the respondents-University has stated that it is not within its mandate to conduct face to face programme beyond its campus in collaboration with institutes such as the petitioner or to enter into MOUs or other arrangements for imparting education by way offace to face programmes.

4. Almost similar issues came up for consideration before this Court in HINDUSTAN AVIATION ACADEMY VS.

THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, W.PfC) No. 5789/2012 and connected matters, decided on 23.07.2013 and thefollowing view taken by this Court ispertinent:-

W.P.(C) 4297/2012 ^ oftheir inabihty to attend the regular classrooms. It was felt that such an alternative system would prove to be cost-effective, besides equalizing the opportunities to receive higher education through the mode of distance education.

18. Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, contains no provision for setting up colleges having classrooms on the lines ofregular colleges, where attendance to the classes is a mandatory requirement for the students and ifthey do not attend specified percent of the total classes, in a term/year, they are not allowed to sit in the examination conducted by the university/ college. In fact, imparting education through regular classrooms is notat all envisaged in the Act. Therefore, it is not to the university to impart education through the system of regular classrooms where the students are mandatorily required to attend such classes. Though, the university is empowered to set up 'study certres as defined in Section 2(o) of the Act, such centres cannot impart education through regular classrooms, their purpose being only to advise or counsel the students oi render any assistance which they,require for the purpose of pursuing their studies through Distance Education System. Such study centres cannot be converted into regular colleges where the students are required to attend the classes during the hours prescribed by the university/ college for the purpose. The very definition of 'study centre' as given in the Act, is a clear indicator with respect to the role such centres are expected to play in relation to the education tobe imparted bytheuniversity.

19. Section 2(e) of the said Act defines "Distance education systems" to mean the system of imparting education through any means of communication such as broadcasting, telecasting, correspondence courses, seminars, contact programmes or the combination of any two or more of suchmeans. It would therefore be difficult to dispute that the university had no legal authority to enter into any agreement/MoU/ arrangement. W.P.(C) 4297/2012 Page 3of[7] to set up study centres/ institutions/ colleges, for imparting education by way ofaface to face programme, where the students are required to attend regular classes and are taught in person, nor can the university ofits own impart education by way ofsuch aclassroom progamme. The university is mandated, by its Charter i.e. the Act by which it was set up, to impart education only through open school/distance mode oflearning.

24. Under the MoU, the petitioner institutes were entitled to admit student to the courses which the MoU permitted them to offer. Therefore, suspension of^ admission by way of communications dated 9 August, 2012, 1August, 2012 and 22'"" August, 2012 could not have'been directed without first terminating the MoU, pursuant to which the students are stated to have been admitted. In any case, the respondent IGNOU being State within the meaning of Article 12 _of the Constitution, it could not have suspended admission to the programmes being offered by the petitioner Institutes without following the principles ofnatural justice which required issue of a show cause notice followed by an. opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner Institutes.

32. More importantly, ifthe university had decided on 8.5.2012 and/or 31.5.2012 to suspend admission for the academic year 2012-2013, it was duty bound to issue advertisement in leading newspapers informing public at large that it had suspended admissions for the year 2012- 2013 and any person taking admission with the petitioners institutes would be doing so at his own peril. This was necessary considering the fact that in the previous years, the university itself had been advertising these programmes besides issuing registration numbers to the students admitted in the preceding years and conducting examinations forthem." The next question which arose for consideration is as to what happens to the students, who were admitted by the institute prior to 20.07.2012. W.P.(C) 4297/2012 Page 4of[7] nA Admittedly, even while addressing communication dated 31.05.2012 to AH&LEI, the University did not advertise in the newspapers that it had directed the institutes with which it had entered into arrangements such as MOU for imparting education by way of face to face programmes to keep the admission to such programmes in abeyance, nor was any such public notice displayed on the website of the University. As aresult, the candidates seeking admission to such face to face programmes would not be aware ofthe order ofthe University keeping such programmes in abeyance. Had the University issued public notices cautioning against taking admission to such programmes, probably it would not have been possible for institutes such as the petitioner to admit students on receipt of. communication issuedby the University.

5. The MOU executed in this case admittedly was for aperiod offive years and came to be prematurely terminated without given any show cause notice and/or opportunity ofhearing to the institutes who were party to the said MOU. This is yet another reason why the University should at least protect the interests of the students who have already taken admission with the petitioner-institute;

6. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed ofwith the following directions:.

(i) the petitioner shall submit the list ofstudents admitted by it for the academic year 2012-2013, to the IV.p.(C) 4297/2012 Page 5of? respondent-university, within eight weeks, along with the requisite documents such as admission forms, copies of fees receipts issued to them and shall also remit, within that period, the fees and other charges which the institute was required to pay to the university in terms ofthe MoU pursuant to which the students were admitted by it for the academic year 2012-2013.

(ii) The University shall verify within four weeks thereafter, the documents submitted by the petitioner institutes and shall also be entitled to require the students whose names fmd mention in the list furnished by the petitioners institutes to appear before its officers for the purpose of verification by the university. The students who are found to have been genuinely admitted by the petitioners during the academic year 2012-2013, will be issued registration numbers etc and other documents required for the purpose within two weeks of completing the verification process. mP.(C) 4297/2012 n/'

(iii) If the petitioner institutes have collected fees from the students for the academic year 2013-2014, such fee shall be refunded by them to the students within a period offour weeks from today.