Misc. Case No.

15613 of 2013
10. 06.9. 2013 This misc. case has been filed with a prayer to give an
appropriate direction to opp. party no.2-Chairman !disha
"oint #ntrance #$amination %h&baneswar 'h&rda to allow
the petitioner to participate in the web-based vacancy ro&nd
co&nseling on the date fi$ed and if the petitioner comes o&t
s&ccessf&l a seat may be reserved to sec&re ends of (&stice.
2. This misc. case arises o&t of ).*.+c, -o. 16.1/ of 2013
which has been filed with a prayer to direct opp. party
no.2 to allow the petitioner to participate in the web
based co&nseling sched&le of !"## 2013 and if his
name finds place in the merit list opp. party no.2 be
directed to allow the petitioner to ta0e admission in
1.Tech. in the appropriate s&b(ect as desired by the
petitioner.
3. *etitioner2s case in a n&t-shell is that he has passed
%.Tech. from "anardan 3ai -agar 3a(asthan 4idyapeeth
5niversity in the year 2010 which is a 6eemed 5niversity in
terms of 7ection 3 of the 5.8.C. 9ct 19:6 vide -otification
-o.;9-:</=-5-3 "an&ary 12 19/. of the 8overnment of
>ndia. *&rs&ant to the >nformation %roch&re p&blished by
opp. party no.2 for !.".#.#.- 2013 the petitioner participated
in the #ntrance #$amination for 1.Tech. 3eg&lar and was
iss&ed with 3an0 Card of *89T 2=0.+8#,. Thereafter
direction has been given to all the candidates who have either
!"## 2013 3an0 Card or valid 89T#<8*9T 7core Card to
participate in the web based co&nseling. >t was also directed
that all the !"## candidates appearing for doc&ment
verification in web-based co&nseling shall deposit non-
1
).*.+c, -o. 16.1/ of 2013
ref&ndable co&nseling fee of 3s.=:0<- in the form of 6.6. in
favo&r of !"## 2013. Candidates having valid 89T#<8*9T
score have to pay non-ref&ndable co&nseling fee of 3s.9:0<-.
9ll the candidates were also directed to pay non-ref&ndable
5niversity 3egistration fee of 3s.:000<-. 9s per the
petitioner2s ran0 he was directed to appear on 19...2013 at
College of #ngineering and technology Techno camp&s
8hati0ia 'alinga -agar %h&baneswar p&rs&ant to which
the petitioner appeared before the -odal Centre as fi$ed by
opp. party no.2 b&t &nfort&nately the petitioner was ref&sed
for verification of doc&ments as he has completed the co&rse
thro&gh distance ed&cation.
=. 1r. 7.'. 6alai learned co&nsel appearing for the
petitioner s&bmitted that Cla&se =.:.1.a of !"## 2013
>nformation and %roch&re provides that applicants passed or
appearing in 2013 %achelors 6egree #$amination in the
relevant field from any 5niversity of !disha or from an 9>CT#
approved >nstit&te or from a recogni?ed 5niversity as defined
by 58C are eligible to be admitted in to 1.Tech. Co&rse. >n
the broch&re there is no condition that the st&dents who
have ac@&ired @&alification from "anardan 3ai -agar
3a(asthan 4idyapeeth 5niversity 3a(asthan +for short A"3-
5niversityB, are not eligible to participate in the co&nseling.
*etitioner was allowed to participate in the e$amination and
s&ccessf&lly @&alified b&t was debarred from participating in
the co&nseling. The petitioner completed %. Tech. co&rse
from "3- 5niversity which has got recognition from opp.
party no.1-5nion of >ndia represented thro&gh 7ecretary
1inistry of C&man 3eso&rces 6evelopment 6epartment and
2
was also declared as instit&te deemed to be 5niversity &nder
7ection 3 of 58C 9ct 19:6. The aforesaid 5niversity had
ac@&ired provisional recognition for the year 200.-0/ for
programmes offered thro&gh distant mode. The petitioner had
ta0en admission in %. Tech. thro&gh 6istant 1ode in the year
200.-0/ and completed the co&rse in the year 2009-10. The
p&blic notice floated by opp. party no.3-1ember 7ecretary of
9ll >ndia Co&ncil for Technical #d&cation in the year 2011
that the 9>CT# has decided not to recogni?e the @&alification
ac@&ired thro&gh distance ed&cation mode is &nfair and
illegal.
1r. 6alai f&rther s&bmits that the broch&re
p&blished by opp. party no.2 does not provide s&ch
@&alification criteria i.e. not to allow the candidates who
have ac@&ired @&alification thro&gh distant ed&cation mode.
Therefore the action of the !"## in not verifying the
doc&ment of the petitioner and not allowing him to participate
in the co&nseling is mala fide and also contrary to their own
advertisement. The petitioner on e$amination of recognition
of the 5niversity by opp. party no.1 had ta0en admission and
spent a val&able period of 3 years in completing %. Tech.
Co&rse. 7imilarly sit&ated st&dents were allowed by !"## to
participate in the co&nseling. Therefore at this stage denial of
admission to the petitioner in 1.Tech. Co&rse is &nfair illegal
and &n(&st.
:. 1r. ".'. 1ishra learned 7enior 9dvocate
appearing for 9>CT# s&bmitted that the c&t-off date for
completion of admission process being 1:.0/.2013 +which is
by now over, as per the decision of the Con2ble 7&preme Co&rt
3
in the case of *arshavnath Charitable Tr&st D !rs. 4s. 9>CT#
D !rs. +2013, 3 7CC 3/: the petitioner is not entitled to any
interim relief. 9ss&ming that the petitioner is eligible to ta0e
admission in 1.Tech s&ch admission cannot be granted after
the c&toff date i.e. after 1:.0/.2013. %&t fact remains that
the petitioner is not eligible to ta0e admission in 1.Tech.
co&rse as gen&ineness of his %.Tech degree is do&bted. The
6iploma awarded by "3- 5niversity thro&gh 6istance
#d&cation mode has not been approved by 58C 9>CT# and
6#C as re@&ired by the meeting dated 0=.06.2009 held at 11
9.1. in the %oard 3oom of >8-!5 1aidan 8arlil.
The 9>CT# has already p&blished a *&blic -otice
for e$isting st&dents<prospective st&dents p&rs&ing<wanting
to p&rs&e the ed&cation thro&gh 6istance 1ode &nder 9>CT#
58C and 6#C thereby advising to chec0 the approval by
"oint Committee of 6#C 58C and 9>CT# in the )eb *ortal of
9>CT#. >f the instit&tion has not been approved by the "oint
Committee the @&alifications ac@&ired by the st&dents of
s&ch instit&tion are not approved by the 9>CT#. >t is the
p&blic policy of the 9>CT# not to recogni?e s&ch Certificates
ac@&ired by the st&dents as per the aforesaid -otification. The
petitioner has not enclosed the approval of the "oint
Committee so far as his instit&tion is concerned. !n this
score alone the present writ petition o&ght to be dismissed.
7ome writ petitions are sub judice before the 6ivision %ench
of this Co&rt regarding the stat&s of the instit&tions.
*etitioner2s instit&tion is one of them. Therefore the present
petitioner cannot claim any relief &ntil and &nless the said
writ petitions are disposed of by the 6ivision %ench of this
4
Co&rt.
6. 1r. *alit learned co&nsel appearing for !"##
s&bmitted that as the relief claimed in the misc. case as well
as in the writ petition is identical no interim order can be
passed in favo&r of the petitioner. *lacing reliance on the
(&dgment of the Con2ble 7&preme Co&rt in *arashavnath
Charitable Tr&st2 case +s&pra, 1r. *alit s&bmitted that c&t off
date for ta0ing admission in technical ed&cation is 1:
th
9&g&st 2013. 7ince the c&t off date is over no relief can be
granted to the petitioner. >t was f&rther arg&ed that all the
iss&es raised by the petitioner can be decided at the time of
final disposal of the writ petition.
1r. *alit f&rther s&bmitted that the petitioner has
admitted in the writ petition that he has obtained the 6iploma
Certificate from "3- 5niversity b&t he has s&ppressed the
fact as to in which instit&tion of which place he was attending
the classes for the said 6iploma co&rse. The "3- 5niversity
has opened several camp&ses in different 7tates and has been
imparting ed&cation as !ffline Camp&s Co&rse which is
e@&al to Correspondence Co&rses li0e 6istance #d&cation.
The 6istance #d&cation or !ff Camp&s #d&cation
is only meant for the p&rpose of employment to the posts and
services for the people who are already in (obs.
The >nformation %roch&re of !"## does not
approve any st&dent of !ff Camp&s<Correspondence Co&rse<
6istance #d&cation so far as the st&dent2s eligibility is
concerned. Cence the petitioner is not eligible for admission.
The petitioner has wrongly interpreted the conditions given in
the >nformation %roch&re.
5
The Con2ble 7&preme Co&rt in the (&dgment in
Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhatisgarh, 9>3 2012 7C 2=13 has
categorically held that in the writ petition challenging
admission to the professional co&rse interim order permitting
respondent-st&dent to contin&e to p&rs&e the co&rse o&ght
not to be granted. The Con2ble 7&preme Co&rt in the case of
Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Paraminder r. !ansa" and
others, #$%%&' ( SCC ()$, has held that the ineligible
candidates admitted to internship co&rse by virt&e of the
interim orders iss&ed by the Cigh Co&rt and final order iss&ed
directing reg&lari?ation of internship are not s&stainable even
tho&gh candidates already completed the internship co&rse.
.. 1r. 9.'. 1ohapatra learned co&nsel appearing
for the %.*.5.T. s&bmitted that the %i(& *attnai0 5niversity of
Technology +%*5T, has been established &nder the %i(&
*attnai0 5niversity of Technology 9ct 2002 with the aim and
ob(ect as specified in the preamble of the 9ct itself. 1ost of
the technical colleges<>nstit&tions &nder the %*5T get
st&dents admitted thro&gh !"## which is also a stat&tory
body. >n view of the provisions contained in 7ection 3 of the
!rissa *rofessional #d&cational >nstit&tions +3eg&lation of
9dmission and ;i$ation of ;ee, 9ct 200. the st&dents are
admitted thro&gh !"## to all technical professional
ed&cational instit&tions be it 8overnment or *rivate.
The %*5T has neither recogni?ed the
degree<diplomas obtained thro&gh distance ed&cation mode
from o&tside 5niversities<deemed to be 5niversities nor has
anybody ever as0ed to decide the e@&ivalence of s&ch degree<
diplomas with that of the degree given by %*5T. -o other
6
a&thority e$cept the 9cademic Co&ncil of the %*5T is
competent to decide the e@&ivalence of s&ch
degrees<diplomas obtained thro&gh distance ed&cation mode.
7ection 20+g, of the %*5T 9ct 2002 specifically provides that
the 9cademic Co&ncil of %*5T can only prescribe the
e@&ivalence of e$aminations degrees diplomas and
certificates of other 5niversities. Chapter->>> stat&te 2=+3,+v, of
the ;irst 7tat&te-2006 of the %*5T also provides for
recognition s&b(ect to confirmation of the %oard that the
e$aminations of the recogni?ed 5niversities are e@&ivalent to
the corresponding e$aminations of the 5niversity. Till date
the %*5T has not declared any degrees<diplomas obtained
thro&gh any 5niversity of the co&ntry to be e@&ivalent to the
degrees given by %*5T.
The 6eemed 5niversity concerned in the present
case does not have the recognition from (oint Committee
consisting of 58C 9>CT# and 6#C after 200:. 1oreover the
"3- 5niversity does not have 9>CT# approval for the
programmes<co&rses offered by it in technical<professional
s&b(ects which are e$cl&sively covered &nder the 9>CT# 9ct
19/.. 5nless the programmes<co&rses are approved by
9>CT# the %*5T cannot accept s&ch co&rses and allow the
st&dents to enter into the %*5T system to prosec&te their
higher st&dies. 9pparently the co&rses and programmes
ta0en by the st&dent from "3- 5niversity is incomplete and
the degrees<diplomas< certificates iss&ed by s&ch 5niversity
are all defective and illegal.
/. 9ll contentions ta0en by the parties need not be
considered at the time of considering the misc. case filed for
7
grant of interim protection. The petitioner is not entitled for
any interim protection for the following reasonsE
+i, >t is not in disp&te that admission to 1.Tech.
Co&rse for 2013 has in the mean time been completed by
1:./.2013. There cannot be any admission after the c&t off
date fi$ed by the Con2ble 7&preme Co&rt in *arashvanath
Charitable Tr&st2s case +s&pra, wherein it has been held as
followsE
A=2. The admission to academic co&rses sho&ld
start as proposed by 1
st
9&g&st of the relevant
year. The seats remaining vacant sho&ld again be
d&ly notified and advertised. 9ll seats sho&ld be
filled positively by 1:
th
9&g&st after which there
shall be no admission whatever be the reason or
gro&nd.B
The law declared by the Con2ble 7&preme Co&rt
and directions given by it are binding on every Co&rt of the
co&ntry and the Cigh Co&rts are &ne$ceptionally bo&nd by
them.
The 8&(arat Cigh Co&rt in the case of State of
Gujarat vs. Gordhandas Keshavji Gandhi and others, 9>3
1962 8&(. 12/ held that a decision of the 7&preme Co&rt is
binding on all the Cigh Co&rts. %y 9rticle 1=1 of the
Constit&tion of >ndia it is laid down that the law declared by
the 7&preme Co&rt shall be binding on all co&rts within the
territory of >ndia.
The %ombay Cigh Co&rt in the case of Amruta
Babaji Mozar v. Kondabai, deceased by her heirs Babai
Laxman Mandhare etc and another 9>3 199= %ombay-
8
293 held that the law declared by the 7&preme Co&rt is no
do&bt of paramo&nt precedence and is binding on all the
Co&rts notwithstanding any decision to the contrary of the
Cigh Co&rt to which a Co&rt may be s&bordinate. This wo&ld
have been the position even witho&t 9rticle 1=1 of the
Constit&tion beca&se of the precedent-oriented system of
(&dicial administration received by &s from the %ritishers and
followed by &s with &tmost devotional rigidity.
The 'arnata0a Cigh Co&rt in the case of M/s.
rienta! "nsurance #o. Ltd. v. Smt. Sa!ma and others 9>3
200/ 'ant. 106 held that it is well settled that even obiter
dicta made in the decision of the 7&preme Co&rt is binding
&pon Cigh Co&rt and Cigh Co&rt is not competent to interpret
the decision of the 7&preme Co&rt.
>n view of the above settled legal propositions
this Co&rt cannot iss&e any direction to the opposite parties
to give admission to the petitioner after c&t-off date fi$ed by
the Con2ble 7&preme Co&rt.
+ii, >t is not disp&ted that the relief claimed in the
misc. case amo&nts to final relief claimed in the writ petition.
The Con2ble 7&preme Co&rt has consistently held that Co&rts
sho&ld not pass any interim order which amo&nts to final
relief. )hether the petitioner is entitled for any relief has to be
ad(&dicated at the time of final disposal of the writ petition.
The Con2ble 7&preme Co&rt in the case of Burn Standard
#o$ Ltd. and others v. %inabandhu Majumdar and
another 9>3 199: 7C 1=99 has deprecated the practice of
granting interim relief which amo&nts to final relief.
9
+iii, The Con2ble 7&preme Co&rt in the case of AS&A
v. 't. B.%. Sharma (niversity of &ea!th Science and
others 9>3 2012 7C 3396 held that the Co&rt sho&ld avoid
giving interim orders where admissions are matters of
disp&te before the Co&rt. +9lso see *riya 8&pta v. 7tate of
Chhatishgarh and others 9>3 1912 7C 2=13,
+iv, !therwise also no prima facie case is made o&t
for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner for the following
reasons.
+a, The 6irector of >ndira 8andhi -ational !pen
5niversity in her letter dated 9
th
9pril 2010 available at page
:3 of the affidavit dated 1=./.2013 filed by the petitioner
addressed to the 7enior 1anager +C36, -ational 9l&mini&m
Company Fimited Corporate !ffice -9FC! %havan
-ayapalli %h&baneswar intimated the recognition stat&s of
co&rse r&n by "3- 6eemed 5niversity 5daip&r thro&gh
distance mode. ;or better appreciation of the fact relevant
portion of the said letter is e$tracted below E
A>n this connection > wo&ld li0e to inform yo&
that the 6istance #d&cation Co&ncil +6#C, has
accorded post-facto approval to "3- 3a(asthan
4idyapeetha 6eemed 5niversity 5daip&r to all
programmes +that were approved by 7tat&tory
bodies of the instit&te, till 200:. The above
&niversity has also been accorded provisional
recognition for the academic year 200.-0/
which has been e$tended till the visit of the
#$pert Committee and decision is ta0en by the
"oint Committee of 58C-9>CT#-6#C.
;&rther yo& may note that d&ring the period
of recognition the 6#C has given instit&tional
recognition in place of programme-wise approval
10
to the "3- 3a(asthan 4idyapeetha 6eemed
5niversity for offering programmes thro&gh
distance mode. Th&s 6#C has not accorded
approval to any specific programme offered by
above &niversity. ;&rther in case of
technical<professional programmes offered by
the &niversity is concerned wherever re@&ired
approval from the concerned ape$ bodies in the
co&ntry s&ch as 9>CT# is re@&ired to be
obtained for which the responsibility vests with
the &niversity concerned.B
+&nderlined for emphasis,
;rom the aforesaid letter it is amply clear that the 6istance
#d&cation Co&ncil +6#C, has accorded post-facto approval to
"3- 5niversity for offering programmes thro&gh distance
mode and th&s 6#C has not accorded approval to any specific
programme offered by the above 5niversity. >t is f&rther
clarified that in cases of technical and provisional
programmes offered by the 5niversity wherever re@&ired
approval from the concerned ape$ body in the co&ntry s&ch
as 9>CT# is re@&ired to be obtained for which responsibility
vests with the 5niversity. The said letter f&rther reveals that
the responsibility vested with "3- 5niversity to obtain
approval from the ape$ body s&ch as 9>CT#. -eedless to say
that the petitioner in the present case claims that he has
sec&red @&alification in %achelor in Technical #d&cation i.e.
%.Tech. from "3- 5niversity. 6espite repeated re@&ests the
petitioner fails to prod&ce any doc&ment regarding grant of
approval from 9>CT# in respect of Technical professional
@&alification ac@&ired by the petitioner from the said "3-
5niversity as clarified in the aforesaid letter of the 6irector of
>8-!5.
11
+b, 7econdly the min&tes of the meeting on the iss&e of
recognition of diploma awarded by "3- 5niversity by 6istance
#d&cation Co&ncil held on =.6.2009 inter alia contains the
following E
AThe 9>CT# nominee informed that they have not
recogni?ed the diploma in engineering co&rse
offered by "3- 3a(asthan 4idyapeetha. ;&rther the
9>CT# nominee informed the members that 9>CT#
does not accord recognition to technical
programmes offered thro&gh distance mode and till
date they have got +sic, given any approval to start
any technical programme thro&gh distance
ed&cation. 9>CT# Co&ncil has recommended not to
start any programme thro&gh distance ed&cation
e$cept 1%9 1C9 and 6%1.B
The min&tes of the meeting f&rther contains the
relevant Cla&se of the 1o5 signed between 58C 9>CT# and
6#C as &nder E
A %ased on the recommendations of "oint
Committee the letter of approval may be iss&ed by
the "oint Committee. The letter sho&ld e$plicitly
state. This has the approval of 58C<9>CT# and
6#C. The letter sho&ld be (ointly signed by
7ecretary 58C 1ember 7ecretary 9>CT# and
6irector 6#C.B
The petitioner failed to prod&ce any letter of approval iss&ed
by the "oint Committee (ointly signed by the 7ecretary 58C
1ember 7ecretary 9>CT# and 6irector 6#C in respect of
co&rses offered by "3- 5niversity 3a(asthan.
9. Faw is well-settled that ed&cation is national wealth.
1erit and e$cellence ass&me special significance in the
conte$t of professional st&dies. 7election for admission is
necessarily to be merit based. 1erit of the st&dent is sole
12
criteria and there is no s&bstit&tion of it.
10. >n view of the above the petitioner is not entitled to
get any interim protection and accordingly the misc. case is
dismissed.
)))))))))))).
B.*. Maha+atra,,.
ssd


13