KAPIL MISHRA vs UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13376/2019
KAPIL MISHRA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma,
Mrs. Mahima Bhardwaj Kalucha and Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR
….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Apporv Kurup, Ms. Nidhi Mittal and Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advs. for UGC
Mr. C.K.Rai, Ms. Anuradha Roy and Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta, Advs. for R-2/NUJS
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T (O R A L)
% 05.03.2024
1. Consequent to an advertisement issued by the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS), inviting application from students, on 23 January 2017, the petitioner obtained admission to a course of M.A. in Business laws, online.
2. It is acknowledged, in para 4.2 of the writ petition that the NUJS had, on its website, clarified that its online courses were not recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and also referred to the consequences of non-recognition. The recital to this effect reads thus:
Please be advised that these courses are not recognised by UGC. We have informed UGC regarding these courses and have been informed that UGC is in the process of formulation of rules and regulations regarding online courses. The University is offering these courses under the powers bestowed upon it by the WBNUJS Act, 1999
The consequences of non-recognition of these courses is provided on the website of Ministry of Human Resources Development Refer to this link http://mhrd.gov.in/distance-leaning-4
3. Nonetheless, the petitioner enrolled with the NUJS in the aforesaid online course of M.A. in Business Law.
4. Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the enrolment was taken bonafide on the belief that recognition from the UGC would be obtained subsequently.
5. Affairs proceeded smoothly till, by the Circular dated 27 June 2018, the NUJS froze further advancement of all distance education and online courses. This, it appears, was consequent to a decision taken in the 32nd Academic Council meeting of the NUJS which took place on 10 May 2018.
6. Following this, on 3 October 2018, by a Circular issued by the NUJS, all activities relating to the online courses provided by the NUJS were brought to a halt.
7. This placed the petitioner in a quandary as he had been pursuing the online M.A Business Law course provided by the NUJS since the time of his enrolment.
8. The petitioner completed his course in February 2019, but was unable to obtain his M.A. Business laws certificate evidencing his successful clearing of the course.
9. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, seeking a certificate from the NUJS certifying that he had participated in and completed the M.A. course in Business Laws.
10. A similar dispute had come up before the High Court of Calcutta in Abhisek Panda v. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences1. The High Court of Calcutta addressed the issue thus:
West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences is a premier institute at the national level for conduct of legal studies. The degrees and diplomas and other qualifications granted by it are of high value and obviously recognised by the University Grants Commission.
However, it appears that the online mode of study may not have been expressly approved by the Commission. Under the impression that it also had the necessary approval to run online courses and grant degrees and diplomas etc., the University had started them from 2012.
When a premier institute like the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences announces a particular course, no student would ordinarily go behind the announcement and try to verify whether the University Grants Commission had approved it. The students were most likely to presume that such approval had been obtained from the University Grants Commission. On that basis they enrolled themselves. The courses have been continuing from 2012. The students have not only spent money but also extended their time and energy in pursuing the courses.
In our opinion, at this point of time it would be most inequitable and unjust to de-recognise the course cancel it and direct refund of fees.
Since on the representation of the University the students had undertaken this method of study and thus altered their position, the doctrine of promissory estoppel would prevent the University from calling off this course. It would also prevent the University Grants Commission from de-recognising it.
In those circumstances, we direct that the students who have already enrolled themselves for the online courses from 2012 and not completed it should be allowed to complete the courses if otherwise entitled to do so. On successful completion of the courses they would be awarded the requisite degrees and diplomas etc., by the University deemed to have been issued with the approval of the University Grants Commission.
No new enrolment for the online course shall be permitted, unless expressly authorised by the University Grants Commission.
11. The UGC carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of SLP(C) 4811/2023. The Supreme Court, by the following order dated 12 December 2023, declined to interfere with the decision of the High Court of Calcutta:
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The Court has taken a view as reflected in the paragraph where it is dealt with the aspect of a premier university (NUJS) announcing a particular course and students joining the same. The court has worked out the equities to see that such students are not prejudiced.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. The special leave petition stands dismissed.
Needless to say that the impugned order is certainly not a precedent for other cases.
Applications seeking intervention/impleadment stand disposed of.
12. On facts, it is correct that the situation in which the petitioners in the petitions which were decided by the High Court of Calcutta was placed is identical to the situation in which the petitioner here found himself.
13. There is, however, one difference, between the two cases, which deserves mention. The judgment of the High Court of Calcutta does not note the fact that, on the website of the NUJS, it was specifically clarified that the course of study pursued by the petitioner before the High Court of Calcutta was not approved by the UGC. In fact, the High Court appears to have proceeded on the premise that, by reason of the representations contained on the website of the NUJS, the student would bonafide have presumed that the course was approved by the UGC and has, on that basis, invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
14. In the present case, it is candidly acknowledged in the writ petition that the NUJS, on its website, specifically stated that the distance and online learning courses provided by it were not recognized by the UGC.
15. Nonetheless, Section 5(iv)2 of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences Act 1999, independently empowers the NUJS to hold examinations and grant diplomas or certificates and confer degrees.
16. Apart from this distinguishing factor, there is really no difference between the fact that obtained before the High Court of Calcutta in Abhisek Panda and the facts which are before this Court in the present petition.
17. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be treated identically to the petitioner in Abhisek Panda, especially as that decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court on the consideration that equities had been worked out by the High Court of Calcutta in order to ensure that the students were not prejudiced. The consideration of balancing of equities, if it is applied to the facts of the present case, would also justify issuance of a direction to the NUJS to release the certificate of the petitioner, following his having undertaken and completed the M.A. course in Business Laws.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
19. The NUJS is directed to release the certificate of the petitioner, certifying that he has undertaken and successfully completed the M.A. course in Business Law, within a period of four weeks from today.
20. Needless to say, if any formalities are required to be followed by the petitioner for grant of certificate, the petitioner shall do so.
21. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
MARCH 5, 2024
dsn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 Refer Order dated 13 June 2022 in MAT 479/2019
2 Powers and functions of the University-
*****
(iv) to hold examinations and to grant diplomas or certificates and to confer degrees including joint degrees in law combined with other disciplines and other academic distinctions on persons subject to such conditions as the University may determine and to withdraw any such diplomas, certificates, degrees or other academic distinctions for good any sufficient cause
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
WP(C) 13376/2019 Page 1 of 7