Topic: Education

This is very unfair decision, we should fight for review of this verdict. I scare, even though we go for review how long it is going to get out of this trouble? what is the condition of victims till that time?

It is an irony that some one is asked for a retest of subjects years later, people have acquired qualifications based on these degrees. Many have settled in job profile doing better than those from institutions of learning approved by AICTE
Go to many of such colleges the reality will come to forefront . It is clear that Learned Judges were biased by the two consultants since there was no representation of the students or the universities ,the decision seems biased. Judges purely go by legal books thus logic may not apply at times. There may be other recourse available like filing petition in MHRD, President or approach the PMO for reconsideration.

Undeniably imagine that that you stated. Your favorite reason seemed to be on the web the simplest factor to keep in mind of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed whilst other people consider worries that they plainly don’t recognize about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the top as smartly as outlined out the entire thing with no need side-effects , other folks can take a signal. Will likely be again to get more. Thanks

Students should not be punished

Adv Deepak Kunwar was also involved in the case at High Court of Haryana
He must be aware of the facts.

So go ahead

Dear friends, let us unit together and legally fight to bring back our dignity. I honestly request each & every victims engineers friends to create what’sapp group, so that we can immediately get in touch with each other. My no#9774975091

There are people who are coming forward to file Review petition at the Hon’ble Supre court.
what we need is LARGE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATION .
So come forward what so ever your group strength is.
No body is going to help any one.
one has to take care of self.
COME in front and put your side to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Very important question please read and understand the issue:

First Case:
(10) If “Mr. Y” Ph.D. research guide is Dr. X. Mr. Y has now become Dr. Y under the guidance of “Dr. X”. Now if degree of “Dr. X” is cancelled then what will happen to Dr. Y? Is country ready to accept “Dr. Y” Ph. D guide is Mr. X (Earlier Dr. X) who is B.Tech, only.
Second Case:
(11) Suppose Dr. X is guiding 4-5 research scholars from last three-four years and their researcher scholars are now at the stage of completing Ph.D. Suddenly degree of Dr. X is cancelled and he became Mr. X. Then, what will happen to their research scholars. Will they select new guide and give next 4-5 years for completing their Ph.D?
Who are the real victim? only Mr. X?. There is lot of confusions and queries i have stored. Please clarify?

Persons qualified long back as in 2006 are now, either placed in different important positions or moved abroad. It is very astonishing for them to note that all of a sudden their degrees are seized, which they have earned with efforts and zeal. This might happen to their other degrees as well, in due course of time.
1. Also, it is more intresting that only one test will aceratin that they are eligible for the degrees. How can a professional qualification be justified as right or wrong by a single test. In addition to above, the candidates has to appear in the test after 11 years, which is again notable that how honorable court is so sure about the same mental and physical fitness of the candidates appearing as it was at that time, when he qualified.
2. The question was related to graduate engineers and no way related to masters program as labs are not that essential in masters as in graduation level.
3. Honorable court has not been informed about the study centers properly as there were full equipped study centers as well, and are situated in reputed Universities.

Therefore it is my humble submission that, honarable court must review the orders in light of above facts and enquire the complete information before proceeding to implementation of the orders. Also, we in India look the judiciory as an apex and respectable body and do not expect such decisions which tends to alter the truthful image of the judiciory system of India. So the let the public be honoured for their beliefs.
Sanjay

I did my BTech from a rupted central university and did my Phd from a reputed pvt university.I have published many national /international numbers of research papers in IEEE, scopus & SCi index journals.I am expert of my area now .Let me ask a question, Is it not very late to welcome such a late & vauge decision,I mean how could I deserve to loose my degrees/publications or designation and my bread butter which I am earning for my family because of the only mistake of UGC / AICTE or some other such reputed educational organisation. Where is my fault ? If any such candiates commited to suicide or family members got heart attack and other such severe incident happens then who will be responsible ,supreme court,AICTE or UGC.If all loose my career than who will give compensation of so my future career .
So I humbly request to ho’ble supreme court & all concern organisation to rethink over this major issue and resolve it by exempting of any qualifying exam which many can not be clear aftr so many years of his /her degree.

Thanks for making a very comprehensive statement on behalf of various others whose life was hit unexpectedly by this ambiguous judgement. Certainly it lacked the thoroughness which should have gone into a supreme Court judgement

Anupam Lal Das

The regulatory regime in education offered through the distance mode has been marred with controversy since its inception. The regulator viz. Distance Education Council (DEC) was created under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 (IGNOU) in the year 1992.

What was perplexing was the fact that IGNOU was the largest player in distance education, and the regulator was created under the IGNOU Act. Nonetheless, despite the said apparent conflict of interest, DEC continued to regulate distance education till the year 2012.

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro, while inter-alia dealing with the issue of whether an engineering course could be offered through distance mode, ended up entering a field that was totally unrelated to the case. After examining in-extenso the history of education imparted through the distance mode, it came to a correct conclusion that imparting an engineering course through the distance mode was not permissible without the approval of AICTE.

It also severely criticized the practice of granting ex-post facto approvals, which were completely opposed to the policy statements governing the issue. Also, the Supreme Court set aside the ex-post facto approvals granted by UGC in cases of candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005 and suspended the degrees of these candidates until AICTE devised modalities to conduct an appropriate test/tests in terms of the judgment.

The Supreme Court, however, directed cancellation of degrees of candidates enrolled after the Academic Sessions 2001-2005 and also directed withdrawal of benefits secured by such candidates. Unfortunately, these candidates did not have the benefit of an audience before the Supreme Court. The Court further directed the CBI to carry out a thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with matters concerning grant of permission against the policy statement in this regard.

It is humbly stated that though the judgment is correct in its interpretation of the policy statement which leans towards the lack of desirability of offering a technical course like engineering through the distance mode, the Court lost sight of the fact that the DEC and the joint committee consisting of AICTE, UGC and DEC had granted such permission to institutions for some academic years.

The regulatory regime was clearly in a state of chaos and the grant of permission further compounded a sense of confusion in the minds of the students. This lack of clarity in the regulatory regime resulted in offering of technical courses by institutions for over two decades. While conceding to the fact that some of the deemed universities may have indulged in malpractices, the broad brush directions by the Supreme Court have the potential of taking away the livelihood of lakhs of students who may be gainfully employed in various organisations.

The Supreme Court is known for its magnanimous approach in dispensing justice. Article 142 of the Constitution has always been used to do complete justice between the parties and, therefore, the Supreme Court ought to have made the judgment prospective.

However, woefully, the judgment has created a class within a class between students who took admission during the Academic Years 2001-2005 and students who took admission after 2005. It is humbly stated that this artificial classification is not correct since the only reason for protecting the former class is the post-facto approval granted by the UGC. The Supreme Court has itself deprecated the practice of post-facto approvals in this very judgment, and thus everyone should have been treated equally by giving them one chance to make good the deficiency in their degrees.

The Supreme Court has further directed that the to-be deemed universities should stop using the word “University” within one month of the judgment. The Court has, however, not adverted to certain important sections of the UGC Act, 1956 and the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be University) Regulations, 2016.

Section 2(f) of the UGC Act defines a “University” to mean a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the commission in accordance with regulations made in this behalf under this Act.

Further, Section 3 postulates that the Central government, on the advice of the commission, may declare an institution for higher education as a deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of section 2.

The judgment of the Supreme Court has clearly missed the merger provision contained in section 3 which merges the deemed to be University post such declaration “as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of section 2”.

The Supreme Court has further missed the critical words employed in section 23 of the UGC Act, 1956 which reads as under:

“No institution, whether a corporate body or not, other than a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act shall be entitled to have the word University associated with its name in any manner whatsoever…”

The expression “…other than a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act,…” clearly means an institution declared as a deemed to be University under section 3 read with section 2(f) of the UGC Act which is a Central Act referred to in section 23 of the Act. Therefore, section 23 of the UGC Act itself permits the institutions deemed to be Universities established by and under the UGC Act to use the word “University”.

Furthermore, by virtue of Section 22 of the UGC Act, the deemed Universities like any other University are entitled to grant degrees and, therefore, the deemed Universities must be treated at par with any other University in identifying itself as a University and associating the word University to its name is an integral part of its very existence.

The Supreme Court has further not even adverted to the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2016 and has referred to the earlier regulations of 2010, which stand superseded by the 2016 regulations.

Also, the impression the judgment holds with regard to the lack of regulatory regime for the deemed to be Universities is not correct as a detailed regulatory regime is envisaged in the regulations of 2016. Furthermore, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), an autonomous body under the UGC Act, grades the institutions as A, B and C institutions on scientific parameters where the most important criterion is adherence to all applicable UGC rules and regulations.

The author is an advocate of the Supreme Court of India.

After doing polytechnic diploma from a govt institution, what is the fault having BTech in distance mode education from such deemed universities. Our govt must act on behalf of students. At least the students from poly background must get some relief.

Though there is lots of respect on judiciary, scrapping degrees is hasty, at the fault of UGC and others where are in power.

It is a clear case of Government Failure and the students have been punished without any fault. The judgement has been pronounced by the Hon’able Supreme Court without listening to the effected students whose carrier has been spoiled. Justice has not been given. Many questions still remain un-answered like: 1. Why the Engg. degrees of only 4 deemed universities have been cancelled whereas many other Universities/deemed universities are offering the technical education through distance learning mode without the approval of AICTE. 2. Even, AMIE (providing Engg. Degree through correspondence/distance mode) is also not approved by AICTE. Why there is such discrimination. 3. If at all any such action was to be taken, it should have been against these Universities/Deemed to be Universities or UGC or DEC but not against the students.

No companies will consider these degrees without prior experience in this sector, student who spend 4 years for this will have an expectation to do higher studies, now in trouble, the one who qualified with these degree have to write many exams to get job. There they will fail then why these kind of suspension and withdrawal. Securing promotion using these degrees can be canceled that is right. Spoiling future of candidates who have the planning to do higher studies is purely injustice. A BTech holder from. Such University have to write many entrance exam test to do higher studies in reputed institutions. Unless he/she studied well they won’t be able to secure higher position.

Why not the officials and signing authorities of UGC.AICTE be punished for for misleading 100 lakh of students….

The move to ask these institutions not to call themselves universities is a good move, however, to be institutions deemed to be universities is supposed to be based on their excellence as institutions…. education in the hands of politicians, builders etc is the biggest scam ever, 2G is a minuscule one in comparison!