Education Alert-
May - 2013
A.
Supreme Court Cases
1. Christian Medical
College Vellore and Ors. v. Union
of India and Ors., decided on May 13, 2013
Facts:
The
Medical Council of India (“MCI”) on December 27, 2010, notified a
National Eligibility Entrance Test (“NEET”) for admission to
post-graduate medical courses to be conducted in colleges all across the
country. The notification and the competence of the MCI to introduce such a
test were under challenge as it took away the autonomy of medical colleges to
conduct their own entrance examinations.
The
Supreme Court in its interim order dated December 13, 2012 held that the
institutions were entitled to conduct their respective examinations which also
included the NEET for both MBBS and post-graduate courses, as also the BDS and
MDS Examinations which had already been notified. However, the results of the
examinations were not declared due to the bar created by the interim order.
Ruling
and Order:
The
Court, on account of the delay in completion of the hearing and the prospect of
the students losing a year on account thereof, allowed the results of the
examinations to be declared and modified the interim order of December 13, 2012
to such extent.
The
Court observed that it is the post-graduate students in the medical colleges,
who take charge of the medical treatment of patients in the hospitals, and
without fresh entrants into the post-graduate courses, even for a year, the
hospitals were likely to be adversely affected on account of lack of doctors to
directly take care of the patients in the hospitals. The court further reasoned
that the students had been caught in the legal tangle for no fault of theirs
and were the victims of policy decisions.
2. Association of
Management of Private Colleges v. All
India Council of Technical Education and Ors., decided on April 25, 2013
Facts:
The appellant member colleges, affiliated to the Bharathidasan University and Manonmaniam Sundaranar University run university approved courses including MBA and MCA. On March 03, 2001, a communication was sent by the All India Council of Technical Education (“AICTE”) to the member colleges in respect of its proposal to commence MCA course requiring the colleges to furnish information regarding the proposed land and building. On March 14, 2001, a writ petition was filed by the appellant's association (“Association”) to prohibit the AICTE from in any way exercising its jurisdiction over its member colleges with reference to the MBA and MCA courses conducted by them. The said writ petition was dismissed by the single judge holding that the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 (“AICTE Act”) and the regulations made thereunder are enforceable against the said member colleges. The Association then filed a writ appeal against the decision. The same was dismissed by the division bench upholding the judgment of the single judge. The appellants contended that colleges affiliated to a university need not take permission from the AICTE to run any technical courses. The respondent contended that as per the amended regulation dated August 16, 2000, colleges intending to run MBA and MCA courses are required to seek AICTE’s approval. The appellants argued that MCA course does not fall within the definition of “Technical Education” as contained in Section 2 (g) of the AICTE Act. Moreover, since the amended regulation has not been placed before the Houses of Parliament for approval, which AICTE is mandated to do under Section 24 of the AICTE Act, the same cannot be enforced.
The appellant member colleges, affiliated to the Bharathidasan University and Manonmaniam Sundaranar University run university approved courses including MBA and MCA. On March 03, 2001, a communication was sent by the All India Council of Technical Education (“AICTE”) to the member colleges in respect of its proposal to commence MCA course requiring the colleges to furnish information regarding the proposed land and building. On March 14, 2001, a writ petition was filed by the appellant's association (“Association”) to prohibit the AICTE from in any way exercising its jurisdiction over its member colleges with reference to the MBA and MCA courses conducted by them. The said writ petition was dismissed by the single judge holding that the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987 (“AICTE Act”) and the regulations made thereunder are enforceable against the said member colleges. The Association then filed a writ appeal against the decision. The same was dismissed by the division bench upholding the judgment of the single judge. The appellants contended that colleges affiliated to a university need not take permission from the AICTE to run any technical courses. The respondent contended that as per the amended regulation dated August 16, 2000, colleges intending to run MBA and MCA courses are required to seek AICTE’s approval. The appellants argued that MCA course does not fall within the definition of “Technical Education” as contained in Section 2 (g) of the AICTE Act. Moreover, since the amended regulation has not been placed before the Houses of Parliament for approval, which AICTE is mandated to do under Section 24 of the AICTE Act, the same cannot be enforced.
Ruling and Order:
The Supreme Court, while referring to its earlier judgement in the case of Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, held that colleges affiliated to a university are not obliged to take separate permission from the All-India Council for Technical Education to conduct MBA/MCA courses. The role of AICTE vis-à-vis universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of providing guidance and it has no authority to issue or enforce any sanction by itself.
The Supreme Court, while referring to its earlier judgement in the case of Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, held that colleges affiliated to a university are not obliged to take separate permission from the All-India Council for Technical Education to conduct MBA/MCA courses. The role of AICTE vis-à-vis universities is only advisory, recommendatory and one of providing guidance and it has no authority to issue or enforce any sanction by itself.
The
Court also held that a university does not fall within definition of 'technical
institution' as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act. “Technical
Institution” means an institution not being a university. “University” as
defined under Clause 2 (f) of UGC Act includes the institution deemed to be a
university under Section 3 of the UGC Act and therefore the affiliated colleges
are excluded from the purview of technical institution definition of the AICTE
Act.
The
Court further held that MCA was ‘technical education’ but made it clear that
for proper conduct of the course and regulation, the role of AICTE must be
advisory and a note should be given to the UGC for implementation. However, it
was held MBA was not a technical course and AICTE approval was not required for
conducting it.
The
Court observed that the position of law is well settled that if the statute
prescribes a particular procedure to do an act in a particular way, that act
must be done in that manner. The Court held that the regulations made by AICTE
were vitiated in law as the said amended regulations were not placed before
both Houses of the Parliament as required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act.
B.
High Court Cases
1. Jibin Vijay v. Maulana
Azad Medical College & Ors., decided on May 1, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi
Facts:
The petitioner after qualifying the All India
Pre Medical Test (“AIPMT”) preliminary examination also qualified the
AIPMT main examination held on May 13, 2012. After the result was declared, the
father of the petitioner filed an application for admission in the MBBS course
under the Cabinet Secretariat (ARC) quota for the petitioner in the academic
session 2012-2013. The petitioner was nominated by the Government on October
12, 2012, beyond the last date of admission September 30, 2012 under the
Government of India nominee quota as a previous candidate had withdrawn from
the admission process. However, the Delhi University informed the college that
based on Medical Council of India (“MCI”) regulations, directives of the
Supreme Court and High Court and ordinances of the University, the admission
stood closed on September 30, 2012. Since the petitioner had been nominated by
the Government on October 12, 2012 he was not considered for admission. The
bulletin of information for undergraduate degree courses issued by the Delhi
University (Faculty of Medical Sciences) also stated that admissions would be
closed by September 30, 2012. It was contended by counsel for the petitioner
that petitioner is a meritorious candidate and he could not have been denied
admission when a seat under the ARC quota was available.
Ruling and Order:
The Court relied upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mridul Dhar v. Union of India where the courts have explained that admission to professional college should be made in a timely manner.
The Court relied upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mridul Dhar v. Union of India where the courts have explained that admission to professional college should be made in a timely manner.
The Court observed that the petitioner might not
be at fault for the delay in his name being forwarded. However, since the
petitioner was aware that he was eligible under the ARC quota, the petitioner
should have been vigilant and should have approached the university and the
college before September 30, 2012 to ascertain whether Aditya Behera had filled
the seat or not. The case of the petitioner does not fall in the rare exception
which has been carved out by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Asha v.
Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences & Ors.
2. Nena Basheer v.
Mahatma Gandhi University and The Principal, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental
Sciences, decided on May 3, 2013
by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Facts:
The petitioner got
admission in BDS course and was allotted PSM College of Dental Science and
Research (“PSM”) through the entrance examination conducted in 2007.
However she discontinued her studies and after five years she sought
continuance by a transfer to another college under the same university, and the
court issued direction to PSM to issue her a transfer certificate. She was
unsuccessful in procuring a transfer and hence she filed a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To study under a college of another
university, the college requires a No Objection Certificate issued from the
university to which it is affiliated. However, the university asked the
petitioner to get a court order for the issue of the certificate.
Ruling and Order:
The court held that the
so called direction to get an order from this court for the issue of the
certificate was a mere assertion and not borne out from any documents.
Moreover, the petitioner did not claim the right to transfer on the basis of
any statute or regulation which had the force of law.
The court dismissed the
petition without costs on the ground that it was petitioner’s self assumed
wrongs and imagined injustice and that cannot lead to invocation of Article 226
of Constitution of India which is a purely discretionary relief to secure to
the citizen his/her rights conferred by Part-III or other purpose. Article 226
cannot be invoked to confer rights, where there is total lack of an enforceable
legal right.
3.
Manikantan P. v. Vice
Chancellor and The Controller of Examinations Mahatma Gandhi University, decided on May 3, 2013 by the High Court of Kerala,
Ernakulam
Facts:
The petitioner is a
B.Tech student who completed the course and had secured first class marks in
all subjects except electrical drawing. On his appearance in the supplementary
examination conducted in December, 2012, he was awarded only 32 marks and hence
he applied for revaluation. The application for revaluation had been submitted
on April 25, 2013 and the petitioner filed the above writ petition on April 30,
2013 on the apprehension that he would be denied the opportunity to secure
employment abroad if revaluation is not done expeditiously.
Ruling and Order:
The Court dismissed the
writ petition holding that it was premature. The court relied on the guideline
laid down in the case of Nithya v. Cochin University of Science &
Technology for effecting an expeditious disposal of applications for
revaluation. In the aforementioned case, this court prescribed a period of 45
days from the last date fixed for applying for revaluation; for publication of
revaluation results. The Court held that the writ petition dated April 30, 2013
was filed long belong before the prescribed period of 45 days. Moreover, the
court could not presume that the University will not comply with the directions
and finish the revaluation within time.
4.
Rithambhra Garg v.
University of Delhi decided on
May 15, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
A writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner, praying
to direct the respondents to reschedule the supplementary examination of 5th Semester
from October/November to an early date and allow the petitioner to appear in
the examination. The petitioner was a student of B.Sc. and the course was
scheduled to complete in 2013. She cleared all her examinations till 4th semester
but could not clear one paper in 5th semester because the
examinations coincided with CAT examination held on 29.10.2012. According to
the Pass Percentage & Promotion Criteria heading, under University
guidelines, a student who has to reappear in a paper prescribed for Semester
I/III/V may do so only in the semester examinations to be held in
November/December. A student who has to reappear in a paper prescribed for
Semester II/IV/VI may do so only in the examination to be held in April/May.
Ruling and Order:
The court held that the
guidelines for the undergraduate courses had set out a schedule for conducting
the examinations. The request of the petitioner to hold an examination for her
in the month of April/May, 2013, was unreasonable and in case such a request
was allowed, it would lead to utter chaos and there would be no sanctity to the
criteria laid down by the University. The Court further held that the petitioner
was well aware of the guidelines and taking into consideration the settled law
laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of case of National
Board of Examinations v. G. Anand Ramamurthy, there were no grounds to
entertain the writ petition and the same was accordingly dismissed.
5.
S. Vijayarani v.
University of Delhi, decided on May 22, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The petitioner was
granted admission to the LLB course in Law Centre II, University of Delhi, in
the academic session 2012. The petitioner developed an orthopedic problem and
was advised by doctors to take rest. Thus she could not attend her classes and
was short of attendance. The petitioner was permitted to appear in one paper of
the first semester and in four papers of the second semester. Thereafter. by a
letter dated 20.5.2013 she was been informed by the respondent that she is
debarred from appearing in remaining examinations of second semester. A writ
petition was thus filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
seeking to quash the letter dated 20.5.2013 and also to seek a direction to
allow her to appear in the paper No. LB-205 Public International Law.
Ruling and Order:
The Court referred to the case of Bar
Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick, where it was held
that “The quality of training which a candidate gets during the time he
undergoes the course is directly proportional to the number of lectures that he
attends. The failure of a candidate to attend the requisite number of lectures
as stipulated by the relevant rules can legitimately disentitle him to claim
eligibility for appearing in the examination.”
The Court dismissed the
petition and held that there was no force in the submissions on behalf of the
petitioner that by allowing her to appear in one paper of the first semester
and four papers of the second semester examinations a vested right had been
created in her favour. Further, the Court held that the maternity leave could
not have been put in a different compartment for the purpose of relaxation of
attendance.
6.
Parvesh Kumar v.
University of Delhi, decided on May 22, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The petitioner was
enrolled in the BA (Pass) course with a college affiliated to the Delhi
University. He cleared his first year examinations of BA (Pass) course.
However, he was unable to clear one paper. He appeared in the supplementary
examination which was held in the year 2010 but the result was not declared by
the University. Upon repeated requests by the Petitioner to declare
the results, no satisfactory reply was received from the respondents and he
finally made an application under the Right to Information Act on October 14,
2011. He did not receive any satisfactory reply, hence he preferred an appeal
provided under the RTI Act. The petitioner issued a legal notice to the
respondent on January 28, 2012. In response to the legal notice the petitioner
received a notification dated March 01, 2012 whereby the respondent declared
the petitioner successful in the supplementary examination for BA (Pass)
Part-III exam. It was shown that the petitioner has secured 506 out of 1200
marks. However he received another notification dated March 23, 2012 which was
issued in partial modification of the earlier notification and by the
subsequent notification the petitioner was declared unsuccessful as he had not
cleared the Economics supplementary examination. A writ petition was filed by
the petitioner against the subsequent notification.
The respondent opposed
this petition on the ground that an incorrect notification was issued
inadvertently by which the petitioner was declared successful on the premise
that the petitioner was a student of BA (Pass) course whereas during the
academic session 2004 BA (Pass) course was discontinued and was replaced by BA
(Programme). One of the distinction between the two courses is that in case of
BA (Programme) a degree is not granted unless a student clears all the papers
in comparison to a BA (Pass) course where a truncated degree is granted even if
a student fails in two subjects provided he obtains 36% overall. Reliance is
placed on the award sheet of students who appeared in the Economics paper to
show that the petitioner had secured only 2 marks and thus it is submitted that
petitioner cannot be granted a degree.
Ruling and Order:
The court held that the
petitioner had been running from pillar to post after he had appeared in re-examination
as far back in the year 2010 for which his result was not declared. Petitioner
made repeated requests to the University and he was forced to make an
application under the Right to Information Act. Moreover, the original
answer-sheet of the petitioner had not been found and was averred to be
initially untraceable and later on that it was destroyed by the respondents.
The Court taking into
consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in Court since April 2012,
granted one last opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the next
examination.
7.
Jaskaran Singh Bhullar & Others v.University of Delhi, decided on May 22, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi
Facts:
The petitioners are
seeking to quash the notifications by which they have been debarred from
appearing in their respective semester examinations of the LL.B. course. The
petitioners’ case was that they had informed the college in the year 2012 that
the shortage of attendance was on account of some discrepancy either at the end
of the college or of the university and the teachers had also agreed that
petitioners were attending classes regularly. This representation was
considered by the Dean of Law and the students were permitted to appear in the
examination purely on provisional basis and subject to their furnishing an
undertaking, as per which the petitioners had agreed to abide by the decision
of the university. The university considered the request of the petitioners.
However, the same was not acceded to. The petitioners’ submission was that they
had not been informed about the reasons for rejection of the representation and
no opportunity was granted to them to explain their stand. The respondent
submitted that the attendance of the students, including the petitioners
herein, had regularly been displayed on the notice board, thus it could not be
said that the petitioners had been taken by surprise, which was disputed by
counsel for the petitioners.
Ruling and Order:
The Court discussed the
settled law on the issue in the case of University of Delhi & Anr. v. Vandana
Kandari[7] wherein
it was held that the LLB course was a professional course in which the
candidates have to ensure regular attendance of lectures. The failure of a
candidate to attend the requisite number of lectures as stipulated by the
relevant rules can legitimately disentitle him to claim eligibility for
appearing in the examination.
The Court held that the
settled position of law has been expressly held that courts cannot condone the
shortage of attendance. Moreover, the fact that the petitioners were permitted
to appear in the examination on the basis of an undertaking furnished by the
petitioners, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The petition and the
application were accordingly dismissed.
8.
K.J. Mehta General Hospital and College of Medical Sciences
& Anr. v. The Board of
Governor in Supersession of Medical Council of India, decided on May 3, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi
Facts:
The petitioners had
applied for grant of renewal of permission to admit students for the MBBS
course. According to the petition, the first renewal compliance was made in
April, 2010, and pursuant thereto the renewal was granted to the petitioners
and displayed on the website of respondent Medical Council of India (“MCI”). However,
before the permission was conveyed to the petitioners the MCI was superseded in
May, 2010, and the renewal permission was removed from the website and the
petitioner was not granted renewal by the Board of Governors which was
responsible for taking decisions under the amended Act.
After conducting dual
inspections, an email was sent on June 30, 2012 to the petitioners informing
them that the college that had not submitted documents, sought by the
respondent on June 21, 2012 and many deficiencies persisted and in view thereof
respondent decided not to approve the scheme of establishment of college.
A writ petition was thus
filed by the petitioners that sought to quash the email dated June 30, 2012,
whereby the petitioners' application for establishment of a college had been
rejected by the respondent. The petitioner also prayed for a writ of mandamus
directing respondent MCI to forthwith grant permission to the petitioners to
admit students in the first year MBBS course for the academic year 2012-2013 as
per the criteria of the first batch.
Ruling and Order:
The Court held that it
was reluctant to differ or sit in appeal over the decision taken by the experts
as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in a large number of decisions.
The Court held that it
cannot lose track of the fact that the experts, who have inspected the college,
must be satisfied with the criteria as laid down by the MCI for granting
permission to run a medical college, and the facilities, staff, infrastructure,
patients are available and they shall not be available only on the date of
inspection. Court found no infirmity in the order dated June 30, 2012 passed by
the respondent and the writ petition and application were dismissed.
C.
Consumer Cases
1. Globsyn Business School v. Mayuri Ghosh, decided on May
31, 2013 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
Facts:
The respondent/complainant applied for the
P.G.P.M. programme at the institution of petitioner/opposite party (“OP”)
and when selected and she received offer letter for admission on 10.3.2009
which mentioned that “The fees once tendered as per the Fee Schedule will not
be refunded under any circumstances”. The respondent deposited a cheque of
Rs.35,000/- towards admission fees but later on requested the OP to refund
Rs.35,000/- owing to some financial crisis.
Upon the refusal to refund the fees by OP, complaint
was filed before the District Forum which directed OP to refund Rs.35,000/-.
Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Kolkata (“State Commission”) but reduced payment
of Rs.35,000/- by Rs.1,000/- and against which a revision petition was filed in
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“National Commission”).
Ruling and Order:
The National Commission referred to the case of Raj
Singh v. The Maharishi Dayanand University[8], where
it was held that “Students seeking admission to professional colleges
and even otherwise are fairly mature and are supposed to understand the full
implications of filling the admission forms and in any case these forms are
invariably signed by their parents/guardians and it is so in the present case.
The student, therefore, will have to be taken to be bound by the information
supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that may
suit him at a given time.[9]”
The National Commission held that
admission fees deposited by complainant were not refundable and complainant was
not entitled to seek refund only on the ground of severe financial crises,
particularly, when seat filled by the complainant had remained vacant.
The National Commission allowed the revision
petition and the order passed by the State Commission was set aside and complaint
filed by the respondent was dismissed.
D.
REGULATIONS
1.
University Grants Commission
1.1.
UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions)
Regulations, 2012
The University Grants Commission (“UGC”),
has notified the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions)
Regulations, 2012 (“Regulations”) vide notification No.
14-3/2012(CPP-II) dated January 19, 2013. These Regulations shall apply to all
higher educational institutions which have been defined to include
universities, deemed to be universities and colleges within the meaning of
Section 12A (1)(b) of the UGC Act, 1956.
The Regulations have been summarized below:
i.
Higher educational
institutions are required to take measures against discrimination on the basis
of caste, race, gender, ethnicity etc. in all matters including admission and
charging of fees.
ii.
Higher educational
institutions must prescribe procedures and mechanism to deal with the
complaints of discrimination within six months of coming into force of these
Regulations. Such complaints are to be decided within a maximum period of sixty
days from the date of receipt of the complaints.
iii.
The institution must
also upload on its website all the measures taken for elimination of
discrimination and punishments for breaching them and shall also upload
relevant public awareness material for the same.
iv.
An Equal Opportunity
Cell must be established in the University. An Anti-Discrimination Officer (“ADO”),
being a person not be below the rank of a professor shall be appointed to such
post. On receipt of a written complaint, the ADO shall initiate follow-up
action along with a fact-finding probe if necessary. On passing a
recommendation, the competent authority of the higher educational institution
shall take appropriate action. The punishment enforced must be commensurate to
the discrimination or harassment.
v. Subject to the
provisions made by the higher educational institution, any person aggrieved by
the order of the ADO may prefer an appeal to the head of the institution within
the expiry of ninety days from the date of the order. The head may allow an
appeal after the expiry of ninety days if he is satisfied that the person had
sufficient cause for the delay.
1.2. University Grants Commission (Grievance Redressal) Regulations,
2012
The University Grants Commission (“UGC”),
has notified the UGC (Grievance Redressal) Regulations, 2012 (“Regulations”)
vide notification No. 14-4/2012(CPP-II) dated March 23, 2013. These Regulations
shall apply to every university, whether established or incorporated by or
under a Central Act or a State Act, and every institution recognized by the
University Grants Commission under clause (f) of Section 2 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 and to all institutions deemed to be a university
declared as such under Section 3 of the said Act.
The Regulations have been summarized below:
i.
A prospectus must be
mandatorily published which contains relevant information for the purpose of
those seeking admission in the Institution. This relevant information will
include the fee structure, the number of seats provided, the conditions of
eligibility, the process of selection and admission of eligible candidates,
details of teaching faculty, the physical and academic infrastructure, the
broad outline of the syllabus, relevant information regarding the maintenance
of discipline by the students and all other information as mandated by UGC.
ii.
Each university shall
appoint an ombudsman that shall not be below the rank of a district judge or a
professor who has at least 10 years of experience. The ombudsman and any member
of his immediate family shall not be in a conflict of interest with the
university. The ombudsman should hold the post for a period of three years or
until he reaches the age of 70.
iii.
The Vice-Chancellor
shall establish a grievance redressal committee consisting of, senior professor
of the university, three teachers drawn from the affiliating colleges and
appointed by the Vice-Chancellor on rotation basis (members), a student
representing the college where the grievance has occurred (special invitee
appointed on the basis of academic merit). The grievance committee shall have a
term of two years and any person aggrieved by the decision of the grievance
committee may within six days prefer an appeal to the ombudsman.
iv.
The ombudsman shall
not entertain any application for re-evaluation or remarking of the answer
sheet unless some specific irregularity or instance of discrimination is
detected. The ombudsman shall also have the power to seek the assistance of any
SC/ST student, or any other student from an economic and socially backward
class, in acting as amicus curae in matters of
alleged discrimination. The same assistance may be sought from the minority and
other disabled category.
v.
There must be a
registry, headed by an employee of the institute of appropriate rank as the
ombudsman may decide where any aggrieved student or person may make an
application seeking redressal of grievance. The address of the registry shall
be published on the prospectus and website and placed on the notice board. On
receipt of a complaint by the registry, the employee in charge shall inform the
registry as well as the grievance redressal committee and they shall provide a
copy to the institution within seven days time. The ombudsman or the grievance
redressal committee as the case may be shall fix a date for hearing the
complaint which shall be communicated to the institute and the aggrieved person
either in writing or electronically, whichever is feasible.
vi.
Every receipt shall be
disposed within a month of receiving the complaint. The institute shall comply
with the order of the ombudsman and in case of non-compliance; a complaint may
be made to UGC. In case of frivolous complaints the ombudsman shall take
necessary action against the complainant.
vii.
The institution shall
provide detailed provisions regarding the ombudsman, and the grievance
redressal commission along with the rights of the students in the prospectus.
Also any complaint regarding repeated non-compliance of the orders of the
ombudsman of the grievance redressal committee shall entitle UGC to take any
one of the following actions: (a) withdrawal of declaration of fitness to
receive grants under section 12B of the Act, (b) informing the general public
including the potential candidates for admission, (c) recommend the affiliating
body to withdraw its affiliation, (d) recommend the state government for
withdrawal of status as university in case of university established under a
state act, and (e) any other action that UGC may deem fit to impose as long as
it is within its powers. Provided that such action will not be taken unless the
institution has been given the opportunity to explain its and opportunity of
being heard has been provided to it.
E.
NEWS
1.
CBSE guidelines for good books, and liability on
objectionable contents
CBSC deputy secretary UC Bodh has written
to schools warning them that they will be held responsible for the
objectionable contents in the textbooks prescribed by them. The Schools
affiliated are free to use private publishers but with great care under the
Affiliation Rules. Now the Board has come up with a five point
guideline to be followed while prescribing such books. The guideline include
the setting up of committee by the school to verify that the books are based on
certain parameters; books to be inter-alia constitutional,
culturally valid in pan-India context; and to have good books for each class in
the School library.
2.
Court Notice against Kendriya Vidyalayas on tuition fee
from class I -VIII
In a PIL filed in Delhi High Court alleging the
charge of fee by Kendriya Vidyalayas (“KV”) from students of class
I-VIII was in violation of RTE Act and Article 21, and Article 21-A of the Constitution which prescribe fee and compulsory
education, the division bench has issued notice to the central government and
the Kendriya Vidyalayas Sangathan and has also sought a response from the human resource development
ministry and KVS by May 15. KV has denied taking of tuition fee, however, it
said that a minimal amount was charged for computer classes and other things.
3.
Delhi University may waive SC/ST fees
Delhi University may waive fee for scheduled caste/ scheduled tribe (SC/ST) students as
per the DU Registrar, Alka Sharma. She said, “The details of the proposal need
to be worked out.” Along with tuition fee-waiver, there have also been public
statements by university officials promising waiver of development fee by the
colleges. But all this may only be in respect of four year undergraduate
programme (FYUP).
4.
UGC: Highest Grade Foreign Institution can collaborate with
B grade and above Indian Institutions.
On March 11, 2013, the University Grants
Commission in its 492nd full commission meeting while considering
the UGC (Promotion and Maintenance of Standards of Academic Collaboration
between Indian and Foreign Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012,
resolved that foreign educational institutions with highest grade in their
homeland would be allowed to collaborate with Indian institutions which are
also accredited with the highest grade by national accreditation agencies.
However, the minutes were qualitatively changed in the UGC's 493rd full
commission meeting on May 10, despite protest by a member. Now, the modified
minute says that foreign institutions with highest grade should be allowed to
collaborate with Indian institutions not less than B grade in respect of
institutional, threshold and programme accreditation.
5.
Supreme Court extends deadline for Medical Courses
admissions to July 31
The Supreme Court has allowed to extend the
deadline for admission to Medical/ Dental courses and post-graduate courses in
all medical colleges across the country till July 31 for the academic year
2103-14 only. Earlier, while deciding the validity of National Eligibility cum
Entrance Test (“NEET”), the court allowed the institutions to conduct
their own entrance examinations which also included NEET but restrained them to
declare the results in its December 13 order, but later on May 13, it lifted
this bar. However, the court has said that its judgment on the validity of the
NEET would be passed in July.
6.
Allahabad HC Directs government to ensure free education to
kids
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed the state government to make all efforts and
utilize all means to provide free and compulsory education to children between
six and 15 years in the neighbourhood schools at the earliest without delay. The order came on a PIL filed for implementation of
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
7.
UGC takes over Distance Education Council
The University Grants Commission has taken over the Distance Education Council under an administrative order. DEC had come into
existence as an authority of Indira
Gandhi National Open University under Section 16 of the IGNOU Act, 1985. However, on May 4, IGNOU through a notification
repealed and deleted the statute that provisioned for the DEC in the wake of
the HRD ministry's decision late last year entrusting UGC to become regulator
for higher education through Open and Distance Learning mode.
However, UGC member M M Ansari
has raised objections to the takeover and has asked "whether an
administrative order can substitute the laws framed through an Act of
Parliament?"
8.
UGC forbids Universities from affiliating technical colleges
in light of SC Ruling out AICTE Approvals
Based on the Supreme Court's
ruling that colleges do not need the approval of All India Council for
Technical Education approval for running MBA and MCA courses, the University
Grants Commission has asked universities to stop granting any
further affiliation to colleges offering technical or professional degrees till
further announcements. While the HRD Ministry has already initiated steps to
bring an ordinance restoring the powers of All India Council for Technical
Education, the UGC's directive came in the process of working suitable
guidelines and regulations in view of the apex court ruling.
********************************************
DISCLAMER
This
newsletter is being provided to the recipient solely for the purpose of
his/her/its information. It is meant to be merely an informative summary and
should not be treated as a substitute for considered legal advice. This update
covers significant legal developments in the field of higher and school
education in India during the months of May, 2013, including judgments, laws
and notifications issued by courts and the regulatory bodies, as applicable. If
you wish to receive more information about any content of this newsletter,
please feel free to contact:
Sarthak Advocates & Solicitors
A – 35, Sector – 2, NOIDA 201 301
T: +91 120 430 9050
E: mani.gupta@sarthaklaw.com
