Education Alert- May - 2013

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. 

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 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 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 5^th 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 4^th semester but could not clear one paper in 5^th 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