Education
Alert – September - 2013
A.
Supreme
Court Cases
1.
Aneesh D. Lawande and Ors. v. State of Goa
and Ors., decided on August 30, 2013.
Facts:
The state government had promulgated the Goa (Rules for
admission to Postgraduate degree and diploma courses of the Goa University at
the Goa Medical College) Rules, 2004 (“Rules”), which were used for
determination of inter se merit and grant of admission to the government
medical college in the state.
Subsequently, the government decided to grant admission on the basis of
the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (“NEET”) conducted by the Medical
Council of India (“MCI”). The petitioners had secured ranks which entitled them
to such admission. However, after the decision of the Supreme Court in CMC
Vellore and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., the state government of Goa passed an order
to cancel the admissions of students who were admitted on the basis of NEET.
The order further stated that re-admissions were to be made as per the Rules. The
petitioners, who had obtained admission on the basis of the NEET filed a writ
petition challenging the order of the government of Goa whereby it had
cancelled their admissions and directed that the Rules be followed.
Ruling and Order:
The Supreme Court held that in the CMC Vellore case the court had clearly protected the actions
already undertaken on the basis of the NEET (including admissions). The Supreme
Court held that the action of the state government in reverting to the Rules
and cancelling the admission granted to the petitioners was clearly without any
application of mind.
Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the petition and allowed
the petitioners to continue their studies. However, the Supreme Court also exercised
its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and directed
that 21 seats of All India quota in postgraduate medical course, which were
transferred to the state, be filled up from among the students who had taken
admissions under the Rules.
2. Rohilkhand
Medical College and Hospital, Bareilly v. Medical Council of India and Anr., decided on September 06, 2013.
Facts:
The
petitioner college had sought permission for admission of the third batch of
100 seats of M.B.B.S.for the academic year 2008-09 from the MCI. On repeated
inspections, deficiencies were found by the MCI and it recommended to the
Central Government not to grant the requested approval to the petitioner.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare constituted a team of
two doctors and granted the renewal
permission for admission of the third batch of 100 students for the academic
year 2008-09.
For
the academic year 2013-14, MCI had granted approval for increase in the intake
of students from 100 to 150 on June 04, 2013. However, on July 11, 2013 MCI
received a confidential letter from the Central Bureau of Investigation stating
that CBI had registered criminal cases against the chairman of the petitioner college
and officers of the concerned ministry in connection with the permission received
by it. The MCI revoked the approval granted to college for the increased intake of students. The petitioners contended that the sanction accorded could be
revoked only if the chairman of the college is convicted by a court of
competent jurisdiction in a criminal investigation in accordance with the Enhancement
of Annual Intake Capacity in Undergraduate Courses in Medical College for the
Academic Session 2013-14 only Regulations, 2013 (“2013 Regulations”).
Ruling
and Order:
The Supreme
Court dismissed the petition filed by the college as according to Clause
8(3)(1)(d) of theEstablishment of Medical College Regulations, (Amendment),
2010 (Part II) (“Establishment
Regulations”), the MCI has the power not to renew the permission/ recognition,
if it is observed later that any institute is found to obtained the same on
fake/forged documents. Further such an institute could not be considered for
renewal of permission for two academic years i.e. for that academic year and
the next academic year also. The Court held that the investigation done by a
premier agency like the CBI had prima
facie revealed that the college had used fake and forged materials to get
sanction for the intake for the year 2008-09. Such finding was sufficient for
the MCI to take action in accordance with the Establishment Regulations. The
Court also held that the 2013 Regulations are inapplicable to the petitioner college
as it has not been in existence for at least 10 years (from the date of grant
of initial letter of permission by the Central Government).
3. Manohar Lal Shrama v. Medical
Council of India and Ors, decided on
September 12, 2013.
Facts:
A writ
petition was filed questioning the legal validity of the approval granted by
the MCI dated July 15, 2013 for renewal of permission for admission of the
third batch of 150 MBBS students at Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital
(“College”) for the academic year
2013-14. The College was set up in the year 2011 – 12 and applied for the
approval of admission of second batch of MBBS students for the academic year
2012-13. The request was rejected by the MCI as certain deficiencies were found
during the inspection of the College and even the compliance report did not
satisfy it. The College then obtained an order of the division bench of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing MCI to conduct fresh inspection. MCI
then filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court.
While the petition was pending, MCI conducted a fresh inspection as per the
order of the High Court. At such inspection, no major deficiencies were found
and approval was granted for fresh intake of students for the academic year
2013-14. The petition in the Supreme Court, accordingly, was then disposed off,
directing MCI that as there were no impediments for granting approval for
2013-14, such approval be granted within a month’s time. However on a surprise
inspection, various fundamental infirmities were found and on the basis of that
report, the board of governors of MCI revoked its approval. The approval was
once again granted when the College showed that the aforementioned order of the
Supreme Court was binding on MCI.
Ruling
and Order:
The Supreme
Court referred to the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 (“Regulations”), which provides that the board
of governors may grant approval to an applicant college for admissions in the
first year of MBBS course in the medical college and the permission is renewed
every year subject to the college achieving the yearly target. The annual target is prescribed under the Minimum
Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 150 Admissions Annually
Regulations, 1999 and the board of governors has no power to dilute the
statutory requirements mentioned therein.
The
Court further held that the MCI has got the power to conduct a surprise
inspection to find out. The Supreme Court also noted that there was no
allegation of bias or mala fide
against the inspection team that conducted the surprise inspection. It was also held that that the deficiencies
pointed out in the report of the surprise inspection were fundamental, which
could be ignored in the interest of medical education and in the interest of
student community. The Court held that the MCI had rightly, in the first
instance, passed the order rejecting the approval for renewal of admission for
the academic year 2013-14.
4. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College and Ors v. Union of India and Anr., decided on September 18, 2013.
Facts:
The MCI had
issued the 2013 Regulations which provided for grant of a one-time permission
to all government and non-government medical colleges for increase in intake
capacity with the objective of enhancing the availability of trained medical
professionals in the country. Subsequently, a corrigendum (“Corrigendum”) was issued by the board
of governors of the MCI, on the direction given by the central government,
stating that the extended time period for applications under 2013 Regulations
would be confined only to government medical colleges.
The
petitioners contended that the Corrigendum is unconstitutional, being ultra vires of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The respondents contended that due to the extreme
necessity of completing the admission process, the board of governors of the
MCI could not have received applications from the private medical colleges for
enhancing the intake capacity. The respondents made reference to the judgment
delivered in Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh wherein the Supreme Court had laid down an admission schedule for MBBS/BDS courses
which was to be strictly followed.
Ruling
and Order:
The
Court observed that the central government had considered the request of MCI to
extend the time period for receiving applications for increase in intake
capacity. The central government had pointed out that it would not be possible
for the board of governors of MCI to process all the applications preferred by
the non-government medical colleges within the time fixed. Therefore, it
decided to issue the Corrigendum. The Court held that there was no serious
error in the view taken by the central government confining the 2013 Regulations
to government medical colleges alone.
5. Educare Charitable Trust v. Union of India and Anr., decided on September 19, 2013.
Facts:
The petitioner applied to the central government to increase the intake capacity of
students in Bachelor of Dental Surgery (“BDS”)
course from 50 to 100 in 2012. The central government rejected the order
stating that as its present course with 50 students was not recognized by the
Dental Council of India (“DCI”), the
government could not forward the letter to the statutory body for further
action. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala, which
was dismissed on the ground that the college did not satisfy the qualifying
criteria laid down under the applicable regulations. The petitioner then filed
a petition in the Supreme Court of India against the judgment of the High
Court. The petitioners contended that they had already applied for grant of
recognition of existing admission capacity and that the DCI had inadvertently
delayed such grant of recognition.
Ruling and Order:
The
Court observed that it has been duly explained by the DCI that 40 days’ time is
earmarked for sending the recommendation to the central government, after it is
approved by the governing council. In the present case, the governing council of
DCI had granted approval to the existing courses run by the trust and there was
no delay in sending the approval to the central government by the DCI. The
Court further held that the High Court was correct in holding that the
applicant was not qualified to apply for increase in admission capacity applicable
regulations. Further, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the process
as the time for admission to dental colleges had already expired. The Supreme
Court held that time and again the court has upheld the sanctity of the court
and there was no reason to disturb the schedule in the present case.
6. University Grants Commission and Anr. v. Neha Anil Bobde, decided on September 19, 2013.
Facts:
The
University Grants Commission (“UGC”)
had called for applications for National Eligibility Test (“NET”) vide a notification (“Notification”).
The UGC prescribed the minimum marks for the general category as 40% in Paper I
and Paper II and 50% in paper III. Candidates belonging to the Other Backward
Classes and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were given a relaxation
of 5%. 10% relaxation was given to SC/ST in Paper III. After NET was conducted,
the UGC added a clause prescribing 65% aggregate marks in all three subjects
for general candidates, 60% for those belonging to Other Backward Classes and
55% for candidates from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as the final
qualifying criteria. This clause was challenged before the Kerala High Court
and the Bombay High Court which set aside the clause. The UGC then appealed
against these judgments before the Supreme Court of India.
Ruling
and Order:
The Supreme
Court observed that the NET was the minimum eligibility condition for
recruitment and for appointment of Assistant Professors in the
Universities/Colleges/Institutions. In addition, the Notification had clearly
indicated that only such candidates who obtain minimum required marks in each
paper would be considered for final preparation of results and the final
qualifying criteria for eligibility for lectureship, as per clause 7 of the Notification,
would be decided by UGC before declaration of result. The Supreme Court held
that the UGC had not acted arbitrarily or whimsically against the candidates.
The Supreme Court further held that the UGC had constituted a Moderation Committee
consisting of experts for finalizing the qualifying criteria for lectureship
eligibility. UGC had acted on the basis of the recommendations made by the expert
committee and hence was in no way an arbitrary decision. The Court was of the
view that in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory
provisions, regulations or notifications issued, courts should not interfere
since those issues fall within the domain of the experts.
B.
High
Court Cases
1. Haryana Shakti College of Education v. Directorate
of Education and Anr.,
decided on September 02, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The
petitioner approached the Delhi High Court for issue of a writ of certiorari to
the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprashta University (“University”) directing it to grant affiliation to the petitioner for
starting B.Ed course for the academic year 2012-13. The petitioner society had
been recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (“NCTE”). However, the University refused
to grant affiliation for the year 2013 – 14 as it received a communication from
the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT Delhi that the petitioner was
not eligible for an NOC from the state government could not be issued for the
B.Ed programme as the institution run by it fell under the category of
‘non-conforming area’.
Ruling
and Order:
The
Court reiterated the position of law after referring to various case law and
noted that
(a)
the NCTE is the final authority to decide the matters which fall in its domain
under Section 14(3) of the NCTE Act and the state government cannot override
the NCTE on those aspects; (b) having said that, the affiliating university is
entitled to require strict compliance with the guidelines/norms laid down by NCTE
and the university.
On
the facts, the Court further held that the University had refused to grant
affiliation to the petitioner only on the ground that it did not have the NOC
from the state government. The court held that if the University refuses recognition
on the ground that the institute was proposed to be run on an agricultural land
which under the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan could not be used for
running a B.Ed. institute, that would not be in derogation of the provisions
contained in the NCTE Act. The Court referred to Regulation 8(6) of National
Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms Procedure) Regulations, 2005
(“Recognition Regulations”), which
provides that a teacher training institute must have permission from the
competent authority for use of land,which in this case was the Delhi
Development Authority. The court held that the decision of the University not
to grant affiliation to the petitioner institute was bad in law and directed it
to reconsider the application of the petitioner. For this purpose, the
University was directed to consider the fact that the petitioner institute was
run in a non-conforming area, thereby contravening the provisions of the Delhi
Development Act, 1957 and the provisions of the Recognition Regulations.
2. Ankit
Dutt v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors., decided on September 02, 2013 by the High Court
of Delhi.
Facts:
The
petitioner had applied for admission in the B.Tech course offered by the
respondent Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (“University”). He had opted for various colleges including Guru
Premsukh Memorial College of Engineering and Delhi Institute of Tool
Engineering. In the second round of counselling, the petitioner was allotted a
seat for the said course in Delhi Institute of Tool Engineering and he took
admission in the same. However, the University changed the allotment made to
him and allotted a seat to him at Guru Premsukh Memorial College of Engineering
in the third round of counselling. The petitioner prayed for quashing of such
subsequent allotment. The University contended that the decision was taken as
per clause 3(a) of the Instructions/Procedure for the candidates to participate
in the first and second round of counselling and the procedure for third round
of counselling. Clause 3 (a) states that if a candidate is satisfied with
his/her allotment then he/she may login to the respective accounts and delete
other preferences. If a candidate fails to do so then he/she may be further
upgraded to other preferences. If any branch or college is allotted in the
third round of counselling, it would be treated as final.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court
held that clause 3 (a) is not applicable to the present case as the petitioner
had not appeared in the third round of counselling and the clause only comes
into play if a candidate appears in the third round of counselling. The question of allotting a seat in
another college to the petitioner could come up only in case he was to appear
in the third round of counselling. The Court held that by not appearing in the
third round of counselling, the petitioner made it evident that he was
satisfied with the allotment made to him in the second round of counselling and
did not seek change of the allotment so made to him. The Court allowed the
petition and allowed the petitioner to continue his study in Delhi Institute of
Tool Engineering in terms of allotment earlier made to him.
3. Pavani
Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors., decided on September 02, 2013 by the High Court
of Delhi.
Facts:
The
petitioner had applied for admission to B.A. LLB Course of the respondent Guru
Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (“University”)
and was allotted a seat in IIMT College affiliated to the said University, in
the first round of counselling. The petitioner’s preference was for a seat in
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (“VIPS”), another institute affiliated to the said university, but no
seat was allotted to her. VIPS then issued a notice inviting applications for
admission under the management quota. The petitioner also applied for admission
to the said institute under the management quota. However, during the counselling,
she was denied admission on the ground that having already taken admission at
the end of second round of counselling, she was not eligible to be considered
for admission under the management quota.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court observed
that the petitioner had participated in the counselling on the basis of the
terms and conditions contained in the notification issued by the University,
which clearly provided that no candidate who has been enrolled at the end of
second round of counselling would be considered for admission through
management quota. The Court held that having applied with this knowledge, it was
not open to her to challenge the terms prohibiting a person taking admission in
the University from being considered for admission under the management quota.
4. Nagarmal
Sharma and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., decided on September 02, 2013 by the High Court
of Rajasthan.
Facts:
The
petitioners filed a public interest litigation for setting aside an order of
the Deputy Secretary, Elementary Education, Education Department, Government of
Rajasthan, whereby, permission was granted for merging two upper primary schools.
The petitioners contended that one of the schools (“School No. 12”) that was sought to be merged with Naya Chak School
was more than 2.5 kms away from the village where School No. 12 was located.
The petitioners contended that in terms of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (“Rules of 2011”), a school, in respect of children in classes from I
to V, is required to be within a walking distance of one kilometre. Therefore,
the decision to merge the School No. 12 with Naya Chak School is contrary to
the said Rule and the order is liable to be set aside. The respondents
contended that Rule 7 of Rules of 2011 is meant for establishment of schools by
the State Government and the same is not applicable to merger of schools.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court
observed that even though the provision of Rule 7 of the RTE Rules may not be
applicable to merger of schools, the said provision clearly indicates the
manner and parameters, through which, the right of children to free and
compulsory education is sought to be achieved. This right is sought to be
achieved by providing a school for classes from I to V within a walking
distance of one kilometre and for the classes from VI to VIII within a walking
distance of 2 kilometres. The court held that when the said provision requires
establishment of school to ensure availability of a school in the given
distance, the same would necessarily require the State not to close down a school
so as to increase the distance for the students beyond one kilometre and 2 kilometres,
respectively. The set aside the aforementioned order in so far as the same
relates to merger of School No. 12, with Naya Chak School.
5. Himani Sharma v. University
of Delhi and Ors., decided
on September 10, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The
petitioner was declined permission to migrate from Aditi Mahavidhalya where she
was presently studying to another college, both of which were affiliated to
Delhi University. Aditi Mahavidhalya refused to issue a migration certificate
to the petitioner and rejected the application on the ground that the Staff
Council of the college had decided that for the academic year 2013-14, no
migration would be allowed.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court
referred to various case laws relating to migration from one college to
another. The Court held that no inconvenience would be caused to the said
college if the petitioner migrates to another college affiliated to the same
university. On the other hand, it would certainly be beneficial for the
petitioner if she studied in a nearby college. The Court directed the
respondent college to grant migration certificate to the petitioner within one
week from the date of the judgement subject to her complying with the
prescribed formalities in this regard. However, permission for migration of the
petitioner from the respondent college to the other college was not be granted
by Delhi University if it found out that the petitioner had not disclosed to
the college either by submitting/showing her first year mark sheet or
otherwise, or that she had obtained ER in one subject in the first year course
of study.
6. Amit
Kumar Pathak v. Union of India and Ors., decided on September 09, 2013 by the High Court
of Delhi.
Facts:
The
petitioner had appeared in NEET 2013 conducted for admission to post-graduate medical
courses. In the first round of counselling, he was allotted a seat in All India
Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, Kolkata (“respondent no. 4 college”). However,
the petitioner then appeared for second round of counselling and was allotted a
seat in Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot (“respondent no. 5”).
However, admission was not granted to the petitioner as he did not submit the
relieving letter from respondent no. 4 college, which contended that the
petitioner’s admission was incomplete as he did not complete the formalities.
The petitioner was also barred from participating in the third round of counselling
on the ground that he had not taken admission pursuant to the earlier allotment
letter issued to him. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid events, filed a
writ petition writ petition seeking direction of the court to grant him
admission in respondent no.5 college.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court
referred to the FAQs uploaded on the website of MCI, which laid down the
process to be followed in the event a seat is allotted and a candidate wishes
to participate in subsequent rounds of counselling. The Court noted that as per
the aforementioned FAQs it was mandatory for the candidate joining the allotted
medical college to deposit the original documents with the said college and the
admission cannot be complete unless the prescribed documents are deposited. In
the present case, the petitioner had not submitted the original documents at
respondent no. 5 college. The Court held that no relief could be granted to the
petitioner as he had not followed the due process of counselling as laid down
by the MCI. Moreover the seats allotted to him in respondent no. 4 and
respondent no. 5 colleges had been filled up and there were no vacant seats.
The Court dismissed the petition.
7. Vishnu
S Kumar v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Anr., decided on September 09, 2013 by the High Court
of Delhi.
Facts:
The
petitioner approached the High Court for being permitted to appear in the third
round of counselling for admission to the All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (“AIIMS”).According to the
petitioner, he had appeared for counselling on the stipulated date. However, the
counselling was stopped after the rank 1960 and it was displayed on a projector
that the rest of the rank holders would be considered in the second
counselling. The petitioner alleged that when he checked the list of candidates eligible for the
second counselling, he was shocked to find that he has been shown absent in the
first counselling. The respondent denied that a notice was displayed through
the projector informing the candidates that the counselling on that day was
over after candidates up to the rank of 1960 had been called. According to the
respondents, the counselling was declared to be over only after all the OBCs
seats were allotted and the availability position was zero.
Ruling
and Order:
The Court
held that there was no material on record to substantiate the claim that a
notification was displayed on the projector, intimating the candidates present
in the counselling hall that the counselling for the candidates having rank
beyond 1960, would be held on the date fixed for the second round of
counselling. The Court further held that the petitioner having remained absent
during the first round of counselling forfeited his right in the second round
of counselling. The Court refusing to grant any relief to the petitioner
dismissed the petition.
8. ITM
University v. Jiwaji University Gwalior and Ors., decided on September 03, 2013 by the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh.
Facts:
The
petitioner university was established under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh
Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapna Avam Sanchalan) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2011 (“M.P. Private University Act”). The the
Institute of Allied Science and Computer Application (“IASCA”) had been conducting B.Ed course, which was recognised by
National Council for Teacher Education (“NCTE”).
After establishment of the petitioner university, the aforesaid institution was
merged in the petitioner university. Jiwaji University had granted no objection
in regard to merger of the IASCA with the petitioner university. Thereafter,
the petitioner university started admitting students for B.Ed. course and they
also passed examination of B.Ed. course. However, when they applied in other
institutions for higher study, the institutions asked for eligibility
certificate issued by Jiwaji University, which refused to issue the same. The
petitioner university prayed that Jiwaji University be directed to issue
eligibility certificates to the students of the petitioner university who had passed
the B.Ed examinations.
Ruling and order:
The Court
referred to Section 17 A of the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993 (“NCTE Act”) which states that
an institution has no right to admit the students without recognition of the
NCTE. The Court observed that the recognition was granted by NCTE to IASCA and
not the ITM University. The Court held that the ITM University was required to
apply for recognition to NCTE for running B.Ed courses. The Court further held
that the petitioner university had no recognition in accordance with the
provisions of the NCTE Act and had no
authority to admit the students in B.Ed. course.
9. Siddharth
Bansal v. University of Delhi and Anr., decided on September 10, 2013 by the High Court of Delhi.
Facts:
The
petitioner had applied for admission to the MBA course of Faculty of Management
Studies, Delhi University. He had applied under the Children/widows of the
eligible Armed Forces Personnel (CW Category). Although he was unable to obtain
admission on the basis of this category, the petitioner argued that he would
have got admission if he had been considered under the general category. The
university contended that applicants are not permitted to change the category
after submission of the application. The petitioner prayed that he be granted
admission into the aforementioned course under the general category.
Ruling
and order:
The Court
observed that that the stipulation prohibiting change of category in the
prospectus appears only in the clause which deals with OBC candidates. The
Court held that there was no general clause prohibiting across the board change
of category. Therefore, there was nothing in the procedure which prohibited the
petitioner from seeking admission as general category. The Court took note of
the fact that there were no more seats left for the academic year 2013-15 and
directed the respondent university to consider the petitioner for admission on
the basis of his rank under general category if any seat became vacant for the
aforementioned academic year.
10.
Chander
Prakash Meena v. Jamia Millia Islamia University, decided on September 16, 2013 by the High Court
of Delhi.
Facts:
The
petitioner had taken admission in B.Tech (Civil) course of the respondent
university in August, 2002 but could not complete the same even in the maximum
permissible time period for completion of the said course. The petitioner was
permitted to appear in one of the sessional
examinations by the Vice-Chancellor. However, this was not in accordance with
the ordinances framed by the university. The permission granted by the
Vice-Chancellor was subsequently revoked. The petitioner prayed for the
declaration of the result of the sessional examination that he had appeared in.
It was further prayed that if the petitioner be declared pass in the
above-mentioned examination then the respondent may further be directed to
award the degree of the B.Tech (Civil), in the interest of justice.
Ruling
and order:
The High Court
held that the ordinances of a university bind it and its officials. From a
perusal of the ordinances of the Jamia Milia Islamia University, the High Court
noted that the Vice-Chancellor had no power to relax the maximum time period
for completion of B.Tech (Civil) course. The Court further held that an act,
which was ultra vires the ordinances does
not and cannot bind the university. Hence, no relief could be granted to the
petitioner.
C. REGULATIONS
1.
University Grants Commission
1.1.University Grants Commission (Promotion and
Maintenance of Standards of Academic Collaboration between Indian and Foreign
Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012
The UGC on September 21, 2013
notified the University Grants Commission (Promotion and Maintenance of
Standards of Academic Collaboration between Indian and Foreign Educational
Institutions) Regulations, 2012 (“Regulations”)
vide notification no. 1-1/2011
(CPP-II). The regulations seek to provide the means whereby foreign educational
institutions (“FEI”) and Indian
institutions (other than technical institutions) can enter into collaborative
arrangements and offer degrees to Indian students.
The Regulations, inter alia, provides that:
i.
Both
FEI and Indian partners should have specified grade of accreditation from the
relevant bodies. Further, the FEI and Indian partners have to comply with the
directions of the Government of India as well as the statutory bodies.
ii.
A
franchise arrangement, by whatever name, between a FEI and an Indian educational
institution shall not be allowed under these Regulations.
iii. With the notification of these
Regulations, no foreign educational institution or Indian educational institution
shall establish or operate its educational activity in India through
collaboration leading to award of degrees and postgraduate diplomas without the
express permission or approval of the UGC. For the purpose of approval, the
draft of the agreement/ MOU between the FEI and Indian partner institution is
also required to be approved by UGC prior to signing thereof. The approval
granted under these regulations would be valid for a period of five years.
iv. Any dispute arising in regard
to collaborative arrangement between Indian educational institutions and foreign
educational institutions shall be governed by the Indian law.
D.
NEWS
UGC notice to EIILM University
to discontinue distance courses
UGC has asked the Eastern Institute for Integrated learning in
Management (“EIILM University”), a
private university in Sikkim to immediately discontinue all its distance
education courses as they are being run without the approval of UGC. As per
media reports, the UGC has stated that the UGC and DEC have also received
several complaints about the centres being run by EIILM University issuing
degrees to students without conducting any exams or practicals. UGC has
directed the EIILM University to conduct courses in regular mode only at the
main campus of the university.
Surprise inspections at technical institutions by AICTE
The All India Council for Technical Education (“AICTE”) has decided to conduct surprise raids on technical
institutions upon receiving complaints of impersonation of faculty members
during inspection. AICTE took this decision on receiving complaints from
various quarters that some colleges were indulging in impersonation of faculty
as used to happen in medical colleges.
MHRD forms committee to improve ranking of Indian universities
The Ministry of Human Resource Development (“MHRD”) has formed an 18 member committee to drive up the research
performance of academic institutions in the country to improve ranking of
Indian universities. The committee would review existing arrangement for
funding of research with a view to identify gaps and ensure a more coordinated
approach in research funding. It would also suggest ways to develop strategy
for selective approach in allocation of research support to academic
institutions in order to ensure that resources for research are used to the
best advantage. The Committee
would suggest on creation of a framework for evaluation of research and
rankings with a view to develop healthy competition amongst institutions,
departments, centres and individual researchers. The Committee has been asked
to submit its report within a period of three months from the date of its first
meeting.
Levy of Service Tax on Certain Services Relating to the Education Sector
The Finance Ministry of India has clarified that “auxiliary educational
services” like hostels, canteen and school buses will not attract service tax.
The press release issued by the Press Information Bureau referred to section
93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, that enables the Government to exempt generally
or subject to such conditions taxable service of specified description. By
virtue of the said power, Government had issued a notification No.25/2012-ST
dated June 20, 2012, exempting services provided to an educational
institutional by way of auxiliary educational services or renting of immovable
property.
**********************************************
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 month of September, 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
