- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Santunu Saha v. State Of Tripura
Summary of Judgment & Order (Oral)
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners took admission in the Sikkim Manipal University 'Off-Campus' centre at Agartala. The petitioners challenged the consequences of the State Government's response to the Supreme Court's decision in Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420 and subsequent University Grants Commission (UGC) directions, which constrained State-created universities from operating off-campus centres beyond their territorial jurisdiction.
The UGC by letter dated 17 April 2009 directed States to amend legislation and to stop universities operating beyond territorial jurisdiction. The State Government of Tripura published public notices and notifications (including one in Dainik Sambad dated 30.03.2012 and another notification dated 02.08.2011) warning students and guardians about unauthorized off-campus study centres. The State issued a Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 establishing a cut-off date of 02.04.2011 for recognition/validation of degrees issued by such off-campus entities, preserving benefits for certificates issued prior to that cut-off.
Some petitioners (except petitioner No. 3) had taken admission before the cut-off date but could not complete their studies before that date and sought the benefit of the Memorandum dated 10.07.2013. They also contended that a later public notice (dated 30.03.2012) should have been the operative cut-off date. The State respondents defended the decision to fix the cut-off date as 02.04.2011 as a policy choice to protect those who had obtained degrees prior to the public notice.
The writ petition sought relief relating to extension of benefits under the Memorandum to persons who had taken admission prior to the cut-off date but obtained degrees thereafter. The matter was heard orally and the Court directed the State to reconsider the specific aspect of extending benefits to similarly circumstanced persons, with a timeline for decision, and disposed of the petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether persons who took admission in off-campus / study centres before the Government's cut-off date (fixed by the Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 as 02.04.2011) but who acquired their degrees or qualifications after that cut-off date can be extended the benefits provided by that Memorandum.
- Whether the operative cut-off date for public notice of illegality should be 02.04.2011 (as fixed by the State) or 30.03.2012 (as argued by petitioners based on a subsequent notification), insofar as that affects the validity/recognition of degrees issued by off-campus centres.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners contended that they had taken admission in the Sikkim Manipal University off-campus centre at Agartala before the cut-off and, although they could not complete their studies by that date (except petitioner No. 3), they should be granted the same benefits as those whose qualifications were issued prior to the cut-off date under the Memorandum dated 10.07.2013.
- Reliance was placed on a Memorandum (Annexure-13) dated 10.07.2013 that set a cut-off date, and on public notifications; petitioners argued that the notice published on 30.03.2012 (Dainik Sambad) warning students and guardians should have been the cut-off date, because that notice apprised the public of the illegal status of off-campus centres.
- They also pointed to communications and representations made to the Director of Higher Education and Principal Secretary for reconsideration of the decision reflected in the 10.07.2013 Memorandum (Annexure-15).
Respondents' Arguments
- The State respondents, through paragraphs 14 and 16 of their counter-affidavit, stated that the Government fixed 02.04.2011 as the cut-off date after deliberation and as a policy decision aimed at protecting innocent students who had obtained degrees or diplomas without knowing the legal position prior to that date. The respondents asserted that this was a reasonable administrative choice and not arbitrary.
- The learned Advocate General submitted that the cut-off date must be the date on which the Government apprised citizens by publication (i.e., 02.04.2011) and not the later date (30.03.2012) urged by petitioners.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2005) 5 SCC 420 | The Supreme Court held, referencing Article 245(1) of the Constitution, that Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and that a State legislature cannot enable a university to have an off-campus centre outside the State; thus an Act enabling off-campus centres outside the State was beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh legislature. | The Court applied this principle to conclude that Sikkim Manipal University — being a creation of a State legislature — cannot operate off-campus/study centres/affiliated colleges or centres operating through franchises beyond its territorial jurisdiction; this formed the legal backdrop for the State's prohibition and the UGC directions relied on in the case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by situating the petitioners' grievance within the authoritative pronouncement in Prof. Yashpal and the subsequent UGC directive (letter dated 17.04.2009) that required States to stop State universities from operating off-campus centres beyond territorial limits.
Applying that precedent and the UGC's direction, the Court accepted that a State-created university like Sikkim Manipal University could not lawfully operate off-campus centres outside its State. The Court noted, however, that the petitioners were pursuing a limited prayer: extension of benefits under the State Government's Memorandum dated 10.07.2013, which had fixed a cut-off date of 02.04.2011 and preserved benefits for degrees/qualifications issued prior to that date.
The Court examined the competing contentions on which date ought to operate as the relevant cut-off: petitioners argued for the notice dated 30.03.2012 (in Dainik Sambad) as the operative warning to students and guardians, whereas the State relied on the date 02.04.2011 (the date when the Government had apprised citizens via publication) as the cut-off fixed in government policy.
The Court observed that the Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 did not appear to have considered the specific situation of persons who had taken admission before the cut-off date but obtained the degree after the cut-off; that is, the Memorandum did not show any clear consideration of whether those continuing their studies past the cut-off should be granted similar benefits. The Court therefore concluded that the State ought to re-evaluate this aspect.
Balancing the human considerations raised by petitioners and the administrative-policy considerations articulated by respondents, the Court directed the competent State authorities to reconsider — with some latitude — whether petitioners and similarly circumstanced persons who were studying under respondent No.5 before the cut-off date could be recognized under the same arrangement as provided in the Memorandum dated 10.07.2013. The Court imposed an expeditious timeline for this reconsideration (not later than 31 October, 2014) and required communication of the decision to the petitioners.
The Court thus did not itself alter the cut-off date or make a final substantive ruling on the correctness of the date; rather it required the executive to consider the issue afresh and decide.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the State to reconsider, with latitude, whether persons who had taken admission in off-campus/study centres before the cut-off date (as fixed in the Memorandum dated 10.07.2013) but who obtained degrees after the cut-off date could be accorded the same arrangement/benefits under that Memorandum. The State was ordered to take a decision as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, not later than 31 October, 2014, and to communicate that decision to the petitioners immediately thereafter.
The Court also ordered that there shall be no order as to costs.
Implications: The direct effect is to require the executive (State authorities) to reassess and decide on extending benefits to the specific class of persons described above; the Court did not itself create a new legal precedent or definitively resolve the cut-off date controversy. No broader legal principle was laid down by this Court beyond directing reconsideration in light of the circumstances and the existing Supreme Court precedent (Prof. Yashpal) and UGC directions.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.C Das, learned Advocate General and Ms. A.S Lodh, learned Addl. G.A appearing for the respondents.
[2] The grievance of the petitioners falls within a short compus. The petitioners took admission in the Sikkim Manipal University ‘Off - Campus’ centre at Agartala. There may be other similarly circumstanced persons, who were prosecuting in the similar courses in the ‘Off-Campus’ centre beyond their territorial limit. Heat and dust of the controversy has been settled by the apex court by the celebrated case in Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420 where it has been held thus:
In view of Article 245(1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. The impugned Act which specifically makes a provision enabling a University to have an ‘Off-Campus’ centre outside the State is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh legislature.
[3] In terms thereof, the University Grants Commission has by their letter No. F.9-8/2008(CPP-I) dated 17 April, 2009 directed the State Government as under:
(i) To take suitable steps for amending the existing Acts made so as to bring the same in conformity with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prof. Yash Pal and State of Chattisgarh. This should be adhered to in all future cases. and
(ii) To stop all the State/State Private Universities in the State from operating beyond the territorial jurisdiction of your State in any manner either in the form of ‘Off-Campus’/study centre/affiliated college and centres operating through franchises.
[4] The Sikkim Manipal University is the creation of the state legislature of the State of Sikkim. As such, in view of the apex court's decision in Prof. Yashpal and the UGC's direction, Sikkim Manipal University cannot operate any ‘Off-Campus’/study centre/affiliated college and centres operating through the franchises or otherwise. There cannot be any dispute in this regard. But the petitioners have approached this Court for a limited purpose.
[5] While unfolding the case of the petitioners, Mr. D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners having referred to the Memorandum dated 10.07.2013, Annexure-13 to the writ petition has submitted that by the said Memorandum, the State Government has set up a cut-off date on 02.04.2011 The said cut-off date has been set up for purpose of treating the degrees or other qualification acquired by the persons who were studying through the ‘Off-Campus’ or the study centre as referred in the UGC's direction valid. It has been provided in the said Memorandum that the benefit already extended to the employees for the degrees/qualification awarded by such ‘Off-Campus’ entities issued till the date of the public notice may not be withdrawn, meaning that persons having such qualifications obtained prior to the cut-off date will continue to enjoy the benefit including further promotion etc. in case they are in Govt. employment and will be eligible to apply for appointment in the Government based on such certificates in case they are unemployed. But the petitioners, except the petitioner No. 3, took admission before the cut-off date but could not complete their studies. They urge that they be given the similar benefit emanating from the Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 The cut-off date has been set up, based indisputably on the date when the public notice has been published in the various newspapers of the State for purpose of apprising that such degree or other qualification issued by such ‘Off-Campus’ entities are not valid in terms of Prof. Yashpal's declaration. One of such notifications is the notification dated 02.08.2011, Annexure-9 to the writ petition. In the said notification it has been provided that:
It has come to the notice of the Government in the Education (Higher) Department that some State/StateGPrivate Universities of other States are operating their Off Campus/Franchise Study Centre(s) in the State of Tripura beyond the territorial jurisdiction of such Universities violating the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the guideline of the University Grants Commission (UGC). The UGC vice their Public Notice issued on 25.08.2010 (available in the website link www.ugc.ac.in/inside/statenuniy 250810 .pdf) has clarified that the State Universities established by the Act of the Legislature of the concerned State cannot have jurisdiction beyond the territory of that State in operating their Off campus Study centre(s) and UGC has not approved Off campus Study Centre of any State University. The State Universities are competent to award Degrees as specified U/S 22 of the UGC Act, 1956 with the approval of the statutory councils, wherever required at their main campus.
The Higher Education Department, Tripura has already taken action against the unauthorized Study Centres operating in the State and student and their guardians have been requested to check and satisfy themselves before taking admission into such Study Centres who are offering various courses under Distance mode of education in the State of Tripura.
In view of the above, the students and guardians of Tripura are once again requested to ascertain the status of the Study Centre(s) of Distance Education operating in Tripura before taking admission.
[6] By a subsequent notification published in the Dainik Sambad dated 30.03.2012, the Government has apprised further as under:
“This is for the information of all residents of Tripura that in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal v. Chattishgarh Private Universities and the related memorandum No. F.1G1/2011 (CPPG1) dated 29.08.2011 issued by the University Grants Commission which is notified to all the State Governments. Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held in the said Judgment that no private University of the State can operate ‘Off-Campus’ or franchisee study centre beyond the territorial limit of that State which means, the admission of students and offering of the degree or diploma through ‘Off - Campus’/franchisee study centres in other States is absolutely illegal. The University Grants Commission in pursuance of the foresaid verdict has issued the directives which have come to the notice of the Higher Education Department. In spite of the aforesaid directives few State Universities are running the ‘Off-Campus’/study centre and admitting students and offering certificates which are absolutely illegal in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction. The Higher Education Department of the State Government brings to the notice of the general public and warns the guardians and the students about the said illegal activities. In spite of the aforesaid warning if any student acquires any degree/certificate under the aforesaid ‘Off - Campus’/franchisee study centre they will be responsible for the same and the State Government would be disentitle to get any recognition from the Government.”
[7] According to Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel that the date of the notice dated 30.03.2012 should have been the cut-off date. By that notification, the guardians and the students were warned about the said illegal activities. In spite of the aforesaid warning if any student acquires any degree/certificate through those ‘Off-Campus’ entities/franchisee study centre they would obtain those at their own risk.
[8] It is apparent from the order dated 27.04.2012, Annexure-11 to the writ petition that the respondent No. 5 has been directed by the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura to close down the said centre with immediate effect, failing which action against them would be taken by the Government.
[9] From the other side, Mr. B.C Das, learned Advocate General appearing for the State-respondents has drawn to the notice of this court to the paras No. 14 and 16 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4. For purpose of reference, these paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
14. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 13 to 16 of the petition, it is stated that in spite of the Government's effort some Off Campus Study Centers was operating unauthorizedly and as such the matter was brought before the Government and examined in detail. The matter was placed before the Council of Ministers who decided that in order to protect the interest of innocent students who had obtained the Degrees, Diplomas without knowing the exact legal position before he date on which notice was published i.e 02.04.2011, i.e the certificates issued prior to that date would be treated as valid for all the purposes including benefit etc. This date has been fixed after taking into consideration of the pros and cons of the matter. This was the policy decision of the Government aimed at protecting the interest of innocent persons who had taken Degrees or Diplomas in ignorance of the legal position. This decision of the government therefore cannot be faulted which.
16. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph 18 to 23, it is stated that the same are not tenable at law. The fixation of the cut off date of the Government as 02G04G2011 cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The choice of the above date was the result of intense deliberation and consideration by the Government at different levels and circumstances of the case, a line or a point had to be drawn and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it preciously and therefore the choice at the date, upon consideration of the different factors cannot be dubbed as arbitrary. It is trite to say that a classification can be founded on a particular date and yet be reasonable unless it is shown to be palpably capricious or whimsical.
[10] It is availed therefrom that the respondent No. 1 has set up the cut-off date on 02.04.2011 as that was the date when the Government had apprised the concerned citizens as regards the illegal activities of those ‘Off-Campus’ entities/study centres etc. Learned Advocate General has submitted that the cut-off date cannot be from 30.03.2012 but it has to be from the day on which the notification apprising citizens was published.
[11] Be that as it may, what falls for consideration before this Court is that whether the persons who took admission in those ‘Off - Campus’ entities of the State/private State universities/study centres etc. before the cut-off date and acquired the degree or other qualifications after the cut-off date, the similar benefits of Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 can be extended. It appears from the said Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 that the State Government has not considered that aspect of the matter but that aspect ought to have been considered judiciously. From the said Memorandum, no such consideration is apparent. It appears from the communication dated 30.03.2013, Annexure-15 to the writ petition, that some of the petitioners along some other persons, similarly circumstanced, made a representation to the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura as well as to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department for reconsideration of that decision, reflected in the Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 They had urged for a fresh exercise on the following point:
By the notice published on 30.02.2012, the Government has specifically notified that the certificate of degree etc. as would be issued will not be accepted by the Government.
[12] Apart that, the respondent No. 5 was asked to close down only on 27.04.2012 According to the petitioners, those who are, from before the cut-off date, has been continuing their studies in those ‘Off - Campus’ entities, they should be allowed to continue their studies in those ‘Off-Campus’. It falls within the domain of the executive.
[13] On human consideration, it appears to this Court that the State shall reconsider this aspect of the matter with some latitude, whether the petitioners or the similarly circumstanced persons, who were studying under the respondent No. 5 from before the cut-off date, can be recognized for bringing them under the same arrangement as provided in the Memorandum dated 10.07.2013 It is expected that the competent authorities in the State Government shall take their decision as expeditiously as possible but by any rate not later than 31st October, 2014. The respondents No. 1 to 4 shall communicate that decision to the petitioners immediately thereafter.
With this observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert