Read Full Judgment Here - PG Diploma in Management Can't Be Considered as Equal to MBA, Rules Kerala HC

Read Full Judgment Here - PG Diploma in Management Can't Be Considered as Equal to MBA, Rules Kerala HC

By Mahir Haneef

KOCHI: Shutting out the hopes of students who pursue post graduate diploma (PDG) courses in business schools to get appointments as lecturers, the Kerala High Court has held that a PDG in Management cannot be considered as equivalent to a masters degree and that such candidates cannot appear for National Eligibility Test (NET).

A division bench comprising chief justice Ashok Bhushan and justice AM Shaffique gave the ruling after considering an appeal filed by University Grants Commission (UGC). UGC had questioned a single bench’s ruling that PDG should be considered as equivalent to a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) as it is recognized by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

The single bench’s ruling was on a petition filed by Anad J Ilickan of Kottayam questioning his disqualification from NET. He had studied a two-year PGD in Management from Loyola Institute of Business Administration. UGC had taken the stand that his PGD cannot be treated as equivalent to MBA as Association of Indian Universities (AIU) hasn’t granted equivalent status to it. At the high court, the candidate had contended that the AIU has no authority to decide whether to grant equivalency to the PDG course to MBA.

However, AICTE filed an affidavit stating that though its standing committee had taken a decision in May 2005 that PDG is equivalent to MBA, it was only intended for getting employment. The decision granting equivalency should not be used for the purpose of securing any lectureship where masters degree is insisted. The said equivalency awarded by the standing committee should not be used as a qualification for appearing in NET. As far as AIU’s authority is concerned, their opinion regarding equivalence is accepted, AICTE informed.

Allowing UGC’s appeal, the division bench pointed out that UGC’s norms prescribe that a PGD in Management must be declared as equivalent to masters degree by AIU and that such regulations are statutory in nature. The court then said, “From the above, it is clear that the statutory regulations framed by UGC require declaration of equivalence of PGD as essential qualification for the post of assistant professor/associate professor.”

Setting aside the single bench’s judgment, the division bench said, “The learned single judge in its judgment has observed that since the PGD granted to the petitioner is recognized by the AICTE, it will be deemed to be recognized by the UGC cannot be approved. The observation of the learned single judge that when a course is approved by the AICTE, the question of equivalence from the university does not arise in so far as determination of equivalence of that course is concerned cannot be approved.”

       
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT:

       THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN
                                &
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

      FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/29TH JYAISHTA, 1937

           WA.NO. 847 OF 2015 ()  IN WP(C).21935/2013
            ------------------------------------------
           AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21935/2013 OF
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-02-2015

*APPELLANT(S)/1, 2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------------------

          1. UNIVERSITY GRANTRS COMMISSION
       REP. BY THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
       NEW DELHI-110 001.

          2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
       NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTING (NET) BUREAU
       UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
       SOUTH CAMPUS, BENITO JUREAREZ MARG, NEW DELHI-110 021.

         3.   ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
       REP. BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY
       ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
       INDIRA GANDHI SPORTS COMPLEX, IP ESTATE
       NEW DEHI-110 002.

       *2ND RESPONDENT IS TRANSPOSED AS 3RD APPELLANT
       AS PER ORDER DATED 8.6.2015 IN I.A. NO.715 OF 2015.

       BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN WPC.:
------------------------------------------------------

          1. ANAND J.ILLICKAN
       S/O.PROF. P.I.JOSEPH ILLICKAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE
       POOVANTHURUTHU PO, KOTTAYAM-686 012.

WA.NO. 847 OF 2015




          *2. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
       REP. BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY
       ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
       INDIRA GANDHI SPORTS COMPLEX, IP ESTATE
       NEW DEHI-110 002.

          3. ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES,
       REP. BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY
       ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES, AIU HOUSE
       16 KOLTA MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.


          2ND RESPONDENT IS TRANSPOSED AS 3RD APPELLANT
          AS PER ORDER DATED 8.6.2015 IN I.A. NO.75 OF 2015.

       R2 BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
       R1 BY KALEESWARAM RAJ

         THIS  WRIT  APPEAL    HAVING  BEEN   FINALLY HEARD   ON
09.06.2015, the court on  19-06-2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.NO. 847 OF 2015




     ANNEXURE-R1(A)        TRUE   COPY   OF   THE   LETTER  DATED
12.5.2014.

     ANNEXURE-R1(B)        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.4.2014
IN S.L.P(CIVIL) NO.7277/2014.

     ANNEXURE-R1(C)        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.5.2014.

     ANNEXURE-R1(D)        TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY
THE AICTE, 3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P(C) NO.21935 OF 2013



                                                      "C.R."

                 ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J.
                            and
                   A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
          ====================================
                   W.A. No.847 of 2015
          ====================================
           Dated this the 19th day of June, 2015

                      J U D G M E N T

Ashok Bhushan, C.J.

     This appeal has been filed by two appellants who

were respondents 1 and 2 to W.P(C) No.21935 of 2013

filed by the 1st respondent to this appeal,     who shall be

hereinafter referred to as the Writ Petitioner. Second

respondent to the appeal, All India Council for Technical

Education who was         the 3rd respondent to the Writ

Petition on an application filed in this Writ Appeal has

been transposed as the 3rd appellant.        The Writ Petition

filed by the petitioner was allowed by judgment dated

13.02.2015 by the learned Single Judge against which

this Writ Appeal has been filed.

     2.   The University Grant Commission (hereinafter

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 2 :-


referred to as "the UGC"), is the 1st appellant, the

Deputy Secretary,           National Educational Testing (NET)

Bureau, University Grants Commission is the 2nd

appellant whereas the All India Council for Technical

Education (hereinafter referred to as "the AICTE") is the

3rd appellant.          The 3rd respondent to this appeal is the

Association of Indian Universities (hereinafter referred to

as "the AIU").

       3.        Brief facts giving rise to this Writ Appeal are:

The 2nd respondent issued an advertisement                for NET

examination 2012             inviting application from eligible

candidates.            Conditions of eligibility provided    that

"candidates who have secured at least 55% marks

(without rounding off) in Masters Degree or equivalent

examination from University/Institutions reognized by

the UGC........" are eligible to apply. Petitioner who has

passed the Post Graduate Diploma                    in Business

Administration has also submitted                application and

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                     -: 3 :-


appeared in the NET examination held on 24.06.2012.

Petitioner           secured    69.14%      marks      in    the   NET

Examination.            UGC issued       letter dated 26.07.2013,

informing the petitioner that Post Graduate Diploma in

Business Administration awarded to the petitioner by the

Loyola Institute of           Business Administration, Chennai

during         the    period    1996-1998       had    not    accorded

equivalence with Masters Degree by the AIU, hence the

petitioner is disqualified in the UGC NET examination

held on 24.06.2012.                 Petitioner aggrieved by the

communication issued by the UGC has filed the Writ

Petition praying for the following reliefs:

                 i)    To issue a writ of certiorari quashing

        Ext.P13 as unjust, illegal and unsustainable.

                 ii)   To declare that the petitioner was eligible

        to appear for       National Eligibility Test which he

        cleared as per Ext.P2 and as such the petitioner has

        duly cleared the National Eligibility Test.

                 iii)  To declare that the Post Graduate

        Diploma in Business Administration obtained by the

        petitioner from the Loyola Institute of Business

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 4 :-


        Administration (Madras University) as per Ext.P3 and

        P4 is equivalent to MBA degree awarded by the

        recognized by the Indian University.

                 iv)   To issue a writ of mandamus directing

        the respondents to treat the petitioner as a

        candidate with a valid post graduation for the

        purpose of appearing in the National Eligibility Test

        and to treat him as a person who has legally and

        validly cleared the National Eligibility Test."

       4.        Petitioner's case in the Writ Petition is that the

Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration was

awarded by Loyola Institute of Business Administration,

Chennai which diploma was                duly recognized by the

AICTE and the AICTE              having issued communication,

Ext.P8 dated 02.01.2008 informing that Post Graduate

Diploma is equivalent to MBA in the year in which the

course was recognized by the AICTE,                     makes the

petitioner eligible for UGC NET Examination 2012, the

competent authority to grant equivalency is the AICTE.

The AIU has no authority vested in it on the basis of any

enactment or order having              force of law     to declare

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                  -: 5 :-


equivalency.

       5.        Statement was filed by   respondents 1 and 2

stating that the advertisement issued by the UGC has

clearly stipulated that the candidates should ascertain

the equivalence of their Post Graduate Diploma with

Masters Degree from the AIU.              The AIU Evaluation

Division           deals with the evaluation of degrees and

diplomas awarded            by the   accredited Universities in

India and Abroad. Relevant page of print out issued by

the AIU and submitted by the petitioner was produced as

Ext.R1(b) along with the statement. In Ext.R1(b) Loyola

Institute          of  Business  Administration, Chennai     is

mentioned as item No.41 and the course that refers to

as Post Graduate Diploma for which equivalence has

been granted was for the period 2001 to 2014.              The

statement further stated that the petitioner having

obtained two years Post Graduate Diploma in Business

Administration from the Loyola Institute during the

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                 -: 6 :-


academic year July, 1996 to June, 1998 which has not

been granted equivalence with MBA Degree by the AIU,

petitioner is not qualified.

       6.        A statement was also filed on behalf of the

AICTE in which it was stated that Loyola Institute of

Business Administration, Chennai was an            approved

institution for the period 1996-98 by the AICTE and the

Post Graduate Diploma could be treated as equivalent to

the degree of MBA. For the purpose of participating in

the NET Examination, the AICTE have no role to certify

the equivalency. Qualification is to be prescribed by the

UGC for the purpose of participating in the NET

Examination. As such there is no conflict in interest

against the issuance of Ext.P13 rejection order issued by

the UGC and AICTE. However, it was further stated that

the AICTE through its              Standing Committee for

equivalence of degree/diploma on 19.05.2005 had taken

a decision           that PGDM is equivalent to   Master of

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 7 :-


Business Administration.            It is further stated that the

equivalency offered by the Standing Committee is only

for the purpose of getting employment and that the said

Diploma is not approved                 for the purpose of any

Lectureship wherein Masters Degree is insisted. Further,

the said equivalency awarded                    by the Standing

Committee need not be equated as a                qualification for

purpose of appearing in the NET Examination.

       7.        At this stage it is relevant to notice the

affidavit filed by the Assistant Director, AICTE in this Writ

Appeal along with I.A. No.715 of 2015 wherein now it

has come up by clearly stating that the AICTE have no

role for certifying the equivalency for qualification

prescribed by the UGC. It is useful to quote paragraphs

3, 4 and 5 which are to the following effect:

                 "3. At the outset it is submitted that as far

        as the qualification for participation in the NET

        examination is prescribed in the notification issued

        by the UGC NET Bureau. The AICTE is having no roll

        to certify the equivalency etc., for such qualification

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                       -: 8 :-


        to be prescribed by UGC for the purpose of

        participating in the NET          Examination.   As such

        there is no conflict in interest against the issuance of

        Ext.P13      of the Writ Petition No.21935 of 2013

        supra, Rejection letter issued by the UGC is correct.

                 4.   However there was an issue that the

        AITCE,       through its Standing         Committee of

        Equivalence of various degree/diploma programmes

        had taken its decision that PGDBM/PGDBA/PGDM are

        equivalent to Master of Business Administration,

        provided entry level qualification eligibility, course

        duration, recommended course duration, syllabus,

        recommended duration Course structure and credits

        as per AICTE norms. However, this was in the year

        2005 during the period Association of Indian

        Universities had found the equivalency during 2000

        to 2014. The letter given by the AITCE is also in the

        year 2005. In Educational matters the AITCE also

        accepts      the    opinion of Association     of Indian

        Universities for equivalency.

                 5.   It is respectfully submitted that it is up to

        the concerned authority i.e., UGC in this case to

        decide whether the qualification obtained by the

        petitioner is suitable for lectureship/NET conducted

        by it. AITCE have no role in this regard."

       8.        We have heard Shri S. Krishnamoorthy,

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 9 :-


learned counsel for the UGC, whereas Shri Augustine

Joseph appeared for the AICTE and Shri Kaleeswaram

Raj appeared for the Writ Petitioner.

       9.        Shri S.Krishnamoorty appearing for the UGC

contended that notification issued by the UGC for NET

Examination          2012     having   clearly stipulated that

equivalence of Post Graduate Diploma is to be

ascertained from the AIU and the period during which

petitioner obtained Post Graduate Diploma 1996-1998

having not declared as equivalent to the MBA degree by

the AIU, the            petitioner has been rightly declared

disqualified         in the NET Examination, 2012.       It is

submitted that the UGC is the authority competent to

lay down qualifications and eligibility conditions in its

advertisement and the conditions laid down in the

advertisement has never been challenged, petitioner

cannot be heard in saying that he fulfills the

qualifications. It is submitted that             the AITCE is

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                 -: 10 :-


empowered to recognize institutions and courses to be

run in accredited institutions but it has no role to play in

declaring           equivalency of  Diploma/Degree.      It is

submitted that letters filed by the petitioner including

Ext.P8 where the letters issued by the AICTE informing

equivalence on the basis of equivalence already granted

by the AIU for the period from 2001-2014.           The AIU is

the      body which has been authorized by the UGC to

grant equivalence of various degrees awarded by the

various Universities and Institutions.

         10. Shri Augustine Joseph has also adopted the

arguments of Shri S.Krishnamoorthy and submitted that

it is the AIU which is authorised to grant equivalence

and letter issued by the AICTE to the Loyola College

informing about the equivalancy was based on the

decision taken by the AIU.           It is submitted that with

regard to qualification of          a candidate in the NET

Examination it is the UGC which is competent to take a

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                            -: 11 :-


decision.

       11. Shri Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the

petitioner refuting the submissions of learned counsel

for the appellants contended that        the AIU is only a

registered Society under the Societies Registration Act,

1860 and a non-statutory body which has no authority

or jurisdiction to grant equivalence       of the Diploma

granted to the petitioner.      It is submitted that the

AICTE which is the authority constituted according to

Parliamentary Act i.e., AICTE Act, 1987 is the statutory

authority to grant equivalence.       It is submitted that

Section 10 which enumerates the functions          of the

Council has to be read to include the power of granting

equivalence to various courses which are run with the

approval of the AICTE. Referring to Exts.P6, P7 and P8 it

is submitted that the AICTE having communicated to

the Loyola Institute of Business Administration, Chennai,

that the Post Graduate Diploma is equivalent to MBA is

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                -: 12 :-


sufficient to clothe the petitioner with equivalence with

MBA degree            and the UGC is bound to      accept the

equivalence          granted by the AICTE which is the only

statutory authority to grant equivalence under the 1987

Act.      It is submitted that     notification issued by the

UGC, Ext.P5 the eligibility condition in paragraph 3(vi)

which required candidates with Post Graduate Diploma

Courses to ascertain the equivalence of their          course

with Master Degrees of recognized Universities from the

AIU cannot be read as a mandatory condition.             It is

submitted that decision of the UGC declaring petitioner

disqualified         in the UGC NET Examination, 2012 dated

24.06.2012 is erroneous and deserves to be set aside.

       12. We have considered the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

       13. Learned counsel for the patties have relied on

various judgments of the Apex Court, this Court and

other High Courts which shall be referred to while

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                              -: 13 :-


considering the submissions in detail.

       14. From the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties, following are the issues which

arise for consideration.

                 I.   Whether the    AIU   has   any

       jurisdiction or authority          to declare

       equivalence of degrees/diplomas?

                 II.  Whether   eligibility condition

       No.3(vi) in the Notification issued by the

       UGC NET 2012 is a mandatory condition

       regarding equivalence of degrees?

                 III. Whether it is the AICTE which

       has jurisdiction to declare equivalence of

       degrees and diplomas under the 1987

       Act?

                 IV. Whether   the communications

       issued by the AICTE, Exts.P6, P7 and P8

       can be read as a declaration by the

       AICTE of the Post Graduate Diploma

       granted to the petitioner in the year

       1996-98 equivalent to MBA Degree?

                 V.   Whether the UGC committed

       error in issuing Ext.P13 letter dated

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                -: 14 :-


       26.07.2013 declaring             the petitioner

       disqualified in the UGC NET examination

       2012?

       15. Before we proceed to consider the respective

submissions by the learned counsel for the parties it is

necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions.

       16. The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted by the

Parliament for the co-ordination        and determination of

standards in Universities. The legislation is referable to

entry No.66 of          List I of the 7th Schedule of the

Constitution         which  provides     "Co-ordination and

determination of standards in institutions for higher

education or research and scientific and technical

institutions". Section 12 enumerates the function of the

Commission, Section 20 provides for directions by the

Central Government, Section 22 provides for right to

confer degrees and Section 26 empowers the UGC to

make Regulations.          Sections 20, 22, 26(i) are to the

following effect:

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                     -: 15 :-


                  "20. Directions by the Central Government.-

        (1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act,

        the Commission shall be guided by such directions

        on questions of policy relating to national purpose as

        may be given to it by the Central Government.

                  (2)  If any dispute arises between the Central

        Government and the Commission as to whether a

        question is or is not a question of policy relating to

        national purposes, the decision of the Central

        Government shall be final.

                  22.  Right to confer degrees.-(1) The right of

        conferring or granting degree shall be exercised only

        by a University established or incorporated by or

        under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act

        or an institution deemed to be a University under

        Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by

        an act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.

                  (2)  Save as provided in sub-section (1), no

        person or authority shall confer, or grant or hold

        himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant,

        any degree.

                  (3)  For  the   purposes    of  this  section,

        "degree"means any such degree as may with the

        previous approval of the Central Government, be

        specified in this behalf by the Commission           by

        notification in the Official Gazette.

                  26.  Power to make regulations.- (1) The

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                     -: 16 :-


        commission may be notification in the Official

        Gazette, make regulations consistent with this Act

        and the rules made thereunder.-

                  (a)  regulating   the    meetings   of    the

        Commission and the procedure for conducting

        business thereat;

                  (b)  regulating the manner in which and the

        purposes for which persons may be associated with

        the Commission under Section 9.

                  (c)  Specifying the   terms and conditions of

        service      of  the   employees    appointed  by   the

        Commissioner;

                  (d)  specifying the institutions  or class of

        institutions which may be recognised by the

        Commission under clause (f) of Section 2.

                  (e)  defining the qualifications that should

        ordinarily be required for any person to ne appointed

        to the teaching staff of the University having regard

        to the branch of education in which he is expected to

        give instructions;

                  (f)  defining the minimum standards of

        instruction     for the grant of any degree by the

        University.

                  (g)  regulating the maintenance of standards

        and the co-ordination of work or facilities          in

        Universities.

                  (h)  regulating      the   establishment   of

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 17 :-


        institutions referred to in clause (ccc) of section 12

        and other matters relating to such institutions.

                  (i)  specifying the matters in respect of

        which fees may be charged and scales of fees in

        accordane with which fees may be charged by a

        college under sub-section (2) of Section 12-A;

                  (j)  specifying the manner in which an

        inquiry may be conducted under sub-section (4) of

        Section 12-A."

       17. Another enactment which is relevant for the

case is the 1987 Act which was enacted to provide for

establishment           of   All  India  Council    for   Technical

Education            with a view to        proper    planning, co-

ordination and development of                 technical education

system throughout the country, promotion of qualitative

improvements of such education in relation to                 plan,

growth and regulations and proper maintenance of

norms and standards in the technical education system

and matters connected therewith.                       Section   3

contemplates establishment of Council and Section 10

refers to functions of the Council.             Regulations have

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                       -: 18 :-


been framed by the Council for approval for starting

new courses and introduction of programmes.

       18. All the issues being inter connected are being

taken together. The conditions of eligibility as provided

in the notification issued by the UGC for NET

Examination, 2012 are contained in paragraph 3, which

is extracted as below:

         "3) CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY:

         i)       Candidates who have secured at least 55%

                 marks (without rounding off) in Master's

                 Degree    OR    equivalent    examination     from

                 universities/institutions recognised by UGC in

                 Humanities (including languages) and Social

                 Science, Computer Science & Applications,

                 electronic Science etc. are eligible for this Test.

                 The Scheduled Caste (SC)/Scheduled tribe

                 (ST)/Physically     Handicapped     (PH)/Visually

                 Handicapped (VH) category candidates who

                 have secured at least 50% marks (without

                 rounding off) in Master's degree or equivalent

                 examination are eligible for this Test.

         ii)     Candidates who have appeared OR will be

                 appearing at the qualifying Master's degree

                 (final year) examination and whose result is

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                       -: 19 :-


                 still awaited OR candidates whose qualifying

                 examinations have been delayed may also

                 apply for the Test. However, such candidates

                 will be submitted provisionally and shall be

                 considered eligible for award of JRF/Lectureship

                 eligibility only after they have passed their

                 Master's degree examination or equivalent with

                 at least 55% marks (50% marks in case of

                 SC/ST/PH/VH      category     candidates).  Such

                 candidates must complete their P.G degree

                 examination within two years from the date of

                 NET result with required percentage of marks,

                 failing   which  they     shall be   treated  as

                 disqualified.

         iii) The Ph.D degree holders whose Master's level

                 examination had been completed by 19th

                 September, 1991 (irrespective of date of

                 declaration of result) shall be eligible for a

                 relaxation of 5% in aggregate marks (i.e from

                 55% to 50%) for appearing in NET.

         iv) Candidates are advised to appear in the subject

                 of their post-graduation only. The candidates

                 whose post graduation subject is not covered in

                 the list of subjects in item No.9 may appear in

                 a related subject.

         v)       Candidates seeking concession in fee are

                 required to submit attested copy of their OBC

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                       -: 20 :-


                 (Non-creamy      layer)/SC/ST/PH/VH      certificate

                 along with online printout of their Application

                 Forms (obtained while applying on-line). Other

                 candidates are not required to submit any

                 certificates/documents     in  support    of   their

                 eligibility along with printout of their Application

                 Form. Therefore, the candidates, in their own

                 interest, must satisfy themselves about their

                 eligibility for the Test. In the event of any

                 ineligibility being detected by the Commission

                 at any stage, their candidature will be cancelled

                 and they shall be liable for legal action.

         vi)      Candidates     with    post-graduate     diploma/

                 certificate course(s), should in their own

                 interest, ascertain the equivalence of their

                 course(s) with Master's degree of recognized

                 Indian universities from Association of Indian

                 Universities (AIU), New Delhi."

       19. Paragraph 3(i) provides that candidates, who

have secured at least 55% marks in Master's Degree or

equivalent examination from universities/institutions

recognised by UGC...... are eligible for the test. The

petitioner did not have any Master's Degree. The

petitioner has submitted his application for appearing in

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                            -: 21 :-


the NET Examination, 2012 on the basis of Post

Graduate Diploma in Business Administration. Whether

the Post Graduate Diploma of the petitioner is an

equivalent examination to the Master's Degree is the

only question for determination in this appeal. There is

no dispute that the institution from where the petitioner

had obtained the Post Graduate Diploma, i.e., Loyola

Institute of Business Administration, is an institution

recognised by the AICTE during the relevant year.

       20. Clause 3(vi) requires "candidates with Post

Graduate Diploma/certificate courses, should in their

own interest, ascertain the equivalence of their courses

with Master's Degree of recognised Indian Universities

from Association of Indian Universities (AIU), New

Delhi". The above clause, thus, requires ascertainment

of the equivalence of the Post Graduate Diploma course

with Master's Degree from AIU, New Delhi. The

submission, which has been pressed by learned counsel

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 22 :-


for the petitioner is that AIU is a non-statutory body

which has no authority or jurisdiction to grant

equivalence of degrees/diplomas. It is submitted that

clause 3(vi) of the notification is not mandatory and

that was the only instruction to the candidates to

ascertain the equivalence of their courses, if they so

desire. It is submitted that clause 3(vi) cannot be read

as any mandatory condition regarding equivalence to be

certified by AIU. The petitioner has brought on record

certain information regarding AIU as Exhibit P9, which

contained objectives of the AIU. The UGC in its

statement in paragraph 6 of the affidavit has stated as

follows:

                 "6. The actions of respondent 1 i.e. University

        Grants Commission, are in consonance with objectives

        of UGC for maintaining the standard of higher

        education and are consistent with its policy of

        referring all such cases regarding equivalence of

        degrees/diplomas to Association f Indian Universities

        (AIU). It is pertinent to mention here that AIU being

        controlled by the Government is fully equipped to go

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                     -: 23 :-


        into the question of equivalence. One of the functions

        of AIU (an extract taken from the website of AIU) is

        reproduced below:

                       'The Evaluation Division deals with the
                 work of evaluation and equivalence of
                 degrees and diplomas awarded by the
                 accredited universities in India and abroad
                 for admission to higher courses at India
                 Universities. The Division provides expert
                 assistance    on  the   status   of   foreign
                 qualifications to the students, universities,
                 Central    and   State   agencies   including
                 Ministries of the Government of India. The
                 Division    also  provides    assistance   to
                 evaluation agencies of the foreign countries'.

        The Division examines the proposals received from

        the Institutions outside the purview of the Indian

        Universities, for granting academic equivalence to

        postgraduate        diploma  courses   in  the   area  of

        Management."

       21. The AIU is a Society registered under the

Societies Registration Act, 1860 with membership of

Indian Universities. On equivalence of degrees, the AIU

in its website claims the following:

                  "AN INTRODUCTION:

                        The Inter University Board (IUB) was

        established in 1925 and was renamed as the

        ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES (AIU) in

        1973. The need of an organisation in India for

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                     -: 24 :-


        equivalence of degrees between the universities in

        India and abroad was felt since long after the

        establishment of three premier Universities (Bombay,

        Calcutta and Madras in 1857) and therefore, the Inter

        University Board was formed as an Autonomous Body.

                  The Evaluation Division was also established

        ever since with the inception of IUB/AIU.

                  Evaluation Division was entrusted with the task

        of equivalence of degrees awarded by the accredited

        foreign Universities for purpose of admission to higher

        studies. This is one of the main objectives that AIU

        took upon itself and since been carrying out effectively

        for the last eighty five years.

                  AIU is the only recognized body in India for

        granting academic equivalence of degrees/diplomas

        not only within the country but also to other similar

        bodies in foreign countries.

                  In acknowledgment to the works done by the

        Division since its inception the Ministry of Human

        Resource development, New Delhi, vide their letter

        No. dated 13th March, 1995 issued a Notification that

        the equivalence done by AIU will be valid for the

        purpose of higher education as well as employment in

        the country.

                  Since   then   the   Division  started   issuing

        Equivalence Certificates to individuals and till date the

        Division is facilitating the Universities also in granting

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                     -: 25 :-


        Admission to various degree level programmes.

                  Not only to the Universities, AIU also provides

        its services, for equivalence of degrees to various

        Central & State employment agencies viz Union Public

        Service Commission, New delhi and state recruitment

        Boards.

                  The  Division,  besides   Ministry  of   Human

        Resource Development, GO1 also facilitates to other

        Federal Ministries of India, to formulate the proposals

        on mutual recognition of degree under Educational

        Exchange Programmes.

                  The Division continues to provide assistance on

        the status of foreign qualifications to Universities,

        Ministries of the government of India, Union Public

        Service Commission, Indian Council for Cultural

        Relations and other Agencies concerning with the

        nomination/selection of foreign students in Indian

        Universities. The application forms of all the foreign

        students who are sponsored under various Central

        Government Scholarships/Ministries are sent to us, in

        order to assess their eligibility, to the courses in which

        they are seeking admission in Indian Universities. As

        the Division has established accountability as a

        reliable      accrediting    source/agency      on    the

        assessment/certification        of     equivalence      of

        qualifications, we receive a number of enquiries from

        Credential Evaluation Service Agencies in other

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                 -: 26 :-


        countries, as well."

       22. Learned counsel for the UGC during his

submission has submitted that the Government of India

has      issued      a  circular  authorising AIU to grant

equivalence of degrees and diplomas. However, he did

not refer to any Government order. In the introduction

as quoted above AIU refers to letter dated 13.03.1995

issued          by   the   Ministry  of   Human  Resources

Development, providing that the equivalence done by

the AIU will be valid for the purpose of higher education

as well as employment in the country. The UGC in

exercise of power under Section 26 has framed

regulation, namely, UGC Regulations on Minimum

Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other

Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and

Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher

Education, 2010. The regulations contain the minimum

qualification for appointment of teachers and other

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                       -: 27 :-


academic            staff.    Regulation      3.3.1  provides    that

"NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility

condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant

Professors              in       Universities/Colleges/Institutions".

Regulation          4.4.5      is   on    the   subject    "minimum

qualifications for appointment of teaching faculty in

Universities          and     Colleges     -   management/business

administration". It is useful to quote the qualifications

prescribed          for    Assistant     Professor   and    Associate

Professor, which read as follows:

                 "ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

       i. Essential.

                        1. First Class Masters Degree in Business

                 Management/Administration/in       a    relevant

                 management related discipline or first class in

                 two year full time PGDM declared equivalent by

                 AIU/accredited by the AICTE/UGC.

                                               OR

                       2. First Class graduate and professionally

                 qualified Charted Accountant/Cost and Works

                 Accountant/Company        Secretary    of    the

                 concerned statutory bodies.

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                      -: 28 :-


       ii. Desirable:

                        1. Teaching, research, industrial and/or

                 professional     experience   in    a   reputed

                 organization;

                        2.   Papers  presented   at  conferences

                 and/or published in referred journals.

       2. Associate Professor:

                       i. Consistently good academic record with

                 at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a

                 poiont    scale  wherever   grading  system   is

                 followed)   in   Master's Degree   in   Business

                 Management/Administration/in      a     relevant

                 management related discipline or first class in

                 two years full time PGDM declared equivalent by

                 AIU/recognized by the AICTE/UGC;

                                              OR

                       First Class graduate and professionally

                 qualified Charted Accountant/Cost and works

                 Accountant/Company       Secretary    of     the

                 concerned statutory body.

                       ii. Ph.D or Fellow of Indian Institute of

                 Management or of an Institute recognized by

                 AICTE and declared equivalent by the AIU.

                       Iii. A minimum of eight years' experience

                 of   teaching/industry/research/professional  at

                 management level excluding the period spent

                 for obtaining the research degree.

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                      -: 29 :-


                                                OR

                      iv. In the event the candidate is from

                 industry and the profession, the following

                 requirements    shall  constitute   as  essential

                 requirements:

                             1.   Consistently    good   academic
                       record with at least 55% marks (or an
                       equivalent grade in a point scale wherever
                       grading system is followed) in Master's
                       Degree              in            Business
                       Management/Administration/in a relevant
                       management related discipline or first
                       class in two years full time PGDM declared
                       equivalent     by    AIU/recognized     by
                       AICTE/UGC.
                                                     OR
                             First    Class      graduate    and
                       professionally      qualified      Charted
                       Accountant/Cost           and       works
                       Accountant/Company Secretary of the
                       concerned statutory body.
                             2.   A   minimum     of  ten   years
                       experience            of          teaching
                       industry/research/profession, out of which
                       five years must be at the level of
                       Assistant    Professor     or   equivalent
                       excluding the period spent for obtaining
                       research degree. The candidate should
                       have professional work experience, which
                       is significant and can be recognized at
                       national/international level as equivalent
                       to  Ph.D    and   ten    years  managerial
                       experience in industry/profession of which
                       at least five years should be at the level
                       comparable to that of lecturer/assistant
                       professor.

                      v. Without prejudice to the above, the

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                     -: 30 :-


                 following   conditions   may     be   considered

                 desirable:

                             a)  Teaching,    research  industrial
                        and/or  professional   experience   in  a
                        reputed organization;
                             b) Published work, such as research
                        papers,  patents   filed/obtained, books
                        and/or technical reports; and
                             c) Experience of guiding the project
                        work/dissertation     of     PG/Research
                        students or supervising R&D projects in
                        industry."

       23. A perusal of the qualifications of Assistant

Professor indicate that Post Graduate Diploma in

Management equivalent by AIU/accredited by the

AICTE/UGC is the essential qualification. Similarly, the

qualification of Associate Professor also indicate that

Post      Graduate         Diploma     in   Management       declared

equivalent by AIU/recognised by AICTE/UGC as the

minimum qualification.

       24. The above regulations are statutory in nature

and the regulations having been provided, declaration of

equivalence by AIU regarding Post Graduate Diploma,

the declaration             by AIU      has    become        statutory

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                               -: 31 :-


requirement.

       25. From the above, it is clear that the statutory

regulations framed by UGC require declaration of

equivalence of Post Graduate Diploma as essential

qualification for the post of Assistant Professor/Associate

Professor. The above provision of the             statutory

regulation demolishes the argument of learned counsel

for the petitioner that AIU has no authority or jurisdiction

to grant equivalence of any degree or diploma.

       26. The UGC, which is conducting the NET

Examination, which is the minimum eligibility condition

for appointment of Assistant Professor and Associate

Professor, is fully empowered to lay down the eligibility

conditions          for admitting   candidates   for   NET

Examination.

       27. The        Apex Court   in  University Grants

Commission and another v. Neha Anil Bobde

(Gadekar) [(2013)10 SCC 519] has held that UGC being

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 32 :-


the expert body, is fully entitled to lay down any

"qualifying criteria". It is useful to refer to paragraphs

22, 23 and 31, which read as under:

                 "22. We have elaborately referred to various

       statutory provisions which would clearly indicate that

       the UGC as an expert body has been entrusted by

       UGC Act the general duty to take such steps as it may

       think fit for the determination and maintenance of

       standards of teaching, examination and research in

       Universities. It is also duty bound to perform such

       functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed

       necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause

       of higher education in India. The UGC has also got the

       power to define the qualification that should ordinarily

       be required for any person to be appointed to the

       teaching staff of the University and to regulate the

       maintenance of standards and coordination of work

       and faculties in the Universities.

                 23. This Court in University of Delhi v. Raj

       Singh, 1994 KHC 680 : 1994 Supp (3) SCC 516 :

       1995 SCC (L&S) 118 : 1994 (28) ATC 541 : AIR 1995

       SC 336 : 1994 (5) SLR 286 dealt with the powers of

       UGC elaborately and held as follows:

                 "20. The ambit of Entry 66 has already been the
                 subject of the decisions of this Court in the
                 cases of the Gujarat University v. Krishna
                 Ranganath Mudholkar 1963 Supp (1) SCR 112

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                     -: 33 :-


                 and    the    Osmania      University   Teachers'
                 Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1987
                 (4) SCC 671. The UGC Act is enacted under the
                 provisions of Entry 66 to carry out the objective
                 thereof. Its short title, in fact, reproduces the
                 words of Entry 66. The principal function of the
                 UGC is set out in the opening words of Section
                 12, thus:

                      "12. Functions of the Commission.- It
                      shall   be   the    general   duty  of  the
                      Commission to take ... all such steps as it
                      may think fit for the promotion and
                      coordination of University education and
                      for the determination and maintenance of
                      standards of teaching, examination and
                      research in Universities ...."

       It is very important to note that a duty is cast upon

       the Commission to take "all such steps as it may think

       fit ... for the determination and maintenance of

       standards of teaching". These are very wide-ranging

       powers. Such powers, in our view, would comprehend

       the power to require those who possess the

       educational qualifications required for holding the post

       of lecturer in Universities and colleges to appear for a

       written test, the passing of which would establish that

       they possess the minimal proficiency for holding such

       post. The need for such test is demonstrated by the

       reports of the commissions and committees of

       educationists referred to above which take note of the

       disparities in the standards of education in the various

       Universities in the country. It is patent that the holder

       of a postgraduate degree from one University is not

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                  -: 34 :-


       necessarily of the same standard as the holder of the

       same postgraduate degree from another University.

       That is the rationale of the test prescribed by the said

       Regulations. It falls squarely within the scope of Entry

       66 and the UGC Act inasmuch as it is intended to co-

       ordinate standards and the UGC is armed with the

       power to take all such steps as it may think fit in this

       behalf. For performing its general duty and its other

       functions under the UGC Act, the UGC is invested with

       the powers specified in the various clauses of Section

       12. These include the power to recommend to a

       University        the measures    necessary   for   the

       improvement of University education and to advise in

       respect of the action to be taken for the purpose of

       implementing such recommendation [clause (d)]. The

       UGC is also invested with the power to perform such

       other functions as may be prescribed or as may be

       deemed necessary by it for advancing the cause of

       higher education in India or as may be incidental or

       conducive to the discharge of such functions [clause

       (j)]............"

                            xx       xx          xx

                   31. We are of the view that, in academic

       matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory

       provisions, the Regulations or the Notification issued,

       the Courts shall keep their hands off since those

       issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 35 :-


       in University of Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao, 1965

       KHC 518 : AIR 1965 SC 491 : 1964 (4) SCR 575 : ILR

       1963 Mys 949, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim

       University 2001 KHC 1180 : 2001 (8) SCC 546 : AIR

       2001 SC 3058 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1 and Rajbir Singh

       Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, 2008 KHC

       4950 : 2008 (9) SCC 284 : 2008 (11) SCALE 211 :

       2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 887 : AIR 2009 SC Supp 768, has

       taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit in

       appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic

       bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts

       to leave the decision of academic experts who are

       more familiar with the problem they face, than the

       Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been

       entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think

       fit     for  the determination   and  maintenance    of

       standards of teaching, examination and research in

       the University. For attaining the said standards, it is

       open to the UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria",

       which has a rational nexus to the object to be

       achieved, that is for maintenance of standards of

       teaching, examination and research. Candidates

       declared eligible for lectureship may be considered for

       appointment as Assistant Professors in Universities

       and colleges     and the standard of such a teaching

       faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of

       standards of education to be imparted to the students

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 36 :-


       of the universities and colleges. UGC has only

       implemented the opinion of the Experts by laying

       down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be

       considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or

       violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

       28. Now        we come         to  clause      3(vi)  of the

notification, which requires candidates in their own

interest to ascertain the equivalence of their courses

with Master's Degree of recognized Indian Universities

from Association of Indian Universities (AIU), New Delhi.

The equivalence by AIU being a statutory requirement

as per regulation 4.4.5 as quoted above, the above

clause has to be read along with the said statutory

requirement of equivalence by AIU. It is clear that

equivalence of Post Graduate Diploma by AIU is

mandatory and clause 3(vi) clearly required the

candidates to ascertain their equivalence for the

purpose of eligibility. The submission of learned counsel

for the petitioner that the said clause is not mandatory

and it is not necessary for the candidates to ascertain or

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 37 :-


require equivalence of the degree from AIU, cannot be

accepted.

       29. Now the submission, which has been further

pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that

AICTE is fully entitled to declare equivalence of Post

Graduate Diploma with Master's Degree, which is

spelled out from the provisions of Section 10 of the All

India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 10(1)

(g) & (i), which reads as under:

                 "10. Functions of the Council.- (1) It shall be

        the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may

        think fit for ensuring co-ordinated and integrated

        development of technical education and maintenance

        of standards and for the pruposes of performing its

        functions under this Act, the Council may,-

                           xx          xx         xx

                 (g)  evolve  suitable   performance    apraisal

        systems for technical institutions and Universities

        imparting technical education, incorporating norms

        and mechanisms for enforcing accountability;

                           xx          xx         xx

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                      -: 38 :-


                 (i) lay down norms and standards for courses,

        curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff

        pattern,      staff qualifications,  quality instructions,

        assessment and examinations;"

       30. As noted above, in the statement filed by the

third respondent in the Writ Petition although it is stated

that the AICTE, through its Standing Committee of

equivalence of various degree/diploma programmes are

empowered              to   take     appropriate      decisions    on

equivalence of Degree/Diploma, in paragraph 4 it has

again pleaded that the said equivalence awarded by the

Standing Committee need not be equated as a

qualification for the purpose of participating in the NET

Examination.

       31. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid

much emphasis on Exhibits P6, P7 and P8. Exhibit P6 is

the letter dated 3.5.1995 issued by the AICTE to the

Principal, Loyola Institute of Business Administration

that the programme of Post Graduate Diploma in

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                 -: 39 :-


Business Administration has been approved for the year

1995-1996. Exhibit P7 is a letter dated 13.06.1996

issued by the AICTE to the Director of Loyola Institute of

Business Administration informing that "the Council has

provisionally agreed to extend the period of approval of

above            programme     for   1996-98      subject    to

compliance/fulfillment         of   general    conditions    at

Annexure-I". Much emphasis has been given on Exhibit

P8, which is a letter dated 02.01.2008 written by the

Adviser-1 of AICTE to the Director of Loyola Institute of

Business Administration. It is useful to quote the above

letter, which is to the following effect:

                 "This is    with   reference    to    your

        request/application/proposal on the subject cited

        above. The same has been examined by the Standing

        Committee for Equivalence of AICTE as per its

        guidelines/norms and the Committee is of the opinion

        that PGDBA programme offered by Loyala Institute of

        Business Administration, Chennai is equivalent to

        MBA, provided the course has been approved by the

        AICTE during the period for which the equivalence is

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                      -: 40 :-


        sought"

       32. The petitioner has also produced Exhibit P10,

which is a letter dated 27.11.2001 issued by the AIU to

the       Director       of     Loyola     Institute  of    Business

Administration informing that the two years full time

Post Graduate Diploma in Business Administration of

Loyola Institute has been recognised by the AIU as

equivalent to MBA degree. It is useful to refer to the said

letter, which is to the following effect:

                 "Kindly refer to the correspondence resting with

        your letter dated 29th August 2000 regarding grant of

        Equivalence to Two Years Full time Postgraduate

        Diploma in Business Administration of your Institute

        as equivalent to MBA degree.

                 We are glad to inform you that Two Years Full

        time Postgraduate Diploma in Business Administration

        of     Loyola   Institute  of   Business  Administration,

        Chennai has been recognized by the Association of

        India Universities as equivalent to MBA degree of

        Indian Universities.

                 The recognition, as per AIU decision, has been

        accorded for a period of five y[ears or till such time

        the approval AICTE remains valid, whichever is

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 41 :-


        earlier."

       33. Again by Exhibit P11, the AIU wrote to the

Director, Loyola Institute that the equivalence has

further been granted for a period of five years from

November, 2009 to June, 2014, which is quoted as

below:

                 "This has reference to our communication of

        even number dated 18th January, 2010 for grant of

        equivalence to your Two-year Full-time Postgraduate

        Diploma in Management with MBA Degree.

                 On the basis of the recommendations made by

        the Visiting Committee the appropriate authorities of

        AIU have approved the equivalence already accorded

        to     two-year   full-time Postgraduate   Diploma    in

        Managaement of your Institute as equivalent to

        Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree of an

        Indian University, for a gap period of three years from

        27th November, 2006 to 26th November, 2009, and

        further for a period of five years from November,

        2009 till June 2014, or till such time the approval of

        the AICTE remains valid, whichever is earlier, as per

        the recommendations of the Visiting Team".

       34. The above correspondence between Loyola

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                               -: 42 :-


Institute and the AIU clearly indicates that the Institute

being well aware that equivalence of Post Graduate

Diploma has to be obtained from AIU has been

corresponding with AIU and ultimately the AIU has

issued         letters dated 27.11.2001    and  09.04.2010

informing equivalence of Post Graduate Diploma with

MBA        degree.    The   above   clearly indicates  that

equivalence is sought by the Institute from where the

petitioner has passed his diploma and has been granted,

but as apparent from the aforesaid letter and Exhibit

P12       filed     by the petitioner, the  recognition  of

equivalence of Post Graduate Diploma from Loyola

Institute is only for the period from 2001 to June, 2014.

The petitioner has passed his Post Graduate Diploma

during the period 1996-1998, during which period

neither any equivalence was granted by the AIU nor

there is any material brought on record to treat it

equivalent. Exhibit P8 letter, on which the petitioner's

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                               -: 43 :-


counsel has placed much reliance, where the AICTE has

informed the petitioner that the Post Graduate Diploma

programme offered by the Loyola Institute is equivalent

to MBA, provided the course has been approved by the

AICTE during the period for which the equivalence is

sought. There is no material on record to indicate that at

any point of time any equivalence for the period 1996-

1998 was even sought. More so, the said letter was

issued on 02.01.2008, during which period the institute

was already corresponding with the AIU for seeking

equivalence,         which equivalence  was subsequently

granted also on 09.04.2010 for a period from 27th

November, 2006 to 26th November, 2009 and for a

further period of five years. Thus, the letter dated

02.01.2008 cannot be read as a letter granting any

equivalence to the diploma course of the petitioner by

AICTE during the period when he passed the Post

Graduate Diploma.

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                       -: 44 :-


       35. More so, the AICTE is one of the appellants in

this appeal, which has also filed an affidavit in

I.A.No.7151 of 2015 where it has been clearly stated

that the AICTE accepts the opinion of the AIU for

equivalence. Following was stated in paragraphs 4 and 5

of the affidavit:

                       "4. However, there was an issue that the

                 AICTE, through its Standing Committee of

                 Equivalence      of     various    degree/diploma

                 programmes      had    taken   its  decision   that

                 PGDBM/PGDBA/PGDM are equivalent to Master

                 of Business Administration, provided entry level

                 qualification    eligibility,  course     duration,

                 recommended        course     duration,   syllabus,

                 recommended duration Course structure and

                 credits as per AICTE norms. However, this was

                 in the year 2005 during the period Association of

                 India Universities had found the equivalence

                 during 2000 to 2014. The letter given by the

                 AICTE is also in the year 2005. In educational

                 matters the AICTE also accepts the opinion of

                 Association of India Universities for equivalence.

                       5. It is respectfully submitted that it is up

                 to the concerned authority i.e. UGC in this case

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 45 :-


                 to decide whether the qualification obtained by

                 the petitioner is suitable for lectureship/NET

                 conducted by it. AICTE have no role in this

                 regard."

       36. The AICTE having itself come with the case

that it accepts the opinion of AIU for equivalence and

there being no material on record to come to the

conclusion that even AICTE has granted any equivalence

of the Post Graduate Diploma course during the period

1996-1998 as equivalent to MBA, we see no necessity to

consider the issue any further for the purpose of this

case.

       37. We now proceed to examine the judgments

relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in support

of his case. The petitioner has relied on Jaya Gokul

Educational Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to

Government Higher Education Department [(2000)

5 SCC 231]. In the above case the AICTE has granted

conditional approval to the appellant-Trust which

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 46 :-


wanted to establish a self-financing Engineering College.

However, the State Government refused permission. The

Trust filed a Writ Petition challenging the decision. The

Writ Petition was allowed and the Government was

directed to reconsider its decision. On appeal filed by

the State, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside

the order of the learned Single Judge giving liberty to

the appellant to make a fresh application. Against the

judgment of the Division Bench, the Trust filed SLP

before the Supreme Court. In the above context, the

following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph

23 of the judgment, which reads as under:

                 "23. Thus we hold, in the present case that

        there was no statutory requirement for obtaining the

        approval of the State Government and even if there

        was one, it would have been repugnant to the AICTE

        Act. The University Statute 9(7) merely required that

        the "views" of the State Government be obtained

        before granting affiliation and this did not amount to

        obtaining "approval". If the University statute

        required "approval", it would have been repugnant to

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 47 :-


        the AICTE Act. Point I is decided accordingly."

In the said case the question was regarding approval for

running the institution. The Court held that there was no

statutory requirement of obtaining approval of the State

Government when the AICTE has already granted

approval.           In the said    case    no    issue  regarding

equivalence was involved. The said case, thus, does not

help the petitioner in the present case.

       38. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied

on Surya Narain Yadav and others v. Bihar State

Electricity Board and others [(1985)3 SCC 38] as well

as State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. and another

[(2004)6 SCC 465] for the proposition that the

Government is not exempted from liability to carry out

the representation made by it as to its future conduct. In

both the above cases the Apex Court has elaborated the

doctrine of promissory estoppel. Both the above cases

have no application in the present case, since there was

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 48 :-


no promise made by the UGC, who had issued

advertisement inviting applications for holding NET

Examination, 2012.

       39. A judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported

in      Prathamkumar             v.     Indian    Institute   of

Management (CDJ 2005 GHC 189) has been relied on

by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said case

the petitioners had appeared in the Common Entrance

Test for the purpose of Post Graduate Diploma and

Fellow Programmes in IIMs for the academic year 2005.

Although they secured more than 98% marks in the CAT,

they were denied admission on the ground that the

University from where they have                   studied is not

recognised by AIU. The facts of the case have been

mentioned in paragraph 4, which is quoted as below:

                 "(4) All the petitioners have studied in the

       respondent No.4 University i.e. Dhirubhai Ambani

       Institute      of   Information   and  Communication

       Technology in B.Tech programme and are in the

       process of completing prescribed four years B.Tech

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 49 :-


       from the said University. The respondent No.4

       University is declared as deemed university and is

       established by the Act No.6 of 2003 of the

       Government        of  Gujarat  which   is   located   at

       Gandhinagar. It is the case of the petitioners that as

       per the university Grants Commission Act, 1956 which

       is an Act of Parliament of India, the University whether

       established by an Act of Parliament or by Act of the

       Stage Government, stands at par with any other

       university and is competent to precube course, hold

       examination       and   confer   degrees    and    other

       qualification. It is the case of the petitioners that as

       the petitioners wanted to get admission for the course

       of post Graduate Diploma and Fellow programmes in

       IIMs for 2005 which are full time residential courses

       open to students from all disciplines and therefore

       they had appeared in the common admission test -

       2004 (hereinafter referred 10 as the "cat") for the

       admission to the academic year 2005-07. It is

       required to be noted that Indian Institute of

       Management ("iim, Ahmedabad" for brevity) held CAT

       for admission to the aforesaid Fellow programmes

       which are open to the students from all disciplines

       and there are six IIMs in India including IIM,

       Ahmedabad and so far as this year is concerned, IIM,

       Ahmedabad has organized admission for students of

       Post        Graduate  and    Fellow   programmes      in

       management holding CAT and it is the case of the

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 50 :-


       petitioners that mainly on the basis of performance at

       the cat by candidates, admissions are processed. It is

       the case of the petitioners that the petitioner of

       special Civil application No.5062 of 2005 has secured

       98.88% of marks in the CAT, the petitioner of Special

       Civil Application no.5063 of 2005 has secured 99.03%

       marks in the CAT and the petitioner of special Civil

       Application No.5064 of 2005 has secured 99.86% of

       marks in the CAT and in spite of that, the petitioners

       are not considered to be eligible for participating in 2

       further admission process and therefore, they have

       approached this Court by way of present special civil

       applications."

In the above context, the following was laid down in

paragraph 26 of the judgment, which reads as under:

                 "(26) NOW, it is required to consider whether

       stipulation while determining the eligibility criteria for

       allowing a candidate for getting admission in IIM to

       the effect that Bachelor's degree obtained by a

       candidate is recognised by AID and in that case only

       the candidate would be considered to be eligible for

       admission in iiim, is reasonable and/or has nexus with

       the admission process, is just and valid or not'. As

       stated hereinabove and considering the admission

       process for getting admission in PGP in IIM,

       everything depends upon the performance of a

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                  -: 51 :-


       candidate in CAT examination, group discussion and

       personal interview. Therefore, whether a student

       studied in a particular institute and/or university, as

       such, does have that much importance so far as

       admission is concerned. Thus, degree recognised by

       AIU and/or institute/University recognised by aiu has

       no nexus with admission of a candidate to PGP course

       in IIM. As stated hereinabove and even admitted by

       AIU, aiu has no authority to accord recognition to any

       particular institute and/or university in the field of

       academic education. Thus, considering the aforesaid

       facts and admission process, such a stipulation to the

       effect that a candidate from where he has studied and

       the degree obtained by him, must have recognition by

       aiu is unreasonable, arbitrary as it has no nexus with

       admission process and actual admission in the IIM and

       thus, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.

       It is required to be noted that such a stipulation would

       lead to ignoring the recognition accorded by the

       statutory authorities like UGC, Central Government

       and the state Government and ignoring the institute/s

       which are having recognition in accordance with law,

       rules and regulations. The JIM cannot ignore the fact

       that such institute and/or Universities are recognised

       by the universities Grants Commission and the Central

       government and/or State Government and by the

       Statutory authorities, more particularly, the AIU is not

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                -: 52 :-


       having authority to accord any recognition to Indian

       University. When AIU has no jurisdiction and/or

       authority     to accord any    recognition  to  Indian

       University and even as admitted by the AIU that it

       does not have any authority to accord any recognition

       to Indian University, such a stipulation to have

       recognition from AIU itself is, as such, nonexistence.

       Under the circumstances, the stipulation of recognition

       in the admission procedure of obtaining recognition of

       the degree by association of Indian University for the

       purpose of admission in PGP at IIM is required to be

       quashed and set aside."

The learned Single Judge held that requirement of

recognition of degree by AIU was not necessary. The

AIU is not an authority or body which recognises

degrees. In the Gujarat case there was no issue of

equivalence of the Post Graduate Diploma, rather

admissions were being denied on the ground that their

degree is not recognised by the AIU. In that context, the

Gujarat High Court held that there is no requirement of

recognition of degree by AIU. The said case was on its

own facts and does not help the petitioner.

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 53 :-


       40. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

relied on Asok Chacko Thomas v. Mahatma Gandhi

Univbersity (2009(4) KLT 607). The petitioner in that

case was a student of the National University of

Advance Legal Studies and thereafter joined three years

LLM course. The petitioner was asked to produce the

eligibility         certificate from   the  University, which

certificate was not issued by the Mahatma Gandhi

University. The Mahatma Gandhi University in a

statement to the Court stated that the name of the

National University of Advanced Legal Studies is not

seen listed in the hand book published by the AIU.

Therefore, the University has sought clarification from

the AIU. It was further stated that the Association of

Indian Universities is a voluntary organization and that

the fourth respondent is not a member of the

Association. In the above context, the learned Single

Judge has observed that the fourth respondent cannot

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 54 :-


be      compelled        to    obtain    membership        from   the

association, nor the Mahatma Gandhi University can

make recognition of courses, conditional on such

membership. The following was observed in paragraph 7

of the judgment:

                 "7.The 4th respondent is a University established

       under the National University and Advance Legal

       Studies Act, 2005 (Act 27 of 2005), a State Act, and

       this fact has been recognized by the UGC in paragraph

       10 of its counter affidavit. The 1st respondent also has

       no case to the contrary. In the said counter affidavit,

       UGC has further accepted that the 4th respondent is

       entitled to confer degrees as well. It is also evident

       from its counter affidavit that, UGC is not maintaining

       any list of Universities, recognized by it. Counter

       affidavit of the 4th respondent also shows that it is a

       University and that it is not a member of the

       Association of Indian Universities, which is only a

       voluntary organization. In such a situation, the

       resolution of the Academic Council granting automatic

       recognition to courses / degrees will not come to the

       rescue of students of the respondent University like

       the petitioner since the 4th respondent is not included

       in the list maintained by the Association of Indian

       Universities and as UGC is not maintaining any list.

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 55 :-


       However, that does not mean that the future of the

       students can be at peril and the 1st respondent cannot

       be a silent spectator. Since the counter affidavit of the

       UGC accepts the fact that the 4th respondent is a

       University as defined in S.2(f) entitled to confer

       degree as provided in S.22 of the UGC Act and in the

       absence of any list maintained by the UGC, I do not

       think that there is any rationale in the first respondent

       University insisting on recognizing only the regular

       course / degree of the Universities included in the list

       maintained by the UGC. The Association of Indian

       Universities, being only a voluntary organization, none

       can compel the 4th respondent to obtain membership

       in the Association nor can the 1st respondent make

       recognition     of   courses,   conditional     on    such

       membership, I am of the view, in the light of the stand

       taken by the UGC, fairness requires that the first

       respondent      University    should    issue    Eligibility

       Certificate to the students of the 4th respondent

       University who have attended regular courses /

       degrees. In view of the above, if a request for

       Eligibility Certificate is received, what the first

       respondent need examine is whether the student

       concerned has attended regular courses / degree in

       the 4th respondent University. On such verification, if

       it is satisfied that the student satisfies this condition,

       the 1st respondent shall issue an Eligibility Certificate

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                           -: 56 :-


       as sought for. "

The above case also does not help the petitioner in the

present case. There was no issue of equivalence of

degree or diploma in the said case, rather, the eligibility

certificate was not given by the University on the ground

that NUALS is not a member of the Association.

       41. Another judgment relied on by learned

counsel for the petitioner is M.G. University and

another v. Manager, St.Alberts College and others

(2012(4) KHC 485). The Apex Court in the said case has

held that once approval for MBA was granted by the

AICTE, the M.G. University cannot withhold recognition.

The said case also has no application in the present

case.

       42. Another judgment relied on by learned

counsel for the petitioner is Ashok Kumar Mishra v.

State of Orissa and others (2012 KHC 2854). In the

above case the Writ Petition was filed by the candidates

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                     -: 57 :-


challenging clause 4.2 of the Brochure, which prescribed

upper age limit of 25 years for the Entrance

Examination, 2011 for MBBS Course. The Division Bench

of the Orissa High Court in the above case held that the

Rules and Regulations have been framed under the

statute regarding the eligibility for admission in MBBS

Course and in the absence of regulation framed by the

Medical Council of India fixing of such upper age limit in

the proceedings is not authorised by law. The Division

Bench in the above context the observed in paragraph

15 of the judgment:

                  "In view of the aforesaid statement of law laid

        down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

        Sukhdev       Singh    Vrs.  Bhagatram    Sardar   Singh

        Raghuvanshi which decision has been referred to in

        the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v.

        Mangal Singh at paragraph - 18 of the judgment

        wherein paragraph - 33 from Sukhdev Singh Vrs.

        Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi is extracted, is

        rightly placed reliance by the learned counsel for the

        appellant in support of the proposition of law that the

        statutory     authorities   cannot   deviate  from   the

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 58 :-


        conditions of service. Any deviation will be enforced

        by legal sanction of declaration by courts to invalidate

        actions in violation of rules and Regulations. The

        Rules and Regulations framed under statute are

        framed regarding the eligibility for admission in the

        MBBS course and such terms and conditions in order

        to maintain good standards in the professional

        Medical course for its implementation. In the absence

        of the Regulation framed by the Medical Council of

        India with prior approval of the Central Government

        fixing the upper age limit of a student for admission to

        the MBBS course in a college, fixing such upper age

        limit in the prospectus by OJEE who is not authorised

        in law and the same is in violation of the provisions of

        the MCI Regulations. Therefore, the same will not be

        binding      upon the   State   Government     and   its

        authorities, who will be conducting the Entrance test

        examination for the eligible candidates to get seats

        allowed in their favour for the course. Therefore,

        insertion of clause 4.2 in the Prospectus by the OJEE is

        without any authority of law and the same is liable to

        be quashed. The said clause is also in violation of the

        fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under

        Art.14, Art.19(1)(g), Art.21 and Art.21A of the

        Constitution of India. Hence the Clause 4.2 is liable to

        be struck down as the same is contrary to the MCI Act

        and Regulations. "

The above case has also no application in the facts of

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                           -: 59 :-


the present case.

       43. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also

placed reliance on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in

Stuti Saxena v. University Grants Commission and

others in W.P(C).6923 of 2009 decided on 15.03.2011.

The petitioner had passed Post Graduate Diploma in

Business Administration from Jaipuria Institute of

Management, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter she

appeared in NET Examination conducted by the UGC. On

a reference made by the UGC, the AIU did not find the

Post Graduate Diploma equivalent to Post Graduation

Degree. The petitioner accordingly got disqualified.

Aggrieved by the said decision, the Writ Petition was

filed. In the above case the petitioner contended that

the Post Graduate Diploma has been recognised by the

AICTE as equivalent to MBA, whereas the AICTE in the

counter affidavit had denied that the said course was

recognised by it as equivalent to MBA. The following was

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                     -: 60 :-


observed in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the judgment:

                  "10. The counsel for the UGC and AICTE has

         otherwise contended that the Association of Indian

         Universities though a Society but being controlled by

         the Government is fully equipped to go into the

         question of equivalence; that without the respondent

         No.5-Jaipuria Institute of Management evidencing any

         interest even to have its PGDBM course recognized as

         equivalent to Post-Graduation or MBA, no enquiry in

         that regard can be conducted. It is further informed

         that the said enquiry entails detailed investigation

         into the course content and for which the assistance

         of the Institute is necessary.

                       xx          xx        xx

                  12. The petitioner cannot be permitted to fight

         a proxy battle for Jaipuria Institute of Management.

         In a petition filed by the petitioner, this Court cannot

         direct the UGC or Association of Indian Universities

         to, without participation of the respondent No.5-

         Jaipuria     Institute  of  Management     enquire  into

         equivalence of the said course of the respondent

         No.5-Jaipuria Institute of Management."

The above Writ Petition was dismissed by the Delhi High

Court. No such proposition was laid down in the above

case, which may help the petitioner in the facts of the

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                    -: 61 :-


present case.

       44. The communication, which was issued to the

petitioner dated 26.07.2013/02.08.2013 declaring the

petitioner disqualified in the UGC-NET on 24.06.2012

reads as under:

                 "You were declared provisionally qualified in the

        UGC-NET held on 24th June, 2012 for award of JRF

        and eligibility for Lectureship subject to fulfillment of

        eligibility conditions prescribed for NET. On scrutiny of

        your documents, it is found that you have obtained

        PG Diploma in Business Administration awarded by

        Loyola Institute of Business Administration, Chennai

        during the period year 1996-1998.

                 You are hereby informed that the Association of

        Indian      Universities  (AIU)    has   not     accorded

        equivalence to the above mentioned course pursued

        by you with Master's Degree of recognized Indian

        Universities for the period of your course.

                 Therefore, UGC regrets to declare you as

        disqualified in the UGC-NET held on 24.06.2012."

       45. From the discussions as above, the following

conclusions are arrived at:

        I. The Association of Indian Universities is a

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                   -: 62 :-


                  body, which is entitled to declare

                  equivalence    for  appearing   in  NET

                  Examination, which is contemplated in

                  the notification issued by the University

                  Grants Commission.

        II.       The authority to grant equivalence by

                  the Association of Indian Universities is

                  statutory    recognised    by       UGC

                  Regulations on Minimum Qualifications

                  for Appointment of Teachers and Other

                  Academic Staff in Universities and

                  Colleges    and    Measures    for   the

                  Maintenance of Standards in Higher

                  Education, 2010.

        III.        The All India Council for Technical

                  Education has never declared the Post

                  Graduate Diploma course obtained by

                  the petitioner in the year 1996-98 as

                  equivalent to MBA.

        IV.         The All India Council for Technical

                  Education having come up with the case

                  that it accepts the opinion of the

                  Association    of   Indian   Universities

                  regarding diploma and degree it is not

                  necessary for us to examine the

                  entitlement    of    AICTE   to    grant

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                                  -: 63 :-


                  equivalence of Post Graduate Diploma

                  any further.

        V.          The communication issued by the

                  University Grants Commission to the

                  petitioner, Exhibit P13 as stated above,

                  was in accordance with law and the

                  petitioner has rightly been declared

                  disqualified  to   undertake   the  NET

                  Examination, 2012, his Post Graduate

                  Diploma (1996-98) have never been

                  held to be equivalent to MBA Degree.

                  The   learned   Single   Judge   in  its

                  judgment has observed that since the

                  Post Graduate Diploma granted to the

                  petitioner is recognised by the AICTE, it

                  will be deemed to be recognised by the

                  UGC cannot be approved.             The

                  observation of the learned Single Judge

                  that when a course is approved by the

                  AICTE, the question of equivalence from

                  University does not arise in so far as

                  determination of equivalence of that

                  course    is   concerned    cannot   be

                  approved.

       46. In view of the observations made above and

W.A. No. 847 of 2015
                             -: 64 :-


the above conclusions, the judgment of the learned

Single Judge cannot be sustained and deserves to be

set aside.

       In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2015

is set aside. The Writ Petition is dismissed.




                                 ASHOK BHUSHAN,
                                  CHIEF JUSTICE.


                                  A.M.SHAFFIQUE,
                                      JUDGE.

vsv/vgs