KURMANCHAL INSTITUTE OF DEGREE & DIPLOMA AND ORS. versus CHANCELLOR, M.J.P. ROHILKHAND UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 17-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KURMANCHAL INSTITUTE OF DEGREE & DIPLOMA AND ORS. 
A 
"\ 
~ 
v. 
CHANCELLOR, M.J.P. ROHILKHAND UNIVERSITY AND ORS. 
MAY 17, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
,J 
Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973; Ss. 5, 42, 51 and 52: 
A University started Degree and Diploma Courses under distance c 
education programme at an Institute/Study centre in a district beyond its 
territorial jurisdiction-Legality of-Held: In terms of provision uls. 5 of the 
.I 
Act, territorial jurisdiction of the University is confined only to seven districts, 
Nainital district is not amongst them-Hence, it is beyond the territorial 
jurisdiction of the University-Since Nainital district is not situate in the 
State of UP., provisions of the Act not applicable. 
D 
Appellant no. 1, Kurmanchal Institute of Degree and Diploma, is a study 
centre at Nainital, Uttranchal. It is recognized by Mahatma Jyotiba Phule 
Rohilkhand University and constituted in the year 1975 by issuance of a 
Notification under Section 4(1-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Jtate Universities Act, 
1973. Academic Council of the University granted permission to start E 
'distance education'. The State Government granted approval to run the 
diploma and certificate courses of the University through distance education 
mode. Since the degree course was not included in the letter issued by the 
State Government the Registrar of the University requested the State 
Government to grant permission for starting distance programme under F 
I 
distance education mode. The Chancellor disapproved the proposal for starting 
i 
a new course in distance education. A writ petition was filed questioning the 
'-
legality of the said order by the appellants. A Division Bench of the Allahabad 
High Court dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, the present appeals. 
Appellants-Institute and others contended that as they were not parties G 
in the earlier writ proceedings, the decision rendered therein was not binding 
on them; that since they were not parties in the proceedings, they could not 
have shown that all the necessary steps for making an ordinance had been 
.. • 
taken; and that having granted permission to start the courses pursuant 
_J 
191 
H 
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A whereto and in furtherance whereof students having been admitted, it will 
!: 
cause a great hardship to the students if they are forced to stop their studies. 
~ 
~ 
Respondent submitted that such study centres cannot be legally 
permitted to be opened beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the University; 
I -
B 
and that as use of such study centres has financial aspects, a previous approval 
..
of the State was also required to be taken in terms of Section 52(3)(c) of the 
Act; that in any event this Court should take a holistic view of the matter as 
only 150 students have opted for distance education course in terms of the 
order passed by the Chancellor and they are in the first semester only; that 
... 
there exists a distinction between a diploma course, on the one hand, and a 
c degree course on the other and that; although no objection certificate (NOq 
has been granted to certificate course, no such permission had been granted 
!--
for degree courses. 
i 
; 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
ffr 
D 
HELD: 1.1. Although for all intent and purport the requirements of law 
for making an ordinance by the Executive Council of the University had been 
done pursuant whereto new courses could be opened, however, the contention 
'-
that such study centers should be permitted to be operated beyond tlie 
territorial jurisdiction of the University cannot be accepted. Section 5 of the 
Uttar Pradesh University Act clearly states in regard to the territorial 
E jurisdiction of the University. In terms of the Schedule appended to the Act, 
the territorial jurisdiction of the University is confined only to seven districts, 
Nainital not being one of them. [Para 17) [198-G, H; 199-A) 
~--
I 
1.2. It is one thing to say that the University takes recourse to the 
F 
correspondence courses for conferring degrees or diploma but it would be 
another thing to say that study centres would be permitted to operate which 
\ 
requires close supervision of the University. In a study centre, teachers are 
appointed, practical classes are held and all other amenities which are required 
to be provided for running a full-fledged institution or college are provided. 
Such an establishment, although named as a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.