2007 (5) TMI 645 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of starting distance education programs without the first ordinance.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the University for operating study centers.
3. Compliance with University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations.

Summary:

1. Legality of starting distance education programs without the first ordinance:
The University initiated distance education programs without the first ordinance being notified by the State Government, as required u/s 52(2) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. The Chancellor disapproved the proposal for starting new courses in distance education, citing the irregularity and irresponsibility of the University's actions. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the initiation of the distance education program was illegal in the absence of the first ordinance.

2. Territorial jurisdiction of the University for operating study centers:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the University must operate within its territorial jurisdiction as defined u/s 5 of the Act. The University's jurisdiction is limited to seven districts in Uttar Pradesh, and Nainital is not one of them. The Court held that study centers cannot be legally permitted to operate beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the University, as it would require close supervision and the provision of amenities akin to a full-fledged institution.

3. Compliance with University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations:
The appellants argued that the UGC Regulations 1985 allowed for the establishment of study centers. However, the Court clarified that the UGC Regulations, being subordinate legislation, must be read with the principal Act. The Court stated that a statutory authority must act within the four-corners of the statute, and the territorial jurisdiction of the University must be maintained to avoid chaos. The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the study centers in Nainital were beyond the University's territorial jurisdiction and no writ of mandamus could be issued.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court held that the University's actions in starting distance education programs without the first ordinance and operating study centers beyond its territorial jurisdiction were illegal. The Court emphasized the need for compliance with statutory provisions and territorial limits.