Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

Equal Treatment is a Constitutional Right: Delhi High Court Mandates Extension of Re-Admission for IGNOU Engineering Students

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court rules in favor of engineering students, directing IGNOU to extend re-admission benefits previously granted to diploma students.

The Delhi High Court, July 2024, delivered a significant judgment in favor of students pursuing B. Tech programs under the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) – Vertically Integrated Engineering Programme (VIEP). The court directed IGNOU to extend the re-admission benefit, previously granted to diploma students, to B. Tech students as well. This decision comes as a relief to many students who had been struggling to complete their engineering degrees due to administrative barriers.

The petitioners, various pharmacy colleges and students enrolled in the B. Tech programs under the IGNOU-VIEP scheme during 2009-2011, sought the same re-admission extension that was granted to diploma students. IGNOU had initially provided re-admission benefits to diploma students to clear their backlog papers but had denied the same to degree students, prompting the legal challenge.

In examining the procedures and compliance issues, the court highlighted the disparity in the treatment of diploma and degree students. "There is no justification to deny, to the petitioners, the facilities of two years ERP, as was extended to diploma students," noted Justice C. Hari Shankar.

The court observed that IGNOU's argument, which contended that the decision of re-admission only applied to Open and Distance Learning (ODL) courses, lacked merit. "The decision taken by the Academic Council (AC) of IGNOU in its 72nd meeting, therefore, overrules the decision of the School of Engineering and Technology (SOET) in its noting dated 30 January 2019," the judgment stated.

The court extensively discussed the principles of fairness and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the differential treatment between diploma and degree students had no rational basis. "No intelligible differentia can be said to exist between students who had undertaken diploma, and those who had undertaken engineering courses under the IGNOU-VIEP," Justice Shankar observed.

Justice Shankar remarked, "The decision in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation, if anything, approves conducting of engineering courses by face-to-face mode rather than by ODL mode," thereby supporting the legitimacy of the petitioners' programs.

The judgment signifies the judiciary's role in ensuring equitable treatment in educational policies. By mandating IGNOU to extend re-admission benefits to B. Tech students, the court reinforces the principle that administrative decisions must adhere to constitutional standards of fairness and equality. This landmark decision is expected to influence future policies on educational re-admissions, ensuring that all students, regardless of their course level, receive fair treatment.

 

Date of Decision: July 01, 2024

Pandya Kushalbhai Ghanshyambhai & Ors. vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University & Ors.

Similar News