State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge

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.

Latest Legal News