Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme 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.

Latest Legal News