Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana 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.

Latest Legal News