WP (Civil) No.

6350/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION NO. 6350 OF 2012
In the matter of:International Institute of Information Technology and Anr.

Petitioners

Versus
Indira Gandhi National Open University

Respondent

A Writ Petition in public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India highlighting the
completely illegal, arbitrary and capricious action of the Respondent in withholding and refusing to issue
consolidated mark sheets and degree certificates to 287 of the Petitioner No. 1 despite having representing
the same in the 3rd Joint Coordination Committee (JCC) meeting and other meetings and correspondence
thereafter and accepting academic fee sharing payments in that behalf; and the completely illegal and
arbitrary decisions of the Respondent in rejecting the migration of the 2009 batches of students to the
Respondents programme, communicated vide letter dated 6 th September, 2012.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. That the Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition in the interest of its students only and that there
is no motive other than of public interest in filing the Writ Petition
2. That the Petitioners have based the Writ Petition from authentic information and documents made
available to us by the Respondent from time to time and also through publically available
documents, either obtained through RTI or from the official website of the Respondent
3. That the action of the Respondent is barred by the principles of promissory estoppel and
legitimate expectation
4. That the Petitioners had made several representations to the Respondent as explained in the Writ
Petition. Neither any timely action has been taken nor has any meaningful response in a timely
manner has been given by the various authorities / officials of the Respondent
5. That the Respondent did not follow the principles of natural justice which require issue of a show
cause notice followed by an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners before issuing the impugned
letter dated 6th September, 2012

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

1

WP (Civil) No. 6350/2012

a) The Respondent did not have any of the niche and highly specialized Programmes being offered
by the Petitioner No. 1 prior to our collaboration request. Based on the report of the due diligence
Committee constituted by the Respondent, the Respondent was agreeable to collaborate with
Petitioner No. 1, and the parties entered into a Memorandum of Collaboration (MoC) and
established the Joint Centre of Excellence (JCE) of the Respondent at the campus of the
Petitioner No. 1 to offer full time face to face Master Degree Programmes of the Respondent and
converted the existing Advanced Postgraduate Programmes (APGP) of the Petitioner No. 1. The
collaboration agreement/s between the parties are only in respect of academic programmes on
offer and do not specify any batch / session in particular.
b) Under the MoC, it is the responsibility of the Respondent to undertake all the necessary activities
in connection with the conduct of examinations, assessment and evaluation of answer papers
jointly with the Petitioners and for the timely declaration of the results and preparation of mark
lists / grades. It is also the responsibility of the Respondent to issue Degree / Diploma /
Certificate to the students who have successfully completed the programmes. As per the norms of
the Respondent, normally the Programme Study Centre where the student pursues the course /
programme is treated as the Examination Centre.
c) The Academic Fee sharing between Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent will be as per the terms
and conditions of the MoC.
d) As per the approval of the Board of Management of the Respondent, the JCC is appointed by the
Honble Vice Chancellor of the Respondent under the MoC / MoU to oversee the overall
administration and implementation of the programmes and has powers to take any decision
related to the programme developments and administration and recommend amendments to the
specific MoU / MoC / MoA. The JCC also comprised of nominated experts of the Respondent in
the various technical fields.
e) A detailed proposal in respect of transfer of credits for the existing students of 2009 batches was
submitted to the Respondent for consideration and admission to the Programmes under the MoC
for award of the full time Master Degree of the Respondent.
f) The proposal in respect of transfer of credits for the existing students of 2009 batches was
considered at the 1st Admission Sub Committee meeting and recommendations were made for the
migration of the 2009 batches of students of the existing APGP of Petitioner No. 1 to the 4 th, 3rd
and 2nd Semesters of the Master Degree Programmes of the Respondent respectively. As per the
analysis done by the Petitioners, 28 students out of the total 287 students of the 2009 batches did

WP (Civil) No. 6350/2012

not fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria of 55% by the Respondent. The Committee considered
the request and recommended a one-time relaxation of the minimum norms for admission.
g) The 3rd JCC meeting was held where all the recommendations of the 1 st Admission Sub
Committee were accepted and approved for specifically admitting the 2009 batches of students
laterally for the programme of 2010 under the MoC at the appropriate semesters. The Respondent
has confirmed the existence of the provision of lateral entry admission in respect of the 2009
batches of students.
h) The Minutes of the 3rd JCC meeting were duly approved by the Honble Vice Chancellor, the
Chairman of the JCC of the Respondent in accordance with the provision of the IGNOU Act.
i)

The Academic Council of the Respondent approved all the 2 years (4 Semesters) full time face to
face academic programmes of the Petitioner No.1 which were converted from the existing APGP
to the Master Degree Programmes of the Respondent offered under the MoC. Adherence of 2010
approved curriculum was prescribed for the 2009 batches of students. All students of 2009
batches have undertaken the additional courses as per the approved curriculum for 2010 and
passed the examinations so as to fulfill the credit gaps between the existing APGP of Petitioner
No. 1 and the Respondents respective Master Degree Programmes. All these academic
programmes of the Respondent are approved by the competent authorities of the Respondent and
do not require the approval of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).

j)

An internal communication of the nodal contact of the Respondent seeks allotment of enrollment
numbers for the 2009 batches of students along with the 2010 batch of students. The Student
Registration Division of the Respondent allotted enrollment numbers as per the internal
communication of the Respondent. Subsequently, the report on the utilization of the enrollment
numbers allotted and issued by the Petitioner No. 1 to the 2009 batches of students and the 2010
batch of students has been submitted by the Petitioner No. 1 to the Respondent.

k) The Respondent issued the notification to the Petitioners to remit the one-time migration fee and
the academic fee sharing payments in respect of the 2009 batches of students admitted to the JCE
under the MoC of 2010 in the various academic programmes. In accordance with the decision at
the 3rd JCC meeting, the one-time migration fee and the academic fee sharing payments have been
forwarded to the Respondent along with the statement of number of students admitted and
migrated, details regarding academic fees and share of the Respondent, and programme wise /
batch wise number of students admitted. The Petitioners have never raised any bill on the
Respondent for refund of the fees.

Just after the date of hearing of this Writ Petition on

15.07.2013, and clearly as an afterthought, the Petitioners received a letter dated 13.07.2013 from
3

WP (Civil) No. 6350/2012

the Respondent along with a cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,03,94,115/- towards refund of
migration fee and academic fees remitted by the Petitioners in respect of 2009 batches of
students. The said cheque was immediately returned to the Respondent by the Petitioners.
l)

Petitioner No. 1 decided to discontinue the collaboration and accordingly issued the notice of
termination of the MoC subject to both the parties fulfilling all their responsibilities outlined
under the MoC which would continue to be carried out until the completion of all the academic
programmes to which the students have been enrolled for the years 2009, 2010 and up to and
including the July 2011 intake and administrative matter related thereto.

m) Both the parties agreed to replace the present MoC with a new Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) to ensure continuity of all the academic programmes. The MoU was entered into between
Petitioner No. 2 and the Respondent. In addition to the standard clauses in the MoU, an additional
clause (Transfer of Students) was provided to bring within the purview of the MoU, students of
the 2009 batches along with 2010 and 2011 batches of students. This clause provided that
Students of 2009 batches have completed the courses. Refer Annexure II for student details .
n) The Respondent has certified in the various minutes of the Examination Moderation Board
meetings that no moderation was required for the results of the 2009 batches of students and that
the provisional results can be declared by JCE. Accordingly, the provisional results have been
declared and transcripts issued to the students.
o) The Petitioner No. 1 has submitted semester wise credits and marks for all the 2009 batches of
students as per their Degree Programmes to the Respondent for processing their marks and
awarding Degrees.
p) The 2009 batches of students have successfully completed the approved course / programme of
study of the Respondent and are eligible for the award of Degree by the Respondent.
SUMMMARY OF GROUNDS:
1. The Respondent has withheld the final consolidated mark sheets and degree certificates of 287
students despite its representations, assurances, commitments, promises and conduct. The action
of the Respondent is arbitrary, capricious and in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
apart from being clearly barred by estoppel putting in jeopardy the life and career of 287 students.
The said decision is an afterthought and at a belated stage merely to find an excuse for nonfulfillment of its commitments, representations and obligations.
2. The Petitioners have repeatedly demanded justice from the Respondent, but justice has been
denied to the Petitioners.
4

WP (Civil) No. 6350/2012

SUMMARY OF PRAYERS:
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and in the interest of the students, the
Petitioners have no better remedy available and therefore pray:
a) for a writ of Mandamus, or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order
or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Respondent, ordering and
directing the Respondent:
i)

to issue the said 287 students of the 2009 batches their consolidated mark sheets; and

ii)

to issue Degree certificates to the said 287 students of the 2009 batches who have
successfully completed their courses and passed their examinations as per Respondents
norms ;

b) issue such other writ, direction or order, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under
the facts and circumstances of the case.