IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.22812 OF 2018(EDN-RES) BETWEEN RAGHAVENDRA J RAO S/O LATE JANARDHAN RAO AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR M V TEMPLE KATAPADI POST UDUPI DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 574 105.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA J RAO, PARTY IN PERSON) AND 1. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY MUKTHAGANGOTHRI MYSORE - 570 006.
2. THE SECRETARY UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC) DISTANCE EDUCATION BUREAU (DEB) MAIN OFFICE BAHADUR SHAH ZAFARMARG NEW DELHI - 110 002.
3. THE SECRETARY NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION (N C T E) HANS BHAVAN, WING II 1, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFARMARG NEW DELHI - 110 002.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES) GOVT OF KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANTHOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI H R SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI M VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 NOTICE TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2, 3 AND 4 HEREIN TO TREAT THE MASTER'S DEGREE WITHOUT THE BACHELOR'S DEGREE I.E., MASTER OF ARTS IN HINDI, OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY, MYSORE I.E., R-1 IS VALID, CONSTITUTIONAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT R-2, R-3 AND R-4 TO CONSIDER THE AFORESAID SAID QUALIFICATION IN ALL RELEVANT B.ED., COURSES, EMPLOYMENT AND IN ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS A VALID QUALIFICATION;
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner appearing as party-in-person obtained a Master’s Degree in Hindi from the first respondent-Karnataka State Open University as on 08.02.2008. The petitioner contends that as per the prospectus of the University, the Master’s Degree was offered without Bachelor’s Degree i.e., any person who has not obtained a Bachelor’s Degree could also obtain a Master’s Degree from the University, subject to other conditions being fulfilled. It is stated by the petitioner that he wanted to pursue B.Ed Course and therefore, he approached the Mangalore University. Having approached the Mangalore University, the petitioner was told that a Master’s Degree without Bachelor’s Degree will not be a valid Degree for being admitted to the Course of B.Ed.
2. The petitioner contends that he has obtained information from the Central Admission Cell (CAC), Government of Karnataka, that as per the regulations laid down by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), a person who has secured a Master’s Degree without a Bachelor’s Degree will not be eligible for admission to the Course of B.Ed. The petitioner further submits that he enquired with the second respondent-University Grants Commission (UGC) in this regard and the Distance Education Bureau of the University Grants Commission has informed the petitioner that they had stopped admission for Master’s Degree without Bachelor’s Degree with effect from July 2004. It is therefore contended by the petitioner that inspite of the directions given by the UGC to all the Universities that they shall not offer Master’s Degree without Bachelor’s Degree, way back in the year July 2004, the first respondent should not have offered the Master’s Degree without Bachelor’s Degree.
3. The petitioner therefore contends that the first respondent which offered the Master’s Degree which is not valid for pursuing B.Ed courses in any of the Universities and for employment, should be saddled with a direction to compensate the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the UGC, NCTE and the Department of Higher education (Universities) of the Government of Karnataka to treat the Master’s Degree without bachelor’s Degree which is obtained by the petitioner from the first respondent-University as valid and eligible for being admitted to B.Ed courses and for seeking employment. The second prayer of the petitioner is that if this Court declares that the Master’s Degree obtained by the petitioner is not valid for employment or for admission to B.Ed courses, a global compensation of Rs.10 crores (wrongly mentioned as Rs.100 crores) should be directed to be paid by the respondent-University for all sufferings, loss of precious educational life and mental agony that the petitioner has undergone.
4. It is further contended by the petitioner, party-in- person that the respondent-University is guilty of overlooking the regulations of the UGC and offering Degrees to students which are contrary to the UGC regulations and which has placed all those students who have obtained Degree from the University in a precarious position where they are not able to pursue higher studies or get employment even after obtaining a valid Degree from the University.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-University submits that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel submits that whether a particular Degree granted by the University should be eligible or recognized for the purpose of higher education or employer, is a matter of policy. The learned Counsel therefore submits that the declaration that the petitioner is seeking at the hands of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be granted.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondent-University places reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rabindra Nath Ghoshal Vs. University of Calcutta and others reported in (2002) 7 SCC 478, wherein at paragraph- 9, it is held as under:
9. The courts having the obligation to satisfy the social aspiration of the citizens have to apply the tool and grant compensation as damages in public law proceedings. Consequently when the court moulds the relief in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights and grants compensation, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. But it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. The court in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, therefore, would not award damages against public authorities merely because they have made some order which turns out to be ultra vires, or there has been some inaction in the performance of the duties unless there is malice or conscious abuse. Before exemplary damages can be awarded it must be shown that some fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the public functionaries and that the sufferer was a helpless victim of that act.”
7. Further, in the case of Rajendra Singh Pathania and Others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) And Others reported in (2011) 13 SCC 329, at paragraph-20, it is held as under:
“20. The issue of award of compensation in case of violation of fundamental rights of a person has been considered by this Court time and again and it has consistently been held that though the High Courts and this Court in exercise of their jurisdictions under Articles 226 and 32 can award compensation for such violations but such a power should not be lightly exercised. These articles cannot be used as a substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which could be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary process of courts. Before awarding any compensation there must be a proper enquiry on the question of facts alleged in the complaint. The Court may examine the report and determine the issue after giving opportunity of filing objections to rebut the same and hearing to the other side. Awarding of compensation is permissible in case the Court reaches the same conclusion on a reappreciation of the evidence adduced at the enquiry. Award of monetary compensation in such an eventuality is permissible “when that is the only practicable mode of redress available for the contravention made by the State or its servants in the purported exercise of their powers….” (Vide Sebastian M. Hongray v. Union of India [(1984) 3 SCC 82 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 407 : AIR 1984 SC 1026] ; Bhim Singh v. State of J&K [(1985) 4 SCC 677 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 47 : AIR 1986 SC 494] ; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [(1993) 2 SCC 746 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 527 : AIR 1993 SC 1960] , SCC p. 763, para 17; D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 92 : AIR 1997 SC 610] ; Railway Board v. Chandrima Das [(2000) 2 SCC 465 : AIR 2000 SC 988] and S.P.S. Rathore v. State of Haryana [(2005) 10 SCC 1] .)”
8. Heard the petitioner party-in-person and the learned Counsels for the respondents and perused the writ papers. As found in the aforesaid two judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the questions as to whether the offering of a Degree by the respondent-University, which according to the petitioner is not equal to the regular Degree offered by other Universities and whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of compensation by alleging that the respondent-University has misled the petitioner and all such students by offering a Degree which the University knew was not in accordance with the regulations of the UGC, are all questions of fact and it is not permissible for this Court under Article 226 to analyse these aspects and come to a conclusion that the interest of the petitioner has been harmed and if at all his interest is harmed, what is the compensation payable by the respondents. It is only the Civil Court which can go into the factual aspects after analyzing the evidence of the petitioner. Moreover, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has not caused any notice to the respondents airing his grievance. The respondents should have been put on notice. The decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court also are to the effect that when a person seeks compensation, the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot award compensation and such a power should not be lightly exercised. It is for the petitioner to first of all prove that any of his rights have been violated and if at all what is the compensation that has to be awarded has to be determined on facts and evidences that are to be placed by the petitioner and to be analysed after giving opportunity to the respondents.
9. Therefore, these are matters that cannot be dealt under conveniently Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JT/-
SD/- JUDGE