1997 (9) TMI 647 - HC - Indian Laws

Universities' Decision Upheld: Judicial Review in Policy Matters

Osmania University Versus. R. Madhavi and Ors.

The court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed the writ petitions. It concluded that the universities' decision to modify ... - Issues Involved:1. Obligation of Osmania and Kakatiya Universities to hold external examinations.2. Validity and enforceability of UGC guidelines.3. Right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution.4. Applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.5. Judicial review of policy decisions.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Obligation of Osmania and Kakatiya Universities to hold external examinations:The appeals questioned whether Osmania and Kakatiya Universities were obligated to continue holding external examinations as previously conducted. The universities had a system of non-formal examinations for various degrees, allowing candidates to prepare independently and appear for exams without attending regular classes. However, in 1996, the universities did not publish the examination schedule, leading to the petitions.2. Validity and enforceability of UGC guidelines:The respondents argued that the UGC had influenced the universities to discontinue the non-formal examination system, although no formal notification was issued. The UGC's counter-affidavit stated that the system would continue with modifications, requiring candidates to register for non-formal courses and appear for examinations at specified intervals. The UGC emphasized maintaining academic excellence and decided to discontinue the existing pattern of external examinations. The court noted that UGC regulations are guidelines and not binding, but universities may choose to follow them for uniformity and funding purposes.3. Right to education under Article 21 of the Constitution:The court agreed with the single judge that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21, enforceable unless economic capacity and state development prohibit it. The court held that the UGC guidelines were not binding, and universities could modify their systems independently. However, if they chose to follow UGC guidelines, it could not be deemed wrongful unless it defeated the fundamental right to education for reasons other than economic capacity and state development.4. Applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation:The court examined whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation applied, considering the petitioners' reliance on the continuation of the external examination system. The single judge had directed a one-time exception for 1996-97 examinees, citing legitimate expectations and fair play. The court discussed the concept of legitimate expectation, noting it arises from representations or consistent past practices. The court concluded that legitimate expectation does not automatically grant a right but ensures fair consideration. The court found no arbitrary or unreasonable actions by the universities or UGC that would justify interference based on legitimate expectation.5. Judicial review of policy decisions:The court emphasized the limitations of judicial review in policy matters, stating that courts do not interfere with policy decisions unless they violate fundamental rights or are arbitrary. The court found that the policy change aimed at maintaining educational standards and was in public interest. The universities' decision to align with UGC guidelines was within their rights and intended to improve the standard of non-formal education. The court disagreed with the single judge's direction for a one-time exception, finding no sudden or arbitrary change that would justify such relief.Conclusion:The court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment, and dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that the universities' decision to modify the non-formal education system in line with UGC guidelines did not violate fundamental rights or legitimate expectations.