Can't demand equivalency certificates for UGC-approved courses, says Kerala HC
Kochi: High court has observed that requiring equivalency certificates from state universities for courses approved by UGC and offered by central universities would mark the end of the education system.
Justice D K Singh was considering a petition by S Harisankar of Malappuram, challenging the decision of LBS Centre for Science and Technology — the agency responsible for conducting the State Eligibility Test (SET) for promotion to the post of higher secondary school teacher. Although the petitioner had passed the SET, the LBS Centre declined to issue his certificate of qualification, citing his failure to produce an equivalency certificate for his master's degree obtained from
IGNOU
.
LBS Centre counsel and govt pleader argued that, in view of the special rules framed under the Kerala Education Act, 1958, an equivalency certificate is mandatory. They also referred to the SET prospectus, which contains a similar clause.
However, the single bench observed that IGNOU is a central university of national importance established by the central govt to offer distance education and regular courses. It is recognised by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and its courses are UGC-approved. HC held that no insistence on equivalency certificates can be made in respect of degrees obtained from national institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Indian Institutes of Science (IISc), National Institutes of Technology (NITs), Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs) or other institutions recognized by the UGC.
Accordingly, the court directed the LBS Centre to issue the SET qualification certificate for July 2021 to the petitioner.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
32 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump surprises Florida diver by granting full presidential pardon, ‘That was really cool'
In 2020, Florida diver Tanner Mansell was convicted of a felony after unknowingly cutting a legally approved shark research line. Thinking they were saving trapped sharks, Mansell and his team, including a police chief and SWAT officer, released 19 sharks. They had called authorities before acting, but didn't realise the line belonged to a NOAA-approved research project. Days later, they were charged with theft in a maritime zone. Though they didn't face jail, they had to pay a fine of $3,343.72 and lost rights like voting and travelling. On May 28, Donald Trump pardoned Mansell and his partner, clearing their record. Mansell later said he believed he was stopping a crime, not committing one. He was shocked by the punishment. Mansell had spent years working in those waters without issues. His story drew public sympathy, and the pardon came as an unexpected relief. "The judge made a comment, and he commended us for our dedication to (the) environment. He gave out what my lawyer said was probably the lowest sentence ever," Fox News quoted Mansell as saying. Mansell said he would have acted differently if he had known about permits for legal shark killings. At the time, he believed he was doing the right thing and had no idea he was breaking the law. Mansell was surprised to receive a pardon as even his lawyers hadn't expected it. The turning point came when a judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals said the case should never have continued, noting that Mansell had openly informed authorities about his actions. This comment gained public attention and reached the Cato Institute, which published an article. That article caught the interest of the White House, which then contacted his lawyers. "That was really cool because our lawyer called us that the White House had it in front of them and were looking into it," he said. Later, Mansell was informed on a flight that he had received a full presidential pardon. He was left completely speechless and deeply emotional. He said it was a moment he would never forget, especially after going through such a long legal battle. 'I was speechless. I couldn't even say thank you. I just soaked it in," he said. "I'm just so grateful. I have said thank you every step of the way. Words can't explain it," he said. "I know that the White House took a look at this and they decided it was worth it. And, I got President Trump's signature," Mansell added.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Bar council of India issues advisory against unapproved online LLM programmes
Bar council of India (Image credits: ANI) NEW DELHI: In a decisive step toward preserving the credibility of legal education in India, the bar council of India (BCI) has issued a formal advisory against the proliferation of unapproved LLM (master of laws) programmes offered in online, distance or hybrid formats. This advisory reinforces the exclusive regulatory role of the BCI and emphasis es compliance with existing legal and academic frameworks. The letter, authored by Justice Rajendra Menon, former chief justice of the Delhi High Court and co-chairman of the standing committee on legal education, was addressed to the registrar generals of all High Courts as well as the Supreme Court of India . Copies of the letter were also circulated to universities and state bar councils to ensure compliance and initiate appropriate action. The advisory reiterates the binding authority of Supreme Court rulings, the UGC (open and distance learning) regulations, 2020, and BCI's own Legal education rules (2008 and 2020), under which LLM programmes must secure prior approval before being conducted via non-traditional methods. Any deviation, it warns, threatens the standard, uniformity, and legal sanctity of postgraduate legal education across the country. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No Mess, Safer Chew Solution Petlori Learn More Undo Letter issued in this regards stated that, alarmed by the growing number of institutions offering programmes under alternative titles such as LLM (professional), executive LLM, or MSc in cyber law, the BCI has highlighted that many of these courses are being run without mandatory approvals. Such practices, it stated, not only violate Supreme Court directives but also mislead students and degrade academic quality. The bar council clarified that under the Advocates Act, 1961, it is the only statutory authority empowered to regulate both undergraduate and postgraduate law programmes. No other entity, including UGC or autonomous universities, can validate LLM courses independently. The council emphasized that an LLM degree is the minimum qualification required for teaching law, and therefore any relaxation in quality or regulatory compliance directly affects the legal profession. In light of these violations, the BCI has urged High Courts take judicial notice of the BCI's exclusive authority in legal education, Reject qualifications obtained from unapproved LLM programmes for appointments or promotions and Require institutions and individuals to submit compliance verification from the BCI where necessary. To protect students and uphold public trust, the bar council plans to release a public advisory cautioning against enrollment in such unauthorized programmes. It is also preparing to initiate contempt proceedings and other legal measures against institutions found violating these guidelines.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
As KSHEC flags ‘violations', St Joseph's University defends programme expansion, calls govt report a ‘misreading of norms'
St Joseph's University has refuted allegations made by the Karnataka State Higher Education Council (KSHEC) that it violated state norms by launching new academic programmes and admitting excess students without government approval. The university, in its official response, termed the objections 'a misreading of UGC norms and state-issued guidelines' and said that it would consider raising the matter with the state government. On June 24, the Karnataka Higher Education Department announced a penalty of Rs 4 lakh on the university based on KSHEC's inspection report which found that St Joseph's had introduced over 20 new undergraduate programmes and admitted more than 500 additional students during the 2023–24 and 2024–25 academic years. The report also said that the institution failed to share 60 per cent of its seats with the state, as mandated for private universities. In a detailed response, Prof Dr Melwin Colaco, Registrar of St Joseph's University, said the changes were made in good faith, based on the National Education Policy (NEP) guidelines issued by the state. 'It is our understanding that the council's objections are based on a wrongful reading of UGC norms and the specific directions issued from time to time,' he said. Tracing the developments back to 2021, Prof Colaco explained that when the institution was still St Joseph's College (Autonomous), affiliated to Bangalore City University, it had restructured academic offerings in response to the NEP. 'Three major programmes were reconfigured into two major combinations, thereby increasing the number of programmes offered, though the overall student intake remained the same,' he clarified. To expand access, particularly for students from marginalised communities, the institution introduced a third academic shift (Shift-III), incorporating courses from the erstwhile St Joseph's Evening College. 'A resolution to this effect was passed during the Academic Council meeting in 2021,' Prof Colaco said, adding that the government was kept informed. 'We had sought formal approval from the Government of Karnataka and Bangalore City University, but there was no response. As per the circular dated August 26, 2021, autonomous colleges were permitted to introduce new programmes as long as the government was duly informed.' In July 2022, when the institution became a university, it continued offering the modified programmes, assuming continuity under NEP reforms. Approvals were sought for additional PG and PhD programmes from the KSHEC, which were later approved by an expert committee in 2023. However, during a 2025 inspection, a KSHEC member raised objections to the expanded course list and Shift-III, calling it inconsistent with UGC rules. 'We explained that the shift system was introduced to optimise underutilised infrastructure. These concerns were nevertheless recorded as violations,' Prof Colaco said.
