- (1.) Petitioner is aggrieved against the action of Guru Nanak Dev University, which has not finally approved her appointment as a lecturer in education in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College of Education, Patti, Amritsar made by managing committee of the college. University has found that the degree of M.Ed. obtained by the petitioner from Jammu University through distance education is not equivalent to the corresponding degree of M.Ed. granted by the respondent, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.
(2.) By way of present writ petition, we have been called upon to say that since the petitioner has acquired UGC NET exam and the degree of M.Ed. obtained by the petitioner from distance education Jammu University is recognized by Panjab University and Punjabi University, therefore respondent-Guru Nanak Dev University should also recognize the same and consequently petitioner's selection as lecturer in the respondent No.4 College be approved. In the written statement filed in the preliminary objections, it has been stated as under: "2. That in order to consider the equivalence of the degree of M.Ed. obtained by the petitioner under Distance Education Programme from University of Jammu, the said degree was placed before the equivalence committee constituted by the Academic Council which as per Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar is responsible for over all maintenance of the education standard of the respondent university. The Academic Council considered the fact that the degree of the petitioner has been obtained under Distance Education Programme whereas the corresponding degree of the answering respondent University is being imparted only by a regular course and not under distance education programme. It is in this view of the matter that the degree obtained by the petitioner i.e. M.Ed (Distance Education Programme) was considered to be not equivalent to the corresponding degree of M.Ed. being granted by the answering respondent. There is no discrimination met out to the petitioner. In other case also where similarly situated persons like the petitioner who have obtained the degree from the university of Jammu under Distance Education Programme were placed before a meeting of the Academic Council held on 31.1.2006. The Academic Council did not approve the recognition of M.Ed. degree under the Distance Education Programme of University of Jammu as equivalent to the regular M.Ed. University of this University. Answering respondent is placing on record the speaking order passed in both the above referred cases wherein similar decisions have been taken by the answering respondent is attached as Annexure R-1/1 and R1/2 to this written statement. Still further it is submitted that the basis of the decision of the Academic Council is that under Distance Education Programme the courses are conducted are more or less like the corresponding programme. The students do not attend the classes regularly and are situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the University. Only study material is sent by the University to the students to prepare the same without attending the regular classes with the University. On the other hand in case of regular degree, regular classes are being held and the teaching is by exclusive and extensive course of teaching. In view of the above, it is apparent that the degree possessed by the petitioner from university corresponding degree granted by the answering respondent university since the variance is writ large in respect of the general standard of method of teaching, number of classes, mode of imparting education and the contact with the University. The action of the answering respondents in passing the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal in view of the substantial reasons as dilated here in above."
(3.) Counsel for the respondent-university has also relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in Sunaina Verma v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others, CWP No. 10432 of 2007 decided on 01.11.2007 (Annexure R1/3), wherein it was held as under: "Even though, it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that in the Distant Education Programme undertaken by the petitioner, class level teaching was also imparted through qualified faculties of study centre, there is no material to show who are the faculty members and where the class level teaching was imparted. According to the affidavit of the Vice Chancellor, equivalence of personal contract programme and practical work was not established. In absence of adequate material, we are unable to hold that the finding recorded by the Vice Chancellor is perverse. On the material before the Court, it is not possible to give a clear finding that the petitioner was imparted studies in classes through qualified faculties. In these circumstances, we are unable to set aside the finding recorded by respondent No.1 University.;