Join our WhatsApp Group
Latest
Sunday, October 18, 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
Constitutional Law

NAAC Application Cut-off Not Arbitrary: Rajasthan High Court Upholds UGC Distance-Learning Regulation Proviso

Published: · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed Jaipur National University's challenge to the second proviso to Regulation 3(A) of the UGC (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020, which let only institutions that had applied to NAAC by 29.02.2020 continue distance-learning programmes for 2020-21 (paras 19, 48-49). It held that compliant and non-compliant institutions formed distinct classes, the cut-off date had a rational basis, and the proviso caused no prohibited retrospective prejudice (paras 40-41, 44-45).

NAAC Application Cut-off Not Arbitrary: Rajasthan High Court Upholds UGC Distance-Learning Regulation Proviso

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Dismissed
Jaipur National University v. Union of India & Ors.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14095/2020
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
29 September 2022
Bench
Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain
Relevant Acts & Sections
Constitution of India — Articles 14, 226; University Grants Commission Act, 1956 — Section 26; University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 — Regulation 3(A); University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017 — Regulation 3
Final Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs (paras 48-50). The Court added that if the University had meanwhile improved its NAAC score and become eligible under the Regulations of 2020, the order would not stop it from obtaining permission for ODL programmes (para 48).

Download PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. The 29.02.2020 cut-off for NAAC applications reflected NAAC's four-to-six-month accreditation time and was not arbitrary (paras 28, 41).
  2. Institutions that did not apply by the cut-off formed a separate non-compliant class that cannot claim parity (paras 35, 40).
  3. Reasonable-classification principles apply equally when testing UGC regulations framed under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956 (para 41).
  4. NAAC guidelines and manuals are not statutory and cannot found a right against the mandate of the UGC regulations (para 45).
  5. The proviso caused no retrospective prejudice under Section 26(3): even without it, the petitioner could not continue ODL programmes for 2020-21 (paras 44-45).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The University held NAAC accreditation of 2.28 on a 4-point scale, valid until 30.04.2020 (para 22). Because its score was below 3.26, UGC recognised its Open and Distance Learning (ODL) programmes only for 2018-19 and 2019-20 (para 7). The Third Amendment Regulations, 2018 required an undertaking to attain 3.26 by June 2020 (para 24). UGC and NAAC asked such institutions to apply for accreditation, finally by 29.02.2020; the University attended NAAC's workshop of 18.12.2019 but did not apply (paras 27-29). Left out of UGC's public notice of 12.10.2020 continuing recognition for 2020-21, it challenged the proviso under Article 226 (opening paragraph, para 8).

Court's Findings

The Court held that the Regulations of 2017, as amended, statutorily required institutions to attain a NAAC score of 3.26 by 30.06.2020 (paras 32, 41). As NAAC takes four to six months to accredit, the 29.02.2020 cut-off was fixed purposely and had "a clear rationale and object behind it" (para 28). NAAC's letter of 03.02.2020 left the choice of manual to universities, but those wishing to continue ODL programmes had to apply by 29.02.2020 (paras 31-32). By their conduct, institutions split into a compliant class, which applied in time but was overtaken by the pandemic, and a non-compliant class like the petitioner; no lockdown had been imposed by 29.02.2020 (paras 32, 35, 38). The non-compliant class could not claim parity (para 40). Applying the reasonable-classification principles explained in Binoy Viswam, which govern delegated legislation framed under Section 26 of the UGC Act too, the classification had a rational basis and a reasonable nexus with protecting compliant institutions (para 41). On Section 26(3), the NAAC Manual's windows at most kept the 2.28 accreditation alive; NAAC guidelines are not statutory, and the petitioner never challenged the 2018 amendments (paras 44-45). Nothing on record explained why it did not apply (para 47).

Legal Principle

A cut-off date in delegated legislation that rests on a rational basis is not arbitrary. When a relaxation benefits only institutions that met a regulatory deadline, non-compliant institutions form a distinct class and cannot claim parity under Article 14; an accrediting body's non-statutory guidelines cannot override the statutory regulations (paras 40-41, 45).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. Binoy Viswam v. Union of India & Others (2017) 7 SCC 59
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 41

    Reasonable classification under Article 14 needs a rational, not artificial, differentia with a reasonable relation to the object; the principles apply equally to delegated legislation such as UGC regulations.

  2. Bejgam Veeranna Venkata Narasimloo & Others v. State of A.P. & Others (1998) 1 SCC 563
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13, 46

    Cited by the petitioner's Senior Counsel against the second proviso (para 13); the Court held the decisions cited at the bar did not aid the petitioner (para 46).

  3. Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. & Another v. State of Haryana & Others (2006) 3 SCC 620
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13, 46

    Cited by the petitioner's Senior Counsel against the second proviso (para 13); the Court held the decisions cited at the bar did not aid the petitioner (para 46).

View all precedents (12)
  1. State of T.N. & Another v. P. Krishnamurthy & Others (2006) 4 SCC 517
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13, 46

    Cited by the petitioner's Senior Counsel against the second proviso (para 13); the Court held the decisions cited at the bar did not aid the petitioner (para 46).

  2. General Officer Commanding-In-Chief & Another v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav & Another (1988) 2 SCC 351
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13, 46

    Cited by the petitioner's Senior Counsel against the second proviso (para 13); the Court held the decisions cited at the bar did not aid the petitioner (para 46).

  3. State of U.P. & Others v. Daulat Ram Gupta (2002) 4 SCC 98
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13, 46

    Cited by the petitioner's Senior Counsel against the second proviso (para 13); the Court held the decisions cited at the bar did not aid the petitioner (para 46).

  4. S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) by LRs & Others v. Rajabu F. Buhari (Mrs) (Dead) by LRs & Others (1995) 4 SCC 15
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13, 46

    Cited by the petitioner's Senior Counsel against the second proviso (para 13); the Court held the decisions cited at the bar did not aid the petitioner (para 46).

  5. Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian & Others (2014) 2 SCC 62
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13, 46

    Cited by the petitioner's Senior Counsel against the second proviso (para 13); the Court held the decisions cited at the bar did not aid the petitioner (para 46).

  6. Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders AIR 1975 SC 1409
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13

    Cited by the petitioner's Senior Counsel for moulding relief after the academic session had ended, to avoid multiplicity of litigation (para 13).

  7. Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram 1992 Supp (2) SCC 623
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13

    Cited by the petitioner's Senior Counsel for moulding relief after the academic session had ended, to avoid multiplicity of litigation (para 13).

  8. Association of Managements of Homeopathic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra v. Union of India & Others (2019) 20 SCC 511
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 13

    Cited by the petitioner's Senior Counsel for moulding relief after the academic session had ended, to avoid multiplicity of litigation (para 13).

  9. University Grants Commission & Another v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) (2013) 10 SCC 519
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 16

    Relied upon by counsel for the respondents in support of the UGC's stand (para 16).

Topics: Reasonable Classification (Article 14) Delegated Legislation Arbitrariness in State Action Retrospective Operation of Statutes
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: September 29, 2022 Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice...
PDF
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt