1 2026:CGHC:23675 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1449 of 2020 Reserved on 9.4.2026 Delivered on 15.06.2026 Asmita Sharma W/o Shri Anurag Sharma, Aged About 29 Years R/o 170, Near New Vrindawan Vidyalaya, Ward No. 3, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Dr. C.V. Raman University, Through The Registrar, Kargi Road, Kota, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur, Through The Registrar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Shyam Balaji College, Through The Principal, Imlibhata, Ekta Chowk, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.06.15 18:34:33 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) For Respondent/ State : : Mr Prateek Sharma, Advocate Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.3 : : Ms. Vagisha Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, assails the order dated 8.6.2020 passed by Respondent No.3--Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, whereby her application for admission to the B.Ed. course was rejected by the said University. Subsequently, the review application preferred before the Respondent No.3- University was also rejected vide order dated 16.6.2020. The impugned action was predicated on the finding that the DCA Certificate obtained by the petitioner is invalid. Ultimately, her application regarding appearing in the B.Ed. Final Semester examination was also dismissed. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned orders dated 08.06.2020 (ANNEXURE P/1) and order dated 16.06.2020 (ANNEXURE P/2) and direct the 3 respondents to allow the petitioner to complete her Bed. Course, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given 3. The factual matrix of the case, as set forth by the petitioner, is that the petitioner passed Class-XII in 2010. Subsequently, she enrolled in a Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) course at AISECT, completing the said course in 2011. It is pertinent to note that the AISECT has been a certified organization since 2008 and a partner institution of IGNOU, a premier Central University. In 2012, the petitioner secured lateral entry into the second year of the BCA program at Respondent No.2-Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur, strictly following the prescribed norms. She successfully obtained her three year graduate degree in June 2014. Relying upon her BCA credentials, the petitioner enrolled as a private student in MA (English Literature) at Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (Respondent No.3). She successfully completed her post-graduate degree in 2016, with the said University accepting her prior qualifications without objection at that stage. Since the petitioner could not secure proper marks in MA (English Literature), in order to improve her academic standing, she again took admission in July 2016 as a private student in Respondent No.2- Dr. C.V. Raman University and 4 obtained a Certificate therefrom. In 2018, the petitioner appeared for the B.Ed. entrance examination, securing a 283rd rank in the overall merit list. Consequently, she secured admission in Shyam Balaji College, Mahasamund for 2018-19 session. The petitioner has since completed three semesters, consistently maintaining an academic record of over 70% marks. The final (4th) semester, originally scheduled for April 2020, was deferred due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Upon her admission to the B.Ed. course in 2018, the petitioner applied for an Eligibility Certificate from Respondent No.3- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University as Respondent No.4-College is affiliated to the said University. Under the standard administrative procedure, such applications are typically processed within one month. The lapse of the prescribed period without communication to the contrary, amounts to a deemed approval by the University. Acting under the bonafide belief that her eligibility was confirmed, the petitioner continued her studies. However, vide the impugned order dated 8.6.2020, the Respondent No.3- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University abruptly rejected her application, stating her DCA Certificate as ‘unrecognized’ without providing any substantive reasoning or justification. It is significant to note that the same Respondent University had previously recognized the petitioner’s academic trajectory (rooted in the same DCA lateral entry) when it granted her admission to the MA (English Literature) program in 2014 and subsequently issued her degree in 2016 without any objection. Despite this established precedent, the petitioner’s application for 5 review was summarily rejected on 16.6.2020 without due consideration or application of mind. It is contended that if the impugned orders are allowed to stand, the petitioner will suffer irreparably injury, losing eight years of her career and the validity of multiple academic degrees at the very threshold of completing her professional qualification. Hence, this Petition. 4. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 8.6.2020 was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, thereby, violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submits that Respondent No.3- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University cannot challenge the petitioner’s DCA/BCA credentials at this belated stage. He submits that the unexplained delay and latches on the part of Respondent No.3- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University led the petitioner to believe that her eligibility was confirmed. The University issued its rejection only at the final stage of her B.Ed. course. He further submits that in 2014, the same University accepted these exact qualifications to grant the petitioner admission to the MA (English Literature) program, subsequently awarding her a degree in 2016, without any objection. He submits that the Respondent No.3 - Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University cannot now take a contradictory stand in the case of the petitioner. He also submits that the University’s approach manifests hyper- technicality and an unfair regard for a student’s career. He submits that sustaining the impugned orders would result in the forfeiture 6 of eight years of academic labour and multiple degrees. This outcome is highly disproportionate, as the petitioner has maintained a high academic record of over 70% marks. Further, the petitioner’s review application was rejected vide order dated 16.6.2020 without due application of mind or consideration of the University’s own past practice in accepting her qualifications. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. 5. Ms. Vagisha Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No.2- Dr. C.V. Raman University submits that the BCA degree awarded to the petitioner is valid and genuine. The petitioner successfully completed the prescribed course of study and was conferred degree after a rigorous and due process of evaluation. He submits that the present controversy does not pertain to genuineness or authenticity of the degree, but only to its recognition by another University, which cannot invalidate a degree duly awarded by a recognized University established by law. He further submits that once Respondent No.2 having satisfied itself of the petitioner’s prior qualification, granted admission and subsequently conferred a degree, the validity of that degree cannot be nullified or questioned by another University in collateral proceedings. He further submits that the degree issued by Respondent No.2 has been recognized and acted upon previously, notably by Respondent No.3- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University itself, which granted the petitioner admitted to its MA (English Literature) 7 program based on the same credentials. He submits that Respondent No.3 possess no legal authority to reject or derecognize a degree issue by another University. Consequently, the impugned action is not only legally unsustainable but also profoundly inequitable, as it seeks to penalize the petitioner for the University’s own past administrative consistency. 6. Conversely, Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel for Respondent No.3- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University submits that the petitioner applied for a B.Ed. Admission Eligibility Certificate on 25.3.2019. Upon scrutiny of the annexed marksheets, it was revealed that the petitioner’s graduation degree was predicated on a one-year DCA followed by two years of BCA through lateral entry. He further submits that the DCA course was conducted at an off-campus study centre. The respondent sought clarification on the validity of such certificates, communicated with the University Grants Commission (UGC) through letters dated 20.6.2019 and 29.8.2019. In response, UGC informed that (i) no university has been permitted to operate off-campus study centres (ii) UGC regulations strictly prohibit Universities from opening study centres outside their Home State and (iii) as per the UGC (Establishment and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003, even intra-state centres require prior UGC approval, which was not granted in this instance. He submits that this regulatory position is further fortified by the Government of Chhattisgarh vide letters dated 5.5.2015 (Chief Secretar, State of Chhattisgarh) and 6.7.2015 (Higher Education 8 Department, State of Chhattisgarh), which prescribes that no out of State University is authorized to operate off-campus or franchise centres within the State of Chhattisgarh He also submits that since the petitioner’s foundational DCA certificate was issued by an unauthorized study centre in violation of Norms and State Government directives, the same is invalid. Consequently, the petitioner’s lateral entry into the BCA program and by extension, her eligibility for B.Ed. is void ab initio. He lastly submits that in view of the above, the impugned orders have rightly been passed, which does not warrant any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner completed her DCA Course in the year 2011. At that point of time, the UGC did not have jurisdiction over Distance Education Courses, as its authority over such programs commenced only from the year 2013. Since the petitioner already completed her DCA Course in the year 2011, any subsequent guidelines issued by the UGC cannot be applied retrospectively to her detriment. Further, the validity of her DCA qualification was never questioned by any authority. In fact, Respondent No.2-Dr. C.V. Raman University raised no objection to the petitioner's DCA Certificate, since, at the material time, no guidelines existed stipulating that a DCA Certificate could only be obtained through an approved Centre. As such, the petitioner was rightly granted admission to the BCA Course and she duly completed her degree. 9 9. Now, so far as the question regarding her eligibility for the B.Ed. degree after her graduation in MA (English Literature) is concerned, the petitioner was permitted to pursue MA (English Literature) based on her prior qualifications. After successfully completing her post-graduate degree from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University (Respondent No.3) in the year 2016, she again appeared for the said examination as a private student at Respondent No.2- Dr. C.V. Raman University to improve her marks and enhance her academic standing. Upon succeeding in the improvement examination, the petitioner was duly issued a Certificate to that effect by Respondent No.2-University. Subsequently, she cleared the B.Ed. Entrance Examination, secured admission in Respondent No.4 -Shyam Balaji College, Mahasamund and pursued the course. However, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the completion of her final Fourth Semester Examination for the said Course, which was scheduled to be held in April 2020. At the time of admission to the B.Ed. Course, the petitioner had applied for an Eligibility Certificate from Respondent No.3- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University. However, no information regarding its acceptance or rejection was ever communicated to the petitioner throughout the duration of her program. Subsequently, at the belated stage of her Fourth Semester Examination, vide the impugned order dated 8.6.2020, Respondent No.3- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University rejected the subject application. The impugned rejection order dated 8.6.2020 only states that since the initial DCA Certificate of the petitioner is 10 invalid, she could not be granted the Eligibility Certificate. 10. Evidently, the petitioner completed her DCA Course way back in the year 2011 and at that point of time, the subsequent UGC Regulations invoked by the Respondents were not in force. The grounds mentioned in the impugned order did not specify under what circumstances her DCA Certificate has been deemed invalid. Though learned counsel for Respondent No.3 -Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University argued that the qualification of the petitioner is not in consonance with the UGC norms, but these norms became applicable only from the year 2013 onwards and they cannot be applied retrospectively to the petitioner’s qualification obtained in 2011. Thus, the impugned order, whereby the Eligibility Certificate has been denied to the petitioner is not in accordance with law. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the subject UGC Regulations which came into force from the year 2013 onwards cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate a qualification obtained by the petitioner in 2011. In view of the above, it cannot be held that the petitioner’s DCA Certificate violates UGC norms on the ground that the study centre from which the qualification was obtained operated outside the main campus or territorial jurisdiction of the concerned University at that time. 12. It is pertinent to mention this fact that neither Respondent No.3- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University nor Respondent No.2- Dr.C.V. Raman University has ever disputed the validity of the DCA Certificate prior to the current dispute. This objection is being 11 raised for the first time by Respondent No.3- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University at a highly belated stage, which is unjust, arbitrary and not in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed. The concerned Respondent Authorities are directed to issue an Eligibility Certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the Petition is Allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay