Violation of Natural Justice – UGC failed to provide an opportunity for hearing, which was mandatory despite its administrative nature. (Para 17, 21) Unreasoned Decision – The impugned communication merely concluded ineligibility without reasoning, rendering it invalid. (Para 18) Judicial Review of Decision-Making Process – Courts review the process, not the conclusion, and arbitrariness in decision-making warranted judicial interference. (Para 23) Reconsideration Directed – UGC ordered to grant a hearing and issue a reasoned decision within 8 weeks. (Para 24-25)

Impugned rejection order quashed. UGC directed to reconsider the application, ensuring compliance with natural justice. No costs awarded.

Major Acts and Provisions Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Principles of Natural Justice.
• University Grants Commission (Open and Distance Learning Programmes and Online Programmes) Regulations, 2020 – Regulation 3(A)(i) & 3(B)(b)(ii) – Eligibility Criteria for Open Distance Learning and Online Programmes.

Subjects:

Natural Justice – Quasi-Judicial Authority – Reasoned Order – Fair Hearing – Open Distance Learning – Online Education – University Grants Commission – National Institutional Ranking Framework – NAAC Accreditation – Writ of Mandamus.

Nature of Litigation:

The petition challenged the University Grants Commission's (UGC) rejection of the petitioner's application for approval to offer Open Distance Learning (ODL) and Online (OL) programs, alleging non-compliance with eligibility criteria despite achieving NIRF Rank-1.

Who Approached the Court and for What Remedy?

Symbiosis Open Education Society filed a Writ Petition seeking:
a) Quashing of the UGC's rejection letter dated 19 December 2024.
b) Writ of Mandamus directing UGC to grant approval for its ODL and OL programs.

Reason for Filing the Case:

UGC rejected the petitioner’s application on the grounds of non-eligibility under Regulation 3(A)(i), stating that the petitioner was neither accredited by NAAC nor ranked in the top-100 universities under NIRF. The petitioner contended that achieving NIRF Rank-1 sufficed for eligibility.

Prior Judicial Decisions:

• Bombay High Court Judgment (28 June 2024) – Directed UGC to consider the petitioner's application if it met the NIRF ranking criteria.
• Supreme Court Interim Order (9 December 2024) – Directed UGC to expedite consideration of the petitioner’s application.

Issues for Determination:

a) Whether the denial of approval without granting a hearing violated principles of natural justice?
b) Whether the petitioner, having secured NIRF Rank-1, met the UGC eligibility criteria under Regulation 3(A)(i)?

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. The rejection was arbitrary and lacked reasons, violating Article 14.
2. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard, breaching natural justice.
3. The petitioner met the eligibility criteria through NIRF Rank-1, as per Regulation 3(A)(i).
4. UGC's interpretation of the top-100 ranking requirement was erroneous, as skill universities were evaluated separately.

Respondent’s Arguments (UGC)

1. UGC's approval process was administrative, not quasi-judicial, thus no hearing was required.
2. NIRF ranking must be considered in the university category and not skill-based rankings.
3. The petitioner lacked NAAC accreditation, an alternate eligibility condition.