Supreme Court Bench of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit refused to grant any relief to seven petitioners who had enrolled themselves in the years 2004 and 2005 in degree courses in Engineering through open distance learning program from a deemed university and had pleaded the court to declare that their degrees would be valid, would not require AICTE approval and would be treated at par with corresponding degrees granted by any traditional university\/AICTE-recognized institution in the country.
\nThe Apex Court refused to grant any relief to seven petitioners who had enrolled themselves in the years 2004 and 2005 in degree courses in Engineering through open distance learning program from a deemed university and had pleaded the court to declare that their degrees would be valid, would not require AICTE approval and would be treated at par with corresponding degrees granted by any traditional university or AICTE-recognized institution in the country.
\nWith regard to the instant petition wherein the petitioners had enrolled themselves in the years 2004 and 2005, the bench said they are covered by the directions issued by it in Orissa lift irrigation matter wherein it had expressly stated that \u201cas regards students who were admitted after the academic sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the deemed to be universities concerned through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled\u201d.<\/p>\n

Criminal | Civil | Matrimonial | Divorce | Child Custody | Consumer Forum | MACT Claims | <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court Bench of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit refused to grant any relief to seven petitioners who had enrolled themselves in the years 2004 and 2005 in degree courses in Engineering through open distance learning program from a deemed university and had pleaded the court to declare that their degreesRead more about ENGINEERING DEGREE THROUGH DISTANCE LEARNING NOT VALID \u2013 SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO GRANT RELIEF ON THE PLEA<\/span>[…]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions\/42"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.ethicallegal.in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}