Madras High Court
Rajesh P. Sankaramatam vs The Registrar on 21 January, 2014
Author: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar, P. Devadass
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 21-1-2014 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and The Honourable Mr.Justice P. DEVADASS Writ Petition No.21459 of 2013 M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 Rajesh P. Sankaramatam ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, High Court Buildings, Chennai 600 104. 2. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, rep.by its Director, CVRDE, Avadi, Chennai 54. 3. Senior Administration Officer-I, CVRDE, Avadi, Chennai 54. 4. All India Council for Technical Education, rep.by Regional Director, Southern Regional Office, 1st Floor, Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents (R-4 impleaded as per order dt.3.10.2013 in MP.No.3/2013) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in O.A.No.1370 of 2012 and quash the same and consequently quash the second respondent's order of rejection made in CVRDE/DRTC/LDCE/12/RP, dated 9.11.2012 and direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the examination for the post of STA 'B'. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Dhandapani 1st Respondent : Central Administrative Tribunal For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Devendran, Standing Panel Counsel for Central Government For 4th Respondent : Mr.K.Ravindranath ORDER
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.1370 of 2012 dated 30.11.2012 wherein the order passed by the second respondent dated 9.11.2012, rejecting the application of the petitioner for the post of Senior Technical Assistant-B through Limited Departmental Competitive Exam, and also seeking a direction to permit him to participate in the examination to be conducted on 29.11.2012 to the said post.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
(a) Petitioner is presently working as Technician-A in the Ministry of Defence, Avadi, Chennai since his appointment in the year 2007. Petitioner got permission from the second respondent in the year 2008 to pursue higher studies and obtained three year Diploma Certificate in Mechanical Engineering from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in June, 2012.
(b) The second respondent issued a notification on 27.8.2012 calling for applications from the eligible employees to fill up seven vacancies of Senior Technical Assistant-B (hereinafter referred as 'STA-B') through Limited Departmental Competitive Exam for various streams of Engineering, including three posts of Mechanical Engineering. The essential qualification specified for Mechanical Engineering is three years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from recognised Technical Board/Institute. Petitioner's qualification is also entered in his service register as he obtained permission and underwent the course.
(c) As the petitioner passed Diploma course in Mechanical Engineering and rendered more than four years of service in the second respondent Office, he applied for the said post by application dated 5.9.2012.
(d) On 9.11.2012 petitioner received a reply from the second respondent stating that his application had been rejected on the ground that AICTE has not granted any approval to IGNOU for conducting the D.M.E. course through Distance Education Mode.
(e) Aggrieved by the said order petitioner filed application in O.A.No.1370 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was dismissed at the admission stage itself, by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University case ((2009) 4 SCC 590).
(f) The said order of CAT is challenged in this writ petition by contending that the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development in its notification dated 1.3.1995 clearly stated that all the qualifications awarded by undergoing course through Distance Education by the Universities or Deemed Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956, and Institutions of National importance, declared under the Act of Parliament, stands automatically recognised for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government, provided it is approved by the Distance Education Council, IGNOU.
(g) It is also contended by the petitioner that UGC in its letter No.F.1-8/92(CPP) dated -- February, 1992 has stated that IGNOU, New Delhi, has been established by sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of IGNOU Act, 1985 and declared that the Certificates, Degrees and Diplomas awarded by the said University are treated as equivalent to the corresponding Degree/Diplomas awarded by other Universities in the country. The said position was further reiterated by the IGNOU in their letters dated 24.1.2013 and 20.2.2013 in response to the applications filed under the RTI Act. The Directorate of Human Resources Development, DRDO in its letter dated 14.3.2012 addressed all the departments including the second respondent, giving guidelines to be followed to determine the eligibility of Diplomas awarded by various Institutions/Universities with respect to the appointment of candidates for the post of STA-B, which is binding on all establishments. It is the further case of the petitioner that as he obtained Diploma certificate through the course conducted by the University no recognition/approval is necessary from the AICTE as per the above referred letter of the Headquarters. Hence the order passed by the second respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner, which was confirmed by the CAT, is liable to be set aside.
3. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that the AICTE as a policy not approving the Technical Course obtained through Distance Education Mode. Though the petitioner had undergone the technical course in Distance Education Mode conducted by IGNOU after getting permission from the second respondent, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to pursue the course only after confirming the grant of recognition/approval of the technical course from the regulatory body by the concerned University.
4. An additional counter affidavit was filed stating that the status of recognition of IGNOU, which the petitioner relies on clearly states that the Distance Education Council has given institutional recognition to offer programme through Distance Education Mode, which are approved by its statutory body. As per the allocation of business rules Ministry of HRD, Government of India is the competent authority, who insist on approval of AICTE for all the technical qualification awarded through Distance Education Mode by the Universities established by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature. Relying the said contention, the second and third respondents have prayed for dismissing the writ petition.
5. Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that IGNOU having been created as University by an Act of Parliament and the Distance Education Mode conducted by it having been approved by the Distance Education Council, the stand of the second respondent that the Diploma course offered by the IGNOU has not been approved by the AICTE is unsustainable, and the IGNOU being a University, is entitled to commence technical course without permission or approval of the AICTE, and the said issue has already been settled by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University V. AICTE reported in AIR 2001 SC 2861 and in the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3360 (Association of Management of Private Colleges v. AICTE). In the latter judgment it is held the colleges affiliated to University fall outside the purview of technical education, defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and the said affiliated colleges need not seek approval from AICTE. The learned counsel also distinguished the judgment in the Annamalai University case, wherein the candidate underwent the Distance Education course without basic qualification for admission, and in this case petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for admission to the Diploma course viz., pass in 10th Standard with more than 55% of marks, which is the prescribed qualification for admission to Diploma in Engineering offered by the IGNOU. Learned counsel referring the prospectus of IGNOU submitted that the IGNOU is established in the year 1985 and in its notification it is clearly stated that the Diploma in Mechancial Engineering offered by it is equivalent to Diploma offered by the Technical Education System and is equivalent to any of the similar Diplomas offered by any other Universities or Polytechnics in India. The learned counsel therefore contended that the said Diploma is bound to be considered as recognised qualification for the post of STA-B, as the petitioner has been declared as passed in first Division as he secured 69.002% marks.
6. Mr.M.Devendran, learned Standing Panel Counsel appearing for second and third respondents on the other hand relying upon the counter affidavits submitted that the petitioner having underwent the Diploma course under Open University stream i.e, without attending regular classes, the second respondent sought for clarification from AICTE, which is the approving authority for the colleges to conduct technical education courses, and the said expert body having given a reply that the Diploma possessed by the petitioner cannot be treated as valid qualification, application of the petitioner was rejected, which was rightly upheld by the CAT by applying the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 (supra) and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the two decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in relation to the conduct of course by University without approval of AICTE and the question in this case is whether the petitioner's D.M.E. Qualification obtained without attending three years regular course is valid for appearing in Limited Departmental Competitive examination.
7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Panel Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondents 2 and 3, and the learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent.
8. From the above averments, the following issues arise for consideration in this writ petition:
(1) Whether for the award of Degree, Diploma/ for conducting courses by the Universities in Technical Education, approval of AICTE is required or not ?
(2) Whether the Diploma obtained by the petitioner through OUS without attending regular classes is valid for participation in examination for STA-B, conducted by the second respondent ?
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner passed 10th Standard examinations in March, 1996 with more than 55% marks. Petitioner was appointed as Technician-A in the second respondent's office in the year 2007 and is continuing in service. Petitioner obtained permission from the second respondent to pursue higher studies and obtained three year Diploma Certificate in Mechanical Engineering from IGNOU in June, 2012. Petitioner having been employed in the second respondent office during the course of study, he had not attended the regular classes.
10. Petitioner applied for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for selection to the post of STA-B, for which three posts were notified in Mechanical Engineering Branch, for which three year Diploma course in Mechanical Engineering from the recognised Technical Board/Institute was prescribed as the educational qualification. Petitioner's application was rejected on 2.11.2012. The said order was challenged before the CAT and the Tribunal upheld the order of the second respondent, against which this writ petition is filed.
11. During pendency of the writ petition this Court passed an interim order on 14.11.2013 on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the last date for submission of application for subsequent vacancies was fixed as 18.11.2013, and if he was not allowed to apply, his rights will be seriously prejudiced in case the qualification of the petitioner is found valid ultimately. Considering the said submission without prejudice to the contention of the parties, this Court on 14.11.2013 permitted the petitioner to submit an application with a direction not to reject the application on the ground of want of qualification, and if the examination is scheduled to be held during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner shall also be permitted to appear for the examination by specifically stating that the said permission will not confer any right to the petitioner either to plead equity or any other right.
12. The Diploma obtained by the petitioner was conferred by the IGNOU, which was established by IGNOU Act, 1985. Whether the University is bound to get permission/approval from AICTE for conducting technical education courses was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 2861 (Bharathidasan University v. AICTE). In the said decision it is held that a full-fledged University recognised by UGC is excluded from 'technical institution' defined under section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, 1987. Therefore Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act does not cover 'University'. In the said judgment the Engineering courses conducted by the Bharathidasan University without prior approval of the AICTE was declared as valid. The said position is reiterated in the decision of the supreme Court in 2013 AIR SCW 3360 (Association of Management of Private Colleges v. AICTE). In the said judgment it is held that the colleges affiliated to University will also fall outside the purview of the definition of 'technical institution' as defined in Sec.2(h) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and affiliated colleges need not seek approval from AICTE. Thus, the issue regarding getting prior approval from the AICTE by IGNOU to conduct Diploma in Mechanical Engineering course is settled, and the contention of the respondents 2 to 4 in that respect is unsustainable. Consequently, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner.
13. Insofar as Issue No.2 is concerned, admittedly the petitioner was eligible to apply for Diploma course as he had passed 10th standard with more than 55% of marks. However, the petitioner while in service, underwent the course, appeared for the examination and was awarded the Diploma in the year 2012. Thus, the petitioner has not attended regular classes during his course of study, i.e, Diploma in Mechanical Engineering.
14. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 (Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information & Tourism Department) considered the conflict of UGC Act, 1956 and IGNOU Act, 1985 and held that merely because the Distance Education Council of IGNOU, which is an authority under Statute 28 of IGNOU Act, 1985, granting its approval will not validate the degree awarded by the Open University. In the said decision the Supreme Court held that the UGC Act will prevail over the IGNOU Act, as UGC Act will bind all Universities, whether conventional or open. The regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to Open Universities and also to formal Conventional Universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standard of instructions and such minimum standards are required to be defined by UGC.
15. Though in the said Annamalai Unviersity case an incidental question was also decided regarding PG degrees obtained before basic degree is valid or not, the equivalence of degree/diploma obtained through Open University and Regular Universities, i.e., one attending regular course and another not attending regular course was also considered. Thus, the issue regarding equivalence of diploma obtained by the petitioner from IGNOU is a valid qualification for writing STA-B or not can be decided only by the UGC.
16. It is true that in the circular issued by UGC in February, 1992 and 5th May, 2004 it is stated that the Certificates, Diplomas and Degrees awarded by IGNOU are treated equivalent to corresponding awards of the Universities in the country. The Annamalai University case having been decided in the year 2009, which is subsequent to the circulars issued by UGC, the UGC alone can once again decide the issue with reference to the said judgment. This Court is not competent to decide the validity/equivalence of the degree/diploma for appointment/promotion. The petitioner failed to implead the UGC as party respondent. Hence, we are of the view that the second respondent is bound to approach the UGC to get clarification as to whether the Diploma obtained by the petitioner from IGNOU under Open University Stream viz., Diploma in Mechanical Engineering is a valid qualification/equivalent to diploma obtained by the candidates under regular stream by attending regular classes. As the UGC is not impleaded as party respondent in this case, we are not in a position to give any direction to UGC at this juncture. The petitioner can also approach the UGC to get clarification in this aspect and depending upon the clarification to be issued by UGC, the claim of the petitioner shall be considered by respondents 2 and 3 and till the UGC clarifies the said issue, one post of STA-B in the Office of the second respondent shall be kept vacant. Issue No.2 is answered as stated supra.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions/liberty. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No. (N.P.V.,J) (P.D.S.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No. 21st January, 2014
vr
To
1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.
2. The Director, CVRDE, Avadi,
(Ministry of Defence, Union of India), Chennai 54.
3. The Senior Administration Officer-I,
CVRDE, Avadi, Chennai 54.
4. The Regional Director, All India Council for Technical Education,
Southern Regional Office, 1st Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.
N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
and
P. DEVADASS, J.
vr
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.21459 of 2013
21-1-2014