Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5049/2022 on 3 April, 2025
GAHC010147152022
2025:GAU-AS:4702
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
W.P.(C) NO.5049 OF 2022
1. Umesh Ch. Das,
S/o- Late Jadav Ch. Das,
R/o- Sualkuchi, Boarding Road,
District- Kamrup(R), Assam,
PIN- 781103
2. Mridul Dev Adhikary,
S/o- Late Mukunda Mohan
Adhikary, Bishnu Nagar,
H. No.39, Haricharan Das Path,
Lokhra Road, Lokhra,
District- Kamrup (M), Assam,
PIN- 781040
.......Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the
Commissioner and Secretary,
Department of Forest and
Environment, Dispur, Guwahati-
781005.
2. The Chairman,
Pollution Control Board,
Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-
781021.
Page 1 of 38
3. The Member Secretary,
Pollution Control Board,
Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-
781021.
4. University Grants Commission,
District Education Bureau,
35- Feroze Shah Road,
New Delhi- 110001.
5. Manoj Saikia,
S/o- Reba Kanta Saikia,
Additional Chief Environmental
Scientist, Pollution Control Board,
Bamunimaidam, Guwahati-
781021.
.......Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Barua, Standing Counsel, PCB,
for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
: Mr. Y. N. Mahanta, Advocate for
respondent No.4 (UGC).
: Mr. N. Deka, Advocate for
respondent No.5.
Date of Hearing : 03.04.2025.
Date of Judgment : 03.04.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Barua, learned Standing Page 2 of 38 Counsel, Pollution Control Board, Assam for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Y. N. Mahanta, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 (UGC), and Mr. N. Deka, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5.
2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging inter alia the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 in so far as it relates to the promotion of respondent No.5 to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No.1 has completed his B.Sc. in Botany from the Gauhati University in the year 1985 and thereafter his M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment in the year 2003 from Sikkim Manipal University (hereinafter referred to as "SMU") and the petitioner No.2 has completed his B.Sc. in Chemistry from the Gauhati University in the year 1986, and thereafter his M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment in the year 2006 from SMU. The petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Chemist (re-designated as Assistant Environmental Scientist) under the Pollution Control Board, Assam (Employees' Service) Regulations, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 2012") in the year 1987 and 1989 respectively, whereas the respondent No.5 joined as a Chemist (AES) in the year 1994. During their service tenure, a controversy arose in the year 2011 as to whether a M.Sc. Degree in Ecology and Environment can be equated with a M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry/Physics/Biological Science for consideration for Page 3 of 38 the promotional requirements for the post of Executive Environmental Scientist from Assistant Executive Environmental Scientist and further promotion to the post of Senior Environmental Scientist. In view of the aforesaid controversy, two writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No. 912/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 6329/2013 were filed by the petitioner No.2 and the respondent No.5 respectively for clarification on the said issue of equivalence. Thereafter, this Court vide a common judgment & order dated 06.04.2015 was pleased to dispose of the aforesaid two writ petitions by referring the issue of equivalency of M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment with M.Sc. in Biological Science for the purpose of the aforesaid promotion before a Committee of Experts for expression of opinion on the said controversy. Thereafter, the Expert Committee in its 98th Board Meeting concluded that M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is equivalent to M.Sc. in Biological Science for the purpose of promotion to the post of Senior Environmental Scientist and Chief Environmental Scientist from Executive Environmental Scientist. It is the specific case of the petitioners that though the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist was lying vacant for a long time and the petitioners being the senior most persons available in the cadre of Senior Environmental Scientist for consideration for promotion to the said post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist, the respondent Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as "PCB") did not take any steps for promoting the petitioners and instead by order dated 22.07.2022 promoted the respondent No. 5 to Page 4 of 38 the rank of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist by ignoring the petitioners. Situated thus, the instant writ petition has been filed.
4. Mr. M. Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the inter-se seniority it is apparent that petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No.2 are senior to respondent No.5 and are accordingly eligible for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist. He further submits that the issue of equivalence of M.Sc. Degree in Ecology and Environment with M.Sc. Degree in Biological Science being determined by the Expert Committee constituted as per common judgment & order of this Court dated 06.04.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 912/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 6329/2013, the respondent authorities ought not have ignored the petitioners for consideration for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist. He further submits that the petitioners are duly qualified to be promoted to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist and that the petitioners obtained their Master's Degree in Ecology and Environment from SMU during 2002 and 2006 respectively by way of distance education programme and that the University Grants Commission (herein referred to as "UGC") had accorded post facto approval to the SMU to conduct distance education course during the said period. He further submits that the concept of an off-campus/study center is distinctively separate from an examination center and that during the period when the petitioners had completed their Page 5 of 38 Master's Degree, there was no prohibition on conduct of examination centers outside the parent university. He further submits that such a prohibition was introduced only in the year 2012 for the first time by notification dated 31.01.2012. He further submits that the petitioners having already obtained their Master's Degree by then, their rights having accrued, the same cannot be taken away subsequently by applying the regulation, rule, law retrospectively. He further submits that the respondent PCB had endorsed the suitability of the petitioners to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist by Office Order dated 06.07.2015 which having not been cancelled nor rescinded, the respondent PCB is estopped to act contrary to the same. He further submits that the respondent PCB vide Office Order dated 08.10.2013, 06.07.2015 and 06.07.2015 had assessed the suitability of the Master's Degree obtained by the petitioners and thereafter promoted the petitioners to the post of Senior Environmental Scientist and hence cannot turn back on their own mandate at the fag end of the petitioner's career, depriving the petitioners of their legitimate expectation and right to be considered for promotion to the subject post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist. He further draws the attention of this Court to the gradation list dated 27.06.2022 wherein the inter-se seniority was fixed in the cadre of Senior Environmental Scientist, where the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 were at serial Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, whereas the respondent No.5 was at serial No.3. He accordingly, submits that the petitioners Page 6 of 38 having all the necessary qualification for the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist and both being senior to the respondent No.5, the impugned promotion of respondent No.5 to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist is totally arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. He further submits that under Clause 12 (2) (B) of the Regulation, 2012, it is imperative for the respondent PCB to record in writing the reasons for not selecting an employee who is senior to an employee selected for promotion. He accordingly, submits that no reason for ignoring the petitioners while promoting the respondent No.5, who is admittedly junior to them to the subject post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist, is discernible from the impugned order.
5. Per contra Mr. N. Deka, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the Expert Committee has only decided the issue as to the equivalence of M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment with M.Sc. in Biological Science and not as regards the validity of the degrees obtained by a university which is not a recognized university. He further submits that the petitioners have acquired the M.Sc. Degree in Ecology and Environment from the SMU through off-campus/study center located at Guwahati. He further submits that as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and another Vs. The State of Chattisgarh & Ors., reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420, no off-campus centers can operate outside the state in which the university is situated under the State Act unless the Page 7 of 38 Parliament by enacting a law permits the same. He further submits that in pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal and another (Supra) case, UGC has from time to time issued circulars and guidelines to the Colleges, Universities and States not to operate off-campus centers outside the territorial jurisdiction of the university. He accordingly, submits that the petitioners having obtained the degree in question from an off-campus/study center situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Sikkim, the same is not valid and hence cannot be said to posses the requisite degree for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist. He accordingly, submits that the impugned promotion of respondent No.5 is not to be interfered with.
6. Mr. S. Barua, learned Standing Counsel, PCB, submits that pursuant to the decision of the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal and another (Supra), the Commissioner to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department has issued Office Memorandum dated 09.07.2012 whereby the Director of Higher Education, Assam and Director of Technical Education, Assam were directed to ensure that no off-campus center/study center and the centers operating through franchises be opened by the university outside their specific territorial jurisdiction and in cases where a university has already started an off-campus/study center and the center are operating through franchise in the State, the same is to be closed immediately and that no distance education programme Page 8 of 38 shall be started without the prior approval of Distance Education Council. He further submits that the minutes of the Board Meeting dated 02.07.2022, wherein the Board had decided to consider the respondent No.5 for promotion to the subject post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist has specifically taken note of the fact that the petitioners are not eligible for promotion to the said post as they do not have the requisite qualification. He accordingly, submits that the decision making process being fair cannot be interfered with.
7. Mr. Y. N. Mahanta, learned Counsel for respondent No.4 (UGC) submits that the UGC has never granted approval to any university to open any off-campus study center outside the territorial jurisdiction/limit of a university. He further submits that any degree or diploma obtained from any off-campus study center operating illegally outside the jurisdiction of the State is invalid.
8. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the material available on record. I have also considered the citation submitted at the bar.
9. It appears that the dispute involved in the writ petition is promotion to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist from the rank of Senior Environmental Scientist. Clause 9 of the Regulation, 2012 provides the procedure for recruitment and promotion to Page 9 of 38 the post in question. Clause 9 (I) (B) of the Regulation, 2012 read as hereunder: -
"(B) Laboratory and Scientific Service:
7) Chief Environmental Scientist (CES)
8) Additional Chief Environmental Scientist (ACES)
9) Senior Environmental Scientist (SES)
10) Executive Environmental Scientist (EES)
11) Assistant Exe. Env. Scientist (AEES)
12) Environmental Scientist (ES)
13) Assistant Environmental Scientist (AES)
14) Scientific Assistant-I/Asstt. Chemist
15) Scientific Assistant-II
16) Scientific Assistant-I"
10. Clause 9 (III) (b) and (e) of the Regulation, 2012 reads as hereunder: -
"(III) Qualification, Experience and Promotion of Employees of Laboratory and Scientific Service:
b. The promotional criteria for Assistant Environmental Scientist (AES) & Environmental Scientist (ES) to the higher cadre shall be as per Table-3 in Appendix-III.
e. Promotion from the level of EES to SES and above that is ACES and CES shall be on selection considering merit and seniority against the vacant post(s). There shall be a common cadre list of Scientists of the Board recruited as Environmental Scientist either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the AES before the commencement of these rules."
11. Apt to refer to Table 3 in Appendix-III, which reads as hereunder: -
Sl No Promotional Service Cadres Educational Scale of Pay Avenues Percentage Minimum and Designation of Qualification as per R.O.P of Post for Year of Remarks Page 10 of 38 the Post 2010 From To the Recruitment/ Experience the post of Promotion post of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B. LABORATORY & SCIENTIFIC SERVICE Ph.D holders may be
1. Chief Env. M.Sc. in Rs. 12,000 ACES CES By 25 years preferred Scientist (CES) Chemical/ to 40,000 + Promotion of service and 2 years Biological/ 7,600 G.P. in the experience Life/ Board or as Regional Environm 3 years as Head of ental ACES office shall Science be desirable for promotional cases
2. Addle. Chief Rs. 12,000 SES 100% 22 years -DO-
Env. Scientist -DO- to 40,000 + ACES Promotion of service (ACES) 7,400 G.P. in the Board or 2 years as SES 20 years of service Only Msc.
3. Sr. Env. Rs. 12,000 EES SES 100% in the degree Scientist (SES) -DO- to 40,000 + Promotion Board or holders shall 6,600 G.P. 7 years as be promoted EES to this level For promotee 5 years of scientists,
4. Ex. Env. Rs. 12,000 AEES EES 100% service as the Scientist (EES) -DO- to 40,000 + Promotion AEES in qualification 6,300 G.P. the Board shall be B.Sc only.
5 years of
5. Asstt. Ex. Env. Rs. 12,000 ES AEES 100% service in -DO-
-DO-
Scientist to 40,000 + Promotion the Board
(AEES) 5,900 G.P. as ES
Direct
Recruitment
-DO- ---- ---- ----
6. Env. Scientist Rs. 12,000 of M.Sc. or
(ES) to 40,000 + Promotion
5,400 G.P. from AES
with 10 years
Experience in
the ratio 2:1.
Page 11 of 38
B.Sc in
7. Asstt. Env. Chemistry Rs. 8,000 Asstt AES 100% Minm. 5 ----
Scientist (AES) /Botany/ to 35,000 + Che Promotion years
Zoology/ 4,500 G.P. mist/ from SAI experience
Env. Sc. SAI as SAI
Asstt.
Chemist shall
8. Scientific Asstt. B.Sc in Rs. 5,200 SAII SAI 100% 5 years of be
I (SAI) Chemistry to 20,200 + Promotion service in designated
/Biological 3,000 G.P. the board as Scientific
Sciences Asstt. I
7 years of
9. Scientific Asstt. -DO- Rs. 5,200 SAIII SAII 100% service in Field. Asstt.
II (SAII) (Old to 20,200 + Promotion the board post
Field Asstt.) 2,500 G.P. as SAIII
Direct
Scientific Asstt. Minimum Rs. 5260 to Recruitme Candidates
10 III (SAIII) (Old HSSLC 20,200 + ---- ---- nt of ---- shall be
Lab Asstt.) Level with 2200 G.P. HSSLC selected via.
Chemistry level Scientific
/Biology candidates capability
B.Sc. test/
candidates Interview.
shall be
preferred
12. Reading the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the educational qualification required for promotion to the post of Environmental Scientist, Assistant Executive Environmental Scientist and to the higher cadre i.e. Additional Chief Environmental Scientist is M.Sc. in Chemical/Biological/Life/Environmental Science and the minimum years of experience is 22 years of service in the Board or 2(two) years in the rank of Senior Environmental Scientist. It further appears that promotions are to be effected on selection considering merit and seniority. It is an admitted position that the petitioners have obtained the M.Sc. Degrees in Ecology and Environment from SMU Page 12 of 38 through distance mode from an off-campus center in the State of Assam at Guwahati and the petitioners have also appeared in an examination center at Guwahati.
13. It appears that the PCB in their affidavit has taken a stand that the Board in its meeting held on 02.07.2022 against agenda item No. 104.6 had taken a decision that since the M.Sc. Degrees of the petitioners were obtained from a distance course (off-campus), their cases cannot be considered for further promotion and accordingly the case of respondent No.5 was considered and granted promotion from Senior Environmental Scientist to Additional Chief Environmental Scientist. The said agenda item No. 104.6 of the Minutes of the 104th Board Meeting reads as hereunder: -
"Agenda Item No. 104.6 : Promotion of SES to ACES The Board discussed the agenda in detail including the Supreme Court Order in the Professor Yash Pal- Vs- The State of Chattisgarh reported in (2005) 5 SSC 420 case, UGC clarification regarding permission granted to Sikkim Manipal University (SMU) to open distance education center through Franchisee, etc. The Board observed that the Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment, which issued the Master's Degree to two (2) of the Board's scientists, namely Shri U.C Das (SES) and Shri M.D. Adhikary (SES), was never in the book of UGC and the said Private Institute was found out to be a Study Centre of SMU. Besides, SMU operated the study centre without any approval from UGC.
The Board also noted that the eligibility criteria of admission into the said MSc course also included even Arts and Commerce graduate, which is absolutely in contradiction to the nature of work in PCBA. It was resolved by the Board that for the coveted post of ACES, the candidate must have a Master's degree from a regular university and one Page 13 of 38 should have the experience of laboratory analysis. From the eligibility criteria of candidates for the said distance education degree, it was understood that the said MSc course lacked the laboratory analysis module. The Board took a strong resolution that the Board needed a Scientist to Head the laboratory with a regular Master's degree from a UGC recognised university.
After deliberation on the issue and also considering the comment of the Standing Counsel that the order of the Supreme Court in the year 2012 should be honored and mistake already done should not be repeated, the Board look the resolution that the candidature of Mr. Umesh Ch Das, SES and Mr. Mridul Dev Adhikary, SES, who obtained degree from Distance Course (off campus), could not be considered for next promotion. Hence, Shri Manoj Saikia, SES, who is having Master's degree in Chemistry from Gauhati University is to be considered for next promotion."
14. Reading of the aforesaid decision of the Board as recorded in the said minutes of the meeting, it appears that the Board observed that the Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment, which issued the Master's Degree to the two petitioners was never in the book of UGC and the said private institute was found out to be a study center of SMU operating without any approval from UGC. The Board after noting the eligibility criteria of admission into the M.Sc. course resolved that for the subject post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist, the candidate must have a Master's Degree from a regular university and one should have the experience of laboratory analysis. The Board further deliberated that since the petitioners have obtained the M.Sc. Degree in question from distance mode, they lacked the necessary Page 14 of 38 experience of laboratory analysis. The Board accordingly took a resolution that the Board needed a Scientist to head the laboratory with a regular Master's Degree from a UGC recognized university. It further appears that the Board accordingly took the resolution that the petitioners having obtained the requisite degree from distance course (off- campus) cannot be considered for next promotion and decided to consider the case of the respondent No.5 who is having the requisite degree from Gauhati University for next promotion. The aforesaid decision of the respondent authorities falls under the realm of administrative action and the role of judicial review of such decision is limited. The test is whether the action of the authorities has been fair and free from taint of unreasonableness. This Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not sit in appeal against the decision of the Administrator but what the constitutional court has to see is if the Administrator has left out relevant factors or taken into account irrelevant factors. In other words, the decision of the Administrator has to be in conformity with the law and not one which no sensible person could have reasonably arrived at and must have been a bonafide one. In essence, it is not the decision which has to be examined but the decision making process. Hence, what is required to be seen is whether there is any infirmity in the decision making process. (Refer: - Indian Railway Construction Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, reported in 2003 4 SCC 579) .
Page 15 of 3815. Keeping the aforesaid limitations in mind, let me now examine whether the decision of the respondent authorities in promoting the respondent No.5 to the subject post suffers from any infirmities. The respondent authorities have not considered the case of the petitioners for promotion to the said post as the petitioners did not possesses valid M.Sc. Degree.
16. The question therefore that falls for determination in the present writ petition is whether the M.Sc. Degrees of the petitioners obtained by distance mode from an off- campus center located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the state university is valid in the eye of the law or not.
17. Undoubtedly, in the case in hand, the competent authority to decide on the validity of a particular degree is the UGC. Apt to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No.4 (UGC), which reads as hereunder: -
"5. The University Grants Commission (for short UGC) i.e. the respondent no. 4 have filed an affidavit wherein in paragraphs 10 and 11 thereof, it has been stated as under -
'10. That the Answering Respondent further begs to submit that the validity of the degrees conferred by the Sikkim Manipal University (SMU) is subject to the fact whether the said Master's Degree obtained by the Petitioner was obtained through Open Distance Learning Mode (ODL) and If it is yes, then whether the Petitioner appeared in the examination of the University in an examination centre located within the territorial limit of SMU or in any off campus study center illegally operated by the said University. If the concerned Page 16 of 38 candidate appeared in the examination in an examination centre located outside the territorial limit of SMU; or, in any illegally operated off campus study centers under the SMU then such degree or diploma is invalid. The concerned candidate must clarify the said issue with documentary evidence.
11. That the UGC since 2001 has been continuously Instructing all the Universities of India not to operate or open any off campus study centers outside the territorial limit of the University. A University can of course open a study center within its territorial limit with the prior approval of the UGC. However, till this moment, the UGC has never granted approval to any University to open any off campus Study Centre outside the territorial jurisdiction/limit of a University."
18. Reading of the averments of the affidavit filed by UGC as extracted above, it is clearly discernible that the specific stand of the UGC is that in the event the degree is obtained through open distance learning mode of SMU, the relevant test in order to examine the validity of such degree is whether the candidate concerned appeared in an examination centre located within the territorial limit of SMU or in off campus study illegally operated by the said university. It appears that UGC has clarified in the said affidavit that if the concerned candidate has appeared in the examination or in an examination centre located outside the territorial limit of SMU or in any illegally off campus study centers of the SMU, then such degree or diploma is invalid. It is further apparent that UGC has also clarified in the said affidavit that since 2001 they have Page 17 of 38 been continuously instructing all the Universities of India not to operate or open off campus study campus outside the territorial limit. It further appears that UGC has also clarified in the said affidavit that till the date of filling of the said affidavit, the UGC has never granted approval to any university to operate off campus study centre outside its territorial limit. Hence the M.Sc. Degrees of the petitioners cannot be said to be valid degree.
19. It would be worthwhile at this juncture to refer to paragraph 60 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and another (Supra), which reads as hereunder: -
"60. Dr. Dhavan has also drawn the attention of the Court to certain other provisions of the Act which have effect outside the State of Chhattisgarh and thereby give the State enactment an extraterritorial operation. Section 2(f) of the amended Act defines 'off-campus centre' which means a centre of the university established by it outside the main campus (within or outside the State) operated and maintained as its constituent unit, having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 2(g) defines 'off-
shore campus' and it means a campus of the university established by it outside the country, operated and maintained as its constituent unit, having the university's complement of facilities, faculty and staff. Section 3(7) says that the object of the university shall be to establish the main campus in Chhattisgarh and to have study centres at different places in India and other countries. In view of Article 245(1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. The impugned Act which specifically makes a provision enabling a Page 18 of 38 university to have an off-campus centre outside the State is clearly beyond the legislative competence of the Chhattisgarh Legislature."
20. Reading of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is apparent that no state university can operate off-campus center outside the jurisdiction of the state and it is the Parliament alone which is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India.
21. There is no quarrel to the fact that there are two modes of obtaining a degree, one by attending a regular course in a university and the second through distance mode i.e. a correspondence course. However, the degree obtained through correspondence/distance mode has to be granted by a university within the state where it operates. In other words, it cannot operate a study center in other states to grant such a degree in view of the prohibition laid by the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and another (Supra).
22. Reference is made to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bijon Nath Vs. The State of Assam and Ors., in W.A. No. 55/2019 and Asit Baran Paul Vs. The State of Assam and Ors ., in W.A. No. 76/2019, wherein in the context of the appellants possessing Master's Degree from an off-campus centre of the Madurai Kamraja University at Agartala, the Division Bench of this Court held that the M.A. Degrees obtained from study centers outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned state university is not a valid Page 19 of 38 degree. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench reads as hereunder: -
"7. For considering whether a Degree is recognized or not, it would be most appropriate to refer to the affidavit filed on behalf of University Grants Commission (for short 'UGC'). In both the petitions, the UGC brought out the facts, and the legal position that UGC has never at any point of time granted the above named Universities to open Study Centers outside the States where they were located.
8. For the purpose of exact reference, we extract hereinbelow paragraphs 8 and 9 of counter affidavit filed by Shri Amit Kumar Verma holding the post of Education Officer in University Grants Commissioner, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, on behalf of Respondent No.8. The said paragraphs read as under:
'8. That it is respectfully submitted that the basic issue that leading to the filing of the instant Writ Petition is that the Master Degree in Economics obtained by the Respondent No.4 (Sri Asit Baran Paul) from the Madurai Kamaraj University, Tamilnadu under distance mode from an off campus centre in Tripura is claimed to be invalid; thus, cannot be used for any purpose. This Hon'ble Court at this juncture, impleaded the University Grants Commission as a party Respondent and asked the University Grants Commission to clarify the aforesaid issue. The reply of the University Grants Commission in this point are as follows:-
A. Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai Tamil Nadu is a State University; it can operate within its State only. The University is not authorized to open study centre/off campus centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State. The University Grants Commission, after the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. Yash Pal case (reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420} has clarified the issue of territorial jurisdiction and opening of Study Centre from time to time. However, it is on records that the University Grants Commission and erstwhile Page 20 of 38 Distance Education Council under the IGNOU has time and again issued various notification/directions in this regards. B. Be it stated herein that the University Grants Commission has never, at any point of time, granted permission to the Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, Tamil Nadu to open any Study Centre and/or Off Campus Study Centre outside the State of Tamil Nadu.
Hence, it is categorically stated that the Respondent No.4, who has obtained the degree through an off campus centre, outside the state of Tamil Nadu, is not recognized by UGC.
C. Moreover, Madurai Kamaraj University cannot have examination. Centre in Tripura or elsewhere except in Tamil Nadu. Therefore, appearing in the examination in Tripura which was held by the said University cannot be held good.
9. That the Answering Respondent on behalf of the University Grants Commission begs to state that it is not a case that the University Grants Commission had issued only one directives (i.e. on 27.06.2013) or for that matter Notice/Notification etc as regards functioning of the Universities which are imparting education in distance or open learning mode. It is utmost necessary at this point to make a mention of the Notification issued from time to time in this regards:-
i) The UGC policies on territorial Jurisdiction, study centres, off campus, etc. has been elaborated in various University Grants Commission's letters. The public notice dated 27.06.2013 was only reiteration of earlier policy of UGC on territorial jurisdiction of Universities. The UGC vide circular D.O. No. F.1-
52/99 (CPP II) dated 09.08.2001 directed all universities as under:
'The universities can conduct courses through its own departments, its constituent college and/or through its affiliated institutions. There is, however, no provision for leaving it to private institutions for conducting course leading to award of its degrees. As per recent UGC guidelines, the universities are permitted to impart education and award its degrees Page 21 of 38 through their own campus located elsewhere in the country or even at their own off shore campuses with the approval of the UGC.
Looking into the wide spread of franchising the university education through the private institutions, the UGC has decide that any university which proposed to enter into collaboration with any private institution, would be required to take prior approval of the UGC. The commission has also decided that no university should be permitted to go for off campus private educational franchise leading to the award of its degrees.
Accordingly, all the universities are being directed to stop franchising their degree education through private agencies/establishments with immediate effect..........'
9. On similar lines, reply was filed in the writ petition which is subject matter of Writ Appeal No.55 of 2019.
10. Considering the stand of the UGC to the effect that in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Prof. Yash Pal case, (2005) 5 SCC 420, the issue of territorial jurisdiction and opening study centre has been clarified by the UGC. UGC from time to time has issued various circulars and directions beginning 2001. The said UGC circular has been extracted in para-(9) (i) (above extracted), which demonstrates that not only the appellants were not eligible to compete for the post of Principal because they lacked the basic qualification, not having passed M.A./M.Sc. from UGC recognized University, but also the said circulars and notifications has been circulated repeatedly since 2001.
It stands demonstrated that the appellants in the two appeals obtained degrees from Study Centres located outside the States where the concerned Universities were located, hence, the said degrees cannot be said to have been issued by UGC recognized Universities."
Page 22 of 3823. It is evident from the above that degree obtained from study centers/off-campus centers/centers situated outside the jurisdiction of the state university is not valid in law.
24. Reference is made to the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulation, 2003 which provides the definition of off- campus center under Regulation 2.2 and Regulation 3, which provides establishment and recognition of private Universities, which reads as here under: -
"2.2 'off-campus centre'* means a centre of the private university established by it outside the main campus (within or outside the State) operated and maintained as its constituent unit, having the university_s compliment of facilities, faculty and staff.
3. Establishment and recognition of Private Universities 3.1. Each private university shall be established by a separate State Act and shall conform to the relevant provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, as amended from time to time.
3.2. A private university shall be a unitary university having adequate facilities for teaching, research, examination and extension services. 3.3. A private university established under a State Act shall operate ordinarily within the boundary of the State concerned. However, after the development of main campus, in exceptional circumstances, the university may be permitted to open off-campus centres, off-shore campuses and study centres after five years of its coming into existence, subject to the following conditions:
3.3.1. The off-campus centre(s) and / or the study centre(s) shall be set up with the prior approval of the UGC and that of the State Government(s) where the centre(s) is/are proposed to be opened.Page 23 of 38
3.3.2. The over-all performance of the off-campus centre(s) and/ or the study centre(s) shall be monitored annually by the UGC or its designated agency. The directions of the UGC for management, academic development and improvement shall be binding.
3.3.3. If the functioning of the said centre(s) remains unsatisfactory, the private university shall be instructed by the UGC to close down the said centre(s), which shall be binding on the university.
In such a situation, the interests of the students already enrolled therein shall be protected. 3.3.4. Any off-shore campus(es) in foreign countries shall be opened only after obtaining due permission from the Government of India and also that of the Government of the host country. 3.3.5. In case of off-shore campus(es), the remittance of funds shall be governed by the rules and regulations of the Reserve Bank of India. 3.4. A Private university shall fulfill the minimum criteria in terms of programmes, faculty, infrastructural facilities, financial viability, etc., as laid down from time to time by the UGC and other concerned statutory bodies such as the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Distance Education Council (DEC), the Dental Council of India (DCI), the Indian Nursing Council (INC), the Medical Council of India (MCI), the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), etc. 3.5. The courses of studies prescribed for a first degree and/ or the post-graduate degree / diploma programmes should have been formally approved by the respective academic bodies of the private university, such as Board of Studies, Academic Council and Governing/ Executive Council. 3.6. The programmes of study leading to a degree and/or a post-graduate degree/diploma offered by a private university shall conform to the relevant regulations/norms of the UGC or the concerned statutory body as amended from time to time.
Page 24 of 383.7. A private university shall provide all the relevant information relating to the first degree and post-graduate degree/diploma programme(s) including the curriculum structure, contents, teaching and learning process, examination and evaluation system and the eligibility criteria for admission of students, to the UGC on a proforma prescribed by the UGC prior to starting of these programmes.
3.8. The UGC on detailed examination of the information made available as well as the representations and grievances received by it from the students as well as concerned public relating to the deficiencies of the proposed programme(s) not conforming to various UGC Regulations, shall inform the concerned university about any shortcomings in respect of conformity to relevant regulations, for rectification. The university shall offer the programme(s) only after necessary rectification.
3.9. The admission procedure and fixation of fees shall be in accordance with the norms/guidelines prescribed by the UGC and other concerned statutory bodies."
25. Reading of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that the off-campus center has to be established with prior approval of the UGC and that of the State Governments where the center is/are proposed to be opened.
26. Apt at this juncture to refer to the various conditions issued by the UGC in relation to the issue in hand. Reference is made to the letter dated August 2014 issued by UGC to the Vice Chancellor/Directors of SOUs/DEIs/DDEs, which reads as hereunder: -
"F.No. UGC/DEB/QMC/2013 August, 2014 The Vice Chancellors/Directors SOUS/DEls/DDES Page 25 of 38 Subject: Territorial jurisdiction & offering of programmes through off.campus/Study Centres etc by Institutions/Universities-reg. Sir/Madam, The University Grants Commission has from time to time been notifying its policy on territorial jurisdiction and offering of programmes through off campuses/centres/study centres by Universities/Institutions. Vide its Public Notice No. F.27-1/2012 (CPP-II), dated 27th June 2013 (copy enclosed), UGC has notified its policy on territorial jurisdiction to be followed by all Universities/Institutions including Open and Distance Learning Institutions, which is as under:
i) a Central or State Government University can conduct courses on its own departments, its constituent colleges and/or through its affiliated colleges;
ii) a University established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory of the State of its location;
iii) the private universities and deemed universities cannot affiliate any college or institution, for conducting courses leading to award of its diplomas, degrees or other qualifications;
iv) no university, whether central, state, private or deemed, can offer its programmes through franchising arrangement with private coaching institutions even for the purpose of conducting courses through distance mode;
v) all universities shall award only such degrees as are specified by the UGC and published in the official Gazette,
vi) the universities shall conduct their first degrees and Master's degree programmes in accordance with the regulations notified by the UGC in this regard.Page 26 of 38
2. The UGC has also issued regulations relating to Private Universities and Deemed Universities which should be strictly followed by the concerned University. A copy of these regulations is hosted on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in.
3. However, it has come to the notice of the UGC that some Universities are offering programmes through distance mode without approval of UGC/ erstwhile DEC and several Universities/Institutions have opened their study centres in violation of the policy of UGC and erstwhile DEC on territorial jurisdiction. Some Institutions are giving misleading advertisements in newspapers and other public media that the programmes offered by these Institutions are approved by the UGC. The same is not permissible by UGC and should be immediately stopped.
4. Therefore, all Universities/Institutions are hereby requested to offer only those programmes which are approved by UGC/erstwhile DEC and follow the policy of UGC on territorial jurisdiction, study centres, and non-franchising of study centres for offering programmes through distance mode. The activities at the study centre such as admission. examination, conduct of Personal Conduct Programmes (PCPs) etc should be operated by the concerned University. Study centres cannot conduct examinations on their own nor can they award degree/diploma etc. No sub-letting of study centres should be allowed and any such centre opened by any University/Institution would be in violation of the UGC policy.
5. The UGC/erstwhile DEC has not given approval to any University for, opening of ODL study centres outside India. Thus, operation of any such centre is wholly invalid and must be immediately closed. Universities/Institutions are also requested to close down any study centre opened in violation of above policy. Also any programme not recognized by the UGC/ erstwhile DEC and wherever necessary by other Apex regulatory bodies, should not be offered through distance mode.
Yours faithfully, Page 27 of 38 (Jaspal Singh Sandhu) Secretary Encl.: As above"
27. Apt also to refer to the letter dated 28.04.2016 issued by the UGC to the State Education Secretaries to all the states directing to stop all the states/state private universities in the state from operating beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their state, which reads as hereunder: -
"F.No. 28-2/2015 (DEB-II) S-No9CJ) Date: 28.04.2016 Sir/Madam, The MHRD vide Gazette Notification No.6- 1/2013 dated 10.06.2015 (published in Gazette on dated 25.07 2015) has notified that 'all the degrees/diplomas/certificates including technical education degrees/diploma awarded through Open and Distance Learning mode of education by the Universities established by an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, Institutions Deemed to be Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 and Institutions of National Importance declared under an Act of Parliament stand automatically recognized for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government, provided they have been approved by the UGC.' 2 Prior to this, the Gazette Notification No. 44 dated 01.03.1995 was effective. As per this the approval of Distance Education Council (DEC) was necessary for the recognition of qualifications acquired through ODL mode of education. 3 Looking into the wide spread menace of franchising the university education through the private institutions, UGC vide DO No. F.1-52/99 (CPP-II) dated 09.08.2001 conveyed the decision of the Commission to all the universities that no university is permitted to go for off-campuses private educational franchise leading to the award Page 28 of 38 of its degrees. Accordingly, all the universities were directed to stop franchising their degree education through private agencies/establishments with immediate effect.
4. Further, on 13.05.2003, a Circular was issued to all Institutions by the Joint Committee consisting of UGC, AICTE and DEC. As per the observations of these apex bodies several Universities and other institutions in India were offering distance education courses/programmes through study centers outside their jurisdiction or outside the state of their location.
5. Keeping in view the deteriorating standards of some of the programmes conducted through distance education mode, to ensure quality of distance education and for the cause of credibility of the entire system of education, it was impressed upon all the institutions to limit the system of programme delivery of distance education to the neighborhood of their location of their main campus or at the most within the State.
6. You may be aware that State Private Universities and Deemed to be Universities cannot affiliate any college or institution for conducting courses leading to award of its diplomas, degrees or other qualifications.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its judgment dated 11.02.2005 in the case of Prof. Yashpal & Anr vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors observed that 'In view of Article 245 (1) of the Constitution, Parliament alone is competent to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the Legislature of the State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State...........'
8. In persuasion of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the UGC issued two letters No. F.9- 8/2008 (CPP-I) dated 16.04.2009 addressed to all the State Governments and dated 15.06.2009 addressed to Vice Chancellors of all State Universities.
9. Vide letter dated 16.04.2009 addressed to State Governments, it was requested to (i) take Page 29 of 38 immediate action to take suitable steps for amending the existing Acts made so as to bring the same in conformity with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and (ii) to stop all the State/State Private Universities in the State from operating beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their State in any manner.
10. Vide letter dated 15.06.2009 addressed to Vice Chancellors of State Universities, it was requested to ensure that no off campus centre(s)/ study centre/ affiliating college and the centres operating through franchises is opened by the university outside the territorial junsaiction of the State in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
11. Apart from above communications, UGC has issued several Public Notices and Circulars However, it has been noticed that some Private as well as State universities are still violating the directions relating to territorial jurisdiction of universities issued by UGC from time to time. This has led to deterioration of the distance education in the country and ultimately the qualifications acquired through distance education are not being accepted by some employers and educational institutes.
12. It is therefore, again requested to kindly
(i) take immediate action to take suitable steps for amending the existing Acts (if not done so far) made so as to bring the same in conformity with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and
(ii) to stop all the State/State Private Universities in the State from operating beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their State in any manner.
(iii) to check and stop all other universities (except central universities) to operate in any manner in your State.
With regards, Yours sincerely.
Page 30 of 38(Jaspal S. Sandhu) The State Education Secretaries of all the States"
28. Apt also to refer to the letter of UGC dated 23.09.2022 issued to the Member Secretary of the PCB, which reads as hereunder: -
"F. No. 23-1/2019 (DEB-1) September, 2020 The Member Secretary Department of Environment & Forest: Govt. of Assam Pollation Control Board Assam (PCBA) Bamunimaidam, Guwahati Assam-781 021 Sub: Validity of M.Sc degree acquired from Sikkim Manipal University (SMU), Sikkim- regarding Sir, With reference to your letter No. WB/PF- 198/90-91/151 dated 07th September, 2018 on the subject mentioned above, I am directed to inform you as under:
1. The degree(s) diploma(s) certificate(s) are verified/ validated by the issuing authority i.e. the concerned University/ Institution only. DEB, UGC can provide the recognition status of the University/Institution, which is available on the UGC website at www.ugc.ac.in/deb. UGC gives recognition to HEI (Higher Educational Institution) to offer distance education programmes for a particular academic session but details of students admitted/ passed are maintained by the concerned HEI. Therefore verification of degree/ diploma is the responsibility of university concerned.
2. Sikkim Manipal University (SMU), Sikkim is a State Private University. It was accorded post facto recognition from 1995-96 to 2006-07 by erstwhile DEC, IGNOU to offer programmes (approved by its statutory bodies of the University) through distance Page 31 of 38 mode. It was further accorded provisional recognition to offer distance education programmes for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The programme wise recognition was granted for a period of 3 year from the academic year 2009-10 to 2011-12. No further recognition was granted to SMU beyond the academic year 2011-12 till 2015-
16. The University has been further approved for certain distance education programmes for the academic years 2016-17 to 2017-18. The recognition accorded to SMU for academic years 2019-20 was withheld due to the complaints on violation in territorial jurisdiction policy by SMU and later, the recognition was withdrawn by UGC for programmes under ODL mode for the academic year 2019-20 starting from July, 2019.
The period from 22nd February, 2013 (stay granted by Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim) upto end of May, 2015 is to be regulated as per orders of Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim dated 26th June, 2015 in WP(c) 4/2013 and dated 29th June, 2015 in WP(c) 8/2015. Both the orders are also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and are available on official website of UGC (www.ugc.ac.in).
The year-wise recognition status of universities approved to offer education through distance mode alongwith the approved programmes is already in public domain and can be accessed at UGC website www.ugc.ac.in/deb.
The Private University is not authorized to open study centre/off campus centre beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State as per the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prof. Yash Pal vs The State of Chhattisgarh (2005). Private Universities cannot affiliate any college or institution for conducting courses leading to award of its diploma(s), degree(s) or other qualification(s). Also these cannot offer their programmes through franchising agreement with private institutions for the purpose of conducting courses through distance mode or even for regular mode.Page 32 of 38
A private University cannot open its centre(s) even within the State as per the provision of UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Univesities) Regulations, 2003 without the approval of UGC. UGC has not granted any approval to the university to open off campus study centre anywhere.
3. The details of degrees specified by UGC along with the level of the degree, minimum duration of the programme and minimum qualification required at entry level are given in the 'Specification of Degrees, 2014' published in the Gazette of India in July, 2014. Copy of the same is uploaded on UGC website and is available at the link http://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/1061840 specification-of-degrees july-2014.pdf
4. As per UGC letter No. D.O.-1-15/2015 (CPP-II) dated 17th August, 2015, it is clarified that the Bachelor degree of two years duration awarded prior to 4th June, 1986 shall be treated at par with the degrees of three years duration as well as degrees of two years duration of those students shall be treated valid for all purposes including admission to a Masters Degree programmes, other higher studies and employment. The students enrolled after 4th June 1986 need to undergone bridge course of one year. (copy enclosed)
5. The degrees acquired through distance education mode are recognised for the purpose of employment in central government and also for pursuing higher education in other educational institutions provided the same has been awarded by the universities/institutions recognized specifically to offer education through distance mode in conformity with the norms, guidelines and regulations of UGC.
For more information on the subject, kindly refer to various public notices already displayed on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in/debat the link http://www.ugc.ac.in/deb/notices.html. The issues regarding UGC policy on territorial jurisdiction, study centres, franchising of education etc. are covered in these notices.Page 33 of 38
6. Admissions taken in the Open and Distance Learning (ODL) programme during the recognition period stands recognised till the completion of course even if the University does not have recognition for further years provided the programme is offered as per UGC norms of territorial jurisdiction and in conformity with the extant guidelines and/or UGC (ODL) Regulations, 2017 and Regulations of respective Regulatory Bodies.
Yours faithfully, (Dr. Amit Kumar Verma) Education Officer"
29. Reading of the letter dated 23.09.2022, it appears that UGC has clearly directed and informed the PCB that the SMU is not authorized to open a study center/off- campus center beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Sikkim as per the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and another (Supra). It further appears that UGC has also stated in the said letter that they have never granted any approval to SMU to open off-campus study center anywhere. Reading of the subsequent letters issued by the UGC as extracted above, it is also apparent that a university established under a State Act shall operate within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under the said Act and in no case beyond the territory of the state of its location and the UGC from time to time has issued directions in this regard to the state universities to follow its policy on territorial jurisdiction in case of offering of programmes through off-campus/study centers and also to close the operation of such centers, if it is operating outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned state.
Page 34 of 38That being so, the M.Sc. Degrees in question obtained by the petitioners is not valid. Hence, the petitioners are not eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist.
30. This brings me to the issue of the judgment of this Court dated 06.04.2015, a perusal of the said judgment indicates that the issue before the Court in the facts of that case is whether M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is a part of M.Sc. in Biological Science for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Analyst and Analyst. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment & order reads as hereunder: -
"26. The question whether M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is part of M.Sc. in Biological Science or equivalent thereto is a matter to be examined and decided by the experts. It is neither possible nor desirable for the writ court to embark upon such an exercise, which should be best left to be decided by the experts.
27. Therefore, in the light of the discussions made above and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the controversy, it is hereby directed that the Member Secretary of the Board shall place the Matter as to whether M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is part of M.Sc. in Biological Science or equivalent thereto for the purpose of promotion to the posts of Deputy Analyst and Analyst before the Board for taking an appropriate decision in consultation with the experts. Let the said decision be taken by the Board within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
31. Thus, this Court earlier in that case directed the Member Secretary of the Board to place the matter as regard the subject equivalence of M.Sc. in Ecology and Page 35 of 38 Environment with that of M.Sc. in Biological Science before the Board for taking an appropriate decision in consultation with the experts. It appears that thereafter, the Expert Committee constituted by the Board in its 98 th Board Meeting concluded that the M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is a part of M.Sc. in Biological Science for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Analyst and Analyst (re-designated as Senior Environmental Scientist and Chief Environmental Scientist respectively) from Assistant Analyst (re-designated as Executive Environmental Scientist). The aforesaid decision of the Expert Committee was notified by the Member Secretary of PCB vide Office Order dated 06.07.2015, which reads as hereunder: -
"Pollution Control Board, Assam Bamunimaidam; Guwahati-21 No. WB/E-101/09-10/225 Dated, Guwahati the 6 July, 2015 OFFICE ORDER Pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) 912/2011 on 06.04.2015 and also in consideration of the opinion of the Expert Committee Constituted by the Board in its 98th Board Meeting on the direction of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court which concluded that "The M.Sc. in Ecology and Environment is a part of M.Sc. in Biological Science for the purpose of promotion to the post of Deputy Analyst and Analyst (re-designated as Senior Environmental Scientist and Chief Environmental Scientist respectively) from Assistant Analyst (re-designated as Executive Environmental Scientist)" the notional promotional order promoting Sri Mridul Dev Adhikary from the post of Asstt. Executive Env. Scientist to the post of Executive Environmental Page 36 of 38 Scientist vide no. WB/E-101/09-10/209 dated 08.10.2013 is made absolute.
The Inter-se-seniority of Sri Mridul Dev Adhikary will be treated as per office order no.WB/E- 112/10-11/24 dtd. 27.06.2010.
27.10.2010 Member Secretary (i/c)"
32. Apparent that the issue, as whether the M.Sc. Degrees of the petitioner obtained through distance mode education from centers located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the state of the concerned university is valid or not for the purpose of promotion to the subject post was not an issue before the Court in the earlier round of litigation. The Expert Committee has also neither deliberated on the same issue while deciding the subject equivalence as directed earlier by this Court. As such, the argument of Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the Office Order dated 06.07.2015 held petitioner No.2 eligible for promotion up to the post of Chief Environmental Scientist cannot be accepted.
33. This brings me to the next argument of Mr. M Sarma, learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the respondent authority having accepted the degrees in question of the petitioners as valid while promoting the petitioner to the post of Senior Environmental Scientist, the respondent authorities is estopped in law to declare such degree invalid for promotion to the subject post cannot be accepted inasmuch as illegality cannot be perpetuated.
Page 37 of 38Pertinent that the respondents in the minutes of the 104th Board Meeting, while considering the promotion for the subject post has also taken note that mistake already done cannot be repeated.
34. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the unhesitant view that the impugned order dated 22.07.2022, whereby the respondent No.5 was promoted to the subject post has been taken after considering all the relevant materials and the decision is fair and reasonable. As such, there is no infirmity in the said decision making process. Therefore, the decision of the respondent authorities in promoting the respondent No.5 to the said post of Additional Chief Environmental Scientist cannot be faulted with.
35. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Page 38 of 38