Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ashwani Kumar vs Ut Administration Of Chandigarh on 31 January, 2020
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.NO.060/00167/2017
Chandigarh, this the 31.1.2020
(Order reserved on: 27.01.2020)
HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MS. NAINI JAYASEELAN, MEMBER (A)
Ashwani Kumar son of Rattan Lal resident of House No.
1156/A, Sector 28-B, Chandigarh.
Applicant
(BY: MR. JAGJOT SINGH LALLI, ADVOCATE)
Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Chandigarh
through its Chief Engineer, Engineering
Department, UT, Chandigarh.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Electricity, OP
Circle, UT, Chandigarh.
3. Maninder Singh son of Sh. Kuldeep Singh,
Lineman, Division No.3, Chandigarh office of
Executive Engineer, Op. Division No.2, Electricity
Department, UT, Chandigarh (presently posted at
Industrial Area Phase-I).
4. Sukhjinder Singh son of Amrik Singh, Lineman,
Division no.3, Chandigarh office of Executive
Engineer, OIP. Division No.2, Electricity
Department, UT, Chandigarh (presently posted in
Sector 18, Chandigarh).
5. Satish Kumar Sharma son of Rameshwar Dass,
Junior Engineer, I O/o AEE, Electricity Operation
Sub Division No. 7, Sector 35, Chandigarh.
(BY: MR. A.L. NANDA, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENTS NO.1,2&4)
MS. SONIA G. SINGH, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENT NO.3.
MR. SANDEEP SIWATCH, ADVOCATE, FOR
R.NO.5.)
.... Respondents
2
ORDER
[HON'BLE SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)]
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal with a prayer to quash order dated 4.1.2016 (Annexure A-6) vide which respondent no. 5 has been promoted as Junior Engineer, on the ground that he was ineligible for such promotion being not possessing the requisite qualification and not to consider persons having Diploma for a period of two years or Less, as eligible for such promotion etc.
2. The facts are not in dispute. The applicant, who possesses 3 Years Diploma in Electrical Engineering (through Lateral Entry) from SBCMS Poly. College, Attalgarh, Mukerian, Hoshiarpur, was appointed as Lineman in respondent department. The next promotion is to the post of Junior Engineer, which is governed by "Recruitment Rules for Technical Staff Group-C Posts of Electricity „OP‟ Circle, UT, Chandigarh"
(for short "The Rules"). The applicant claims that as per the rules, the prescribed qualification for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), inter-alia, is 3/4 years Diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized institution with 55% or more marks or 3 Degree in Electrical Engineer etc. For promotion, 17% quota has been given to the Linemen who are having Diploma in Electrical Engineering with 3 years experience.
3. The case of the applicant, in short, is that Respondent No.5, though senor to him, is having Diploma of Two years from IASE (Deemed University), Sardar Shahar, Rajasthan, which is not equivalent to qualification as provided in the Rules but despite that respondent no.5 has been promoted vide order dated 4.1.2016. It is submitted that Respondents No.3 and 4, both have done two years‟ diploma from indicated Deemed University, and as such are not eligible for promotion and if they are promoted, it will adversely affect the rights of the applicant. It is argued that the Degrees/diplomas offered by the pointed Deemed University have been declared to be invalid by Hon‟ble Apex Court in a bunch of cases i.e. SLP Nos. 17869- 17870 of 2017 titled ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATIOIN CORPN. LTD. VS. RABI SANKAR PATRO & OTHERS, decided on 3.11.2017. The representation filed by him against illegality of respondents has evoked no positive response, hence the O.A. 4
4. The respondents No.1&2 on one hand, and Respondents No.3 & 4 on the other, have filed separate replies. They submit that private respondents fulfil the qualification as laid down in the rules and as such O.A. merits dismissal. They submit that for direct recruitment, the diploma qualification of 3 or 4 years duration is mentioned but for promotion such qualification is not provided and as such claim of applicant is not tenable. They submit that diploma possessed by private respondents from indicated Institute is valid. The Respondent No.5 has also filed reply on similar lines, including order dated 22.1.2018 (Annexure R-5/5), of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rabi Sankar Patro & others (supra), vide which it was clarified qua order/judgement dated 3.11.2017 that the judgement related to validity of Degrees in Engineering conferred by Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode and not validity of diplomas conferred by said Universities and as such validity of such courses leading to diplomas was not the subject matter of the judgment.
5. The applicant has filed a replication. He has placed reliance on interim order dated 4.5.2017 (Annexure A- 5
11) of Hon‟ble Apex Court in a bunch of cases titled ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. & OTHERS VS. RABI SANKAR PATRO & OTHERS, SLP Nos.19807-19808/2012, in which certain observations were made against JRN Rajasthan Vidyapith for awarding Engineering Degrees by distance education mode and University was restrained from awarding any further degree till further orders.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the material on file.
7. The short issue that is to be decided in this case is as to whether the Diploma Qualification obtained by the private respondents from IASE Deemed University, Sardar Shahar, Rajasthan, is valid or not, for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer, in the respondent department. We are not required to delve on this issue all over again, as it is no longer res-integra.
8. As noticed above, order dated 22.1.2018 (Annexure R-5/5), of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Sankar Patro & others (supra), while clarifying the judgement dated 3.11.2017, makes it abundantly clear that the judgement related to validity 6 of Degrees in Engineering conferred by indicated Deemed Universities through distance education mode and had no connection qua validity of diplomas conferred by them and, therefore, it was held that validity of such courses leading to diplomas was not the subject matter of the judgment. In that view of the matter, one cannot question the validity of the diploma obtained by the private respondents on the ground of decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court which pertains to Degrees only.
9. Not only that, our own jurisdictional high Court, in the case of PARDEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS, CWP no. 12299 of 2017 (O&M) decided on 21.8.2018, has clinched the issue. Examining the validity of diploma in Mechanical Engineering obtained from IASE (Deemed University), Sardar Shahar, Rajasthan, it was held that Diploma obtained by petitioner (therein) has been recognized by Central Governemnt vide notification dated 10.6.2015 which was also accepted by AICTE vide notification dated 4.11.2015.
10. Similar view was taken earlier by the Hon‟ble A.P. High Court in WRIT PETITION NO. 17573 OF 2017 7 DECIDED ON 30.4.2018 holding that qualification secured by petitioner, being a Diploma in Civil Engineering from IASE, Rajasthan, necessarily has to be recognized for employment purposes in the State of Andhra Pradesh and thus direction was issued to consider his case for promotion on the basis of indicated diploma.
11. The plea raised by the applicant that as per the rules, the diploma possessed by a candidate should be of 3 or 4 years, appears to be based on misconception. The rules, Annexure A-5, make it very clear that for the post of Junior Engineer, the educational qualification required for direct recruits, in column 8, is Three/four years diploma in Electrical Engineering from a recognized institution with 55% or more marks etc. For promotion, in column no.9, it is mentioned that educational qualifications, prescribed for direct recruits will not apply. Column No.12, makes it very clear that for promotion against 17% quota, Linemen with Diploma in Electrical with 3 years experience in the post, after appointment, are eligible. In this case, there is no mention about duration of diploma. Thus, qualification of Diploma of 3 or 4 years duration, meant 8 for direct recruits, cannot be read into column 12, which does not provide any duration for such diploma. Thus, the claim of the applicant that the private respondents must possess 3 or 4 years diploma, is not made out from the rule formulation.
12. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, this O.A. is found to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
(NAINI JAYASEELAN) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh Dated: 31.01.2020 HC*