Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh Baggri And Ors vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. And ... on 4 July, 2023
Author: Raj Mohan Singh
Bench: Raj Mohan Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M)
Date of Decision-04.07.2023
Gurmeet Singh Baggri and others ... Petitioners
Versus
Punjab State Corporation Ltd. and another ... Respondents
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Sheokand, Advocate
Mr. Mukul Ahuja, Advocate
Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nishant Maini, Advocate and
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the respondent No.1/PSPCL.
Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate
for the respondent No.2/AICTE.
Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate and
Mr. Harkirat S. Jagdev, Advocate
for respondents No.3 to 6.
Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.7 to 22.
***
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
[1]. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the tentative seniority list 1 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:19 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 2 dated 26.02.2021 and the final seniority list dated 04.03.2021 of Technical Subordinates issued by the respondent No.1 with regard to 14% quota (as per Regulation 10.7 of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965) for the employees already working with the respondent No.1 having AMIE/B.Tech Degree. The petitioners have pleaded that they have not been included in the seniority list, though they are fully eligible and qualified and are much seniors to the employees included in the aforesaid seniority list having passed B.Tech degree in the year 2008-09 and verified in December 2018 on the basis of exam conducted by the respondent No.2 on the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. Vs. Rabi Shankar Patro & Others decided on 03.11.2017, (2018) 1 SCC, 468. The petitioners have also sought issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to prepare a fresh seniority list after including the names of the petitioners and to grant them the benefits including the benefit of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer from the due date of their eligibility. [2]. The petitioner No.1 joined as Lineman on 27.02.1996 in the respondent No.1 and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 03.02.2005 as per Rules, governing his service i.e. Punjab State Electricity Board of Service of Engineers (Electrical) Recruitment Regulations, 1965 as amended from time to time. The petitioner 2 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 3 No.1 passed his B.Tech (Electrical) degree from distant mode of education in the year 2009 from Institute of Advanced Studies in Education University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr (Rajasthan).
[3]. The petitioner No.2 joined as Lineman on 24.02.1996 and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 03.02.2005 as per Rules. He passed his B.Tech (Electrical) degree from distant mode of education in the year 2009 from Institute of Advanced Studies in Education University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr (Rajasthan).
[4]. The petitioner No.3 joined as Lineman on 22.12.1988 and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 09.08.2001 as per Rules. He passed his B.Tech (Electrical) degree from distant mode of education in the year 2009 from Institute of Advanced Studies in Education University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr (Rajasthan).
[5]. The petitioner No.4 joined as Lineman on 16.02.1996 and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 16.02.2005 as per Rules. He passed his B.Tech (Electrical) degree from distant mode of education in the year 2008 from Institute of Advanced Studies in Education University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr (Rajasthan).
3 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 4 [6]. The petitioner No.5 joined as Lineman on 19.03.1997 and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 30.03.2011 as per Rules. He passed his B.Tech (Electrical) degree from distant mode of education in the year 2008 from Institute of Advanced Studies in Education University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr (Rajasthan).
[7]. Issue as regards validity of educational qualifications and B.Tech Degrees obtained through distance education mode from four deemed to be Universities i.e. Institute of Advance Study in Education (IASE), Sardarshahar Rajasthan;(ii) JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan; (iii) Allahabad Agricultural Research Institute, Allahabad; (iv) Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu, during the session 2001 to 2005 came to be raised before this Court in CWP No.1640 of 2008 titled as Kartar Singh Vs. Union of India and others. It was submitted that the afore-noticed Deemed to be Universities had set-up "study centres" in violation of the regulations framed by the UGC and that such study centres completely lacked infrastructure and facilities for courses in engineering and that the programmes through distance education mode were illegal and without approval. The writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.11.2012 and the relevant extract reads as follows:-
4 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 5 "184. In terms of the directions of the Commission it was necessary for the Deemed to be Universities to seek approval from AICTE. In view of the above, we hold that the Deemed to be Universities have started courses in technical education in violation of the guidelines, instructions, circulars and regulations framed by the Commission not only when they started such courses but also in establishing study centres outside there territorial limits and in subjects for which they were not granted Deemed to be Universities status. Therefore, degrees awarded by such Deemed to be Universities is an illegal act and such illegality cannot be removed or cured by the actions of either the commission or DEC".
It was further held as under:-
"190. In view of the above, we hold that the approval granted by the Distance Education Council on 29.08.2007 to the Institutes in question is illegal and unwarranted and beyond the scope of authority vested in it. As a necessary consequence the degrees granted by such Deemed to be Universities are illegal and the candidates cannot be deemed to be qualified in the purported subjects in the absence of approval from the commission.
xxx xxx Though the Court is sympathetic with the cause of the students but the larger public interest demands that the students, who have not got formal education, should not be considered eligible for appointment under the State."
[8]. The High Court of Orissa however took a different view in Writ Petition No.3848 of 2010 titled Rabi Sankar Patro Vs. Orissa 5 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 6 Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. Two Sets of appeals were preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. one from Kartar Singh's case (supra) and second from Rabi Sankar Patro's case (supra). Both the appeals were clubbed together and were decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 03.11.2017 vide judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 1 ACC, 468. The view taken in Kartar Singh's case (supra) was upheld and it was held that the deemed Universities had been conducting the distance education courses through off campus study centres without the approval of the University Grants Commission and the All India Council of Technical Education. It was further held that the action of conferring degrees through distance education mode was without jurisdiction. Even the ex-post facto approval granted by Distance Education Council (DEC) was completely illegal. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that since the UGC Guidelines had given liberty to the concerned deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic session 2001-05, is protected. A view was taken to grant a chance to the concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. Accordingly it was directed that all the degrees in engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-05 would stand suspended till they pass an examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-
6 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 7 UGC. AICTE was directed to device within one month from the date of judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in theory as well as in practicals for the concerned students admitted during the academic session 2001-05, covering all the concerned subjects. It was left entirely to the discretion of AICTE to formulate modalities as it may think appropriate and the test(s) were to be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in the respective states where the students were located. Choice was to be given to the students to appear in the examination to be conducted ideally during May-June 2019 or on such dates as AICTE was to determine. Not more than two chances were to be afforded to the concerned students and if they were not to pass the test/tests their degrees were to stand recalled and cancelled. In the eventuality of the concerned candidate clearing the test/tests all the advantages or benefits were to be restored.
[9]. Para Nos.57, 58 and 66 of the judgment are reproduced hereasunder:-
"57. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex post facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex post facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, since the 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the deemed to be universities concerned to apply for ex post facto approval, the matter is
7 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 8 required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the deemed to be universities concerned flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the overbearing interest of the students concerned persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of the said ex post facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the study centres concerned were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the students concerned. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the students concerned to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.
58. AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test(s) both in written examination as well as in practicals for the students concerned admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the subjects concerned. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in the respective States wherever the students are located. The 8 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 9 choice may be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during May- June 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the students concerned and if they do not pass the test(s) their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the test(s), the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the deemed to be university concerned within a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15-1-2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) in respect of students who wish to undergo test(s) shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018. If they clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the candidates concerned. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the candidates concerned do not clear the test(s) within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test(s), their degrees in Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and cancelled. It goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however, any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.
66. Accordingly, we direct:
66.1. The 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to deemed to be universities and the deemed to be universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in technical education without the approval of AICTE. 66.2. Insofar as candidates enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their authorities concerned are 9 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 10 set aside.
66.3. Consequent to aforesaid Direction II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by deemed to be universities concerned stand suspended.
66.4. AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test(s) as indicated in para 58 above. The option be given to the students concerned whose degrees stand suspended by 15-1-2018 to appear at the test(s) to be conducted in accordance with the directions in para 58 above.
Students be given not more than two chances to clear test(s) and if they do not successfully clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in paras 57 and 58 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018.
66.5. Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in para 58.
66.6. If the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated time all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully.
66.7. As 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. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in para 59 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the deemed to be universities concerned towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be 10 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 11 returned by the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-5- 2018, as indicated in para 59.
66.8. By 31-5-2018 all the deemed to be universities concerned shall refund the sums indicated above in para 66.7 and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter.
66.9. We direct CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the officials concerned who dealt with the matters and went about granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in para 60 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation. 66.10. UGC shall also consider whether the deemed to be university status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30- 6-2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above, are not refunded to the students concerned, that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise. 66.11. We restrain all deemed to be universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the academic session 2018-2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the statutory/regulatory authorities concerned in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus centres/study centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the statutory authorities concerned. The approvals have to be course specific. 66.12. UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain deemed to be universities from using the word "university" within one month from today.
11 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 12 66.13. The Union of India may constitute a three-member Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the deemed to be universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before 31-8-2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11-9-2018." [10]. Thereafter, an application was filed for clarification and modification of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Ape Court vide its judgment dated 03.11.2017.
[11]. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.01.2018 as a one time relaxation in favour of those candidates, who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 directed that such candidates who are appearing in the test to be conducted by AICTE in May and June, 2018 and who exercise option to appear in the test in terms of the judgment, can retain the degrees in question and also the advantages arising therefrom till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018, whichever is earlier. This relaxation was given as a one time measure so that those candidates who have the ability to pass the test in the first attempt itself should not be put to inconvenience.
12 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 13 The candidates who passed the test in the first attempt were held entitled to retain all the advantages, but if a candidate failed or chose not to appear, the directions issued in the main judgment were to apply inasmuch as that the advantages arising therefrom were to stand suspended and withdrawn.
[12]. The entire case of the petitioners is based on two aspects. Firstly, they are entitled for due placement in the final seniority list of technical subordinates issued by the respondent No.1 with regard to 14% quota (as per Regulation 10.7 of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965) in view of having B.Tech degree to their credit and are seniors to the employees who have been included in the aforesaid seniority list. Secondly, when the petitioners had undertaken the test conducted by AICTE in the month of December 2018 pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and since they have cleared the same, they are entitled for promotion.
[13]. Admittedly, the petitioners did not appear for the test conducted in June, 2018 and they had appeared in the tests, which were conducted in December, 2018.
[14]. Perusal of Regulation 10.7 of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations, 1965) would give the following recital:-
13 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 14 "10(7): 14% of the cadre posts of A.Es shall be reserved for departmental employees (Technical Subordinates and Drawing Staff) possessing AMIE/ Degree in Electrical/ Electronics and Communication/Mechanical/Instrumentation Control/Computer Science Engineering and who have completed three year service in that capacity." [15]. Evidently, 14% of the cadre posts of the Assistant Engineers are to be kept reserved for Technical Subordinates, possessing degree in Electrical, who have completed three years service in that capacity.
[16]. In view of aforesaid, candidates possessing degrees before their recruitments and they had not obtained their degrees from distance education mode and they had attained three years service in the year 2017, would form the aforesaid group of employees. The petitioners are in the group of employees, who had cleared the eligibility test in December, 2018 only and that too, in the second chance/attempt. They did not appear in the first chance. In view of clarificatory note appearing in the circular No.1/2016 dated 11.02.2016, three years service will be counted after the date of declaration of result of the acquired requisite qualification, while maintaining the seniorities in 14% AMIE/degree holder quota of Technical Subordinates. Therefore, in view of directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.66 of the Judgment dated 03.11.2017 and further clarified vide order dated 22.01.2018 and in view of the fact that the petitioners have passed the tests conducted by AICTE in second attempt, 14 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 15 which was held in December 2018, the eligibility of the petitioners for the posts of Assistant Engineers would fall on completion of three years of service from the date of passing of B.Tech Degree i.e. after three years from December 2018 in December 2021, therefore, the names of the petitioners have not been included in the final seniority list of 14% degree holders/technical subordinates for the period from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017. [17]. As per stand taken by the respondent No.1, the petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 got enrolled in IASE, Sardarshahar (Rajasthan) deemed University in July, 2005 in the academic year 2005-06, whereas the petitioner No.4 was enrolled in 2005 and the petitioner No.5 was enrolled in 2008. Only those students who had taken admissions during academic years 2001-05 were eligible to appear in the test to be conducted by AICTE. The petitioners No.1 to 3 did not have any B.Tech qualification from the deemed University during the academic years 2001-2005 and as such, they were not eligible to appear in the test conducted by the AICTE. All the petitioners did not avail the first chance by appearing in the test for the reasons best known to them. All of them were allowed to appear in the test in December 2018, where they were declared successful and their degrees were validate only in the year 2018. The respondent-Corporation prepared a tentative seniority list/final list for the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Under Regulation 10.7, 14% quota was 15 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 16 reserved for degree holders with three years experience, therefore, the names of the petitioners were not included being not eligible.
[18]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinit Garg and others Vs. University Grants Commission and others, 2019(4) SCT 245 held in para Nos.16 and 18 in the following manner:-
"16.In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, the Court also made a distinction between students who had taken admission in deemed to be universities offering technical degrees through distance learning in the academic years 2001 to 2005 and 20052006 onwards. The reason for distinction was paragraph 5 of the 2004 Guidelines and ex- post facto approvals granted by the UGC and DEC to deemed to be universities that had offered technical degrees in the academic years 2001-2005. It was held that the said exercise of grant of ex-post facto approvals was completely uncalled for and contrary to law and illegal. Accordingly, the ex post facto approvals were set aside with the consequential directions to recall all the engineering degrees granted pursuant to the said approvals. However, conscious that the ex post facto approvals were in terms of paragraph 5 of the 2004 Guidelines, while suspending the degrees awarded to students who had been enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005, the Court had given these students an opportunity to appear and clear such examination under joint supervision of the AICTE-UGC. It was observed:-
"57. [T]he matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 is 16 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 17 protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universities flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned students persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the concerned students. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended."
The aforesaid directions were not in respect of any engineering degree granted by deemed to be universities to candidates admitted/enrolled post the academic year 2004-2005. Grant of any degree for students enrolled post the academic year 2004-2005 was held as contrary to law and illegal, and could not be treated as regular and at par with the regular degrees. Therefore, paragraph 49 would not be of any avail to the petitioners.
17 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 18
18. Given the aforesaid ratio, we reject the plea that the petitioners are entitled to relief as was granted to the petitioners in Orissa Lift irrigation Corporation Limited I and II. This contention is unacceptable for the reason that in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited I and II, no relief was granted to the candidates who had taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. Relief in the form of one-time relaxation vide examination to be conducted by the AICTE was granted to those candidates/students who had taken admission in academic years beginning from 2001 and till 2004-2005."
[19]. Evidently, grant of any degree for students enrolled post to academic year 2004-05 was held as contrary to the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. case (supra) and could not be treated as regular and at par with regular degrees, therefore, para No.49 of the said judgment would not be of any avail to such candidates. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. case (supra), no relief was granted to the candidates who had taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. The relief in the form of one time relaxation in the examination to be conducted by AICTE was granted to those candidates, who had taken admissions in the year beginning from 2001 and till 2004-
05. [20]. Learned counsel for the private respondents vehemently submitted that in the litigation in respect of relaxed modalities/conditions, the petitioners were not party as different issues were involved in the said litigation. In the order of 18 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 19 clarification dated 22.01.2018, it was held that those candidates who exercise their options to appear in the test, can retain the degree in question and all advantages arising therefrom till one month from the declaration of the result and till 31.07.2018, whichever is earlier. Those who failed or chose not to appear, their degrees shall stand suspended.
[21]. On 25.01.2018, a public notice was issued by AICTE depicting the first set of modalities, wherein although syllabus were substantially diluted inasmuch as against 30 to 35 theory examinations, only 12 to 16 were kept in the examinations, but it was mentioned that the candidates will have to pass both the theory and practical examinations separately by obtaining 40% independently. The said modalities came to be challenged in the Delhi High Court and the writ petition was dismissed on 21.05.2018.
[22]. The examinations were held thereafter and answer keys were published. Thereafter, the modalities, which had already worked on and examinations had already been conducted, got to be changed by AICTE for the reasons best known to the authorities and the marks of theory and practical which were earlier to be combined were now sought to be diluted and it was held that a candidate shall be treated as pass, in case theory and practical marks are combined to achieve 40% qualifying marks.
19 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 20 [23]. The Writ Petition (Civil) No.952 of 2018 titled Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. UGC was filed in the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to make representation to the AICTE. The petitioners were not party to the said controversy, nor such controversy involved in the case of the petitioners. In respect of changing the modalities and diluting the same, certain set of employees of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, who had obtained degrees from recognized Institutes and was aggrieved of the illegal dilution of criteria, filed CWP No.28211 of 2018 titled Jitender Singh Vs. State of Punjab on 01.11.2018. In the said writ petition, the petitioners were not party, nor any such controversy arose. The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 07.01.2020 and AICTE was directed to re-compute the result of the examination strictly as per modality. All the petitioners were not the party in the said writ petition. In case of the petitioners, the result has already been declared, wherein the petitioners had appeared in second chance and had cleared the same. The judgment in Jatinder Singh's case (supra) was unsuccessfully challenged in LPA No.474 of 2020 and the LPA was dismissed on 28.09.2022 on the ground that the Single Judge has only ensured that the purity of examination as was the object of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been restored and kept in the mind. Against the said order, SLP (C) No.23131 of 2022 is pending with an interim order.
20 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 21 [24]. Evidently, in case of the petitioners, the result has already been declared and they were not party to the aforesaid lis. The pending litigation, if any, in respect of some different subject matter is not attracted in case of the petitioners. [25]. The entire case of the petitioners is that they had undertaken the test conducted by AICTE in the month of December 2018 in view of directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. case (supra). It is own case of the petitioners that they did not appear for the test conducted in June, 2018. They had already appeared in the tests, which were conducted in December, 2018. In view of para No.58 of the judgment in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. case (supra), choice was to be given to the students to appear in the examination which ideally should be conducted during May-June 2018. Not more than two chances were required to be given to the students concern. In order to clear the validation test, the students ought to have firstly appeared in the first examination, which was to be conducted in May-June 2018 as per orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was not permissible for the students to straightway appear in December 2018 examination, which was virtually as a re-appear chance to be given to those who would not clear the test in June 2018. The petitioners did not avail the first chance. The admission of the petitioners No.1 to 3 in the academic sessions 2005-06 is evident on record and they are not entitled to 21 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 22 any protection of the judgment in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. case (supra) because those students who were lastly enrolled in the academic sessions 2004-05 were entitled for the said benefit.
[26]. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RA-LP No.30 of 2019 in LPA No.260 of 2019 decided on 03.03.2020, the petitioners No.1 to 3 having not enrolled in academic sessions 2001-2005 are not entitled to benefit of one time relaxation given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. case (supra). Secondly, they are not claiming those benefits, which they are not entitled from the date of passing of their degrees as they have not completed three years experience after acquiring the qualification in view of Regulation 10.7 of the 1965 Regulations from the date of declaration of the result by AICTE and they have completed requisite period of three years only in the year 2021, whereas the impugned seniority list are till December 2017. The benefit of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. case (supra) for the academic years 2001-05 would not include students who have obtained admissions in academic sessions 2005-06. The judgment would be applicable only to those students who were admitted in the academic session 2004-05. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under:-
22 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 23 "From a perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is evident that the Supreme Court has clarified the fact that no relief could be granted to a candidate who had taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. The relief granted in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) was confined and limited to candidates/students who had taken admission in the academic year beginning from 2001 till 2004-2005. Apparently and undisputedly, academic year 2004-05 would not include those students, who had obtained admissions in August, 2005. For those were admitted in the academic session 2005-06 and not 2004-05. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court in Vinit Garg and others (supra) as well as in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra), we do not find any error, least an error apparent on the face of record, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present review application is dismissed."
[27]. The petition is completely silent as regards academic session 2005-06 and not 2004-05. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and they have concealed the material facts. The petitioners have not disclosed the date of admission or to which academic year did they take admission for pursuing B.Tech (Electrical) degree through distant education mode. The date of admission and academic years are material information to be disclosed by the petitioners in order to determine the eligibility of the petitioners for the benefit in question. [28]. The petitioners No.1 to 3 are outrightly beyond consideration in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court having taken admission in academic session 2005-06. As regards 23 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 24 the remaining two petitioners, it has been projected that they have taken admission in January, 2005 whereas there is no admission during the said part of the year. Admissions take place in the beginning of session 2004-05. These petitioners in collusion with their respective Universities carrying on these unrecognized courses intentionally showed them admitted in January 2005, which is at the verge of completion of academic year. Without attaining any proper classes, it would be highly imaginary to see that the students would get the requisite degree having studied only for few months. These Universities were already subject matter of CBI investigation as is evident from the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. case (supra).
[29]. In view of observations made in Civil Appeal Nos. No.17869-17870 of 2017 titled Ashok Kumar and others Vs. Depinder Singh Dhesi and others, the candidates who on the strength of such degrees awarded through distance education mode had obtained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the judgment and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even by any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits. The idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the 24 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 25 judgment provided the candidates could prove their worth and ability. But if, the concerned candidates had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the judgment was passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the judgment and the order, the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but restoration would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of the judgment. The intent of the judgment was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the judgment and the order.
[30]. No benefit was being enjoyed by the petitioners, therefore, the restoration of something which was not there earlier, would not rise. The respondent No.1 has also ventilated its stand.
[31]. As per 1965 Regulations, the employees working under the respondent No.1 can avail the benefit of promotion in accordance with two promotion channels i.e. Regulation 10.1 or Regulation 10.7 of 1965 Regulations subject to eligibility and qualification. In the present case, the controversy is in respect of 25 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 26 14% quota reserved for departmental employees possessing AIME/degree in electrical/electronic and communication, who have completed three years service in that capacity. Three years service will be considered to be completed as qualified technical subordinates i.e three years service will be counted after the date of declaration of result of acquired requisite qualification while maintaining the seniority in 14% AIME/degree holder quota of technical subordinates. The petitioner No.3 Surjit Singh has already been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 06.06.2021 through promotion channel stipulated under Regulation 10.1 of 1965 Regulations. Similarly, the petitioners No.1, 2, 4 and 5 have already been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer as per Regulation 10.1 of 1965 Regulations. Their claim based on Regulation 10.7 of 1965 Regulations is found to be unsustainable for want of requisite experience of three years in that capacity.
[32]. The case laws of different High Courts cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the light of controversy explained hereinabove are not attracted to the facts of the present case.
[33]. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case where indulgence can be granted in favour of the petitioners.
26 of 27 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678 CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 27 [34]. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, no case is made out to interfere in this writ petition. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, therefore, CM No.309-CWP of 2023 for vacation of stay has become infructuous. Ordered accordingly. All pending applications are also disposed of accordingly.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
04.07.2023
Prince
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
27 of 27
::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 22:55:20 :::