Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 April, 2018
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
CWP No.2673 of 2018(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of decision:-06th April, 2018
CWP No.2673 of 2018(O&M)
Bhupinder Singh & Ors.
......Petitioners.
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Ms. Suprirya Garg, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mrs. Lavanya Paul, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
assisted by Mr. Jaspal Singh, Principal Secretary,
Department of Water Resources, Punjab.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate for the applicants
in CM Nos.2423-24 of 2018 seeking impleadment.
Mr. Mohan Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant
in CM No.3310 of 2018 seeking impleadment.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.
CM Nos.2423 of 2018
Vide the present application, the applicants, whose names have been recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee, are seeking their impleadment as respondents in the present writ petition.
In view of the averments made in this application and also keeping in view the fact that their non-impleadment may affect their rights, the present application is allowed and the said respondents are ordered to be 1 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-05-2018 00:40:11 ::: CWP No.2673 of 2018(O&M) #2# impleaded as respondent nos.3 to 7. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
CWP No.2673 of 2018(O&M)
1. Engineering Degree/AMIE degree holders from Institute at Kolkata are before this Court seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 30.01.2018 as well as the recommendations made therein vide memo dated 14.12.2017 (P-10) which was formed for consideration of eligible employees to the post of Sub Divisional Engineers, on the ground that the said DPC is considering the names of those Junior Engineers in the 15% quota allocated to the Engineering Degree/AMIE degree holders, who are allegedly not having such degree/AMIE Certification, but possess certificates from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai, whose degree has been held to be invalid in a decision rendered this Court, being upheld by the Supreme Court.
2. It was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the qualifications which the private respondents hold are from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai which is not prescribed under the Rules governing service nor has been held to be equivalent.
It was further argued that the AMIE Degrees are only granted by Institute of Engineering (India), Kolkata and the degrees of AMIE obtained from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai (for short IME (Mumbai) is not a valid degree as held by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Kartar Singh Versus Union of India", decided on 06.11.2012 (Annexure P-8).
It was thus contended that in Kartar Singh's case (supra), since 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-05-2018 00:40:12 ::: CWP No.2673 of 2018(O&M) #3# the courses undertaken by the Institute of Engineering (India), Kolkata and Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai have been separately dealt with, whereby findings have been recorded that the AMIE Degree(s) granted by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai, cannot be treated as equivalent to the degree of AMIE granted by the Institute of Engineer (India), Kolkata, therefore such certificate holders from Mumbai cannot be treated as eligible for promotion against the 15% quota under the Punjab Irrigation Department (Group-A) Service Rules, 2004.
3. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel representing private respondents, has argued that AMIE means Associate Members in Engineering, which by itself is not a degree, rather it is a qualification obtained by passing Section-A and Section-B of engineering courses recognized by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), New Delhi. AMIE degree(s) of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), Mumbai was recognized for the first time by the MHRD on 26.05.1976 and Institute of Engineering (India) Kolkata on 16.08.1978, both of them were recognized by the State of Punjab on 15.03.1982.
It was further argued that Government of India doubted the syllabus of the qualifications obtained from both the aforesaid institutes and suspended the recognition on 10.06.2002 and new/revised syllabus was restored on 16.10.2006.
Lastly it was argued that vide letter dated 13.02.2018, the MHRD informed under RTI Act that the MHRD had recognized AMIE degrees of the aforesaid institutes for the purposes of employment in Central Govt. Jobs, however, withdrawn the granting of further approval of recognition and equivalence of the courses conducted by the aforesaid 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-05-2018 00:40:12 ::: CWP No.2673 of 2018(O&M) #4# institutes beyond 31.05.2013.
4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
5. At the very outset, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition itself is not maintainable, being premature, because the main prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the recommendations made by the DPC for recommending the promotions of private respondents to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer. Admittedly, no promotion order has been passed so far and the law is well settled that the writ petition is not maintainable for challenging the recommendations only, in the absence of any order of appointment. Reference in this regard can be made to judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. G. Sarana Vs University of Lucknow & Ors. AIR 1976 SC 2428 and Mrs. Kunda S. Kadam and others Vs. K. Kher Soman & Ors. AIR 1980 SC 881, which have been subsequently followed by this Court in CWP No.20318 of 2016 decided on 04.10.2016 titled as Paramjit Goyal & Ors Vs. Sate of Punjab and Ors. (Annexure R-3/1).
However, since the court had heard this matter at substantial length, therefore, the issue involved is also being adjudicated.
6. The Principle issue in the present writ petition pertains to the attainment of the qualification of AMIE, which is prescribed qualification in the Service Rules, 2004 for promotion from Junior Engineer to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer. The case of the petitioners is that the candidates who have qualified from the Institution of Engineers (Kolkata) are qualified, whereas the candidates who have obtained the certification from Institution 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-05-2018 00:40:12 ::: CWP No.2673 of 2018(O&M) #5# of Mechanical Engineers (Mumbai) are not qualified. However, the fact of the matter is that both these institutes have been recognized by the Ministry of Human Resources Department. It is further seen that AMIE qualification is a short from of Associate Membership in Engineering, which can be obtained after passing Section A & B Course conducted by the various professional bodies including Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Mumbai), Institution of Engineers (Kolkata). This fact has been confirmed by the Ministry of Human Resources Department, as is evident from the information obtained by the proposed private respondents vide RTI information dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure R-3/2). As per the said information, the decision of MHRD has been adopted by the State of Punjab for employment to its department and consequently, it cannot be accepted that the certificate issued from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Mumbai) is not a recognized course. The certificate that is being issued by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (Mumbai) can be obtained only by those persons who are already working and are able to clear the Section A & B of Associate Membership Examination. It is only thereafter that they are considered at par with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. The said recourse has been recognized by the Central Government vide notification dated 26.5.1976 (R-3/3).
Not only this, as per the Indian Society for Technical Education, both these institutions i.e. Institution of Engineer (Kolkata) and Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Mumbai) are at par and find themselves in the list of recognized societies and professional bodies by Indian Society for Technical Education. The said list is on record as Annexure R-3/8.
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 20-05-2018 00:40:12 :::
CWP No.2673 of 2018(O&M) #6#
7. As far as the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that any course done from the aforementioned institute is no more valid in view of the judgment passed by this Court in Kartar Singh's case, as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar 's case, is concerned, same is completely misconceived. No doubt, this Court in Kartar Singh's case had doubted the validity of the Certificate issued by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers India (Mumbai), however, bare perusal of the said case would reveal that findings are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Reason for the said observation would be that syllabus offered by Institute of Mumbai was re-examined by AICTE through its expert committee and on its recommendations, the entire syllabus of the Institute was revised in its meeting held on 16.10.2006. As per the said decision/Notification, the students who had registered themselves prior to 10.06.2002 in the institute would be allowed to complete the course with pre-revised syllabus, till the next examination, which was to be held in December 2006. Copy of the said notification is also on record as Annexure R-3/16. Meaning thereby, the candidates who had enrolled in the Institute prior to 10.06.2002 and passed the examination prior to December, 2006 held a valid degree. Still further in the light of Notification dated 16.01.2006 (Annexure R-3/17) issued by MHRD recognizing 15 courses of Section A & B examination as revised conducted by the Institute of Kolkata equal to the degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering of the Recognized Universities of India, the recognized examination conducted by the Institute of Mumbai has necessarily to be accepted to be equivalent to the courses conducted by the Institute of Kolkata.
Further, the issue involved in Kartar Singh's case was 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-05-2018 00:40:12 ::: CWP No.2673 of 2018(O&M) #7# regarding the qualification of the respondent no.5-Dharampal therein, whose degree was not found to be valid for the reason that he did not come within that protected class of pass outs from IME (Mumbai) who had registered prior to 10.06.2002 with the institute. It was under these circumstances, that the said course done from the IME (Mumbai) was held to be invalid. However, this is not a situation in the present case because as per the list of qualifications submitted by the private respondents as R-3/18 they were enrolled in the Institute prior to 10.06.2002 and thus have passed the examination prior to December 2006. Not only this, vide Public Notice issued by Member Secretary of All India Council for Technical Education (Annexure R-3/26), the courses conducted by the Institute of Mumbai and Kolkata (both having permanent membership, as per Annexure R-3/27, which is the information supplied under RTI) have again been recognized for the purpose of Higher Education and Employment. Meaning thereby, both the courses are valid as on today.
Further, a co-joint reading of Public Notice issued by Member Secretary of All India Council for Technical Education (Annexure R-3/26) and communication dated 20th of November, 2017 (Annexure R-3/27) obtained under RTI, would show that after revision of syllabus in October, 2006, the courses conducted by Institutes of Kolkata and Mumbai and certificates/degrees obtained by the students on the basis of revised syllabus were recognized upto 31st May, 2013 and thereafter, their recognition was withdrawn. However, vide its 52nd meeting held on 03rd August, 2017 (Annexure R-3/26), the AICTE has again decided to recognize equivalence for all purpose including Higher Education and Employment to technical courses conducted by said institutes. Further, it has been clarified that all the 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 20-05-2018 00:40:12 ::: CWP No.2673 of 2018(O&M) #8# students who were enrolled with aforesaid institutes with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013, stand recognized. Thus, from the aforestated facts, it is clear that in the following situations, technical courses done by students from institutes of Kolkata and Mumbai are valid:
" i) All candidates who were enrolled in the Institutes prior to 10.06.2002 and have passed the examination prior to December 2006, on the basis of pre-revised syllabus.
ii) All candidates, who have enrolled themselves after December 2006 and have cleared the examination upto 31st May 2013, on the basis of revised syllabus are holding valid certificates for the purpose of employment and Higher Education.
8. In view of the above, it cannot be held that there is any illegality in the action of the Departmental Promotion Committee by considering the qualification of IME (Mumbai) as valid for the purpose of promotion to the post of SDE.
Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH )
JUDGE
April 06th, 2018
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 20-05-2018 00:40:12 :::