Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ravindra Singh Panwar vs M/O Defence on 22 November, 2017
(Reserved on 24.10.2017)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ALLAHABADBENCH, ALLAHABAD
(Circuit Sitting at Nainital)
This the 20th Day of November, 2017
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Gupta, Member J.
Hon'ble Mr. Gokul Chandra Pati, Member A.
Original Application No. 1315/2013
(U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
Sandeep Kumar Thakur, Technician -A, S/o Prem Singh Thakur,
R/o House No. B-1/4, Deal Colony, Raipur Road, District -
Dehradun - 248001 (U.K).
...............Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Joint Director, Department of Human Resources
Development, Defence Research & Development
Organization (Head quarter), DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi -
110105.
3. Director, Defence Electronics Application Laboratory,
Raipur Road, Raipur, Dehradun.
4. Administrative Officer (Admn. Division), Confidential
Section, Defence Electronics Application Laboratory,
Raipur Road, Raipur, Dehradun.
.................Respondents
WITH
Original Application No. 1316/ 2013
(U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
Ravindra Singh Panwar, Technician -A, S/o Dhan Singh Panwar,
C/o Smt. Leela Devi, House No. 152/2, Indira Colony, Mohalla
Chukhuwala, District - Dehradun - 248001.
...............Applicant
VERSUS
2 O.A No. 1315/2013
with
O.A No. 1316/2013 &
O.A 1319/2013
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Joint Director, Department of Human Resources
Development, Defence Research & Development
Organization (Head quarter), DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi -
110105.
3. Director, Defence Electronics Application Laboratory,
Raipur Road, Raipur, Dehradun.
4. Administrative Officer (Admn. Division), Confidential
Section, Defence Electronics Application Laboratory,
Raipur Road, Raipur, Dehradun.
.................Respondents
WITH
Original Application No. 1319/ 2013
(U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
Atish, Technician -A, S/o Late Ram Deo Bind, R/o House No. B-
1/5, Deal Colony, Raipur Road, District - Dehradun- 248001
(UK).
...............Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. Joint Director, Department of Human Resources
Development, Defence Research & Development
Organization (Head quarter), DRDO Bhawan, New Delhi -
110105.
3. Director, Defence Electronics Application Laboratory,
Raipur Road, Raipur, Dehradun.
4. Administrative Officer (Admn. Division), Confidential
Section, Defence Electronics Application Laboratory,
Raipur Road, Raipur, Dehradun.
.................Respondents
3 O.A No. 1315/2013
with
O.A No. 1316/2013 &
O.A 1319/2013
Advocates for the applicant :- Shri P.S. Bohra
Advocate for the Respondents:- Shri R.K. Srivastava
ORDER
DELIVERED BY:-
HON'BLE MR. GOKUL CHANDRA PATI, (MEMBER-A) Both the O.As were heard together, as requested by the counsels for the applicant and respondents and are disposed of by this common order. For ready reference, the facts of the O.A No. 1315/2016 are taken.
2. Present original applications have been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 25.09.2013 (Annexure A-1 to the O.A) passed by the respondent no. 4 rejecting the claim of the applicant for eligibility for the post of STA_B. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to treat the Diploma of the applicants awarded by IGNOU equivalent to the qualification requirements prescribed for DRTC-LDCE-2013- 2014 for the post of STA- „B‟ in DEAL, Dehradun .
3. The brief facts, as stated in the O.A, are that the applicant is working in Defence Electronics Application Laboratory under Defence Research & Development Organization (in short DRDO) on the post of Technician-A in Defence Research Technician Cadre (in short DRTC). A notification dated 4 O.A No. 1315/2013 with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 14.08.2013 (Annexure A-2 to the O.A) was issued by the respondent no. 2 for filling up five posts of Senior Technical Assistant - „B‟ (in short STA-B) available in the year 2013-2014 through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (in short LDCE) in Defence Electronics Application Laboratory (in short DEAL), Dehradun under DRDO. The applicant having requisite qualification for the post of STA-B applied on prescribed proforma on 19.08.2013. On recommendation of Selection Committee the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure A-3 of O.A) issued the schedule for LDCE 2013-14 for STA-B showing the name of the applicant and the date of examination was fixed on 29.08.2013 but the examination could not held on scheduled date. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 issued an order dated 25.09.2013 (Annexure A-1 to the O.A) to the applicant stating therein that as per guidelines vide letter dated 17.09.2013 he does not fulfil the requisite qualification and rejected the candidature of the applicant on the ground his diploma in engineering through distance education mode in 2012 cannot be accepted towards eligibility for the post of STA-B. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.09.2013, the applicant has filed the instant Original Application on the ground that the candidature of the applicant has been rejected in an arbitrary manner. 5 O.A No. 1315/2013
with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013
4. It is contended that the applicant is fulfilling the conditions (A), (B)(ii)(a),(c) and (e) of notice dated 14.08.2013 (Annexure A-2 to the O.A). It is further stated that the applicant has obtained three years diploma in Mechanical Engineering from Indira Gandhi National Open University (in short IGNOU) which has been established by Section 20 (1) of IGNOU Act, 1985 enacted by the Parliament and vide Notification No. F.B- 12/85 DUSK(U) dated19.09.1985 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resourced Department (Department of Education), New Delhi. In support of this contention, the applicant has annexed a copy of Diploma certificate dated 08.08.2012 obtained from IGNOU and recognition to IGNOU by University Grant Commission, New Delhi at Annexure A-4 and A-5 to the O.A. According to IGNOU Act, 1985, any programme of IGNOU approved by its statutory body i.e. Academic Council are presumed to be approved by Distance Education Council (in short DEC).
5. In the present case, the applicant has completed his theory and practical classes from K.L. Polytechnic, Roorkee, District Haridwar which is AICTE approved private Polytechnic, which is affiliated to Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education and running under the management committee constituted by the Government of Uttarakhand. In this regard, the applicant 6 O.A No. 1315/2013 with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 has annexed a copy of diploma certificate in mechanical engineering dated 07.10.2013 issued by the Head of Department, Civil Engineer/ Programme Inchage, IGNOU and Principal, K.L. Polytechnic at Annexure A-7 to the O.A. It is the contention of the applicant that the respondent no. 2 vide Letter dated 19.03.2012 (Annexure A-8 of O.A), has prescribed the requisite qualification of Diploma in Engineering for the post STA-B in DRTC. The applicant has also stated that he is being discriminated because his two batch -mates namely Shri Jasbir Singh and Shri Manish, who are holder of Diploma from IGNOU were allowed to appear in DRTC-LDCE 2013-2014 for the post of STA-B by the respondent no. 2.
6. The respondents have filed Counter Affidavit. It is stated that the recruitment for the post of STA „B‟ is processed as per provisions contained in Schedule II of SRO 296 dated 05.12.2000 and Defence Research & Development Organization Technical Cadre Recruitment (Second Amendment) Rules 2002 (Annexure No. 1 to the CA), according to which, the requisite qualification is Bachelor degree in Science or three years Diploma in Engineering or Technology or Computer Science or allied subjects in the required discipline. Further, the DRDO HQrs, New Delhi vide its letters No. DHRD/76237/MISC/DRTC/C/B/03 dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure 7 O.A No. 1315/2013 with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 4 to the CA), DHRD / 76237 / STANDING COMMITTEE / DRTC / C /B/03 dated 14.03.2012 (Annexure 5 to the CA) and 14.09.2012 (Annexure 6 to the CA) have clarified that the employees who have qualified in three years Diploma courses in engineering recognised by AICTE shall only be eligible for appearing in LDCE for the post of STA „B‟. Hence, the diploma in Mechanical Engineering acquired through Distance Education mode from IGNOU cannot be considered as an eligible qualification for the post of STA „B‟ in DEAL, Dehradun unless it is approved by AICTE. In this regard, the respondents have referred to a letter dated 13.12.2012 (Annexure -8 of the CA) vide which the IGNOU had informed the C.P.W.D, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi that the B. Tech programme of IGNOU is not approved by the AICTE, as the AICTE, as per their policy, do not recognize technical education through distance mode. Letters dated 08.06.2010 of IGNOU (Annexure -9 of the CA) and dated 05.08.2010 of AICTE, New Delhi (Annexure-10 of the CA) have also been referred by the respondents in support of their stand.
7. The respondents in the CA have referred to a judgment of Hon‟ble High Court, Delhi dated 22.04.2010 passed in Indian Association of Physiotherapists Vs. U.O.I & Ors in W.P (Civil) No. 2403/2004 and CM No. 15637-38103 & 15592/05 wherein it 8 O.A No. 1315/2013 with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 has been held that no correspondence / distance education programme in Physiotherapy, except with the prior consent of the approved statutory bodies, will be conducted by the Respondents. Further, Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in its judgment dated 28.11.2013 in Civil Writ Petition No. 25095/2013 has held that the applicant, who have obtained Diploma in Civil Engineering through Distance Education mode from IGNOU cannot be held to be qualified to hold the post of Junior Engineer in Haryana Government. The AICTE vide its letter dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure -11 to the CA) and letter dated 19.01.2012 (Annexure-12 to the CA) has also clarified that it has been the policy of the AICTE not to recognise the qualification acquired through Distance Education mode at Diploma, Bachelors and Masters level in the fields of Engineering, Technology etc. It has been further stated that the DRDO HQrs, New Delhi vide letter No. DHRD/76205/DRDS/C/M/01 dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure-14 to the CA) has intimated the prescription of qualification acquired through distance education mode required to be possessed for appointment to the post means that qualifications in the requisite education programme recognised by UGC/AICTE, as the case may be, are necessary.
9 O.A No. 1315/2013
with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013
8. The degrees in specific streams have to be approved by Distance Education Council in addition to recognition of respective University. Further, as per Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India Gazette Notification No. 44 dated 01.03.1995 (Annexure -20 to the CA), the qualification awarded through Distance Education University established by an Act for the purpose of employment to the posts and services under the Central Government, provided it has been approved by the DEC and wherever necessary by AICTE. The recognition of University alone will not be sufficient. The Ordnance Factory Board, Ministry of Defence vide its Letter No. 2982/CH (Tech/Non Tech-LDCE/Clarification/A/NG dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure - 21 to the CA) has also clarified that all such technical programmes are required approval of AICTE. Hence, if the candidate obtained the Diploma Certificate through Distance Education they are not eligible for appointment through LDCE.
9. The view of the above, it is contended by the respondents that the applicant does not have the requisite qualification for the post of STA „B‟ which has been prescribed under the provisions. Hence the candidature of the applicant has rightly been rejected.
10 O.A No. 1315/2013
with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013
10. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit and denied the contentions of the respondents. It has been reiterated that the qualification possessed by the applicant is according to Schedule II of DRTC Rules 2000 and notice of advertisement dated 14.08.2014 (Annexure A-2 of the O.A). It has been further stated that in the case of Bharthidasan University Vs. AICTE - 2001 (8) SCC 676, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that full fledged University recognized by UGC is excluded from "Technical Institution" defined under section 2(h) of AICTE Act, 1987. Therefore, Section 10(K) of AICTE Act does not cove University. Hence, engineering courses conducted by University established by „Act‟ of Parliament without prior approval of AICTE was declared as valid. Thus, the issue regarding getting prior approval from AICTE by IGNOU to conduct diploma in Mechanical Engineering course is settled. The above view has further been followed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. AICTE - 2013 AIR SCW 3360. It has been further stated that the applicant intimated the department through application dated 24.09.2008 whereupon respondent no. 4 permitted the applicant to attend Distance Education Programme for Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from IGNOU upon certain conditions stipulated in the permission itself.
11 O.A No. 1315/2013
with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013
11. Suppl. Counter Affidavits and Suppl. Rejoinder Affidavits have also been filed by the either sides.
12. We have heard Shri P.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D. Tiwari, proxy for Shri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents. We have also perused the pleadings as well as the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for respondents.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of the applicant is strongly supported by the stipulations in the vacancy notification dated 14.08.2013 (Annexure A-2 to the O.A) which stipulated that the qualification required for the post of STA-B includes the diploma awarded by any institute other than a University should have been recognized / approved by All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE). This notification further includes the diploma awarded through distance education mode should have been recognized by Distance Education Council (DEC), IGNOU, New Delhi. Therefore, he argued that the diploma of the applicant has been issued by IGNOU and hence it is recognized as per sub clause (e) of the Notification. This was corroborated by the learned counsel with the Notification dated 10.06.2015 issued 12 O.A No. 1315/2013 with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 by the Ministry of Human Resource Development which stipulated the following: -
"Now, THEREFORE, the Central Government hereby notifies that all the degrees /diplomas/certificates including technical education degrees/diplomas 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 University Grants Commission 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 University Grants Commission.".
In view of the above notification of Ministry of Human Resource Development read with the vacancy notification dated 14.08.2013, the diploma in engineering of the applicant awarded by the IGNOU is recognized as an eligible qualification for the post of STA-B. In support of this argument learned counsel cited the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathi Dasan University Vs. AICTE - AIR (2001) SC 2861 and argued that as per the ratio decided by the Apex Court, the IGNOU and any other University recognized by the UGC is included for the technical education as defined under 13 O.A No. 1315/2013 with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 AICTE Act. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction of AICTE to approve different technical courses offered by the University including the diploma in engineering in distance mode. The other argument of learned counsel is that in a similar case as the applicant, this was allowed to two employees as indicated in para 5.K of O.A. Therefore, rejecting the claim of the applicant will be discrimination against him. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited following judgments, copy of which was also submitted: -
i). Association of Management of Private Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Others
- (2013) 8 SCC 271.
ii). Judgment dated 21.01.2014 passed by Hon‟ble High Court, Madras in Writ Petition No. 21459/2013 -
Rajesh P. Sankaramatam Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.
iii). Order dated 02.12.2015 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No. 3459/2014 - Manoj Kumar Pal & Ors. Vs. U.O.I & Ors.
14. Learned counsel for respondents broadly reiterated the points made in the CA and referred to various notifications and sub clause of AICTE which state that the AICTE does not approve the engineering degree or diploma courses in distance mode. He also submitted that the applicant has actually obtained the degree from IGNOU through a private institution. He also cited that the D.E.C vide letter dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure -15 to the CA) has affirmed that the DEC had not given approval to any University through 14 O.A No. 1315/2013 with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 distance mode. It is also mentioned in that letter that in case a technical professional programme is offered by the University, approval from the concerned apex body i.e. AICTE is required to be obtained and it is responsibility of the University to obtain such approval. Therefore, the diploma and certificate produced by the applicant is not acceptable since approval of AICTE is not there. It is also pointed out that MHRD vide notification dated 01.03.1995 (Annexure CA-20) also clarified that the distance education programme has to be approved by the DEC, IGNOU and wherever necessary by AICTE. He therefore, argued that the reorganization of both the University as well as AICTE is required for the University approved for distance education mode. He also cited the judgment dated 28.11.2013 passed by Hon‟ble High Court, Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 25095/2013 - Ramchander & others Versus State of Haryana and others. Learned counsel for respondents have also filed written arguments where it is submitted that the applicant has not fulfilled eligibility condition (d) of the notification dated 04.08.2013 which state that the diploma awarded by any institute other than the University should have recognized / approved by the AICTE. He also enclosed a copy of recent judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 03.11.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869 - 15 O.A No. 1315/2013
with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 17870/2017 - Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd Versus Rabi Sankar Patro & Others.
15. We have considered the submissions of learned counsels and perused the pleadings as well as the case laws submitted by the learned counsels for both sides.
16. The issue i.e. required to be decided as to whether the diploma in engineering acquired through distance mode requires the approval of AICTE. In the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd Versus Rabi Sankar Patro & Others (Supra), Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
"36. The definition of "Technical Education" in Section 2(g) of the AICTE Act shows that the emphasis is on the programmes of education, research and training in Engineering Technology in general and the idea is not limited to the institutions where such programmes of education, research and training are to be conducted or imparted. However, the definition of "Technical Institution" in Section 2(h) leaves out an institution which is a University. The distinction between the broader concept of "Technical Education" and the limited scope of "Technical Institution" is clear from Section 10 of the AICTE Act where certain functions concern the broader facets or aspects of technical education which by very nature must apply to every single institution (whether university or not) where such courses are conducted or imparted. At the same time, certain functions are relatable to technical institutions alone, which by definition are not applicable to universities. For example, Functions in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d),
(e), (f), (l) and (n) are concerned with broader 16 O.A No. 1315/2013 with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 facets of technical education, while functions in Clauses (k), (m), (p) and (q) deal with matters concerning technical institutions and thus may not apply to universities, whereas there are certain functions as set out in Clauses (g) and (o) which apply to both "Technical Institutions" and "Universities" imparting technical education.
Clauses (c), (d) and (f) of Section 10 deal with subjects, inter alia, coordination of the technical education in the country at all levels; promoting innovation, research, development, establishment of new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet the developmental requirements; and promoting and effecting link between technical education and systems and other relevant systems. AICTE is thus the sole repository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative norms for "technical education". What should be course content, what subjects be taught and what should be the length and duration of the courses as well as the manner in which those courses be conducted is a part of the larger concept of "technical education". Any idea or innovation in that field is also a part of the concept of "technical education" and must, as a matter of principle, be in the exclusive domain of AICTE.
37. In Bharathidasan (supra) the issue was whether a University established under a State Law, within its area of operation, was entitled to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself without any approval of AICTE. The requirement of grant of approval under Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act being specific in respect of technical institutions alone, the conclusion was arrived at that the AICTE could not insist upon such grant of approval when a University wished to start courses in technical education as an adjunct to the University itself. The discussion 95 in Bharathidasan shows that this Court accepted the role of AICTE in laying down norms and standards in technical education system which is evident from following portions from paragraph Nos.10 and 16.
17 O.A No. 1315/2013
with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 "10..................A careful scanning-through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-à-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action......................
16............We also place on record the statement of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, which, in our view, even otherwise is the correct position of law, that the challenge of the appellant with reference to the Regulation in question and claim of AICTE that the appellant University should seek and obtain prior approval of AICTE to start a department or commence a new course or programme in technical education does not mean that they have no obligation or duty to conform to the standards and norms laid down by AICTE for the purpose of ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards............."
38. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education which is hands-on approach involving actual application of principles taught in theory under the watchful eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical classes. The practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the technical education system. If this established concept of imparting technical education as a qualitative norm is to be modified or altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance education learning, then as a concept the AICTE ought to have accepted it in clear terms. What parameters ought to be 18 O.A No. 1315/2013 with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 satisfied if the regular course of imparting technical education is in any way to be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to decide. The decision must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely because of absence of any Guidelines in the matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it has always maintained that courses leading to degrees in Engineering cannot be undertaken through distance education mode. Whether that approach is correct or not is not the point in issue. For the present purposes, if according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught in distance education mode, that is the final word and is binding - unless rectified in a manner known to law. Even National Policy on Education while emphasizing the need to have a flexible, pattern and programmes through distance education learning in technical and managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTE will be responsible for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standards including maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education. In our view whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering, could be taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive domain of the AICTE. The answer to the first limb of the first question posed by us is therefore clear that without the Guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree courses in Engineering through distance education mode, the Deemed to be Universities were not justified in introducing such courses."
17. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in above case, since AICTE has decided that the courses relating to technical education should not be taught in distance education mode, it is binding on all including Universities. 19 O.A No. 1315/2013
with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 Hence, in this case the diploma certificate acquired by the applicant from IGNOU is not acceptable as per law.
18. Regarding three cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant as noted in paragraph 13 of the order, it is seen that in the case of Association of Management of Private Colleges (Supra), Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held that approval of AICTE under AICTE Act is not required for private colleges affiliated to Universities even if said colleges are conducting MCA and MBA courses. The issue of engineering degree or diploma through correspondence course was not an issue in that case. Similarly, this was also not an issue in O.A No. 3459/2014 as the order dated 02.12.2015 of C.A.T, Principal Bench does not indicate if the diploma obtained by the applicants in the said case was through distance mode or through regular classes. In the case of W.P. No. 21459/2013, the judgment dated 21.01.2014 did not finally decide validity / equivalence of the degree/diploma for appointment / promotion. Hence, the cited cases are distinguishable for the present case on facts.
19. In view of the judgment dated 03.11.2017 of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation (Supra), as discussed above in paragraph 16 of this order as 20 O.A No. 1315/2013 with O.A No. 1316/2013 & O.A 1319/2013 well as guidelines of AICTE mentioned in the said judgment and the letter of AICTE dated 05.08.2015 (Annexure CA-10) that AICTE‟s policy is not to recognize the qualifications in engineering acquired through distance education mode at Diploma, Bachelors and Master‟s level, the diploma certificate in Mechanical Engineering of the applicants have been correctly rejected by the respondents.
20 . In the O.A Nos. 1316/2013 and 1319/2013, the case of the applicants is similar / identical and both have obtained diploma certificate from IGNOU through the same private institution and the grounds taken as well as reliefs prayed for in the both O.As are similar to the O.A No. 1315/2013. Hence the discussions / conclusion arrived at for O.A No. 1315/13 will also apply for O.A Nos. 1316/2013 and 1319/2013.
21. In view of the above discussions, the grounds furnished by the applicants lack merit and hence, the O.As are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, O.As are dismissed. No costs.
(Gokul Chandra Pati) (Justice Dinesh Gupta)
Member-A Member-J
Anand...