Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Katta Ramesh vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 15 December, 2025
1 OA No. 545/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00545/2019
Dated this, the 15th day of December Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
1. Katta Ramesh,
2. Meda Simhadri,
3. Chitturi Srinivas,
4. Kollimalli Seetaram. .....Applicants
By Advocate Ms. Anna Mathew, Sr. Advocate for M/s. S. Meenakshi
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Rep by its Secretary (Power),
Government of Puducherry,
Chief Secretariat, Puducherry 1.
2.The Under Secretary to Government (Power),
Government of Puducherry,
Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry.
3.The Superintending Engineer-I cum Head of the Department,
Electricity Department,
Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa
2 OA No. 545/2019
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicants seeking the following reliefs:-
"to set aside the conditions given under the Note of the impugned No.2- 1/ED/Estt/A3/2016 dated 25.02.2019 issued by the 3rd Respondent to the extent it excludes Diploma obtained from the State Board of Technical Education through Distance Education from eligibility for promotion to the post of Tester and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Applicants' for promotion to the post of Tester with all other attendant benefits and pass such other Order or Orders that are necessary to meet the ends of justice."
2. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicants, are as follows, in brief:-
2.1. The applicants in the OA have been presently employed as Wiremen.
Their next avenue of promotion is to the post of Tester. As per the Recruitment Rules, candidates having 5 years of service in the post of Wireman and possessing Diploma in the Electronics and Electrical Engineering are eligible for the promotion to the of Tester. According to the applicants, all of them possess this eligibility needed under the Recruitment Rules along with Diploma obtained from the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh and as on date they are eligible for promotion to the post of Tester under both the categories mentioned in the Recruitment Rules. They are senior incumbents and thereby awaiting promotion for the post of Tester.
3 OA No. 545/20192.2. The 3rd respondent issued notification dt. 10.03.2014 to fill up 45 vacancies for the post of Tester. However none of the vacancies were filled up till date and the said notification was not at all implemented. The last promotion to the post of Tester was carried out in the year 2005. Thereafter till date, no promotion has been held.
2.3. The 3rd respondent had subsequently issued the impugned notification dt. 25.02.2019 for the post updation of eligible candidates possessing necessary qualification for promotion to the post of Tester. Unfortunately, the said notification contains a note in contrary to the Recruitment Rules which stated that the Diploma obtained through Distance Education mode / Correspondence Mode from Deemed to the Universities / State Board of Technical Education are not to be taken as valid qualification. Since the applicants have obtained Diploma from the State Board of Technical Education, Andhra Pradesh, their names have not been considered for promotion to the post of Tester.
2.4. The applicants have submitted that the Recruitment Rules specifically approves the Diploma obtained from the State Board of Technical Education. Hence the Notification nullifying the qualification of Diploma obtained through State Board of Technical Education is contrary to the Recruitment Rules.
2.5. The applicants have submitted that the issue of acceptance of Diploma obtained through the State Board had already arisen in the State of Andhra 4 OA No. 545/2019 Pradesh. In the Alla Hussain and batch case, the said question whether the diploma awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training (SBTET) of the State of Andhra Pradesh through the distance mode is valid. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh had held that the course is valid only if approval of the AICTE is obtained. Challenging this case, an appeal was filed by the Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the diploma already obtained by the candidates and the candidates who had joined the course of Diploma in the year 2009 should not be disturbed and their certificate is valid. 2.6. The applicants have submitted that applicants no. 3 and 4 have obtained their Diploma in the year 2007 and 2006 itself from the State Board of Technical Education and Training, applicants no.1 and 2 have joined the course in the year 2008 and completed it in the year 2011. Hence as per the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all the applicants fall within the zone of consideration for promotion based on the diploma obtained by them. 2.7. The applicants have submitted that in the year 2005, the respondents have accepted the Diploma Certificates of 9 candidates obtained through Distance Education mode from the State of Tamil Nadu. In these circumstances, the respondents denying the same benefits to the applicants is highly unjust and as the issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents cannot raise it again. All the applicants have completed the Diploma through Correspondence cum Contact (CCC) mode, 5 OA No. 545/2019 which means they have to attend all practical classes and prescribed number of theory classes every year. They have studied all the subjects, which the regular course candidates undergo. Since the Hon'ble Apex Court directed to consider the candidates who have put admission upto the year 2009, the applicants are very well covered by the said order as they joined the Diploma before the year 2009. Further, the State Technical Board itself discontinued the course after the 2009 batch of candidates passed through the course.
2.8. The applicants have submitted that they became eligible for promotion to the post of Tester and have been awaiting promotion from the year 2014. However, the respondents never processed promotion after the year 2005. The vacancies arose from the year 2005 are still kept unfilled. Among the existing vacancies, 75% of them ought to be filled up through promotions from among the feeder categories. Though the respondents have issued circular for updation of the service particulars of the eligible candidates, in order to fill up the vacancies in the post of Tester by promotion, the conditions mentioned under the Note of the impugned order stands as a bar for inclusion of the applicants' name. Since the applicants have done the Course of Diploma in Electrical Engineering in the State Board of Technical Education and the impugned order rejects the same as not eligible, the applicants' names are not considered for promotion. Their request to consider their names for promotion has not been responded. 6 OA No. 545/2019 Aggrieved by the note in the impugned notification dt. 25.02.2019, which prevents Diploma holders from the State Board from qualifying for promotion to the post of Tester, the applicants have filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3.1. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed by the applicants. It is contended that the applicants who are presently working in the Electricity Department in the Yanam Region have acquired Diploma from State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh through Correspondence-cum-Contact (CCC) course. The applicants are requesting to consider their diploma as valid qualification for consideration for promotion to the post of Tester in the Electricity Department. The post of Wireman in the Electricity Department, Puducherry is the feeder post for promotion to two higher posts in different hierarchies. One of the promotional avenues is the post of Assistant Line Inspector and the other is the post of Tester. The educational qualification requirement as per the Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Tester is a Diploma in Electrical Engineering or DEEE from a recognized University or State Board of Technical Education. The officials in the feeder grades should possess a Diploma in Electrical Engineering or Engineering of a recognized University and should have completed two years of service after acquiring the said Diploma. As per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Tester notified vide G.O.Ms. No. 25, dt. 26.09.2005 of the Industrial Development 7 OA No. 545/2019 (Power) Department, Puducherry, the method of recruitment for the post of Tester and percentage of posts to be filled up by various methods are as follows:-
(i) 75% by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment;
(ii) 25% by direct recruitment.
3.2. The respondents have contended that the Expert Committee constituted by the Government of Puducherry for settling long pending administrative issues in the Electricity Department had opined that the Diploma Certificates issued by State Board of Technical Education and Training, Hyderabad, AP cannot be treated as valid for the purpose of promotion unless specific course approval is obtained from AICTE, on the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, dt. 03.11.2017 which invalidated the degrees obtained through distance mode from various Deemed to be Universities without obtaining approval of the AICTE and UGC. The officials of Electricity Department, Puducherry who have acquired DEE or DEEE through correspondence course had filed several OAs before this Tribunal and sought for direction to the respondents to promote them to the posts of Tester, Junior Engineer Grade - II, and Assistant Engineer on the strength of their Diploma and Degree. Most of the cases were dismissed and few cases were disposed of with certain direction to the respondents. It is contended that the Electricity Department Diploma Engineers and Labour Associations of Puducherry and two Wiremen have 8 OA No. 545/2019 submitted representation with respect to the judgment dt. 10.04.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA Nos. 3697-3698 of 2018 in the case filed as Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar Vs Chairman and the Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Telungana Ltd., and others.
3.3. It is contended that the DPC had met on 03.09.2024 and drawn up the year-wise panels in respect of 33 officials and recommended them for promotion to the post of Tester. The applicants have not submitted any documentary evidence substantiating that their Diploma obtained from State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh through Correspondence-cum-Contact (CCC) course has the necessary approval of the apex bodies such as the AICTE and UGC as per the observations / orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgment dt. 03.11.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017.
3.4. As the regards the validity of Diploma obtained through open and distance learning mode, it is contended that as per UGC (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations 2017, the programmes in Engineering, Medicine, Dental, Nursing, Pharmacy, Architecture and Physiotherapy etc., are not permitted to be offered under Open and Distance Learning (ODL) mode. However, as per order dt. 30.07.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukul Kumar Sharma and others Vs AICTE and others, B. Tech. degree/diploma in engineering awarded by IGNOU to the students who were 9 OA No. 545/2019 enrolled upto the academic year 2009-10 shall be treated as valid. This was further extended upto the year 2011-12 based on the order dt. 19.09.2020 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Naseem Baig & others Vs, AICTE. It is further contended that the department did not consider such cases in the past and the decision was upheld by this Tribunal in many cases. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits. 4.1. The applicants have filed rejoinder contesting the reply statement filed by the respondents. It is submitted that the applicants had acquired their Diploma in State Board of Technical Education and Training Institution, Andhra Pradesh, through Correspondence-cum-Contact (CCC) mode. The applicants have submitted that it is not an Open University degree, but they possess the basic qualification of 10th standard through regular mode. The applicants possess a 3 years' Diploma certificate and the institution from which they acquired Diploma was a State Government run institution. The Technical Education Course that they had undergone is a State Government approved course and it has been considered for appointment and promotion in Government Departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Their admission into the Diploma course was granted only through a Common Entrance Examination conducted by the Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh. All the applicants have passed the entrance examination and got admission to the Diploma Courses. Moreover, only the candidates who passed SSLC examination or other examination 10 OA No. 545/2019 recognised as equivalent and working in Andhra Pradesh as Technicians were eligible to apply for admission. The candidates who join the said Diploma Course, should attend practical and theory classes. The candidates should also ensure 75% percent of attendance in attending the classes. 4.2. It is further submitted that the syllabus of the said course is the same that of the regular course. The Government of Andhra Pradesh considers this Course for promotion of candidates in Government Department. Hence, the 3 years diploma studied by the applicants through Correspondence-cum- Contact (CCC) mode cannot compared with the Two year Diploma granted by the Deemed University in that contact classes. The report of the Expert Committee relied on by the respondents was prepared based on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation case. The respondents have failed to take note of the subsequent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director Transmission Corporation of Telangana. Ltd & ors reported in (2019) 13 SCC 620 on the issue of consideration of the Degrees and Diplomas obtained through Distance Education Mode, which do not have AICTE approval. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case held that the degrees and diplomas of the candidates admitted to the courses upto the year 2009- 2010 may not be disturbed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same view in the subsequent judgments, viz., Mukul Kumar Sharma & 11 OA No. 545/2019 ors. Vs. All India Council For Technical Education & ors in WP (Civil) No. 382 of 2018 and in Md. Naseem Baig & ors. Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & ors in WP (Civil) No. 1341 of 2019. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had approved the Degree without AICTE approval by an institution constituted by a State statute. In the applicants' case, the course was based on several Government orders issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Further, in Md. Naseem Baig & ors case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt with the Diploma granted by the IGNOU through Distance Education courses upto the year 2009-10. 4.3. It is further submitted that the applicants have secured admission to the courses before the year 2008 and all of them have completed their Diplomas before the year 2012. As stated in Md. Naseem Baig case, the Government of Andhra Pradesh also stopped conducting the Diploma Course. However, the respondents have rejected the Diploma certificates of the applicants based on the report that was prepared in the year 2018, which they cannot do, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically directed not to reject the Degrees and Diplomas upto the year 2009-10 and extended the same upto the year 2010-11 and 2011-12. Hence, the applicants clearly qualify and are fully eligible as per the Recruitment Rules. 5.1. The respondents have also filed their additional reply. It is contended that the said special nature of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases relied upon by the applicants and the consequential policy / 12 OA No. 545/2019 clarification of the AICTE as contained in the circular dt. 25.11.2020 are relating to the validity of the degree / diploma awarded by the IGNOU. In the said circular dt. 25.11.2020 of the AICTE inter alia, it has been indicated that the said degree / diploma of IGNOU in respect of the students enrolled upto 2011-12 are treated as valid as a special case but cannot be taken as precedence and not for the period post-2012. Therefore, the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases relied upon by the applicants are not applicable to the Diploma acquired by the applicants through correspondence course from the Andhra Pradesh State Board of Technical Education.
5.2. It is further contended that regarding Diploma in Engineering awarded through Distance Learning mode, the AICTE vide circular dt. 30.12.2020 inter alia, had clearly outlined their policy / clarification, as follows:
"AICTE as such has not given approval for conducting Diploma courses in Engineering through distance education mode to any technical institutions. Hence, AICTE cannot validate the diplomas awarded by these institutions. Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that Diploma course in Engineering is not under the purview of the aforesaid case."
and the same has been reiterated in the letter dt. 03.08.2022 of the AICTE addressed to the Deputy Secretary to Government, Government of Jammu and Kashmir Public Works (R&B) Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar (J&K).
6. Heard both sides and perused the records as well as the additional typeset, citations, pleadings and written submissions. 13 OA No. 545/2019
7. The service condition of the post of Tester is governed by the Government of Puducherry, Electricity Department (Group 'C' Post Tester) Recruitment Rules, 2005 and the Item Nos. 8 and 9 in the Schedule of the said rule prescribes the educational and other qualifications required. The relevant portion is extracted below :-
"
8. Educational and other qualifications (1) Diploma in Electrical Engineering required for direct recruits : or Electrical and Electronics Engineering of a recognised University or Board of Technical Education.
(2) Two years experience in an Electrical Undertaking or Electricity Department, Pondicherry after acquiring the said Diploma.
9. Whether age and educational Age: No qualifications: prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case of Educational qualification: Should promotees. possess a Diploma in Electrical Engineering or Electrical and Electronics Engineering of a recognised University of Board of Technical Education and should have completed two years service after acquiring Diploma in Electrical Engineering or Electrical and Electronics Engineering of a recognised University or Board of Technical Education "
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the recruitment rule is silent and does not provide any disctinction between regular or distance education mode, the diploma issued by State Board of Technical 14 OA No. 545/2019 Education, Andhra Pradesh is a valid certificate as educational qualification for the post of Tester.
9. It is a settled matter in the law that an executive order cannot supersede a statutory rule in service matters. However, the Government can issue instructions or executive orders to supplement an extant rule by filling up gaps or by providing clarification where the rules are silent. However, these instructions / orders must be in consonance with rules and not contradicting the provisions without explicit change in the rules. In the present case, the impugned notification dt. 25.02.2019 has inserted a note stating that "diplomas obtained through distance education mode / correspondence mode from deemed to be universities / State Board of Technical Education not to be taken as valid qualification". Prima facie this amounts to transgress of the executive authority over the legislative mandate provided under the rules which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
10. Before we delve into the factual matrix of the case, it is imperative to discuss about the four case laws that have been vociferously cited by Ms. Anna Mathew, Sr. Counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, learned Government Pleader for the Government of Puducherry. While the earliest case cited ie., Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro (2018 (1) SCC 468) decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.11.2017 dealt on the validity of a B. Tech (Civil) degree obtained by the respondent therein from a recognised deemed to be university through 15 OA No. 545/2019 distance education in the year 2009. The 2nd case cited ie., Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University through Registrar Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd. & ors in Civil Appeal No. 3697-3698 of 2018 reported in (2019) 13 SCC 620 decided on 10.04.2018 provided one-time validity to the degrees obtained through distance education citing distinguished features from the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (2018) cited supra. The 3rd case cited ie. Mukul Kumar Sharma & ors Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & ors in Writ Petition (C) No. 382 of 2018, decided on 30.07.2018 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, clarified the issue further that AICTE norms will have to be adhered strictly by the institute (IGNOU) but AICTE approval for the said course (B. Tech Degree / Diploma) is not necessary. In the 4th case of Md. Naseem Baig & ors Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & ors, in WP (C) No. 1341 of 2019 decided on 18.09.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court extended the relief granted to B. Tech Degree / Diploma holders through distance education by two more years for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The fact as well as the ratio decidendi in each of the case are as under :-
i. In the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd., the issue decided was regarding validity of a B.Tech (Civil) degree from a deemed university viz., JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur through distance education in the year 2009. In this case, the respondent, Mr. Rabi Shankar 16 OA No. 545/2019 Patro, a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering joined the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and while in service, he acquired B. Tech (Civil) degree from a deemed to be University viz., JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur through distance education in the year 2009 and sought for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. After hearing the submissions made by both the parties as well as UGC, AICTE, Hon'ble Supreme Court made a distinction between a regular university established under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and an Institution Deemed to be University which is maintained in the UGC Act. It held that a Deemed to be University can certainly award degrees but cannot use the word "University" by virtue of Section 23 of the UGC Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that, "A Deemed to be University in the second category mentioned herein above is still an institution of the stature of a "technical institution" and if it desires to introduce new courses it must fulfil the requirements of the 1994 AICTE Regulations." Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Distance Education Council (DEC) of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) could not act as a regulator for other university and DEC alone could not be entitled to grant promotion for open distance learning. While suspending of the concerned degrees in engineering awarded by the concerned deemed to be universities through distance education in the year 2009 ie., JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur, Vinayaka Mission 17 OA No. 545/2019 Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu and IASE Deemed University, Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in conclusion, after taking into account the plight of the students whose degrees stood suspended by 15.01.2018, had allowed them to appear in a test to be conducted by AICTE for re-validation of their degrees. The Court held that, "the permissions granted by DEC in the first instance allowing the Deemed to be Universities in question to introduce courses leading to the award of degrees in engineering were illegal and opposed to Law."
ii. In the case of Registrar, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited and ors, the case related to State University which gave admissions in a transparent manner only to the Government employees. There was a contact programme and faculty was available. Practical work was also held and DEC of IGNOU gave ex post facto approval and the standards have not been compromised. Hon'ble Supreme Court while concurring with the views taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana held that the degrees and diplomas in question already granted to candidates admitted upto Academic Year 2009-10 may be left undisturbed.
iii. Subsequently, on 30.07.2018, the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of Mukul Kumar Sharma and ors Vs. AICTE in WP (C) No. 382 of 2018 held that in the case of B. Tech. degree / diploma course study of the Indira 18 OA No. 545/2019 Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) established under the Act of Parliament, it is enough that AICTE norms were followed while granting B. Tech / Diploma but the AICTE approval for the said course was not necessary.
iv. The last case ie., Md. Naseem Baig & ors Vs. All India Council for Technical Education & ors relates to diploma holders in one of the distance education courses conducted by IGNOU. While reiterating their earlier order dt. 11.03.2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the degrees and diploma upto the year 2009-10 as well as for the subsequent two years ie., 2010-11 and 2011-12 be left undisturbed as a one-time measure.
While all the above four cases have their distinct features, the common thread binding these four cases relates to (i) distinction between a Deemed to be University versus a State University, (ii) assessment regarding availability of faculty as well as conduct of practical work during course and finally, (iii) adherence to the AICTE norms. While the present case in hand has a different set of factual matrix but it is necessary to examine the same in the light of common thread enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in above four referred cases.
11. In addition to the above four Supreme Court cases cited above, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh discussed threadbare the issue of validity of diplomas awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training in the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh and in the present states of 19 OA No. 545/2019 Andhra Pradesh and Telangana through distance mode which is directly related to the subject matter in the present case. In the said case ie., in WP No. 22385 of 2014, pronounced on 19.01.2018, the relevant paras are extracted below:-
"19. The State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the A.P. Education Act, 1982, with a view to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the educational system in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Section 6 of the said Act empowers the Government to establish a Board known as State Board of Technical Education and Training. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of Act No.1/1982 defines the functions of SBTET. Under the said sub-section, the functions of the Board would include (i) advising the Government on the coordinated development of technical education in the State at all levels below under- graduate level; (ii) working in liaison with the Southern Regional Committee of All India Council for Technical Education in the formulation of schemes in the State; (3) affiliating and recognizing the institutions conducting the courses below under- graduate level and prescribing courses of study for them; and (4) conducting examinations and awarding diplomas and certificates conforming to the minimum standards prescribed by AICTE.
20. Section 21A of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (inserted by way of Amendment Act No.27/1987 w.e.f. 01.06.1987) stipulates that no institution imparting education and located in this State, shall affiliate itself to any University outside the State of Andhra Pradesh.
21. As a matter of fact, the State Board of Technical Education and Training was already in existence for about 25 years prior to the enactment of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. In the pre-independence and post independence days, there was only one office known as the Director of Public Instructions (DPI), who also used to head the Technical Education. After the first reorganization of States and the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.371, Education, dated 26.02.1957 establishing the State Board of Technical Education and Training. But after the advent of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, the Board was formed as a Statutory body and the Board was constituted under G.O.Ms.No.140, dated 24.04.1984.
22. It is of interest to note that the All India Council for Technical Education though established in the year 1945, gained Statutory recognition only under the AICTE Act, 1987, But the A.P. Education Act, 1982, which created the SBTET as a statutory body, made it mandatory for the State Board to work in liaison with AICTE and also to conduct examinations and award diplomas and certificates conforming to the minimum standards prescribed by AICTE. In other words, even before the All India Council for Technical Education could gain statutory recognition in the year 1987 by a Central Act of Parliament, the 20 OA No. 545/2019 A.P. Education Act, 1982 recognized its role in the field of technical education. Section 6 of the A.P. Education Act reads as follows:
6. State Board of Technical Education and Training: - (1) The Government may, by notification, establish a board of technical education to be called "the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Andhra Pradesh", the composition and powers of which shall be such as may be prescribed.
(2) The functions of the Board shall be, -
(a) to advise the Government on the co-ordinated development of technical education in the State at all levels below under-graduate level ;
(b) to work in liaison with the Southern Regional Committee of the All India Council for Technical Education in the formulation of schemes in the State ;
(c) to affiliate or recognise institutions conducting courses below undergraduate level and prescribe courses of study for them;
(d) to inspect institutions periodically and ensure that the standards of the courses and the instructional facilities provided are satisfactory;
(e) to conduct examinations and award diplomas and certificates conforming to the minimum standards prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education ;
(f) to establish and develop co-operative relationship with Industry and Commerce.
23. All the Government Polytechnics, offering certificate or diploma courses in technical education, function under the supervision of and with the approval of the AICTE. There were 28 Polytechnics in the State all of which had the approval of AICTE, for offering fulltime diploma courses. But in 1993-94 the SBTET introduced correspondence cum contact programmes in diploma courses purportedly for the benefit of ITI passed candidates, but without taking the specific approval of AICTE for conducting such programmes.
24. The contention of the Management of the Corporations in these cases is that the State Board of Technical Education and Training started conducting Diploma courses through CCC mode from the year 1992 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 27-03-1992 and that students are admitted to these courses through a common entrance examination, they are allotted to Government Polytechnics and they appear for the examination along with regular full- time candidates and pass the examinations. Therefore, the contention of the Management is that since 28 Polytechnics in which Diploma courses are offered on full-time basis are already approved by the AICTE, the question of getting a separate approval for the courses offered through CCC mode does not arise.
21 OA No. 545/2019
25. But if the above contention of the Corporations is correct, we do not know why the Corporations took a stand at the earliest point of time in T.O.O.Ms.No.134, dated 11-09-2008, that the Diplomas offered through CCC mode will not be recognized unless the approval of the AICTE was there. For a period of seven full years, T.O.O.Ms.No.134, dated 11-09-2008, held the field, till it was modified by the APTRANSCO under T.O.O.Ms.No.83 dated 17-04- 2015.
26. The stand taken by the SBTET in a meeting convened by the Higher Education Department on 09-12-2013 was that the Diplomas offered by the SBTET through CCC mode should be treated like any other regular Diploma courses offered by SBTET. When the decision taken in the meeting held on 09- 12-2013 was communicated on 24- 12-2013, the APTRANSCO sought clarifications from the Energy Department on 18-03-2014. The Energy Department issued a clarification on 12-03-2014, after which T.O.O.Ms. No.83 was issued.
27. But what happened from the year 2013 till the year 2015 may not be an answer to the core issue. We hope that the decision taken in T.O.O.Ms.No.134, dated 11-09-2008, was also a conscious decision taken after proper application of mind. As we have pointed out earlier, the AICTE was established in the year 1945 and it gained Statutory recognition only in the year 1987 under the AICTE Act, 1987. Similarly, SBTET was established in the year 1957 and it gained Statutory recognition only under the A.P. Education Act, 1982.
28. At the time when the A.P. Education Act, 1982 was passed, the AICTE was just an expert body, without any statutory functions. The statutory functions came to be conferred upon the AICTE only in the year 1987.
29. Despite this fact, the A.P. Education Act, 1982 made it mandatory for SBTET to work in liaison with the AICTE and follow the mandate of the AICTE even at a time when the AICTE had no statutory role to perform.
30. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation that since the courses offered by SBTET and the Polytechnics through which they were offered were already granted approval by the AICTE, the question of obtaining approval for the programmes offered through CCC mode would not arise. But we think that the said contention goes against the scheme of the AICTE Act. The reasons for this conclusion of ours are:
(i) SBTET is mandated by Section 6(2)(b) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 to work in liaison with the AICTE in the formulation of the schemes in the State.
Under Section 6(2)(c), SBTET is to affiliate or recognize institutions conducting courses below undergraduate level and prescribe courses of study for them. Under Section 6(2)(e), the Board is obliged to conduct examinations and award Diplomas and Certificates conforming to the minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE. Therefore, there is a statutory compulsion for SBTET to adhere to the minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE. Hence, if a programme through CCC mode is formulated without the approval of the 22 OA No. 545/2019 AICTE, the same cannot be said to have passed the check post with reference to the minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE.
If the Diplomas offered through CCC mode by SBTET do not conform to the minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE, the said Diplomas are not valid. The question whether they conform to the minimum standards or not, has to be answered only by the AICTE in view of Section 6(2)(e). In the absence of any approval/recognition/certification by the AICTE that the Diplomas offered through CCC mode adhere to the minimum standards prescribed by the AICTE, these Diplomas cannot be taken to be valid in the light of the mandate of Section 6(2)(e) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982.
(ii) Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, 1987 defines a technical institution to mean an institution not being a University, offering courses or programmes of Technical Education. What is important to note from Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act is that it talks about courses as well as programmes of Technical Education. If Diploma in Engineering is a course, the mode of study is a programme. Keeping this in mind if we go to Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987, it could be seen that the AICTE is vested with the duty to take all steps (a) for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of Technical and Management Education and (b) maintenance of standards, with respect to the grant of approval for starting new Technical Institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes. It is pertinent to note that the distinction between courses and programmes, inscribed in Section 2(h) of the Act, is maintained even in Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act. Section 10(1)(k) speaks about approval for starting new Technical Institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes.
31. Therefore, if the particular programme viz., CCC programme offered by SBTET did not have the approval as required by Section 10(1)(k), the same would be in excess of the statutory functions conferred upon SBTET under Section 6(2)(e) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, also.
32. To put it differently, the Diploma offered by SBTET may come within the purview of an approved course. The Polytechnics through which the Diplomas were offered may come within the purview of approved Technical Institutions. But the CCC programme through which such Diplomas are offered, if not approved, will make such Diplomas not valid.
33. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Management of the Corporations took a valid, conscious and wise decision under T.O.O.Ms.No.134, dated 11-09-2008, to recognize only those Diplomas offered by SBTET, which had the recognition of the AICTE. Through consultations with the School Education Department or the State Council of Higher Education, SBTET cannot make these Diplomas valid, as these administrative decisions cannot cure a violation of the statutory mandate under Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987 read with section 6(2)(e) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982.
23 OA No. 545/2019
34. The learned Senior Counsel for the APTRANSCO and other learned counsel appearing for private parties who secured Diplomas through CCC mode, pressed into service, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University v. AICTE . But the said decision revolved around the distinction between a University and a Technical Institution. Therefore, the said decision may be of relevance when we deal with the validity of the Degrees offered by JNTUH, that forms the next part of the discussion.
35. There are a couple of writ petitions challenging the validity of T.O.O.Ms.No.134 dated 11-9-2008, and various subsequent orders, by which the Diplomas offered by SBTET through CCC programs are declared valid only if they had the approval of the AICTE. The contention of the petitioners in these cases is that Annexure-III of the A.P. State Electricity Board Service Regulations merely prescribes a Diploma in a particular branch of Engineering recognized by the State of Andhra Pradesh as a valid qualification for appointment to certain posts. For instance, the table in Annexure-III to the A.P. State Electricity Board Service Regulations prescribes a Diploma in Electrical / Mechanical / Civil / Telecom Engineering or any other equivalent qualifications recognized by the Board/Government of Andhra Pradesh as a qualification for appointment to the post of Sub Engineer.
36. The contention of the candidates who had secured Diplomas through CCC mode is that once they hold a valid Diploma offered by SBTET and recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, they satisfy the eligible criteria prescribed in the table under Annexure-III of the Service Regulations. Since the Service Regulations are issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, they have statutory force and that these Service Regulations, in the contention of these persons, cannot be tampered with by way of Board Proceedings or Office Orders, which are mere executive instructions.
37. It does not require a great deal of research to accept that the Service Regulations framed in exercise of the power conferred by a Statute, have statutory force and that these Regulations cannot be diluted or modified, by way of executive instructions.
38. But it must be pointed out that the APSEB Service Regulations were issued way back on 21-8-1967 under B.P.Ms.No.547 and they were notified in the Official Gazette under B.P.Ms.No.199, dated 04-3-1970. At that time (viz., 1967 and 1970) we had the AICTE without a statutory function and SBTET without a statutory recognition. The statutory recognition for the AICTE came in 1987 and the statutory recognition for SBTET came in 1982.
39. Therefore, the expressions recognized by State Board/Government of Andhra Pradesh appearing in Annexure-III to the Service Regulations, should be understood to mean those Diplomas that were valid in terms of Section 6(2)(e) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 read with Section 10(1)(k) of the AICTE Act, 1987.
24 OA No. 545/2019
40. In fact, if the Service Regulations are to be literally interpreted, the reference to the State Board in Annexure-III of the Service Regulations should be construed to mean a State Board without a statutory recognition. This is due to the fact that at the time when the Service Regulations were framed in 1970, the State Board remained a mere expert body without statutory functions. Therefore, what was contained in the Service Regulations framed in 1970 should be taken to mean only a State Board without a statutory recognition, if a literal interpretation is taken. This will lead to absurd results. Therefore, the only way the Service Regulations are to be read is to read them in tune with the statutory prescriptions contained in the 1982 Act and the 1987 Act.
41. In other words, T.O.O.Ms.No.134 dated 11-09-2008, was not an executive instruction issued in modification or amendment of the Service Regulations. It was only a clarification issued to the Service Regulations and it provided an indicator as to how the Service Regulations are to be read in tune with statutory prescription.
42. Therefore, in fine, we hold that insofar as Diplomas offered by SBTET are concerned, they would be valid for all purposes, only if the programmes through which they were offered by SBTET such as CCC programmes, have had the approval of the AICTE. Hence, the writ petitions challenging the prescription relating to recognition by the AICTE are liable to be dismissed and the prescription relating to recognition by the AICTE is upheld."
(emphasis supplied)
12. Having discussed the legal pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts in the similar matters, we deal with the factual matrix in the present case. The four applicants in the OA are presently employed as Wiremen under the respondents and possess a Diploma in the Electronics and Electrical Engineering from the State Board of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2006/2007 and in the year 2011. However, the respondent authorities have rejected their claim through an impugned OM dt. 25.02.2019 stating that diploma obtained through distance education mode / correspondence course from Deemed to be University / State Board 25 OA No. 545/2019 of Technical Education is not to be taken as a valid qualification for the post of Tester. Hence, the OA.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents further argues that this Tribunal in earlier cases have dismissed similar applications for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer Grade II on the strength of diploma acquired through correspondence course. Some of the OAs and WP that have been referred in the reply by the respondents are OA No. 1287 of 2013, OA No. 1570 of 2010 and OA No. 286 of 2013 and WP No. 28402 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. We find that in OA No. 1287/2013 the case is related to accepting the diploma awarded by IGNOU in Mechanical Engineering on par with the diploma certificate approved by AICTE which has been allowed by this Tribunal. The case in the other two OA Nos. 1570/2010 and 286/2013 relates to only correspondence course diploma while in the present case, it is correspondence cum contact module involving practical works. The order refers to common orders which are prior to the pronouncement of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court between 2017- 2020. Therefore, the same cannot be applied in the present case. We have also perused the report of expert committee dated March 2018 filed by the respondents. While we agree with the view of the committee that diploma through correspondence course from deemed university and private institutes are not a valid degree/diploma, the certificate from State Board of Technical Education from government institute cannot be brushed aside with 26 OA No. 545/2019 a single stroke. The expert committee in its report at para 21 ignored the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad stating that it is an interim order but failed to appreciate final order passed by the same Court on 19.01.2018 in WP No. 22385/2014 cited above. In our view, the expert committee has taken a sweeping view rather than examining each case which are distinct from one another.
14. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 28402/2019 wherein it is held that the two year diploma obtained from the deemed university through distance education mode during the year 2007 and 2009 is not equivalent to the diploma mentioned in the recruitment rules for the post of Tester. The relevant paras are extracted below :-
"16. We are of the considered opinion that as per recruitment notification dated 26.09.2005, the promotion is from the feeder category of Wireman, Bill Collector and Commercial Assistant, who have 5 years of regular service and they should also possess a Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from a recognised University. The Officials in the feeder category should possess a Diploma from a recognised University and should have completed 2 years of service after acquiring the said Diploma. The petitioners are not eligible for promotion to the post of Tester, as the Diploma produced by the petitioners were not approved by the Distance Education Council (DEC) and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The normal period for a Diploma course is 3 years, but the petitioners obtained the Diplomas within a period of 2 years from a deemed University. Further, the petitioners have obtained their Diplomas through a correspondence course from Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), a Deemed University, Rajasthan and failed to establish that a diploma possessed by them is equivalent to the Diploma mentioned in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Testor. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, and there are no merits in these Writ Petitions."
(emphasis supplied) 27 OA No. 545/2019
15. Similarly, in the Writ Petition Nos. 28309 and 24552 of 2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has held that the two year diploma course offered by Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (a Deemed University) through correspondence course cannot be equivalent to a diploma through regular course. However, in the instant case, it is a Correspondence-cum-Contract Course involving both theoretical and practical sessions and the diploma has been awarded after three years course duration which is different from the case dealt in the Writ Petition Nos. 28309 and 24552 of 2013.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents in their written submissions have argued that the prior permission granted by the respondent authorities on 12.06.2009, 16.06.2009 and 30.12.2009 to the applicants stated that "The study of the above Diploma/degree is further is subject to the condition that the same will not confer on the official any right for consideration for promotion unless the said Diploma/Degree is approved/recognized by the Competent Authority including AICTE." However, the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukul Kumar Sharma and ors Vs. AICTE (cited supra) wherein it is held that "it is enough that AICTE norms were followed while granting degree / diploma but the AICTE approval for the said course was not necessary." In view of this, the insistence by the respondent authorities for approval of AICTE does not hold good.
28 OA No. 545/2019
17. Before concluding, we would like to summarise the distinguishing facts in the present case with reference to citations mentioned in preceeding paras:-
i. The certificate issuing authority, the State Board of Andhra Pradesh is a statutory body under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and the section 6 (2) (e) of the said Act provides the State Board of Technical Education to "conduct examinations and award diplomas and certificates confirming to the minimum standards prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education";
ii. The applicants have secured admission through common entrance examination and with due permission of respondent authority. iii. The duration of diploma course of the applicants is of three years period;
iv. The diplomas have been awarded prior to the year 2012 (April-May); v. Instead of a standalone distance education course or correspondence course, the diploma course in question is Correspondence-cum-Conduct Course (CCC) which is different from the regular correspondence courses. vi. The course of study contains both theory as well as practicals, the details of which are given below :-
Year Theory Practical
(1st year) i.English i. Engg. Drawing
ii.Mathematics-I ii. Workshop Practice
2009-10 iii.Applied Science iii. Applied Science Lab
29 OA No. 545/2019
iv.Elec.Engg.Materials & iv. English
Ec. Components Communication Lab
(2nd year) i. Mathematics-II & i. Electrical Engineering
Information Technology, Drawing - I
2010-11 ii. SM & Mechanical Engg., ii. Electrical Lab-I
iii. AC Circuits & iii. Electronics Lab
Machines-I iv. IT Lab & Electrical
iv. DC Machines, Wiring Practice Lab
Measurements &
Measuring instruments
(3rd year) i. Industrial Management & i. Electrical Engineering
Entrepreneurship Drawing - II
2011-12 ii. AC Machines - II, ii. Electrical Lab - II
iii. Digital Electronics & iii. Digital Electronics
Micro Controllers; & Microcontroller
iv. Power System - I; Lab;
v. Electrical Utilisation & iv. Project Work
Traction
18. After going through various pronouncements of this Tribunal in earlier cases as well as judgments of Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court and after taking into consideration that State Board of Technical Education (SBTE), Andhra Pradesh is a statutory body and that the applicants have undergone the course in a government institution for a period of three years involving both theory and practical subjects through Correspondence-cum-Contact Courses (CCC), the certificates are valid and are in accordance with the provisions in the Recruitment Rules, 2005 for Tester.
19. In view of the distinguishing facts cited above, we hold that the certificate of the applicants are valid and meet the requirement of the 30 OA No. 545/2019 recruitment rules of diploma as per item no. 9 of the Schedule of the recruitment rules. Accordingly, the condition given under the Note of the impugned Office Memorandum No. 2-1/ED/Estt./A3/2016, dt. 25.02.2019 of the respondent authority is quashed and set aside in so far as the applicants are concerned. The respondents are directed to consider the applicants' case for promotion to the post of Tester with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
20. The OA is allowed. No costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (M. Swaminathan)
Member (A) Member (J)
15.12.2025
SKSI
Digitally signed
S.S. IYER, PS by HP
Date: 2026.01.02
12:27:07 +05'30'