Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 18 November, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14716 of 2022 Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajad Singh,Pranav Mishra,Shad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by respondent no.2/Director, Technical Education, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. By that order, the said authority declared the petitioner ineligible to hold the post of Head of Department, Electrical Engineering Department, at Maharana Pratap Polytechnic Gorakhpur.
3. Undisputedly, the petitioner holds B.Tech degree in Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering from a recognized institution. He also holds M.Tech degree in Instrumental and Control from a recognized institution. He has been awarded Ph.D. degree upon submission of thesis on 'Fabrication and Characterization of Bi Doped ZnO based Electronic Devices'. The petitioner applied against the relevant advertisement issued by Directorate of Technical Education, dated 02.10.2021. He appeared in the examination and was declared successful in the interview whereupon selection committee recommended the selection for appointment as Head of Department, Electrical Engineering Department at Maharana Pratap Polytechnic Gorakhpur. However, the final result was not being declared. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ - A No. 8600 of 2022 (Brijesh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.). It was disposed of with the following observations:
"Considering the innocuous prayer, without entering into merits, opposite party no.2 i.e. Director, Technical Education, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh is directed to take a final decision with regard to declaration of result for the post of Head of the Department, Electrical Engineer, Maharana Pratap Polytechnic, Gorakhpur expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority along with a copy of representation in case the same has already not been done.
With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is finally disposed of."
4. While making compliance of the above order, respondent no.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner. In doing that, he has first made a tabular note of the eligibility conditions prescribed for the post of Head of Department, Electrical Engineering Department and compared the same to the educational qualification held by the petitioner. Below the tabular chart, it has been observed, the petitioner's educational qualifications were different from those prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Institution Receiving Grant-in-Aid from the Government Regulations, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) as amended by Fifth Amendment Regulations 2021. On that simple and yet non-speaking observation, the petitioner's application has been rejected.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while it cannot be denied, the educational qualifications prescribed by way of eligibility conditions must be clearly shown to exist before any right to appointment may vest in a person, at the same time, such claims cannot be rejected on non-speaking and opaque observations.
6. Expert bodies such as the Directorate of Technical Education are vested with the task of selection must remain conscious of the burden placed on them to pass not only correct orders but well reasoned orders as may allow the Court to examine what exact reason exists to reject or accept the claim made, before such authority. Merely saying the qualification possessed by the petitioner is different from that prescribed is neither here nor there. In fact, it is no reason at all.
7. In fact, the Regulations relied upon by the Directorate themselves clearly refer to degrees and diplomas approved by All India Council for Technical Education (in short 'AICTE). It is also not in dispute that in the matters of technical education, AICTE enjoys a status and position whereby it is authorized to recognize degrees and diplomas that may be awarded in the field of technical education. Therefore, once the Regulation stipulates consideration of such degrees as may have been recognized by the AICTE, the decision of the AICTE in that regard would remain final and binding on the Directorate.
8. Here, it is further not in dispute, the AICTE vide its notification dated 28.04.2017, approved various degrees awarded in various branches of engineering. Thus, specified degrees have been recognized against specific branches of engineering namely, Electrical Engineering, Agricultural Engineering and Architectural Engineering etc. As against Electrical Engineering, amongst others, the degree in Electrical and Instrumentation Engineering and Electronics and Electrical Engineering have been even duly recognized. Then, for Master degrees, degree in Electrical Engineering (Instrumentation and Control) has been recognized to be covered against the branch Electrical Engineering.
9. Seen in that light, prima facie, it does appear to the Court that the degree B.Tech earned by the petitioner from the University of Lucknow in the field of Electronics & Instrumentation Engineering and the degree M.Tech earned in the field of Instrumentation and Control from University of Pune were such as would be degrees earned in the branch of Electrical Engineering. As to the Ph.D. degree earned by the petitioner, in absence of any recognition shown to exist by the AICTE, the Court may not record any satisfaction at this stage.
10. Suffice it to state, in the first place, the impugned order is found to be wholly non-speaking. Second, it is not in conformity with the stipulations made by the AICTE. Third, no consideration has been made by the Directorate of Technical Education to compare the degrees relied upon by the petitioner with the degrees recognized by the AICTE.
11. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 31.08.2022 cannot be sustained. It is set aside. Matter is remitted to respondent no.2/Director, Technical Education, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order, in light of the observations made above, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.
12. It is made clear, the Court has not recorded any final conclusion on the claim made by the petitioner. However, prima facie observations have been made. Therefore, though Directorate of Technical Education may not be bound by such observation, at the same time, it is required to take note of such observation. In case of any doubt, necessary clarification may be first obtained from the AICTE with respect to the same, which body is required to resolve such doubt within a period of two weeks from the date of request made by respondent no.2 in that regard.
13. In the meanwhile, no selection may be made against fresh advertisement to fill up the post of Head of Department, Electrical Engineering Department at Maharana Pratap Polytechnic Gorakhpur, till the disposal of the petitioner's claim or till expiry of three months, whichever is earlier.
14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.11.2022 Prakhar