Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Yogesh Kumar Jain vs M/O Defence on 24 June, 2025
1
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(1) Original Application No. 200/640/2013
(2) Original Application No. 200/653/2014
(3) Original Application No. 200/702/2014
(4) Original Application No. 200/703/2014
(5) Original Application No. 200/1025/2014
(6) Original Application No. 200/1033/2014
(7) Original Application No. 200/1034/2014
(8) Original Application No. 200/1035/2014
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 24th day of June, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Yogesh Kumar Jain, S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, DOB: 23.10.1981, R/o
House No. 1958, Vehicle Factory Road, Purani Basti, Ambedkar Ward
Ranjhi, Jabalpur -482 005 (M.P.)
(Applicant in O.A. 640/2013)
2. Suresh Kumar Pradhan, S/o Shri R.N. Pradhan, DOB: 11.05.1981, R/o
4373/1, New Ram Nagar, Amkhera, Near Kali Mandir, Adhartal, Jabalpur
482 009 (M.P.)
(Applicant in O.A. 653/2014)
3. Raj Kumar Verma, S/o Shri T.D. Verma, DOB: 11.6.1987, R/o- Qr.
No.52/7, Type-II, East Land Khamaria, Jabalpur -482 005 (M.P.)
4. Manoj Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Pritam Rana, DOB: 15.11.1984, R/o-
Qr. No.63/06, Type-II, East Land, Khamaria, Jabalpur -482 005 (M.P.)
5. Ambarish Maity, S/o Shri Gourhari Maity, DOB: 5.6.1985, R/o- Qr.
No.34/03, Type-II, East Land, Khamaria, Jabalpur -482 005 (M.P.)
6. Manish Kumar Singh, S/o Late Sudarshan Singh, DOB: 16.2.1989,
R/o- Qr. No.221/E, N-Type, East Land, Khamaria, Jabalpur -482 005
(M.P.)
2025.06.25 Page 1 of 12
VISHAL
09:56:23
KUSHWAH
+05'30'
2
7. Amit Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Nand Kumar Singh, DOB: 15.10.1987,
R/o- Qr. No.63/04, Type-II, East Land, Khamaria, Jabalpur -482 005
(M.P.)
8. Gyani Kumar Seksena, S/o Late Guleshwar Paswan, DOB: 2.12.1980,
R/ o - Qr. 9/12,H-Type, East Land, Khamaria, Jabalpur -482 005 (M.P.)
9. Ameshwari Prasad Singh, S/o Shri Rudal Singh, DOB: 10.2.1985, R/o-
Qr. No. 11/4, H-Type, East Land, Khamaria, Jabalpur -482 005 (M.P.)
10. Hemant Kumar Haldkar, S/o Shri Nanhe Lal Haldkar, DOB:
17.8.1982, R/o- Sarra Peepal, Nai Basti, Near Mohan Cycle Stores,
Ranjhi Jabalpur -482 005 (M.P.)
11. Jitendra Kumar Singh, S/ o Late Ram Swaroop Singh, DOB:
1.3.1979, R/o- Qr. No. 18/01, Type-II, East Land, Khamaria, Jabalpur -
482 005 (M.P.)
12. Prashant Yadav, S/o Shri Jai Narayan Yadav, DOB: 2.12.1982, R/o
Qr. No. 18/05, Type-II, East Land, Khamaria, Jabalpur -482 005 (M.P.)
13. Prakash Kumar Dubey, S/o Shri Ganga Prasad Dubey, DOB:
4.2.1987, R/o- 270, Nanak Nagar, Manegawan, Ranjhi, Jabalpur -482 005
(M.P.)
14. Om Prakash Yadav, S/o Shri Ram Milan Yadav, DOB: 10.03.1981,
R/o- Azad Nagar, Ranjhi Jabalpur -482 005 (M.P.)
15. Yogesh Goswami, S/o Late Shankar Goswami, DOB: 11.02.1981, R/o
Champa Nagar, Manegawan, Ranjhi, Jabalpur -482 005 (M.P.)
(Applicants in O.A./702/2014)
16. Deependra Tiwari, S/o Shri U.P. Tiwari, DOB: 16.06.1985, R/o R-5,
Puneet Nagar, Near Power House, Adhartal, Jabalpur 482 009 (M.P.)
(Applicant in O.A./703/2014)
(By Advocate- Shri Vijay Tripathi)
17. Sunil Kumar Chinchalwar, P. No. 1704, Aged 31 Years, S/o Shri Kare
Lal, Working as Boiler Attendent (Skilled), Section: SM, Ordnance
2025.06.25 Page 2 of 12
VISHAL
09:56:23
KUSHWAH
+05'30'
3
Factory Itarsi, Distt: Hoshangabad- 461122, R/o Q.No. 2157 / B,
Ordnance Factory Estate, Itarsi, Distt: Hoshangabad-461122
18. Brijendra Malviya, P. No. 1710, Aged 30 Years, S/o Shri Ghanshyam
Malviya, Working as Electrician (Skilled), Section: EM, Ordnance
Factory Itarsi, Distt: Hoshangabad- 461122, R/o Q.No. 2175 / II,
Ordnance Factory Estate, Itarsi, Distt: Hoshangabad-461122
(Applicants in O.A./1025/2014)
19. Pawan Singh Rajput, P. No. 1858, Aged 26 Years, S/o Shri Vikram
Singh Rajput, Working as CPW (Skilled), Section: GAP, Ordnance
Factory Itarsi, Distt: Hoshangabad- 461122, R/o Q. No. 1263 / I,
Ordnance Factory Estate, Itarsi, Distt: Hoshangabad-461122
(Applicant in O.A./1033/2014)
20. Pramod Kumar Goswami, P. No. 1647, Aged 37 Years, S/o Late Shri
Madhav Rao Goswami, R/o Q.No. 2012, Type 2, Ordnance Factory
Estate, Itarsi, Distt: Hoshangabad-461122
21. Navendra Kumar, P. No. 1742, Aged 34 Years, S/o Late Shri Binda
Prasad, R/o Q.No. 1348, Type II, Ordnance Factory Estate, Itarsi, Distt:
Hoshangabad-461122
22. Preetam Singh Uikey, P. No. 1518, Aged 40 Years, S/o Shri Pratap
Singh Uikey, R/o Q.No. 3386, Type - B, Ordnance Factory Estate, Itarsi,
Distt: Hoshangabad-461122
23. Dinesh Kumar Galar, P. No. 1529, Aged 37 Years, S/o Shri Gopal
Prasad Galar, R/o Jyoti Tailor, Ward No. 5, Nayapura, Old Itarsi, Distt:
Hoshangabad-461111
(Applicants in O.A./1034/2014)
24. Purushottam Rao Khade, P. No. 1540, Aged 40 Years, S/o Late Shri
Sampat Rao Khade, Working as Chemical Process Worker (HS-1),
Section: GMP, Ordnance Factory Itarsi, Distt: Hoshangabad - 461122,
2025.06.25 Page 3 of 12
VISHAL
09:56:23
KUSHWAH
+05'30'
4
R/o Q.No. 2124/AR, Ordnance Factory Estate Itarsi, Distt: Hoshangabad-
461122
(Applicant in O.A./1035/2014)
(By Advocate - Shri. N S Ruprah)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Through secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Department of
Defence Production, New Delhi-110001
2. Director General of Ordnance (Coordination & Services) Directorate of
Ordnance 10-A, S. K. Bose Road, Kolkata-700001.
3. Chairman and Managing Director, Munitions India Limited,
Ammunition Factory Khadki. Pune-411003
4. General Manager, Ordnance Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur-482005
5. Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) Armoured Vehicle Nigam
Limited (ACNL) HCF Road Avadi, Chennai TN 600054
(Respondent No. 3 in OA 653/2014)
6. The General Manager, Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur MP 482009, A Unit of
AVNL
(Respondent no. 4 in OA./653/2014)
7. Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) Mumbai, Having Office at
Hansmukh Bhawan, Behind CIDCO Office, Near Hiranandani park,
Khargar, navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, through its council Members.
(respondent no. 5 in O.A./702/2014)
8. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
9. Director General, Ordnance Factories Board, 10-A Shaheed Khudiram
Bose Road, Kolkata-700 011(W.B)
10. General Manager, Ordnance Factory Itarsi, Distt. Hoshangabad -
461122 (M.P)
2025.06.25 Page 4 of 12
VISHAL
09:56:23
KUSHWAH
+05'30'
5
11. The Secretary, Human Resources Development, Department of Higher
Education, Government of India, New Delhi - 110001
12. All India Council for Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandralok
Building, Janpad, New Delhi-110 001
13. Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan, Vidyapeeth, (Established u/S 3 of the
UGC Act, 1956) Pratapnagar Udaipur 313001 Rajasthan
14. University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, NEW
DELHI 110002
15. Distance education bureau, UGC building Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg,
New Delhi 110002
(Common Respondents)
16. Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Regd. Under the Societies
Registration Act, XXI of 1860 and Bombay Trust Act, 1950, through its
Secretary, HQ, Hasmukh bhawan, IME, Behind CIDCO Office, Near
Hiranandani Park, Plot No. 24, Sector 4, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai - 410
210 (M.H.)
(Respondent no. 6 in O.A./1034/2014)
(ByAdvocate - Shri Siddarth Rathore)
(Date of reserving order: 08.04.2025)
Common Order
By Mallika Arya, AM.
The applicants, through these Original Applications are aggrieved by the order of the respondents wherein the holders of Diploma/Degree awarded through distance learning mode from a recognized institute have been held ineligible for the post of 2025.06.25 Page 5 of 12 VISHAL 09:56:23 KUSHWAH +05'30' 6 Chargeman (Tech/Mech.). Since the facts are identical and issue involved in all these Original Applications is similar, they are being disposed by way of a common order.
2. The issue involved in these original applications is that the applicants obtained B.Tech degree/Diploma through distance learning mode. Pursuant to the notification issued by the Respondents for the post of Chargeman (Tech/Non Tech.), the applicants applied for the same. Vide impugned order it was held that the applicants are not eligible to appear in the LDCE for the post of Chargeman as per SRO 66 dated 27.05.2003 since they have obtained their Degree/Diploma through distance education mode which is not recognized by AICTE. Hence, the applicants who passed the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from Institute of Mechanical Engineering/B.Tech Course through Distance Learning Mode were not allowed to participate in the LDCE for the post of Chargeman (Tech/Non-Tech) notified by the Respondents.
3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that applicants obtained B. Tech degree from JRN Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth (in O.A. No. 653/2014, 703/2014, 2025.06.25 Page 6 of 12 VISHAL 09:56:23 KUSHWAH +05'30' 7 1025/2014, 1033/2014 and 1035/2014), IME Mumbai (in OA NO. 1034/2014 and 702/2014) through distance mode of education and were not eligible to appear in Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Chargeman as per SRO 66 dated 27.05.2003. Hence, they were not permitted to appear in the examination for the year 2014-15 and their candidature was cancelled. Their application for interim relief was also rejected. Against the interim order, the applicants filed WP No. 20111, 20112 and 20026/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh which were dismissed vide common order dated 19.12.2014. The result of LDCE was declared and promotion orders have been issued to eligible candidates. Since the selection process is over, hence no relief can be granted to the applicants at this stage. In O.A./640/2013, the applicant acquired the B.Tech degree from IASE Sardarshahr Rajasthan through distance mode of education which is also not recognized by the AICTE. He was found ineligible to appear in the LDCE for the post of chargeman as per SRO 66 dated 27.05.2003 since he did not have the requisite qualification for the post. Therefore, he was not permitted to appear in the 2025.06.25 Page 7 of 12 VISHAL 09:56:23 KUSHWAH +05'30' 8 examination 2013-14 and his candidature was cancelled. In OA./640/2013, the applicant was permitted to appear provisionally in the LDCE. However, result was not declared in light of the above reasoning. Accordingly, the respondents have submitted that these O.A.s are liable to be rejected in view of the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal at Allahabad, Mumbai, Cuttack and Principal Bench, New Delhi.
4. This Tribunal has considered the matter, perused the documents and the judgments relied upon by the counsels for both the parties.
5 The applicants have obtained B. Tech degree/Technical Diploma from various institutes through distance learning mode which has not been recognized by AICTE. In their reply filed by the AICTE (common Respondent no. 12), it has been mentioned as follows:
"AICTE has the policy not to recognize the educational qualifications awarded through distance education mode either at Diploma, Bachelors or Master level in the field of Engineering, Technology, Architecture, Town Planning, Management, Pharmacy, Hotel Management & Catering 2025.06.25 Page 8 of 12 VISHAL 09:56:23 KUSHWAH +05'30' 9 Technology, Applied Arts & Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM)....."
6. The counsel for the respondents have produced an Order passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi, in O.A./2452/2016 wherein the request of the applicant appearing in the LDCE for the post of STA-B has been rejected on similar grounds. The judgment of the Principal Bench, New Delhi is based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.17869-17870/2017 (ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD vs. RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS.), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held has follows:
"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 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"2025.06.25 Page 9 of 12
VISHAL 09:56:23 KUSHWAH +05'30' 10 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 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.
"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 2025.06.25 Page 10 of 12 VISHAL 09:56:23 KUSHWAH +05'30' 11 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 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." 2025.06.25 Page 11 of 12 VISHAL 09:56:23 KUSHWAH +05'30' 12 Further the Principal Bench, New Delhi relying on the order of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. NO. 1315/2013 has held as follows:
"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. Hence, in this case the diploma certificate acquired by the applicant from IGNOU is not acceptable as per law."
7. In light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that these O.A.s get covered by judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Supra) and the subsequent order of Principal Bench Delhi (Supra) since the facts of these cases are similar to those discussed above. Therefore, all these Original Applications are dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
2025.06.25 Page 12 of 12
VISHAL
09:56:23
KUSHWAH
+05'30'