Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sahdev Singh vs M/O Home Affairs on 30 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 60/444/2018
Chandigarh, this the 30th day of January, 2026
Reserved on: 07.11.2025.
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Sahdev Singh, age 55 years son of Sh. Jabal Singh, resident of House
No. 1048-A, Sector 52 B, Chandigarh. (Group 'c').
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Ashok Arora)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs, New Delhi, (North Block).
2. Finance Secretary-cum-Secretary, Engineering Department, Union
Territory, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Electricity Department, Deluxe Building,
Sector 9, Chandigarh.
4. Superintending Engineer, Electricity Operations Circle, Union Territory,
Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
5. Executive Engineer, Electricity Operations Division No.2, Industrial
Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.
6. Surjit Singh son of Gurdev Singh, Resident of House No. 3291, Sector
21 D, Chandigarh.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATES: Mr.Sanjay Goyal, Sr.CGSC along with Pankaj Khurana
for R-1, Mr. Navmohit Singh for R2-5 and Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Adv
along with Kuber for R-6)
ORDER
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief:
"i) Call for the record and perused the same;
ii) quash the office order dated 18.09.2017 (i.e. Annexure A1), passed by the respondent No. 3, vide which the applicant, who was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) vide office order No. 400, dated 27.08.2013, was reverted to the post of Sub Station Attendant with immediate effect;
BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 2
iii) quash the office order No. 258 dated 22.04.2016 (i.e. Annexure A2), vide which the respondent No. 6 has been promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) against the share quota of Diploma Holder Sub Station Attendant with effect from 15.03.2013, on notional basis, in the pay scale of Rs.10900-34800+ Rs. 5350 GP in the Electricity Wing of the Engineering Department, U.T., Chandigarh;
iv) quash the office order No. 06 dated 04.01.2016 (i.e. Annexure A3), vide which the respondent No. 6 has been promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) from the post of Sub Station Attendant under the ITI quota, in the pay scale of Rs. 10900-34800+Rs. 5350/- GP in the Electricity Wing of the Engineering Department, U.T., Chandigarh, on the regular basis;
v) quash the show cause notice vide memo No. SEE /OP/350 C/E 2016 dated 18.05.2016 (i.e. Annexure A4), issued by respondent No. 4;
vi) for issuance of directions to the official respondents No. 1 to 5 to restore the office order No. 400 dated 27.08.2013 (i.e. Annexure A5), whereby applicant was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to the Electricity Wing of the Engineering Department, Union Territory, Chandigarh on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 10900-34800+Rs. 4500.00 Grade pay, on the basis of recommendations of Department Promotion Committee (Class-III), whereby the applicant was found eligible for the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical);
vii) for issuance of a directions to the official respondents i.e. 1 to 5 to issue the applicant's entire service and other consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum from the period 18.09.2017, when the order of reversion of applicant, i.e. Annexure A1 was passed, till the date of rejoining of the applicant on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical);
viii) further prayed that any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case also be issued in favour of the applicant.
ix) allow the original application throughout with cost in favour of the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are that the applicant was appointed as Sub Station Attendant in the office of the Electricity Construction Division, Chandigarh on 08.07.1987 on a regular basis. At the time of his initial appointment, the applicant BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 3 possessed a three-year Diploma in Electrical Engineering. During the course of his service and after obtaining due permission from the competent authority, the applicant further enhanced his academic qualifications by completing AMIE.
3. It is submitted that in accordance with the Engineering Department Field Staff under Electricity Operation Circle Recruitment Rules, 2004, notified on 23/24.06.2004, the applicant was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (Class-III) in its meeting held on 20.08.2013. On the basis of the recommendations of the said DPC, the applicant was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) against the 4.17% quota reserved for SSA possessing a Diploma in Electrical Engineering with three years' experience, vide Office Order No. 400 dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure A-5). The promotion was made on a regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 10900-34800 + Grade Pay Rs. 4500/-.
4. In furtherance to the promotion order dated 27.08.2013, the applicant joined the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 29.07.2013 in the office of the Power Controller-cum-Executive Engineer, Electricity Operation No. 2, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. The applicant submits that prior to his promotion, the department had promoted several similarly situated employees working as Linemen/Sub Station Attendants to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical/Sub Station) vide Office Order No. 143 dated 15.03.2013, on regular basis and in the same pay scale.
5. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 6, who was working in the same establishment and cadre, filed Original Application No. 1296/CH/2013 (Surjit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.), Annexure A-6 before this Tribunal, challenging the promotion BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 4 orders dated 15.03.2013 and 27.08.2013, primarily on the ground of seniority. Respondent No. 6 asserted that as per the seniority list of Sub Station Attendants dated 30.09.2009, he was placed at Serial No. 23, whereas the applicant was at Serial No. 30. He further claimed that he had completed a three-year Diploma in Electrical Engineering in December 2011 from Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Deemed University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Shahar, Rajasthan, and therefore claimed a superior right to promotion.
6. In OA No. 1296/CH/2013, after issuance of notice, both the official respondents and the applicant filed their respective written statements. Although the official respondents initially contested the OA by filing a detailed written statement (Annexure A-7), at the stage of arguments their counsel allegedly changed stance, aligned with Respondent No. 6, and sought disposal of the OA in terms of the decision in OA No. 060/00166/2014 (Jarnail Singh & Ors.), by directing consideration in light of orders dated 14.03.2014 and 24.03.2014. The joint written statement of the applicant and private respondents is on record as Annexure A-8. During the pendency of the OA, Respondent No. 6 further altered his position. On 07.07.2014, his counsel stated that Respondent No. 6 was entitled to promotion under the ITI quota, contending that his case under that quota had not been considered (Annexure A-9). The applicant contends that, having taken this stand, Respondent No. 6 is estopped from subsequently claiming promotion under the diploma quota.
7. Ultimately, OA No. 1296/CH/2013 was disposed of on 12.09.2014 (Annexure A-10) based on another concession by counsel for the BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 5 official respondents, again in terms of OA No. 060/00166/2014 (Annexure A-11), without granting the applicant an opportunity of hearing. The applicant challenges the correctness of the observation that parties were ad idem, asserting that there was no consensus between the applicant and Respondent No. 6, who were the real contesting parties.
8. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2014, the applicant filed CWP No. 13825 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. The said writ petition was withdrawn on 27.09.2016 (Annexure A-12).
9. After the order dated 12.09.2014, the Departmental Promotion Committee (Class-III) recommended the promotion of certain Linemen/Sub Station Attendants, including Respondent No. 6, under the ITI quota, and accordingly Office Order No. 06 dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure A-3) was issued promoting Respondent No. 6 as Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the pay band of Rs. 10900-34800 + Grade Pay Rs. 5350/-.
10. It is submitted that thereafter, a review DPC was held, which recommended the name of Respondent No. 6 for promotion against the Diploma Holder Sub Station Attendant quota, leading to issuance of Office Order No. 258 dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure A-2), granting him notional promotion w.e.f. 15.03.2013, subject to the final outcome of SLP No. 35793-96 of 2012 (Vijay Kumar v. Kartar Singh & Ors.) pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerning validity of diplomas from IASE Deemed University.
11. Consequent upon the review DPC, the applicant was issued a show cause notice dated 18.05.2016 vide Memo No. SEE/OA/350 C/E BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 6 2016/1344 (Annexure A-4), proposing withdrawal of his promotion on the ground that no vacancy was available under the diploma quota and that he was the junior-most promotee. The applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure A-13), which was not considered.
12. Ultimately, the official respondents passed the Office Order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure A-1), reverting the applicant from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to Sub Station Attendant.
13. The applicant places reliance on the judgment dated 06.11.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 1640 of 2008 (Kartar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.), declaring diplomas/degrees awarded by the deemed to be Universities including Deemed University Gandhi Vidya Mandir Sardar Sahar, Rajasthan as illegal and invalid (Annexure A-14). The said judgment was substantially upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 03.11.2017 (Annexure A-15), wherein it was held that any benefit secured on the basis of such invalid qualifications, including promotion, shall stand recalled.
14. After the judgment dated 03.11.2017, the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure A-16) requesting cancellation of the promotion of Respondent No. 6 and restoration of his own promotion. A further representation dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure A-17) was also made. No action was taken by the respondents.
15. It is submitted that the clarification dated 22.01.2018 issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Annexure A-19) did not disturb the findings of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding invalidity of diplomas. Consequently, Respondent No. 6 does not BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 7 fulfil the essential qualification under the Recruitment Rules, 2004 and could not have been promoted under the diploma quota.
16. It is further submitted that a vacancy in the cadre of Junior Engineer (Electrical) arose on 01.06.2013 upon retirement of Shri Krishan Kumar on 31.05.2013, and on that date, the applicant was the only eligible candidate. His right to promotion had thus crystallised and could not lawfully be defeated by subsequent illegal actions.
17. Respondents No.2-5 filed reply submitting therein that the controversy raised in the present O.A. essentially pertains to promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and is squarely governed by the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kartar Singh vs. Union of India & others (CWP No. 1640 of 2008, decided on 06.11.2012), as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017, decided on 03.11.2017, and the subsequent Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 1795-1796 of 2017, decided on 22.01.2018. It is contended that these judgments conclusively govern the field and have been duly complied with by the department. It is further submitted that in compliance with the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the applicant has been promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) against the promotion quota of JE-II (Electrical) from the cadre of Sub Station Attendants, vide order dated 18.06.2018, issued by the Executive Engineer (HQ) for the Chief Engineer-cum-Special Secretary (Engineering), Union Territory, Chandigarh (Annexure R-1).
18. It is further submitted that once the applicant has been promoted on a regular basis, no legal injury survives, and he ceases to have BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 8 any locus standi to pursue the present proceedings. According to the respondents, nothing further remains for adjudication by this Tribunal insofar as the applicant is concerned.
19. The respondents further submit that the controversy is no longer confined to the mere submission or non-submission of diploma certificates. The issue, if any, pertains to the validity of the diploma of respondent No. 6, which is under examination by the competent authority. It is contended that verification of documents is the prerogative of the department and does not affect the applicant's rights, which already stand crystallized by his promotion. It is submitted that while the applicant has been promoted on a regular basis, he is not entitled to any further consequential or monetary benefits beyond what has been expressly granted under the promotion order dated 18.06.2018.
20. With regard to respondent No. 6, it is submitted that his case is pending consideration before the competent authority and shall be decided within a reasonable period strictly in accordance with law and in light of the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is argued that the pendency of such consideration does not confer any enforceable right upon the applicant, particularly after his own promotion has already been effected.
21. Respondent No. 6 submits that the challenge to the order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) reverting the applicant to the post of Sub-Station Attendant is a clear abuse of process. The said reversion was a direct consequence of the order dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure A-10) passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1296/CH/2013, filed by Respondent No. 6, wherein the applicant BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 9 was arrayed as Respondent No. 13. It is contended that the applicant expressly consented to disposal of that O.A. in terms of the decision dated 24.04.2014 in O.A. No. 060/00166/2014 (Jarnail Singh & Ors.), and therefore the order dated 12.09.2014 attained finality. Respondent No. 6 further submits that the applicant had challenged the order dated 12.09.2014 before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court by filing CWP No. 13825 of 2016, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.09.2016 (Annexure A-12). The challenge to the promotion order dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure A-2), whereby Respondent No. 6 was promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the Diploma quota w.e.f. 15.03.2013, and the order dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure A-3) promoting him under SSA-ITI quota, is stated to be hopelessly barred by limitation. The O.A. filed in the year 2018 does not contain any application for condonation of delay. Hence, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that the applicant, despite being impleaded and represented through counsel in O.A. No. 1296/CH/2013, never objected to the promotion of Respondent No. 6 and, in fact, conceded to the relief granted therein. Consequently, the applicant is barred by estoppel, acquiescence and waiver from questioning the promotion of Respondent No. 6.
22. The entire challenge, according to Respondent No. 6, is premised on an erroneous reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5179. It is submitted that the said judgment dealt exclusively with the validity of engineering degrees obtained through distance education from deemed universities and did not cover diplomas. This position was clarified beyond doubt by BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure A-19) passed in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by Diploma holders, wherein it was categorically held that Diploma courses were not the subject matter and had considered such courses in the context of Degrees awarded by such Deemed Universities. Hence, the applicant's reliance on Orissa Lift Corporation is wholly misconceived.
23. Respondent No. 6 further submits that even the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kartar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2013 (1) RSJ 224 (Annexure A-14) dealt with the issue of degrees, not diplomas. The said judgment, having merged with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.11.2017 read with the clarificatory order dated 22.01.2018, cannot be pressed into service against the respondent.
24. It is submitted that Respondent No. 6 was appointed as Meter Reader on 20.03.1984 and later as Sub-Station Attendant on 30.06.1987. He possessed ITI (Electrical) qualification and, with due departmental permission dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure R-6/2), acquired Diploma in Electrical Engineering in December 2011 (Annexure R-6/3) in First Division.
25. It is specifically submitted by the answering respondent that in the seniority list of Sub-Station Attendants dated 23.10.2009 (Annexure R-6/5), Respondent No. 6 stood at Sr. No. 23, whereas the applicant was at Sr. No. 30, clearly junior to him. Respondent No. 6 submits that despite being senior and more meritorious, he was ignored in the DPC held on 23.01.2013, while his juniors, including the applicant, were promoted vide orders dated 15.03.2013 and 27.08.2013. This compelled Respondent No. 6 to BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 11 file O.A. No. 1296/CH/2013, which culminated in the order dated 12.09.2014, directing corrective action. In compliance with the Tribunal's order, Respondent No. 6 was promoted:
under SSA-ITI quota vide order dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure A-3), and under Diploma quota vide order dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure A-2) on notional basis w.e.f. 15.03.2013, thereby confirming his eligibility under both streams.
26. Respondent No. 6 reiterates that his Diploma from IASE Deemed University, Rajasthan was acquired with departmental permission and stands fully valid in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's clarificatory order dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure A-19).
27. The applicant filed rejoinder reiterated the submissions made in the O.A submitting that the applicant has emphatically controverted the preliminary objections raised by the respondents and has submitted that the present Original Application is maintainable both on facts and in law. It is contended that the earlier orders dated 12.09.2014 and 24.04.2014 passed by this Tribunal (Annexures A-10 and A-11) were expressly made subject to the final outcome of SLP (C) No. 35793-96 of 2012 titled Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Kartar Singh & Ors.. Consequently, upon the pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.11.2017 and its subsequent clarification dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure A-19), a fresh and independent cause of action accrued to the applicant to approach this Tribunal. It is further submitted that the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition on 27.09.2016 cannot be construed as abandonment of rights, as on that date no reversion order was in existence. The impugned reversion order BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 12 was passed subsequently on 18.09.2017 (Annexure A-1), thereby giving rise to a new grievance.
28. The applicant has reiterated that the central and decisive issue in the present proceedings is the validity of the diploma in Electrical Engineering allegedly obtained by respondent No. 6 from the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Deemed University, Rajasthan. It is submitted that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CWP No. 1640 of 2008, Kartar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 06.11.2012 (Annexure A-14), has categorically held that degrees/diplomas granted by deemed universities without approval of the competent statutory authorities are invalid for the purpose of employment.
The said judgment squarely covers diplomas as well, and the findings relating thereto have attained finality, as no diploma holder, including respondent No. 6, has challenged the said findings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant has further clarified that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's clarification dated 22.01.2018 does not validate such diplomas; rather, it explicitly records that the validity of diploma courses was not under consideration before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the binding declaration of invalidity rendered by the Hon'ble High Court continues to operate against respondent No. 6.
29. Heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the material available on record.
30. From the pleadings itself, it is an admitted fact that the applicant was appointed as Sub Station Attendant in the office of the Electricity Construction Division, Chandigarh on 08.07.1987 on a regular basis. The applicant possessed a three-year Diploma in BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 13 Electrical Engineering and during the course of his service and after obtaining due permission from the competent authority, the applicant further enhanced his academic qualifications by completing AMIE. As per the Engineering Department Field Staff under Electricity Operation Circle Recruitment Rules, 2004, the applicant was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (Class-III) in its meeting held on 20.08.2013. On the basis of the recommendations of the said DPC, the applicant was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) against the 4.17% quota reserved for SSA possessing a Diploma in Electrical Engineering with three years' experience, vide Office Order No. 400 dated 27.08.2013 (Annexure A-5). The applicant joined as such on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 29.07.2013. It is also admitted fact that respondent No.6 filed Original Application No. 1296/CH/2013 (Surjit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.), Annexure A-6 before this Tribunal, challenging the promotion orders dated 15.03.2013 and 27.08.2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure A-10). The applicant challenged the order passed by this Tribunal by way of CWP No.13825 of 2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was withdrawn on 27.09.2016 (Annexure A-12).
31. Thereafter a Review DPC was convened and show cause notice (Annexure A-4) was issued to the applicant for withdrawal of his promotion order on the ground that no vacancy was available under the diploma quota, being the junior most promotee. The applicant submitted detailed reply dated 03.10.2016 (Annexure A-13). Ultimately the respondents passed the office order dated BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 14 18.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) reverting the applicant from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to Sub Station Attendant.
32. The applicant has placed reliance on the judgment dated 06.11.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 1640 of 2008 (Kartar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.), declaring diplomas/degrees awarded by the deemed to be Universities including Deemed University Gandhi Vidya Mandir Sardar Sahar, Rajasthan as illegal and invalid (Annexure A-14), which, as submitted by the applicant, has been upheld by the HOn'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 03.11.2017.
33. Further, it is admitted that the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure A-16) requesting cancellation of the promotion of Respondent No. 6 and restoration of his own promotion. A further representation dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure A-17) was also made. No action was taken by the respondents.
34. The Hon'ble Apex Court has made further clarification dated 22.01.2018 (Annexure A-19) whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court clarified that the matter before Hon'ble Apex Court pertains only to Degrees.
35. The Contention of respondents No.2-5 is that the case of Kartar Singh (supra) was decided on 06.11.2012 and subsequent Misc. Application was decided on 22.01.2018, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified the position and in compliance of such pronouncement, the applicant has been promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) against the promotion quota of JE-II (Electrical) from the cadre of Sub Station Attendants, vide order dated 18.06.2018, issued by the Executive Engineer (HQ) for the BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 15 Chief Engineer-cum-Special Secretary (Engineering), Union Territory, Chandigarh (Annexure R-1).
36. The specific contention of respondents No.2-5 is that the applicant has been promoted on a regular basis, no legal injury survives. Respondents No.2-5 specifically submitted that the case of respondent No.6 is pending consideration before the Competent authority.
37. Respondent No.6 has contended that the challenge to impugned order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure A-1) reverting the applicant to the post of Sub-Station Attendant is a clear abuse of process. The said reversion was a direct consequence of the order dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure A-10) passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1296/CH/2013, filed by Respondent No. 6, wherein the applicant was arrayed as Respondent No. 13. Though the applicant has filed CWP No.13825 of 2016, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.09.2016 (Annexure A-12). Resultantly respondent No.6 was promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) under Diploma quota with effect from 15.03.2013. The challenge to promotion order dated 22.04.2016 and order dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure A-3) is barred by limitation, estoppel, acquiescence and waiver from questioning the promotion of Respondent No. 6.
38. The further contention of the respondent No.6 is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5179 dealt exclusively with the validity of engineering degrees obtained through distance education from deemed universities and did not cover diplomas. Whereas, at this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that Hon'ble High Court in Kartar Singh (supra) BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 16 has dealt with the issue whereby the Diploma and degrees issued by the deemed university through correspondence/distance are void ab initio.
39. So far as the limitation part is concerned, as has been raised by the respondent No.6, admittedly the applicant has made representation to the respondents when the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Kartar Singh (supra) has held that the degree/diploma taken from the distant education is void ab initio particularly from which the respondent No.6 has taken the diploma. The contention of respondent No.6 is not sustainable due to the fact that earlier O.A 1296/CH/2013 titled Surjit Singh v. Union of India & Ors. pertains only qua the judgment passed on reservation in promotion whereas in the instant case, the case is pertaining to the eligibility of respondent No.6, the same is not the question of law in O.A 1296/CH/2013. In the instant case, this is a fresh cause of action.
40. The only contention which is to be determined is whether as per the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Kartar Singh (supra), the diploma obtained by respondent No.6 is valid or not particularly as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors., AIR 2017 SC 5179 and further clarification vide order dated 22.01.2018 in MA No.38 of 2018 (Annexure A-19).
41. As per Annexure A-14 order of Hon'ble High Court, the relevant part of the judgment is as under:
"...We are called upon to examine in this bunch of petitions, the inter-relation; contradictions, if any, and the role of the authorities under the three Central Statutes i.e. University Grants Commission Act, 1956; Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 and All India Council for Technical BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 17 Education Act, 1987, particularly in respect of technical/professional courses through the Distance Education Mode by (i) Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu; (ii) IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Shahar, Rajasthan; (iii) JRN Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan; and (iv) Allahabad Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad, U.P...
VII The consequences of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.5.2007
182. We find that the entire process of signing of MoU and the conduct of meetings have not solved the object that is to avoid duplication of work by these authorities. In Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma case (supra), it was held that IGNOU and or DEC are subject to the efforts of the Commission in coordinating and streamlining the higher education. But instead of the fact that the steering should be in the hands of the Commission, the same was handed over to the DEC, which is an authority created by the Board of Management under an Act, which itself is a subordinate to the Commission. The purpose of the MoU was to avoid the duplication of work in respect of matters covered by the three separate statutes with limited life of three years. But the minutes of the Joint Committee, as reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, do not lead to an inference that such objective was achieved even remotely. Prior to the signing of MoU, the AICTE has approved the degree through the distance education mode in MBA and MCA in the joint meeting of AICTE and DEC on 28.02.2005. In none of the meetings of the Joint Committee after the MoU was executed, any further course through the distance education mode was approved. In the first meeting held on 11.05.2007, the DEC had to provide list of institutions with the programmes offered through distance education mode and such list was to be sent to AICTE and UGC for nomination of their experts.
183. In the second meeting of Joint Committee held on 14.05.2007, it was decided that all Universities Central/State/Deemed should certify that they have applied for the approval of their respective statutory bodies for offering programmes through distance mode. The Joint Committee considered the proposal for approval of the Institutes in its meeting held on 01/02.08.2007 on the basis of the report of the sub-committee. The sub-committee has taken into consideration the visit of Allahabad Agricultural Institute on 26/27.10.2004; IASE, Sardarshahr, Rajasthan on 03/04.09.2004 and that of Vinayaka Missions University, Tamil Nadu on 04.02.2007 i.c. much prior to the decision to consider the approval of the courses decided in the meeting BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 18 of the Joint Committee on 11.05.2007. The report of the sub-committee was approved granting ex post facto approval to all the four institutions up to the academic year 2007-08, even when, such institutes have not complied with earlier decisions of the Joint Committee. There is nothing on record that the Institutes in question have applied for approval in the revised format. Still further, a perusal of the report of the Sub Committee, the basis of grant of ex post facto approval for the academic year 2007-08, shows that the courses of technical nature were not the subject matter of consideration of the Sub Committee. In none of the meetings, the Commission or AICTE approved the courses in the area of technical education for imparting knowledge by deemed to be Universities.
184. In terms of the directions of the Commission, it was necessary for the deemed to be Universities to seek approval from AICTE. In view of the above, we hold that the deemed to be Universities have started courses in technical education in violation of the guidelines, instructions, circulars and regulations framed by the Commission not only when they started such courses but also in establishing study centres outside their territorial limits and in subjects for which they were not granted deemed to be university status. Therefore, degrees awarded by such Deemed to be Universities is an illegal act and such illegality cannot be removed or cured by the actions of either the Commission or DEC.
VIII Whether the directions issued by the Central Government vide notification dated 07.04.2006 interprets the provisions of the UGC Act and AICTE Act and, thus, encroaches upon the jurisdiction of the Court or such directions are in the matter of policy falling within the scope of Section 20 of the UGC Act and Section 20 of the AICTE Act?
185. The Central Government has issued directions on 7.4.2006 purportedly in exercise of the powers vested under Section 20 of the UGC Act and under Section 20 of the AICTE Act. However, such directions are not in the matter of policy, but relates to the interpretation of the provisions of two Acts. The Central Government cannot interpret the provisions of two Statutes under the garb of policy directions. In State of U.P. Vs. Neeraj Awasthi (2006) 1 SCC 667, it has been held that the power of the State Government to issue directions on questions of policy cannot be used to interfere in the day-to-day functioning of the Board. Such policy decision must be in relation to the activities of the Board under the Act and not dehors the same.
BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 19
186. In A. Manoharan Vs. Union of India (2008) 3 SCC 641, the question arose in respect of powers of the Central Government to issue directions under Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. It was held that the power of the Central Government to issue directions cannot be stretched to amend the Regulations. The power must be exercised by the Central Government only in regard to the administration of the Trust. Such a power to issue direction must be construed strictly.
187. In Sathyabhama Institute of Science and Technology's case (supra), such policy instructions have been commented upon by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, when it was observed as under:
"30. Section 20(1) of the AICTE Act refers to the directions given by the Central Government on questions of policy, which will guide the AICTE and which according to the said Act are final. Similarly, in the UGC Act also, Section 20(1) requires the Commission to be guided by the directions on questions of policy, The Central Government purported to issue this statement as its clarification on questions of policy. But, a reading of the said notification indicates that it is actually the Central Government's understanding of how the two bodies, viz. the Commission and the Council work with each other."
188. The directions said to be in the nature of policy that AICTE would not issue any direction to the institutions notified as deemed to be University has to be read down to mean that AICTE would not issue any direction to the deemed to be University directly, but as a process of grant of approval in terms of the circulars and guidelines issued by the Commission, the report or the recommendation of the AICTE is necessary and cannot be wished away. The Commission shall not approve any course or programme without the approval from AICTE, which the Commission itself solicits in terms of the guidelines framed.
189. In view of the above, the directions issued by the Central Government interpreting the provisions of the Act, cannot be treated to be as final. Such directions are subject to the decision of the Court. Any direction contrary to the ratio laid down by the Courts, is ineffective and not binding on the statutory authorities.
190. In view of the above, we hold that the approval granted by the Distance Education Council dated 29.8.2007 to the BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 20 Institutes in question is illegal and unwarranted and beyond the scope of authority vested in it. As a necessary consequence, the degrees granted by such deemed to be Universities are illegal and the candidates cannot be deemed to be qualified in the purported subjects in the absence of approval from the Commission. Consequently, the letters patent appeals against the judgments of the Learned Single Judge holding that the candidates are qualified are allowed, the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petitions dismissed. Though the Court is sympathetic with the cause of students but the larger public interest demands that the students, who have not got formal education, should not be considered eligible for appointment under the State.
42. As per Annexure A-15, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) in Civil Appeal Nos.17902-17905/2017, the relevant part is as under:
46. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of Courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval. the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universities flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned students persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the concerned students. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore. direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 21 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.
43. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide clarification dated 22.01.2018 in MA No.38 of 2018 (Annexure A-19) held as under:
3] It is true, as is evident from paragraphs 34 and 46 of the judgment that the controversy in the present case pertained to validity of degrees in Engineering conferred by the Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode and this Court was not called upon to consider validity of diplomas conferred by such Deemed to be Universities. However the advertisement issued by AICTE covers diploma courses as well. We therefore accept the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhruv Mehta and Mr. M.L. Verma, learned Senior Advocates and clarify that validity of such courses leading to diplomas was not the subject matter of the judgment.
(emphasis supplied)
44. The judgment in Kartar Singh (supra) reveals that the controversy before the Hon'ble High Court pertained to the validity of engineering degrees obtained through the distance education mode from certain Deemed Universities, including Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Shahar (IASE). The discussion in the said judgment centers upon the requirement of approval of statutory bodies such as AICTE for imparting engineering degree courses, and the Court declared that engineering degrees obtained through distance education without such approval could not be recognised for public employment. However, the judgment does not contain an express or categorical declaration invalidating diploma qualifications awarded by the said Deemed Universities. The findings of the High Court are directed primarily towards degree-level engineering education and the legality of such programmes conducted through distance education.
BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 22
45. The matter was carried in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which, in Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Kartar Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017, decided on 03.11.2017), upheld the judgment of the High Court. Significantly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter issued a clarificatory order dated 22.01.2018 in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 38 of 2018 in C.A No.17907/2017 and other connected matters, wherein it was expressly observed that diploma courses were not the subject matter of consideration before the Court. This clarification assumes great importance, as it delineates the precise contours of the judgment and prevents an overbroad application of the ratio to qualifications not directly under adjudication.
46. In the present case, Respondent No. 6 was promoted under the Diploma quota on the basis of a Diploma in Electrical Engineering obtained from Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Shahar, with due departmental permission. The challenge mounted by the applicant seeks to extend the ratio of Kartar Singh (supra) to diploma qualifications. However, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself clarified that diploma courses were not part of the issue, this Tribunal cannot interpret the judgment as if it had made any decision about diplomas.
47. It is also relevant that the official respondents have stated that the validity of the diploma held by Respondent No. 6 is under examination by the competent authority in accordance with applicable regulations. Until such determination is made by the statutory authorities, the qualification cannot be presumed invalid solely on the basis of an extended interpretation of the Kartar Singh (supra) judgment.
BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30' 23
48. In these circumstances, the Tribunal holds that the applicant has failed to establish that the promotion granted to Respondent No. 6 under the Diploma quota is contrary to the binding law declared by the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the review action undertaken by the department and the subsequent reversion of the applicant cannot be said to be illegal on the grounds urged.
49. The plea that the subsequent promotion of the applicant nullifies the cause of action does not require further adjudication, as the substantive challenge to the promotion of Respondent No. 6 itself is found to be unsustainable.
50. In view of the clarificatory order dated 22.01.2018 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Diploma of respondent No.6 cannot be held void ab-initio and the averments raised by the applicant cannot be accepted. In view of such a position, the instant O.A is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
bp
BHANU PARTAP 2026.02.05 12:25:33+05'30'