Chattisgarh High Court
Beni Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 December, 2023
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 10
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on : 29-09-2023
Pronounced on: 19-12-2023
WPS No. 4951 of 2016
1. Beni Ram Sahu S/o Shri Shiv Kumar Sahu, Aged About 27 Years
R/o Village Atariya, P.O. Jhal City Bemetara Distirct Bemetara
Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Om Prakash S/o Shri Keshav Ram, Aged About 37 Years
R/o Village Charanwna, P.O. Kodaila District Faizabad Uttar Pradesh,
District : Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh
3. Smt. Omkeshwari Dewangan, D/o Shri Mansingh Dewangan, Aged About
37 Years R/o Dewangan Book Depo Kohka Bhilai, Distirct Durg
Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
4. Leeladhar Prasad Verma, S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Verma, Aged About 38
Years R/o Village Kumhi, P.O. Bhimbhouri City Berla, Distirct Bemetara
Chhattisgarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner s
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary Technical Education
Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through The Secretary, Shankar
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Secretary General, The Indian Institute Of Metals, Metal House,
Block- A Q, Plot 13/4, Sector - V, Salt Lake Kolkata 700 091, District :
Kolkata, West Bengal
4. All India Council For Technical Education, through Its Chairman, Indra
Gandhi Indoor Stadium, I P State, New Delhi, 110002, District : New Delhi,
Delhi.
5. The Director, Directorate Of Technical Education, H O D Building, Block 3,
3rd And 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University,
Bhilai, Through The Registrar, C S V T U North Park Avenue, Sector- 8,
Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh 492008., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.
7. Union Of India, Ministry Of Human Resource Development Of Higher
Education, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Human Resource
Development, Department Of Higher Education, New Delhi., District : New
Delhi, Delhi
8. Union Public Service Commission,
Through The Secretary, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road New Delhi 110
069., District : New Delhi, Delhi
9. Balmukund Dewangan S/o Not Known Aged About 30 Years
Posted As Lecturer Metallurgy At Government Co-Education, Polytechnic
College Jagdalpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh
10. Surendra Kumar Urvasha Aged About 26 Years
Posted As Lecturer Metallurgy At Government Co-Education, Polytechnic
Page 2 of 10
College Jagdalpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, District :
Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh
11. Chandan Kumar Aged About 27 Years
Posted As Lecturer Metallurgy At Government Polytechnic Khairagarh,
District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
12. Vivek Verma Aged About 25 Years Lecturer Metallurgy At Government
Polytechnic Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
13. Abhinandan Kumar Aged About 30 Years
Posted As Lecturer Metallurgy At Government Co-Education Polytechnic
Jagdalpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur,
Chhattisgarh
14. Vijay Hajare Aged About 28 Years
Posted As Lecturer Metallurgy At Government Polytechnic Raigarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
15. Janak Kumar Aged About 24 Years Posted At Lecturer Metallurgy At
Government Polytechnic Khairagarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh,
District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
16. Jyotsana Sahu Aged About 24 Years
Posted At Lecturer Metallurgy At Government Polytechnic Raigarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
17. Rama Patel Aged About 25 Years
Posted At Lecturer Metallurgy At Government Polytechnic Raigarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
18. Mahesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 28 Years Posted As Lecturer
Metallurgy At Government Polytechnic Khairagarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
19. Garima Kamare Aged About 27 Years Posted As Lecturer Metallurgy At
Government Polytechnic Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
20. Rahul Sippy Aged About 28 Years Posted As Lecturer Metallurgy At
Government Polytechnic Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
21. Santosh Kumar Satyvanshi Aged About 37 Years
osted As Lecturer Metallurgy At Government Polytechnic Khairagarh,
District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
22. Ishwar Singh Aged About 26 Years
Posted As Lecturer Metallurgy At Government Polytechnic Durg, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
23. Puspendra Kumar Alasare Aged About 27 Years
Posted As Lecturer Metallurgy At Government Co-Education Polytechnic
Jagdalpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Narayanpur,
Chhattisgarh
24. Manoj Kumar Aged About 26 Years Posted As Lecturer Metallurgy At
Government Polytechnic Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
25. Balvant Kumar Korram Aged About 30 Years Posted As Lecturer
Metallurgy At Government Polytechnic Khairagarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
Page 3 of 10
For Petitioners : Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput,
Advocate
For State : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Dy.A.G.
For respondent No.2 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate.
For respondent No.3 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate.
For respondent No.4 : Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate.
For respondent No.7 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate
For respondent No.8 : Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.
For respondents No. : Mr. Mohanish Kumar Dote, Advocate
9 to 25 appears on behalf of Mr. Jitendra
Gupta,. Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER
1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against inaction of respondent No.2 in not calling the petitioners for interview though they have qualified in the written examination. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction to Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission (CGPSC) to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Metallurgy) after taking interview and other formalities. The petitioners have also prayed that selection list dated 19-9-2016 (Annexure P/10) issued by respondent No.2/CGPSC and appointment order dated 28-9-2016 (Annexure P/11) issued by the respondent No.5 may kindly be quashed.
2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioners are graduate engineering and have also passed the Associate Membership Examination of the Indian Institute of Metals, Calcutta. The details of passing of the examination are given in table form as under:-
S.No. Name of Candidate Date of Passing
1. Beni Ram Sahu December, 2013
2. Om Prakash 3rd April, 2010
3. Omkeshwari Dewangan 25th September, 2012
4. Leeladhar Prasad Verma 30th March, 2013
Page 4 of 10
3. Respondent No.2/CGPSC had issued an advertisement on 15-7- 2015 for appointment of Assistant Professors in Engineering Colleges and Lecturers in polytechnic institutions in the Government colleges. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement is for appointment is graduation from the recognized institution in any of the faculty or equivalent and the candidate should have passed post graduation degree in the respective faculty with first class or equivalence qualification. In pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioners have submitted their online applications for the post of Lecturer (Metallurgy). The respondents have scrutinized the applications and thereafter issued admit cards. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and qualified in the written examination held on 9-7-2015. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued list of candidates who have qualified in the said examination intimating the time and date of interview. Accordingly, the petitioners were also called for the interview on 08.09.2016. When the petitioners appeared for interview, the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the interview and no communication was made giving the reason for not allowing them to participate in the interview, as such, the petitioners have filed this writ petition on 14.09.2016.
4. During pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No.2/CGPSC had issued an appointment order to the candidates, therefore, the petitioners have moved an application for amendment and accordingly private respondents No. 9 to 25 were also arrayed/impleaded as respondents in this case on 28-4-2017.
5. Respondent No.1 has filed its return, wherein they have stated that no relief has been sought against them, therefore, no para-wise reply is required. Respondent No.2/CGPSC has filed their return mainly contending that Associate Membership Examination of the Indian Institute of Metals (for short, "AMIIM") was not relevant degree/qualification for the post of Lecturer (Metallurgy) as informed on 28-9-2016, as such they are not called for interview.
6. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed their rejoinder denying such allegations and would submit that degree of AMIIM is recognized by the Ministry of Education vide Notification No.F/18/91/61-T-2 dated Page 5 of 10 2-4-1964 and Union Public Service Commission vide letter No. F.1/15/68-RR dated 31-10-1968. It has also been contended that UPSC has also recognized the degree of AMIE as equivalent in relevant discipline and AMIIM for appointment on the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade II. It has also been contended that the Chhtattisgarh Swami Vivekananda Technical University (for short, "CSVTU"), Bhilai is also recognizing the said course. As such, they would submit that their case should be considered by the respondents. He would also submit that High Court of Kerala in Mageeja M. Nair vs. State of Kerala and others decided on 18-6- 2014 has also recognized AMIE as equivalent qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. Thus, he would submit that their case should have been considered by the respondents.
7. Respondent No.3 has also filed its return mainly contending that since no relief has been sought against them they are not required to file their additional reply, however, they have filed additional reply on 25-8-2017m wherein they have stated that Government of India vide Ministry of Education, O.M.No.F/18/91/61-T dated 2-4-1964 has recognized the AMIIM, Kolkatta and also recognized degree of AMIIM.
8. The State of Chahttisgarh has also filed additional affidavit on 30-8- 2017 wherein they have stated that as per rules of Chhattisgarh Technical Education (Teaching Cadre Polytechnic) (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2014 which have been framed in pursuance of the power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Metallurgy) as prescribed in the advertisement is one and the same which does not include the degree which the petitioners are having, as such the petitioners' claim deserves to be rejected. It has also been contended that Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Nitish Kumar Rai and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and two others) in WPS No 5284 of 2016 has also dismissed the claim of the petitioners and has held that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India will prevail.
Page 6 of 109. Respondent No,.4/Union Public Service Commission has filed its return, relevant paras 6 to 9 thereof read as under.
"6. That, the public notification dated 6-11-2007 (Annexure R/1) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources, Department of Higher Education and as per the said notification recognition to the section A & B of associate membership courses equivalent to degree and part-I & II of Technical Engineers (T) equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering and Architecture Engineering Courses conducted by the Institution of Civil Engineers (India). Ludhiana (Punjab) as per syllabus approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) w.e.f. the academic session 2007-2008 for the purpose of employment to the posts and services under Central Government in the appropriate field. Copy of notification dated 06.11.2007 is filed herewith as Annexure R/
1.
7. That, in view of said notification the answering respondents issued a public notification/office memorandum dated 06.12.2012 with regard to that all those student who got involved with the institution with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in force pertaining to their course for equivalence in Central Government jobs. Thereafter, in the 52nd Emergent meeting of AICTE held on 03.08.2017 further certifies that the degree granted by all professional societies prior to 31.05.2013 shall be considered to have been issued by recognized institutions. Copy of the office memorandum/public notice is filed herewith as Annexure R/2.
8. That, it is further submitted with regard to declaration of equivalency the answering respondent herein relied upon the recommendation made by the committee constituted for the said purpose and has stated that as per the recommendation issued by the UGC dated 19.07.2016, it is provided that :-
No. F.9-3/2016 (CPP-II) 19th July 2016 PUBLIC NOTICE ON EQUIVALENCY OF DEGREES The University Grants Commission specified degrees as defined under section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956. Such degrees can be awarded only by or under a Central Act, a provincial Act or a State Act or by an Institution Deemed to be University established under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. Equivalence of degrees, diplomas, certificates etc. are not determined by the UGC. In the case of higher education, equivalence is decided by the University concerned and in cases of employment, promotion etc., equivalence in decided by the employing organization.
The UGC Act, and Rules and Regulations made there under are available on UGC website www.ugc.ac.in.
(Secretary)
9. That, in view of the above the answering respondent submits that the grant of equivalency is absolutely domino of Page 7 of 10 the recruitment agency and concerned State authorities because the post which has been recruited is to be recruited for the particular subject therefore it is necessary that the candidate must have possessed particular subject and degree which are requirement of the recruited post and same shall be scrutinized by recruitment agency, therefore, the answering respondent unable to declared as an equivalent to different subjects and degree, it is the duty of expert committee to examine the matter in the facts and circumstances of each case"
10. Respondents have also annexed notification (Annexure R/1) dated 6- 11-2007 which reads as under:
"Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education..
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, the 6th November, 2007.
NOTIFICATION No.F.24-1/2007 - TS.iii. On the recommendations of the High Level Committee fof recognition of Educational Qualifications in its meeting held on 22nd May 2007, the Government of India has decided to give recognition to the Section A & B of Associate Membership course, equivalent to Degree and Part
- I & II of Technician Engineers (T) equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering and Architecture Engineering Courses conducted by the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab) as per syllabus approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) w.e.t., the academic session 2007 - 2008 for the purpose of employment to the posts and services under Central Government in the appropriate field. It is subject to the conditions that the total number of candidates who can be admitted for the said examination would not exceed the authorized strength of the concerned institutions with which institution of Civil Engineers (India) Ludhiana (Punjab) has entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). A review in respect of recognition of educational qualifications shall be made by Ministry of Human Resource Development after one year through All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
Sd/-
(RAVI MATHUR) Joint Secretary to the Government of India Tel: 2338 1097".
11. Respondents have also annexed the public notice (Annexure R-1/2), the relevant portion thereof reads as under:
"Accordingly, the Council in its 52nd Emergent Meeting held on August 03, 2017 decided to recognize equivalence for all purposes including Higher Education & Employment to Page 8 of 10 Technical Courses conducted by various Professional Bodies/ Institutions which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May 2013. Thus all those students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition upto 31-5-2013, stand recognized.
Member Secretary"
12. During pendency of the petition, subsequent development has taken place. The Institute of Mechanical Engineers India Limited has filed SLP before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by which the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that the membership certificate issued by the appellants could not be treated as equivalent degree in engineering. This order was assailed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Institution of Mechanical, Engineers (India) through its Chairman vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in 2019 (16) SCC 95 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paras 49 and 50 as under:
"49. However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD3 in consultation with AICTE2 upto 31.05.2013 as is evident from Notification dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Central Government and Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017. These communications also indicate that all those students who were enrolled upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though we have laid down that the Certificates issued by the appellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a Degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of students enrolled up to 31.05.2013 and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 06.12.2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. The candidates had opted to enroll themselves so that they could appear at the examinations conducted by the appellant under a regime which was put in place by the Central Government itself and the course content as well as the curriculum were reviewed by the AICTE. However, the aforementioned Notification and Public Notice were clear that after 01.06.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence would cease to have any effect.
50. In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in the present matter will apply after 01.06.2013. The Certificate awarded by the appellant to such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 shall be considered Page 9 of 10 equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in Central Government".
13. Thereafter in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court has directed the CGPSC to justify the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioners vide its order dated 11.04.2023. In light of the order passed by this Court, the CGPSC has filed an affidavit wherein they have stated that they are not given equivalence of subject. It is domain of the employer to decide the equivalence. They are only the recruitment agency. This Court has again directed the State Government and CGPSC to clarify the position. The members of the committed have appeared before this Court on 06.05.2023 and have informed that they are unable to calculate the marks obtained by the petitioners in the grading given by the AMIIM to carry out the percentage obtained by the candidates to consider their ranking and again adjourned the matter to 14.06.2023. On 14.06.2023, this Court has directed respondents No. 1 & 5 to send letter to the AMIIM regarding grading of the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondents on 04.09.2023 informed this Court that the they have received the information from AMIIM, Culcutta regarding marks obtained by the petitioners and thereafter the proceedings were adjourned to 21.09.2023 and again adjourned to 29.09.2023 for final hearing.
14. Now the issue required to be considered is whether the petitioners' degree done by them from AMIIM is recognized or not. This issue has come up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Institution of Mechanical (supra), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered the notification dated 06.12.2013 issued by the Central Government and public notice issued by the AICTE and also held that the certificate issued by the Indian Institute of Metals cannot be considered to be equivalent to a degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of the students enrolled upto 31.05.2013 and declared that the conclusion drawn in the matter will apply after 01.06.2013. The certificate awarded by the appellant to such candidate enrolled upto 31.05.2013 shall be considered to degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purposes of employment in the Central Government. Thus, the case of the petitioners who have Page 10 of 10 enrolled upto 31.05.2013, they are eligible to be considered for appointment. In light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the petitioners namely Beniram Sahu, who has cleared the examination held on December, 2013, Om Prakash, who has cleared the examination held in December, 2006, Omkeshwari Dewangan, who has cleared examination held in June, 2012 & Leeladhar Prasad Verma, who has cleared the examination held in December, 2012, are entitled to get benefits of exception granted by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Institution of Mechanical (supra) as they have enrolled themselves with the Institute of Mechanical prior to 31.05.2013 and except one candidate, all the candidates have cleared the examination prior to cut off date as given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Thus, the petitioners are eligible to be considered for appointment. Accordingly, the petition deserves to allowed by issuing direction to respondent No. 2/CGPSC and the State to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment and if the petitioners found place in the merit list issued while appointing respondents No. 9 to 25 on 28.09.2016 (Annexure P/11), the petitioners will also be appointed. It is made clear that more than seven years have already been lapsed and respondents No. 9 to 25 though served but they chosen not the appear, their appointment will not be disturbed. The respondent/State shall consider case of the petitioners, who are found to be eligible for appointment on a vacant post in polytechnic colleges run by the State Government but they will be given seniority from the date their juniors in the selection list, were appointed, Their pay will be fixed notionally and they will be granted benefits of seniority for future service prospects. This exercise shall be carried out within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed.
16. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju