Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Sudhir Sehrawat vs Gnctd on 12 May, 2026
1 O.A No. 2977/2025
Item 54 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2977/2025 With M.A 3309/2025
and M.A No. 1105/2026
Reserved on : 29.04.2026
Pronounced on : 12.05.2026
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
1. Sudhir Sehrawat
S/o Shri Daya Nand Sehrawat,
R/o WZ-244, B/1, Street No.1,
Virender Nagar, New Delhi-110058.
AE Group 'B' age 51
2. Shri Ravi Prakash
S/o Late O.P. Guar,
R/o B-20, Gali No. 1,
West Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110092.
AE Group 'B' age 50
3. Shri Neeraj Raghav
S/o Late Hari Om Raghav
R/o 1/3247-B, Ram Nagar Extn.,
Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
AE Group 'B' age 51 ....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Rajeev Sharma with Ms. Nandita Sharma)
Versus
1. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Players' Building, ITO,
New Delhi-02.
2. Delhi Jal Board (DJB)
Through its CEO
Varunalaya Phse-II, Jhandewalan,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Aditi for Mr. Kunal Anand)
2026.05.12 17:09:17
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'
2 O.A No. 2977/2025
Item 54 (C-3)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
M.A No. 3099/2025 :
The instant M.A filed for joining together of parties in a single OA is allowed as all the applicants have a common cause of action and are seeking similar reliefs.
O.A. No. 2977/2025 :
The instant OA has been filed by three similarly situated applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
"(a) to quash the impugned order dated 25.2.2025 as illegal and unconstitutional.
(b) to issue direction to respondent No. 2 to consider applicants eligible to be considered and promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil).
(c) to issue directions to the respondent No. 2 to issue order of promotion in respect of all three applicants against the post of Executive Engineer (Civil).
(d) the Hon'ble Tribunal may pass any other order/direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice."
2. The factual matrix of the case as per the counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were initially appointed as Junior Engineers in the year 2000 and were subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 23.06.2021. At the time of their initial appointment, all the applicants possessed diploma qualifications in Civil Engineering. In order to acquire the higher qualification required for further career advancement, they pursued Degree in Civil Engineering from Indira Gandhi National Open University, which is a Central University recognized by 2026.05.12 17:09:17 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 3 O.A No. 2977/2025 Item 54 (C-3) University Grants Commission. The applicant No. 1 enrolled in the degree course in the year 2000 and completed the same in December, 2006. applicant No. 2 enrolled in 1997 and completed the course in 2002 and applicant No. 3 enrolled in 1996 and completed the degree in 2007. The said qualifications have been duly entered in their service records also. In the seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) circulated by the respondents, applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were placed at Serial No. 220, 231 and 240 respectively. As the regular Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) was not convened and eligible officers in the feeder cadre were not available in terms of qualifying service, the respondents decided to fill the post on Current Duty Charge basis. The conditions prescribed by the respondents for assigning Current Duty Charge from Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer (Civil) were fulfilled by all the applicants. Accordingly, vide office order dated 25.02.2025 a total of 44 Assistant Engineers were assigned look-after charge of the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) as a stop-gap arrangement and the names of the applicants appeared at Serial Nos. 27, 37 and 41 respectively. However, by another order issued on the same date, i.e., 25.02.2025 the implementation of the aforesaid order was kept in abeyance. Upon enquiry, the applicants were informed that the Degree in Civil Engineering obtained by them from IGNOU was being treated as not valid or not equivalent to the Degree in Civil Engineering prescribed for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). Thereafter, vide office order dated 18.07.2025 the respondents assigned Current Duty Charge of the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) to 28 officers from the feeder cadre. Out of these, seven officers were admittedly junior to all the three applicants and several officers were also junior to applicant 2026.05.12 17:09:17 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 4 O.A No. 2977/2025 Item 54 (C-3) No. 1. The counsel for the applicants contended that the qualification possessed by them stands recognized and valid. In this regard, he relied upon the notice issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions for the Junior Engineer (Civil, Mechanical and Electrical) Examination, 2025 wherein under Rule 2.2 such qualification has been treated as eligible in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 11.03.2019 in Mukul Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. AICTE. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that students enrolled in IGNOU up to the academic year 2009-2010 would be treated as possessing valid technical qualifications. According to him, IGNOU awards the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Civil (Construction Management), but the syllabus and academic content are substantially identical to those of conventional Degree in Civil Engineering, with Construction Management being an integral subject in all such courses. Since their promotion order dated 25.02.2025 was kept in abeyance solely on the ground that their IGNOU qualification was allegedly invalid and since officers junior to them were subsequently granted Current Duty Charge as Executive Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 18.07.2025, the applicants have approached this Tribunal in August, 2025 seeking appropriate relief.
3. The counsel for the applicants argued assiduously on the following grounds :-
"A. The present case of the applicants is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP (C) No. 382/2018.
B. The same qualification which has been acquired by completing the degree by qualifying Section "A" & "B" Examination are considered valid degree by respondent No. 1 vide Notification dated 31.12.2015.
2026.05.12 17:09:17 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 5 O.A No. 2977/2025 Item 54 (C-3) C. DoPT has also considered and declared degree of applicants as valid and equivalent to B.Tech. degree granted by other universities.
D. AICTE has also declared degree of applicants is valid and equivalent to B. Tech. degree granted by other universities/institutions.
E. IGNOU has also issued certificate acknowledgement declaring that degree of applicants is equivalent to B. Tech. Civil Engineering of other universities.
F. Applicants cannot be denied fundamental right for promotion on the basis of unfounded and illegal grounds by declaring degree of applicants is not a valid degree.
G. Applicants cannot be compelled to work under their juniors on the basis of a ground which cannot sustain under the law.
H. Present case is not of considering educational qualification of applicants as equivalent."
4. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the counsel of the applicants and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the OA on the ground that the applicants have neither disclosed the names of the alleged junior officers who were granted Current Duty Charge of the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) nor impleaded them as parties to the proceedings. The counsel for the respondents stated that the respondent No. 2, namely Delhi Jal Board is entrusted with the responsibility of production and distribution of potable drinking water and the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater and sewage in Delhi and therefore requires uninterrupted functioning of its offices and engineering establishments. He submitted that the matter pertains only to assignment of Current Duty Charge (CDC)/look-after charge of the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) to certain Assistant Engineers (Civil) as a purely temporary stop-gap arrangement under Fundamental Rule 49 to meet administrative exigencies until the posts are filled on regular or ad hoc 2026.05.12 17:09:17 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 6 O.A No. 2977/2025 Item 54 (C-3) basis. According to the respondents, such assignment does not amount to promotion and does not confer any promotional benefits. The respondents have referred to the Recruitment Rules for the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), which provide that Assistant Engineers (Civil) having seven years' regular service and possessing a Degree in Civil Engineering from a recognized university or institution, or having passed Sections A and B of the Institution of Engineers (India), along with the prescribed training, are eligible for promotion. The Rules also provide that Assistant Engineers possessing only a Diploma in Civil Engineering on the date of notification of the Rules remain eligible after completion of nine years' regular service against 33⅓% vacancies, and that diploma-holder Assistant Engineers who subsequently acquire a Degree in Civil Engineering may also be considered in specified circumstances. However, at the relevant time no Assistant Engineer was found eligible strictly in terms of the Recruitment Rules. It is further submitted that while making stop-gap arrangements under Fundamental Rule 49, strict seniority need not necessarily be followed, though as far as possible the senior-most suitable officer may be assigned the charge, depending upon suitability, experience, training and specialized skills. The counsel added that certain complaints were received alleging that engineering degrees obtained through distance education mode from institutions such as Indira Gandhi National Open University, Lingaya's University and JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth were not recognized by All India Council for Technical Education and University Grants Commission. In response to a query raised by the respondents, AICTE by letter dated 17.03.2025 provided information regarding such qualifications. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Department of the 2026.05.12 17:09:17 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 7 O.A No. 2977/2025 Item 54 (C-3) Delhi Jal Board vide letter dated 03.03.2025 and remains under investigation. In view of the complaints and pending vigilance scrutiny, Office Order No. 18 dated 25.02.2025 under which certain Assistant Engineers including the applicants were assigned CDC/look-after charge of the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), was kept in abeyance by the competent authority. Thereafter, the respondents reconsidered the matter and issued office order dated 18.07.2025 assigning CDC/look-after charge to eligible officers in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. The respondents asserted that seniority was duly taken into account and no officer has been arbitrarily deprived of consideration. He emphasized that the impugned orders are purely temporary arrangements made in public interest to ensure uninterrupted water supply and sewage management in Delhi. Thus, the respondents prayed that the OA be dismissed being devoid of merits.
5. The counsel for the applicants in his rejoinder has stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP(C) No. 382/2018 :- Mukul Kumar Sharma & Others vs. AICTE has held that all students who were enrolled with IGNOU upto the academic year 2009-10, their qualification will be treated as valid qualification.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions; examined the documents on record and perused the quoted judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. We have observed that all the applicants before us had enrolled with IGNOU before 2009-10 and therefore their qualification is valid as per the ratio given in Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment dated 11.03.2019 in MA No. 2092/2018 in WP(C) 2026.05.12 17:09:17 MAYA B TARAGI +05'30' 8 O.A No. 2977/2025 Item 54 (C-3) No. 382/2018 titled - Mukul Kumar Sharma & Others vs. AICTE. The applicants' case is therefore covered on all four legs by the above judgment. Also in terms of judicial discipline and decorum, we would like to follow our own recent decision in OA No. 2966/2025 dated 15.01.2026 titled Shalendra Kumar Meena & Anr. vs. Delhi Jal Board.
7. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the applicants. The instant OA has merit; deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Consequently the impugned order dated 25.02.2025 is quashed and set aside qua the applicants. The respondent no. 2 - CEO Delhi Jal Board is directed to consider giving the Current Duty Charge/Look After Charge of the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) to the three applicants as per their seniority and eligibility as has been assigned to their juniors. The respondents shall issue appropriate orders in this regard. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar manner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
2026.05.12 17:09:17
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'