Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Joginder Paul Angurana vs Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting ... on 17 October, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH (CIRCUIT BENCH AT JAMMU) T.A.NO.27-JK-2010 Date of decision: 17.10.2011 (SWP No. 726/2009) CORAM : HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) AND HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A) 1. Joginder Paul Angurana, aged 48 years, S/o Sh. Chaman Lal R/o 21, New Plots, Jammu presently Assistant Station Engineer, Door Darshan Maintenance Centre, Jammu North, Jammu. 2. Balbir Singh, aged 46 years, S/o S. Pritam Singh R/o 251-New Plots, Jammu presently Assistant Station Engineer, Door Darshan Kendra, Jammu. . Applicants By : Mr. Rahul Pant, Advocate. Versus 1. Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India), through its Chief Executive Officer, PTI Building, New Delhi. 2. Director General, All India Radio, Parliament Street, Sansad Marg, Akashvani Bhavan, New Delhi. 3. Engineer-in-Chief, All India Radio, Parliament Street, Sansad Marg, Akashvani Bhavan, New Delhi. 4. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of information and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi. By : None. Respondents O R D E R (oral)
SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER(J) The facts, as projected by the applicants are that they are working as Assistant Engineers and have been officiating as Assistant Station Engineers which is otherwise also the next channel of promotion and is required to be filled up 50% by direct recruitment through UPSC and 50% by promotion from Assistant Engineers of AIR and Doordarshan for which the educational qualification is Engineering Degree of any of the recognized institutions / Universities or M.Sc. (Physics) or equivalent with Wireless Communication or Electronics or Radio Physics or Radio Engineering as a Special subject, with three years service as Assistant Engineer.
2. The applicants are graduates in Electronics, having done their M.Sc. Electronics from a recognized university and were eligible for promotion in terms of the rules. They were promoted to the Junior Time Scale of IB (E) Service on adhoc basis vide order dated 13.6.2007 (Annexure B) which is continuing till date. Respondent No. 2 prepared a final eligibility list of Assistant Engineers as on 26.10.2006 for promotion against 50% quota in which names of the applicants were mentioned at Sr. No. 230 and 259 (Annexure C). In fact on the basis of this list only, the applicants were given officiating promotion. However, no regular DPC was held and another revised draft eligibility list of AEs as on 1.1.2007 was issued and finalized on 15.1.2008 in which the applicants found a place at Sr. No. 231 and 264 (Annexure D). They were hoping to get regular promotion to junior time scale of IB(E)S, but the respondents issued a modified final eligibility list of AEs as on 1.1.2007 on 27.4.2009 (Annexure A-3), deleting the names of the applicants from the list without affording them any opportunity of hearing.
3. The applicants submit that the deletion of their names from the eligibility list is not proper as they have done their M.Sc. in Electronics from a recognized University. The names of the applicants were removed from the list on the ground that the degree of M.Sc. Electronics acquired from the Institute of Advance Studies for Education (IASE) Deemed University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Shahar, Rajasthan (for short IASE Rajasthan), is not from a recognized University. However, the applicants submit that the IASE Rajasthan is a deemed university as has been declared to be so by the University Grants Commission in terms of Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956, vide notification dated 17.7.2002. The Distance Education Council (for short DEC), has granted approval to the IASE Rajasthan for imparting post graduation courses through distance mode of education. Both the applicants got admission in the IASE Rajasthan in the year 2004 with due permission from the employer and completed their Degree in 2005. The qualification is recognized and cannot be doubted at all.
4. The applicants submit that the IASE Rajasthan was given ex-post facto approval for courses conducted by it upto the year 2005 through distance mode of education in pursuance of the meeting held on 7.8.2007 by Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC and approval was given vide letter dated 29.8.2007. Copy of minutes of the meeting dated 7.8.2007 and copy of letter dated 29.8.2007 has been enclosed as at Annexure H and J respectively. As per List of Universities and Institutions approved by DEC published on 26.2.2009 on its Website, the IASE Rajasthan has been granted ex-post facto approval for its programmes run through distance mode till the year 2005. Copy of the recognition policy is at Annexure K. They have, thus, prayed for quashing of the eligibility list dated 1.1.2007 issued on 27.1.2009, Annexure E, with direction to the respondents to include their names in the said eligibility list as on 1.1.2007 at the appropriate place.
5. The respondents have filed a reply. They submit that the eligibility committee took the decision to remove the names of the applicants from the list in the light of complaints received from various quarters that the qualifications through distance mode have not been approved by the Apex Bodies i.e. Ministry of Human Resource Development / UGC/DEC/AICTE. After its decision, the Committee consulted the Ministry, HRD, UGC, DEC and AICTE and reached the conclusion that some of the Universities / Institutions are running unapproved courses and IASE Rajasthan is one of them. Subsequently, a modified eligibility list was issued on 27.4.2009. Even as per Notification dated 1.3.1995, the deemed university was supposed to take the approval from DEC and AICTE for conducting the course through distance mode before starting such a course which the University had never taken. The UGC has withdrawn the ex-post facto sanction given to the courses run through Distance Mode from IASE, Rajasthan. The Annexure R-1, clearly states that the qualification awarded through distance education has to be approved by DEC and AICTE which has not been done in this case. The respondents can correct the error that had occurred in by the inclusion of the names of the applicants in the eligibility list.
6. The applicants have filed a rejoinder. They submit that as per notification dated 1.3.1995 (Annexure R-1), the Government of India has only taken a decision that all the qualifications awarded through Distance Education by the universities established by an Act of Parliament or State legislature, institutions, deemed Universities under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the institutions of national importance declared under the Act of Parliament are recognized for the purpose of employment to the posts and services under the Central Government, provided it had been approved by the DEC, IGNOUI and wherever necessary by AICTE. The Institution in question is deemed University under section 3 of the UGC Act in terms of UGC notification dated 7.7.2002. This communication of the UGC was issued in pursuance to Notification of GOI, on 25.6.2002, Annexures A and B respectively. The communication dated 12.5.2008, Annexure R-2, was issued on the basis of the decision dated 19.2.2008 of the Ministry, in which it was decided that the approval granted by DEC, including ex-post facto approval, are required to be reviewed. The approval as such has not yet been withdrawn.
7. None appeared for the respondents despite one pass-over. Pleadings being complete, proceeding under rule 16 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, we have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on the file.
8. The issue raised in this case is no longer res-integra and stands settled by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi in O.A.No. 1210 of 2010 titled Vikrant Shokhanda Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd,, decided on 19.11.2010. In that case the issue was with regard to the validity of the degree of Mechanical Engineering obtained in 2005 from the IASE, Rajasthan. Similar objection as taken in this case was also taken in that case which was negatived by the Bench holding in para 7 and 8 as under :-
7. The applicant had got the diploma certificate in Mechanical Engineering in the month of June, 2005. In other words, the programmes run by IASE which had the status of Deemed University got post facto approval of DEC for all its programmes till 2005 and adhoc approval was also given for the programmes upto 2007-2008. This position is borne out from the foregoing discussion. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that he had a valid diploma from recognized Institute stand vindicated and we do not see any justification to sustain the objection of the respondents in this regard.
8. In the circumstances, our findings are that the diploma certificate from IASE obtained by the applicant in the year 2005 was a valid one and the Institute from which the applicant passed out had the status of Deemed University having the powers of running programmes in Distance Education mode for which it had post-facto approval from the DEC in respect of the relevant period.
9. Having regard to the observations made above, we have no doubt in our mind that the facts of the case in this case are fully covered by the decision taken by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal and as such we need not dwell on the issue all over again inasmuchas in this case also the degree of post Graduation in M.Sc. Electronics was obtained by the applicants in 2005 from IASE Rajasthan. Thus, their qualification cannot be doubted by the respondents. In so far as reliance placed by respondents on Annexure R-1 is concerned, no doubt a decision / direction was given for review of ex-post facto approval and further action was to be taken on the basis of the same. We have not been shown whether any further action was taken on the basis of this decision.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Original Application is allowed being covered by the decision in the case of Vikrant Shokhanda (supra). The respondents are directed to include the name of the applicants in the eligibility list dated 27.4.2009 (Annexure E) and extend to them all the consequential benefits flowing there from, if already granted to similarly situated persons. The needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Place: Jammu
Dated: 17.10.2011
HC*
1