[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sujit Manohar Patil vs The Panvel Municipal Corporation on 5 May, 2026
Author: R.I. Chagla
Bench: R.I. Chagla
2026:BHC-AS:21413-DB
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5667 OF 2024
Digitally
signed by
JITENDRA
JITENDRA SHANKAR
SHANKAR NIJASURE
NIJASURE Date:
2026.05.06
11:44:55
+0530 Sujit Manohar Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
The Panvel Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Prasad K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ramesh D. Soni,
Mr. Rushar Momaiyah i/b. Ram and Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shreekant V. Gavand for Respondent No.1 - Panvel Municipal
Corporation.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. with Smt. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - State
----------
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
Reserved on : 10TH APRIL, 2026.
Pronounced on : 5TH MAY, 2026.
J U D G M E N T - (Per R.I. Chagla J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent
of parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking to quash
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
and/or set aside the letter of rejection dated 27th March, 2024 issued
by the Respondent No.1 - Panvel Municipal Corporation
("Corporation") under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner
(Exhibit M to the Petition). Further, the Petitioner is seeking quashing
and/or setting aside of communication dated 14th March, 2024
issued by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.2, whereby the cut off
date of 2nd November, 2017 is provided for considering the
certificate issued by Institute of Fire Engineers - United Kingdom -
UK (Member - MI) (for short "IFE - UK") Exhibit K to the Petition.
Consequential prayer is sought directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
issue a letter of appointment to the Petitioner on the basis of its
selection for the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer without considering
the said communication dated 14th March, 2024 on the basis of
eligibility criteria provided in the service rules and advertisement
issued by the Respondent No.1 inviting applications for the post of
Deputy Chief Fire Officer, if otherwise found fit for the said post.
3. The Petitioner is presently working as Divisional Fire
Officer with Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority
("PMRDA"). The Petitioner has been working on the aforementioned
post since 2nd January, 2023. Prior thereto, the Petitioner worked as
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
a Sub-Officer in the office of Directorate of Maharashtra Fire Service
from 6th January, 2014 to 30th April, 2016. Subsequent to which he
worked as Fire Officer in the PMRDA, Pune from 1st June, 2016 to
1st January, 2023. These appointments of the Petitioner were on
contractual basis.
4. The Respondent No.1 is the Panvel Municipal
Corporation ("Corporation") which is the planning authority for the
City of Panvel. The Respondent No.1 - Corporation is constituted
under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act and providing fire fighting
service and dealing with natural calamities and disaster management
is one of the most important civic duties of the Respondent No.1-
Corporation. The Respondent No.2 is the Commissioner of
Respondent No.1 - Corporation and the Administrative Head of the
Corporation having various powers under the Maharashtra
Municipalities Act, Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and the
Development Control Rules etc. The Respondent No.3 is the
Directorate of Maharashtra Fire Service which is the Apex Body of
the Fire Department in the State of Maharashtra and the Respondent
No.4 is the State of Maharashtra.
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
5. The Petitioner has acquired several degrees and
certificates relating to Fire Management and Engineering and one
such qualification obtained is from IFE - UK.
6. The brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition
are as under:-
(i) A public advertisement had been issued by the
Respondent No.1 - Corporation on 12th July, 2023 regarding
recruitment for various positions (377 posts) on its establishment.
One of the posts was of Deputy Chief Fire Officer, Group - B and
the qualification for the said post including holding a Grade - I
qualification from the IFE - UK or India. Further, a minimum of
six years of work experience as a Deputy Fire Station Officer or in
an equivalent position within a Municipal Corporation, Municipal
Council, Special Planning Authority or a Government / Semi-
Government Fire Service was mandatory.
(ii) After completion of the stipulated procedure, the
Petitioner's name was recommended for the post of Deputy Chief
Fire Officer, Group - B ("the said post") as he was holding
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
Membership Certificate issued by IFE - UK.
(iii) The Petitioner was called for verification of
documents on 7th March, 2024.
(iv) A complaint had been received by the Respondent
No.1 - Corporation whereby it was pointed out that a mistake had
been committed by the Corporation whilst stipulating
qualification for the said post and a letter dated 9th January, 2024
addressed to Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation by Director,
Maharashtra Fire Services was annexed wherein modified
Recruitment Rules with respect of Fire Officer to be appointed in
various Municipal Corporations were annexed. It was pointed out
that certificate obtained from IFE (India) and IFE (UK) are valid
only till 2013 and 2017 respectively.
(v) The Respondent No.1 - Corporation sought
clarification from Director, Maharashtra Fire Services with respect
to validity of Membership certificate issued by IFE (India) and IFE
(UK).
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
(vi) The Director of Fire Services by communication
dated 14th March, 2024 pointed out that the Ministry of Human
Resources Development Department has derecognized the course
conducted by IFE (India) as per their O.M. dated 6th December,
2012 and as such certificate issued by IFE (India) cannot be
accepted from 31st May, 2013. It was also clarified that since fire
subject is purely a technical subject and most of the subjects are
engineering related subjects, in view of the judgment delivered by
the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi
Sankar Patro & Ors1, the certificate issued by IFE (UK) cannot be
accepted w.e.f. 3rd November, 2017 as the said institute does not
conduct regular classes not even distance education, and students
themselves with help of reference books appear and pass the
examination.
(vii) The Respondent No.1 - Corporation by
communication dated 27th March, 2024 informed the Petitioner
that the certificate of membership issued to him by IFE (UK) is
dated 20th April, 2022 and such membership certificate cannot be
accepted after 3rd November, 2017. Hence, the name of the
1 (2018) 1 SCC 468 dated 3rd November, 2017.
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
Petitioner had been excluded from the list of eligible candidates.
(viii) The Petitioner accordingly filed Writ Petition on 5th
April, 2024 impugning the communication dated 27th March,
2024 and the prior communication dated 14th March, 2024.
7. Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that by the impugned
communication dated 27th March, 2024, the Petitioner's name has
been deleted from the selection list for the post of Deputy Chief Fire
Officer, Group - B ("said post") on the ground that the Petitioner does
not have the requisite qualification and experience.
8. Mr. Dhakephalkar has submitted that the Petitioner has
been working as Divisional Fire Officer in PMRDA since 2nd January,
2023 and prior to which he had worked as Fire Officer from 1st June,
2016 to 1st January, 2023. The Petitioner has also worked as Sub
Officer in the office of the Directorate of Maharashtra Fire Service
from 6th January, 2014 to 30th April, 2016. He has submitted that
the Petitioner has, in so working on the aforementioned posts,
sufficient experience i.e. over six years and thus meeting the
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
requirement of minimum work experience for the said post.
9. Mr. Dhakephalkar has further submitted that the
Petitioner has also acquired various qualifications viz. (i) Graduate
B.Sc Mumbai University in 2011; (ii) Membership (MI-FIRE) of IFE
(UK) apart from various qualifications as mentioned at page 9 of the
Petition.
10. Mr. Dhakephalkar has submitted that the service rules
("Recruitment Rules") of the Respondent No.1 - Corporation which
are invogue even today mention as requisite qualification for the said
post, the Membership of IFE (UK). Further, in the letter/Notification
dated 31st May, 1976 issued by Government of India, membership of
the IFE (UK) is recognized qualification for the said post.
11. Mr. Dhakephalkar has placed reliance upon the letter
dated 19th July, 2023 issued by the Respondent No.3 - Directorate of
Maharashtra Fire Service (Exhibit 'E' to the Petition), wherein it is
clearly mentioned that membership of the IFE (UK) is a recognized
qualification for the said post.
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
12. Mr. Dhakephalkar has also referred to the corrigendum
of advertisement dated 31st July, 2023 wherein also the membership
of IFE (UK) is a recognized qualification. He has submitted that
accordingly the Petitioner is fully qualified as he has a Graduate
Degree and after Graduation, he has membership from the IFE (UK).
13. Mr. Dhakephalkar has submitted that after selection of
the Petitioner, the impugned letter dated 14th March, 2024 has been
issued by the Directorate of Maharashtra Fire Service which purports
to provide a clarification that the certificate issued by IFE (UK)
cannot be accepted w.e.f. 3rd November, 2017, as the institute does
not conduct regular classes (not even distance education) and
students themselves by the help of reference books appear and pass
these examination. He has submitted that the impugned
communication is illegal as it is against/contradictory to its own
Directorate of Maharashtra Fire Services letter dated 19th July, 2023.
14. Mr. Dhakephalkar has submitted that the impugned
letter dated 14th March, 2024 places reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. (Supra) which
judgment is inapplicable. He has submitted that the said judgment
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
was in the context of technical education courses covered by AICTE
Act, 1987 and carried out by Deemed to be Universities in distance
education.
15. The Supreme Court had by the said judgment restrained
all Deemed to be Universities from carrying on the said courses from
Academic Session 2018-19 onwards unless and until it is permissible
to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific
permissions are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory
authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-
campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found
adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. It has been held
that the approvals have to be course specific. He has submitted that
Fire Service is not covered by said definition of "Technical Education"
under Section 2(g) of AICTE Act, 1987.
16. Mr Dhakephalkar has submitted that the letters dated
6th December, 2012 and 10th July, 2012 are totally irrelevant. They
concern IFE (India) and the certificate from these Institutes are not
accepted from 31st May, 2013. It does not pertain to IFE (UK).
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
17. Mr. Dakephalkar has submitted that by the impugned
letter dated 14th March, 2024, the cut off date viz. 3rd November,
2017 is the date of the said judgment of the Supreme Court namely
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. (Supra) which is not at all applicable
to Fire Service and/or membership of IFE (UK).
18. Mr. Dhakephalkar has submitted that it is well settled
that any change in qualification after the candidate has been selected
is impermissible. In the present case, the Petitioner had been selected
for the said post and was called for documents verification and it is
only during the documents verification that the Respondent No.3
acting upon a complaint made issued the impugned letter dated 14th
March, 2024. This further led to the Respondent No.1 - Corporation
issuing the impugned letter dated 27th March, 2024 informing the
Petitioner that the Certificate of Membership issued to him by IFE
(UK) on 20th April, 2022 cannot be accepted as valid qualification
since it was issued after the cut off date viz. 3rd November, 2017. The
name of the Petitioner had accordingly been excluded from the list of
eligible candidates.
19. Mr. Dhakephalkar has submitted that the Supreme Court
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
in Sushil Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. The High Court of Jharkhand &
Anr.2 has held that the alteration of selection criteria after selection
process is concluded is illegal as it runs counter to the Recruitment
Rules. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Sivanandan C.T. and Ors. v. High Court of Kerala & Ors 3,
which holds that the basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in
public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non-
arbitrariness in Government dealings with individuals. It recognizes
that a public authority's promises or past conduct will give rise to a
legitimate expectation. The said judgment has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Lord Diplock in the locus classicus, Council of Civil
Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service 4. It was held therein
that Courts can exercise the power of judicial review of
administrative decisions in situations where such decision deprives a
person of some benefit or advantage which inter alia they have
received assurance from the decision-maker that the advantage or
benefit will not be withdrawn without giving them an opportunity of
advancing reasons for contending that the advantage or benefit
should not be withdrawn. He has also placed reliance upon the
2 Writ Petition (Civil)
3 (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 799.
4 1985 AC 374.
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Anr.5 wherein the Supreme Court held that the Full Court
had approved the Resolution dated 30th November, 2004 of the
Administrative Committee and also decided to retain the entire
process of selection consisting of written examination and interviews.
Having done so, it could not have introduced a new requirement of
minimum marks in interviews, which had the effect of eliminating
candidates, who would otherwise be eligible and suitable for
selection. Accordingly, it was held that the action of the Full Court in
revising the merit list by adopting a minimum percentage of marks
for interview is impermissible.
20. Mr. Dhakephalkar has submitted that the aforementioned
judgments are applicable in the present case. He has accordingly
submitted that the present Petition be allowed as the impugned letter
dated 27th March, 2024 has departed from the Recruitment Rules
which accept Membership Certificate of IFE (UK) as requisite
qualification for the said post, by providing cut off date of 3rd
November, 2017, for issuance of the said certificate, the basis of
which is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation
5 (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 512.
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
Corporation Ltd. (Supra) which itself is inapplicable.
21. Mr. Shreekant Gavand, the learned Counsel appearing
for the Respondent No.1 - Corporation has submitted that the
qualification stipulated for the said post must be a legally valid
qualification and since the qualification mentioned in the subject
advertisement/Recruitment Rules was erroneous and contrary to law,
the same cannot be relied upon. He has submitted that an error or
mistake on the part of executive to stipulate correct qualification in
recruitment notice, would not make the candidate entitled to claim
any right on such post on the basis of the qualification, which is not
in consonance with law. The Corporation had accepted the fact that
there was a mistake on their part while stipulating qualification for
the said post and as such even after rejection of claim of the
Petitioner, no other person has been given employment on the said
post.
22. Mr. Gavand has submitted by virtue of Clause 15 of the
terms and conditions mentioned in the recruitment notice, the
Commissioner is empowered to stay or cancel the process of
recruitment at any stage. He has submitted that since there was a
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
mistake on the part of Corporation while issuing the recruitment
notice, the post is still vacant. Out of total 377 posts available for
recruitment in Corporation, only 230 appointments were made and
142 posts are still vacant and fresh recruitment process will be
conducted.
23. Mr. Gavand has submitted that the Urban Development
Department of the Government of Maharashtra by its letter dated
12th June, 2025 has given its approval for making necessary changes
by mentioning cut off date for accepting membership certificate of
IFE (India) and IFE(UK) and directed all Corporations to make
necessary changes in Recruitment Rules and same shall be done at
the time of fresh process of recruitment.
24. Mr. Gavand has submitted that fire subject is a technical
subject and without practical knowledge and proper lectures, a
certificate obtained by passing examination on the basis of self-
preparation, cannot be accepted and accepting such qualification
would be detrimental to the interest and safety of local residents.
25. Mr. Gavand has submitted that the Government of India
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
granted equivalence to the certificate given by IFE(UK) and
IFE(India) so as to treat them at par with degree/diploma in fire
engineering and at that time AICTE Act, 1987 was not in existence
and thus after the 1987 Act was promulgated, no institution is
entitled to start or continue any course in 'Technical Education'
without approval of AICTE and there is no approval to the course
conducted by IFE(UK).
26. Mr. Gavand has submitted that even if it is assumed for
the sake of argument, that fire would not be covered under the term
'Technical Education' then also the certificate issued by IFE (UK)
cannot be accepted for want of approval of Distance Education
council under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985
and thereafter by Distance Education Bureau after 2013. The course
conducted by said institutions is not even a Distance Course.
27. Mr. Gavand has submitted that the term 'Technical
Education' as per Section 2(g) of AICTE Act would cover the subject
fire. He has placed reliance upon the AICTE Approval Process
Handbook 2017-18 and 2024-25. He has submitted that the 'Fire and
Safety Engineering' has been classified as major discipline and
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
corresponding courses are provided.
28. Mr. Gavand has relied upon the Office Memorandum
issued by Government of India, Ministry of Education and Culture
dated 6th December, 2012 which declared that all the orders
including Office Memorandum dated 30th April, 1983 issued by the
Government of India granting equivalence to their courses will cease
to have effect from 1st June, 2013 onwards. Thus students enrolled
after 31st May, 2013 with IFE(India) are not entitled for jobs on the
basis of qualification 'pass in the Graduateship Examination'
conducted by IFE (India) (Office Memorandum dated 6th December,
2012 is annexed to Petition at page 100).
29. Mr. Gavand has submitted that the Office Memorandum
dated 6th December, 2012 had been challenged by IFE (India) and
other similarly placed institutions before the Delhi High Court.
Initially, the said Office Memorandum was stayed, however, after
considering law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of
'Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab & Ors 6
the Delhi High Court upheld the Office Memorandum dated 6th
6 (2019) 16 SCC 95.
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
December, 2012 and dismissed the Petition.
30. Mr. Gavand has submitted that the Respondent No.1 -
Corporation in its subject advertisement had not mentioned the date
till which the Grade - I qualification from the IFE (India) would be
accepted. This was contrary to the law i.e. Office Memorandum dated
6th December, 2012 but also against the law laid down by the Apex
court. He has submitted that the Respondent No.1 - Corporation
considering that the subject advertisement was incorrect correctly
concluded that there was a mistake in issuing the subject
advertisement.
31. Mr. Gavand has submitted that a perusal of the Office
Memorandum dated 6th December, 2012 would show that it makes
reference to the memorandum/order in force pertaining to the
equivalence granted to the educational qualification in Central
Government jobs and specifically states that the concerned orders
will cease to have effect from 1st June, 2013 onwards. He has
submitted that so far as Grade - I qualification from the IFE (UK) is
concerned, the same is also held to be equivalent to the diploma
course of National Fire Service College, Nagpur as per the
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
Notification dated 31st May, 1976 issued by the Government of India.
He has submitted that considering import of the said Office
Memorandum dated 6th December, 2012, the same would apply to
the course conducted by IFE (UK).
32. Mr. Gavand has submitted that a similar Office
Memorandum had been issued by the Government of India with
respect to Institute of Mechanical Engineers ("IME") (India). This has
been reproduced in the judgment delivered by Apex Court in Indian
Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab & Ors 7. He has
submitted that as can be seen from a comparison of the said
Notifications i.e. the one issued in the context of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers with that issued in the context of the
Institution of Fire Engineers (UK), merely, passing the examination
conducted by the respective institutions was kept at par with the
degree/diploma of proper recognized college/university. The validity
of such notification was considered in detail by the Supreme Court in
the aforementioned decision and while adjudicating the matter, the
Supreme Court relied upon the law laid down in Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Ltd. (Supra) . In the said judgment after considering the
7 (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 95.
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
term 'Technical Education' the Court observed that the AICTE is the
sole repository of power to lay down parameters or qualitative norms
for 'Technical Education' and further observed that 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. The Supreme Court by the said Order dated 3rd
November, 2017 restrains all universities from conducting any
courses through distance education mode. Thus, by virtue of public
notice issued by AICTE and as per the judgment of Supreme Court in
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (Supra) , the certificate issued
by IFE(UK) cannot be considered as valid certificate for the purpose
of employment.
33. Mr. Gavand has submitted that the Supreme Court in
Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India) has considered the aspect of
conferring degrees. It has been laid down that what cannot be done
directly cannot be done indirectly. The Supreme Court has
emphasized that the Engineering and Technical courses require
intensive practical and workshop training, which forms the backbone
of such education. He has submitted that Fire Engineering is
inherently a technical/practical field. Therefore, a certificate obtained
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
solely through examinations (like those of the Institution of Fire
Engineers) compromises educational standards and cannot be
regarded as equivalent to a formal degree or diploma.
34. Mr. Gavand has submitted that the subject advertisement
is ex-facie illegal and contrary to the law of the land under Article
141 of the Constitution. The recruitment notices published by the
Respondent No.1 - Corporation without stipulating the mandatory
cut off date for accepting qualification IFE(India) and IFE(UK) for the
said post was erroneous and that Respondent No.1 - Corporation
rightly discarded the claim of the Petitioner to the said post. He has
accordingly submitted that the Petition is liable to be dismissed.
35. Having considered the submissions, it appears that the
Petitioner had qualified for the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer ("the
said post") in the Respondent No.1 - Corporation based upon the
subject public advertisement issued on 12th July, 2023 and the
Recruitment Rules. The Petitioner has also cleared the physical test
and his name appeared at Sr. No.1 in the selection list for the said
post published by the Respondent No.1- Corporation on 7th March,
2024. The qualification for the said post included Grade - I
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
qualification from the IFE (UK) or (India) and a minimum of six years
of work experience as Deputy Fire Station Officer or in an equivalent
position within a Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council, Special
Planning Authority, or a Government/Semi Government Fire Service
which was mandatory.
36. The Recruitment Rules of the Respondent No.1
Corporation also provided as one of the eligibility criteria for the said
post, Membership of the IFE (UK). These Recruitment Rules are
invogue even today. The Petitioner was having Membership
Certificate issued by the IFE (UK) and over six years experience
having worked as Divisional Fire Officer in Pune Metropolitan Region
Development Authority ("PMRDA") since 2nd January, 2023 and prior
to which he had worked as Fire Officer from 1st June, 2016 to 1st
January, 2023. The Petitioner has also worked as Sub Officer in the
office of the Directorate of Maharashtra Fire Service from 6th
January, 2014 to 30th April, 2016.
37. It is also pertinent to note that in the letter dated 19th
July, 2023 issued by Respondent No.3 - Directorate of Fire Service
(Exhibit 'E' to the Petition), it was mentioned that Membership of the
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
IFE (UK) is a recognized qualification for the said post.
38. It was only during the verification of documents
submitted by the Petitioner along with the application, that the
impugned communication dated 14th March, 2024 was issued by
Respondent No.3 to the Commissioner of Respondent No.1 -
Corporation viz. Respondent No.2, whereby a cut off date of 3rd
November, 2017 was mentioned for considering the certificate issued
by the IFE (UK). Thus, after selection of the Petitioner, the impugned
letter dated 14th March, 2024 had been issued by the Respondent
No.3, purportedly as a clarification and which was thereafter
followed by the impugned letter of rejection dated 27th March, 2024
issued by Respondent No.1 - Corporation rejecting the Petitioner's
selection to the said post. The impugned letter dated 14th March,
2024 ran contrary to the letter dated 19th July, 2023 issued by the
very same Respondent No.3.
39. The impugned letter appears to be have been issued on
the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift
Irrigation Corp. Ltd. (Supra). The date of the Supreme Court
judgment is applied as the cut off date viz. 3rd November, 2017 for
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
recognition for Membership of IFE(UK) as requisite qualification for
the said post. This is inspite of the said judgment having nothing
whatsoever to do with qualification from IFE (UK) for Fire Service.
The said judgment having been passed in the context of Deemed to
be Universities introducing new courses in 'Technical Education'
without the approval of AICTE. The Supreme Court has restrained all
Deemed to be Universities from carrying on any course in distant
education mode from Academic Session 2018-19 onwards unless and
until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education
mode and specific permissions are granted by the concerned
statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses
and unless the off-campus Centres/Study Centres are individually
inspected and found adequate by the concerned Statutory
Authorities. The approvals have to be course specific.
40. From a perusal of the said judgment, we are unable to
accept that the said judgment can form the basis for issuance of the
impugned letter clarifying that the courses conducted by IFE (UK)
cannot be recognized as a qualification for Fire Service from 3rd
November, 2017. The Supreme Court judgment (Supra) which issues
directions in respect of Courses conducted by Deemed to be
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
Universities and which have been held to be regulated by AICTE
under the AICTE Act, 1987, can in no way apply to courses
conducted by the IFE (UK). This apart from there being merit in the
contention of the Petitioner that 'Technical Education' as defined
under Section 2(g) of AICTE Act, 1987 does not cover Fire Service
and that there is no notification issued by the Central Government
declaring Fire Services as a 'Technical Education' covered by AICTE.
41. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar
Pandey & Ors. (Supra), that precluding a candidate from
appointment in violation of the Recruitment Rules without there
being a finding on such candidate's unsuitability, is an action which
would fail the Article 14 test and shall be held to be arbitrary. It has
been held that if the High Court is permitted to alter the selection
criteria after the performance of individual candidates is assessed,
that would constitute alteration of the laid down Recruitment Rules.
Further, the submission on behalf of the High Court Administration in
that case namely, that Rule 14 permits them to alter the selection
criteria after the selection process is concluded and marks are
declared has been held to be not a proper exposition of the said
provision. In the present case the Petitioner had met the requisite
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
qualification and it was only after the selection of the Petitioner that
the Respondent No.3 sought to alter the selection criteria by issuing
the impugned letter dated 14th March, 2024. This would be
impermissible as being contrary to the Recruitment Rules which are
till date very much in vogue.
42. The Petitioner would also have a legitimate expectation
to be appointed on the said post having met the requisite
qualification under the Recruitment Rules. In Sivanandan C.T. and
Ors. (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that the basis of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the
principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in Government dealings
with individuals. It recognized that a public authority's promise or
past conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. The doctrine is
premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing their
public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices. The
legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law,
custom, or established procedure. Reliance has been placed on the
Common Law Jurisprudence by Lord Diplock in the locus classicus,
Council of Civil Service Unions (Supra) which holds that Courts can
exercise the power of judicial review of administrative decisions in
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
situations where such decision deprives a person of some benefit or
advantage which they have received assurance from the decision
maker that the advantage or benefit will not be withdrawn without
giving them an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that
the advantage or benefit should not be withdrawn. In the present
case the legitimacy of the expectation is rooted in the Recruitment
Rules and the qualification as provided therein which includes
Membership of the IFE (UK) as the recognized qualification for Fire
Service viz. the said post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer. Thus, the
Respondents were required to adhere to the Recruitment Rules and
appoint of the Petitioner on the said post, considering that the
Petitioner had a legitimate expectation to be so appointed. Further,
the Petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of being appointed on
the said post without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to
advance reasons for contending that his selection to the said post
should not be rejected.
43. The Supreme Court in K. Manjusree (Supra) has held
that in the facts of that case that the Full Court could not have
introduced a new requirement of minimum marks in the interviews,
which had the effect of eliminating candidates, who would otherwise
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
be eligible and suitable for selection. Such action on the part of the
Full Court in revising the merit list by adopting a minimum
percentage of marks for interviews was held to be impermissible. In
the present case, the Respondent No.3 by introducing a new
requirement i.e. cut off date for acceptance of Membership of IFE
(UK) as requisite qualification for Fire Service viz. the said post
purportedly as and by way of clarification, the Petitioner who had
been otherwise duly qualified for the said post for Deputy Chief Fire
Officer as per the Recruitment Rules of the Respondent No.1 -
Corporation as well as per the terms of subject advertisement and
prior letter dated 19th July, 2023 issued by the same Respondent
No.3 has been eliminated.
44. Reliance has been placed by the Respondents on Office
Memorandum dated 6th December, 2012 by which recognition
granted to all certificate/qualification awarded by Professional
Bodies/institutions in the field of 'Technical Education' had been
withdrawn. This included the order issued by the Government of
India granting equivalence to a pass in the Graduateship Examination
conducted since 1981 of the IFE(India) for the purpose of
recruitment to the superior posts and services which ceases to have
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
effect from 1st June, 2013. The students enrolled after 31st May
2013 with IFE(India) are not entitled for jobs on the basis of
qualification - 'pass in graduate examination conducted by IFE(India)'
In our considered view the said Office Memorandum has no
application to qualification from the IFE(UK) for Fire Service. Further,
without making any change in the Recruitment Rules of the
Respondent No.1 - Corporation, the Notification dated 31st May,
1976 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Education and
Social Welfare (Department of Education) which provides that
passing in Graduatship Examination of IFE (UK) is at par to with
Advance Diploma for National Fire Service College, Nagpur for the
purpose of recruitment to superior posts and a pass in the Associates
Membership/Membership Examination of the IFE (UK) for the
purposes of recruitment to superior post would be applicable.
45. The reliance placed by the Respondents in the judgment
of Indian Mechanical Engineers (India) (Supra), in order to contend
that the validity of such notification has been considered by the
Supreme Court by placing reliance upon Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Ltd. (Supra) is misconceived. This in view of our finding
that the definition of 'Technical Education' under the AICTE Act, 1987
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
no where includes Fire Service. Further, presuming that Fire Service
was included in the said definition, without there being any
subsequent Government Notification withdrawing the Notification
dated 31st May, 1976 coupled with the fact that the Recruitment
Rules also recognize Membership of IFE (UK) to be a recognized
qualification for Fire Service viz. the said post, the reliance on these
judgments (Supra) to contend otherwise is misplaced.
46. Accordingly, we find merit in the present Petition. The
impugned letters/communication dated 14th March, 2024 and 27th
March, 2024 whereby the Petitioner has not been granted
appointment to the said post and his selection has been rejected is
contrary to the prevailing law and requires to be quashed and set
aside.
47. We accordingly allow the Petition in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b) by quashing and setting aside the impugned
communication dated 14th March, 2024 and 27th March, 2024. We
further grant prayer Clause (c) by directing Respondent No.1 -
Corporation to issue letter of appointment to the Petitioner on the
basis of selection for the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer on the basis
914-wp-5667-2024.doc
of eligibility criteria provided in the Recruitment Rules and subject
advertisement issued by Respondent No.1 - Corporation inviting
applications for the post of Deputy Chief Fire Officer, if otherwise
found fit for the said post.
48. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There
shall be no order as to costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA J.]
