Chattisgarh High Court
Birendra Kumar Kodopi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:6210
RAVI
SHANKAR
MANDAVI
Digitally signed by
RAVI SHANKAR
NAFR
MANDAVI
Date: 2025.02.27
20:06:10 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 893 of 2025
1 - Birendra Kumar Kodopi S/o Mani Ram Kodopi Aged About 39 Years
Occupation- Assistant Engineer Cum Sdo, Water Resources
Department, Posted At- Water Resources Department, Sub-Division,
Bhanupratappur, R/o, Village - Kirgoli, Post- Murdongari, District-
Kanker (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Chief Secretary, Government Of
Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Secretary Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
04/02/2025
1. Heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel petitioner as well as Mr.
Akhilesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate for
State/respondents.
2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil
Engineer) in the year 2005. According to the petitioner he was
entitled for consideration of promotion from the post of Sub
Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer, from 11.03.2016. The
petitioner contended that he was deprived of the right to be
considered for promotion. It is also not in dispute that from the
post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer the
following criteria was prescribed:
Post : Assistant Engineer (Civil)
Percentage of promotion :
• 25% through direct recruitment (PSC)
• 50% from the diploma holders on promotion
• 20% from those employees who have done
degree while working as Sub Engineer
• 5% from the Draftsman
3. The petitioner obtained the AMICE degree from ICE Ludhiana,
and the same is held to be equivalent to a degree in C.E. by by
the Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (India) v State of Punjab and Others reported in
(2019) 16 SCC 95. However, the respondent State authority
promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)
vide order dated 21.09.2023. (Annexure P/6).
4. According to the petitioner, he was deprived to be considered from
the quota of Sub Engineer and representation having been made
the same was not considered on the ground that he obtained the
certificate through a distance mode.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
Office Memorandum dated 6-12-2012, which was issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Department of Higher Education, New Delhi (henceforth 'the
MHRD'), would show that with a cut off date the students who
were in hold of such like nature of the degree for specified
institutes, which has been given equivalence to a degree, were
considered. It is stated that the AMICE degree of petitioner was
obtained from ICE Ludhiana (Punjab). Learned counsel would
place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court
in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v
State of Punjab and Others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 95. He
would submit that since the petitioner was enrolled and obtained
the certificate prior to the said cut off date, according to the
observation made by the Supreme Court, he should have been
considered for such promotion, as the notification was issued prior
to the promotion process. According to the learned counsel,
undoubtedly the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer in the year 2023 in routine course, however, he should
have been given such promotional benefits from the date the
other Sub Engineers were promoted way back in the year 2016.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit
that the nature of certificate, which was said to be equivalence of
a degree of the petitioner, on distance education mode is different.
He would submit that such holding of certificate cannot be given
equivalence on the degree, as the Institution from which the
petitioner obtained the degree has no right under the UGC Act to
grant such degree. He would also submit that the degree from the
regular Engineering Colleges, which are governed by the All India
Council for Technical Eduction (henceforth 'the AICTE') and the
degree from the deemed University, was recognised. According to
him, it is the prerogative of the employer, as per the law laid down
by the Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (India) (supra), that how much importance to be given
to such certificate and in the case of the petitioner the State being
the employer has used the prerogative and has not recognised
the certificate equivalent to the degree and no fault can be
attributed. In support of his contention, he would also place
reliance upon para 45 of Institution of Mechanical Engineers
(India) (supra).
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents.
8. The fact remains that the petitioner was taken in the role of the
respondent in the year 2005 as a Sub Engineer. During the course
of service the petitioner obtained the certificate, which was sought
to be equivalent to the degree from the Institution of Civil
Engineers (India).
9. As per the Chhattisgarh Water Resources Engineering and
Geological Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1968
(hereinafter referred as "Rules, 1968") for a consideration of
promotion from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant
Engineer, 20% posts are reserved from those employees who
have done degree while working as Sub Engineer. The petitioner
claimed that he had obtained the certificate which is equivalent to
degree, therefore, he should have been considered in terms
of column 3 (i.e. those employees who have done degree while
working as Sub Engineer).
10. The AICTE by its letter dated 27-11-2017 with respect to the
technical course conducted by Professional Bodies Institute
informed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh,
which purport that the AICTE has issued a public notice regarding
recognition of equivalence for all purposes including higher
education and employment to technical courses conducted by
various professional bodies/institutions which were duly
recognised and equivalence granted by the MHRD with
permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013.
11. One of the institute namely; Institution of Mechanical Engineers
(India) in the like matter approached the Supreme Court in the
matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra)
wherein the question posed as to whether such certificate could,
as a matter of law, be recognised as equivalent to a degree from a
recognised Engineering University ? The Court observed that it
was not clear as to under what statutory regime or under which
legal provision can such equivalence to the certificate issued.
Making a reference to the decision rendered by the Supreme
Court in the matter of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited
v Rabi Sankar Patro and Others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468,
wherein the similar issue came to be discussed, the Court
observed that the question which falls for consideration is whether
a deemed to be University, without taking appropriate prior
permission could start courses leading to degrees in Engineering
through open distance learning and it was not held in affirmative.
12. In Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra) the
Supreme Court observed at para 45 that what weightage the
certificates must have is for the individual employers to consider
in a given case. The concerned employer may attach due
importance to such certificates while considering the worth and
ability of the concerned candidates but to say that the certificates
are equivalent to a degree and as such all the candidates who
hold such certificates are entitled to derive the advantages which
a degree holder can, is completely a different issue. Para 45 is
quoted below for ready reference :
"45. If a degree can be awarded only by those
institutions which satisfy the description given in
sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the UGC Act,
the mandate of a parliamentary legislation
cannot be circumvented or nullified by awarding
equivalence to a certificate issued and awarded
by the appellant. What is the value of that
certificate will be considered by each employer
as and when the occasion arises. The appellant
would certainly be entitled to award certificate of
membership to its members. What weightage
the certificates must have is for the individual
employers to consider in a given case. The
employer concerned may attach due importance
to such certificates while considering the worth
and ability of the candidates concerned but to
say that the certificates are equivalent to a
degree and as such all the candidates who hold
such certificates are entitled to derive the
advantages which a degree-holder can, is
completely a different issue."
13. However, subsequently, while taking note of notification, which
was issued by the MHRD, the Supreme Court observed that when
the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was
granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.2013
it is evident from Notification dated 06.12.2012 issued by the
Central Government and Public Notice issued by AICTE in
August, 2017. Though the fact that the Certificate issued by the
likewise institute on successful completion of its annual
examination to its Members cannot be considered to be
equivalent to a Degree, but importantly an exception is carved out
in favour of students enrolled up to 31-5-2013 with particular
institution and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 6-12-2012
and Public Notice the benefit was extended to candidates. Paras
49 & 50 are quoted below :
"49. However, the fact remains that the equivalence
to the certificates awarded by the appellant was
granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE up
to 31-5-2013 as is evident from Notification dated 6-
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 up to 31-5-2013 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 31-5-2013
and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 6-12-
2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be
extended to such candidates. The candidates had
opted to enrol 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 AICTE.
However, the aforementioned Notification and Public
Notice were clear that after 1-6-2013 the orders
concerned granting equivalence would cease to
have any effect.
50. In the circumstances we do make an exception
in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31-5-
2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in the
present matter will apply after 1-6-2013. The
Certificate awarded by the appellant to such
candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 shall be
considered equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical
Engineering for the purpose of employment in the
Central Government."
14. Perusal of above quoted excerpts shows that the Supreme Court
has consciously adjudicated the issue and carved out an
exception in favour of the students enrolled upto 31.05.2013 in
view of MHRD notification dated 06.12.2012.
15. The Supreme Court has also declared that degree of candidate
enrolled upto 31.05.2013 is perfectly valid. Therefore, the said
judgment was judgment-in-rem which has adjudicated upon the
issue which has now become the law of land and consequently
binding upon all the administrative authority as also upon this
Court.
16. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the
present case, it is manifest that the petitioner obtained the
certificate being registered for the course prior to 31-5-2013,
which was enveloped in such benefit with a cut off date, and, as
such, the petitioner would be covered within the exception, which
is carved out by the Supreme Court in extending the benefit of
notification dated 6-12-2012, which puts a barrier for the students
who are enrolled prior to 31-5-2013. Thus, the petitioner, who
obtained such certificate within cut off date from the institution
which was recognised for limited purpose with a barrier of cut off
date, was entitled to the benefit to consider him to be holder of
recognised degree. The process of promotion took place in the
year 2016, therefore, the petitioner could not have been deprived
of the right having been created in his favour. It is important to
mention this fact here that the respondent authorities have also
recommended for promotion in favour of the petitioner.
Further, it is evident that on the basis of said degree, the
petitioner was further promoted. The Engineer-in-Chief (Water
Resources Development) has also written a communication in
favour of the certain persons alike the petitioner and
acknowledging the right for promotion and further stating that the
promotion required to be granted to the person entitled from the
date of his entitlement.
17. In view of peculiar facts, it is directed that, though the petitioner
was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 15.02.2023, he
would be entitled to all consequential benefits from 2016, the date
on which the similarly situated persons were promoted to the post
of Assistant Engineer.
18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to
bear their own cost(s).
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
