Yogesh Kumar Kadu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1931 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Yogesh Kumar Kadu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 February, 2025

                                                         1




                                                                                     2025:CGHC:8032
                                                                                               NAFR
                        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                            WPS No. 1216 of 2025

            1 - Yogesh Kumar Kadu S/o Sukhdeo Rao Kadu Aged About 46 Years Working As
            Assistant Engineer At Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                       ... Petitioner(s)


                                                     versus


            1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban
            Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Nava
            Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
            2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                     ... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For State / Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board

14/02/2025

1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer in the year

2009. According to the petitioner he was entitled for consideration of

promotion from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant

Engineer, from 12.12.2017. The petitioner contended that he was

deprived of the right to be considered for promotion.

Digitally

2. The petitioner obtained the certificate from Institute of Civil Engineers signed by SHAYNA KADRI (India) (A Government of India recognized Degree Level Institution)

AMICE (I), Ludhiana, Punjab in the year 2011. 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 AMICE (I), Ludhiana, Punjab is not

recognized and on the ground that he obtained the certificate through a

distance mode.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the

Office Memorandum dated 06-12-2012, 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

degree of petitioner was from Institute of Civil Engineers (India) (A

Government of India recognized Degree Level Institution) AMICE (I),

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 12.12.2017.

4. 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, 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 Education (henceforth 'the AICTE') and the

degree from the deemed University, was recognized. 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 recognized 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).

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

documents.

6. The fact remains that the petitioner was taken in the role of the

respondent in the year 2009 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).

7. As per the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Appointment and

Terms and Conditions of Services of Officers and Employees) Rules,

2007 (hereinafter referred as "Rules, 2007") for a consideration of

promotion from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant

Engineer, there shall be service tenure of 8 years for degree holder and

12 years for diploma holders. The petitioner claimed that he had

obtained the certificate which is equivalent to degree, therefore, he

should have been considered in terms of column 4 (i.e. those

employees who have done degree while working as Sub Engineer).

8. 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 recognized and equivalence granted by the MHRD

with permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013.

9. 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 recognized as equivalent to a degree from a recognized

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.

10. 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."

11. 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 06-

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."

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present

case, it is manifest that the petitioner obtained the certificate 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 06-12-2012, 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 recognized

for limited purpose with a barrier of cut off date, was entitled to the

benefit to consider him to be holder of recognized degree. The process

of promotion took place in the year 2017, 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. In view of peculiar facts, it is directed that, though the

petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on

09.10.2023, he would be entitled to all consequential benefits from

12.12.2017, the date on which the similarly situated persons were

promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, however, subject to

verification.

15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their

own cost(s).

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna