Himachal Pradesh High Court
Engineer-In-Chief vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 4375 of 2019 with CWP
Nos. 520, 603, 821, 822, 845, 1189,
.
1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195,
1196, 1197, 1349, 1350, 1354, 1697,
1698, 1699, 1730, 1731, 1830, 1878,
1880, 1897, 1898, 2243, 2889, 2890,
3283, 3284 and 3372 of 2020,
CWPTA No. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of 2020
Reserved on: 06.04.2021
Decided on: 09.04.2021
CWP No. 4375 of 2019
Engineer-in-Chief
r Versus
to ...Petitioner
Narender Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 520 of 2020
State of H.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Ashok Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 603 of 2020
Secretary (I&PH) ...Petitioner
Versus
Anil Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 821 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Anil Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 822 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Vishal Nadda & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 845 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1189 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
.
Ranjit Singh & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1190 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Vinay Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1191 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Hem Raj & Ors. r ...Respondents
CWP No. 1192 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Sachin Chandel & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1193 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Thakur & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1194 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1195 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Kaushal Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1196 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Aditya Sharma & Anr. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1197 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1349 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
.
Versus
Vikram Singh & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1350 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Manoj Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1354 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Pankaj Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1697 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1698 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Surender Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1699 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Vikram Thakur & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1730 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Pankaj Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1731 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Surender Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1830 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Sharma & Anr. ...Respondents
.
CWP No. 1878 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Parveen Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1880 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Ram Singh & Anr. ...Respondents
CWP No. 1897 of 2020
State of H. P. r
Naresh Kumar & Anr.
Versus
to ...Petitioner
...Respondents
CWP No. 1898 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Ravi Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents
CWP No. 2243 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Pawan Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 2889 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Girdhar Lal & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 2890 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Parmar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 3283 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Narender Singh & Ors. ...Respondents
CWP No. 3284 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
.
Kushal Singh & Anr. ...Respondents
CWP No. 3372 of 2020
Engineer-in-Chief ...Petitioner
Versus
Naresh Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWPTA No. 3 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Abhishek Thakur & Anr. ...Respondents
CWPTA No. 4 of 2020
State of H. P.
r ...Petitioner
Versus
Mahender Singh & Anr. ...Respondents
CWPTA No. 5 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Jagat Singh & Anr. ...Respondents
CWPTA No. 6 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Nitin Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
CWPTA No. 9 of 2020
State of H. P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Pankaj Thakur & Anr. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Sharma, A. G. with Mr. Vikas
Rathore, Mr. Vinod Thakur, Mr. Shiv Pal
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
Manhans, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Bhupinder
Thakur, Dy. A.G.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Sr. Advocate with
.
Mr. Naresh Kumar Verma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar, Mr. Jitender Pal Ranote, Mr.
Rajinder Thakur, Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma,
Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Mr. Vikram Singh,
Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, Mr.
Abhinandan Thakur, Mr. Harjeet Singh,
Mr. Tarun Sharma, Mr. Vinod Chauhan,
Mr. Sudhanshu Jamwal, Mr. Servedaman
Rathore, Mr. Surender K. Sharma and Ms.
Anita Pamar, Advocates, for the
respective respondents.
Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate, for HPSSC
in all the petitions.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
Since common question of law and facts arise for
consideration in these petitions, therefore, they are taken up
together and are being disposed of by way of a common
judgment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-
State sent a requisition for filling up of 250 posts of Pump
Operator to the H. P. Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur vide
requisition dated 18.06.2016 alongwith the R & P Rules to the
post of Pump Operator.
3. In the advertisement, essential qualification for the
post of Pump Operator (Post Code 537) was prescribed as
under:-
Essential Qualification:
(i) Should be a Matriculate from a recognized Board of
School Education/ Institute or its equivalent from a
.
recognised University/Board.
(ii) Should possess certificate in trades
Electrician/Wireman/Diesel Mechanic/Pump
Mechanic/Motor Mechanic/ Pump Operator--cum-
Mechanic from recognized ITI.
4. In response to the above advertisement, the
respondents applied for the post of Pump Operator and were
allowed provisionally to appear in the objective type written
screening test
conducted on 09.06.2017 alongwith other
candidates on the basis of the information furnished by them.
Their candidatures were not checked by the proforma
respondent No. 1 at the time of allotting the Roll Numbers but
they were allowed to sit in the screening test on the basis of
declaration and by relying upon that they have ensured their
eligibility in terms of advertisement. It was made clear under
condition No. 4 of important instructions for filling up online
applications that the candidates must ensure their eligibility in
terms of essential qualification etc. to avoid rejection of their
candidature at the later stage.
5. The respondents/applicants emerged successful in
the above objective-type written/screening test conducted by
proforma respondent No. 1 and were shortlisted for further
selection process and were called for evaluation of
documents/certificate alongwith original testimonials/documents
and one attested copy of each for checking up of their eligibility
.
criteria. Then, it was found by proforma respondent No. 1 that
the respondents/applicants did not possess the essential
qualification as prescribed in the R & P Rules and rejected the
candidature of the respondents/applicants on the ground that
they did not fulfill the requisite essential qualification.
6. Respondents/applicants feeling aggrieved by the
decision of the proforma respondent whereby their candidature
was rejected for the post of Pump Operator, filed various
petitions before the erstwhile learned Administrative Tribunal.
Vide interim order dated 28.08.2018 read with order dated
12.12.2018, the learned Administrative Tribunal directed the
petitioner-State to refer the matter to the State Level Board of
Equivalence Committee for its consideration whether
certificate/diploma from a recognized ITI in Electrical, Mechanic
(Motor-Vehicle) and Pump Operation and Maintenance trades are
equivalent to the qualification as mentioned in the R & P Rules
provided as second qualification beside matriculation from a
recognized Board of School Education/Institutes for the post of
Pump Operator (Post code 537) and submit the report of the
Committee to it.
7. In compliance to order dated 28.08.2018, the matter
was referred to the State Level Board of Equivalence Committee
and the Committee submitted its report on 08.04.2019 to the
government, who filed the same before the erstwhile learned
.
Tribunal.
8. The learned Tribunal disposed of the OA vide its
order dated 10.04.2019 with the direction to the
respondents/competent authority(ies) to proceed further in the
matter in accordance with the decision of the State Level Board
of Equivalence Committee held on 08.04.2019, as expeditiously
as possible, preferably by 31.05.2019.
9. The
rpetitioner-State feeling aggrieved and dis-
satisfied with the impugned judgment/order dated 10.04.2019
has filed the instant petitions mainly on the ground that the
learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating the fact that essential
qualification as prescribed in R & P rules for the post of Pump
Operator and notified in the advertisement as such candidate
who possess certificate in trades of Electrician/ Wireman/ Diesel
Mechanic/ Pump Mechanic/ Motor Mechanic/ Pump Operator-
cum-Mechanic from a recognized ITI, which was specific in
conformity with the Rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India and being statutory in nature could not
have been supplemented by any decision including the
recommendations made by the State Level Board of Equivalence
Committee.
10. The respondents-candidates have contested the
petition by filing reply(ies) wherein it was averred that by virtue
.
of advertisement, the Department had invited applications for
the post of Pump Operator, however, the essential qualification
prescribed in the Rules inter alia happens to be of the Motor
Mechanic, which certificate course is not being run either by the
government or any private institution under the Directorate of
Technical Education in the State of H.P. or elsewhere in the
country and, therefore, being a wrong classification of trade by
the petitioners themselves, the Equivalence Committee had
rightly come to the conclusion that eligibility for the post of
Pump Operator could only be Mechanic (Motor Vehicle). It is for
this precise reason that over the years candidates holding
certificate in Motor Mechanic are being eligible under the R & P
Rules for being appointed as Pump Operator. The information
with regard to these candidates have been annexed alongwith
the reply to the Original Application filed before the learned
Tribunal and the same has also been annexed with the reply as
Annexures R-1/21 to R-1/27.
11. Lastly, it is contended that the Equivalence
Committee is constituted from amongst the experts and high
level functionaries in the Government and, therefore, the learned
Tribunal has rightly referred the matter to the Equivalence
Committee, more particularly, when there was no objection
whatsoever taken by the petitioners at any stage of the
proceedings before the learned Tribunal, therefore, the
.
petitioners are estopped from filing the instant petition.
We have heard learned Advocate General duly
assisted by Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate
General and learned counsel(s) for the respondents and have
gone through the material placed on record.
12. It is more than settled that essential qualifications
for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The
employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications,
including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best
suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess
according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work.
The Court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less
can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications
being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-
writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also
fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the
advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in
judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the
advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has
to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders to
proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court in the
garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority
to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the
conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language
.
of the same. (Refer: Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
through its Secretary vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade and others
2019 (6) SCC 362)
13. However, the other questions still remain whether
the petitioner while issuing the advertisement had actually
applied the mind to the qualification that was laid therein. The
answer to the same is clearly a big no, as admittedly the one of
the qualifications that was prescribed under Rules and in the
advertisement, had long been discontinued in the entire country.
14. That apart, it was incumbent upon the petitioner as
a model employer to ensure that the persons with required
qualification and not the qualification as laid down are actually
appointed to the service.
15. The State Level Equivalence Committee meeting was
held on 08.04.2019 and comprised of higher ranks officials and
experts, as is evident from the proceedings which are extracted
in its entirety hereinbelow:-
"PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF STATE LEVEL, BOARD
OF EQUIVALENCE COMMITTEE HELD ON 08.04.2019 AT
03:30 PM UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF ADDL. CHIEF
SECRETARY (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P.
A meeting of the State Level Board of the Equivalence
Committee was held on 08.04.2019 at 3:30 PM under the
Chairmanship of the Addl. Chief Secretary (Education) t
the govt. of Himachal Pradesh in the Conference Hall, 6 th
Floor, Armsdale Building, H.P. Secretariat, Shimla-2, the
following were present:-
.
1. Dr. Amarjeet K. Sharma, Director (Hr. Edu.)
2. Dr. Basu Sood, Adviser Planning, H.P. Shimla
3. Sh. Ved Bhushan Sugyan, Deputy Secretary, (Ele. Edu)
to the Govt. of H.P.
4. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Deputy Secretary, HPBOSE,
Dharamshala.
5. Sh. D. R. Raju, Joint Director (Agriculture)
6. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Joint Director of Elementary
Education.
7. Dh. Davinder Singh, DD (T) o/o the (DTE) Sundernagar,
H.P.
8. Sh. Mahi Pal Verma, Under secretary (I&PH) to the
Govt. of H.P.
9. Dr. Arvind Bhatt, Dean Planning HPU-Shimla.
10. Sh. Jaswant Singh, Section Officer, (I&PH)
At the outset, the Deputy Secretary (Elementary
Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh welcomed
the Chairman of the Committee and all the members.
Thereafter, the committee discussed the agenda item as
under:-
Item No. 1 (I&PH) Department
Suggestion of Equivalence Committee regarding
equivalence of certificate/Diploma from a recognized ITI in
Electrical, Mechanic (Motor-Vehicle) and Pump Operation
& Maintenance trades with certificate/Diploma in
electrician /wireman /diesel Mechanic /Pump Mechanic/
Motor Mechanic/Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic trades
from a recognized ITI.
The matter was discussed at length by the Board of
Equivalence Committee. During course of discussion, the
representative of Director, Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education Vocational & Industrial
Training, H.P. Sundernagar informed that the courses from
.
a recognized ITI in electrical, Mechanic (Motor Vehicle)
and Pump Operation & Maintenance trades are equivalent
to certificate/Diploma in Electrician/diesel Mechanic/Pump
Mechanic/Motor Mechanic/Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic
trades from a recognized ITI, for the post of Pump
Operator, IPH Department agreed to the views/suggestion
made by the representative of Director, Technical
Education, Directorate of Technical Education Vocational
& Industrial Training H.P. Sundernagar.
In view of the above discussion, the Board was of
the view that the above courses from a recognized ITI in
Electrical, Mechanic (Motor Vehicle) and Pump Operation
& Maintenance trades are Equivalent to
certificate/Diploma in electrician/ diesel Mechanic/Pump
Mechanic/Motor Mechanic/Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic
trades from a recognized ITI, for the post of Pump
Operator.
Item No. 2 (Adviser Planning Department)
Regarding Equivalence in Master's/Bachelor's Degree.
During course of discussion, the representative of
Planning Department informed that the word "Equivalent"
is to be rescinded from the R & P Rules of Deputy
Director, Research Officer and Assistant Research Officers
of the Planning Department HP. The matter was discussed
at length by the Board and during course of discussion it
was observed that suitability of candidates is to be
ascertained by the respective Department in the R & P
Rules. Therefore, suitable qualification is to be inserted by
the concerned Department in the R & P Rules. Thus, the
Board was of the view that the Planning Department may
take appropriate decision and action at their own level.
The meeting ended with vote of thanks to and from
the Chair.
Sd/-
.
Addl. Chief Secretary
(Education to the Government
of Himachal Pradesh:
16. The records reveal that the petitioner, at no stage,
had objected to the matter being referred to the Equivalence
Committee and rather it was the petitioners themselves, who
without any objection had placed the report of the Equivalence
Committee before the learned Tribunal, as is evident from the
order dated 10.04.2019, which is reproduced in its entirety
hereinbelow:-
"The learned Additional Advocate General has filed
Affidavit for submission of report of the State Level Board
of Equivalence Committee in compliance to the order
dated 28.08.2018 read with order dated 05.03.2019
alongwith the report (in fact proceedings) of the said
Committee as Annexure R-1, which are taken on record in
O.A. No. 374 of 2018 (copies supplied). The relevant
portion of the proceedings of the meeting of the aforesaid
Committee dated 08.04.2019 relating to these matters is
extracted below:-
Item No. 1 (I&PH) Department
Suggestion of Equivalence Committee regarding
equivalcne of certificate/Diploma from a recognized ITI in
Electrical, Mechanic (Motor-Vehicle) and Pump Operation
& Maintenance trades with certificate/Diploma in
electrician /wireman /diesel Mechanic /Pump Mechanic/
Motor Mechanic/Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic trades
from a recognized ITI.
The matter was discussed at length by the Board of
Equivalence Committee. During course of discussion, the
representative of Director, Technical Education,
.
Directorate of Technical Education Vocational & Industrial
Training, H.P. Sundernagar informed that the courses from
a recognized ITI in electrical, Mechanic (Motor Vehicle)
and Pump Operation & Maintenance trades are equivalent
to certificate/Diploma in Electrician/diesel Mechanic/Pump
Mechanic/Motor Mechanic/Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic
trades from a recognized ITI, for the post of Pump
Operator, IPH Department agreed to the views/suggestion
made by the representative of Director, Technical
Education, Directorate of Technical Education Vocational
& Industrial Training H.P. Sundernagar.
In view of the above discussion, the Board was of
the view that the above courses from a recognized ITI in
Electrical, Mechanic (Motor0Vehicle) and Pump Operation
& Maintenance trades are Equivalent to
certificate/Diploma in electrician/ diesel Mechanic/Pump
Mechanic/Motor Mechanic/Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic
trades from a recognized ITI, for the post of Pump
Operator.
2. In view of the decision of the State Level Board of
Equivalence Committee "that the above courses from a
recognized ITI in Electrical, Mechanic (Motor-Vehicle) and
Pump Operation & Mainteance trades are Equivalent to
certificate Diploma in Electrician/diesel Mechanic/Pump
Mechanic/ Motor Mechanic/Pump Oprator-cum-Mechanic
trades from a recotnized ITI, for the post of Pump
Operator", nothing survives for any further adjudication in
thse matters, which are disposed of accordingly with a
direction to the respondents competent authority(s) to
proceed further in the matter in accordance with the
decision of the State Level Board of Equivalence
Committee held on 08.04.2019, Annexure R-I, as
expeditiously as possible preferably by 31st May, 2019.
3. The original applications as also pending miscellaneous
.
application9s), if any, stand disposed of in the above
terms.
4. Let, this order be placed in OA No. 374 of 2018 and
duly authenticated copy in the concerned matter."
17. Apart from above, it would be noticed that the
petitioners themselves have always considered the qualification
possessed by the respondents herein to be one fulfilling
eligibility criteria as laid down in the Rules and it is for this
reasons that it has over the years appointed a number of
persons, some of whose details have been provided under Right
to Information Act vide Annexures R-1/21 to R-1/27 and also
found in the body of the petition of the original application.
18. No doubt, the learned Advocate General, in principle,
is right in arguing that two wrongs do not make a right, however,
in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this principle is
not applicable, as we are of the considered opinion that the
petitioner committed no wrong in appointing the respondents
herein or persons with similar qualification at earlier instances
for the post of Pump Operator.
19. Our finding is further buttressed and strengthened
from the fact that the petitioners themselves have now
prescribed the qualification for the post of Pump Operators,
which makes the respondents eligible and are, in fact, in
conformity with the recommendations of the Equivalence
Committee.
.
20. As a matter of fact, the Director, Technical Education
in its reply to OA No. 2761 of 2018 had averred as under:-
"2. That it is respectfully submitted that the respondent
No.3 vide letter dated 02.02.18 received through fax has
sought clarification that as to whether the Motor
Mechanic Trade and Mechanic Motor Vehicle Trade are
different in nature or whether the trade of Motor Mechanic
or not, if yes since when? Accordingly the Replying
Respondent vide letter dated 03.02.2018 has taken up
the matter with the competent Authority i.e. Directorate
General Training, Ministry of Skill Development and
Entrepreneurship, Government of India, New Delhi who
has not been impleaded as a necessary party by the
Applicant in the present OA. The aforesaid competent
Authority vide its letter dated 5.03.2018 has clarified
"that Mechanic Motor' and 'Mechanic Motor Vehicle' are
two different trade. 'Motor Mechanic Vehicle' has not been
renamed from 'Mechanic Motor' trade. During year 1698
both of the above trades were available under the
Craftsman Training Scheme (CTS). The trade 'Mechanic
Motor' has been deleted from the CTC before year 1994"
(Copy of the Directorate General of Training, Ministry of
Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Government of
India dated 5.3.2018 is enclosed as Annexure R1)."
21. It was thereafter that the petitioners themselves had
amended the Rules vide issuing Notification dated 11.03.2020 by
including the Pump Operator-cum-Mechanic/ Mechanic (Motor
Vehicle)/ Pump Operation-cum-Mechanic/Pump Operation &
Maintenance, has been made eligible for being appointed as
Pump Operator.
.
22. Once this is the fact situation, then obviously no
exception can be taken and was rightly not taken by the
petitioners before the learned Tribunal at the time when the
matter was referred to the Equivalence Committee.
23. The learned Tribunal was conscious of the fact that it
is neither the job of the Tribunal nor it was within the
competence to determine whether one qualification was relevant
to the other or not. Once it had been pressed that the contesting
respondents do not possess the minimum qualification, in such
circumstances, the learned Tribunal in its wisdom has rightly
referred the matter to the Equivalence Committee.
24. That apart, no fault can be found with the directions
issued by the learned Tribunal to refer the matter to the
Equivalence Committee, particularly, when the State at earlier
occasion had repeatedly appointed candidates with same and
similar qualification to the one possessed by the respondents
herein.
25. As observed above, the State has already acted
upon the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee by
amending its Rules, therefore, we really do not see any reason
why and how the petitioners can be said to be aggrieved by the
orders of the learned Tribunal. Would the recommendations of
the Equivalence Committee have been without merit, obviously,
the petitioners would not have taken the same into
.
consideration and thereafter amended its rules so as to bring it
in conformity with the opinion of the Equivalence Committee.
26. In addition to the above, once the Equivalence
Committee has given its recommendations, the same will have
to apply retrospectively from the date on which the
certificate/diploma/degree has been obtained.
27. In arriving at such conclusion, we are duly supported
and fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench
of the Madras High Court in Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman.
A. versus The State of Tamil Nadu and another (2015)
LAB I.C. 954, wherein it was observed as under:-
"23. Also, in the present case, neither the Equivalence
Committee nor the Government Orders in G.O.Ms. Nos.
72, dated 30.04.2013 and 117 dated 02.07.2013,
confined the validity of the degree obtained by the
candidates to operate prospectively, therefore, as per the
above judgments, when the vested rights are created
from the date of their acquisition of equivalent degrees,
the respondents cannot take a stand that the degrees
obtained by the petitioners will only have prospective
effect from the date of issuance of Equivalence
Certificate. When both the Equivalence Committee and
the Government Order have consistently not mentioned
the effect of the validity of the degree, it is not proper to
hold prospective by any one, moreso, by the Court. That
apart, a degree or a certificate issued by any University or
competent educational authorities always have the effect
on par with a decree issued by a competent civil court.
Besides, it is well settled legal position that even an
executing court cannot go behind its decree and this
.
principle will mutatis mutandis undoubtedly apply to the
case on hand as well."
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit
in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed, so
also pending applications, if any. Parties are left to bear their
own costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
9th April, 2021 Judge
(sanjeev)
