Durga Prashanna Sahoo vs The Union Of India Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 379 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                W.P.(S) No. 4824 of 2018
     Durga Prashanna Sahoo                                       --- --- Petitioner
                                 Versus
     1.The Union of India through the Director General, Council of
       Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi
     2.The Director, National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur
     3.The Controller of Administration, NML, Jamshedpur
     4.The Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi
     5.The Secretary, Distance Education Bureau (DEB), New Delhi
     6.The Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), New Delhi
     7.The Vice Chancellor, Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur
                                                          --- --- Respondents
                                       .......

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY Through Video Conferencing For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate (AICTE) : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate ( CSIR & NML) : Mr. Laxman Kumar, Advocate (U.G.C.) : Mr. Madan Prasad, CGC ( U.O.I)

05/27.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The writ petition was earlier admitted for hearing vide order dated 19.12.2018. Today it has been posted under the heading for orders on I.A. No. 1785 of 2019 for stay of the impugned order and early hearing of the petition. However, with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself in the following manner:

Applicant, who is the writ petitioner approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2018 passed in O.A. /051/00090/2017 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, circuit sitting at Ranchi. As the undisputed facts disclose, applicant was appointed on the post of Group-II(3), Senior Technician-1 in CSIR- National Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur in 2007 on the basis of a diploma in Mechanical Engineering from Utkalmani Gopabandhu Institute of Engineering, Rourkela, Orissa. During service he enrolled himself in B.Tech decree course in Mechanical Engineering at Janardan Rai Nagar Vidyapeeth Rajasthan via distance education in the year 2005 for the academic session 2005-2008 and was awarded the B.Tech degree in 2010 upon passing of the examination in 2008. Thereafter he was granted study leave for one year to complete M.Tech degree course from National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur in 2010. In 2014 he was promoted from the post of Group-II(2) to Group-II(3) with benefit of two years early assessment based on B.Tech degree qualifications.

N.M.L., Jamshedpur issued an advertisement for the post of Technician, Tech. Assistant and Senior Technical Officer vide Advertisement No. 2/2015. Applicant applied to the higher grade post of Senior Technical Officer/ Grade-III (4), which required essential qualification of B.E. / B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) with 55% marks. After interview he was declared successful for the post vide notification dated 21.01.2016 and was appointed vide letter dated 05.02.2016. However, his joining was kept in abeyance. He submitted a representation for redressal of his grievance. Later he has been served with order dated 30.01.2017 whereby his offer of appointment has been cancelled on the following ground:

"Clarification received from CSIR-HQ vide above letter reference in which CSIR-HQ in consultation with the competent authority of University Grant Commission and All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has categorically clarified that B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) degree obtained by you from JRN University is not recognized degree for eligibility for the purpose of Government employment".

3. Applicant therefore approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) being aggrieved. Learned CAT took into account the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vrs. Rabi Sankar Patro & others along with analogous cases (judgment dated 03.11.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017). Before the learned CAT, petitioner had contended that the degree of B.Tech awarded by the J.R.N University on 05.07.2010 for the academic session 2005-2008 is protected by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as it applies to all those students who had taken admission for the academic session 2001-2005.

4. Learned CAT negatived this contention referring to para 46,47,48,52 and 53 of the judgment in the case of Rabi Sankar Patro (supra) and held as under:

"8. In view of the above stated clear dicta of law on the issue of validity of the degree awarded by the J.R.N. University the submission of the applicant is devoid of merit. The applicant had received the degree in 2010 by J.R.N. University for the examination passed for the academic session 2005-2008, the Hon'ble Apex Court had clearly laid down that the degree after the academic session 2001-2005 treated as cancelled, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the present O.A.

The order dated 30.01.2017 for cancellation of appointment of the applicant is inconsonance with the terms and condition stated in the said appointment letter. The applicant was on probation and before the probation period complete, the respondents i.e., employer herein had found that the applicant does not have valid degree of B.Tech which is mandatory for the appointment as Senior Technical Officer, Grade-III(4). It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgment that power lies with the appointing authority which is at liberty to put an end of the service of probationer if they found that the employment sought by the applicant on the basis of invalid educational qualification, therefore, the order dated 30.01.2017 issued by the respondents cannot be faulted and cannot said to be passed in violation of principle of natural justice. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is not sustainable.

9. In view of what is discussed herein above and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), the applicant is not entitled for any relief. As the O.A. is devoid of merit, accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs."

5. Learned CAT found that the issue of validity of degree awarded by the J.R.N University raised by the applicant is devoid of merits. Applicant had received the degree in 2010 by the J.R.N University for the examination passed for the academic session 2005-2008. Learned Tribunal was apparently of the view that the decision of the Apex court is to the effect that degree obtained after the academic session 2001- 2005 shall be treated as cancelled.

6. To complete the narrative, it is pertinent to refer to the clarification contained in the order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Annexure-20) in M.A. Nos.1795-1796 of 2017 in the same Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017. The directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 7, 8 and 9 are profitably quoted herein under as they have direct bearing upon the case of the applicant/ petitioner:

"7] We now turn to the general submission advanced by all the learned counsel that the candidates after securing the degrees in Engineering through distance education mode, have advanced in career and that their ability was tested at various levels and as such requirement of passing the examination in terms of the judgment be dispensed with in their case. We cannot make any such exception. The infirmity in their degrees is basic and fundamental and cannot be wished away. At the same time, we find some force in their submission that if the suspension of their degrees and all advantages were to apply as indicated in the judgment, the concerned candidates may lose their jobs and even if they were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs and present position would pose some difficulty.

We, therefore, as a one-time relaxation in favour of those candidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001- 2005 and who, in terms of the judgment, are eligible to appear at the test to be conducted by AICTE direct:-

a] All such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcoming test to be conducted by AICTE in May-June 2018 and who exercise option to appear at the test in terms of the judgment, can retain the degrees in question and all the advantages flowing therefrom till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018 whichever is earlier.

b] This facility is given as one-time exception so that those who have the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt itself, should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the advantages. But if they fail or choose not to appear, the directions in the judgment shall apply, in that the degrees and all advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that no more such chances or exceptions will be given or made. They will undoubtedly be entitled to appear on the second occasion in terms of the judgment but this exception shall not apply for such second attempt.

c] We direct AICTE to conduct the text in May-June 2018 and declare the result well in time, in terms of our directions in the judgment and this Order. AICTE shall however extend the time to exercise the option to appear at the test suitably.

8] Except for the directions given in the preceding paragraph i.e. paragraph 7 and the clarification as regards courses leading to award of diplomas as mentioned hereinabove, we reject all the other submissions.

9] All applications, petitions and writ petitions stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs."

7. A perusal thereof gives a clear impression that one time relaxation has been granted for those candidates who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 and who, in terms of the judgment, were eligible to appear at the test to be conducted by AICTE in May-June 2018. This facility was given as one time exception so that those who have the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt itself, should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the advantages. No more chances or exceptions will be given or made. However such candidates will be entitled to appear on the second occasion but this exception shall not apply for such second attempt. AICTE was directed to extend the time to exercise the option to appear at the test suitably. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 8 observed that except for the directions given in the preceding paragraph i.e., para 7 and the clarification as regards courses leading to award of diplomas as mentioned hereinabove, all other submissions were rejected. It is not in dispute that the applicant appeared in the test and succeeded.

8. In this background, the statements of the respondents AICTE at para 12 and 13 of their counter affidavit is quoted hereunder:

12. That the answering respondent states that accordingly the petitioner appeared in the examnation conducted by AICTE- UGC in the month of June, 2018 and passed the above examination and his B.Tech degree was duly validated by AICTE-UGC.

13. That the answering respondent states that since the B.Tech degree of the petitioner has been validated by AICTE- UGC, contention of the petitioner for reviewing his case on the ground of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 03.11.2017 may be considered."

As evident therefrom B.Tech degree of the petitioner is validated by the UGC- AICTE. AICTE is also of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner for reviewing his case on the ground of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.11.2017 may be considered.

9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner; respondent Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)- NML, Jamshedpur; respondent-AICTE and respondent- U.G.C. as well. The issue in controversy in the instant writ petition is only to the extent as to whether the applicant falls within the exception granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 03.11.2017 read with the clarification contained in the order dated 22.01.2018, para 7 whereof has been quoted herein above. The applicant claims that being enrolled during academic years 2001-2005 i.e., for the sessions 2005-2008, for pursing B.Tech degree from J.R.N. University, Rajasthan, applicant was covered by the exception granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also succeeded in the first attempt in the test conducted by the AICTE. AICTE in its response has also stated that petitioner appeared in the said examination conducted by it in the month of June 2018 and passed his B.Tech examination, degree of which was duly validated by the UGC- AICTE.

10. Learned counsel for the CSIR- NML, Jamshedpur however has supported the view taken by the learned Tribunal that only those candidates who had passed the examination in the academic session 2001-2005 were covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rabi Sankar Patro (supra). Petitioner having passed the examination in the academic session 2005-2008 could not get any relief. However, from a reading of the clarification contained at para 7 of the order dated 22.01.2018 by the Apex Court, quoted hereinabove and on consideration

of the stand of the AICTE in its counter affidavit at para 12 and 13, quoted hereinabove as well, we are of the view that the line of reasoning taken by the respondent CSIR- NML, Jamshedpur and accepted by the learned CAT does not hold good. The impugned order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned CAT, circuit sitting at Ranchi dismissing the original application on the premise that applicant is not covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rabi Sankar Patro (supra), does not appear to be correct on a complete reading of the judgment of the Apex Court along with the clarification contained in the order dated 22.01.2018 and the stand taken by the AICTE as well. Accordingly, the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned CAT is set aside. The order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner dated 30.01.2017 is also quashed. Respondent CSIR- NML, Jamshedpur are required to take an informed decision on the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Senior Technical Officer/ Grade-III(4) in accordance with law and subject to fulfillment of the other eligibility conditions if any, as prescribed under the advertisement in question within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. I.A. No.1785 of 2019 stands disposed of.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

A.Mohanty