[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs Smt Indira Shankar on 28 November, 2025
-1-
WA No. 1201 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1201 OF 2024 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
OVERHAUL DIVISION
BANGALORE COMPLEX
P.B. NO. 1786,
BANGALORE - 560 017
REPRESENTED BY IT'S
GENERAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT. INDIRA SHANKAR
by SUMATHY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
KANNAN W/O SRI LATE E SHANKAR
Location: High FLAT NO. DS8, SVS
Court of ANANDA NILAYAM
Karnataka YERRAIANA PALYA
RAMAMURTHYNAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 016.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
-2-
WA No. 1201 of 2024
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER
NO.O/HR/Misc/664/1795-B/2014 DATED 04.06.2014 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT APPENDED TO THE
PETITION AS ANNEXURE F.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited [hereafter
'HAL'] ‒ a public sector undertaking, under the aegis of the
Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India ‒ has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 01.04.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.30867/2014 (S-PRO)
captioned 'Smt. Indira Shankar v. M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics
Limited'. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent
impugning an order dated 04.06.2014 cancelling the respondent's
promotion order dated 01.07.2013, whereby the respondent was
promoted to the post of Grade - III. Consequently, the respondent
was reverted to the post of HR Officer (Grade-II). The said
reversion order was premised on the basis that the respondent did
not hold the necessary qualification for grant of promotion from
Grade-II to Grade-III.
2. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The
learned Single Judge held that the reversion order dated
04.06.2014 was based on a circular dated 20.09.2012 [the 2012
Circular], de-recognizing the qualifications acquired from Bharatiya
Vidya Bhavan, Rajendra Prasad Institute of Communication and
Management, Mumbai, issued by the General Manager of HAL.
The learned Single Judge found that the General Manager had no
authority to de-recognize any qualification and the aforementioned
Circular was without any statutory basis. Additionally, the Court
held that institutions such as Rajendra Prasad Institute of
Communication Studies operated under the ambit of Indian law and
the diplomas conferred by such institutions affiliated to recognized
entities, such as Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, are presumed to adhere
to the prevailing standards of educational quality and integrity,
absent any evidence to the contrary. Aggrieved by the said
decision, HAL has preferred the present appeal.
Prefatory facts:
3. HAL is a public sector undertaking, inter alia, engaged in
manufacturing, supply and over-hauling of Fighter and Transport
Aircrafts and Helicopters. It also provides a range of ancillary
services. The respondent took up employment with HAL in the
year 1984. During her employment with HAL, she acquired the
qualification of the Bachelor of Arts from Mysore University in the
year 1986.
4. The respondent obtained a Post Graduate Diploma in
Personnel Management and Industrial Relations from Bharatiya
Vidya Bhavan, Rajendra Prasad Institute of Communication and
Management, Mumbai [hereafter 'the Institute'] during April 2004.
The said qualification was entered in the respondent's personal
records on 23.08.2004.
5. Thereafter, in the year 2005, the respondent was promoted
to Grade I Officer. Subsequently, the respondent was further
promoted to the post of Joint Executive Assistant (Grade II) with
effect from 01.07.2009. The said post was subsequently re-
categorized/re-classified as 'HR Officer'.
6. HAL issued a Circular dated 11.08.2006 [the 2006 Circular],
which prescribed eligibility criteria for promotions in Non-Technical
Disciplines to persons possessing professional qualifications. In
terms of the 2006 Circular, a candidate possessing PG Degree/
Diploma in the concerned discipline involving a course of one-year
duration, from a recognized University/Institution was eligible for
promotion. The relevant extract of the 2006 Circular is set out
below:
"iii) Workmen in Scales-8, 9 & 10 possessing the
Qualification of University Degree + PG Degree/Diploma in
the concerned Discipline (of atleast one year duration
acquired from a recognized University/Institution before
23.6.06) (as against the date of 30.11.03 indicated in
Corporate Office Circular No.HAL/P&A/DM(N)/27(1)/97/623
dated 18th Nov. 2004), will be eligible for consideration for
promotion against the vacancies earmarked for
professionally Qualified Workmen, on completion of one year
service in Scale-8, in the concerned Non-Technical
Discipline. Further, Workmen in Scales-8, 9 & 10 possessing
the qualification of University Degree/Diploma in Engg. +
Graduate Diploma in Materials Management (GDMM should
have been acquired before 23.6.06) would be eligible for
consideration for promotion in the IMM Discipline (Purchase
& Stores Depts), against vacancies earmarked for
Professionally Qualified workmen, on completion of one year
Service in Scale-8."
7. The Vigilance Department of HAL undertook a verification on
the recognition of the status of the Institute, Bharatiya Vidya
Bhavan, Rajendra Prasad Institute of Communication and
Management, Mumbai and it was ascertained that the Institute was
not affiliated to any recognized University. It was also not accorded
any recognition by the University Grants Commission [UGC] or All
India Council for Technical Education [AICTE]. The Director and
Regional Officer, AICTE, Northern Regional Office confirmed that
the Institute was not approved by AICTE. Further, the Regional
Officer, AICTE, Western Regional Office, also confirmed that the
Institute was never approved by AICTE.
8. The HAL states that after receipt of report of the Vigilance
Department, the Corporate Office of HAL issued the 2012 Circular
stating that the qualification acquired by any candidate from the
Institute would not be considered as a professional qualification
and will not be recognized for the purpose of recruitment and
promotions in HAL.
9. HAL also states that although the 2012 Circular was issued
to all Departments, including HR Department of HAL, the
respondent's name featured in the promotion list, notwithstanding
that she did not satisfy the eligibility conditions. It is also contented
on behalf of HAL that it is possible that the respondent deliberately
included her name in the list of eligible candidates/officers.
10. On 11.07.2013, the respondent was promoted to the post of
Deputy Manager (HR), Grade III in Human Resource Department
of the Overhaul Division of HAL with effect from 01.07.2013. The
said promotion was granted on the premise that the respondent
had acquired a Post Graduate Diploma in the concerned discipline
from a recognized University/Institution prior to 23.06.2006. HAL
states that it subsequently discovered that the said premise was
erroneous as the respondent had not acquired Post Graduate
qualification from a recognized University/Institution. Accordingly,
the reversion order dated 04.06.2014 was passed, cancelling the
respondent's promotion order dated 11.07.2013 and reverting her
to the post of Grade-II with effect from 01.07.2013.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred the
writ petition asserting that the Institute was recognized by the
Government of India [GOI] and consequently the 2012 Circular was
not given effect to. She claimed that she was promoted to the post
of Deputy Manager (HR), Grade III in the Human Resources
Department of Overhaul Division of HAL, as she satisfied the
eligibility conditions.
Reasons and Conclusion:
12. The principal question that falls for our consideration is
whether the respondent had satisfied the eligibility condition for
promotion as set out in the 2006 Circular; that is, whether the
respondent possessed a Post Graduate Degree/Diploma (of at
least one year duration acquired from a recognized
University/Institution before 23.06.2006) in the concerned
discipline.
13. The term 'University' is defined under Section 2(f) of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [UGC Act]. The term
'deemed University' is defined under Section 3 of the UGC Act. The
said provisions are set out below:
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,--
(a) *** *** ***
(b) *** *** ***
(c) *** *** ***
(d) *** *** ***
(e) *** *** ***
(f) "University" means a University established or
incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial
Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution
as may, in consultation with the University
concerned, be recognized by the Commission in
accordance with the regulations made in this behalf
under this Act.
** ** ** **
3. Application of Act to institutions for higher studies
other than Universities.--The Central Government may, on
the advice of the Commission, declare, by notification in the
Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education,
other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University
for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being
made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such
institution as if it were a University within the meaning of
clause (f) of Section 2.
14. The Institute is neither a University within the meaning of
Section 2(f) of the UGC Act nor deemed University under Section 3
of the UGC Act. It is also relevant to refer to clauses (g), (h) and (i)
of Section 2 of the All India Council of Technical Education Act,
1987 [AICTE Act]. The said clauses are set out below:
2. Definitions.- *** *** *** ***
"(g) "technical education" means programmes of
education, research and training in engineering
technology, architecture, town planning,
management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts
and such other programme or areas as the Central
Government may, in consultation with the Council,
by notification in the Official Gazette, declare;
h) "technical institution' means an institution, not
being a University which offers courses or
programmes of technical education, and shall
include such other institutions as the Central
Government may, in consultation with the Council,
by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as
technical institutions;
(i) "University" means a University defined under
clause (f) of section 2 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) and includes an
- 10 -
institution deemed to be a University under
section 3 of that Act."
15. Although the Institute falls within the broad definition of
"technical institution" as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE
Act, however, there is no dispute that AICTE has not accorded any
recognition to the Institute. Clearly, the Institute is not recognized
by AICTE, which is the statutory body charged with the function of
maintaining the standards of technical education.
16. The Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social
Welfare (Department of Education) issued an Office Memorandum
dated 15.01.1979 recognizing the Diplomas in Journalism; Public
Relations; and Marketing and Sales Management awarded by
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan (the Institute) for the purposes of
recruitment to superior posts and services in the appropriate field
under the Central Government. The same was further confirmed
by the Government of India by an Office Memorandum dated
29.04.1980. The Government of Karnataka had also recognized
the said diplomas by orders dated 12.02.1979 and 11.02.1982.
17. It is the respondent's case that in view of the Office
Memorandum issued by the Government of India and the
Government of Karnataka, the diploma granted by the Institute is
- 11 -
considered as recognized for the purposes of HAL's Circular dated
11.08.2006. The question whether the Government could accord
any recognition to technical courses and the role of AICTE in
technical education, fell for consideration of Supreme Court in
Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab :
(2019) 16 SCC 95. In the aforesaid context, the Supreme court
Court observed as under:
"38. The role of AICTE in technical and management
education was emphasised in National Policy of Education,
published by the Government of India in 1986, which was
noted by this Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. case
[Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro,
(2018) 1 SCC 468]. The Regulations concerned issued by
AICTE in the year 1994 were also considered under which
no course or programme could be introduced by any
technical institution except with the approval of AICTE. Paras
23.2 and 23.3 of the decision had extracted relevant portions
of the National Policy of Education and the Regulations
concerned of AICTE as under: (SCC pp. 497-98)
"23.2. In 1986, National Policy on Education was
published by the Government of India, Part VI of which
dealt with Technical and Management Education,
Paras 6.6, 6.8 and 6.19 of the Policy were-
'6.6. In view of the present rigid entry requirements to
formal courses restricting the access of a large
segment of people to technical and managerial
education, programmes through a distance learning
process, including use of the mass media will be
offered. Technical and management education
programmes, including education in polytechnics, will
also be on a flexible modular pattern based on credits,
with provision for multi-point entry. A strong guidance
and counselling service will be provided.
- 12 -
***
6.8. Appropriate formal and non-formal programmes of
technical education will be devised for the benefit of
women, the economically and socially weaker sections,
and the physically handicapped.
***
6.19. The All India Council for Technical Education,
which has been given statutory status, will be
responsible for planning, formulation and maintenance
of norms and standards, accreditation, funding of
priority areas, monitoring and evaluation, maintaining
parity of certification and awards and ensuring the
coordinated and integrated development of technical
and management education. Mandatory periodic
evaluation will be carried out by a duly constituted
Accreditation Board. The Council will be strengthened
and it will function in a decentralised manner with
greater involvement of State Governments and
technical institutions of good quality.'
23.3. The AICTE (Grant of Approval for Starting New
Technical Institutions, Introduction of Courses or
Programmes and Approval of Intake Capacity of Seats
for Courses or Programmes) Regulations were issued
in 1994 ("the 1994 AICTE Regulations", for short).
Clause 4 of these Regulations was to the following
effect:
'4.0. Requirement of grant of approval
4.1. After the commencement of these Regulations,
(a) No new Technical Institution or University Technical
Department shall be started; or
(b) No course or programme shall be introduced by any
Technical Institution, University including a Deemed
University or University Department or College or;
(c) No Technical Institution, University or Deemed
University or University Department or College shall
- 13 -
continue to admit students for Degree or Diploma
courses or programmes;
(d) No approved intake capacity of seats shall be
increased or varied;
Except with the approval of the Council."
39. It was laid down in the said decision that AICTE is the
sole repository of power to lay down parameters or
qualitative norms for "technical education" and that it was
within the exclusive domain of AICTE to consider whether
subjects leading to degrees in Engineering could be taught in
distance education mode or not. The issue whether courses
leading to degrees in engineering could be taught through
distance education learning was dealt with in extenso. It was
laid down that by very nature, practical training would be an
essential and integral part of engineering courses and that
until and unless a clear policy was laid down by AICTE, no
courses in engineering could be taught or imparted through
distance education mode. It was held that in the absence of
any guidelines having been issued by AICTE expressly
permitting courses leading to degrees in Engineering through
distance education, no such courses could be introduced.
The consistent, stand taken by AICTE was also noted in
the said judgment".
18. The Supreme Court has, in unambiguous terms, held that
after enactment of AICTE Act, the field concerning technical
education would fall within the domain of AICTE and no other
authority, including the Ministry of Human Resource Development
would have any power to recognize any qualification equivalent to
a degree. We consider it apposite to extract the following
paragraphs from the said decision:
- 14 -
"42. In terms of Section 22(1) of the UGC Act, right to confer
degrees can be exercised only by a university established
or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act
or a State Act or by an institution deemed to be a university
under Section 3 of the UGC Act or by an institution specially
empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant
degrees. The idea appearing in sub-section (1) of the said
Section 22 is made emphatically clear by sub-section (2)
which stipulates:
"Save as provided in sub-section (1), no
person or authority shall confer, or grant, or
hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer
or grant, any degree".
The intent of Parliament is clear that it is only that body
which is referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 22, that is
competent to confer or grant degrees. The appellant does
not fall under any of these categories enumerated in
Section 22(1) of the UGC Act.
43. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro,
(2018) 1 SCC 468, it also arose for consideration whether a
deemed to be university, without taking appropriate prior
permission could start courses leading to degrees in
Engineering through open distance learning. That aspect of
the matter does not arise in the present case and it is also
not the case of the appellant, that it is entitled to award
degrees in Engineering. Its submission however is, having
been conferred the status of being equivalent to degrees in
Engineering in respect of certificates awarded by it, the
appellant is entitled to continue having such benefit or
advantage. There is nothing on record either in the form of
any statutory provision or any statutory regulations or any
scheme under which such equivalence could be granted by
MHRD. It appears that claims made by various institutions
like the appellant were considered on case-to-case basis
and equivalence was granted by MHRD. The first of those
communications was of the year 1976 when the AICTE Act
was not in force. If the mandate of Section 22 disentitles
any authority or person other than those specified in Section
- 15 -
22(1) to award degrees, there is no power or authority in
anyone including MHRD to award such equivalence.
***
46. In the present case, the communication dated 26-5-
1976 under which the certificate issued by the appellant
was recognised to be equivalent to a degree in Mechanical
Engineering from a recognised Indian University, does not
indicate any statutory provision under which such
equivalence could be granted or conferred. This point
becomes more crucial, as after the enactment of the AICTE
Act, the entirety of the field concerning "technical education"
is kept in the domain of AICTE by Parliament. Section 10 of
the AICTE Act entitles AICTE not only to lay down norms
and standards for courses, curriculum and such other facets
of "technical education" but also entitles it under clause (l)
to advise the Central Government in respect of grant of
charter to any professional body or institution in the
field of technical education conferring powers, rights and
privileges, etc. Going by the width of the power, after the
enactment of the AICTE Act, even such privileges could be
conferred only after express advice of AICTE and within the
confines of various statutory provisions.
(emphasis added)
47. Consequently, neither can the appellant claim, as a
matter of right to be entitled to confer any degree nor can it
claim that certificate awarded by it must be reckoned to be
equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering."
19. The learned Single Judge had rightly concluded that the
General Manager (HR) of HAL, was not empowered to recognize
or de-recognize any qualification conferred by the Institute
(Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan).
- 16 -
20. As stated above, HAL is a public sector enterprise, which
obviously does not have the jurisdiction to recognize or
de-recognize any course, either Degree or Diploma. Having stated
the above, it is also clear that the Institute is not recognized by
AICTE to confer any Degree or Diploma. The 2012 Circular was
premised on the information gathered by the Vigilance Wing to the
aforesaid effect.
21. As held by the Supreme Court in the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab (supra), after
the enactment of the AICTE Act, the entire field concerning
technical education falls within the domain of AICTE. Concededly,
the Institute is not recognized by the AICTE and therefore, the
post-graduate diploma conferred by the Institute to the respondent
in the discipline of Industrial Relations and Personnel Management,
is not a recognized qualification.
22. The Office Memorandum dated 29.04.1980 issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Education and Culture,
Department of Education, does not further the case of the
respondent. By virtue of the said Official Memorandum, the
provisional recognition accorded by the Department of Education to
the Diploma in Industrial Relations and Personnel Management
- 17 -
awarded by the Institute, was confirmed. However, the said
notification expressly states that the same is issued for purposes of
recruitment to superior posts and services under the Central
Government in the appropriate field.
23. Secondly, after the enactment of the AICTE Act, only the
AICTE can set the standards of technical education and grant
accreditation to Institutions rendering technical education.
24. It is also contended that HAL is a separate and independent
entity and is thus entitled to determine the norms for recruitment
and promotions of its employees. HAL had specifically averred in
its statement of objections that it "does not merely follow
Government orders of recognition of educational qualifications for
recruitment and promotions". Thus, unless such orders are
adopted by the HAL as its policy, the same would not determine
the entitlement of candidates to recruitment or promotions. It is
also material to note that the respondent claims that she was
entitled to promotion from Grade-II to Grade-III on the basis of the
2006 Circular issued by HAL. HAL has subsequently clarified, by
the 2012 Circular, that Diploma with qualifications from the said
Institute, "will not be considered as recognized / Professional
Qualifications for the purposes of Recruitments and Promotions in
- 18 -
the Company, henceforth." The use of the word 'henceforth', makes
it amply clear that the 2012 Circular is applicable prospectively.
Thus, the respondent's promotion from Grade-I to Grade-II in the
HR Department with effect from 01.07.2009, was not disturbed.
25. We may also note that the respondent had not impugned the
2012 Circular, in as much as, no prayer was sought to set aside the
same. We are not persuaded to accept that the respondent was
entitled to promotion, contrary to the HAL's policy.
26. In the given circumstances, we find no infirmity with the order
dated 04.06.2014 in terms of which the respondent was reverted
back to Grade-II with effect from 01.07.2009. The appeal is,
accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is set-aside.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SD / KS
