Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs P.Palanivel on 25 February, 2022
W.A.No.348 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No. 348 of 2022 and
C.M.P.No.2770 of 2022
The Commissioner
Erode Corporation,
Erode. ... Appellant
-vs-
1. P.Palanivel
2. The Director of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005. .... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order
dated 01.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.17575 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.Silambannan
Additional Advocate General II
Assisted by
Mr.M.Rajamathivanan
For Respondents : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy (R1)
*****
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.348 of 2022
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN.,J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ.,J
The Appellant who is the 2nd Respondent in the Writ Petition has filed this Writ
Appeal, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.09.2021 made in
W.P.No.17575 of 2021, in allowing the Writ Petition in respect of grant of promotion.
2. The Writ Petitioner, who has completed B.Tech Degree course through
Distance Education in Karnataka State Open University, Mysore in the year 2013-2014
has not been considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer on the ground that in terms
of Government Order in G.O.149, Higher Education (J2) Department dated 22.07.2016,
Diploma/B.E. Degree qualification obtained through Distance Education was not
equivalent. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition in W.P.No.17575 of 2021 has been
filed.
3. The learned Single Judge relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.3884 of 2019 dated 04.02.2021 has granted relief to the Writ
Petitioner on the ground that the candidate viz., Writ Petitioner has already enrolled with
the Karnataka State Open University during the year 2011-2012 and completed in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.348 of 2022
year 2013-2014.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General-II appearing for the Appellant
submitted that in G.O.Ms. 149 dated 22.07.2016, it has been categorically mentioned
that Diploma/B.E. Degree qualification acquired through Distance Education was not
equivalent based on the policy taken by AICTE. He further submitted that the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (C) No.1341 of 2019 dated 18.09.2020 has granted
the relief to the Petitioners therein as one time measure for the year 2010-2011 and
2011-2012, since there is no distance education courses in IGNOU after the aforesaid
academic years. It is further represented that the Appellant will have to follow the
norms of AICTE, for which AICTE needs to be heard in the matter, but the learned
Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition at the admission stage itself and therefore, the
order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
6. A reading of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would make it very
clear that the parties were issued with notice and thereafter arguments were advanced at
the admission stage. Therefore, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.348 of 2022
General that the case was decided at the stage of admission itself without hearing
AICTE cannot be accepted and the AICTE cannot be heard at this distant point of time,
as the approval of AICTE is not an issue, and the issue is, whether Degree/Diploma
obtained through Distance Education through open University can be considered or not.
7. In this context, it would be useful to extract relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.149
dated 22.07.2016, which reads as follows:
Resolution No.12
Public Services- Educational Based on the policy decision
Qualification-Diploma/B.E. degree taken by AICTE, BE degree
qualification acquired through Distance awarded through distance
Education mode- Whether can be education is considered as not
considered as equivalent to the equivalent.
qualification acquired through regular
stream for the purpose of employment
in public services.
8. From the above, it is clear that the rights accrued to the candidates who have
acquired the Degree prior to the aforesaid G.O. cannot be simply taken away. The
learned Single Judge, by following the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.3884 of 2019, in which Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed
has granted relief to the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, we are not inclined to take a
different view in this matter and we find no merits in this Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.348 of 2022
10. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. As the time has already expired,
further period of three months is granted to comply with the order of this Court. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.V.N., J.,] [M.S.Q., J]
25.02.2022
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
arr
To
The Director of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.348 of 2022
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ.,J
arr
W.A.No.348 of 2022
25.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
