Madras High Court
K.S.M.Ravichandran vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director on 5 August, 2024
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.4814 of 2023
and W.M.P.No.4836 of 2023
K.S.M.Ravichandran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Secretary,
Secretarial Branch,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
N.P.K.R.R. No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in connection
with the impugned Memo (Per.) No.29239/A16/A162/2019-1 dated 01.10.2022,
issued by 2nd respondent insofar as sanctioning 2 advance increments/incentive
increments for P.G. degree M.E. (Power Systems) to the petitioner under Clause
5(i) with effect from the day following the last day of the P.G. degree validation
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examination conducted by AICTE-UGC, quash the same and further direct the
respondents 1 and 2 to sanction advance increments/ incentive increments for P.G.
degree from January-2008, namely from the date on which the petitioner acquired
the P.G. Degree.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajkumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned memo dated
01.10.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent insofar as sanctioning two advance
increments/incentive increments for the P.G. Degree to the petitioner only from June
2018 onwards.
2.Heard Mr.K.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr.K.Rajkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in
TANGEDCO. The respondents through Board proceedings dated 04.09.1985,
assured advance increments/incentive increments for the Engineers who acquired
P.G. Degree. The petitioner acquired his P.G. Degree in December 2007 through
Distance Education mode from Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, Salem.
4.The validity of the degrees issued by the deemed university became a
subject matter of challenge and the Apex Court held that all those candidates who
wish to appear in the test conducted by the AICTE, can exercise their option and
appear in the test and they 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
31.07.2018 whichever is earlier.
5.The petitioner attended the test conducted by the AICTE and passed the
eligibility test and his P.G. Degree was validated from June 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.In the light of the above development, approval was accorded to sanction
advance increments for those who completed the P.G. Degree from the date of the
validation examination conducted by AICTE.
7.The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by TANGEDCO by
confining the relief only from 2018 and whereas, the petitioner is seeking for the
relief from the year 2007 onwards when he originally passed the P.G. Degree.
8.I had an occasion to deal with a similar issue in W.P.No.33033 of 2019.
That was a case where the petitioners therein were seeking for designation as
Assistant Engineers from the year 2009 onwards and to fit them accordingly in the
seniority list. While dealing with this issue, this Court dealt with the judgement of
the Apex Court and held as follows:
17.Before venturing into the issue that has been
raised in the present Writ Petition, it is important to understand
the nature and purport of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Since the petitioners are pitching their rights
upon this judgment, this Court has to necessarily go into this
issue at the threshold, before considering the claim made by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioners.
18.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the
petitioners had joined Vinayaka Mission University in the year
2005 and they have all completed B.E (Mechanical) Engineering
through Distance Education Programme, in the year 2009. The
degree given by this University and similarly placed deemed
Universities, became questionable and the matter ultimately
reached the Apex Court. The Apex Court, after considering the
claims and counter claims and also keeping in mind the interest
of the students, issued certain directions and the same has been
extracted supra.
19.The Hon'ble Supreme Court suspended the degrees
of all those students who underwent the course in those deemed
Universities and completed the course. The AICTE was directed to
conduct a test to all the concerned students, who underwent the
course in those deemed Universities. Those students were given
two chances to clear the test and if they clear the test within those
two chances, all the advantages/benefits was directed to be
restored to them and their degrees will stand fully revived.
20.It is true that the petitioners were not parties in the
above proceedings. However, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Supreme Court was in the nature of a judgment in Rem and
therefore, it had a binding effect on all those students, who had
undergone the course in the concerned deemed Universities. That
is the reason why, the AICTE permitted the petitioners to take the
test and the petitioners also cleared the same in the second
chance. Pursuant to the same, the AICTE also issued a certificate
for validation of the degree during December 2018. By granting
such a validation, the degrees obtained by the petitioners in the
year 2009 from Vinayaka Mission University stood fully revived.
This is very clear from the language used by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above order. In the considered view of this Court, the
subsequent Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
review petition, will not have any bearing to the facts of the
present case since that Order only covered those persons, who
obtained a benefit on the basis of a degree granted by the
deemed Universities. Admittedly, in this case the petitioners did
not obtain any benefit pursuant to the degree granted to them in
the year 2009.
21.The Service Regulations of TANGEDCO provides
as follows:
“Junior Engineers (Mechanical) I Grade, who are
holders of a diploma in Mechanical Engineering and who
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have subsequently acquired a Degree in Mechanical
Engineering, shall be permitted to be redesignated as
Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) and appointed to the post
of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical), if there are regular
vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers (Mechanical)”.
22.It is clear from the above regulation that the
Junior Engineers (Mechanical), who acquire a decree in
Mechanical Engineering subsequently are eligible to be
redesignated as Assistant Engineers (Mechanical) and are eligible
to be appointed in the said post, if there are regular vacancies.
23.In the present case, the petitioners had made
representations to the 2nd respondent from the year 2009 onwards
to redesignate them as Assistant Engineers (Mechanical). These
representations were not considered by the respondents since the
respondents were not sure about the degrees obtained by the
petitioners. Subsequently, the issue reached the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to
consider the claim made by the petitioners. The petitioners also
cannot be blamed and they cannot be found fault on the ground of
delay since the entire dispute regarding the degrees obtained by
them from Vinayaka Mission University, came to an end only in
November 2017 and the petitioners also cleared the test
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
subsequently in the year 2018 and got their degree revalidated by
AICTE during December 2018. On the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made
by the petitioners cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.
24.The next issue that requires consideration of this
Court is as to whether by fitting the petitioners in the seniority list
with effect from the year 2009, the same will dislodge a settled
seniority list and whether it will take away the rights/benefits
already obtained by the other candidates. It is clear from the
records and also the stand taken by the respondents that only in
the year 2019, the process has started for calling upon the list of
candidates from the year 2008 onwards, to be considered for
promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore,
it is not as if certain promotions have already been granted and
by fitting the petitioners in the seniority list, those benefits will get
reversed and will affect the rights of those parties. If that had
happened, certainly this Court would have been wary in
considering the claim of the petitioners. Since that situation has
not arisen in the present case, the inclusion of the petitioners in
the seniority list with effect from 2009 will not cause any
prejudice to any of the other candidates. That apart, the
petitioners are only demanding for their rightful claim and they
are not asking for any concession. The judgment relied upon by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, will not have any application to the facts of the
present case.
25.In view of the above discussion, there shall be a
direction to the 2nd respondent to redesignate the petitioners as
Assistant Engineers in accordance with the Service Regulations
and consider their seniority from the year 2009 onwards and fit
them accordingly, in the seniority list. Appropriate Orders shall
be passed in this regard within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
9.In the above case, this Court held that the order passed by the Apex Court
will not have any bearing on the facts of that case, since that order will cover those
persons who obtained the benefit on the basis of a degree granted by the deemed
University. The petitioners therein did not obtain any benefit pursuant to the degree
granted to them in the year 2009. Therefore, this Court took into consideration the
service regulations and granted the relief.
10.The same issue arose for consideration in W.P.Nos.25727 and 25728 of
2022 in S.Balakrishnan and others v. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TANGEDCO, Chennai – 600 002 dated 24.01.2024. The relevant portions in the
order are extracted hereunder:
5. As per the Board proceedings and Regulations of
Tamilnadu Electricity Board Service, the Junior Engineers Grade-
I who have acquired BE degree shall be re-designated as Assistant
Engineer if there are regular vacancies in the post of Assistant
Engineer(Electrical). Accordingly, re-designation can be
considered to those who are holding the post of Junior Engineer
Grade-I and who joined the Board based on their qualification
including Diploma qualification and subsequently acquired
Engineering degree through part time study alone and as per the
Board proceedings No.65 dated 12.08.1985 their names shall be
placed as the last person in the particular year for counting their
seniority.
6. Whereas the petitioners have completed their BE degree
through distance mode from Vinayaga Mission University.
Therefore, they were found ineligible to get the re-designation to
the post of Assistant Engineer. Immediately after completion of
their degree in Bachelor of Engineering, as directed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India though the petitioners had
cleared the Special Examinations and validated their BE degree,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
they are not eligible to be re-designated as Assistant Engineer
from the date of their completion of degree. They validated their
degree only in the month of June and December 2018.
7. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corp.Ltd. vs Rabi Sankar Patro reported in 2018 (1) SCC 468,
wherein it is held as follows:
46. Having found the entire exercise of grant of expost-
facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course
in normal circumstances would have been not only to set
aside such ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass
consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in
pursuance thereof in respect of Courses leading to award of
degrees in Engineering. However, since 2004 UGC
Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the concerned
Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post-facto
approval, the matter is required to be considered with some
sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled
during the academic sessions 2001- 2005 is protected.
Though we cannot wish away the fact that the concerned
Deemed to be Universities flagrantly violated and entered
into areas where they had no experience and started
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conducting courses through distance education system
illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned students
persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in
Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto
approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities
available at the concerned Study Centres were never checked
nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this
length of time to order any inspection. But there must be
confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the
concerned students. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to
grant some chance to the concerned students to have their
ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We,
therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted
to students who were enrolled during the academic years
2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such
examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in
the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single
advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand
suspended.
47. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month
from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct
appropriate test/tests both in written examination as well as
in practicals for the concerned students admitted during the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
academic sessions 2001- 2005 covering all the concerned
subjects. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come
out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the
tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the National
Institutes of Technology in respective States wherever the
students are located. The choice may be given to the students
to appear at the examination which ideally should be
conducted during May- June, 2018 or on such dates as
AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given
to the concerned students and if they do not pass the
test/tests their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If
a particular student does not wish to appear in the test/tests,
the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition
and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the
concerned Deemed to be University within a month of the
exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15th of
January, 2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure
for conducting the test/tests in respect of students who wish to
undergo test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned
Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. If they clear the
test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages or
benefits shall be restored to the concerned candidates. We
make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the concerned
candidates do not clear the test/tests within the time
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stipulated or choose not to appear at the test/tests, their
degrees in Engineering through distance education shall
stand recalled and cancelled. It goes without saying that any
promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such
degree shall also stand withdrawn, however any monetary
benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered
from them.
48. As regards the students who were admitted after the
ex-post-facto approval granted in favour of such Deemed to
be Universities, in our view, there was no sanction
whatsoever for their admission. The Policy Statements as well
as warnings issued from time to time were absolutely clear.
The students were admitted on the strength either provisional
recognition or on the strength of interim orders passed by the
High Court. We therefore, declare that in respect of students
admitted after the academic sessions of 2001-2005, the
degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to
be Universities through Distance Education Mode shall stand
recalled and be treated as cancelled. Any benefit which a
candidate has secured as a result of such degrees in
Engineering in the nature of promotion or advancement in
career shall also stand recalled. However, if any monetary
benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary benefit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
or advantage will not be recovered by the concerned
departments or employers. We, further direct that the entire
amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be
Universities towards tuition fee and all other expenditure for
such courses through distance education learning shall be
returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities to the
respective students. This direction shall be complied with by
the concerned Deemed to be Universities scrupulously and
the amounts shall be returned by 31st of May, 2018 and an
appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC
within a week thereafter.
8. Thereafter, some of the applicants preferred clarification
and modifications of direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India. Considering the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India by its order dated 22.01.2018, issued the following
clarification:
"We now 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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 there from 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 fails 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 chance 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 test 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."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. In the contempt petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India further clarified that the candidates would certainly be
eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with
law, restoration would only be of those benefits, which they were
enjoying as on the date of the judgment. In short, the intent was to
restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional
advantage. Admittedly, the petitioners had no valid degree until
they cleared the Special Examinations thereby validated their
degree i.e. till the month of June and December 2018. Though the
petitioners had completed their BE degree in the year 2008, the
petitioners were not re-designated as Assistant Engineer.
Therefore, they were not enjoying any benefit based on such
degree as on the date of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India i.e. 03.11.2017. Therefore, the request
made by the petitioners were rightly rejected by the second
respondent and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the
order passed by the second respondent and the writ petitions lack
of merits. As such, the same are liable to be dismissed.
11.The ratio decidenti in the above order will squarely apply to the facts of
the present case. I'm in complete agreement with the above order passed by
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, wherein, the learned Judge has held that the
petitioners therein did not have a valid degree until they cleared the special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examination that was conducted by the AICTC. In view of the same, the learned
Judge held that they will be entitled for any benefit only from the date on which the
degree was validated.
12.The petitioner in this case had admittedly obtained the P.G. degree from
Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, Salem which was found to be invalid.
Therefore, there is no question of giving the benefit to the petitioner from December
2007 onwards. The degree itself became valid only after the AICTE conducted the
eligibility test and the validation was given in June 2018. Therefore, if at all the
P.G. degree of the petitioner is to be validated, it can be validated only from June
2018.
13.The decision taken by the respondents to grant the sanction of advance
increments from the day following the last date of the P.G. degree validation
examination conducted by AICTC is perfectly in order and it does not require the
interference of this Court.
14.In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
05.08.2024
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ssr
To
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
2.The Secretary,
Secretarial Branch,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
N.P.K.R.R. No.144, Anna Salai,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
