Punjab-Haryana High Court
All India Council For Technical ... vs Jatinder Singh And Ors on 28 September, 2022
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-474-2020 (O & M)
RA-LP-4-2021 in/and LPA-474-2020 (O & M)
LPA Nos. 433, 519 of 2020 (O & M)
LPA-648-2022 (O & M)
Reserved on: 24.08.2022
Date of Decision: 28.09.2022
All India Council for Technical Eductation ....Appellant(s)
Versus
Jatinder Singh and others ....Respondent(s)
LPA No. 433 of 2020 (O & M)
Davinder Singh and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)
LPA No. 519 of 2020 (O & M)
Raj Pal ....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)
LPA-648-2022 (O & M)
Kamal Sharma and others ....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK PURI
1 of 54
::: Downloaded on - 30-09-2022 14:31:01 :::
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters 2
Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate,
Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellants (in LPA No. 474 of 2020)
and for respondent No.3 (in LPA Nos. 433 and 519 of 2020).
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate,
for the appellants (in LPA No. 433 of 2020).
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate
with Mr. R.S. Kalra, Advocate and
Mr. Randeep Singh Smagh, Advocate
for the appellants (in LPA No. 519 of 2020).
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for the appellant (s)
(in LPA-648-2022).
Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate and
Mr. Harkirat S. Jagdev, Advocate
for respondent No.5 (in LPA Nos. 433 and 519 of 2020).
Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Advocate, for the respondent-UGC.
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondent-PSPCL.
Mr. Pushpinder Kaushal, Advocate for respondent Nos.14, 17,
18, 19, 23, 26 & 27 (in LPA No.433 of 2020).
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. The present judgment shall dispose of LPA Nos. 433, 474 and
519 of 2020 (O & M) and LPA-648-2022 (O & M) and RA-LP-4-2021 in
LPA-474-2020 as common questions of facts and law are involved in all the
matters. RA-LP-4-2021 has been filed against the interim order dated
29.01.2021 vide which CM-201-LPA-2021 had been dismissed in LPA No.
474 of 2020.
2. The said LPAs all stem out from the order of the learned Single
Judge passed in CWP No. 28211 of 2018, Jatinder Singh and others vs.
State of Punjab and others, which was allowed on 07.01.2020. The
2 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters 3
appellants herein including the All India Council for Technical Education
(in short 'the Council') and the other appellants are aggrieved against the
finding of the learned Single Judge wherein, the writ petition was allowed
and the action of the Council in changing the modality/yard stick after the
conduct of the examination was held to be bad in law. Resultantly, public
notice dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure P-6) was quashed and the subsequent
result declared on 27.07.2018. The Council was directed to re-compute the
result of the examination as per the modality and the yard stick contained in
its public notice dated 25.01.2018 (Annexure P-5). Further directions were
given that while re-computing the result, the benefit of additional marks for
the discrepant questions would only be confined to the candidates who had
attempted the same and, therefore, it was directed that the exercise be
completed and revised and result be notified within a period of 4 weeks.
The same was apparently in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge
found that the change in modality as such was in violation of the judgment
of the Apex Court dated 03.11.2017 in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
Ltd. vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 1 SCC 468 and the
subsequent order of the Apex Court dated 22.01.2018 in Orissa Lift
Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 2
SCC 298.
3. The reasoning which weighed with the learned Single Judge
was that the change of modality/yard stick by the Council was not
permissible in view of the earlier decision of the Delhi High Court which
was not interfered with by the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 952
of 2018, Sanjay Kumar and others vs. University Grants Commission and
3 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters 4
another on 14.09.2018. The unsuccessful candidates had approached the
Court and the prayer was to revise and re-fix the pass percentage at 30% and
to re-examine their case by dividing the entire examination in two parts i.e.
Theory and practical papers (80% marks) and the internal assessment to be
conducted by the Universities concerned (20% marks). It was held that the
Council did not have a license to take decisions contrary to the settled
provisions of law and make alterations once the modalities had been fixed
keeping in view the principle laid down by the Apex Court in K. Manjusree
vs. State of A.P. and another, (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Himani Malhotra vs.
High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11 which are on the issue "Of changing
the Rules after the game has started". It was found that once the
examination had been conducted between 03.06.2018 to 12.06.2018, the
objections had been dealt with by the Expert Committee while computing
the result, the Council ought to have confined the benefit of award of
additional marks in relation to the offending questions only to such
candidates who had attempted the same while placing reliance upon the
judgment in Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Saumil Garg and others,
(2005) 13 SCC 749. Resultantly, it was found that changing of yard sticks
after the conduct of the examination amounted to dilution of standards
which had already been frowned upon by the Apex Court in Orissa Lift's
case (supra) and, therefore, once the modalities had been framed and issued
vide public notice dated 25.01.2018, the alteration and dilution after the
conduct of the examination on 03.06.2018 to 12.06.2018 militated against
the very object for which the examination had been directed to be held by
the Apex Court.
4 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters 5
4. The objections regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties
and that all the candidates who had appeared and qualified the examination
ought to have been arrayed as respondents was rejected by placing reliance
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Parbodh Verma and others vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (1984) 4 SCC 251 by noting that the
1448 candidates who had qualified could not be impleaded as it was not
feasible to do so. Even otherwise, the qualified candidates were before the
Court in a representative capacity and had filed written statements and
advanced their submissions and, thus, it was not possible to join each and
one of them individually. The issue of locus and maintainability of the writ
petitioners who were holders of B. Tech degrees from recognized
institutions was upheld as it was noticed that 25 employees of the
respondent-Punjab State Power Corporation had cleared the examination
and were thus, entitled to the benefits of seniority and 40% AMIE/B. Tech
degree quota under the Service Regulations. Thus, if the conduct and
declaration of results was held valid, the writ petitioners would be adversely
effected and, thus, would have locus standi and could file the writ petition
challenging the action of the Council.
5. The challenge against the judgment in LPA Nos.433 and 474 of
2020 is obviously firstly by the private respondents who were arrayed as
private respondent Nos.5 to 29 in the writ petition apart from the challenge
by the Council. Similarly, LPA No. 519 of 2020 and LPA No. 648 of 2022
has also been filed by other aggrieved persons seeking the leave to file
appeal on the ground that they were also adversely effected.
6. In sum and substance, the brigade of senior counsels appearing
5 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters 6
questioned the locus standi of the writ petitioners on the ground that they
had objected in the written statement to the maintainability of the writ
petitions at their instance as they were neither participants in the
examination nor in any manner directly connected with it. Having not sat in
the examination, the writ petitioners were thus not entitled to maintain the
same. The appellants being successful in passing the examination which
was held under the directions of the Apex Court would have a better length
of service in accordance with the Service Rules and thus, they would have
the benefit of ranking senior to the writ petitioners in the promotional cadre.
Similarly, it is argued by Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Sunil
Chadha, Sr. Advocate that the change of modalities was a power conferred
upon the Council under the Act and recognized by the Supreme Court, thus,
it could not be questioned by the writ petitioners. It is pointed out that the
decision dated 24.09.2018 had not been quashed though challenged which
pertained to the change of modality by which best of two scores attained in
the two examinations was to be taken into account which was also a
decision as per the public notice issued by the Council. It was accordingly
argued that it is a test of ability and not on merit and it was a question
between the Council and the examinees and that by virtue of the said
decision, the result of the first examination had been modified and the
second attempt candidates would steal a march. It was, thus, the case of the
senior counsels that the change in criteria was not adversial to any person
and the judgments in K. Manjusree and Himani Malhotra (supra) were not
applicable. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in LPA No. 961 of
2021, Gurcharan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others decided
6 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters 7
by the co-ordinate Bench on 16.05.2022 and authored by one of us, G.S.
Sandhawalia, J. that the change of modality could not be held to be
prejudicial as it applied to one and all.
7. It is pointed out that the status report had to be filed by the
Council before the Apex Court and, thus, it was not justified for the learned
Single Judge to have interfered in the conduct of the said examination which
had been held under the directions of the Apex Court and to substitute his
opinion against the opinion of the experts. It was submitted that the benefit
of the examination had been granted in other departments to the examinees
and, therefore, reference was made to the promotion orders dated
24.07.2019 passed by the concerned Secretary qua the Water Resources
Department of Punjab and order dated 09.10.2020 (Annexures A-7 and A-
8), which were sought to be placed on record by way of CM-1356-LPA-
2020 in LPA-433-2020. It is accordingly argued that once they had
qualified in first test, there was no need to sit in the second test and by
initiating litigation, a right as such had been taken away to take part in the
second test in view of the directions of the learned Single Judge.
8. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Council has
submitted that since the matter regarding the issue of change of rules when
the game had started was pending before a larger Bench and the said
principle as such had been doubted in Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs.
Rajasthan High Court and others, (2013) 4 SCC 540. He also placed
reliance upon the judgment in Salam Samarjeet Singh vs. High Court of
Manipur at Imphal and others, (2016) 10 SCC 484 wherein, there was a
difference of opinion by the two Judge Bench and the matter was placed
7 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters 8
before the larger Bench for final adjudication. It is, however, pertinent to
notice that Mr. Chadha for the Council could not justify in any manner as to
why the criteria was down graded in spite of the fact that the matter had
initially also been raised before the Delhi High Court and opposed therein
by the Council at that point of time. Rather before the Apex Court when the
matter was taken in appeal in Sanjay Kumar's case (supra), only the benefit
of filing a representation was given which was to be considered.
9. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the appellants in LPA No.519 of 2020 has submitted that the appellant in his
case was working as an XEN, on Current Duty Charge, in Haryana Police
Housing Corporation and it is submitted that he is adversely affected since
he filed CWP No.1591 of 2017 seeking benefit of promotion to the post of
Executive Engineer, hearing of which was deferred on 20.01.2020 on
account of the fact that the impugned judgment had been passed on
07.01.2020 by noting that the AICTE had to revise the result and, therefore,
no final adjudication had taken place in his case. Reliance was accordingly
placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Ram Janam Singh vs.
State of U.P., (1994) 2 SCC 622 and AIR 2020 SC 4038, Sri V.N. Krishna
Murty and others vs. Sri Ravikumar and others, AIR 2020 (SC) 4038. It
was argued that all parties had not been impleaded and only employees of
the Power Corporation had been impleaded. There were as many as 1448
affected persons, who should have been impleaded and the learned Single
Judge has not rightly come to the conclusion that the respondents were
represented in a representative capacity and reliance upon Parbodh Verma's
case (supra) had been wrongly placed upon. It was argued that a public
8 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters 9
notice should have been issued as persons from different states were
affected and it was a All India test with PAN India ramifications and while
referring to Para No.47 of the judgment in Orissa Lift's case (supra).
Reliance was placed upon the pleadings in para No.16 of the writ petition
that chances of promotion were adversely effected and it was not a condition
of service and there is only a right of consideration and no absolute right of
promotion. Therefore, without putting the other persons to notice, the
learned Single Judge was in error in allowing the writ petition. It was
argued that the delay was not dealt with and the writ petition had been filed
only on 30.10.2018 after the second test had been notified and the writ
should have been dismissed on that account. The objections raised by the
concerned persons had been dealt with by experts and the persons who sat in
the examination had a vested right of the validation test which has been
taken away by the judgment and the litigation initiated, even though they
were not party.
10. The arguments were ably met by counsel for the writ petitioners
Mr. Alok Jagga by submitting that he had impleaded all the persons who
were affecting the petitioners' seniority which could have led to their
reversion. He placed reliance upon the written statement of the Corporation
to submit that the 25 employees of the Corporation had cleared the exam and
the process to allot seniority to the said persons was in progress and they
could get promotions from the post of Junior Engineers/Assistant Additional
Engineers to the rank of Assistant Engineers/Sub Divisional Officers. It was
accordingly argued that Annexure P-7 had specifically not been quashed as
it applied to persons who would get a second chance having not qualified
9 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
the first exam. Reliance was placed upon the pendency of CWP No. 16872
of 2020, Sukhdeep Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, which
had been filed and in which an interim order had also been passed
restraining the concerned persons from making any promotions from private
respondents in pursuance of the declaration of the results while referring to
the present litigation. Therefore, in such circumstances, litigation had been
initiated after taking permission from the learned Single Judge while
withdrawing CWP No. 2627 of 2019, Dheeraj Pal and another vs. State of
Punjab and others on 26.09.2019 (Annexure A-1) on the day judgment had
been reserved wherein, the second examination conducted between
16.12.2018 to 19.12.2018 had been challenged and which had been
withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition since the result had been
declared.
11. It is, thus, argued that the writ petitioners had engineering
degrees on regular side and had locus standi as the validity test directed by
the Apex Court had to be held but there could not be any dilution of
standards. The distant mode of education for technical degrees had already
been frowned upon by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1640 of
2008, Kartar Singh vs. Union of India, which view in principle had been
upheld by the Apex Court in Orissa Lift's case (supra). It is submitted that
the first dilution took place on 19.06.2018 (Annexure P-6) and was in
violation of para No.47 of the judgment of the Apex Court which had also
further ordered that CBI inquiries be made into the matter in which the
institutions had abused their position. It is accordingly argued that the
remedy lay by filing the writ petition and there was illegality by lowering
10 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
the standards by reducing it to 40% of theory and practical combined firstly
and thereafter giving the opportunity of best of both examinations on
24.09.2018. It is submitted that there was a wrong change of heart by the
experts though they had already rejected the requests received by taking a
decision on 01.05.2018 and giving of grace marks regarding the discrepancy
in the answer key was only to be given to those who had attempted the
same. The said issue as such was not being challenged by the Council also
and the change in criteria had amounted to reduction of standards. It is
accordingly the contention of Mr. Jagga, while referring to the judgment of
the Delhi High Court (Annexure R-3/6) that the Council had never objected
to the said decision, rather defended it before the said Court.
12. It is accordingly his contention that there is only a restoration
done on the basis of Para No.47 of the judgment in Orissa Lift's case
(supra) and it did not give any right to be considered for promotion. He
placed reliance upon observations made in the subsequent order of the Apex
Court in Ashok Kumar and others vs. Depinder Singh Dhesi and others,
(2019) 8 SCC 280 to submit that contempt petitions were dismissed by
making certain observations and the validation test was only to save
appointments and not to give any right of promotion. He submitted that the
locus standi of the writ petitioners was apparent as they were affected
directly and even if they did not belong to the category as such of
examinees. Reliance was placed upon Pratap Kishore Panda vs. Agni
Charan Das (2015) 17 SCC 789 and Mohammed Faizal K.A. vs. D. Sali
and others, (2017) 14 SCC 394 in this regard. While placing reliance upon
Section 10 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, it is
11 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
pointed out that it was within the ambit as such to provide suitable
performance appraisal systems in technical institutions and universities but
dilution of standards could not be permitted. Reliance was placed upon
judgment of the Apex Court in Ramjit Singh Kardam and others vs.
Sanjeev Kumar and others, (2020) 20 SCC 209 to contend that it was not a
case of raising the bar and, therefore, the argument that the said question
whether the rules of the game issue had been referred to a larger Bench in
Tej Prakash Pathak's case (supra) would not be applicable since it is the
issue of dilution of standards and violation of the orders of the Supreme
Court.
13. It is accordingly contended that there was an estoppel against
the candidates of the Council since the relief had not been granted by the
Delhi High Court on 21.05.2018 (Annexure R-3/6) and even before the
Apex Court, no relief had been granted on 14.09.2018 except to approach
the Council. The dilution having already taken place, challenge could thus
be raised. It was submitted that there was no delay as such in approaching
the Court since it had only been done after the holding of the examination.
The writ petition was only filed after benefits were given repeatedly to dilute
the standards and resultantly, the interim order had been passed firstly on
01.11.2018 by the learned Single Judge whereby, the process of promotion
had been directed to remain stayed. It is submitted that against the interim
order, SLP (C) No. 1259 of 2019, Er. Paramjit Singh and others vs. State
of Punjab and others had been preferred but no interference had been
ordered and only directions had been issued to the learned Single Judge on
18.02.2019 to decide the issue expeditiously.
12 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
14. After giving our thoughtful consideration on the issue, we are
of the consideration opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does
not suffer from any infirmity. Rather, the said judgment has addressed all
the issues keeping in view the background of the case.
Issue of maintainability of writ petition
15. It is a matter of record that the issue firstly was dilated upon by
the Division Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh's case (supra) regarding
the technical/professional courses being run through distant education mode
by 4 institutes namely Vinayaka Misson's Research Foundation, Salem,
Tamil Nadu; IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Shahar, Rajasthan; JRN
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan and Allahabad Agriculture Research
Institute, Allahabad, U.P. The prayer before this Court was to stop the
illegal education institutes imparting degrees in professional courses
through the medium of distant education and to take action against the
centers established beyond the territorial jurisdiction of such institutes. In
one order, which was subject matter of appeal before the Division Bench,
challenge was to the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court that the
degree in Engineering obtained through the medium of distant education is a
valid degree for the purpose of public appointment. The same issue as such
was raised whether such a writ petition was maintainable or not by the
persons who are beneficiaries of such education system and the Division
Bench had to deal with the vexed question whether public interest litigation
was not maintainable for the reasons it raised a service dispute. Similar is
the issue herein. Primarily, the cause of action stems from the fact that the
candidates who had given the test as such are liable to be considered for
13 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
promotion on the strength of the validation test which was being permitted
by the Apex Court. Resultantly, the Division Bench had come to the
conclusion that there was a malady of grant of degrees by shops under the
guise of study centres and, therefore, the petitioner had a right as such to
invoke the writ jurisdiction. On the same principle, the serious objection
which has been raised to the locus standi of the writ petitioners on the
ground that they were not the candidates who sat in the examination and
would have no grouse needs to be repelled. The observations of the co-
ordinate Bench in Kartar Singh's case(supra) which has been upheld in
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case (supra) read thus:-
"125. The challenge in the public interest
litigation is the malady of grant of degrees by the shops
under the guise of study centres established by deemed
to be Universities without any semblance of educational
activities. The grievance is that such unethical conduct
of the deemed to be Universities is of duping the
candidates, who get tempted to the advertisements and
the publicity carried out by these Universities in remote
parts of the States and that such Institutes are churning
out so called graduates without undergoing the course
as per the curriculum approved by the Commission
and/or AICTE. Since the candidates aspiring to obtain
degrees are numerous, therefore, the petitioner has
invoked the writ jurisdiction to advance a public cause
to avoid the exploitation and duping of innocent
candidates under the guise of employment opportunities
under the State or its instrumentalities. Thus, such
petitioner has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of this
Court.
126. We find that the judgments cited by Mr.
14 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
Mata are not of any help to the argument raised. In P.
Seshadri Vs. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy (2011) 5 SCC
484, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the
Court is to examine; whether the petition has been filed
by a busybody having little or no interest in the
proceedings. The credentials, the motive and the
objective of the petitioner have to be apparently and
patently above board. The respondents- deemed to be
Universities have not brought any fact on record to
show that the motive and the objective of the petitioner
in invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court lacks
objectivity and is a tool of exploitation of the private
respondents.
127. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs.
Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1 (for short '2G Spectrum
case'), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is
the duty of the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in
larger public interest and rejected the plea of the State
that the scope of judicial review should not be exceeded
beyond the recognized parameters. This Court in
exercise of judicial review under Article 226 is
examining the action of the deemed to be Universities
in granting degrees through the distance education
mode in technical subjects and to some extent inaction
of the statutory authorities in failing to regulate the
grant of such degrees. Therefore, it is the duty of this
Court, as observed in 2G Spectrum case, to exercise its
jurisdiction to prevent the youth of these states falling
prey in the hands of such deemed to be universities in
larger public interest.
128. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
the Court is obliged to ensure that it resolves the causes
of litigation in the country referring to maxim boni
judicis est causas litium dirimere i.e take steps that the
15 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
litigation does not flood the courts. In Kazia
Mohammed Muzzammil v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8
SCC 155, the court observed:
"58. We reiterate this principle with respect and
approval and hope that all the authorities
concerned should take care that timely actions
are taken in comity to the rules governing the
service and every attempt is made to avoid
prejudicial results against the
employee/probationer. It is expected of the courts
to pass orders which would help in minimising
the litigation arising from such similar cases.
Timely action by the authority concerned would
ensure implementation of rule of fair play on the
one hand and serve greater ends of justice on the
other. It would also boost the element of greater
understanding and improving the employer-
employee relationship in all branches of the State
and its instrumentalities. The courts, while
pronouncing judgments, should also take into
consideration the issuance of direction which
would remove the very cause of litigation. Boni
judicis est causas litium dirimere."
129. Recently in Priya Gupta Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433, the court reiterated
the principal that courts should take steps for avoiding
litigation. It observed:
44. The consistent effort of this Court to direct
corrective measures and adherence to law is not
only being thwarted by motivated action on the
part of the authorities concerned, but there has
also been a manifold increase in arbitrary
admissions. Repeated defaults have resulted in
generating more and more litigation with the
16 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
passage of time. This Court, thus, now views this
matter with greater emphasis on directions that
should be made to curb incidents of
disobedience.
45. The maxim boni judicis est causas
litium dirimere places an obligation upon the
Court to ensure that it resolves the causes of
litigation in the country. Thus, the need of the
hour is that binding dicta be prescribed and
statutory regulations be enforced, so that all
concerned are mandatorily required to
implement the time schedule in its true spirit and
substance. It is difficult and not even advisable to
keep some windows open to meet a particular
situation of exception, as it may pose
impediments to the smooth implementation of
laws and defeat the very object of the scheme.
These schedules have been prescribed upon
serious consideration by all concerned. They are
to be applied stricto sensu and cannot be
moulded to suit the convenience of some
economic or other interest of any institution,
especially, in a manner that is bound to result in
compromise of the abovestated principles.
130. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the
objection raised that the Writ Petitions filed in public
interest are not maintainable."
16. Reliance can also be placed upon the right as such of the writ
petitioners to the extent that how they would be adversely effected by the
dilution of standards as persons who were not qualified as such would be
given the benefit of qualification by tweaking the criteria which had already
been fixed and by bringing the standard down repeatedly in spite of the fact
17 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
that the Apex Court had frowned upon the whole issue and had also ordered
for a CBI inquiry. In Pratap Kishore Pandas' (case) supra, the Apex Court
had not approved the finding of the High Court wherein, it had been held
that the appellants had no locus standi to challenge the mode of the
recruitment of the respondents since they did not belong to the reserved
class. It was accordingly held that the respondents would be given the
seniority over the appellants on account of retrospective regularization and,
therefore, there would be a direct impact upon the appellants to have the
locus standi to challenge the validity of the appointment. The relevant
portion from Pratap Kishore Panda's (case) supra reads thus:-
"16 The other question to which we must turn
our attention is whether the Appellants had the locus
standi to challenge the mode of recruitment of the
Respondents. The High Court has held that since they
were not of the reserved class, they did not have the
locus standi to challenge mode of recruitment of the
Respondents who were of the reserved class, on the
principle that unequals cannot be treated as equals.
While we accept the principle itself, we do not find it
pertinent to the factual scenario before us. The
unrefuted factual position is that by virtue of their
retrospective regularization, several of the Respondents
gained seniority over the Appellants. In light of the
direct impact on them, the Appellants would have the
locus standi to challenge the validity of the
appointment of the Respondents. However, for the
reasons discussed above, the challenge while allowed
is not successful."
17. In Mohammed Faizal K.A. case (supra), while allowing the
18 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
appeals, the objection which was raised was whether the appellants have
locus standi to challenge the decision. The same was repelled on the ground
that by way of wrongful inclusion and promotion of respondent No.1 as
Deputy Superintendent of Police, which was done in furtherance of the order
of the learned Single Judge, it had made the appellant junior to the said
respondent and affected his further prospects of promotion and seniority.
Thus, it was held that it was always open to him to contend that though he
might not be eligible to be included in the select list but respondent No.1
also could not be legitimately included in the subsequent select list since he
was already promoted to the post of a DSP. Thus, the contention raised by
counsel for the writ petitioners is valid that even the employer had admitted
that on account of the clearing of the exam the process to allot seniority was
in progress and, therefore, they had locus standi and interest in the litigation
as benefits were being given wrongly and in violation of the law laid down
by the Apex Court. The argument, thus, raised that solely because they are
not candidates as such and, therefore, are not affected directly is without any
basis and the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition by the
appellant is without any basis. Thus, it is the duty and responsibility of the
appellant-Council to implement the judgment of the Apex Court in its true
spirit rather than water it down on the ground that the Council was the sole
repository of power.
Principle of Restricted Right given by Apex Court and to be applied
strictly:
18. The Apex Court, while deciding the issue initially in Orissa
Lift's case (supra) on 03.11.2017 issued various directions while upholding
19 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
the view of this Court and set aside the decision of the High Court of Orissa
wherein, the employee had obtained the B.Tech (Civil) degree from JRN
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan through distant education mode in the year
2009. Specific directions as such were issued that the 1994 AICTE
Regulations would apply to deemed to be universities and that the ex post
facto approval granted by UGC for the academic session 2001-05 was liable
to be set aside. The degrees in Engineering awarded by the said universities
stood suspended and also that every single advantage on the basis of that
degree also stood suspended. The Council was directed to conduct an
appropriate test both of the written examination and the practicals for the
students admitted during the academic session 2001-05 and the discretion
was left to come out that such modalities as it would think appropriate. The
students were to be given not more than two chances to clear the
examination. The fact remains that two chances were to be given in May-
June, 2018 or such dates as the Council may determine failing which the
concerned students would have their degrees recalled and cancelled if they
did not clear the test or chose not to appear in the same. Further direction
was also issued that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of
such degree should also be withdrawn but the monetary benefits and
advantages on that behalf were not to be recovered. For the persons
admitted after 2005, the degrees stood recalled and treated as cancelled and
even any benefit secured by the candidate as a result of such degrees should
be treated as cancelled including any promotion or any advancement in
career. Observations were made that the conduct of the concerned officials
is to be looked into and needs to be investigated and directions were thus
20 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
issued to CBI to look into the matter and take appropriate steps. It was
specifically averred that the idea is not to achieve excellence in the field but
it was only an attempt to be guided by pure commercial angle. The UGC
was also castigated as such for failing to control the situation regarding the
commercialization of education. Accordingly, following directions were
issued on 03.11.2017 in Orissa Lift's case (supra):-
"46. Having found the entire exercise of grant of
ex-post-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 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
21 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
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 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
22 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
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 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 or advantage
23 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
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.
49. The factual narration mentioned hereinabove
makes certain things distinctly clear. The affidavit of
Mr. Ved Prakash discloses how permissions were
granted to introduce courses in the present cases
without any authority. On one hand, the authorities
were proclaiming their policy statements and on the
other, despite there being complaints, they went about
granting permissions. Their conduct and approach is
difficult to explain on any rational basis and leaves
much to be desired. We are, prima facie of the view that
the conduct of the concerned officials needs to be
looked into and investigated whether the exercise of
power by them was completely genuine or colourable.
We do not express any final opinion in that behalf but
direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into
the matter and to take appropriate steps after
culmination thereof.
50. The record further shows that time and again
warnings were issued to the concerned Deemed to be
Universities. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior
Advocate is right in his submission that if a Deemed to
be University is not to be found functioning within the
24 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
limits, its recognition as Deemed to be University could
be withdrawn. In our view, the concerned Deemed to be
Universities had gone far beyond their limits and to say
the least, had violated binding policy statements. Even
when they did not have any experience in the concerned
field and had no regular faculty or college in
Engineering, they kept admitting students through
distance education mode. When there was nothing at
the core, the expansion was carried at the tertiary
levels in brazen violation. The idea was not to achieve
excellence in the field but the attempts appear to be
guided by pure commercial angle. We therefore, direct
the UGC to consider whether the Deemed to be
University status enjoyed by the concerned institutions,
namely, JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for any such
withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf. If the
concerned Deemed to be Universities fail to return the
moneys to the concerned students as directed above,
that factor shall also be taken into account while
conducting such exercise.
XXX XXX XXX
53. Accordingly we direct:
I. 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to
be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in
the present matter were not justified in introducing any
new courses in Technical Education without the
approval of AICTE.
II. Insofar as candidates enrolled during the
Academic Sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the
ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their
concerned authorities are set aside.
25 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
III. Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the
degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed
to be Universities stand suspended.
IV. The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct
an appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above.
The option be given to the concerned students whose
degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018 to appear at
the test/tests to be conducted in accordance with the
directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not
more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do
not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated
time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the
advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46
and 47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting
the test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned
Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018.
V. Those students who do not wish to exercise the
option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by
them towards tuition fee and other charges within one
month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say
their degrees shall stand cancelled and all
advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as
mentioned in Para 47. VI If the students clear the
test/tests within the stipulated time, all the
advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their
degrees will stand revived fully.
VII. As regards students who were admitted after the
Academic Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in
Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be
Universities through distance education mode stand
recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits
secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as
indicated in Para 48 above. However, the entire
26 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed
to be Universities towards tuition fees and other
expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed
to be Universities by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para
48.
VIII. By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be
Universities shall refund the sums indicated above in
VII and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be
filed with UGC within a week thereafter.
IX. We direct the CBI to carry out thorough
investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials
who dealt with the matters and went about the granting
permissions against the policy statement, as indicated
in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions
who abused their position to advance their commercial
interest illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be
taken after culmination of such investigation.
X. The UGC shall also consider whether the
Deemed to be University status enjoyed by JRN, AAI,
IASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct
an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as indicated
above. If the moneys, as directed above are not
refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be
taken into account while conducting such exercise.
XI. We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to
carry on any courses in distance education mode from
the Academic Session 2018- 2019 onwards unless and
until it is permissible to conduct such courses in
distance education mode and specific permissions are
granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory
authorities in respect of each of those courses and
unless the off-campus Centres/Study Centres are
individually inspected and found adequate by the
27 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to
be course specific.
XII. The UGC is further directed to take appropriate
steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and
restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word
'University' within one month from today.
XIII. The Union of India may constitute a three
members Committee comprising of eminent persons
who have held high positions in the field of education,
investigation, administration or law at national level
within one month. The Committee may examine the
issues indicated above and suggest a road map for
strengthening and setting up of oversight and
regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher
education and allied issues within six months. The
Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to
regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of
India may examine the said report and take such action
as may be considered appropriate within one month
thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the
action taken on or before August 31, 2018. The matter
shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on
11.09.2018."
19. From the above, it would be clear that all benefits secured were
treated as cancelled and only for the interim period of 2001-05, candidates
have been given a chance. Rather the Committee had also been constituted
to examine the issue and suggest the road map for considering and setting up
the over-sight and regulatory mechanism in the field of higher education and
allied issues within six months. It is not disputed that the matter is still
pending before the Apex Court regarding this aspect. The effort as such to
get the order modified was also rejected on 22.01.2018 reported in 2018 (2)
28 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
SCC 298 (Orissa Lift's case (supra) by partly allowing the application only
to the extent of the diplomas awarded and it was clarified that the validity of
the courses leading to the diploma was not subject matter of the judgment.
Rather, it was specifically held that candidates who exercised the option to
appear in the examination in pursuance to the same could retain degrees in
question and all advantages flowing therefrom till one month after the
declaration of the result of the test or till 31.07.2018, whichever is earlier. It
was accordingly held that the exception has been given to those who have
passed the examination in the first attempt that they should not be put to
inconvenience and would be entitled to retain all advantages but if they fail,
the directions given in the judgment dated 22.01.2018 in Orissa Lift's case
(supra) shall apply. The relevant portion reads thus:-
"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
29 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
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.
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."
20. Thereafter also, it was also pointed out that in Ashok Kumar's
case (supra), certain set of candidates claimed promotion on the basis of
higher qualifications on account of the B.Tech degrees while alleging that
they had secured the degrees in 2001-05 and, therefore, invoked the
contempt jurisdiction of the Apex Court. It was accordingly clarified by the
Apex Court that the protection granted, if any, was to candidates who had
got the benefit at an earlier point of time since the degrees were obtained in
violation of the norms and parameters. The directions were never done in
the manner to confer advantages upon the candidates who did not enjoy the
benefits so obtained. Thus, only a protection was granted to the persons
who had sat in the first examination and had taken advantages on an earlier
occasion of the said degrees by getting promotions and, thus, it was only for
the purposes of protecting such persons. The relief, thus, was very limited
to the extent of only protecting the interests of persons who had gained
30 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
benefits but not even extended to persons who had cleared the test
subsequently. Also those who had never got any benefits as such on the
basis of the said degrees obtained between 2001-05 could not claim the
same. This aspect would be clear from the following paragraphs of the said
order:-
"8. In spite of the conclusion that (a) courses
leading to Degrees in Engineering could not be taught
through Distance Education Mode without there being
express guidelines issued by AICTE3 permitting such
mode; and (b) the deemed to be Universities in question
were not entitled to start courses in Engineering
through Distance Education Mode without prior
approval under the AICTE3, the facility of benefit as
detailed in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Judgment was
extended to the students. Though the Degrees obtained
through Distance Education Mode were prima facie not
in accordance with law, the students enrolled during
the academic sessions 2001-2005 were given two
chances to prove their worth and it was directed that if
they clear the test, they would continue to derive
advantages flowing from such Degrees.
It may be mentioned here that there could possibly be
variety of advantages derived by the candidates on the
basis of such Degrees awarded at least 10 years before
the Judgment was pronounced. During this period some
of the candidates might have progressed in career on
the basis of such Degree, while some could possibly
have acquired Post-Graduate qualifications such as
M.Tech and M.B.A. on the strength of such Degrees. It
was in this light, that the Court ruled that though from
the date of the Judgment all the advantages and
benefits flowing or arising from such Degrees would
31 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
stand suspended, the benefits or advantages would get
revived after the candidates had cleared the
examination, spoken of in said paragraphs 57 and 58.
If any candidate either failed to clear the examination
in two attempts or if he chose not to appear in the
examination, the Degree would stand annulled
completely disentitling the candidate to all the benefits
and advantages flowing from such degrees.
9. Some candidates approached this Court
submitting that if in terms of the Judgment the benefits
or advantages were to be withdrawn and could be
regranted or restored only after the candidates had
cleared the examination, it may entail some prejudice
to the candidates. Some of the candidates who had
obtained Post-Graduate Degrees and were employed
on the strength of such Degrees would be required to
surrender such benefits; and even if they were to pass
the examination in the first attempt, it may still require
restoration of the benefits leading to situations of
inconvenience and prejudice. It was, therefore, laid
down by way of further concession in the Order that all
the candidates who desired to appear in the upcoming
examination could retain all the advantages and
benefits till one month after declaration of the result of
test or till 31.07.2018 whichever was later. The benefit
of retaining the advantages was thus extended only till
the first attempt. Those who could not clear the
examination in first attempt or chose not to appear in
the examination conducted in May/June, 2018 were not
entitled to the concessions extended by the Order.
10. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates
who, on the strength of such Degrees awarded through
Distance Education Mode, had attained a particular
level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits
32 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
as on the date of the Judgment and if they pass the
examination, those benefits would stand restored. If the
candidates could clear the examination in the first
attempt itself, there would not even be any break in
continuous enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The
idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the
status that they were enjoying as on the day of the
Judgment provided the candidates could prove their
worth and ability.
But if, the concerned candidates had not attained any
particular status, as on the date when the Judgment
was passed, the width of the directions was not to
confer any additional advantage which was not even
enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the
candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits
which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even
enjoying on the date of the judgment. If the degrees
stood restored in terms of the directions in the
Judgment and the Order, the candidates would
certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are
available in accordance with law, but "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 by the Judgment and the
Order.
11. In the present case serious objection has been
raised on behalf of Department that the concerned
candidates had enrolled themselves in courses leading
to Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education
Mode without express permission of the Department
and/or the Department did not recognise the Degrees in
Engineering awarded through Distance Education
Mode or that the concerned candidates were not
33 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
granted any study leave to pursue such courses. If the
Degrees were so obtained in violation of the norms and
parameters laid down by the concerned Department,
the matter assumes completely different complexion.
The directions issued by this Court in the Judgment and
Order never directed to confer such advantages which
the candidates were otherwise not enjoying on the date
when the Judgment and clarificatory Order were
passed. If there was serious infirmity in the Degrees so
obtained by the candidates, the matter ought to be
sorted out either through representation or through
properly instituted challenge in that behalf. If the
promotion was not granted and was not being enjoyed
as on the day when the judgment was passed, there was
no violation of any direction issued by this Court. As is
evident, the representations made by the Contempt
Petitioner claimed conferral of certain status and
benefits which they were not enjoying earlier. If there
be any grievance on that front, the entitlement needs to
be established in proceedings other than a Contempt
Petition."
21. Thus, from the above portions, it would be apparent that the
Apex Court was purposely and intentionally restricting the benefits granted
on an earlier occasion and not taking a liberal view as such that the degrees
in question could be considered valid per se right from the date the
candidates had passed the examination. The appellant-Council which is
entrusted with the management, education and maintenance of standards and
for the purposes of performing its functions under Section 10 of the Act is
under a bounden duty to ensure that the implementation of the orders of the
Apex Court had to be done in the same spirit as laid down by the Apex
34 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
Court, which had taken a serious view of the commercialization of the
education system of technical education. Apparently, the Council does not
seem to be following the path and the responsibility as such which had been
entrusted to it by the Supreme Court who had left it open to the Council to
devise the formulae.
Estoppel principle against the Council on account of earlier stand in the
litigation before the High Court:
22. It would be apparent from the fact that initially on 25.01.2018, a
public notice had been issued on account of the several representations
received which had been placed before the Committee of Experts regarding
the examination to be conducted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court
dated 03.11.2017 in Orissa Lift's case (supra). A considered decision as
such was accordingly notified on 25.01.2018 by the Expert Committee that
there would be no negative marking proposed keeping in view the profile of
the candidates appearing in the exam. The nature of the examination and
minimum passing marks were to be 40% separately both in the theory papers
taken together without any minimum marks fixed for Paper-I and Paper-2.
Similarly, the same percentage was fixed for passing the practical paper.
Thus, the decision which had been taken in finalizing the modalities were
held to be as per the directions of the Apex Court vide the orders dated
03.11.2017. The request for mercy appeal was also rejected on the ground
of being outside the purview of the Council. It was further clarified that the
requirement of 40% marks was to be separately in theory and practical and if
a candidate gets less than 40% marks in either of the two, it would be
considered as a failure and the second opportunity would be given after a
35 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
gap of six months. The said public notice reads thus:-
"PUBLIC NOTICE
Subject: Regarding mercy appeal, curriculum and
modalities of the examination to be conducted by
AICTE UGC in respect to Hon'ble Supreme Court
Judgement dated 03.11.2017.
AICTE is receiving several representations of
similar type on the subject cited above. The
representations were place before the committee of
experts. The committee examined the representations
and concluded that:-
. The modalities regarding the conduct of the test
(s) were prepared well within the time frame given by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 3rd
November, 2017 and 22nd January, 2018.
. While framing the curriculum (28 UG and 34 PG
programmes in Engineering and Technology) for the
proposed exams, due consideration was given that the
curriculum should comprise of mainly
Basic/Foundation courses and the core courses, the
knowledge of which is highly essential for being an
Undergraduate Engineer (B.Tech) or a Post Graduate
Engineer (M.Tech).
. The curriculum for the varied disciplines (both
UG & PG Programmes in engineering and
Technology) was designed by experts after taking into
consideration the curriculum of recognised Indian
Universities/Institutions running similar programmes,
curriculum pattern of GATE and similar
Qualifying/Competitive Exams being conducted in the
country and as per the present need of society.
36 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
Generally, in a UG Programme in Engineering and
Technology, there are around 30-35 theory courses
apart from practicals and project work during the
complete duration of the programme and in the case of
PG Engineering Programme these vary from 10-12
courses depending on the different disciplines for the
proposed exams, 12-16 courses (depending on the
length and breadth of the courses) in the case of UG
programmes and only 6 courses in the case of PG
programmes were finalized and this is also in line with
the AICTE model curriculum.
. In the case of practical examination, a list of 50
practicals and 25 practicals has been finalised for UG
and PG Programme in Engineering and Technology
respectively. Out of this list, only 2 practicals each are
to be performed by the candidates. Further theory and
practicals go hand in hand and accordingly due care
has been taken in this direction.
. In the pattern for theory exam, the pattern of
GATE and similar other exams have been taken into
consideration and accordingly the paper shall
comprise of multiple choice questions of 1 and 2
marks. Keeping in view he profile of the candidates
appearing in the exam and the nature of the
examination i.e., qualifying only, more emphasis
shall be given on comprehensive type and application
type questions and so negative marking has been
proposed as is being done in the case of GATE or
other similar examinations. This will enable the
candidates to attempt more number of questions
without the fear of negative marking.
. In most of the Technical Universities in India
minimum passing marks are 40%. In the present case
total 40% marks are required in both the theory papers
37 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
taken together without any minimum marks fixed in
paper one or two.
. Taking in view the above points, it is very clear
that a rational decision has been taken in finalising the
modalities including curriculum of theory and practical
exams and mode of assessment as per the directions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its orders dated
03.11.2017 and 22.02.2018.
. Some candidates have also requested for mercy
appeal to exempt from the above examination. In this
regard it is to be informed that it is not in the purview
of AICTE."
23. However, for the reasons best known to the Council, the
standard was diluted by the Grievance Redressal Committee of the Council
by recommending that the marks of theory and the practicals would be
combined to calculate the 40% qualifying marks after the examination was
held on 03.06.2018 and after the answer keys had been made available on
the website and objections had been invited. The relevant portion reads
thus:-
"NOTICE
As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in SLP No.
19807-8/2012 titled as Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd.
Vs. Shri Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors, AICTE-UGC
conducted examination of the students who registered
in the following 4-deemed to be universities during
2001-2005.
1. JRN Rajasthan, Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan
2. Advanced Studies in Education, Sardarshahar,
Rajasthan (IASE)
3. Allahabd Agricultural Institute, Allahabad (AAI)
4. Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation, Salem
38 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
Tamil Nadu (VMRF)
Examinations of UG courses were conducted on
03.06.2018 followed by practical examinations. The
answer keys of theory were made available on AICTE
website and grievances of students were invited on
answer keys. Grievances so received were placed
before the subject experts and recommendations of the
subject experts were incorporated in final keys.
The revised UG keys are available on AICTE website
www.aicte-india.org.
AICTE also received several grievances on modalities
on examination. They were also placed before the
expert committee. After examining all the grievances,
committee recommended that "marks of theory &
practical may be combined to calculate 40%
qualifying marks". AICTE has accepted the above
recommendation of the committee."
24. The same was in spite of the fact that on an earlier occasion, a
writ petition had been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking directions
to rationalize the modality of the examination on validation of B.Tech
examination and to make it a test of merit and not a test of elimination. The
prayer clause before the Delhi High Court was as under:-
"i) Pass an order, writ and/or direction upon
the respondent authorities to rationalize the modality
of the examination of validation of B.Tech examination
by giving refresher course to the candidates.
ii) Pass a direction upon the respondent
authorities to make the examination a test of merit and
not a test of elimination.
39 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
iii) Pass a direction/writ of mandamus upon
the respondent authorities to keep the modalities of the
examination as such as not to impinge upon the right to
life/right to livelihood of sincere and honest
candidates.
iv) Pass such other order and/or orders that
may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
25. The Delhi High Court while noticing that the Expert Committee
as such had taken a decision on 01.05.2018 on the representation received
that the total 40% marks were required in both theory papers taken together
without any minimum marks fixed in Paper 1 or Paper 2 was a decision
taken by the Committee Members. The same had been done on a meeting of
the Expert Committee by designing a examination that only most
rudimentary concepts of Engineering that any engineering student or
professional ought to know. Therefore, the minutes showed that the
legitimate concerns of the candidates had been duly considered while
refusing to change the modalities for the said examination. The minutes of
the meeting read thus:-
"Minutes of meeting of the committee
constituted on "Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in
SLP No.19807-08/2012 titled as Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corp. Ltd. V. Shri Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors."
A meeting of the committee was held at AICTE,
headquarter, New Delhi on May 1st , 2018 to discuss the
representations received from various candidates and
case filed in Delhi High Court (W.P.3569/2018 and
C.M.NO.1077/2018) regarding modalities, syllabus and
norms of examination to be conducted of Theory and
40 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
Practical Examination in June 2018.
Following were present:
Committee Members:-
Dr. R.K. Wats, Professor & Head Media Centre,
NITTTR., Chandigarh.
1. Dr. S.S.Banwait, Professor, Deptt. Of Mech.
Engg., NITTTR, Chandigarh
AICTE Officers:
1. Prof. Rajive Kumar, Advisor I. P & AP Bureau
2. Sh. N.K.Bhandari, Consultant, P & AP Bureau
3. Dr. T.C.Shama, Consultant P & AP Bureau
The committee was briefed about the various
representation being received regarding modalities,
syllabus of the examination and case filed in Delhi
High Court regarding rationalization of modalities of
examination and syllabus etc. After going through the
representations etc., the committee came to the
following conclusion:
1. The Committee Members informed that
modalities regarding the conduct of the test
were prepared well within the time framed given
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order
dated 3rd November, 2017 and 22nd January,
2018.
2. While framing the curriculum (28 UG and 34 PG
programmes in Engineering and Technology) for
the proposed exams, due consideration was given
that the curriculum should comprise of mainly
Basic/Foundation courses and the core courses,
the knowledge of which is highly essential for
being on Undergraduate Engineer (B.Tech) or a
Post Graduate Engineer (M.Tech).
41 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
3. It is informed that the curriculum for the varied
disciplines (both UG & PG Programmes in
Engineering and Technology) was designed by
experts after taking into consideration the
curriculum of recognised Indian
Universities/Institutions running similar
programmes, curriculum pattern of GATE and
similar Qualifying/Competitie Exams being
conducted in the courtry and as per the present
need of society. It is informed that generally in a
U Programme in Engineering and Technology,
there are around 30-35 theory courses apart
from practicals and project work during the
complete duration of the programme and in the
case of PG engineering Programme these vary
from 10-12 theory courses apart for practicals
and project work. However, while designing the
curriculum for different disciplines for the
proposed exams,
12 16 courses (depending on the length and
breadth of the courses) in the case of UG
programmes and only 6 courses in the case of PG
programmes were finalized this is also in line
with the AICTE model curriculum.
4. In the case of practical examination, a list of 50
practicals and 25 practicals has been finalised
for UG and PG Programme in Engineering and
Technology respectively. Out of this list only 2
practicals each are to be performed by the
candidates. It is informed that theory and
practicals go hand in hand and accordingly due
care has been taken in this direction.
5. While finalising the pattern for theory exam, the
pattern of GATE and similar other exams have
42 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
been taken into consideration and accordingly
the paper shall comprise of multiple choice
questions of 1 and 2 marks. Keeping in view the
profile of the candidates appearing in the exam
and he nature of the examination i.e., qualifying
only, more emphasis shall be given on
comprehensive type and application type
questions and no negative marking has been
proposed as is being done in the case of GATE or
other similar examination. This will enable the
candidates to attempt more number of questions
without the fear of negative marking.
Taking in view the above points, it is very clear
that a rational decision has been taken in
finalizing the modalities including, curriculum of
theory and practical exams and mode of
assessment as per the directions of the Hon'ble
Court vide its orders dated 03.11.2017 and
22.02.2018.
In most of the Technical Universities in India
minimum passing marks are 40%. In the present
case, total 40% marks are required in both
theory papers taken together without any
minimum marks fixed in paper one or two."
26. The writ petition was thus dismissed with following relevant
observations:-
"12. As regards the second prong of the
Petitioner's prayer, that the syllabus for the
examination to be held on 03.06.2018 be reduced soa s
to bring it in consonance with what the Petitioners
perceived to be the syllabus of the B.Tech/M/Tech
degree course in the years they underwent their studies
43 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
and received their respective degrees. I find that the
Supreme Court vide its decision dated 03.11.2017 in
Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra), had categorically left it
entirely to the Respondent No. 1/AICTE's discretion to
decide the modalities for conducting the said
examination. This Court cannot, against the orders of
the Supreme Court, interfere with the discretion
conferred on the Respondent No. 1, unless and until
there is anything on record to show that such discretion
has been exercised in a perverse manner. In fact, on a
perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Expert
Committee, I find that the Respondent No. 1 had pre-
emptively allayed any concerns or anxieties that the
candidates may have had about the impending
examination, by designing an examination that only
tests the candidates on the most rudimentary concepts
of Engineering, that any engineering student or
professional ought to know. Thus, while there is
nothing on record to show that the Respondent No. 1
had exercised its discretion in a perverse or arbitrary
manner, the minutes of the meeting of the Expert
Committee show that the Respondent No. 1 had, in fact,
duly considered the legitimate concerns of the
candidates while devising the modalities for he said
examination. Therefore, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to interfere with the Respondent No. 1's
discretion and reduce the syllabus for the examination
to be held on 03.06.2018."
27. The result was declared on 27.07.2018 as per the changed
modalities dated 19/20.06.2018 (Annexure P-6) by combining 40% marks of
both theory and practical, as noticed above. The matter was taken to the
Apex Court consisting of the same Bench and one of the Members in
44 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
Principal namely Sh. Uday Umesh Lalit, J., as the Hon'ble Chief Justice then
was and a Member of the Bench on the earlier two occasions also. The same
was dismissed on 14.09.2018 without giving any benefit as such with only a
liberty to give representation. The said order reads thus:-
"We do not see any reason to interfere in the
petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
We however, give liberty to the petitioners to
make an appropriate representation to AICTE. If the
representation is made within two weeks from today,
the AICTE is directed to consider it expeditiously."
28. Thus, it does not now lie in the mouth of the Council as such to
say that what it had been opposing throughout on an earlier occasion needs
to be modified and, thus, they are estopped from taking a different stand
altogether.
Limited Scope of Grievance Redressal Committee:
29. It is also a conceded position that a report has been prepared by
the Council on 05.10.2018 (Annexure R-3/7) and also presented before the
Apex Court which was taken on record on 16.11.2018. Nothing has been
shown before this Court as to what was the reason to substitute the opinion
of the experts which had initially been arrived at, as reproduced above and
then duly published on 25.01.2018 (Annexure P-5). Thus, it does not lie in
the mouth of the Council as such, in the absence of any report arrived at by
the experts, as to how and on what basis the modalities were changed. Only
on the ground that it is the sole repository of power as such and as upheld by
the Apex Court, it cannot contend that it has the absolute right to dilute the
standards. A perusal of the reply filed by them before the learned Single
45 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
Judge would also go on to show that an Expert Committee was constituted
on 20.11.2017 after the first meeting of the Executive Committee which was
held on 15.11.2017. The same consisted of senior Professors of NITs and
National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research. A meeting
was also called of the Vice Chancellor and Representatives of all the 4
deemed universities alongwith UGC Officers to get all the details and the
Expert Committee had finalized the modalities and norms. The Grievance
Redressal Committee had then met on 19.06.2018 to consider the large
number of representations received regarding the modalities of the exam.
All grievances were considered including the combining of theory and
practical papers and the Committee recommended that the candidate needs
to secure 168 i.e. 40% marks in theory and practical exams taken together to
qualify. The same was notified on the website. The said request had already
been declined on 01.05.2014, which would be clear from the minutes
reproduced above in Para No.25 and nothing has been shown what was the
ground to deviate from a decision already taken by the Committee which
was overseeing the holding of the examination.
30. Thus, it would be apparent that the Grievance Redressal
Committee sat as a super body over the decision of the Expert Committee
which had been constituted earlier and had laid down the parameters. It
changed the modalities which, in the considered opinion of this Court, it
could not have done because its ambit was only regarding the objections
received qua the questions set in the paper whether they were out of syllabus
or wrong or multiple questions as such or the feasibility of giving more
options. It did not have the jurisdiction as such to sit as a super body over
46 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
the experts who had already fixed the parameters in its meeting held on
01.05.2018, as reproduced above in deference to the orders of the Superme
Court. The defence taken that on 24.09.2018 after the decision of the Apex
Court to decide the representation, the Committee was competent as such,
cannot be held to be justified in any manner. Even in the reply also, the
same talks about the representations received in a large number and placed
before the Committee and that the Expert Committee had accepted only one
grievance that the best of two scores shall be considered.
31. It is pertinent to mention that the said decision dated
24.09.2018 is subject matter of CWP No. 16872 of 2020 and the said
decision (Annexure P-7) was never interfered with by the learned Single
Judge since it was rightly pointed out by the counsel for the writ petitioner
that it would only apply to persons who would get a second chance having
not qualified in the first. The writ petitioner was never aggrieved against the
said issue to that extent since a separate litigation had been initiated for
challenging the drop of standards by further diluting the standards. Thus,
the argument raised that the principle of the rules of the game being changed
can be looked from a different prospective to the extent that a different
Committee was renewing a decision which was taken earlier by more
eminent persons. No justification as such has been given in the written
statement as to whether the Committee as such which was looking into the
issue of the answer keys could supersede the earlier view taken in view of
its limited role once the result had been declared. Even otherwise, the
candidates who had once sat in the examination were precluded from raising
such a ground or claiming such a right. It would lead to a very absurd
47 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
situation that a syllabus or the parameters and the criteria having been
finalized, it can be allowed to be challenged by the candidates who, after
sitting in the examination and knowing that they are not likely to clear the
same, could seek for dilution of the standards. Thus, the reasoning which
has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted in any
manner regarding the method the Council has gone about in changing and
varying the modalities and it amounts to putting a cart before the horse.
32. Apparently, the Council failed to notice the manner in which
the Supreme Court has seriously observed about the limited benefits which
had to be given to the persons who had acquired these degrees through
distant mode. Thus, it would not lie with the Council to now further
perpetuate the illegality by reducing the standards which it is justifying by
challenging the orders of the learned Single Judge. The argument that it was
universal variation and not adversial to any specific person would not apply
in the present facts and circumstances and the reliance upon the judgment
also in LPA No. 961 of 2021, Gurcharan Singh's case (supra) is misplaced
to that extent. The said case was only a case of Constables who were
aggrieved against the non-selection on account of dispensing with the
interview process. Rather, the said decision was upheld by noticing that it
would prejudice none, which were not the facts and circumstances in the
present case as the order of the Apex Court is being openly violated as such.
The argument raised that the matter is pending before the Apex Court and,
therefore, the learned Single Judge is not justified in interfering is not
tenable and is an argument of despair. It is settled principle that the law laid
down by the Supreme Court is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of
48 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
the Constitution of India and, therefore, if there is an open violation as such,
it is the duty of the Constitutional Courts as such to ensure that the said
violation is quashed. Merely because some persons have been given the
benefit of promotion on account of the result already declared as such would
not validate or give the others a cause of action as such to perpetuate an
illegality which has happened as the principle of equality enshrined under
Article 14 does not operate as a negative principle. Reliance can be placed
upon the judgments in Shanti Sports Club and another vs. UOI and others,
(2009) 15 SCC 705 and R. Muthukumar and others vs. The Chairman and
Managing Director Tangedco and others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 140.
33. The said benefits which have been granted as such also have to
be subject as per final decision of the litigation and eventually even the
rights of the said persons will have also to be acted upon in principal in a
uniform manner.
Issue of Delay:
34. Further argument raised that there was delay as such and the
candidates who had qualified in the first test would not need to sit in the
second test and, therefore, the chance to qualify was being taken away on
account of the late filing of the writ petition also is not liable to be accepted.
The decision of approaching this Court and getting an interim order as such
in the initial part on account of the petitioners is only on account of the
repeated change of criteria at the hands of the Council. It is only after the
declaration of result on 27.07.2018, the cause of action as such accrued.
The litigation was pending before the Apex Court till 14.09.2018 in Sanjay
Kumar's case (supra) and was in favour of the respondents and it is not
49 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
disputed that the writ petition was filed immediately thereafter on
30.10.2018. The interim order was passed on 01.11.2018 wherein, the
learned Single Judge had stayed the promotion process and thereafter the
matter was taken to the Apex Court in Er. Paramjit Singh's case (supra) and
only directions were issued to decide the issue expeditiously and there was
no vacation of stay order.
35. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any
delay as such at the instance of the writ petitioners who could have only
come after the result was declared on the basis of change in modalities and
the benefit has been granted as such to the candidates who had taken the
first ability test. The first tinkering as such with the procedure took place
only on 19/20.06.2018 after the examination was held on 03.06.2018 and
then the result was declared and the matter was still pending before the
Apex Court and only on 14.09.2018, the SLP was dismissed.
Non-impleadment of Parties and Pendency before the Larger Bench:
36. The argument as such of Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram that they were
not impleaded as such and that the affected persons should have been
impleaded since it was an all India test has also been validly dealt with by
the learned Single Judge by placing reliance upon the judgment in Parbodh
Verma's case (supra) that a three Judge Bench has to be followed in
preference over Ram Janam Singh's case (supra). It should be noticed that
the dispute as such is not an issue of personam but an issue of rem. The
matter was already before the High Court on an earlier occasion and the
contesting party as such was the Council who had varied the parameters on
account of the stay as such being granted. It was open to them as such to put
50 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
to notice the concerned persons who were likely to be effected as those
working in the Power Corporation. Therefore, it cannot be faulted as such
that the other persons who had qualified the test on the basis of the change
in criteria were necessarily to be impleaded. It is not that the learned Single
Judge decided the matter in the absence of parties as it would be noticed
from the zimini orders also that on account of the urgency of the situation,
the hearing of the case as such was also taken up on 04.03.2019, which was
otherwise a holiday. Thus, the concerned parties including the Council as
such were represented by a brigade of senior counsels and it cannot be said
that the order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural
justice. Reliance upon the judgment in Ramjit Singh Kardam's case (supra)
is well justified. Similarly, reliance upon Sri V.N. Krishna Murty's case
(supra) is a matter where the issue was dealt with regarding the aggrieved
person and the right as such seeking leave to appeal. The Apex Court had
discussed the provisions of Section 96 and 100 CPC regarding the issue of
the locus to question the judgment and it was held that aggrieved person
denotes an elastic and illusive concept whose rights may be affected. The
LPAs filed by persons who were not parties are, thus, being entertained and
their applications for leave to appeal are allowed to that extent to come to a
logical conclusion that the action as such of the Council was not justified in
the facts and circumstances. The Apex Court in Ramjit Singh Kardam's
case (supra) had also upheld the judgments of this Court wherein the
selection of the Physical Training Instructors was set aside. The issue raised
before the Apex Court under point No.(3) was regarding whether the
decision to call the number of candidates 8 times the number from all
51 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
eligible candidates was an arbitrary decision or not while noticing the
judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak's case (supra). It was noticed that even if
the change is to be effected, the same cannot be effected arbitrarily and that
the change in criteria of the selection was never notified by the Commission
and the selected candidates were kept in total dark.
37. Even otherwise, the argument which is being raised that once
the matter regarding the issue of change of rules when the game had started
is pending before the Larger Bench, the learned Single Judge should not
have applied the other principles is without any basis. It is settled principle
that the law laid down by the Apex Court is binding and cannot be put in
suspended animation. The proceedings thus cannot be kept awaiting for the
decision of the reference. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the law
as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs.
Dandasi Sahu, 1988(4) SCC 12, wherein it was held that on mere pendency
on one point before the larger Bench, the Court could not postpone the
adjudication and can decide the lis on the law as it stands today. The said
view was thereafter followed in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. M/s R.S.
Sharma & Co., 1988 SCC(4) 353, wherein it was held that the adjudication
could not be postponed on the ground that the matter is pending
consideration before the Constitution Bench and the cardinal principles of
the administration of justice is to ensure quick disposal of disputes in
accordance with law, justice and equity and as per the law as it stands on
that date. In the case of State of Maharashtra & anr. Vs. Sarva Shramik
Sangh, Sangli & ors., 2013(6) SCC 16, the issue as to whether the Irrigation
Department was to be considered as an "industry" was pending before the
52 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
Larger Bench and it was held that merely due to the pendency of the said
issue before the larger Bench, the determination of the present pending
industrial dispute cannot be kept undecided until the judgment of the larger
Bench is received.
38. The said principle was followed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of M/s Dhingra Jardine Infrastrure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The
State of Haryana and others, 2017(2) PLR 65 and, therefore, keeping in
view the settled principle laid down by the Apex Court, the argument raised
by Mr. Chadha that since the matter regarding the issue of change of rules
when the game had started was pending before the larger Bench and the
Single Judge has erred in applying the other principle also stands decided
against him conclusively. We see no reason to take a different view since
we are bound by the judgment of the Apex Court which holds the field
today.
39. As noticed above herein also, the change is as such by
Grievance Redressal Committee which was not set up in pursuance of the
orders of the Apex Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that
the Committee had no jurisdiction to over rule the earlier parameters which
had been set up by the expert committee and on 01.05.2018, the matter had
already been reconsidered but not accepted.
40. Resultantly, keeping in view the above, we are of the
considered opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not
suffer from any perversity or infirmity which would warrant interference in
the letters patent appeal. Rather, the learned Single Judge has only ensured
that the purity of the examinations, as was the object of the Apex Court, has
53 of 54
LPA No. 474 of 2020 (O & M) and other connected matters
been restored and kept in mind.
41. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed and all miscelleneous
applications including review of order dated 29.01.2021 stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
28.09.2022 (VIVEK PURI)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
54 of 54
