Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh Baggri And Ors vs Punjab State Power Corporation ... on 4 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M) 2023:PHHC:084678 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.6704 of 2021(O&M)
Date of Decision-04.07.2023
Gurmeet Singh Baggri and others ... Petitioners
Versus
Punjab State Corporation Ltd. and another ... Respondents
CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Karan Garg, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Sheokand, Advocate
Mr. Mukul Ahuja, Advocate
Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Anu Chatrath, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nishant Maini, Advocate and
Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the respondent No.1/PSPCL.
Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate
for the respondent No.2/AICTE.
Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate and
Mr. Harkirat S. Jagdev, Advocate
for respondents No.3 to 6.
Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.7 to 22.
***
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
[1]. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the
issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the tentative seniority list
1 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
dated 26.02.2021 and the final seniority list dated 04.03.2021 of
Technical Subordinates issued by the respondent No.1 with
regard to 14% quota (as per Regulation 10.7 of the Punjab State
Electricity Board, Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations,
1965) for the employees already working with the respondent
No.1 having AMIE/B.Tech Degree. The petitioners have pleaded
that they have not been included in the seniority list, though they
are fully eligible and qualified and are much seniors to the
employees included in the aforesaid seniority list having passed
B.Tech degree in the year 2008-09 and verified in December 2018
on the basis of exam conducted by the respondent No.2 on the
direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Orissa Life
Irrigation Corp. Ltd. Vs. Rabi Shankar Patro & Others decided on
03.11.2017, (2018) 1 SCC, 468. The petitioners have also sought
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the
respondent No.1 to prepare a fresh seniority list after including the
names of the petitioners and to grant them the benefits including
the benefit of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer/Sub
Divisional Officer from the due date of their eligibility.
[2]. The petitioner No.1 joined as Lineman on 27.02.1996
in the respondent No.1 and was promoted as Junior Engineer on
03.02.2005 as per Rules, governing his service i.e. Punjab State
Electricity Board of Service of Engineers (Electrical) Recruitment
Regulations, 1965 as amended from time to time. The petitioner
2 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
No.1 passed his B.Tech (Electrical) degree from distant mode of
education in the year 2009 from Institute of Advanced Studies in
Education University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahr
(Rajasthan).
[3]. The petitioner No.2 joined as Lineman on 24.02.1996
and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 03.02.2005 as per
Rules. He passed his B.Tech (Electrical) degree from distant
mode of education in the year 2009 from Institute of Advanced
Studies in Education University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir,
Sardarshahr (Rajasthan).
[4]. The petitioner No.3 joined as Lineman on 22.12.1988
and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 09.08.2001 as per
Rules. He passed his B.Tech (Electrical) degree from distant
mode of education in the year 2009 from Institute of Advanced
Studies in Education University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir,
Sardarshahr (Rajasthan).
[5]. The petitioner No.4 joined as Lineman on 16.02.1996
and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 16.02.2005 as per
Rules. He passed his B.Tech (Electrical) degree from distant
mode of education in the year 2008 from Institute of Advanced
Studies in Education University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir,
Sardarshahr (Rajasthan).
3 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
[6]. The petitioner No.5 joined as Lineman on 19.03.1997
and was promoted as Junior Engineer on 30.03.2011 as per
Rules. He passed his B.Tech (Electrical) degree from distant
mode of education in the year 2008 from Institute of Advanced
Studies in Education University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir,
Sardarshahr (Rajasthan).
[7]. Issue as regards validity of educational qualifications
and B.Tech Degrees obtained through distance education mode
from four deemed to be Universities i.e. Institute of Advance Study
in Education (IASE), Sardarshahar Rajasthan;(ii) JRN Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan; (iii) Allahabad Agricultural
Research Institute, Allahabad; (iv) Vinayaka Mission Research
Foundation, Salem, Tamil Nadu, during the session 2001 to 2005
came to be raised before this Court in CWP No.1640 of 2008
titled as Kartar Singh Vs. Union of India and others. It was
submitted that the afore-noticed Deemed to be Universities had
set-up "study centres" in violation of the regulations framed by
the UGC and that such study centres completely lacked
infrastructure and facilities for courses in engineering and that the
programmes through distance education mode were illegal and
without approval. The writ petition was allowed by a Division
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.11.2012 and the
relevant extract reads as follows:-
4 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
"184. In terms of the directions of the Commission it was
necessary for the Deemed to be Universities to seek
approval from AICTE. In view of the above, we hold that the
Deemed to be Universities have started courses in technical
education in violation of the guidelines, instructions, circulars
and regulations framed by the Commission not only when
they started such courses but also in establishing study
centres outside there territorial limits and in subjects for
which they were not granted Deemed to be Universities
status. Therefore, degrees awarded by such Deemed to be
Universities is an illegal act and such illegality cannot be
removed or cured by the actions of either the commission or
DEC".
It was further held as under:-
"190. In view of the above, we hold that the approval granted
by the Distance Education Council on 29.08.2007 to the
Institutes in question is illegal and unwarranted and beyond
the scope of authority vested in it. As a necessary
consequence the degrees granted by such Deemed to be
Universities are illegal and the candidates cannot be
deemed to be qualified in the purported subjects in the
absence of approval from the commission.
xxx xxx
Though the Court is sympathetic with the cause of the
students but the larger public interest demands that the
students, who have not got formal education, should not be
considered eligible for appointment under the State."
[8]. The High Court of Orissa however took a different view in
Writ Petition No.3848 of 2010 titled Rabi Sankar Patro Vs. Orissa
5 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. Two Sets of appeals were
preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. one from Kartar
Singh's case (supra) and second from Rabi Sankar Patro's case
(supra). Both the appeals were clubbed together and were decided
by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 03.11.2017 vide judgment in Orissa
Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and
others, (2018) 1 ACC, 468. The view taken in Kartar Singh's case
(supra) was upheld and it was held that the deemed Universities
had been conducting the distance education courses through off
campus study centres without the approval of the University Grants
Commission and the All India Council of Technical Education. It was
further held that the action of conferring degrees through distance
education mode was without jurisdiction. Even the ex-post facto
approval granted by Distance Education Council (DEC) was
completely illegal. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that
since the UGC Guidelines 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
session 2001-05, is protected. A view was taken to grant a chance
to the concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities
competent in that behalf. Accordingly it was directed that all the
degrees in engineering granted to students who were enrolled
during the academic sessions 2001-05 would stand suspended till
they pass an examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-
6 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
UGC. AICTE was directed to device within one month from the date
of judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in
theory as well as in practicals for the concerned students admitted
during the academic session 2001-05, covering all the concerned
subjects. It was left entirely to the discretion of AICTE to formulate
modalities as it may think appropriate and the test(s) were to be
conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in the respective
states where the students were located. Choice was to be given to
the students to appear in the examination to be conducted ideally
during May-June 2019 or on such dates as AICTE was to
determine. Not more than two chances were to be afforded to the
concerned students and if they were not to pass the test/tests their
degrees were to stand recalled and cancelled. In the eventuality of
the concerned candidate clearing the test/tests all the advantages
or benefits were to be restored.
[9]. Para Nos.57, 58 and 66 of the judgment are
reproduced hereasunder:-
"57. 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 the 2004 UGC Guidelines
themselves had given liberty to the deemed to be universities
concerned to apply for ex post facto approval, the matter is
7 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
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 deemed to be universities concerned
flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no
experience and started conducting courses through distance
education system illegally, the overbearing interest of the
students concerned persuades us not to resort to recall of all
the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of the said
ex post facto approval. However, the fact remains that the
facilities available at the study centres concerned were never
checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible
at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be
confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the
students concerned. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to
grant some chance to the students concerned 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.
58. AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date
of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test(s) both
in written examination as well as in practicals for the students
concerned admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005
covering all the subjects concerned. 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 the
respective States wherever the students are located. The
8 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
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 students concerned
and if they do not pass the test(s) their degrees shall stand
recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to
appear in the test(s), the entire money deposited by such
student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to
that student by the deemed to be university concerned within a
month of the exercise of such option. The students be given
time till 15-1-2018 to exercise such option. The entire
expenditure for conducting the test(s) in respect of students
who wish to undergo test(s) shall be recovered from the
deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018. If they
clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages
or benefits shall be restored to the candidates concerned. We
make it clear at the cost of repetition that if
the candidates concerned do not clear the test(s) within the
time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test(s), 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.
66. Accordingly, we direct:
66.1. The 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.
66.2. Insofar as candidates enrolled during the academic
sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto
approvals granted by UGC and their authorities concerned are
9 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
set aside.
66.3. Consequent to aforesaid Direction II, all the degrees in
Engineering awarded by deemed to be universities concerned
stand suspended.
66.4. AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an
appropriate test(s) as indicated in para 58 above. The option
be given to the students concerned whose degrees stand
suspended by 15-1-2018 to appear at the test(s) to be
conducted in accordance with the directions in para 58 above.
Students be given not more than two chances to clear test(s)
and if they do not successfully clear the test(s) within the
stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the
advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in paras 57 and
58 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s)
shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities
concerned by 31-3-2018.
66.5. 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 58.
66.6. If the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated time
all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their
degrees will stand revived fully.
66.7. As regards students who were admitted after the
academic sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering
awarded by the deemed to be universities concerned through
distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as
cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand
withdrawn as indicated in para 59 above. However, the entire
amount paid by such students to the deemed to be universities
concerned towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be
10 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
returned by the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-5-
2018, as indicated in para 59.
66.8. By 31-5-2018 all the deemed to be universities
concerned shall refund the sums indicated above in para 66.7
and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with
UGC within a week thereafter.
66.9. We direct CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the
conduct of the officials concerned who dealt with the matters
and went about granting permissions against the policy
statement, as indicated in para 60 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.
66.10. 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-
6-2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above,
are not refunded to the students concerned, that factor shall
be taken into account while conducting such exercise.
66.11. 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 statutory/regulatory
authorities concerned in respect of each of those courses and
unless the off-campus centres/study centres are individually
inspected and found adequate by the statutory authorities
concerned. The approvals have to be course specific.
66.12. 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.
11 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
66.13. The Union of India may constitute a three-member
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 31-8-2018. The matter shall be
placed for consideration of this aspect on 11-9-2018."
[10]. Thereafter, an application was filed for clarification and
modification of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Ape Court vide
its judgment dated 03.11.2017.
[11]. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.01.2018
as a one time relaxation in favour of those candidates, who were
enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 directed that such
candidates who are appearing in the test to be conducted by
AICTE in May and June, 2018 and who exercise option to appear
in the test in terms of the judgment, can retain the degrees in
question and also the advantages arising therefrom till one month
after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018,
whichever is earlier. This relaxation was given as a one time
measure so that those candidates who have the ability to pass the
test in the first attempt itself should not be put to inconvenience.
12 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
The candidates who passed the test in the first attempt were held
entitled to retain all the advantages, but if a candidate failed or
chose not to appear, the directions issued in the main judgment
were to apply inasmuch as that the advantages arising therefrom
were to stand suspended and withdrawn.
[12]. The entire case of the petitioners is based on two
aspects. Firstly, they are entitled for due placement in the final
seniority list of technical subordinates issued by the respondent
No.1 with regard to 14% quota (as per Regulation 10.7 of the
Punjab State Electricity Board, Service of Engineers (Electrical)
Regulations, 1965) in view of having B.Tech degree to their credit
and are seniors to the employees who have been included in the
aforesaid seniority list. Secondly, when the petitioners had
undertaken the test conducted by AICTE in the month of
December 2018 pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Apex Court and since they have cleared the same, they are
entitled for promotion.
[13]. Admittedly, the petitioners did not appear for the test
conducted in June, 2018 and they had appeared in the tests,
which were conducted in December, 2018.
[14]. Perusal of Regulation 10.7 of the Punjab State
Electricity Board, Service of Engineers (Electrical) Regulations,
1965) would give the following recital:-
13 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
"10(7): 14% of the cadre posts of A.Es shall be reserved for
departmental employees (Technical Subordinates and
Drawing Staff) possessing AMIE/ Degree in Electrical/
Electronics and Communication/Mechanical/Instrumentation
Control/Computer Science Engineering and who have
completed three year service in that capacity."
[15]. Evidently, 14% of the cadre posts of the Assistant
Engineers are to be kept reserved for Technical Subordinates,
possessing degree in Electrical, who have completed three years
service in that capacity.
[16]. In view of aforesaid, candidates possessing degrees
before their recruitments and they had not obtained their degrees
from distance education mode and they had attained three years
service in the year 2017, would form the aforesaid group of
employees. The petitioners are in the group of employees, who
had cleared the eligibility test in December, 2018 only and that
too, in the second chance/attempt. They did not appear in the first
chance. In view of clarificatory note appearing in the circular
No.1/2016 dated 11.02.2016, three years service will be counted
after the date of declaration of result of the acquired requisite
qualification, while maintaining the seniorities in 14%
AMIE/degree holder quota of Technical Subordinates. Therefore,
in view of directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para
No.66 of the Judgment dated 03.11.2017 and further clarified vide
order dated 22.01.2018 and in view of the fact that the petitioners
have passed the tests conducted by AICTE in second attempt,
14 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
which was held in December 2018, the eligibility of the petitioners
for the posts of Assistant Engineers would fall on completion of
three years of service from the date of passing of B.Tech Degree
i.e. after three years from December 2018 in December 2021,
therefore, the names of the petitioners have not been included in
the final seniority list of 14% degree holders/technical
subordinates for the period from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017.
[17]. As per stand taken by the respondent No.1, the
petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 got enrolled in IASE, Sardarshahar
(Rajasthan) deemed University in July, 2005 in the academic year
2005-06, whereas the petitioner No.4 was enrolled in 2005 and
the petitioner No.5 was enrolled in 2008. Only those students who
had taken admissions during academic years 2001-05 were
eligible to appear in the test to be conducted by AICTE. The
petitioners No.1 to 3 did not have any B.Tech qualification from
the deemed University during the academic years 2001-2005 and
as such, they were not eligible to appear in the test conducted by
the AICTE. All the petitioners did not avail the first chance by
appearing in the test for the reasons best known to them. All of
them were allowed to appear in the test in December 2018, where
they were declared successful and their degrees were validate
only in the year 2018. The respondent-Corporation prepared a
tentative seniority list/final list for the promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer. Under Regulation 10.7, 14% quota was
15 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
reserved for degree holders with three years experience,
therefore, the names of the petitioners were not included being
not eligible.
[18]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinit Garg and others Vs.
University Grants Commission and others, 2019(4) SCT 245
held in para Nos.16 and 18 in the following manner:-
"16.In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited-I, the Court
also made a distinction between students who had taken
admission in deemed to be universities offering technical
degrees through distance learning in the academic years
2001 to 2005 and 20052006 onwards. The reason for
distinction was paragraph 5 of the 2004 Guidelines and ex-
post facto approvals granted by the UGC and DEC to
deemed to be universities that had offered technical degrees
in the academic years 2001-2005. It was held that the said
exercise of grant of ex-post facto approvals was completely
uncalled for and contrary to law and illegal. Accordingly, the
ex post facto approvals were set aside with the
consequential directions to recall all the engineering degrees
granted pursuant to the said approvals. However, conscious
that the ex post facto approvals were in terms of paragraph 5
of the 2004 Guidelines, while suspending the degrees
awarded to students who had been enrolled during the
academic years 2001 to 2005, the Court had given these
students an opportunity to appear and clear such
examination under joint supervision of the AICTE-UGC. It
was observed:-
"57. [T]he 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
16 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
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 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."
The aforesaid directions were not in respect of any
engineering degree granted by deemed to be universities
to candidates admitted/enrolled post the academic year
2004-2005. Grant of any degree for students enrolled post
the academic year 2004-2005 was held as contrary to law
and illegal, and could not be treated as regular and at par
with the regular degrees. Therefore, paragraph 49 would
not be of any avail to the petitioners.
17 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
18. Given the aforesaid ratio, we reject the plea that the
petitioners are entitled to relief as was granted to the
petitioners in Orissa Lift irrigation Corporation Limited I and
II. This contention is unacceptable for the reason that in
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited I and II, no relief
was granted to the candidates who had taken admission in
2005 or thereafter. Relief in the form of one-time relaxation
vide examination to be conducted by the AICTE was
granted to those candidates/students who had taken
admission in academic years beginning from 2001 and till
2004-2005."
[19]. Evidently, grant of any degree for students enrolled
post to academic year 2004-05 was held as contrary to the
judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. case (supra)
and could not be treated as regular and at par with regular
degrees, therefore, para No.49 of the said judgment would not be
of any avail to such candidates. In Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Ltd. case (supra), no relief was granted to the
candidates who had taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. The
relief in the form of one time relaxation in the examination to be
conducted by AICTE was granted to those candidates, who had
taken admissions in the year beginning from 2001 and till 2004-
05.
[20]. Learned counsel for the private respondents
vehemently submitted that in the litigation in respect of relaxed
modalities/conditions, the petitioners were not party as different
issues were involved in the said litigation. In the order of
18 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
clarification dated 22.01.2018, it was held that those candidates
who exercise their options to appear in the test, can retain the
degree in question and all advantages arising therefrom till one
month from the declaration of the result and till 31.07.2018,
whichever is earlier. Those who failed or chose not to appear,
their degrees shall stand suspended.
[21]. On 25.01.2018, a public notice was issued by AICTE
depicting the first set of modalities, wherein although syllabus
were substantially diluted inasmuch as against 30 to 35 theory
examinations, only 12 to 16 were kept in the examinations, but it
was mentioned that the candidates will have to pass both the
theory and practical examinations separately by obtaining 40%
independently. The said modalities came to be challenged in the
Delhi High Court and the writ petition was dismissed on
21.05.2018.
[22]. The examinations were held thereafter and answer
keys were published. Thereafter, the modalities, which had
already worked on and examinations had already been
conducted, got to be changed by AICTE for the reasons best
known to the authorities and the marks of theory and practical
which were earlier to be combined were now sought to be diluted
and it was held that a candidate shall be treated as pass, in case
theory and practical marks are combined to achieve 40%
qualifying marks.
19 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
[23]. The Writ Petition (Civil) No.952 of 2018 titled Sanjay
Kumar and others Vs. UGC was filed in the Hon'ble Apex Court,
which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to make
representation to the AICTE. The petitioners were not party to the
said controversy, nor such controversy involved in the case of the
petitioners. In respect of changing the modalities and diluting the
same, certain set of employees of Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, who had obtained degrees from recognized
Institutes and was aggrieved of the illegal dilution of criteria, filed
CWP No.28211 of 2018 titled Jitender Singh Vs. State of
Punjab on 01.11.2018. In the said writ petition, the petitioners
were not party, nor any such controversy arose. The said writ
petition was allowed by the High Court vide order dated
07.01.2020 and AICTE was directed to re-compute the result of
the examination strictly as per modality. All the petitioners were
not the party in the said writ petition. In case of the petitioners, the
result has already been declared, wherein the petitioners had
appeared in second chance and had cleared the same. The
judgment in Jatinder Singh's case (supra) was unsuccessfully
challenged in LPA No.474 of 2020 and the LPA was dismissed
on 28.09.2022 on the ground that the Single Judge has only
ensured that the purity of examination as was the object of the
Hon'ble Apex Court has been restored and kept in the mind.
Against the said order, SLP (C) No.23131 of 2022 is pending with
an interim order.
20 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
[24]. Evidently, in case of the petitioners, the result has
already been declared and they were not party to the aforesaid lis.
The pending litigation, if any, in respect of some different subject
matter is not attracted in case of the petitioners.
[25]. The entire case of the petitioners is that they had
undertaken the test conducted by AICTE in the month of
December 2018 in view of directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. case (supra). It is own
case of the petitioners that they did not appear for the test
conducted in June, 2018. They had already appeared in the tests,
which were conducted in December, 2018. In view of para No.58
of the judgment in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. case
(supra), choice was to be given to the students to appear in the
examination which ideally should be conducted during May-June
2018. Not more than two chances were required to be given to the
students concern. In order to clear the validation test, the students
ought to have firstly appeared in the first examination, which was
to be conducted in May-June 2018 as per orders of the Hon'ble
Apex Court. It was not permissible for the students to straightway
appear in December 2018 examination, which was virtually as a
re-appear chance to be given to those who would not clear the
test in June 2018. The petitioners did not avail the first chance.
The admission of the petitioners No.1 to 3 in the academic
sessions 2005-06 is evident on record and they are not entitled to
21 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
any protection of the judgment in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp.
Ltd. case (supra) because those students who were lastly
enrolled in the academic sessions 2004-05 were entitled for the
said benefit.
[26]. As per judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RA-LP
No.30 of 2019 in LPA No.260 of 2019 decided on 03.03.2020,
the petitioners No.1 to 3 having not enrolled in academic sessions
2001-2005 are not entitled to benefit of one time relaxation given
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd.
case (supra). Secondly, they are not claiming those benefits,
which they are not entitled from the date of passing of their
degrees as they have not completed three years experience after
acquiring the qualification in view of Regulation 10.7 of the 1965
Regulations from the date of declaration of the result by AICTE
and they have completed requisite period of three years only in
the year 2021, whereas the impugned seniority list are till
December 2017. The benefit of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. case (supra) for the academic
years 2001-05 would not include students who have obtained
admissions in academic sessions 2005-06. The judgment would
be applicable only to those students who were admitted in the
academic session 2004-05. The relevant extract of the said
judgment reads as under:-
22 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
"From a perusal of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme
Court, it is evident that the Supreme Court has clarified the
fact that no relief could be granted to a candidate who had
taken admission in 2005 or thereafter. The relief granted in
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra) was confined and
limited to candidates/students who had taken admission in the
academic year beginning from 2001 till 2004-2005. Apparently
and undisputedly, academic year 2004-05 would not include
those students, who had obtained admissions in August, 2005.
For those were admitted in the academic session 2005-06 and
not 2004-05. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the
Supreme Court in Vinit Garg and others (supra) as well as in
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (supra), we do not find
any error, least an error apparent on the face of record,
warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present
review application is dismissed."
[27]. The petition is completely silent as regards academic
session 2005-06 and not 2004-05. The petitioners have not
approached this Court with clean hands and they have concealed
the material facts. The petitioners have not disclosed the date of
admission or to which academic year did they take admission for
pursuing B.Tech (Electrical) degree through distant education
mode. The date of admission and academic years are material
information to be disclosed by the petitioners in order to determine
the eligibility of the petitioners for the benefit in question.
[28]. The petitioners No.1 to 3 are outrightly beyond
consideration in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
having taken admission in academic session 2005-06. As regards
23 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
the remaining two petitioners, it has been projected that they have
taken admission in January, 2005 whereas there is no admission
during the said part of the year. Admissions take place in the
beginning of session 2004-05. These petitioners in collusion with
their respective Universities carrying on these unrecognized
courses intentionally showed them admitted in January 2005,
which is at the verge of completion of academic year. Without
attaining any proper classes, it would be highly imaginary to see
that the students would get the requisite degree having studied
only for few months. These Universities were already subject
matter of CBI investigation as is evident from the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Life Irrigation Corp. Ltd. case
(supra).
[29]. In view of observations made in Civil Appeal Nos.
No.17869-17870 of 2017 titled Ashok Kumar and others Vs.
Depinder Singh Dhesi and others, the candidates who on the
strength of such degrees awarded through distance education
mode had obtained a particular level in their career or were
enjoying certain benefits 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 by any break in continuous enjoyment
of those benefits. The idea was, candidates should not stand
deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the
24 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
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. The intent of the judgment was to restore status quo
ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the judgment
and the order.
[30]. No benefit was being enjoyed by the petitioners,
therefore, the restoration of something which was not there
earlier, would not rise. The respondent No.1 has also ventilated its
stand.
[31]. As per 1965 Regulations, the employees working under
the respondent No.1 can avail the benefit of promotion in
accordance with two promotion channels i.e. Regulation 10.1 or
Regulation 10.7 of 1965 Regulations subject to eligibility and
qualification. In the present case, the controversy is in respect of
25 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
14% quota reserved for departmental employees possessing
AIME/degree in electrical/electronic and communication, who
have completed three years service in that capacity. Three years
service will be considered to be completed as qualified technical
subordinates i.e three years service will be counted after the date
of declaration of result of acquired requisite qualification while
maintaining the seniority in 14% AIME/degree holder quota of
technical subordinates. The petitioner No.3 Surjit Singh has
already been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide
order dated 06.06.2021 through promotion channel stipulated
under Regulation 10.1 of 1965 Regulations. Similarly, the
petitioners No.1, 2, 4 and 5 have already been promoted to the
post of Assistant Engineer as per Regulation 10.1 of 1965
Regulations. Their claim based on Regulation 10.7 of 1965
Regulations is found to be unsustainable for want of requisite
experience of three years in that capacity.
[32]. The case laws of different High Courts cited by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the light of
controversy explained hereinabove are not attracted to the facts of
the present case.
[33]. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, it is not
a fit case where indulgence can be granted in favour of the
petitioners.
26 of 27
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
[34]. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, no case is
made out to interfere in this writ petition. The present writ petition
is accordingly dismissed. Since the main case has been decided,
therefore, CM No.309-CWP of 2023 for vacation of stay has
become infructuous. Ordered accordingly. All pending applications
are also disposed of accordingly.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
04.07.2023
Prince
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084678
27 of 27
