Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124321
CWP-17246-2019 (O&M)
1
8oIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(292) CWP-17246-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 19.09.2024
Sukhwinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amarpreet Singh Bains, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 3-UGC.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge at the hands of the
petitioner is to the action of the respondents in treating him ineligible for the
post of ETT Teachers as advertised by the respondents vide Advertisement
dated 01.03.2019, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-1.
2. Certain facts need to be mentioned for the correct appreciation
of the issue in hand.
3. The respondents issued an Advertisement dated 01.03.2019
(Annexure P-1) for filling up posts of ETT Teachers in Handicapped and
Freedom Fighter Category. Petitioner applied for the post in question and
competed in the reserved category of physically handicapped and cleared the
written examination but, at the time of scrutiny of his documents, the
petitioner was declared ineligible on the ground that the Bachelor of Arts
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124321
CWP-17246-2019 (O&M)
Degree, which the petitioner got from the University of Madras, Tamilnadu
through Distance Education Mode, cannot be treated as a valid degree.
4. As per the respondents, the B.A. Degree submitted by the
petitioner is not as per the University Grants Commission (UGC) Guidelines
hence, the petitioner has been treated as ineligible to compete for the post in
question.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got
his B.A. Degree from University of Madras, Tamilnadu through Distance
Education Mode in the year 2011 and he had completed his academic studies
starting from the year 2009 till 2011, hence, the University of Madras,
Tamilnadu, had appropriate permission to grant the Degree through Distance
Education Mode, but the respondents without appreciating the said fact, have
declared the petitioner ineligible for appointment to the post of ETT
Teachers.
6. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply,
wherein, the State of Punjab has maintained its stand that the petitioner does
not possess a valid Bachelor of Arts Degree as per the UGC Guidelines and
the Degree submitted by the petitioner having been obtained from University
of Madras, Tamilnadu through Distance Education Mode, is contrary to the
guidelines of the UGC hence, the petitioner has rightly been declared
ineligible for appointment to the post of ETT Teachers.
7. It may be noticed that the petitioner has also impleaded UGC as
a party in the present petition and the UGC has also filed a reply to the claim
of the petitioner. The respondent-UGC in paragraph No. 3 of their reply has
stated that the University of Madras, Tamilnadu is a State University and the
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124321
CWP-17246-2019 (O&M)
Distance Education Council vide their letter dated 15.09.2008 (Annexure R-
3/1) had granted the ex-post facto recognition to the Distance Education
Programmes of the University of Madras, Tamil Nadu even for the academic
year 1995-1996 and the same continued upto the year 2006-2007. Thereafter,
the University of Madras, Tamil Nadu was again accorded provisional
recognition for the programmes offered by the University through Distance
Education Mode for the academic year 2007-2008 vide letter dated
03.09.2007 and the said recognition continued till the academic year 2014-
2015. As per the reply filed by the UGC, it is only from the year 2016-2017
onwards, no further recognition was given to University of Madras, Tamil
Nadu to conduct the program through Distance Education Mode.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
9. The only question which arises for adjudication before this Court
in the present petition is whether, the B.A. Degree submitted by the petitioner
from the University of Madras, Tamil Nadu obtained through the Distance
Education Mode is a valid qualification keeping in view the UGC Guidelines
or not.
10. From the facts which have been stated here-in-before, the UGC
is on record to say that the University of Madras, Tamil Nadu had recognition
for conducting the program through Distance Education Mode. The said
recognition continued upto the year 2014-2015. It is only that thereafter, the
Distance Education Mode Programmes conducted by the University of
Madras, Tamil Nadu were not recognized hence, the claim of the petitioner is
to be considered keeping in view the stand of the UGC.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124321
CWP-17246-2019 (O&M)
11. It is a conceded position that the petitioner has got his B.A.
Degree for the academic year 2009 to 2011 though through the Distance
Education Mode. At the relevant time, the University of Madras, Tamil Nadu
had recognition to conduct the said examination through Distance Education
Mode duly granted by the UGC. Once, when the B.A. Degree was obtained
by the petitioner in the year 2011, when the University of Madras, Tamil
Nadu had due recognition for the award of B.A. Degree through Distance
Education Mode, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not possess a valid
B.A. Degree or the same is contrary to the guidelines of the UGC.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has not been
able to rebut the said fact. Once, the said fact has gone un-rebutted, it cannot
be said that the Degree obtained by the petitioner from the University of
Madras, Tamil Nadu in the year 2011 suffered from any infirmity so as to be
considered invalid while evaluating the claim of the petition for appointment
to the post of ETT Teacher.
13. Not only this, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in somewhat
similar circumstances with regard to the academic Degree granted through
the Distance Education Mode by the Sikkim Manipal University while
passing order in CWP No. 24938 of 2016 titled as Jagjit Singh and another
Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 27.03.2019, has already held
that the Degree which a candidate has obtained through the Distance Mode,
during the period the University which has awarded the said Degree was duly
recognized by the UGC for the grant of Degree through Distance Education
Mode, is to be treated as a valid Degree. The relevant paragraph Nos. 7, 8
and 9 of the said judgment are as under :-
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124321
CWP-17246-2019 (O&M)
"7. Having scrutinized above admitted sequel of events
and hearing arguments of counsel for the parties, especially the
UGC and Sikkim Manipal University, this Court finds that
present petition deserves to be allowed.
The conceded position as emerges from record of the case
is that the petitioners obtained bachelor degree in Computer
Application through Distance Education Mode from SMU during
the session 2008-11 and 2007-2010 respectively. As per
judgment dated 29.06.2015 (P-11) of Sikkim High Court as
upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21.09.2015
(P-12) students, who were enrolled in such courses prior to the
academic session 2011-2012 and having completed degree
before or thereafter, stand protected and their Degree(s) are
valid. The said degree course was duly recognised by Distance
Education Council vide its communication dated 06.11.2009.
8. The petitioners cleared Punjabi and English Typing Test and
thereafter, appeared for counselling. At this stage no objection
was raised by Board, however, name of petitioners were not
included in the final merit list. The only ground of rejection of
candidature of petitioners is that they have obtained degree
through Distance Education Mode. From the afore-stated
undisputed facts reproduced in Para 6 coupled with reply of
respondentSMU and judgment passed by Sikkim High Court,
which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is quite
evident that students who were enrolled prior to Academic
Session 2011-12 and have completed degree before or thereafter,
stand protected and their degree(s) are valid. Both the
petitioners were enrolled in the academic session of 2008-2011
and 2007- 2010 respectively and they obtained Degree through
distance education mode in the year of 2011 and 2010. It is
established that the petitioners were enrolled prior to academic
session 2011-12 and even completed their course prior to 2011-
12 and thus, would be fully protected by orders of Sikkim High
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124321
CWP-17246-2019 (O&M)
Court/Supreme Court and their Degree(s) are valid. Therefore,
the action of respondent-Board in treating the petitioners
ineligible for appointment as Clerk/Data Entry Operator is
declared illegal.
9. In view of aforesaid findings, the present petition
deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The
respondent-Board is directed to consider the petitioners as
eligible candidate and recommend their name for appointment
as per secured merit in their category if falling within zone of
advertised vacancies within two weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. The Punjab Government/Department
concerned would issue an appointment letter within next four
weeks subject to usual/standard terms and conditions,
appointing the petitioners as Clerk/Data Entry Operator with
effect from their junior in merit list were appointed. It is further
directed that the petitioners would be entitled to consequential
benefits like continuity of service, seniority etc. with effect from
the date of such appointment, however, monetary benefits shall
be on notional basis."
14. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to
rebut that the claim raised by the petitioner in the present petition is similar to
the one raised in Jagjit Singh and another (supra), where the benefit of
treating the academic Degree obtained by a candidate through Distance
Education Mode during the period the University concerned was duly
recognized by the UGC for the grant of Degree through Distance Education
Mode, is to be treated as a valid Degree for the purpose of appointment to a
post.
15. Keeping in view the facts mentioned here-in-before, the claim of
the petitioner that he be considered eligible to compete for the post in
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124321
CWP-17246-2019 (O&M)
question on the basis of the Degree obtained from University of Madras,
Tamil Nadu in the year 2011 is allowed and the respondents are directed to
treat the petitioner eligible to compete for the post in question i.e. ETT
Teacher as advertised vide Advertisement dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-1).
16. As the petitioner has already undergone the selection process for
the post in question, the respondents are directed to evaluate the case of the
petitioner and in case, the petitioner is found entitled for selection/
appointment and any candidate in the Category in which the petitioner is
competing, having lower merit than the petitioner is selected/appointed, the
petitioner will be granted appointment with effect from the date candidate
lower in merit has been appointed against the one post which has already
been reserved keeping in view the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
dated 02.07.2019.
17. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner on instructions from the petitioner, who himself is present in Court,
submits that in case the respondents grant the petitioner appointment to the
post in question within a period of eight weeks from the date respondents
receive a copy of this order, he will not claim any arrears of salary upon
retrospective appointment.
18. Keeping in view the said undertaking of the petitioner in case,
the petitioner is found entitled for appointment and is within the merit zone,
the petitioner be appointed on the post in question notionally from the date
when candidate lower in merit has been appointed within a period of eight
weeks. The petitioner's salary will be fixed accordingly from the date of
appointment along with other benefits except the arrears of salary which the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:124321
CWP-17246-2019 (O&M)
petitioner has relinquished with the condition. Let the present order be
complied with within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of copy of this
order.
19. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the similar claim is pending consideration for 29.10.2024 before the LPA
Bench in LPA No. 1843 of 2019 titled as State of Punjab and another Vs.
Karamjit Kaur.
20. It may be noticed that learned State counsel concedes the factum
that there is no interim order in case of the said LPA and the judgment passed
by the Single Judge has already been implemented. That being so, mere
pendency of an LPA, will be no ground to postpone the hearing of the present
case so as to await the said decision.
21. Present petition is allowed in above terms.
22. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
September 19, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
8 of 8
