Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Uttarakhand Pay Jal Nigam And Others on 24 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
24TH APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 105 OF 2025
Sheetal Gurung.
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Pay Jal Nigam and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Sri D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Dharmendra Barthwal,
learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 : Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel.
& 3.
Counsel for respondent nos. 4 to : Sri R.K. Raizada, learned Senior
6. Counsel assisted by Ms. Mamta Bisht,
learned counsel.
ORDER :
(per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard Sri D.S. Patni learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri Dharmendra Barthwal, learned counsel for
the petitioner; Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 1 to 3; and Sri R.K. Raizada, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 6.
2. The legality of the degree awarded by the
Institution of Engineers, Ludhiana, from where private
the respondent nos. 4 to 6 had allegedly completed their
degree, is in question. This Court need not travel far for
supportive material. The Office Memorandum dated
05.08.2008, issued by the Uttarakhand Pay Jal Nigam,
i.e. respondent no. 1, prima facie appears to be a
complete answer. The Office Memorandum reads as
under :
"Uttarakhand Drinking Water Resources Development
and Construction Corporation
Head Office: 11- Mohini Road, Dehradun
Letter No. 2779 / Chief Engineer Order /
Date 05.08.08
Office memorandum
Applications are being received from time to time from
junior engineers working in the department for
pursuing higher education such as B. Tech. AMIE and in
the said application forms, it is being mentioned that
they have received higher education from Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth University (Udaipur), Rajasthan, whereas
the said institution is not recognized by UGC, which has
been mentioned by Deputy Secretary University Grant
Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi in
his letter No. F-63/(Centre)/2003 (CPP-1) dated
03.07.2006 as follows:-
"The Committee recommended that the name of
the Institute may be removed from the public notice
dated 3rd August, 2005 posted on the UGC website
keeping in view the undertaking furnished by Sri
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur to
the effect that they have stopped admitting students
from 18th August, 2005 and on advertisement to this
effect has already been published in the newspaper.
Candidates who have completed the above
mentioned higher education from the said institution
before 18.08.2005 have been given special exemption
and further recognition has been cancelled. Action will
be taken to grant approval for AMIE higher education to
only one institution "The Institution of Engineers (India)
Calcutta" which is already recognized.
The approvals given earlier by the head office for
doing
B.Tech./ANIE from the said institution (Rajasthan
Vidyapeeth University (Udaipur) Rajasthan) after the
said date are hereby cancelled. In future, any branch
officer under the region will not be able to cancel the
approval.
Applications for pursuing higher education from
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University (Udaipur) Rajasthan
will not be forwarded to this office.
It is also directed that in future, permission
to do AMIE will be given only from "The
Institution of Engineers (India) Calcutta". No
permission will be given to pursue higher
education (AMIE) from any other institution.
(Emphasis by this Court)
Signature
(R.N. Verma) Chief Engineer (Min.)"
3. On a plain reading of the aforesaid Office
Memorandum, it is apparent that respondent nos. 1 & 2
had taken a categorical decision that all such Junior
Engineers, who desired to undertake and complete the
course of study in AMIE, were required to do the same,
only with the Institution of Engineers (India) Calcutta,
and the last paragraph categorically states that no
permission will be given to pursue higher education
(AMIE) from any other Institution.
4. The admitted fact, even according to learned
Senior Counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 6, and also
according to learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3,
is that permission was sought by private respondent nos.
4 to 6 to pursue and complete the engineering course
(AMIE) from the Institution at Ludhiana, and that the
letter for permission was made in the year 2009, i.e.
after the bar/ prohibition that was imposed by the official
respondents. The letter granting permission is said to
have been issued in the year 2010, and therein it was
specifically stated that they should pursue, and complete
the degree with the Institution of Engineers (India)
Calcutta. This is discernable from a reading of the Office
Memorandum bearing Letter No.
471/P.C.Camp.Ex.Add.Ass.Eng./08 dated 05.09.2024.
The opening paragraph of the Office Memorandum throws
light on this fact. It reads as under :
"......But due to doubt regarding the validity of the
degree course to be done from AMICE, the said
engineers were given permission to do the degree
course from The Institution of Engineer (India)
Kolkata......"
5. Thus, the completion of the course from the
Institute at Ludhiana, prima facie, was without prior
permission. That apart, after the completion of the
course, representations were made by the private
respondents, which representations came to be rightly
rejected by the department, as far back as, in the year
2013. The non-consideration of the representations
dated 29.09.2013 and 30.09.2013 led to filing of a Writ
Petition, seeking equivalence of degree issued by AMICE
(India) Ludhiana, with the degree issued by AMIE (India)
Calcutta. The Writ Petition came to be disposed of, with
a direction to consider the representations. The
representations came to be rejected in the year 2013
itself.
6. Thereafter, another Writ Petition was filed in
the year 2014, and the rejection of the representations
was the subject matter. The Writ Petition came to be
disposed of by recording the submission that the decision
taken by the High Powered Committee dated 29.11.2013,
has not been considered by the first respondent. It is
pertinent to note that this report was in view of a prayer
by certain employees of the Central Government, and
had nothing to do with the services of the State
Government.
7. Regulation 11 of the Uttarakhand Pey Jal
Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam Engineering
Service Regulations 2012, pertaining to Technical
Qualifications, reads as under :
"Technical Qualifications
11. (1) No any person shall be direct recruit in Civil
branch of service until-
(a) for the said purpose he hold
Graduation degree or equivalent
degree in Civil Engineering from any
recognized Institution by the
Government or a University
established by the Law; (Emphasis
by this Court)
(b) passed part 'A' or 'B' examination of
Associate Membership/ Membership
Examination of Civil Institutions of
Engineers India.
(2) No any person shall be direct recruit in
Electrical/Mechanical branch of service until -
(a) for the said purpose be hold Graduation
degree or equivalent degree in Electrical
and/or Mechanical Engineering from any
recognized Institution by the Government
or a University established by the Law;
(b) passed part 'A' or 'B' examination of
Associate Membership/ Membership
Examination of Electrical and/or Mechanical
Institutions of Engineers India.
(3) No any Additional Assistant Engineer or
Computer of the Uttarakhand Peyjal Sansadhan
Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam shall be promoted on
the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil or Electrical/
Mechanical) till he pass such eligibility
examination prescribed by the Nigam or
obtained technical qualification provided in the
regulation 5 (1) and 5 (2)."
8. From a reading of Regulation 11(1) (a) & (b), it
is apparent that the only Institute, that is recognized
under the Rules, even as on today, is the Associate
Membership/ Membership Examination of Civil
Institutions of Engineers India. A reading of the
Regulations of 2012, and the Office Memorandum dated
05.08.2008, makes it is apparent that the official
respondents had not recognized the degrees that were
"obtained" from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India)
Ludhiana (Punjab) (AMICE).
9. That apart, reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was in relation to a
dispute raised by the employees of the Union
Government. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel
for the Pey Jal Nigam on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (India) through its Chairman v. State of
Punjab and others, (2019) 16 SCC 95. Reference is
made to paragraph nos. 49 & 50, which read as under :
"49. However, the fact remains that the
equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the
appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with
AICTE up to 31.05.2013 as is evident from Notification
dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Central Government
and Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017.
These communications also indicate that all those
students who were enrolled up to 31.05.2013 would be
eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD
office memorandum/order in course. Though we have
laid down that the Certificates issued by the appellant
on successful completion of its bi-annual examination
to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent
to a Degree, an exception needs to be made in favour
of students enrolled up to 31.05.2013 and benefit in
terms of the Notification dated 06.12.2012 and Public
Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such
candidates. The candidates had opted to enroll
themselves so that they could appear at the
examinations conducted by the appellant under a
regime which was put in place by the Central
Government itself and the course content as well as the
curriculum were reviewed by the AICTE. However, the
aforementioned Notification and Public Notice were
clear that after 01.06.2013 the orders concerned
granting equivalence would cease to have any effect.
(Emphasis by this Court)
50. In the circumstances we do make an
exception in favour of such candidates enrolled up to
31.05.2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in
the present matter will apply after 01.06.2013. The
Certificate awarded by the appellant to such candidates
enrolled up to 31.05.2013 shall be considered
equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for
the purpose of employment in Central Government."
10. A reading of paragraph no. 50, aforesaid, would
show that the conclusions drawn are for the purposes of
consideration of equivalence of degree in Mechanical
Engineering, for the purpose of employment in the
Central Government alone, and it was in this context that
the reference to the report of 2013 of the Committee is
made.
11. In the case on hand, initially the request of
respondent nos. 4 to 6, having been rejected, and the
same having attained finality, the respondents could not
have reviewed their decision, in the absence of any power
of review conferred on them under the Statute. It is no
more res-integra, that the power of review is a statutorily
conferred power. The respondents, having rejected the
claim, and the same having attained finality, the
respondents could not have undone what they had
caused in 2013 itself. That apart, another interesting
development, that has taken place is that respondent
nos. 4 to 6 had been recruited to the post of Assistant
Engineer under the 50% quota under Regulation
5(1)(a)(ii)(1). The Department, having processed the
recruitment of the private respondents under the above
stream of recruitment, it is not made known as to how
they could have been re-recruited under Regulation
5(1)(a)(ii)(2). Part III of the Regulations, which deals
with Recruitment, identifies or classifies four sources or
streams of recruitment, i.e. 39 percent of the posts by
direct recruitment through the Public Service
Commission; 50 percent posts by promotion amongst
such Junior/ Additional Assistant Engineer; 8.33 percent
posts by promotion from amongst the Junior/Additional
Assistant Engineer, who have "obtained Graduate degree
in Civil Engineering or Electrical/ Mechanical Engineering
from any recognized Institution or Associate Member of
Institution of Engineers (India) within ten years from the
date of selection, and with prior approval of the Nigam".
Next is that 2.67 percent posts by promotion on the basis
of seniority from amongst computers.
12. The private respondent nos. 4 to 6, having
been recruited to the post, under the 50 percent posts by
promotion, on the ground that they have completed ten
years of service, it is not known under which provision of
law, the stream of recruitment could have been disturbed
or changed, and the petitioner re-recruited under the
8.33 percent quota.
13. Regulation 5 clearly refers to the appointments
as recruitment. The moot point would be then what is
the date of recruitment of these private respondents.
Whether it is the date of recruitment to the post of Junior
Engineer as on the date they were recruited under the 50
percent quota, or should their date of recruitment be
05.09.2024, when they were recruited under the 8.33
percent quota.
14. A plain reading of the aforesaid Rule does not
permit recruitment with retrospective effect. In that view
of the matter the petitioner, in our prima facie opinion,
has made out a case that the impugned proceedings and
the subsequent promotion (which have now been kept in
abeyance by proceedings of even date), are in the teeth
of the Regulations of 2012. Reliance on the rulings of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, in our prima facie opinion is
misplaced.
15. Hence, there shall be a stay of the
consideration of the candidature of the private
respondent nos. 4 to 6 for re-recruitment under the 8.33
percent quota. Insofar as, other private respondent nos.
7 to 11 are concerned, it is prima facie demonstrated
before the Court that they are ineligible to be considered
under the 8.33 percent quota, as they have not
completed their examination within the stipulated ten
years from the date of selection.
16. Issue notice to private respondent nos. 7 to 11.
17. List this case on 25.06.2025, along with other
connected cases.
_______________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
_____________
ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dt: 24th April, 2025
Rahul
