Uttarakhand High Court
August vs Central Administrative Tribunal ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7059-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No.576 of 2017
11 August, 2025
Manas Kumar Hazara --Petitioner
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad --Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
Mr. Yogesh Pacholia and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent
no.4.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging judgment and order
dated 23.02.2016 rendered by Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (Circuit Sitting at Nainital) in
Original Application No.331/00007/2015 (Manas Kumar
Hazra Vs. Union of India and Others). By the said
judgment, challenge to reversion order made by the
petitioner, was rejected.
2. Petitioner possess diploma in Mechanical
Engineering, which he obtained while serving as
Machinist in Opto Electronics Factory Dehradun. The
said diploma was obtained through distance mode from
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (deemed)
University, Udaipur (Rajasthan). On the strength of the
diploma, petitioner was promoted as Charge man
2025:UHC:7059-DB
Grade-II (Technical /Mechanical) vide order dated
23.03.2009. The promotion given to the petitioner as
Charge man Grade-II was subsequently withdrawn by
order dated 30.12.2014 on the ground that Diploma in
Mechanical Engineering is obtained by petitioner
through distance education mode; however, the
monetary benefits which petitioner received pursuant
to his promotion as Charge Man Grade-II, were
protected. Petitioner challenged his reversion by filing
original application before Central Administrative
Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned
judgment.
3. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the original
application by holding that since petitioner has not
challenged the eligibility conditions for promotion as
Charge Man Grade-II, which provide that diploma in
engineering must be recognized by AICTE (All India
Counsel for Technical Education), therefore, no relief
can be granted to petitioner.
4. Admittedly, diploma awarded to petitioner by
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (deemed)
University, Udaipur (Rajasthan) was not recognized by
AICTE and it was simply approved by Indira Gandhi
National Open University (IGNOU). The recruitment
rules applicable for the post of Charge man Grade-II
are on record as Annexure No.CA2 to the counter
affidavit filed by respondent nos.2 and 3.
5. Rule 2(i) of the said Rules known as Indian
Ordnance Factories Group "C" Supervisory and Non-
Gazetted Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of
2025:UHC:7059-DB
Service) Rules, 1989 as amended in 2003 provides that
one must possess three years diploma or equivalent
qualification certificate in the respective field duly
affiliated by AICTE. It is not in dispute that AICTE is the
regulatory body for technical courses, including degree
and diploma courses in engineering.
6. Since the diploma possessed by petitioner
was not recognized by AICTE, therefore, learned
Tribunal rightly held that qualification possessed by
petitioner do not meet requirement of the applicable
recruitment Rules, therefore, there is no scope for
interference with the order whereby petitioner's
promotion was withdrawn.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift
Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar
Patro and Others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468
while declaring that without AICITE approval, B.Tech
Degree obtained through distance mode is not valid,
gave one opportunity to such candidates those were
enrolled in B.Tech Course between 2001 to 2005. He
submits that said judgment was only qua B.Tech
Degree holders and there was no observation made in
respect of diploma holders in Engineering.
8. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned
counsel appearing for the employer submits that in the
aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court
disapproved the practice of issuing degree/diploma in
Engineering courses through distance education mode,
without class room teaching. He submits that even if
2025:UHC:7059-DB
Hon'ble Supreme Court was not expressly dealing with
diploma courses in the said judgment, however, ratio of
that judgment shall apply to diploma courses as well
and the candidates who obtained diploma through
distance education mode from Janardan Rai Nagar
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (deemed) University, Udaipur
(Rajasthan), which was not recognized by AICTE,
cannot be treated as eligible. He further points out that
Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a B.Tech
degree awarded by the same university in the aforesaid
judgment.
9. Be that as it may, since recognition by AICTE
is one of the conditions of eligibility as per the
recruitment rules applicable for the post of Charge man
Grade-II and admittedly petitioner's diploma is not
recognized by AICTE, therefore, learned Tribunal was
justified in not interfering with the order of reversion
passed against the petitioner.
10. Thus, we do not find any good ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ petition
fails and the same is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
11.08.2025
SS
SUKHBANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a
6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D
72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2025.08.13 11:34:16 +05'30'
