High Court of Punjab and HaryanaLPA/260/2019allowed

State Of Haryana And Others v. Prem Chand And ORS

2019-08-05Mr. Justice Krishna Murari,Mr. Justice Arun Palli14 pages

LPA No. 260 of 2019 1

! "!#$% &' Date of Decision: 5th August, 2019 State of Haryana and others .....Appellants versus Prem Chand and others .....Respondents &( )&

*+ *&

, * )&

, Present :

Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants.

Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Hooda, Advocate, for the respondent,caveator. **** + *&

, * This intra,court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the State of Haryana laying a challenge to the judgment and order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 11789 of 2010 whereby the claim of respondents,petitioners No.1,3, 5 and 7 for promotion to higher posts along with all advantages and benefits have been allowed in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

! "# ,and with respect of rest of the respondents, it has been directed that proceedings qua them shall go on.

LPA No. 260 of 2019 2 2.

Facts giving rise to the dispute in brief can be summarized as under:, All the respondents,petitioners joined as Junior Engineers in Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Haryana on different dates between the period 1995 to 2007. Respondent No.8 joined as Head Draftsman on 19.07.1995. During the course of their employment, all the respondents,petitioners obtained higher qualification of B.Tech. from Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University. All of them submitted their certificates of degree of B.Tech. before respondent No.2 for consideration of their claim for grant of benefit of increments and promotion as Sub Divisional Engineers. The claim of the respondents,petitioners was turned down by the appellants on the ground that the qualification of B.Tech. degree obtained from Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University is not recognized. 3.

Based upon certain alleged policy decision of the Haryana Government that all the Junior Engineers who have rendered five years regular service and acquired the degree in Engineering shall be granted the benefit of two advance increments and also the policy decision said to have been taken on 02.11.1999 that the qualification awarded by recognized universities shall be deemed to be recognized by the State of Haryana, filed the writ petition challenging the decision of the State Government to reject their claim on the ground that the degree was not from a recognized university. Reliance in the writ petition was also placed on the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court holding that the degree awarded by Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University is recognized as the said university is a deemed to be university duly recognized by the University Grants Commission.

LPA No. 260 of 2019 3 4.

During the pendency of the writ petition, respondents, petitioners No.1,3, 5 and 7 filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application with the prayer that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

(supra) since they appeared in the examination conducted in the month of May,2018 by All India Council for Technical Education and have qualified the same, their degree(s) will be deemed to be validly issued and they will be entitled to restoration of all the benefits including that of promotion. 5.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the said application was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on the first date of hearing by relying upon para,57 of the said judgment holding that the degree(s) of respondents,petitioners No.1,3,5 and 7 will be treated as valid in service matters including promotion etc. and accordingly issued a direction for their promotion from due dates. With respect to rest of the respondents,petitioners, it was directed that if the employees clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully. 6.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.

It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the petition qua respondents,petitioners No.1,3, 5 and 7 on the basis of the directions contained in paragraph,57 of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in

(supra) inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court had confined the benefit of validating the degree(s) only to such employees who obtained B.E./B.Tech. and AMIE degree(s) etc. during the academic sessions 2001,2005 that is between the academic

LPA No. 260 of 2019 4 sessions 2001,02, 2002,03, 2003,04 and 2004,2005. It is also submitted that no evidence has been produced by any of the respondents,petitioners either in the writ petition or even in the Civil Miscellaneous Application to demonstrate that they were enrolled to obtain the educational qualification of degree of B.E./B.Tech &AMIE either from Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University or other deemed to be universities during the above said academic years only.

Learned counsel for the appellants also vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in taking into consideration only paragraph,58 of the judgment in

(supra) ignoring the observations made in paragraphs 57, 66, 67 and 68 of the judgment. 9.

The issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court for consideration in above noted case was in respect of validity of a B.Tech. degree obtained while in service from a deemed university through distance education mode. Orissa High Court while holding the degree to be valid had allowed the writ petition filed by such degree holders claiming promotion to higher posts which was under challenge before the Apex Court. 10.

The same issue came up for consideration before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a Public Interest Litigation Civil Writ Petition No. 1640 of 2008 $ %

& '(

##This Court held the degree(s) to be illegal by making the following observation:,

! !

LPA No. 260 of 2019 5 ! " #

! ! !

$ 11.

The declaration invalidating the degree(s) obtained through Distance Education mode by this Court was subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Similarly, the contrary view taken by the Orissa High Court was also challenged by the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. before the Apex Court. Since the issues raised in two matters were common, they were clubbed together and were decided by the common judgment.

12.

After due deliberation Hon'ble Apex Court accepted the view taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of

and set aside the decision of the High Court of Orissa. The Apex Court was of the view that entire exercise of grant of ex post facto approval to the deemed universities to conduct such courses was incorrect and illegal and directions ought to be issued to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof. However, taking a sympathetic view in the matter since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves gave liberty to the deemed to be universities concerned to apply for ex post facto approval observed in paragraphs 57, 58 and 59 as under:, %!

& ! ! &

LPA No. 260 of 2019 6 ' ! !

! !! % ())* + + !

& '

! ()),-()).

! & ! !

! !

! !!!

& %

! !! !

! ()), ()). & #

1 ! !

LPA No. 260 of 2019 7

# !

2 3 &

! ()),-()). ! #

! "

! &

!5-6 (),7

4 ! 2 3 ! 2 3 !

! ,.-,-(),7 &

! 2 3

2 3

8,-8-(),7 2 3 ! 0

2 3

! !! !

LPA No. 260 of 2019 8

& !

! !

()),-()).

!! !

% !

8,-.-(),7

LPA No. 260 of 2019 9

& + $ The aforesaid observations of the Apex Court have been concluded in paragraph,66 of the judgment which read as under:, ! 9

,::*

! ()),-()). & ! +

! !!

2 3 .7

! ,.-,-(),7 2 3

.7 " ! 2 3 2 3 ! !

.< .7

! 2 3 8,-8-(),7

& !

! =

LPA No. 260 of 2019 10 2 3 ! = !

()),-()). !

!! !

.: % &

8,-.-(),7 .: /8,-.-(),7 >><

+ 0

!! ! >)

! + # 6;4

?5;1

' 8)->-(),7 ! & 0

(),7-(),:

! =!

LPA No. 260 of 2019 11

- =

+ " (8

+ ! $

- !

& !!

! ! !

!! !

8,-7-(),7

,,-:-(),7$ 13.

Subsequently, various clarification applications were filed before the Apex Court in the matter. The issue was clarified vide order dated 22.01.2018 in Misc. Applications No. 1795,1796 of 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869,17870 of 2017 as under:, " 0 ! ! ! !! !

! &

# ! 0 &

LPA No. 260 of 2019 12

! ! # ! #

! ()),-()).

# ! !

5-6 (),7

# ! ! ' ! !

8,-<- (),7

! -&

! /

# ! ! !

& !

# ! &

5-6 (),7

# !

& & $

LPA No. 260 of 2019 13 14.

A perusal of the aforesaid clearly goes to show that one time relaxation was given in favour of those candidates only who enrolled during the academic years 2001,2005 with the deemed to be Universities for various courses in Engineering through Distance Education mode and who in terms of the judgment were eligible to appear in the tests to be conducted by the AICTE. Thus the recognition was granted only to such candidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001,05 with the deemed to be universities.

15.

From a combined reading of the directions given by the Apex Court in the judgment in

(supra) and the clarification order dated 22.01.2018 it becomes apparent that the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed that the candidates who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001,05 and exercised option to appear at the test to be conducted by the AICTE in terms of the judgment can retain the degrees in question and all the advantages flowing there from till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018 whichever is earlier and that if the benefits are withdrawn from them after 31.07.2018, then all such benefits and advantages will be restored to them on passing the examination in first or second chances as the case may be.

16.

On analysis of the factual averments in the pleadings, we find that there is not even an averment much less any documentary evidence on record to establish that any of the respondents,petitioners were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001,05. On the contrary it has been categorically pleaded in the appeal by the appellants that respondent, petitioner No.1 acquired B.Tech. degree from Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University on 25.04.2009. Similarly, respondent,

LPA No. 260 of 2019 14 petitioner No.3 obtained degree from the same university on 20.06.2017. Respondent,petitioner No.3 obtained degree on 20.06.2009 and respondent, petitioner No.7 was issued degree on 15.04.2010. A categorical averment has also been made in the appeal that none of the respondents,petitioners were enrolled and obtained degrees within the parameters prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that is between the academic sessions 2001,05. 17.

In the absence of any evidence muchless an averment to establish the fact that respondents,petitioners enrolled themselves with the university in question during the academic sessions 2001,05, they are not at all entitled to any benefit to be extended by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

18.

A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge clearly goes to show that this aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration and thus the judgment suffers from a legal infirmity and is not liable to be sustained and stands set aside.

19.

Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.

!"#$%&'! Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No