Rajesh Gupta
Jammu, Aug 21: In WP(C) 2001/2024 c/w (i) WP(C) 2006/2024(ii) WP(C) 2018/2024 (iii) WP(C) 2369/2024 (I) WP(C) 2001/2024 titled 1. Asif Mohammad Iqbal. vs. 1. 1. Vijay Kumar S/O Late Shri Niwas R/O Greater Kailash Jammu At Present JKTDC Complex, 2. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Public Works (R&B) Department& ors
(II) WP(C) No.2006/2024 1. Rayes Ahmad Naqashbandi & ors Vs. 1. Vijay Kumar S/O Late ShriNiwas R/O Greater Kailash Jammu At present JKTDC Complex, TRC Srinagar. 2.State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, PublicWorks (R&B) Department, Civil Sectt. Srinagar/Jammu. & ors
(111) WP(C) 2018/2024: 1. Asif Mohammad Iqbal & ors Vs 1. Vijay Kumar S/O Late Shri Niwas R/OGreater Kailash Jammu at Present JKTDC Complex, 2. Union Territory of Jammu andKashmir and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Public Works(R&B) Department, Civil Sectt. Srinagar/Jammu
(IV) WP(C) No. 2369/2024: 1. Union Territory of J&Kthrough Principal Secretary to Govt. Public Works (R&B) Department, CivilSecretariat Srinagar/Jammu Vs. 1. VijayKumar, Aged 47 years, S/O Late Shri Niwas R/O Greater Kailash, Jammu, A/P JKTDCComplex, TRC, Srinagar &ors
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE. JUDGMENT (ORAL) 19.11.2024 Sanjeev Kumar-J:
1. These four writ petitions, three by the persons who areserving in the Department of Public Works (Roads and Building) as AssistantEngineers and one by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, are directedagainst an order and judgment dated 15th May, 2024, passed by the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Srinagar [“the Tribunal”] in TA No. 1086/2020, TA No.2994/2021 and TA No. 2996/2021, whereby the Tribunal has quashed the Governmentorder bearing No. 243-PW (R&B) of 2020 dated 28th August, 2020, impugnedbefore it and directed the official respondents therein to regularize theservices of the Respondent-Vijay Kumar as Assistant Engineer (Civil) DegreeHolder on the basis of Government Order No. 216-PW (R&B) dated 5th June,2014.
2. The Tribunal has issued further directions to give placeto the Respondent-Vijay Kumar in the final seniority list as Assistant Engineer(Civil) Degree Holder issued vide Government order No. 460-PW (R&B) of 2019dated 22nd October, 2019. There are other consequential directions issued bythe Tribunal.
3. The impugned order is assailed by the petitionersprimarily on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that theGovernment Order dated 28th August, 2020, was necessitated to comply with thejudgment passed along with clubbedmatters by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp.Ltd. Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others, 2018 (1)SCC 468”.
4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is argued that theTribunal is not correct in holding that the validity or otherwise of theEngineering Degree obtained by the Respondent-Vijay Kumar from Vinakaya MissionResearch Foundation University [“for short VMRFU”] through distance mode, isnot open to challenge after the passing of the Government order No. 216-PW(R&B) of 2014 dated 5th June, 2014.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusedthe material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal hasnot appreciated the import of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtalong with clubbed matters Rabi Sankar Patro in correct perspective and hasthus landed in an error in quashing the Government order dated 28th August,2020, which was impugned before it.
8. Admittedly,Respondent-Vijay Kumar came to be recruited as Junior Engineer in theDepartment of Public Works (R&B) of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir andpossessed the qualification of Diploma in Civil Engineering. During thecurrency of his service as Junior Engineer, he obtained a decree in CivilEngineering (B. Tech) from VMRFU Salem, Tamil Nadu, through distance mode.
9. It needs to berecalled that the engineering degrees granted by "deemed-to-be"universities through distance mode, that too, without the approval of AICTEbecame subject matter of long drawn litigation in this Court.
Despite the severalrounds of litigation on the subject, the issue remained undetermined. Likeothers, the Respondent-Vijay Kumar, also approached this Court in the year 2010by way of SWP No. 963/2010 which was disposed of by a learned Single Bench ofthis Court on 9th May, 2011, directing the official respondents to consider theclaim of the petitioner for his inclusion/placement at an appropriate place inthe seniority list of degree holders Junior Engineers in accordance with ruleshaving due regard to the Government order No. 245-PW (Hyd) of 2008 dated 05thMay, 2008.
10. The order issuedby the learned Single Bench was assailed by the official respondents before theDivision Bench in LPASW No. 192/2011 and LPASW No 191/2011. The Division Benchof this Court, vide its order dated 6th March 2012, dismissed the said appealsand directed the official respondents to comply with the directions of thelearned Single Bench within a period of two weeks.
The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the respondent/Stateagainst this decision also met the same fate.
11. Ultimately, thejudgment passed by the learned Single Bench was complied with, and GovernmentOrder No. 216-PW (R&B) of 2014, dated 5th June, 2014, was issued.
The respondent, alongwith a few others who had obtained their degrees in Civil Engineering fromVMRFU through distance mode, were held entitled to be placed in the tentativeseniority list of degree holder Junior Engineers.
The respondent, Vijay Kumar, was thus the beneficiary ofthis Government Order and was expecting that, as and when a process for regularpromotions is undertaken, he would be considered as Junior Engineer (DegreeHolder) and given the benefit accordingly.
12. Meanwhile, the litigation regarding the validity ofengineering degrees granted by various "deemed-to-be" universitiesthrough distance mode, that too, without the permission of the AICTE came upfor consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabi SankarPatro. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after examining the provisions of the UGCAct, the IGNOU Act, and the AICTE Act, held that the AICTE Regulations of 1994,were applicable to "deemed-to-be" universities.
Consequently, the Court held that these universities werenot justified in introducing any course in technical/engineering educationwithout prior approval from the AICTE.
13. In a nutshell, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, afterextensive deliberation, concluded that "deemed-to-be" universitiesare not entitled to offer engineering courses via distance mode unless theyhave the explicit approval and permission of the AICTE
15. In terms of the aforesaid judgment, which was admittedlya judgment in rem binding upon all “deemed-to-be” universities impartingengineering degrees, through distance mode without approval from the AICTE, theengineering degrees obtained by the students from such "deemed-to-be"universities through distance mode were suspended.
The AICTE was directed to devise modalities to conduct anappropriate test/tests, and the choice was given to the students whose degreesstood suspended to appear for these test/tests, which were to be conducted bythe AICTE by 15th January 2018.
The students were directed to be given two opportunities toclear the test/tests. It was only such candidates who would successfully passtheir test/tests alone would be entitled to seek revival of their degrees.However, for candidates who did not successfully clear the test/tests, theirdegrees were to be cancelled, and any benefits or advantages received by thembased on such degrees were to be withdrawn.
16. In compliance with the judgment passed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Rabi Sankar Patro, the Government issued the order dated 28thAugust 2020, impugned before the Tribunal. Since the Government order dated28th August, 2020, was issued solely to comply with the judgment passed by theHon’ble Supreme Court, as such, there was no occasion to provide anyopportunity of hearing to the Respondent-Vijay Kumar.
17. It isindisputable that Respondent-Vijay Kumar has obtained his degree in CivilEngineering from VMRFU having been enrolled during the academic sessions from2001-2005 and that VMRFU was running the engineering program without therebeing any express approval of the AICTE. It is, by reason of the judgmentpassed in Rabi Sankar Patro, the engineering degree of the respondent, VijayKumar, stood suspended from the date of the judgment, i.e., 3 rd November 2017.
The degree could have been revived only if Respondent-VijayKumar would have successfully cleared the test/tests as indicated in Paragraph47 of the judgment.
The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi SankarPatro which is judgment in rem is applicable to 2024:JKLHC-SGR:435-DB WP(C) No.2001/2024 along with clubbed matters all including to the cases whereGovernment or other Authorities of the Government may have accepted suchdegrees as valid.
18. It would be an absolute fallacy to say that the issuewith regard to the validity or otherwise of the degree of Respondent-VijayKumar, obtained from VMRFU through distance mode, stood finally determined bythis Court in the judgment dated 09.05.2011 passed in SWP No. 963/2010.
19. We have carefully adverted to the judgment of thelearned Single Judge as also the Division Bench in the case of Respondent-VijayKumar, and we do not find any such determination of the issue on merits.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge, as upheld by theDivision Bench, indicates that the Court did not determine the issue ofvalidity of degree of the Respondent-Vijay Kumar and rather left the matter tobe determined by the official respondents in accordance with applicable rulesand in light of Government Order No. 245-PW (Hyd) of 2008, dated 05th June,2008.
20. The Tribunal, thus, clearly fell in error in holdingthat the judgment dated 9th May, 2011, finally determined the legal validity ofengineering degree obtained by Respondent-Vijay Kumar from VMRFU throughdistance mode.
The question ofvalidity for such engineering degrees, granted by deemed-to-be universitieslike VMRFU without prior approval of AICTE, was addressed exclusively by theHon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Sankar Patro, decided on 3rd November, 2017.
21. Having regard tothe nature of issue involved and its wider ramifications, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt did not restrict its judgment to the parties before it, but issueddirections applicable to all the deemed-to-be universities and students who hadobtained their degrees from these institutions.
22. The plea of the deemed-to-be universities that theybeing the universities constituted under the UCG Act were not liable to seekapproval of the AICTE for running engineering courses was rejected by theHon’ble Supreme Court. It was authoritatively held that all the deemed-to-beuniversities are governed by the AICTE Regulations of 1994, insofar as thedegree courses in engineering are concerned.
The Hon’ble SupremeCourt frowned upon the ex-post facto approvals granted by the UGC to suchuniversities to run their programs in engineering through distance mode.
23. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court waspathbreaking and set the long-standing controversy regarding the validity ofengineering degrees granted by deemed-to-be universities without AICTE approvalat rest.
The AICTE was directed to take requisite steps forconducting the test/tests, as indicated in Paragraph 47 of the judgment, forstudents who had obtained their degrees having been enrolled during theacademic sessions from 2001- 2005 were given an opportunity to qualify suchtest/tests.
Their degrees were suspended till they successfullyqualified the test/tests conducted by the AICTE
24. The colleagues of Respondent-Vijay Kumar, who werepetitioners alongside him before this Court, participated in the test conductedby the AICTE and successfully qualified the same. Consequently, their degreeswere revived and they were allowed to avail the benefits as degree holderJunior Engineers.
However,Respondent-Vijay Kumar, for reasons best known to him, choose not to appear inthe test. As a result, he lost the opportunity to revive his degree, whichstood suspended in accordance with the directions contained in Paragraph 53 ofthe judgment in Rabi Sankar Patro.
25. The Government of the Union Territory of Jammu &Kashmir, as it was obliged in law, complied with the judgment passed by theHon’ble Supreme Court.
Those who qualified in the test conducted by the AICTE werepermitted to take the benefits of their degrees, whereas Respondent-Vijay Kumarand others who either chose not to participate or failed to qualify in thetest, were deprived of their status as degree holders in Civil Engineering.
This necessitated theissuance of a Government Order dated 28th August 2020, which was subsequentlychallenged by Respondent-Vijay Kumar before the Tribunal.
26. From the discussion we have made above, it is evidentthat the Tribunal has completely misdirected itself and has erroneously heldthat the right of the Respondent-Vijay Kumar to claim the benefit of hisengineering degree obtained from VMRFU through distance mode stood determinedby this Court.
It is true that interms of the Government Order dated 5th June, 2014, the Government at one pointof time had accepted the plea of the Respondent-Vijay Kumar and directed hisinclusion in the tentative seniority list of degree holder junior engineers.
This order was withdrawn by the Government when the positionwith regard to the validity of such degrees was clarified by the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Rabi Sankar Patro and directions which, we have adverted toabove, have been issued.
26. In the premises,we find merit in these petitions and the same are, accordingly, allowed. Theimpugned Order and Judgment passed by the Tribunal is set aside and as aconsequence thereof, the writ petitions filed by the Respondent-Vijay Kumar aredismissed.
However, Vijay Kumar, thereafter filed a SLP in SupremeCourt of India, which was again dismissed, copy with CTN reads as under:-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave toAppeal (C) No(s). 11053/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and orderdated 19-11-2024 in WP(C) No. 2001/2024 passed by the High Court of Jammu &Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar] VIJAY KUMAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OFJAMMU AND KASHMIR & ORS. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION IA No. 69872/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY INREFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS Date : 23-07-2025
This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI
UPON hearing the counsel,the Court made the following O R D E R
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties. 2. Delaycondoned.
3. The presentpetition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the HighCourt of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, in Writ Petition (C)No.2001of 2004 by which the promotion earlier granted to the petitioner was directedto be withdrawn.
4. Learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue revolves around thevalidity of the Engineering Degree obtained by the petitioner from VinayakaMission Research Foundation University (for short ‘VMRFU’) through distancemode, for the purpose of employment under the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.It is submitted that, in an earlier round of litigation, the Government hadissued a list of candidates, including the petitioner, who were consideredfit/eligible for appointment based on such degrees.
When this positionwas subsequently reviewed and the petitioner was excluded, he approached theCourt. That litigation culminated in a judgment in his favour, which remainedundisturbed, even before this Court.
5. It is further submitted that the issue inter se betweenthe parties had already attained finality, and that a judgment in person amhaving been passed earlier, the petitioner cannot now be subjected to the testprescribed by a subsequent judgment of this Court, with regard to the validityof such degree, which was obtained through distance learning.
It was submitted that the subsequent judgment would onlyoperate prospectively and the matter which has been settled, cannot bereopened, especially relating to service matters, as finality must be accordedto such judicial pronouncements.
6. Per contra,learned Senior Counsel for the State submits that the earlier round oflitigation only addressed the limited issue, that until the petitioner’s degreewas declared invalid by a Competent Authority or Court, the petitioner’s casebe considered and the Court directed that he could not be removed from serviceand was entitled to remain in service based on such qualification.
7. It is further submitted that, in subsequent proceedings,this Court has categorically held that the All India Council for TechnicalEducation (AICTE) would be the final authority in determining the validity ofEngineering Degrees, especially those obtained through distance learning.
In view thereof, though the AICTE issued a notificationdeclaring such distance mode degrees invalid, but gave the affected candidatesan opportunity to validate their degrees by appearing in an examination.
8. It is alsosubmitted that several similarly situated persons availed of this opportunityand appeared for the examination and were also successful. However, thepetitioner chose not to do so.
9. It was submitted that the issue here is completelydistinct and different and based on the principle that AICTE is the ultimateauthority in such matters, and this position is affirmed by this Court.
In this context, the petitioner’s basic qualification beingpresently unrecognized, he would not be entitled to remain/continue in service.Nonetheless, he continues to be retained on his initial unpromoted post.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the privaterespondents supports the submissions made on behalf of the State.
11. Having given our anxious thoughts, we are in agreementwith the stand taken by learned counselfor the respondents.
12. This Court, in its earlier judgment, held that AICTE isthe final authority to determine the validity of such certificates/degrees.
The Court hadprovided a window to the candidates, similarly situated to the petitioner, tovalidate their degrees by appearing in an examination, which was also conductedand the petitioner chose not to participate in the said examination.
13. In such circumstances, we find no fault in the action ofthe respondents in reverting the petitioner to his original post. Thus, we donot find any merit warranting interference in the present case by this Court.
14. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands disposedof.
15. Having disposed of the present petition in the aforesaidterms, as a consequence, the Interlocutory Application seeking initiation ofContempt Proceeding(s) stands dismissed.
Accordingly, the Contempt Petition (Civil) No.514/2025,stands dismissed.
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointedout that, at the very least, the petitioner’s case may now be considered forpromotion.
In response, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Statesubmitted that the petitioner is included in the seniority list but in a juniorcategory, and that his case shall be considered for promotion to the higherpost as and when his turn comes. We record such stand of the respondent-State.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also standdisposed of.
(VARSHA MENDIRATTA) (ANJALI PANWAR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURTMASTER (NSH)
|