Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors.
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These applications have been
preferred seeking clarification and modification of directions issued by
this Court in its Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2017 (“the judgment”
for short) in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of 2017. Various directions
were issued in the judgment and more particularly in paragraph No.53
of the judgment. The gist of the applications and the contentions advanced
by the learned counsel were as follows:-
A] M.A. Nos. 1795-1796 of 2017 in CIVIL APPEAL
Nos.17869-17870 of 2017 (I.A. No.138771 of 2017)
MA 1797-1798/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017 (I.A.
No.138778 of 2017)
MA 1799-1800/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017(I.A.
No.13890 of 2017)
MA 1801-1802/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017 (I.A.
No.138791 of 2017)
MA 1803-1804/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017 (I.A.
No.138793 of 2017)
MA 1805-1806/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017(I.A.
No.138795 of 2017)
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
PATRO & ORS.
The applicants, holding diplomas in Engineering, en rolled
themselves in 2005 in courses leading to award of B.Tech degree offered
by Deemed to be University in question through distance learning mode.
Later, on the basis of the degrees awarded by the De emed to be
Universities, they underwent independent selection undertaken by Union
Public Service Commission and entered certain services as direct recruits
and have presently either been engaged in the same service or have
advanced in career on the basis of such selection by UPSC.
Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the controversy
in the judgment was principally concerning the cases of in-service
candidates who were initially employed as diploma holders but while in
service had been awarded degrees in Engineering by Deemed t o be
Universities in question through distance learning mode; and tha t this
Court was not called upon to consider cases where s uch degrees
themselves became the foundation for a subsequent employm ent or
selection and further advancement in career. He further submitted that
an exception be made in favour of such candidates whose qualifications
were independently considered by an authority such as UPSC and were
selected through competitive selection process and in any case, even if
the Judgment were to apply to such candidates, the suspension of their
degrees and all advantages flowing therefrom till they pa ss the test as
indicated in the judgment ought not to be insisted upon. He submitted
that unlike in-service candidates who may not be losing their jobs, such
candidates, who had independently undergone fresh selection and were
directly appointed would lose their jobs completely and even if they were
to successfully pass the test conducted by AICTE, restoration of their
original position and jobs would itself become a difficult proposition.
B] M.A. Nos.13-14/2018 in C.A. No.17869-17870 of
2017(I.A. No.991 & 994 of 2018
M.A. Nos.15-16/2018 in C.A. No.17869-17870 of
2017(I.A. No.1019 of 2018
The applicants had completed B.Tech courses in Computer Science
through distance education mode in 2004. According to them, instructions
were imparted in ITM International and they were awarded degrees by
Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Deemed to be University. Later they
acquired degrees in M.Tech and other qualifications based on such
B.Tech degree and have thereafter advanced in career.
843
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate while adopting
the submissions of Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate submitted that
ITM International is an Institution of repute and no infirmity could b e
attributed to their degrees. Further, her clients in any case had undergone
further selection process where knowledge of the cand idates was
independently tested and they were appointed in others posts.
C] Diary No.356 of 2018 in C.A. No.17869-17870 of 2017 (I.A.
No.1080 of 2018)
M.A. Nos.17-18 of 2018 in C.A. No.17869-17870 of 2017
(I.A. Nos.1049 and 1054 of 2018
The candidates had acquired first degrees in Engineering from a
regular and approved Institution and as such their first degrees are not
invalid or irregular on any count. However, these candidates had later
acquired Master’s degrees in Engineering from Deemed to be Universities
through distance education mode.
Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate invited our attention to
the advertisement issued by AICTE in which all candidates i ncluding
those who had secured Master’s degrees in Engineering from Deemed
to be Universities in question through distance education mode were
also required to appear at the test. In his submission this Court was
principally concerned with first degrees in engineering w hich were
acquired through distance education mode and not the Master’s degrees.
He further submitted that those candidates who had acq uired such
Masters’ Degrees in engineering were not covered by the judgment.
D] M.A. Nos.1866-67/2017 in C.A. Nos.17869-17870 of 2017
(I.A. Nos.141892 of 2017
M.A. Nos.1868-1869/2017 in C.A. Nos.17869-17870 of
2017 (I.A. Nos.141912 of 2017
M.A.Nos.1872-73/17 in C. A. Nos.17869-17870 of 2017
(I.A. Nos.141948 of 2017 ON IA 516/2018 ON IA516/
2018
The applicants were awarded diplomas in Engineering through
distance education mode by the concerned Deemed to be Universities.
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate invited our attention
to paragraphs 34 and 46 of the Judgment and submitted that this Court
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
was concerned with courses leading to degrees of Engineering and not
to diplomas and as such rigor of the Judgment ought not to apply to pure
and simply diploma holders. In his submission, the public notice issued
by AICTE was beyond the scope of the matter.
E] Diary No.39667 of 2017 in C. A. No.17869-17870 of 2017
(I.A. No.138802 of 2017)
M.A. No.1807-1808 of 2017 in C. A. No.17869-17870 of
2017 (I.A. Nos.138799 of 2017
Diary No.42444 of 2017 in C.A. Nos.17869-17870 of 2017
(I.A. No.487 of 2018
M.A. Nos.5-6 of 2018 in C.A. No.17869-17870 of 2017
(I.A. No.511 of 2018
In the present case, the applicants had enrolled themselv es in
courses offered by Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation (VMRF )
through distance education mode.
Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate submitted that as is
evident from the affidavit of Mr. Ved Prakash, Chairm an, UGC as
extracted in the judgment, VMRF was granted Deemed to be University
status for its excellence in subjects including engineering and technology
unlike other Deemed to be Universities, namely, JRN, IASE and AAI.
He invited our attention to Paragraphs 21, 34 and 39 of the judgment and
submitted that the case of VMRF stood on a different footing and the
courses offered by VMRF were not in any way found to be on t he
wrong side.
F] M.A. Nos.1874-1875/2017 in C.A. No.17869/2017 (I.A.
No.141960 of 2017)
M.A. Nos.1876-1877/2017 in C.A. No.17869/2017 (I.A.
No.141971/2017
These applicants after being awarded degrees in Engineering by
Deemed to be Universities through distance educatio n mode had
completed their post-graduate courses.
While adopting submissions of Mr. V. Giri and Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, learned Senior Advocates, Mr. R.S. Suri, learned Senior Advocate
submitted that some weightage be given to the higher qualif ications
acquired by candidates.
845
G] M.A. Nos.11-12/2018 in C.A. Nos.17869-17870 of 2017
(I.A. Nos.972/ 2017, 644/2018, 645/2018 and 973/2018
The applicants had acquired degrees in Mining Engineering through
distance education mode and have advanced in their career in NMDC,
a Statutory Corporation.
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, leaned Senior Advocate submitted th at
their ability was tested by said organization and his clients be exempted
from appearing in examination.
H] Writ Petition Civil No.1233 of 2017
These applicants were awarded degrees in Engineering through
distance education mode by Deemed to be Universities in question. It is
stated that most of the applicants have joined Private, Corpora te and
Government services and some of them are in Corporate jobs and even
in Foreign Countries. Some of them are stated to have obtained M.Tech
and further degrees and have advanced in life.
Mr. Ranajit Kumar, Mr. P.N. Mishra and Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi,
learned Senior Advocates, appearing for the applica nts advanced
submissions on lines similar to the submissions advanced by Mr. V. Giri,
Ms. Arora and Mr. Sibal.
I] M.A. No. 38 of 2018 in C.A. No.17907/2017
The applicant, IASE, Deemed to be University seeks clarification
that the judgment applied only to courses leading to degrees in Engineering
awarded by Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode
and that diploma courses are not covered by the judgment.
Mr. M.L. Verma, learned Senior Advocate invited our attention to
the advertisement issued by AICTE. His submissions on t he issue in
question are on lines similar to the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhruv
Mehta, learned Senior Advocate.
2. We also heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor
General who appeared on behalf of AICTE.
3. It is true, as is evident from paragraphs 34 and 46 o f the
judgment that the controversy in the present case pertained to validity of
degrees in Engineering conferred by the Deemed to be Unive rsities
through distance education mode and this Court was not called upon to
consider validity of diplomas conferred by such Dee med to be
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
Universities. However the advertisement issued by AICTE covers
diploma courses as well. We therefore accept the submissions advanced
by Mr. Dhruv Mehta and Mr. M. L. Verma, learned Senior Advocates
and clarify that validity of such courses leading to diplomas was not the
subject matter of the judgment.
4. At the same time, courses leading to award of degrees, whether
graduate or post graduate degrees, was certainly the matter in issue.
We therefore reject the submission of Mr. Kapil Sibal, l earned Senior
Advocate and do not find any infirmity in the understanding of and the
advertisement issued by AICTE.
5. Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate is right that JRN, AAI
and IASE had no expertise in the field or subjects of Eng ineering and
the status of Deemed Universities conferred on them was not b ecause
of their excellence in the field of Engineering. As agai nst these three
Deemed to be Universities, the case of VMRF stood on a better footing
as its field of activity and excellence also included subjects in Engineering.
However that was not the only basis of the judgment. The facts still
remain that conferral of degrees in Engineering thro ugh distance
education mode was never approved in principle by AICTE and t he
Study Centres were never inspected or approved. We theref ore reject
the submission of Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate.
6. If award of degrees in Engineering through distance education
mode by Deemed to be Universities, as a concept or principle was not
accepted by AICTE, it is immaterial whether the Study Centre in question
was ITM International. Said Institution was not by itself authorized to
award degrees in Engineering on its own nor was it affiliated to any
State or Central University at the relevant time. The courses conducted
by said institution led to award of degrees of AAI, which had no expertise
or excellence in the field of Engineering and through distance education
mode. We therefore reject the submission advanced by Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, learned Senior Advocate.
7. We now turn to the general submission advanced by al l the
learned counsel that the candidates after securing the degrees in
Engineering through distance education mode, have advanced in career
and that their ability was tested at various levels and as such requirement
of passing the examination in terms of the judgment be dispensed with in
their case. We cannot make any such exception. The infirmit y in their
degrees is basic and fundamental and cannot be wished away. At the
847
same time, we find some force in their submission that if the suspension
of their degrees and all advantages were to apply as indicat ed in the
judgment, the concerned candidates may lose their jobs and even if they
were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs a nd present
position would pose some difficulty.
We, therefore, as a one-time relaxation in favour o f those
candidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005
and who, in terms of the judgment, are eligible to appear at the test to be
conducted by AICTE, direct:-
a] All such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcomin g test
to be conducted by AICTE in May-June 2018 and who exercise
option to appear at the test in terms of the judgment, can retain
the degrees in question and all the advantages flowing therefrom
till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till
31.07.2018 whichever is earlier.
b] This facility is given as one-time exception so that tho se who
have the ability and can pass the test in the first attem pt itself,
should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass in
such first attempt, they would be entitled to retai n all the
advantages. But if they fail or choose not to appear, the directions
in the judgment shall apply, in that the degrees and all advantages
shall stand suspended and withdrawn. At the cost of repetition,
it is made clear that no more such chances or exceptions will be
given or made. They will undoubtedly be entitled to appear on
the second occasion in terms of the judgment but this exception
shall not apply for such second attempt.
c] We direct AICTE to conduct the test in May-June 2018 and
declare the result well in time, in terms of our directions in the
judgment and this Order. AICTE shall however extend the time
to exercise the option to appear at the test suitably.
8. Except for the directions given in the preceding paragraph i.e.
paragraph 7 and the clarification as regards courses leading to award of
diplomas as mentioned hereinabove, we reject all the other submissions.
9. All applications, petitions and writ petitions stand disposed of
in aforesaid terms. No costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters disposed of.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. v. RABI SANKAR
PATRO & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]