Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1247
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP.LTD & ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
RABI SANKAR PATRO AND ORS – Respondents
Petitions (s) for SLP(C) Nos. 19807-19808, 35793-35796 of 2012, 4108, 9495, 11799, 12244, 14933, 15283, 15329, 17003-17006, 17416, 20658-20682, 36487 of 2013, 14686 of 2014, 37028, 37957, 38211, 38220, 38230, 38458, 38846, 19834-19835, 19820-19821, 19812-19813, 19838-19839, 19836-19837, 19840-19841, 19830-19831, 19842-19843, 19851-19852, 19848-19849, 19824-19825, 19844-19845, 19826-19827, 19814-19815, 19828-19829 of 2012, 11793-11794 of 2013, 31487-31494, 914 of 2014, CONMT.PET.(C) Nos. 194-197 of 2016 on SLP(C) Nos. 35793-35796 of 2012
Decided on : 12-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. C. K. Sucharita, adv., Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, adv., Mr. R. C. Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr.Adv., Mr. Sudhir Kumar, adv., Mr. Deepak Kunwar, adv, Mr. S.Vijay Kanth, adv., Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, adv., Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, adv., Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, adv., Ms. Usha Nandini. V, adv., Mr. A. Tewari, adv., Ms. Eliza Bar, adv., Mr. Shree Pal Singh, adv., Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati, adv., Mr. Ajay Kapur,Sr.Adv., Mr. Prabhakar Parnam, adv., Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, adv., Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr.Adv., Mr. Shashi Bhushan, adv., Ms. Jyoti Chahar, adv., Mr. Vinay Garg, adv., Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. ANS Nandkarni, ASG, Mr. Mohan Prasad Gupta, adv., Mr.Shadman Ali, adv., Mr Abhishek Attery, adv., Mr. Raj Bahadaru Yadav, adv., Mrs. V.Mohana,Sr.Adv., Mrs.Swarupama Chaturvedi, adv., Mr. Vijay Prakash, adv., Mr. G.S. Makkar, adv., Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr.Adv., Mr. Umesh Ch.Mohanty, adv., Mr. P.K. Pattanaik, adv., Mr. Kumar Gaurav, adv., Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, adv., Mr. D. S. Mahra, adv., Mr. Gaurav Sharma, adv., Mr. Sudhir Kumar, adv., Mr. Ashwini Kumar M., adv., Mr.Deepak Kanwar, adv., Mr. S. Vijay Kanth, adv., Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, adv., Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, adv., Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, adv, Mr. A. V. Rangam, adv., Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, adv., Mr. Tarun Gupta, adv., Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, adv., Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr.Adv, Mr. Apoorva Garg, adv., Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, adv., Ms. Priti Kumari, adv., Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv., Mr. Chandra Prakash, adv., Mr. Rituraj Biswas, adv., Mr. S. Bardhan, adv., Mr. C. S. N. Mohan Rao, Adv., Mr. Gagan Gupta, Adv., Mr. Jayant K. Sud,Sr.Adv., Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv., Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Nupur Choudhary, adv., Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv., Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Adv., Mr. D. Ramakrishna Reddy, adv., Ms. Vidyottma, adv., Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv., Mr. S. L. Aneja, Adv., Ms. Madhusmita Bora, adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar – I, adv., Mr. Himanshu Upadhaya, adv., Mr. Shivam Tripathi, adv., Mr. Arvind Minocha, Adv., Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv., Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv., Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Adv., Mr. Rani Mishra, adv., Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, adv., Mr. P. N. Puri, Adv., Ms. Anubha Agrawal, adv., Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv., Mr. Arun Bhardwaj,AAG, Mr Ronak Karan Puria, adv., Mr. Ashish Pandey, adv., Mr. Sunil Sharma, adv., Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, Adv., Mr. V.K. Bali,Sr.Adv., Mr. Sanchar Anand,AAG, Mr. Aditya Soni, adv., Mr. Apoorv Singhal, adv., Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, adv., Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv., Mr. G. N. Reddy, Adv., Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv., Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, adv., Ms. K. Radha, adv., Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, adv., Mr. Satyendra Kumar, adv., Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Adv., Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, adv., Mr. Elangbam Premjit Singh, adv., Ms. Himanshi Andley, adv., Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, adv., Mr. Awanish Sinha, Adv., Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, adv., Mr. Rauf Rahim, Adv., Mr. T. Mahipal, adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, adv., Mr. V.C. Shukla, adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the notification and the recognition of engineering degrees from a specific university.
Headnote:
Notification - Orissa High Court - The court considered the applicability of a notification from the State of Orissa dated 30th September, 1994, which aimed to accommodate graduate engineers against vacant posts of Assistant Engineers. The key issues were the interpretation of the notification and the recognition of engineering degrees from a specific university.
Fact of the Case:
The Orissa High Court directed the consideration of the case of the writ petitioner, Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited, along with other graduate engineers as per the 1994 notification. The petitioner raised contentions regarding the applicability of the notification and the recognition of engineering degrees.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the contentions and found that the notification aimed to accommodate 22 graduate engineers against vacant posts of Assistant Engineers. It also noted the issue of the recognition of engineering degrees from a specific university. The court scheduled further consideration of the matters related to Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited.
Issues: Applicability of the 1994 notification and recognition of engineering degrees
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the 1994 notification and the recognition of engineering degrees from a specific university.
Final Decision: The final decision was to list all matters relating to Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited for further consideration, with separate listing for other related matters.
ORDER
1. SLP(C)Nos. 19807-19808 of 2012 arise from order of the Orissa High Court directing consideration of case of the writ petitioner along with other graduate engineers as per the Notification of the State of Orissa dated 30th September, 1994. By the said notification the decision was taken to accommodate 22 graduate engineers (who were continuing as junior engineers) against the vacant posts of Assistant Engineers which were likely to vacant in future.
2. The petitioner-Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited has raised two contentions:
1. The notification dated 30.09.1994 was applicable only to 22 vacancies against which 22 engineers were already continuing as junior engineers were to be accommodated against vacancies of Assistant Engineers.
2. The writ petitioner was not graduate engineer under the Rules as he did not have engineering degree from recognized University. The degree upon which some of the writ petitioners relied upon was the degree granted by the distance education programme by the JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth which did not have any approval from competent authority.
3. Learned counsel for the JRN Rajasthan University, when called upon to show the approval, has not been able to show such approval from record but seeks time for the same.
4. List all the matters relating to Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited on Monday i.e. 17th April, 2017 as part-heard.
5. Other matters to be listed separately from this group immediately after Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited matters as separate item.
