IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Katta Venkataramana and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Executive Officer and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.9175 of 2020
Decided On : 26-04-2021
Constitution of India - Article 226 – Exercising the jurisdiction - Illegal and arbitrary - This writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the action/contemplated action of the first respondent in conferring the benefit of conversion/redesign ting party respondents as Assistant Executive Engineer from Assistant Engineer retrospectively, contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court and the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court in as confirmed by the Apex Court, a reading of which would show that benefit of conversion from AE to AEE cannot be conferred retrospectively upon passing special test conducted by AICTE for the degree holders from IASE Rajasthan –
Finding of the Court:
In any view of matter, the petitioners are not eligible as on the date of the judgment passed by Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case and their degrees are deemed to be suspended - When they clear their test in second attempt their degrees are validated and that, they did not obtain any benefit based on degrees obtained from IASE Rajasthan - Hence Respondent are not entitled to claim service benefits from the date they acquired qualification of engineering degree through distance mode from IASE, Rajasthan - Hence, on strict adherence of principles laid down by Apex Court in various judgments referred supra without any hesitation court hold that petitioners are not entitled to claim benefit retrospectively including promotions from day when they acquired qualification of Engineering Degree from IASE Rajasthan and for consequential promotions with retrospective effect – Further action of respondents in not conferring benefit to Respondent retrospectively is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to law laid down by Apex Court in judgments referred supra –
Result: Petition is allowed
31. Applying the same principle to the present facts of the case, it is clear that the persons who are in service and acquired benefit on account of degree obtained in IASE, Rajasthan, is suspended, till passing test in first or second attempt. If, they pass the test in the permitted attempts, they are entitled to retain the benefits. The judgment of the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) was challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.17469/2019, wherein the Apex Court disposed of the special leave petition in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar and others v. Depinder Singh Dhesi & others, (2019) 8 SCC 280. Though the judgment of the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) is not binding, but, still the judgment in Ashok Kumar and others v. Depinder Singh Dhesi & others (referred supra) is binding on this Court. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in the above judgment, it is difficult to accept the contention of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 that they are entitled to claim the benefit of the judgment with retrospective effect, though they have not validated the degree.
32. The very basis for the judgment of the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) is the judgment of the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case. Even according to the principles laid down in Paragraph No.66 read with Paragraph Nos. 57 and 58, such benefits acquired by the persons in service on account of degree obtained from IASE, Rajasthan is suspended till they pass such examination under the supervision of AICTE or UGC in the manner indicated in the judgment. Further, every single advantage on the basis of the degree shall also stand suspended. It further clarified in Paragraph No.58 of the judgment that, “it goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however, any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them. In Paragraph No.66.6, specific directions were issued by the Apex Court as extracted in the earlier paragraphs that, “If the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully”. Later, a petition was filed for clarification in the same Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case and the Apex Court clarified in detail in Paragraph No.26, as extracted in earlier paragraphs. On reading of both the directions issued in the original order and clarificatory order, it is clear that, “all such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcoming 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. This facility is given as one-time exception so that those who have the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt itself, should not be put to inconvenience. If the students/candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain 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”. Therefore, it is clear from both the original judgment and clarificatory judgment of the Apex Court and also the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) that the persons who got through the examination conducted under the supervision of AICTE and UGC in first attempt are entitled to retain the degrees and benefits and that they are not entitled to claim any promotion with retrospective effect from the
Ashok Kumar and others v. Depinder Singh Dhesi & others
Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani
Escorts Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi II
Haryana Financial Corpn. V. Jagdama Oil Mills
Herrington v. British Railways Board
Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Another
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation v. Rabi Sankar Patro
Sri Koanaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. N. Seetharama Raju
State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.