The recognition of degrees obtained through distance education and the adherence to eligibility criteria for government posts.

ORDER :

1. Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed for setting aside the order dated 27.7.2013 issued by Development Commissioner, CG, Raipur for appointment on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Rural Engineering Services and directing the respondent authorities to prepare an amended merit list after adding marks of experience and thereafter, fill up the vacancies as per recruitment rules.

2. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in these petitions, are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Department of Rural Engineering Services, CG, Raipur, the petitioners, who had all the requisite qualification as also experience, applied for the post of Sub Engineer (Civil/Electrical), Assistant Draftsman and Tracer. After due verification of their documents and scrutiny of the applications, merit list of selected candidates was prepared in which the petitioners names were also mentioned. However, no marks for experience was given to the petitioners in contravention of the conditions of the advertisement. Thereafter, on 27.7.2013 an order was issued by the Development Commissioner, CG, Raipur for appointment on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil), in which the petitioners name are not mentioned. Hence these petitions for the following reliefs:

“10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order Kramank 6699/3372/Stha/22/Vi-3/Gra. Yan. Seva/2013 Raipur, Dated 27/07/2013 issued from the office of Development Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur for appointment in the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Rural Engineering Services because Respondents have committed irregularity by violating provision of Recruitment Rules framed in this regard.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to amend the Merit List on the basis of which impugned appointment order is issued, since no marks were given for working experience, the respondents may further be directed to prepare fresh merit list by following the rules framed for recruitment by granting marks for experience and there after issue fresh appointment order.

10.3 The Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to fill up the vacancies as per Recruitment Rule framed under Article 309 of Constitution of India.

10.4 That, any other Writ, order, directions or relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to maintain consistency in eligibility criteria for the post advertised and there should be no change in rules for selection once the process is started for selection. Therefore, the recruitment procedure is hit by Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside. The degree obtained by the petitioners is duly recognized by AICTE by way of tripartite agreement entered into between AICTE, UGC and Distance Education Council. The recruitment procedure adopted by the respondents is irrational and perverse for want of transparency. The respondents changed the eligibility criteria and mode of assessment of suitability for selection by not granting 30 marks to the candidates having working experience of more than three years, which deprived the petitioners of selection on the post of Sub Engineer. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.7.2013 is liable to be set aside and the respondent authorities be directed to prepare an amended merit list after adding 30 marks of experience and then fill up the vacancies in accordance with the recruitment rules.

Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Buddhi Nath Chaudhary and Others vs. Abahi Kumar and Others, (2001) 3 SCC 328, Institution of Mechanical Engineering (India) vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2019) 16 SCC 95 and Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Others vs. Dr. Manu and Another, 2023 SCC