SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(HP) 2104

DEEPAK GUPTA
Sudesh Kumari – Appellant
Versus
HPSEB – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr.Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J

1. The only question which arises in this petition is whether the petitioners who are working as Junior Engineers in the respondent Board have attained the necessary qualification to be promoted as Junior Engineers.

2. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Diploma Holder Junior Engineers who qualify the graduation course have a quota and can be promoted as Assistant Engineers. The case of the petitioners has been rejected mainly on the ground that the Universities from which they have obtained degrees are teaching through distant education mode and these Universities are not recognized. The Universities are I.A.S.E. and Vinayaka Mission University. It is also not disputed that all the petitioners have attained their qualifications on or before the academic session 2007-2008.

3. Sh.Lovneesh Kanwar has drawn my attention to the various letters written by the University Grants Commission (UGC), All Indian Council for Technical Education( AICTE) and the Distant Education Council (DEC). It would also be pertinent to mention that all these three bodies have also formed a joint Committee. As far as the State Government is concerned the stand is that









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top