A degree obtained through distance education from an unrecognized university is not acceptable for appointment to the Group A service as specified in Section 6 of the 2010 Act.

JUDGMENT

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral) - The petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the orders dated 18.11.2019 (Annexures P-17 and P-18) whereby respondent No.3 has been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil). They have also sought a writ in the nature of quo warranto against the promotion of respondent No.3 being in violation of Section 6(a)(proviso) of Haryana Service of Engineers, Group-A, Public Works (Building and Roads) Department Act, 2010 (for short - 2010 Act').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners, who were appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the year 2009, had completed 08 years of service in January/February, 2017 and passed the departmental examination. Respondent No.3 has been promoted as Executive Engineer in violation of proviso to Section 6(a) of the 2010 Act wherein it is stipulated that a person, who has obtained the degree of Civil Engineering through distance education mode would not be eligible for promotion. Respondent No.3 has obtained the degree in Engineering through distance education from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, which is not recognized by UGC and AICTE. He has cited the judgment of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation versus Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 468, wherein in para 12 name of the institution is specified and it is also mentioned that it is authorized to run social work, education, arts and commerce. It was also noticed that despite the institution being authorized to run the afore-noted courses, the University has been imparting degrees in technical education for which it was not authorized to do. He also submits that the benefit of the judgment of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation (Supra) has been granted as a one-time measure for not taking away the benefits, which the petitioners therein had already acquired. In the instant case, respondent No.3 had not derived any advantage at that time and in terms of the aforenoted 2010 Act, respondent No.3 was not eligible for promotion and, therefore, the question of protecting his right for promotion would not arise. He further submits that the Supreme Court had clarified in the contempt petition i.e. Ashok Kumar and others versus Depinder Singh Dhesi and others, (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 280 that if a candidate had not obtained any particular status as on the date of the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation (Supra), it would not confer any additional advantages.

3. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.3, however, submits that respondent No.3 had qualified AICTE examination which had been conducted in pursuance to the directions of the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation (Supra) and, therefore, the degree stood validated. He also submits that respondent No.3 had earlier approached this Court by preferring a petition i.e. CWP-15649-2012, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 11.09.2019 after the State counsel had submitted that the degree acquired by respondent No.3/petitioner therein would be considered and a direction was issued to the competent authority to pass a speaking order after considering objections of the affected parties. Respondent No.3 in the course of these proceedings has now retired and, therefore, the benefits which had already been granted to him by way of promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) should not be taken away at this stage. He has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parveen Gera versus Haryana State Electricity Board and others, Civil Appeal No.7076 of 2010 decided on 13.09.2017 wherein petitioner had already retired and the Supreme Court had directed that the advantages which had already been given to him should not be taken away. He has also referred to the interim orders of the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in CWP-31313-2019 titled as Ram Raj Sharma versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Li