Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: The validation of engineering degrees obtained through distance education is effective from the date of issuance, not from the date of passing a special AICTE test (!) (!) . Degrees granted under distance education modes during the academic years 2001-2005 are suspended until the students pass the required AICTE examinations. Upon passing, their degrees and associated benefits are to be restored (!) . The directions issued by the Supreme Court emphasize that only those students who pass the AICTE test within the stipulated time will have their degrees validated from the date of issuance. Failure to pass or opting not to appear results in the cancellation of their degrees and withdrawal of benefits (!) . The court reaffirmed that seniority should be determined based on continuous service as per applicable service rules, rejecting reliance on outdated instructions (!) (!) . Promotions granted on the basis of erroneously validated degrees or benefits not accrued on the date of the original judgment are not protected, and any benefits conferred after the judgment date are not to be extended retroactively (!) (!) (!) . The Supreme Court's directions are binding on all courts and authorities, and the findings therein must be strictly followed, including the restriction of benefits to those who meet the specified criteria within the prescribed time frame (!) (!) . The appeal's outcome involved setting aside a previous order that had erroneously granted benefits and reaffirmed that benefits are only to be granted from the date the degree is validated, consistent with the Supreme Court's directives (!) (!) . Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case.

State of Haryana vs Vijay Goyal - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 876

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 876

G. S. SANDHAWALIA, LAPITA BANERJI
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Goyal – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate and Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate; For the Respondents

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The validation of engineering degrees obtained through distance education is effective from the date of issuance, not from the date of passing a special AICTE test (!) (!) .
Degrees granted under distance education modes during the academic years 2001-2005 are suspended until the students pass the required AICTE examinations. Upon passing, their degrees and associated benefits are to be restored (!) .
The directions issued by the Supreme Court emphasize that only those students who pass the AICTE test within the stipulated time will have their degrees validated from the date of issuance. Failure to pass or opting not to appear results in the cancellation of their degrees and withdrawal of benefits (!) .
The court reaffirmed that seniority should be determined based on continuous service as per applicable service rules, rejecting reliance on outdated instructions (!) (!) .
Promotions granted on the basis of erroneously validated degrees or benefits not accrued on the date of the original judgment are not protected, and any benefits conferred after the judgment date are not to be extended retroactively (!) (!) (!) .
The Supreme Court's directions are binding on all courts and authorities, and the findings therein must be strictly followed, including the restriction of benefits to those who meet the specified criteria within the prescribed time frame (!) (!) .
The appeal's outcome involved setting aside a previous order that had erroneously granted benefits and reaffirmed that benefits are only to be granted from the date the degree is validated, consistent with the Supreme Court's directives (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case.

JUDGMENT

Ms. Lapita Banerji, J.

CM-3627 and 3625-LPA-2023

These are applications for condonation of delay of 70 days in filing and 62 days in re-filing the appeal.

In view of the averments made in the applications duly supported by an affidavit, the applications are allowed. Delay stands condoned.

LPA-1426-2023

Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is to an order dated March 14, 2023 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge in CWP No.23356 of 2022 (Vijay Goyal v. State of Haryana and others), whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge had allowed the writ petition by setting-aside the impugned order dated October 06, 2022 (Annexure P-13). The three issues which were framed for adjudication by the Hon'ble Single Judge are as follows:-

(2018) 1 SCC 468

(2018) 2 SCC 298

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(P&H) 876

G. S. SANDHAWALIA, LAPITA BANERJIState of Haryana – AppellantVersusVijay Goyal – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

Related Judgments

State of Haryana VS Vijay Goyal - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 876

Katta Venkataramana VS Executive Officer - 2021 Supreme(AP) 213

K. Narayana Murthy, S/o Veerabhadra Prasada Rao VS State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary, MA and UD Department - 2022 Supreme(AP) 1483

Satyanarayana Rana VS State Of Odisha - 2021 Supreme(Ori) 408

A. MAHIKANTH S/O A. KANTHAIAH VS STATE OF TELANGANA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 73

State of Assam VS Munindra Barman, S/o-Late Narendra Nath Barman - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 618

Jagdish Rai Singla VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2522

Kashmir Singh VS State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2086

Narender Kumar VS State of Himachal Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(HP) 58

Durga Prashanna Sahoo VS Union of India through the Director General, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 626

G. S. SANDHAWALIA, LAPITA BANERJI
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Goyal – Respondent