The validation of engineering degrees obtained through distance education occurs upon passing the AICTE test, and promotions must reflect the original date of the degree, restoring status quo ante.

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:-

"1) If the employee clears/passes the special examination held by All India Council of Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as the "AICTE") under the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, reported as (2018) 1 SCC 468 and (2018) 2 SCC 298, in the first attempt, then, whether the engineering degree obtained by distance education mode would stand validated from the date of the degree or from the date of clearing the test held by AICTE?

ii) In case there are two sources of recruitment to the post in the cadre namely direct recruits and promotees, whether it is permissible to count seniority of direct recruits from the date of recommendation made by the State Public Service Commission/Recruiting Agency/Board, particularly when the Service Rules framed in the exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, provide that the seniority shall be determined by the length of continuous service ?

iii) Whether it is permissible to determine the inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees on the basis of instructions issued on 16.03.1962, particularly when the Service Rules, notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, provide for determination of seniority in a different manner ?"

2. As regards Issue No.1, the Hon'ble Single Judge held that the impugned order dated October 06, 2022 of Principal Secretary was patently erroneous in considering the judgment mentioned in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra), inasmuch as the Supreme Court had only ordered that the engineering degrees of the students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 be suspended till such time they cleared the special tests held by AICTE and did not declare such degrees to be per se illegal. Furthermore, it was held that those candidates, who passed the special test held by AICTE in the first attempt (i.e in June, 2018) would be entitled to retain all the incidence/benefits of the degrees. Since both the petitioner and respondent No.4/Satish Garg (SG) had cleared the special examination held in June, 2018 in the first attempt, the Hon'ble Single Judge opined that the inter se seniority list between the petitioner and the private respondents was required to be decided afresh by the competent authority.

3. The Hon'ble Single Judge also noted that counsel for private respondent No.4 had drawn the attention of the Court to the orders passed on August 13, 2019 in "Ashok Kumar and others v. Deepinder Singh Dhesi and others" (2019) 8 SCC 280, to contend that the writ petitioner should be considered to be qualified only from the date on which the result of AICTE was declared, as the intent of Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra) was only to restore the status-quo ante and not confer any additional advantage. Therefore, no ante dated promotion could be granted to the writ petitioner relying on the judgment of Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra). With regard to the aforesaid contention, the Hon'ble Single Judge held that the Supreme Court had only dismissed the contempt petitions in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) and the discussion therein was not relevant for the purpose of deciding Issue No.1. As the shadow or eclipse over the pet