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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, VIKAS SURI, JJ.
Jagdish Rai Singla – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
RA-CW NO. 101 of 2022 IN CWP NO. 525 of 2017(O&M)
Decided On : 17-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior with Mr. Sunil Hooda, Advocates; For the Petitioner
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Viren Nehra for Mr. Sunil Nehra, Advocates for Respondent No.8.

Headnote:(A) Haryana Services of Engineers Group-A, Public Works (Building & Roads), Department Act, 2010 - Section 6 - Review application against dismissal based on previous judgment regarding degrees obtained through distance education. - Ineligibility of degrees awarded through correspondence for appointment - Review applicant claimed recognition based on passing a validation test after obtaining qualification post-relief - Apex Court's strict interpretation disallowed such retrospective benefits. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Legal Principles - Fundamental ineligibility due to degree mode cannot be overlooked; Article 14 considered in denying claims based on negative equality—eligibility does not confer automatic rights. (Paras 6)

Facts of the case:
Review sought against order rejecting the petition concerning recognition of Civil Engineering degree obtained through distance education, drawing parallels with other candidates' cases.

Findings of Court:
Court held that applicants cannot claim rights based on erroneous benefits granted to others; established that exceptions do not lead to general entitlements.

Issues: The central question was whether the review applicant/petitioner could claim recognition of his degree based on prior exceptions granted to similar candidates.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that even if other candidates were wrongfully accorded benefits, it could not grant similar rights to others, asserting the importance of strict compliance with eligibility requirements.

Result: Review application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. basis for review application claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. clarification regarding supreme court's prior ruling. (Para 4)
3. limitations on benefits based on examination attempts. (Para 5)
4. apex court's stance on judicial equality and promotions. (Para 6)
5. dismissal of review application. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

G.s. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) - Application for review has been filed of the order dated 12.05.2022, whereby the writ petition was dismissed by noticing that the issue was covered against the review applicant/petitioner in view of the judgment passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & others, 2017 (4) SCT 683 passed on 03.11.2017, since challenge was to quash the Haryana Services of Engineers Group-A, Public Works (Building & Roads), Department Act, 2010, wherein under Section 6 it has been provided that no degree obtained through correspondence or distance education mode from any university or technical institutional shall be considered for appointment by any mode of recruitment to the service.

2. Thereafter, the review application has been filed on the ground that the review applicant/petitioner was enrolled between 2001 to 2005 and had also passed the test conducted by the AICTE in December, 2018, whereby the validation was done of his Civil Engineering Degree awarded by Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Rajasthan (IASE) (Annexure A-3). Thus, the review of the order was sought on the said ground.

3. An additional affidavit has also been filed today vide CM- 3944-CWP-2023, wherein a plea has been taken that one similarly situated person namely Krishan Kumar was given the benefit of the said certificate, who had also passed the test in December, 2018 and, therefore, he is also similarly situated.

4. State has filed its reply, whereby it has been pointed out that the order of the Apex Court was clarified in a subsequent order dated 22.01.2018 passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro & others, (2018) 2 SCC 298. Relevant portion of the judgment whereby the Apex Court has restricted the benefit to be granted to the candidates who had passed the examination in the second round and did not pass in the first round is reproduced as under:-

    "7. We now turn to the general submission advanced by all the learned counsel that the candidates after securing the degrees in Engineering through distance education mode, have advanced in career and that their ability was tested at various levels and as such requirement of passing the examination in terms of the judgment be dispensed with in their case. We cannot make any such exception. The infirmity in their degrees is basic and fundamental and cannot be wished away. At the same time, we find some force in their submission that if the suspension of their degrees and all advantages were to apply as indicated in the judgment, the concerned candidates may lose their jobs and even if they were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs and present position would pose some difficulty.

    We, therefore, as a one-time relaxation in favour of those candidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001- 2005 and who, in terms of the judgment, are eligible to appear at the test to be conducted by AICTE, direct:-

    a] All such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcoming test to be conducted by AICTE in May-June 2018 and who exercise option to appear at the test in terms of the judgment, can retain the degrees in question and all the advantages flowing therefrom till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018 whichever is earlier.

    b] This facility is given as one-time exception so that those who have the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt itself, should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the advantages. But if they fail or choose not to appear, the directions in the judgment sha

          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 Back to top