Point of Law: If the respondents had extended any benefits and advantages in favour of the petitioners, then the question of restoring those benefits to the petitioners would not arise.

ORDER :

Since the issues raised in all these writ petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.24594 of 2020 are hereunder discussed:-

3. W.P.No.24594 of 2020 is filed seeking the following relief :

“….. to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that orders issued by the 2nd Respondent vide TOO(Jt. Secy.per)Ms.No.923 dated 14.12.2020 and consequential orders of the 3rd Respondent in SPOO(Jt.Secy.IR and M)Ms.No.1250 dated 21.12.2020 are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and are contrary to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Ltd. Vs.Rabi Shankar Patro and others dated 3.11.2017 reported in 2018 (1) SCC 468……”.

4. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.B.Kavitha Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.24594 of 2020, Sri.S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing Ms.K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.4067 of 2021, Sri B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.24113 of 2020, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Chinthalapani Avani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.1642 of 2021, Sri K.Manmadha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.5717 of 2021, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, Senior counsel appearing for the official respondents and Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents in W.P.No.24113 of 2020 and W.P.No.24594 of 2020.

5. It has been contended by the petitioners in W.P.No.24594 of 2020 that they were initially appointed as Additional Assistant Engineers in the then A.P.Electricity Board. At the time of their initial appointment, they were possessing the qualification of diploma in Electrical Engineering and later the former A.P. Electricity Board has been bifurcated into various other Corporations and they were allotted to 3rd respondent-Corporation. During the years 2001-2005, they sought prior permission from the respondents to acquire the qualification of degree in Engineering and the respondents were pleased to grant permission to them to pursue degree in Engineering and accordingly, they have taken admission into the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Sardarshahar, Rajasthan (for short ‘IASE, Rajasthan’) through distance education mode and accordingly, they have acquired the said qualification. However, the qualification of degree in Engineering acquired by them was not recognized by All India Council of Technical Education (for short ‘the AICTE’). Therefore, they have been pursuing for recognition of the said qualification and based upon such qualification of degree in Engineering acquired by them from IASE, Rajasthan, through Distance Education Mode, they are seeking conversion from the post of Additional Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Engineer.

They have been requesting the respondents to recognize the qualification acquired by them and grant all the benefits to which they are entitled to for acquiring such qualification, but the respondents are not considering their cases for conversion from the post of Additional Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Engineer.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the issue as to the validity of the degrees awarded by the Institutions/Universities through Distance Education Mode in respect of technical courses fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. RABI SANKAR PATRO, (2018) 1 SCC 468 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass an elaborate order categorically holding as follows :-

“57. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex post facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside suc