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

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1816

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ramesh Singh Thakur, Judicial Member, Anjali Bhawra, Administrative Member
Sahdev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 60/444/2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Arora
For the Respondents: Mr.Sanjay Goyal, Sr.CGSC along with Pankaj Khurana for R-1, Mr. Navmohit Singh for R2-5 and Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Adv along with Kuber for R-6

Supreme Court clarification excluding diplomas from judgment on invalid distance education degrees from deemed universities prevents declaring such diplomas void ab initio for promotions.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service law - Promotion and reversion - Diploma obtained from deemed university through distance education - Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment declaring degrees/diplomas from certain deemed universities invalid upheld by Supreme Court - Supreme Court clarification that diploma courses not subject matter of judgment - Diploma validity under examination by competent authority - Challenge to rival promotion under diploma quota rejected as diploma not held void ab initio - Reversion of promotee upheld; subsequent promotion under alternative quota does not revive cause of action. (Paras 40-50)

(B) Estoppel, acquiescence and limitation - Prior litigation where applicant was party consenting to disposal in terms of another order - Subsequent writ withdrawn - Fresh challenge to promotions barred but considered on merits due to fresh cause of action from court judgments on qualification validity. (Paras 37-39)

Facts of the case:
Applicant promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) under diploma quota from Sub Station Attendant cadre - Rival employee senior filed OA challenging promotions on seniority - Tribunal disposed OA directing review - Applicant reverted post review DPC promoting rival under diploma and ITI quotas - Applicant challenged reversion and rival's promotions relying on High Court/Supreme Court judgments invalidating deemed university qualifications - Department later promoted applicant under alternative quota.

Findings of Court:
Diploma from deemed university not invalidated by cited judgments as Supreme Court clarified diplomas not under consideration - Validity under departmental examination - No illegality in rival's promotion or applicant's reversion.

Issues: Whether diploma from deemed university via distance mode void ab initio per High Court/Supreme Court judgments; whether applicant's reversion illegal; whether challenge to rival promotions maintainable despite prior litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Supreme Court clarification explicitly excluding diplomas from judgment scope prevents extension of ratio to invalidate diploma-based promotions - Qualification validity determined by competent authority - Prior consents and withdrawn challenges do not estop fresh claim based on supervening judgments though meritless on facts.

Result: Original Application dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. applicant's initial appointment, promotion, and eligibility under diploma quota. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 16)
2. prior oa by respondent-6 challenging promotions on seniority grounds. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 30)
3. review dpc, show cause notice, and applicant's reversion. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 31)
4. reliance on kartar singh judgment invalidating deemed university qualifications. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 32 , 33)
5. official respondents' compliance via applicant's subsequent promotion. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. respondent-6's defenses: estoppel, limitation, diploma validity. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 37 , 38)
7. applicant's rejoinder on fresh cause of action and diploma invalidity. (Para 27 , 28 , 39)
8. analysis of kartar singh and supreme court clarification on diplomas. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
9. diploma validity pending; oa dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

O R D E R

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of instant O.A, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief:

“i) Call for the record and perused the same;

ii) quash the office order dated 18.09.2017 (i.e. Annexure A1), passed by the respondent No. 3, vide which the applicant, who was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) vide office order No. 400, dated 27.08.2013, was reverted to the post of Sub Station Attendant with immediate effect;

iii) quash the office order No. 258 dated 22.04.2016 (i.e. Annexure A2), vide which the respondent No. 6 has been promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) against the share quota of Diploma Holder Sub Station Attendant with effect from 15.03.2013, on notional basis, in the pay scale of Rs.10900-34800+ Rs. 5350 GP in the Electricity Wing of the Engineering Department, U.T., Chandigarh;

iv) quash the office order No. 06 dated 04.01.2016 (i.e. Annexure A3), vide which the respondent No. 6 has been promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical) from the post of Sub Station Attendant under the ITI quota, in the pay scale of Rs. 10900-34800+Rs. 5350/- GP in the Electricity Wing of the Engineering Department, U.T., Chandigarh, on the regular basis;

v) quash the show cause notice vide memo No. SEE /OP/350 C/E 2016 dated 18.05.2016 (i.e. Annexure A4), issued by respondent No. 4;

vi) for issuance of directions to the official respondents No. 1 to 5 to restore the office order No. 400 dated 27.08.2013 (i.e. Annexure A5), whereby applicant was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to the Electricity Wing of the Engineering Department, Union Territory, Chandigarh on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 10900-34800+Rs. 4500.00 Grade pay, on the basis of recommendations of Department Promotion Committee (Class-III), whereby the applicant was found eligible for the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical);

vii) for issuance of a directions to the official respondents i.e. 1 to 5 to issue the applicant's entire service and other consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum from the period 18.09.2017, when the order of reversion of applicant, i.e. Annexure A1 was passed, till the date of rejoining of the applicant on the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical);

viii) further prayed that any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case also be issued in favour of the applicant.

ix) allow the original application throughout with cost in favour of the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are that the applicant was appointed as Sub Station Attendant in the office of the Electricity Construction Division, Chandigarh on 08.07.1987 on a regular basis. At the time of his initial appointment, the applicant possessed a three-year Diploma in Electrical Engineering. During the course of his service and after obtaining due permission from the competen

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