Order on Board

06 .12.2024

1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer in the year 1994.

According to the petitioner he was entitled for consideration of promotion from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer, from 01.01.2009. The petitioner contended that he was deprived of the right to be considered for promotion. It is also not in dispute that from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer the following criteria was prescribed :

Post : Assistant Engineer (Civil)

Percentage of promotion :

 25% through direct recruitment (PSC)

 50% from the diploma holders on promotion  20% from those employees who have done degree while working as Sub Engineer  5% from the Draftsman

2. The petitioner obtained the certificate from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University and the same is All India Council of Technical Education [AICTE] certified. According to the petitioner, he was deprived to be considered from the quota of Sub Engineer and representation having been made the same was not considered on the ground that he obtained the certificate through a distance mode.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Office Memorandum dated 6-12-2012, which was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi (henceforth ‘the MHRD’), would show that with a cut off date the students who were in hold of such like nature of the degree for specified institutes, which has been given equivalence to a degree, were considered. It is stated that the degree of petitioner was from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University. Learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v State of Punjab and Others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 95. He would submit that since the petitioner was enrolled and obtained the certificate prior to the said cut off date, according to the observation made by the Supreme Court, he should have been considered for such promotion, as the notification was issued prior to the promotion process. According to the learned counsel, undoubtedly the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2023 in routine course, however, he should have been given such promotional benefits from the date the other Sub Engineers were promoted way back in the year 2014.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that the nature of certificate, which was said to be equivalence of a degree of the petitioner, on distance education mode is different. He would submit that such holding of certificate cannot be given equivalence on the degree, as the Institution from which the petitioner obtained the degree has no right under the UGC Act to grant such degree. He would also submit that the degree from the regular Engineering Colleges, which are governed by the All India Council for Technical Eduction (henceforth ‘the AICTE’) and the degree from the deemed University, was recognised. According to him, it is the prerogative of the employer, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra), that how much importance to be given to such certificate and in the case of the petitioner the State being the employer has used the prerogative and has not recognised the certificate equivalent to the degree and no fault can be attributed. In support of his contention, he would also place reliance upon para 45 of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra).

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.

6. The fact remains that the petitioner was taken in the role of the respondent in the year 1994 as a Sub Engineer. During the course of service the petitioner obtained the certificate, which was sought to be equivalent to the degree from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India).

7. As per the