Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
CHANDRA SHEKHAR PRASAD RAJAK – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Respondent
LPA 243/2023|W.P.(C) No. 945/2013|W.P.(C) No. 4059/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Abhay Kumar, Mr Shagun Ruhil, Mr Karan Chopra
For the Respondents: Mr. Arnav Kumar, Ms. Gitanjali Vohra, Mr. Anil Soni, Mr. Devvrat Yadav, Mr. Kush Garg, Ms. Pearl Sharma, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh
An interim order cannot grant substantive rights when the associated petition is dismissed; recognition of qualifications is limited to those enrolled prior to the specified date.
Headnote:(A) Writ Petition - Educational qualifications - Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2012 - Appellants challenged order when not party to the original proceedings - Primacy of interim orders reviewed - The Memorandum restricted recognition of qualifications beyond certain dates, impacting the appellant's admission claims - Legal precedent emphasized that interim orders cannot confer substantive rights once the main petition is dismissed - Final admission date is crucial and enforced. (Paras 3-39)
(B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Non-discrimination - Rule established that denial of benefits to students enrolled after 31.05.2013 does not violate equality principles as they were aware of the recognition limitations - Established principles confirmed the non-recognition of qualifications post cut-off date. (Paras 19-36)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, not a party to the preceding writ petitions, claims harm due to the dismissal of benefits from prior interim orders that suspended the office memorandum, restricting degree equivalency.
Findings of Court:
The learned judge affirmed that the prior decisions by the Supreme Court govern the enrollments and qualifications.
Issues: The core issues were whether enrolment post-31.05.2013 should receive equivalent degree recognition and if this creates a discriminatory practice under Article 14.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that previous rulings dictated the appeal's outcome, indicating that only students enrolled before a specific date were eligible for equivalency, reinforcing that interim orders cannot sustain rights post-dismissal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. maintainability of appeal by non-party. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. impact of interim order on admissions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments against the impugned judgment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. questioning the constitutionality of om. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. respondents’ support and prior judgments. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. merits of the appeal and previously settled issues. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. legal principles surrounding interim orders. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. mhrd's authority and limitations in granting equivalence. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 9. discrimination and rights of students after 31.05.2013. (Para 37) |
2. At the outset, it is important to note that the Appellant herein was not a party to the aforesaid Writ Petition(s). However, he has preferred the present Appeal on the ground that the said judgment has adversely affected him.
3. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that an appeal filed by a person who was not a party to the Writ Petition may not be maintainable. Nevertheless, without prejudice to this preliminary observation, the Court deems it appropriate to examine the Appeal on merits.
4. The Appellant primarily assails the Impugned Judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge failed to take into account the Interim Order dated 06.08.20133 passed in W.P.(C) No. 945/2013 and connected matters.
5. By the said Interim Order, learned Single Judge of this Court had stayed the operation of the Office Memorandum4 dated 06.12.2012 issued by Respondent No. 1. Under the said OM, the equivalence of degrees/ diplomas awarded by certain institutions was withdrawn, and recognition was restricted only to students who had enrolled with institutions such as the Petitioner in that writ petition (Respondent No. 3 herein), namely, Institution of Civil Engineers (India)5, up to 31.05.2013.
6. As a result of the OM dated 06.12.2012, the earlier instructions dated 06.11.2007 of the Ministry of Human Resource Development/ Respondent No. 1 granting recognition to Section A & B of the Associate Membership Course, treating them as equivalent to a Degree in Engineering, as well as Part-I & II of the Technical Engineers Course conducted by the ICE, with effect from the academic session 2007-2008, ceased to have effect from 01.06.2013.
CONTENTIONS BY THE PARTIES:
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that once the Interim Order suspended the operation of the OM dated 06.12.2012, any admissions by the ICE, subsequent to the said date, would have to be treated to be valid as it was only subsequently, by the Order dated 11.02.2020 that the learned Single Judge had clarified that no fresh admissions should be made until further orders.
8. It would be further contended that the said Interim Order, by suspending the operation of the OM dated 06.12.2012, effectively permitted the ICE to admit students, including the Appellant herein; however, while rejecting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge failed to extend the benefit of such admission to the Appellant herein.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge, by passing the Impugned Judgment, has effectively deprived the Appellant of the benefit that had been expressly conferred by virtue of the Interim Order. It is further contended that the Impugned Judgment violates the principle of equality, inasmuch as it denies to the Appellant the same benefits that were extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 13.08.2019 in Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab6.
10. The further contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Institution of Mechanical Engineers (supra) is not applicable in the present case, as the OM dated 06.12.2012 was not under challenge in those proceedings.
11. The Appellant would also question the constitutionality of the OM dated 06.12.2012 and also sought to invoke the principles of le
