Back
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Kaushik Goswami, J
Sri Tinku Kro – Appellant
Versus
Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council – Respondent
W.P.(C) NO.1568 OF 2018
Based on the provided legal document, the degree obtained by the respondent No. 4 from the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICEI), Ludhiana, is considered valid for the purposes of employment under the relevant government authority. The recognition was granted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and acknowledged as equivalent to a B.E. (Civil) degree for employment purposes, specifically for those enrolled in the course prior to the cutoff date of 31.05.2013 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Therefore, the degree in question is deemed valid for employment purposes, as it has been formally recognized and considered equivalent by the competent government authority for the relevant period.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of appointments during selection list (Para 7) |
| 2. court's analysis of educational qualifications (Para 8 , 9) |
Heard Mr. M. Sarani, learned counsel, appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. J. Payeng, learned counsel, for respondent No. 4, Mr. B. D. Das, learned senior counsel, for respondent No.5, and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, AICTE, for respondent No.
7.
2] By way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing, inter alia, the impugned appointment order dated 06.09.2017 of private respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the office of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Secretariat, Diphu, and for further direction to the respondent Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (hereinafter referred to as “KAAC”) to hold a fresh interview for the post of Assistant Engineer as per the advertisement dated
17.02.2017.
3] The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 17.02.2017 issued by the Joint Secretary, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Department of Personnel (A), KAAC Secretariat, Diphu, for filling up 1 (one) post of Assistant Engineer (AE) in the office of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Secretariat, Diphu, the petitioners submitted their applications along with other candidates. It is the specific case of the petitioners that despite the petitioners being eligible and call letters having been issued for the viva voce test, the respondent KAAC illegally appointed respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the said post of Assistant Engineer (AE). Situated thus, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the aforesaid appointment of the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
4] Mr. M. Sarani, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the respondent No. 4, having obtained a degree/diploma from The Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab) (hereinafter referred to as “ICEI, Ludhiana”), does not meet the requirement of eligibility as required under the advertisement in question for the said post inasmuch as ICEI, Ludhiana, is not a recognized institute. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan , reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 , emphasized strict adherence to advertised criteria, rejecting implied allowances for equivalence. He further submits that the MHRD’s 2007 Notification granted ICEI, Ludhiana, equivalence contingent on a review within one year; however, when there is no evidence of such a review, ICEI, Ludhiana’s recognition post 2008 automatically stands void. He further draws the attention of this court to the All India Council of Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as “AICTE”) RTI reply dated 04.10.2017 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) confirming non- approval of ICEI, Ludhiana’s equivalence. He accordingly submits that the certificate submitted by the respondent No.4 is invalid, and hence the consequent appointment is illegal. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v. State of Punjab, reported in (2019)
16 SC 95
4.1] He further submits that the AICTE policy enclosed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition prohibits technical degrees except MBA/MCA through distance mode. Hence, ICEI, Ludhiana’s distance learning format, renders respondent No. 4’s qualification per se invalid. In support of the aforesaid, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala , reported in (2024) 0 Supreme (SC) 638. He further submits that since the subject advertisement explicitly excludes equivalent qualification, the certificate obtained by respondent No. 4 from ICEI, even if for the sake of argument it is deemed equivalent, is inadmissible inasmuch as any appointment made in deviation from the advertised
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
