HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

Writ Petition Service Bench No.576 of 2017

11 August, 2025

Manas Kumar Hazara --Petitioner

Versus

Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad --Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Standing Counsel for the Union of India.

Mr. Yogesh Pacholia and Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent

no.4.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

(Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is challenging judgment and order

dated 23.02.2016 rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (Circuit Sitting at Nainital) in Original Application No.331/00007/2015 (Manas Kumar Hazra Vs. Union of India and Others). By the said judgment, challenge to reversion order made by the

petitioner, was rejected.

2. Petitioner possess diploma in Mechanical Engineering, which he obtained while serving as Machinist in Opto Electronics Factory Dehradun. The said diploma was obtained through distance mode from Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (deemed) University, Udaipur (Rajasthan). On the strength of the diploma, petitioner was promoted as Charge man

Grade-II (Technical /Mechanical) vide order dated 23.03.2009. The promotion given to the petitioner as Charge man Grade-II was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 30.12.2014 on the ground that Diploma in Mechanical Engineering is obtained by petitioner through distance education mode; however, the monetary benefits which petitioner received pursuant to his promotion as Charge Man Grade-II, were protected. Petitioner challenged his reversion by filing original application before Central Administrative Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the original application by holding that since petitioner has not challenged the eligibility conditions for promotion as Charge Man Grade-II, which provide that diploma in engineering must be recognized by AICTE (All India Counsel for Technical Education), therefore, no relief can be granted to petitioner.

4. Admittedly, diploma awarded to petitioner by Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (deemed) University, Udaipur (Rajasthan) was not recognized by AICTE and it was simply approved by Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). The recruitment rules applicable for the post of Charge man Grade-II are on record as Annexure No.CA2 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos.2 and 3.

5. Rule 2(i) of the said Rules known as Indian Ordnance Factories Group “C” Supervisory and Non- Gazetted Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1989 as amended in 2003 provides that one must possess three years diploma or equivalent qualification certificate in the respective field duly affiliated by AICTE. It is not in dispute that AICTE is the regulatory body for technical courses, including degree and diploma courses in engineering.

6. Since the diploma possessed by petitioner was not recognized by AICTE, therefore, learned Tribunal rightly held that qualification possessed by petitioner do not meet requirement of the applicable recruitment Rules, therefore, there is no scope for interference with the order whereby petitioner’s promotion was withdrawn.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift I rrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others reported in ( 2018) 1 SCC 468 while declaring that without AICITE approval, B.Tech Degree obtained through distance mode is not valid, gave one opportunity to such candidates those were enrolled in B.Tech Course between 2001 to 2005. He submits that said judgment was only qua B.Tech Degree holders and there was no observation made in respect of diploma holders in Engineering.

8. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the employer submi