Disposed

S.k.behar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC20 Apr 2023WPS/4130/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court directed the State to re-examine the petitioner's case for appointment as a Reader in a Government Engineering College. Following the Supreme Court's validation of the petitioner's distance learning M.Tech degree in Orissa Lift Irrigation, the Court ordered appointment with all consequential benefits if found eligible, dismissing the memo deleting his name.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 1 to examine the petitioner's case afresh and issue appointment order with benefits within two months if eligible; Writ petition disposed of.

S.k.behar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 4130 of 2013

¶4

S.K.Behar S/o Shri C.H. Behar Aged About 42 Years R/o Chitlay Colony, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Bilaspur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶5

-----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through Its Secretary, Department Of Technical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶8

The Collector Technical Education, Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Institute Of Advance Studies And Education Uni. Through Its Registrar Sardar Shahar, Distt. Churu Rajasthan, District : Churu, Rajasthan

¶10

All India Council For Technical Edu. Aicte Through Its Chairman 7th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶11

Distance Education Council, Through Its Chairman Dec Bldg, Ignou Campus, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi 110068, District : New Delhi, Delhi

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Cause Title taken from CIS System

¶14

For Petitioner : Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri R.M. Solapurkar, G.A.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

20.04.2023

¶18

The petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging the memo dated 29/09/2012 (Annexure P/5) by which the name of petitioner from the selection list from the post of Reader from Government Engineering College has been deleted, on the count that the petitioner has done M.Tech post Graduation Course from the distance learning programme which is not recognized by A.I.C.T.E.

¶19

Case of petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 14/02/2007(Annexure P-2) the petitioner applied for the post of Reader (IT). After following the due selection

¶20

-2-

¶21

process, the petitioner was selected to the said post along with other candidates. Consequent thereupon, the respondent No.1 vide order dated 17.02.2009 issued appointment orders to all the selected candidates except the petitioner on the ground of verification of M.Tech (IT) degree certificate submitted by the petitioner. Even after lapse of more than two years, the enquiry has not been completed. Therefore,he has filed writ petition No. 2960/2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court on 16/03/2012 directing the respondent No.1 to issue the appointment order in favour of petitioner on the post of Reader(IT) on provisional basis, if there is no other difficulty, subject to verification of the certificate in question.

¶22

In pursuance of direction issued by the High Court the respondent No.1 has conducted an enquiry and has deleted tha name of the petitioner from the list of selected candidate from the memo dated 29/09/2012. The said memo is being challenged in this petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after filing of the writ petition certain development has taken place and Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the validity of the distance learning courses conducted by distance education council in case of Orissa Lift irrigation Corp. Ltd. Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Others, reported in ( 2018) I SCC 468 where in Hon’ble Supreme court has issued certain directions in 58, 64,65 & 66 which are extracted below:-

¶24

The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in written examination as well as in practicals for the concerned students admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the concerned subjects. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE

¶25

-3-

¶26

to come out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in respective States wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during May- June, 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the concerned students and if they do not pass the test/tests their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the test/tests, the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the concerned Deemed to be University within a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15th of January, 2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests in respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. If they clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the concerned candidates. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the concerned candidates do not clear the test/tests within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test/tests, their degrees in Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and cancelled. It goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.

¶27

Thus, interest of justice requires that the following issues also need to be addressed:

¶28

64.1 (i) Action for failure of system, inter alia, on account of misconduct of some of the functionaries who failed to uphold the law and granted approvals contrary to the policy and the rules;

¶29

-4-

¶30

64.2 (ii) Manning of the UGC;

¶31

64.3(iii) Appropriate oversight and regulatory mechanism especially for distance education degrees especially those relating to technical education by the Deemed to be Universities in future;

¶32

64.4(iv) Review of the Deemed to be Universities status granted to the Deemed to be Universities in the past in the light of this Judgment and in the light of their working;

¶33

and The above issues need immediate steps to be taken by the Union of India. Review of oversight and regulatory mechanism is of utmost priority for the future of technical and professional education at the hands of Deemed Universities. In this regard, we may note the observations of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others11 highlighting need for review of regulatory mechanism for medical admissions and profession. We also note the observations in Mahipal Singh Rana, Advocate v. State of Uttar Pradesh12 with regard to legal profession.

¶34

Accordingly we direct:

¶35

66.1 I 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education without the approval of AICTE.

¶36

66.2 II Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside.

¶37

66.3III Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand suspended.

¶38

66.4IV The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and 47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018.

¶39

66.5 V Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by

¶40

-5-

¶41

them towards tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all advantages/ benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 47. 66.6VI If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully.

¶42

66.7 VII As regards students who were admitted after the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 48 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48.

¶43

66.8 VIII By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter.

¶44

66.9 IX We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in Para 49 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation.

¶45

66.10 X The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above are not refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise.

¶46

66.11XI We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018- 2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course specific.

¶47

66.12 XII The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word ‘University’ within one month from today.

¶48

-6-

¶49

66.13 XIII The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 31, 2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11.09.2018.

¶50

He would submit that in pursuance of direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the AICTE has issued public notice for conducting test with regard to students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 and their degree was suspended who have completed the course from the university namely JRN Rajasthan, Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan, Institute of Advance Studies in Education, Rajasthan, Allahabad Agriculture Research Institute, Allahabad, Vinayaka Missions Research Foundations, Salem Tamilnadu. The date of examinations were also notified. Accordingly the petitioner appeared in the AICTE -U.G.C. special examination and cleared the exam as such certificate of validation of decree was issued in favour of the petitioner by the U.G.C. He would further submit that the Director Technical Education as also recoganized his degree of M.Tech. From Institute of Advance Studies in Education Rajasthan and accordingly he was granted annual increments. Therefore, he would further submit that a direction be kindly issued to the

¶51

-7-

¶52

respondent No.1 to issue appointment order in his favour on the post of Reader (IT) w.e.f. 17/02/2009 with all consequential benefits.

¶53

The University Grant Commission has filed the counter affidavit wherein they have admitted in para-3 and 6 the factual matrix of the case . The relevant paragraph of the affidavit are extracted below :-

¶54

(3) therefore, it is humbly submitted that the issue which is under consideration in the writ petition is the validity of the M.Tech degree obtained by the petitioner degree from the respondent No.3 Institute of Advance Studies and Education university, Churu, Rajasthan (deemed university) in th eyear 2005. I would be pertinent to mention here that the identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others reported in (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 468. It id humblysubmitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the said case by giving following directions in paragraph 66 of the judgment.

¶55

That, it is humbly submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition has been already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mention case. Admittedly the petitioner has obtained his M.Tech degree by distance education mode therefore, the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner.

¶56

He would also submit presently petitioner is working as Head of Department in the Polytechnic Colleges run by the State Government and he has been granted two increment in view of the validation of his M.Tech degree by the All India Council for Technical Education, as such he would submit that the respondent be kindly directed to

¶57

-8-

¶58

reconsider his case for appointment on the post of Reader.

¶59

On the other hand learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner was not found eligible as he has completed M.Tech Course from Distance Learning Council which was not recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education. Even the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme will not come in his rescue and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶60

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶61

The issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Orissa (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued the direction as already quoted by this court. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the respondent No.1 is directed to examine the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the direction given by Hon’ble Supreme Court within two months from the date of receipt of copy of order and if the petitioner is found to be legible for consideration of appointment on the post of Reader, the respondent No.1 shall issue appointment order on the post of Reader in the Government Engineering College along with all the consequential benefits as his degree is deemed to have been restored as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶62

-9-

¶63

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶64

Sd/-(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶65

Ashish

S.k.behar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.k.behar v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company Vs Smt. Godawari Bai

Mani Lal Dayalji and Company, Vs Smt. Ganeshiya Bai

Krantilal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

National Thermal Power Cor. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Comm. and Ors.

B. R. Khuntte Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. .