As per case facts, petitioners, employees of the Water Resources Department, Punjab, obtained Engineering Diplomas via Distance Education from universities like KSOU with department permission. Conditionally promoted to Junior Engineer, ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 22.09.2025
Pronounced on: 29.09.2025
1. CWP-6507-2018 (O&M)
Ramesh Kataria and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
Punjab Water Resources Management and Development Corporation and
another
... Respondents
2. CWP-17682-2025 (O&M)
Pritpal
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
3. CWP-20917-2018 (O&M)
Ashok Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -2-
4. CWP-22580-2020 (O&M)
Baldev Singh and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
5. CWP-26924-2021 (O&M)
Vikas Chander and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
6. CWP-27302-2024 (O&M)
Ashok Kumar Verma and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
7. CWP-27845-2024 (O&M)
Jaswant Singh and another
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -3-
8. CWP-2805-2022 (O&M)
Thana Singh
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
... Respondents
9. CWP-28069-2024 (O&M)
Amarjit Singh
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab through Secretary
... Respondent
10. CWP-28163-2024 (O&M)
Manjit Singh and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
11. CWP-28166-2024 (O&M)
Gurdevinder Singh Saini
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -4-
12. CWP-28545-2024 (O&M)
Ashok Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
13. CWP-28771-2024 (O&M)
Gurnaib Singh and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
14. CWP-28857-2024 (O&M)
Gurjant Singh and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
15. CWP-31357-2018 (O&M)
Harvinder Singh and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -5-
16. CWP-8315-2018 (O&M)
Harcharan Singh and others
... Petitioners
Vs.
Punjab Water Resource Management and Development Corporation and
others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gauravjit S. Patwalia, Advocate
Mr. Lagan K. Sidhu, Advocate
and Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-6507-2018 & CWP-27302-2024).
Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-20917-2018).
Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate
for petitioner (in CWP-28545-2024).
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-28163 & 28069-2024,
CWP-26924-2021, CWP-2805-2022 & CWP-22580-2020).
Mr. Gurnoor S. Sandhu, Advocate
for petitioner (in CWP-26924-2021).
Mr. Ankit Midha, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-27845-2024).
Mr. Baljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-28771 & 28857 of 2024).
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Brijesh Khosla, Advocate
for the petitioners (in CWP-31357-2018).
Mr. Mohinder Singh Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CWP-28166-2024).
Mr. Harmanjeet Singh, Advocate
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -6-
for Mr. Sangam Garg, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 10 (in CWP-17682-2025).
Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate
and Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the respondents (in CWP-31357-2018).
Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate
for respondent No.3 (in CWP-31357-2018).
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.4, 5 & 7 (in CWP-31357-2018).
Mr. Amit Singh Sethi, Advocate
for respondent(s) (in CWP-6507-2018).
Mr. Harmanjeet Singh, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 10 (in CWP-17682-2025).
Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This common order shall dispose of aforementioned 16 writ
petitions, as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, with the consent
of the parties and for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-28163-
2024.
2. The civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing of the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-20) and
consequent action of the respondents in reverting the petitioners from the post
of Junior Engineer, on which they were promoted vide order dated 18.12.2019
(Annexure P-8).
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -7-
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Briefly stated, the petitioners are/were employees of the Water
Resources Department, Government of Punjab, having rendered substantial
service ranging from 25 to 30 years. They were initially appointed to technical
posts such as Surveyor, Junior Draftsman, and Beldar. After obtaining due
permission (Annexure P-1) from the respondent-Department, the petitioners
acquired Diplomas in Engineering (Civil/Electrical) through Distance
Education Mode from the Karnataka State Open University (for short
‘KSOU’), Mysor (now Mysuru) between 2011 and 2014. KSOU is a University
established by a State Act and is recognized by the University Grants
Commission (UGC). The petitioner(s) in other connected matters had obtained
their Diplomas in Engineering through Distance Education Mode from other
deemed to be universities.
4. The respondent-Department, vide letter dated 09.06.2014
(Annexure P-3), invited names for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer
under 15% quota, for which a Diploma in Engineering from a recognized
institution was a requisite qualification. The claim of the petitioners for
promotion was initially ignored. Subsequently, after litigation and departmental
verification, they were conditionally promoted to the post of Junior Engineer
vide order dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P-8) subject to, inter alia, outcome of
pending Court cases and final validity of their diplomas.
5. Thereafter, the respondent-Department issued a reversion order
dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure P-16), reverting them and 34 other similarly
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -8-
promoted employees back to their feeder cadres. The stated reason was a
clarification dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure R-1) from All India Council for
Technical Education (for short ‘AICTE’) that it does not recognize Diploma
Courses in Engineering conducted through Open and Distance Learning (for
short ‘ODL’) mode. The petitioners challenged this reversion by way of filing
CWP-22264-2020 before this Court and vide order dated 16.10.2023
(Annexure P-17), the same was disposed of when the respondents undertook to
withdraw the reversion order and granted liberty to pass a fresh order after
affording the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
6. In compliance of the aforesaid order (Annexure P-17), the
respondents issued show-cause notice dated 15.11.2023 (Annexure P-18), to
which the petitioners submitted detailed reply and were also granted a personal
hearing on 19.02.2024, wherein they highlighted the specific recognition of
their diplomas. Subsequently, the respondents passed the fresh impugned order
of reversion dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-20), while relying on an AICTE
clarification dated 02.09.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners
have approached this Court.
7. It is pertinent to note that petitioner No.1 Manjit Singh had already
superannuated from service on 30.04.2021 and the impugned order was passed
against him post-retirement.
CONTENTIONS
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), inter alia, contended that the
impugned order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-20) was passed in a mechanical
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -9-
manner without application of mind. The respondents failed to consider the
petitioners’ detailed written reply (Annexure P-19) to the show-cause notice
and their oral submissions made during the personal hearing on 19.02.2024. It
is argued that the petitioners' diplomas are from KSOU. The consistent and
settled view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that for Universities established
by a State Statute, it is sufficient that they conform to AICTE norms and prior
approval of AICTE for a course is not mandatory. Reliance in this regard is
placed on the judgments Bharathidasan University Vs. AICTE, 2001 (8) SCC
676), Jawahar Lal Nehru Technical University Vs. Chairman & MD,
Transmission Corporation of Telangana, (CA No.3697-3698/2018, decided
on 10.04.2018) and Mukul Kumar Sharma Vs. AICTE, [WP(C) No.382/2018,
decided on 30.07.2018].
9. It is further contended that the respondents’ reliance on the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, 2017(4) SCT 683 (for
reference Orissa Lift I) is misplaced. The Hon’ble Supreme Court itself vide
order dated 22.01.2018, reported as 2018(2) SCC 298 (Annexure P-9) (for
reference Orissa Lift II) clarified that the judgment dated 03.11.2017 pertained
only to the validity of Degrees in Engineering conferred by deemed
universities through distance education mode. The Court categorically stated
that the validity of Diplomas conferred by such universities was never
considered by it. Further, in Orissa Lift I (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
provided a pathway for affected candidates by allowing students, who obtained
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -10-
degrees during 2001-2005 to appear for a validation test conducted by the
AICTE-UGC. Learned counsel argued that the reversion orders have been
passed without allowing the petitioners to even attempt to clear the proposed
test. Moreover, in direct consequence of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
clarification dated 22.01.2018 [Orissa Lift II (supra)], the AICTE issued a
subsequent public notice (Annexure P-8 of CWP-6507-2018) stating that the
students, who were enrolled and awarded diplomas during 2001-2005 by
deemed-to-be universities “need not register” for any test. This officially
removed the petitioners’ qualifications from the ambit of the controversy. Thus,
the respondents’ insistence on proceeding with the reversion, despite this
conclusive clarification from the Hon’ble Apex Court and AICTE, is baseless
and illegal.
10. It is also argued that the petitioners were promoted in the year
2019, after being eligible since 2012. To revert them after they have worked for
nearly 05 years on the promoted post (and in one case, even after retirement)
based on a subsequent clarification is arbitrary, unjust and causes immense
hardship for no fault of their own. Petitioner No.1 Manjit Singh superannuated
from service on 30.04.2021 and the impugned order of reversion passed
against him after his retirement is legally unsustainable. The respondents lack
the jurisdiction to alter his service condition post-retirement. Reliance is placed
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Prit Mahto Vs. State of
Bihar, 2014 (4) SCT 167. Further reliance is also placed on the Constitution
Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sivananda C.T. Vs. High
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -11-
Court of Kerala, 2024 (3) SCC 799, wherein the Court held that it will be
contrary to public interest to unseat candidates, who had been selected nearly
six years ago.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further rely upon the
judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.128 of 2023
titled as Virender Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others,
decided on 12.05.2025, to contend that the Universities are not required to
obtain prior approval of AICTE for commencing technical courses. It is thus
argued that the diplomas awarded to the petitioners cannot be declared invalid
merely on the ground of absence of such approval.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) further submitted that the
judgment in Orissa Lift I (supra) was confined to the degrees obtained through
Distance Education from four institutes, namely, J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidya Peeth,
Udaipur, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Sardarshahar (Rajasthan),
Allahabad Agricultural Research Institute, Allahabad and Vinayaka Mission
Research Foundation, Salem. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that degrees
awarded by these institutes after 2005 were not recognized. The diploma from
KSOU and other deemed to be universities was not under consideration before
the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, it cannot be treated as invalid. It was
further urged that declaring such diplomas invalid would virtually amount to
declaring the Institute/University itself invalid, which is not the controversy in
the present case. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Mahesh
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -12-
Dahiya, 2017 (1) SCT 1, to contend that there has been a violation of natural
justice, as the respondents, while issuing the impugned show-cause notices in
the present case and in other connected matters, had already formed a pre-
determined decision to revert the petitioner(s).
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, inter alia,
contended that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification for the
post of Junior Engineer as per the Punjab Water Resources Department, Junior
Engineers (Group B) Services Rules, 2021 (for short ‘Rules of 2021’). The
rules explicitly mandate a diploma in Civil/Mechanical/Electrical Engineering
from a “State Technical Education Board or from a recognized University or
institution.” The petitioners’ diplomas, not being recognized by the AICTE, do
not meet this mandatory criteria.
14. Further, AICTE, the statutory regulatory authority for technical
education in the country has consistently and categorically clarified that it does
not recognize diploma courses in Engineering conducted through ODL mode.
This stand is evident from the clarification letter dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure
R-1), subsequent clarifications dated 08.01.2024, 09.02.2024 and 02.09.2024,
and Circular No.AICTE/P&AP/Misc/2020 dated 30.12.2020 (Annexure R-2),
which explicitly states that it is the policy of AICTE not to recognize
qualifications in Engineering acquired through Distance Mode. Therefore, the
petitioners’ diplomas cannot be considered as being from a “recognized”
institution as required by the Rules of 2021.
15. It is argued that the initial promotion order dated 18.12.2019
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -13-
(Annexure P-8) was explicitly conditional. Specific conditions (Clauses 7, 8 &
9) stated that the promotion was subject to the outcome of Court cases and the
final validity of the diplomas and the competent authority reserved the right to
revert the officials, if their qualifications were later found deficient. The
AICTE’s clarification, which definitively states that such diplomas are not
recognized, is precisely the triggering event contemplated in the conditional
promotion order. The reversion is thus a fulfillment of the terms under which
the promotion was granted. Further, while the UGC recognizes ODL degrees,
its own UGC (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017 (referenced in
the public notice dated 23.02.2018 - Annexure P-13) under Part-I (2)(p)
explicitly prohibit programmes in engineering, medicine, pharmacy, etc., from
being offered under ODL mode, as they require hands-on training. This
supports the AICTE’s policy and the respondents’ contention that an
engineering diploma via ODL is inherently not at par with a regular course.
16. Learned counsel further contended that the judgments cited by the
petitioners in Bharathidasan University’s case (supra) and Jawahar Lal
Nehru Technical University’s case (supra), pertain to the power of AICTE vis-
à-vis Universities and the requirement of prior approval. They do not declare
that a diploma not recognized by AICTE must still be treated as valid for
employment under specific Service Rules. Crucially, the respondents
distinguish the Hon’ble Supreme Court's clarification in Orissa Lift II (supra).
While it is true that the judgment dealt with degrees from Deemed-to-be-
Universities, the AICTE's non-recognition policy for diplomas through ODL is
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -14-
independent and stands on its own footing.
17. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that while the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Orissa Lift II (supra)) has clarified that the judgment dealt only with
engineering degrees obtained through Distance Education and did not
adjudicate upon the validity of diplomas, it cannot, however, be interpreted to
mean that the Court has upheld the validity of such Diplomas. In Orissa Lift I
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that whether subjects leading to
degrees in Engineering could be taught in distance education mode or not, is
within the exclusive domain of the AICTE, which has consistently maintained
that Engineering programmes cannot be undertaken through distance education
mode. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of two-Judge Bench of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinit Garg Vs. UGC, (2021) 12 SCC 416, wherein it
has been held that after coming into force of 2004 UGC Guidelines, every
deemed to be university would require mandatory approvals of the UGC and
Distance Education Council (for short ‘DEC’), for starting any degree course
through ODL mode. As such, prescribing and approving authority for grant of
degrees in Engineering is AICTE and not DEC. Therefore, Engineering
degrees could not have been conducted by ODL mode, even if approved by
DEC, as they were not approved or expressly authorized by AICTE. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the aforementioned illegality
cannot be cured even by ex-post facto approvals granted later.
18. Learned Amicus Curiae also referred to judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh Vs. Union of India, 2012(4)
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -15-
SCT 741, wherein the Court held that in the absence of any approval either
from the UGC or the AICTE or the Nursing Councils, the writ petitioners, who
had obtained a diploma from a deemed to be University, cannot claim to be
qualified for the purpose of appointment under the State. The Court held that
since the course was not approved by the UGC or by any other statutory
authority, the qualification/diploma granted by a Deemed University will not
make such a candidate eligible for appointment.
OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS
19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case file with their able assistance. The seminal issue that requires to be
adjudicated by this Court is whether the Diplomas in Engineering obtained
from KSOU and other deemed to be Universities by the petitioner(s) by way of
distance learning are valid and recognized or not.
20. The Division Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh’s case (supra)
examined the validity of technical and professional courses offered through the
distance education mode by certain deemed-to-be Universities and held that
such institutions cannot be equated with Universities established under a
Central or State statute. It was observed that the Distance Education Council
lacked the authority to permit a deemed-to-be University to impart technical
education through distance education mode without the concurrence of AICTE.
Further, it was clarified that IGNOU and the DEC, being primarily focused on
non-formal education in the open and distance learning mode, could not have
assumed the role of imparting technical education through distance education.
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -16-
Subsequently, in Orissa Lift I (supra), a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex
Court, speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, has held as follows:
“38. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in
Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as
practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education
which is hands-on approach involving actual application of
principles taught in theory under the watchful eyes of
Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of
knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical
classes. The practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the
technical education system. If this established concept of
imparting technical education as a qualitative norm is to be
modified or altered and in a given case to be substituted by
distance education learning, then as a concept the AICTE ought
to have accepted it in clear terms. What parameters ought to be
satisfied if the regular course of imparting technical education is
in any way to be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to
decide. The decision must be specific and unequivocal and
cannot be inferred merely because of absence of any Guidelines
in the matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE.
On the other hand, it has always maintained that courses
leading to degrees in Engineering cannot be undertaken
through distance education mode. Whether that approach is
correct or not is not the point in issue. For the present purposes,
if according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught in
distance education mode, that is the final word and is binding -
unless rectified in a manner known to law. Even National Policy
on Education while emphasizing the need to have a flexible,
pattern and programmes through distance education learning in
technical and managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19 that
AICTE will be responsible for planning, formulation and
maintenance of norms and standards including maintenance of
parity of certification and ensuring coordinated and integrated
development of technical and management education. In our view
whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering, could be
taught in distance education mode or not is within the exclusive
domain of the AICTE. The answer to the first limb of the first
question posed by us is therefore clear that without the
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -17-
Guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly
permitting degree courses in Engineering through distance
education mode, the Deemed to be Universities were not justified
in introducing such courses.
xxx xxx xxx
45. It was laid down by this Court in Annamalai University v.
Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department
and Others, 2011(1) S.C.T. 258 : (2009) 4 SCC 590 that no
relaxation could be granted in regard to the basic things
necessary for conferment for a degree and if a mandatory
provision is not complied with by an administrative authority, the
action would be void. This leads us to conclude that the
permissions granted by DEC in the first instance allowing the
Deemed to be Universities in question to introduce courses
leading to the award of degrees in engineering were illegal and
opposed to Law. The illegality in the exercise of power was to
such an extent that it could not be cured by ex post facto
approvals granted later.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. Furthermore, a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Vinit Garg’s case (supra), speaking through Justice Sanjiv Khanna, has held as
follows:
“19. In our opinion, the petitioners and TIET, Patiala are
misconstruing para 49 of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (1)
[Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro, (2018)
1 SCC 468] . The aforesaid paragraph refers to the 1994
Regulations issued by AICTE under which no courses or
programmes could be introduced by any technical
institution/university, including a deemed university or a
university department or college, except with the approval of
AICTE. In Bharathidasan University [Bharathidasan University
v. AICTE, (2001) 8 SCC 676 : 1 SCEC 924] this mandate of the
1994 Regulations was declared to be bad to the extent that it had
required the university to take approval for introducing any course
or programme in technical education. Same opinion was
expressed in Assn. of Management of Private Colleges v. AICTE
[Assn. of Management of Private Colleges v. AICTE, (2013) 8
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -18-
SCC 271 : 6 SCEC 255] to state that affiliated colleges of the
university are entitled to the same protection. Thereupon, in
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (1) [Orissa Lift Irrigation
Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] a
distinction was made by creating two categories of deemed to be
universities — Category I i.e. such deemed to be universities that
have been conferred status of “excellence” in the field of
technical subjects and desire to introduce courses or
programmes “integrally connected” with the area of subjects for
which they had been conferred deemed to be university status.
Clarifying this, the Court had cited an example of an
engineering college of excellence that has been conferred
deemed to be university status and now wishes to introduce
courses in new or specialised subjects like robotics and
nanotechnology, which subjects were integrally connected to the
university's own field of excellence. Category II would be of
those universities that have been conferred deemed to be
university status for excellence in subjects, but want to introduce
new courses unrelated to the field for which they were conferred
status of excellence. In the latter category, the deemed to be
university cannot claim immunity from regulatory control of
AICTE and must take approval of AICTE. Para 49, we would
like to clarify, deals with universities including deemed to be
universities imparting higher education for degree
courses/programmes through regular mode. This paragraph
does not specifically deal with or confer any right upon the
deemed to be universities to start distance education courses,
even if integrally connected with the approved regular courses.
20. The foregoing analysis becomes clear when we read Orissa
Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (1) [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd.
v. Rabi Sankar Patro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] in its entirety,
particularly the immediately preceding paragraph i.e. para 48 as
quoted above, wherein it has been specifically stipulated and
mandated that whether subjects leading to degrees in
engineering would be taught in distance education mode or not
is within the exclusive domain of AICTE.
21. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions and lack of prior
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -19-
approval of the UGC or AICTE, we do not think that TIET,
Patiala was competent to award graduation degrees in technical
courses via distance mode.”
(emphasis supplied)
22. However, in Orissa Lift II (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
clarified that the judgment in Orissa Lift I (supra) dealt only with engineering
degrees obtained through Distance Education and did not adjudicate upon the
validity of diplomas. The Court observed as follows:
“3. It is true, as is evident from paragraphs 34 and 46 of the
judgment that the controversy in the present case pertained to
validity of degrees in Engineering conferred by the Deemed to be
Universities through distance education mode and this Court was
not called upon to consider validity of diplomas conferred by such
Deemed to be Universities. However the advertisement issued by
AICTE covers diploma courses as well. We therefore accept the
submissions advanced by Mr. Dhruv Mehta and Mr. M.L. Verma,
learned Senior Advocates and clarify that validity of such courses
leading to diplomas was not the subject matter of the judgment.”
23. This Court finds merit in the argument of learned Amicus Curaie
that the aforementioned clarification cannot be interpreted to mean that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Diplomas in Engineering
acquired by way of Distance education. Further, in Orissa Lift I (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court permitted only those students, who had acquired degrees
between 2001-2005 to appear in a validation test conducted jointly by AICTE
and UGC. Significantly, the said test was not intended for students, who had
obtained diplomas from deemed-to-be Universities, as the validity of such
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -20-
diplomas did not fall for consideration in that judgment. In this backdrop and
particularly in light of the subsequent public notice issued by AICTE
(Annexure P-8 of CWP-6507-2018) clarifying that students enrolled and
awarded diplomas during 2001-2005 by deemed-to-be Universities were not
required to register for any test and the petitioner(s) cannot assert any right to
appear in a test designed exclusively to safeguard the interests of degree
holders.
24. At this juncture, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to the
various clarifications issued by AICTE regarding the validity of Diplomas in
Engineering acquired by way of Distance Education. In response to the letters
of the respondent-Department regarding the validity of the diplomas, AICTE,
vide clarification letter dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure R-1) has categorically
stated that: “As far as AICTE is concerned, it doesn’t recognize diploma
courses in engineering conducted through ODL mode.” Subsequently, the
respondent-Department again sought clarification from AICTE regarding the
validity of Diplomas in Engineering obtained by way of distance education and
vide letters dated 04.12.2023, 22.01.2024, 03.05.2024 and 22.08.2024, AICTE
has clarified that it has issued a circular No.AICTE/P&AP/Misc/2020 dated
30.12.2020 (Annexure R-2), which is reproduced as under:
“AICTE is receiving number of representations/enquires from
various Govt/Private organisations and students regarding the
recognition/ validity of Diploma in Engineering and Technology
awarded through distance learning mode by 4-Deemed to be
Universities ie. i) JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Rajasthan, ii)
Institute of Advanced Studies Education, Rajasthan (IASE), ii)
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -21-
Allahabad Agricultural Institute, (AAI) and iv) Vinayaka Mission's
Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu, (VMRF)
In this regard, it is informed that, it has been the policy of
AICTE not to recognize the qualification acquired through
distance mode at Diploma, Bachelors and Masters level in the
field of Engineering & Technology. Architecture, Town
Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management & Catering
Technology. Applied Arts and Crafts. The courses in
Management, Computer application and Travel & Tourism is
recognised by AICTE.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MA No(s). 1795-1796 of 2017 in
Civil Appeal No. 17869-17870 of 2017 case pertaining to Orissa
Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd V/s Rahi Sankar Patro and Ors, opined
vide its judgement dated 22.01.2018 that the Judgment dated
03.11.2017 for the courses leading to Diploma was not the subject
matter of the judgement while considering the validity of degrees
awarded by these 4-listed Deemed to be Universities to candidates
who were enrolled up to 2001-2005 for which AICTE-UGC
conducted the examination for revalidating the Degree awarded
by aforesaid Deemed to be Universities as per the directions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
AICTE as such has not given approval for conducting Diploma
courses in Engineering through distance education mode to any
technical institutions. Hence, AICTE cannot validate the
diplomas awarded by these institutions. Hon'ble Supreme Court
stated that Diploma course in Engineering is not under the
purview of the aforesaid case.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. Furthermore, UGC, vide public notice dated 23.02.2018
(Annexure P-13) has clearly stated that Part-I (2)(p) of the UGC (Open and
Distance Learning) Regulations, 2017 explicitly prohibit programmes in
engineering, medicine, pharmacy, etc., from being offered through ODL mode,
as they require hands-on training. Public notice dated 23.02.2018 is reproduced
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -22-
as under:
“The Government of India has envisaged a greater role for the
Open and the Distance Education System. The envisioned role
may be fulfilled by recognizing and treating the
Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates awarded through distance mode at
par with the corresponding awards of
Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates obtained through the formal
system of education. Open and Distance Education System in the
country is contributing a lot in expansion of Higher Education
and for achieving target of Gross enrolment Ratio, without
compromising on quality. Non recognition/non equivalence of
degrees of Open and Distance Learning (ODL) institutions for the
purpose of promotion/ employment and pursuing higher education
may prove a deterrent to many aspiring students and will
ultimately defeat the purpose of Open and Distance Education.
Accordingly, the Degree/Diplomas/Certificates awarded for
programmes conducted by the ODL institutions, recognized by the
erstwhile DEC/UGC, in conformity with UGC Notification on
Specification of Degrees should be treated as equivalent to the
corresponding awards of the Degree/Diploma/Certificate of the
traditional Universities/Institutions in the country.
UGC has notified UGC (Open and Distance Learning)
Regulations, 2017 in the official Gazette on 23/06/2017. As per
UGC (Open and Distance Learning) Regulations. 2017 under
Part-1 (2)(p), the programmes in engineering, medicine, dental,
pharmacy, nursing, architecture, physiotherapy and such other
programmes which require hands-on training are not permitted
to be offered under open and Distance Learning mode.”
(emphasis supplied)
26. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that it lies within
the exclusive domain of AICTE to decide whether subjects leading to Degrees
in Engineering can be taught through distance education mode. If, in the
opinion of AICTE, such courses ought not to be imparted in distance education
mode, that determination is final and binding, unless modified in a manner
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -23-
recognized by law. In view of the aforementioned clarifications, it is clear that
AICTE has maintained its stance that it has not given approval for conducting
Diplomas in Engineering conducted through distance education mode to any
technical institutions and it cannot validate or recognize such diplomas.
Moreover, the Division Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh’s case (supra)
after thoughtful consideration of the judgment in CWP No.12161 of 2006
titled as Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, has held
that in the absence of any approval either from the UGC or the AICTE or the
Nursing Councils, the writ petitioners, who had obtained a diploma from a
deemed to be University, cannot claim to be qualified for the purpose of
appointment under the State. The Court held that since the course was not
approved by the UGC or by any other statutory authority, the
qualification/diploma granted by a Deemed University will not make such a
candidate eligible for appointment. The findings of the Division Bench in
Kartar Singh’s case (supra) have also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) through its Chairman
Vs. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC Online SC 1023.
27. Further, the Division Bench of Madras High Court in D.
Elangovan and others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and others, 2025
LIC 1530 and the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Dilip and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.4934 of 2021,
decided on 23.09.2022 has refused to grant relief to the writ petitioners in those
cases, who had obtained Diplomas in Engineering by way of distance
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -24-
education. Para 4 of judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in Dilip’s
case (supra) is reproduced as under: -
“4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the documents on record, it can be seen that the
petitioner Nos.1 to 5 have obtained Degrees/Diplomas from JRN
Rajasthan University while the petitioner No.6 has obtained
Diploma in Civil Engineering from Karnataka University
through Distance Education. The Circular dated 30/12/2020
issued by the AICTE is clear that such Degrees/Diplomas
awarded in Engineering through Distance Education mode were
not validated. Similarly in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation
(supra) it has been held that Degrees awarded by Deemed to be
Universities were suspended. In the light of Circular dated
30/12/2020 the State Government has issued clarification on
27/12/2021. After considering that communication dated
27/12/2021, the NIT has found that the qualification acquired by
the petitioners were not validated by the AICTE. The requisite
qualifications acquired by each petitioner can be found in the
seniority list as of 01/01/2022. We thus find from the material on
record that this conclusion arrived at by the NIT is in
accordance with the Circular dated 30/12/2020 issued by the
AICTE and the directions issued by the State Government on
27/12/2021. We therefore do not find any illegality committed by
the NIT when it refused to grant the benefit of higher pay-scale
or promotion to the post of Junior Engineer to the petitioners.
There is no reason to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The writ
petition is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.”
(emphasis supplied)
28. Moreover, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA
No.128 of 2023 titled as Virender Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana
and others, does not advance the case of the petitioners and the reliance placed
upon it is wholly misplaced. The Division Bench has categorically held that all
deemed to be Universities require mandatory approval of AICTE before
offering technical programmes. It was further observed that even though the
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -25-
State Universities (Government & Private) and Central Universities can run
technical courses without approval of the AICTE, courses of Distance Study
and Open Learning would require NOC from the AICTE even for such
universities. Para 27 of this judgment is reproduced as under:
“27. The AICTE as per the queries and documents, as noticed
above, had issued a public notice on 09.01.2021 wherein it was
notified that all technical institutions deemed to be Universities
which are offering programmes need to have mandatory
approval of AICTE in accordance with Sections 10 and 11 of the
Act but the State Universities (Government & Private) and
Central Universities can run technical courses without approval
of the AICTE but the courses of Distance Study and Open
Learning would require NOC from the AICTE even for such
universities. The said public notice, in our opinion, is in
compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Orissa
Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs Rabi Sankar Patro and
others 2018 (1) SCC 468, wherein it has been held as under…”
(emphasis supplied)
29. In the present case, no material has been placed on record to
demonstrate that the deemed-to-be Universities, from which the petitioner(s)
obtained their diplomas through Distance Learning, had secured prior approval
of AICTE for conducting such programmes. On the contrary, as already
observed, AICTE has consistently maintained that it does not recognize
Diplomas in Engineering offered through the distance education mode and no
approval has ever been granted to any technical institution for conducting such
diplomas. Moreover, even in respect of Universities established under a State
Act, such as KSOU, there is nothing on record to suggest that AICTE had
issued any NOC for conducting Diplomas in Engineering through distance
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -26-
education.
30. Further, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
Virender Kumar’s (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case,
Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, a State
University established through an Act of the Haryana State Assembly, stood
recognized by the UGC under Sections 2(F) and 12(B) of the UGC Act, 1956.
Recognition and approval were also granted to the State University by the Joint
Committee comprising UGC-DEC-AICTE. The Division Bench observed that
B.Tech (Civil Engineering) weekend/part-time programme conducted by the
University had received due approval from both its academic and executive
councils, with participation of a representative from the State Government’s
Technical Education Department. The programme was essentially a four year
course that mandated physical attendance, prescribed the same curriculum
equivalent to a regular three-year course, and engaged the same faculty
members of the University. Being a residential programme conducted within
the University premises, it could not, therefore, be categorized as distance
education.
31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University’s
(supra) and Jawahar Lal Nehru Technical University’s (supra) has held that
Universities established under a State Act are not required to obtain prior
approval of AICTE for introducing technical programmes. The Court, however,
emphasized that such Universities are under a duty to strictly adhere to the
standards and norms prescribed by AICTE so as to ensure the coordinated and
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -27-
integrated development of technical education and the maintenance of
academic standards. In considered view of this Court, in the absence of any
NOC or approval from AICTE with respect to Diplomas in Engineering
offered through distance education mode, it cannot be said that such diplomas
were awarded in accordance with the standards and norms mandated by
AICTE.
32. Reliance by learned counsel for the petitioners(s) on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd.’s (supra) is
also misplaced, as in the present case, the initial promotion order dated
18.12.2019 (Annexure P-8) was expressly made conditional, being subject to
outcome of the pending Court cases as well as the final determination of the
validity of the diplomas. It was further stipulated by the competent authority
that the officials could be reverted, if their qualifications were subsequently
found to be deficient. In view of the clarification issued by AICTE regarding
non-recognition of Diplomas in Engineering obtained through distance
learning, the petitioners were accordingly reverted.
33. Further, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sivananda
C.T.’s case (supra) does apply to the facts of the present case, since in that
case, the appointment in the selection process was challenged. Rather, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Narendra Singh,
(2008) 2 SCC 750, speaking through Justice C.K. Thakker, observed that even
if an ineligible or unqualified person is promoted, such a mistake can always
be rectified by following the due process of law. Para 28 of the judgment in
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -28-
Narendra Singh’s case (supra) is reproduced as under:
“28. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the
respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and
qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the
respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are
mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due
process of law. In Indian Council of Agricultural Research &Anr.
v. T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors., 1997 (4) SCT 156: (1997) 6 SCC
766, it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly
interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from
applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may
cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore
Statutory Rules.”
34. In view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift I
(supra), this Court is of the opinion that technical education leading to Degrees
or Diplomas in Engineering involves teaching both theory and practicals.
Practicals form the backbone of such education, representing a hands-on
approach, where theoretical principles are applied under the supervision of
Demonstrators or Lecturers. Knowledge imparted in theory classes is intended
to be reinforced through practical sessions. Thus, practicals constitute an
integral component of the technical education system. If this established
concept, which serves as a qualitative norm for imparting technical education,
is to be modified or replaced in any instance by distance learning, AICTE must
expressly accept such modification. Determining the parameters, that must be
satisfied to alter or modify the regular course of technical education lies
exclusively within the domain of AICTE. Any decision in this regard must be
clear and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely from the absence of
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -29-
guidelines. In the present case, AICTE has expressed its unequivocal position
that Diplomas in Engineering obtained through Distance Education are neither
approved nor recognized.
35. Further, this Court is constrained to take note of the mushrooming
of educational institutions that exploit the desperation of citizens aspiring for
public employment. Despite repeated guidelines issued by the Courts to such
institutions, as well as directions given to statutory regulators, the unfortunate
reality remains that the regulators have failed in their duty to enforce even the
minimum standards of education. Instead of discharging their statutory
obligations in letter and spirit, they have resorted to evasive measures, thereby
jeopardizing not only the quality of education, but also future of the students
and ultimately, the larger public interest. The Court cannot remain a silent
spectator to such a scenario, where commercial interests are allowed to prevail
over academic standards. If the regulatory bodies fail to act with promptitude
and sincerity, the credibility of the education system, as a whole, will stand
eroded. The need of the hour is for the authorities to adopt a pro-active and
transparent mechanism of monitoring, so that only genuine institutions
imparting quality education are permitted to function. Any further laxity will
not only embolden unscrupulous operators, but will also defeat the very
constitutional mandate of ensuring equality of opportunity in matters of public
employment. Steps must be initiated to curb the menace of mushrooming
unauthorized distance education centres and to alert the general public about
such unapproved programmes being offered through the distance mode.
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -30-
CONCLUSION
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, all the aforementioned writ
petitions are dismissed. For all intents and purposes, the Diplomas in
Engineering acquired by the petitioner(s) by way of distance education from
deemed to be universities or open universities are neither valid nor
recognized. The petitioners or any other identically circumstanced person
cannot seek employment, promotion or any other service benefit on the
strength of these diplomas.
37. However, this Court is constrained to observe that conduct of the
respondents is unbecoming of a public employer. In the present case, the
respondents have taken inconsistent stands at different stages, thereby blowing
hot and cold in their approach towards the petitioners. While the petitioners
were promoted earlier on the strength of their disputed diplomas, years later,
even after their retirement, they are now sought to be reverted. Such actions
cause grave mental agony, harassment and loss of reputation. The State and its
instrumentalities, being model employers, are held up to higher standards and
therefore, bear an additional responsibility to ensure that their actions are fair
and confer to the constitutional philosophy. While Article 14 of the
Constitution of India strikes at the heart of arbitrary State action and demands
that exercise of any public power be only guided by reason and equality,
Article 21 of the Constitution of India safeguards the right to livelihood, which
certainly includes just and non-capricious treatment. This Court is conscious of
the fact that some of the petitioners have served on the promotional posts for a
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -31-
considerable number of years; some have already retired, while others continue
to serve on such posts under the protection of interim orders of this Court. To
revert them now and seek recovery of the financial benefits availed, would be
unduly harsh and unreasonable, particularly when the question whether they
are at fault, remains debatable.
38. When a public employer acts on a whim and causes implicit
mental agony, harassment and loss of reputation to its employee, it betrays the
constitutional promise of fairness, which is impermissible with capriciousness
and fair-play being anti-thetical to each other. The respondents cannot simply
wash their hands of the matter, as they are equally at fault for creating this
skewed situation, which has led to grave uncertainty. The blame cannot be
shifted solely on the petitioners in this regard. Therefore, in order to do
complete justice, the respondents are directed to create supernumerary posts
for three categories of petitioners, who were promoted on the strength of their
diplomas: (i) those who have served on the promotional posts for a
considerable number of years and have now been reverted; (ii) those who
continue to serve on such posts under the protection of interim orders of this
Court; and (iii) those who, having already retired from the promotional posts,
are now sought to be reverted post-retirement. The aforesaid employees shall
be placed in a separate dying cadre, below the employees possessing valid
qualifications. It is, however, clarified that this direction shall not extend to
employees seeking fresh promotion or any other additional service benefits on
the basis of such diplomas.
CWP-6507-2018 and connected cases -32-
39. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
40. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
29.09.2025
JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....