CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 1 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

107+242

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

Romil Singh and Others ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

State of Haryana and Others ...Respondent(s)

The date when the judgment is reserved: 02.09.2026

The date when the judgment is pronounced:22.09.2026

The date when the judgment is uploaded on the

website:

22.09.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

pronounced or whether the full judgment is

pronounced:

Full

judgment

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:-Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate assisted by

Mr. Adityajit Singh Chadha, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Teevar Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Sr. Advocate assisted by

Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate,

Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate and

Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate for

respondents No.3 to 5, 7, 8 & 11.

Mr. G. S. Sandhu, Advocate with

Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate for

proposed respondents No.13 to 16

(applicant in CM No.14239 of 2026).

***

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 2 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-16060-CWP-2026

Prayer in the present application under Section 151 of the Code of

Civil Procedure is for placing on record the replication to the written

statements filed by respondents no.1 and 2 and 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11.

2. Heard.

3. Application is allowed and the replication to the written

statements filed by respondents no.1 and 2 and 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11 is taken on

record, subject to all just exceptions. Registry is directed to tag the same at

appropriate place.

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

Present Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for the “issuance of an

appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of

Mandamus directing the respondents to not to consider the candidature(s) of

the private respondents for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and

further restrain the respondents from taking any positive steps w.r.t.

consideration of their names herein for promotion to the post of Executive

Engineer in view of the fact that they are not eligible to seek promotion to the

said post in view of dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in 'Orissa

Lift Irrigation Corporation Vs. Rabi Shankar Patro & Ors.' (2018) 1 SCC 468;

and Contempt Petition (C) No. 408-409 of 2019 in CA No. 17869-17870 of

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 3 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

2017 lead petition titled as 'Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Depinder Singh Dhesi &

Ors. reported as (2019) 8 SCC 280'

2. It is inter alia submitted by ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioners

that the petitioners had been initially appointed in the respondent-

Department as Junior Engineers (hereinafter referred to as ‘JE’). Subsequently,

petitioners were promoted as Sub Divisional Engineers (hereinafter ‘SDE’) in

the year 2023. The dates of joining of the petitioners as JE and as SDE are

mentioned in tabular form in para 2 of the Writ Petition. Services of the

petitioners are governed by the Haryana Development and Panchayats

Department (Group B) Service Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules,

2016’) (Annexure P-1).

3. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that for appointment to the post of

SDE, there are two channels i.e. (i) 50% by direct recruitment; and (ii) 50% by

way of promotion. Ld. Senior Counsel refers to Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016 to

submit that in case of appointment as SDE by way of direct recruitment, each

candidate is required to possess a degree in the respective engineering

discipline “from recognized University and no degree obtained from distance

education mode from any recognized University can be considered for

appointment.” As per Rule 7B of the Rules, 2016, even for appointment as

SDE by way of promotion, it is stipulated that no officer can be promoted as

SDE on the basis of degree obtained through correspondence or through

distance education mode. It is contended that therefore the private

respondents herein were in the first instance not eligible for promotion as SDE,

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 4 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

as their degrees in Engineering were from unrecognised universities through

distance education mode.

4. Ld. Senior Counsel points out that the issue in the present case is

that the 13 petitioners as well as private respondents No. 3 to 12 herein are

presently working as SDE. The next avenue for promotion from post of SDE is

Executive Engineer. It is firstly contended that as the private respondents do

not hold valid degrees for promotion as SDE, therefore they cannot be

considered for further promotion as Executive Engineer.

5. Appointment to post of Executive Engineer is governed by

Haryana Development and Panchayats Department (Group A) Service Rules,

1988 (hereinafter the ‘Rules,1988’) (Annexure P-2). As per the Rule 9B of the

said Rules, 1988, “50% posts of Executive Engineer are to be filled by way of

direct recruitment; and 50% posts by promotion from amongst Sub Divisional

Officer.” As per Appendix B of the said Rules it is stipulated that the academic

qualification and experience required for appointment to the post of Executive

Engineer “other than by direct recruitment” is degree or its equivalent in Civil

Engineering; and 8 years experience as SDE.

Relevant portion of the said Rules, is reproduced herein under:

"9. Method of recruitment.-(1) Recruitment to the Service shall be

made,-

(a) In the case of Additional Director Panchayats,-

(i) by promotion from amongst the Joint Director

Development; or

(ii) by transfer or deputation of an official already in the

service of any State Government or the Government of

India;

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 5 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

(b) in the case of Executive Engineer (Panchayati Raj),-

(i) 50% posts by direct recruitment, and

(ii) 50% posts by promotion from amongst Sub-Divisional

Officer; or

(iii) by transfer or deputation of an official already in the

service of any State Government or the Government of

India;

XXX XXX XXX

APPENDIX B

[See rule 7]

Serial No.Designation of PostsAcademic

qualifications

and experience,

if any, for direct

recruitment

Academic

qualifications and

experience, if any,

for appointment

other than by direct

recruitment

1 2 3 4

2. Executive Engineer

(Panchayati Raj)

(1) Degree in

Engineering

(2) Five years

experience as

Sub Divisional

Officer/

Assistant

Engineer

(1) Degree or its

equivalent in Civil

Engineering.

(2) Eight years

experience as Sub

Divisional Officer.

6. Further, as per Rule 17, the State has been empowered to relax

any of the provisions of the said rules, as follows: –

"17. Power of relaxation.- Where the Government is of the opinion

that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may, by order, for

reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of

these rules with respect to any class or category of persons."

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 6 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

7. Ld. Senior Counsel contends that therefore, for further promotion

to the post of Executive Engineer, a degree or its equivalent in Civil

Engineering is required; as also experience of 8 years as Sub Divisional Officer.

However, as the private respondents herein have acquired their engineering

degrees in the years 2001 to 2005 through distance education mode from

universities situated in Rajasthan, they are not eligible for further promotion.

8. It is submitted that the validity of such engineering degrees as

obtained by the private respondents from such Universities through distance

education mode was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar

Patro and others 2018 (1) SCC 468 decided on 03.11.2017 (hereinafter referred

to as “the Judgment”); wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its landmark

judgment held that Engineering degrees obtained by the students from the year

2001 to 2005 from such Universities through distance education mode could not

be held to be valid degrees as, such degrees had been issued without getting

necessary approval from AICTE or UGC. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held

that such deemed Universities did not possess necessary infrastructure etc. and

therefore, could not even have offered any Engineering course through distance

learning mode; especially without approval of AICTE or UGC. In this regard,

learned Senior counsel refers to paras 57, 58, 64 and 66 of the Judgment to

submit that, therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the ex-post facto

approval granted to universities for running engineering courses was completely

illegal and thus any engineering degrees issued by institute who had no

jurisdiction to issue such degrees were held to be invalid degrees.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 7 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

9. Ld. Senior counsel reiterates that the private respondents herein

had undergone engineering degrees vide distance mode of education from

universities which were not authorized to issue such degrees. Moreover, such

university did not possess affiliation of AICTE. Even further, no permission of the

AICTE was sought by such university for running engineering courses.

Furthermore, when the private respondents had undergone their degree(s)

through distance mode of education, they had not sought any prior permission

from the respondent-department at the time they had enrolled in such

engineering courses. Ld. Senior counsel refers to the table depicting the details

of private respondents as herein under: -

Sr.

No.

Name of private

respondents

Name of university Mode of

course

Date of post-

facto

permissionfo

r degree.

1.Surender KumarJRN Rajasthan Vidya Peeth

University Udaipur,

Rajasthan

Distance 05.11.2019

2.Suresh Kumar IASE Institute of Advanced

Studies in Education

Srdarshahar, Rajasthan

(IASE)

Distance 04.12.2019

3.Neeraj Kant IASE Institute of Advanced

Studies in Education

Srdarshahar, Rajasthan

(IASE)

Distance09.01.2020

4.Sandeep Kaushik IASE Institute of Advanced

Studies in Education

Srdarshahar, Rajasthan

(IASE)

Distance16.12.2019

5.Rajesh Kumar

Sharma

JRN Rajasthan Vidya Peeth

University, Partap Nagar,

Udaipur, Rajasthan

Distance08.03.2019

6.Kamal Sharma JRN Rajasthan Vidya Peeth

University Udaipur,

Rajasthan

Distance08.03.2019

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 8 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

7.Naresh Kumar Ro-

hilla

IASE Institute of Advanced

Studies in Education

Srdarshahar, Rajasthan

(IASE)

Distance22.11.2019

8.Sanjay Kumar IASE Institute of Advanced

Studies in Education

Srdarshahar, Rajasthan

(IASE)

Distance18.09.2019

9.Bhupender JRN Rajasthan Vidya Peeth

University Udaipur,

Rajasthan

Distance ---

10.Mahender Singh

Yadav

Institute of Advanced

Studies in Education

Deemed University, Gandhi

Vidya Mandir, Sardarhahr

(Rajasthan)

Distance06.08.2019

10. It is submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid would reveal that all

private respondents were granted ex-post facto permission in the year 2019 and

2020 after rendering of the Judgment dated 3.11.2017 in Orissa Lift Irrigation

(supra). Once the private respondents had, undergone engineering courses from

universities who had no power to issue degrees qua such courses no benefit

whatsoever can be granted to such candidates; and moreover, when such

candidates have not taken permission of the department for undergoing such

courses. Thus, no benefit can be granted to the private respondents.

11. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide subsequent order

dated 22.01.2018 passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi

Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 2 SCC 298 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Clarificatory Order”), while showing sympathy to candidates such as the

private respondents herein who had availed such degrees, as a one-time

measure in order to protect the interest of students who had received

engineering degrees through distance education from deemed to be

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 9 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

university(s), were granted an option to appear in a test to be conducted by

AICTE in order to validate their degrees. If such students cleared the test at the

first instance the advantages/benefits of the degrees were directed to be

restored to them.

12. Ld. Senior Counsel points out that thereafter several Contempt

Petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for non-compliance of

the Judgment - including the lead Contempt Petition (C) No. 408-409 of 2019

in CA No. 17869-17870 of 2017 titled as 'Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Depinder

Singh Dhesi & Ors. reported as (2019) 8 SCC 280 which was decided vide

order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure P-3) (hereinafter “the Order”). Whereby

the Hon’ble Apex Court clarified that ‘no additional benefit’ shall be granted to

any individual who has cleared the examination conducted by the AICTE in the

first attempt; and the intent of the Judgment dated 03.11.2017 and the

observations made therein was only to grant the same status/career benefits

which a person was enjoying prior to his degree being declared null and void

and that too only if such person cleared the qualifying exam to be held by the

AICTE at the first instance. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

clearly observed that no additional advantage can be conferred upon any

individual whose degrees have been validated upon clearing the exam

conducted by the AICTE. In this regard, ld. Senior Counsel refers to relevant

paras 8, 9, 10 and 11, of the Order dated 13.08.2019.

13. Ld. Senior Counsel urges that from a reading of the aforesaid

paras, it is clear that Hon’ble Supreme Court had never directed that any

additional benefit/advantage could be given to any person who had received

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 10 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

Engineering degree through distance education mode from such deemed

Universities. It is contended that this would mean that the benefit(s) which a

person possessed at the time that he/she had cleared the examination

conducted by AICTE for validating the degree obtained through distance

mode, were to be retained by such person only if he/she cleared the exam in

the first attempt. Therefore, from the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court it is clear that no additional benefit/advantage can be given to

any person; and thus, no additional service benefit - for example Promotion

etc. - can be given to any person on the basis of degrees obtained through

distance mode.

14. Ld. Senior Counsel argues that in view of the categoric diktat of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Order, it is clear that benefits that

accrued to the private respondents upto the date of their passing the AICTE

Test in pursuance to the Judgment, would stand frozen; and that thereafter no

further benefit could be admissible to them; as, in terms of the Order, no

additional benefit was to be granted to the private respondents even after

their having passed the exam permitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is

admitted that in pursuance to the Judgment, all the private respondents

herein have taken the exam permitted by the Hon’ble Apex Court and have

passed the same in the first instance itself. It is however, contended that

passing of the said exam would not imply that private respondents would

therefore be at par with the petitioners who had obtained their original

degrees from recognized Universities. Rather, only the benefits availed by

private respondents heretofore, would stand validated.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 11 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

15. Ld. Senior counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioners is

that notwithstanding the above facts, the respondent-Department is in the

process of promoting the private respondents to the post of Executive

Engineer. Even though, as pointed out above, for promotion to the post of

Executive Engineer every SDE is required to possess a degree in Engineering;

and, the private respondents herein do not possess regular degree in

engineering as they have undergone their degree from distance education

mode from deemed Universities in Rajasthan. Moreover, as per the Judgment

read with the Order dated 13.08.2019, no additional benefit/advantage can be

given to any employee other than the advantage/benefit that he/she was

enjoying at the time of validation of his/her degree. Meaning thereby, vide the

Judgment the degrees obtained by such persons including the private

respondents herein were declared to be not valid and the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had only given a chance to the students to validate their degrees and

had directed AICTE to conduct an examination for validation of such degrees.

No doubt, the private respondents had cleared the examination conducted by

the AICTE in the year 2018 however, in view of the observations of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the Order in the Contempt Petition No.408-409 of 2019 no

‘additional benefit’, such as the proposed promotion, whatsoever can be

granted to the private respondents other than the benefit of the post on

which they were working on in the year 2017.

16. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that the respondent No.2/Director

General Development and Panchayats Department, Haryana vide letter dated

11.06.2026 (Annexure P-4) has submitted a report of the private respondents

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 12 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

for consideration of their names for promotion as Executive Engineer to the

competent authority; and the competent authority is actively considering to

promote the private respondents as Executive Engineer and a meeting of the

Departmental Promotion Committee is likely to be scheduled shortly. Ld.

Senior Counsel contends that in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court no benefit qua promotion whatsoever can be granted to the

respondents herein. The respondent-department vide letter dated 23.04.2026

(Annexure P-5) addressed to the Director General, Higher Education

Department has sought its advice on whether employees who have acquired

degrees from deemed university(s) through distance mode are eligible for

promotion or not. As per information available with the petitioners no positive

response has been received by the department till date.

17. Ld. Senior Counsel further contends that the action of the

respondent-State whereby despite the private respondents not possessing

regular degrees and despite the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

that employees like the private respondents cannot be given any additional

benefits/advantage other than what they were enjoying at the time the

Judgement was rendered in Orissa Lift irrigation(supra) for validation of their

degrees, the private respondents are being promoted as Executive Engineer is

not only illegal and arbitrary but in complete contravention to the Order of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ashok Kumar supra. It is contended that

once the degrees obtained by the private respondents are in dispute having

been obtained through distance education, it would be completely unjust and

unfair to promote the private respondents herein on the basis of such degrees.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 13 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

18. It is further argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgment

in Orissa Lift Irrigation (Supra) while holding such degrees to be as invalid, yet,

while protecting certain group(s) of students who had undergone Engineering

degrees from deemed universities through distance mode of education to

limited extent, had granted such students a chance to appear in an

examination which was to be conducted by the AICTE for validation of such

degrees as a one time measure. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the

Order dated 13.8.2019 passed in the Contempt Petitions has clarified that no

additional benefit/ advantage shall be given to any individual even if they clear

the examination conducted by the AICTE and get their degrees validated in

terms of observation(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgment in Orissa

Lift Irrigation (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that

only such advantages/benefits which a person was enjoying on the date

Judgment was rendered in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra) shall be continued

upon clearance of the examination. Therefore, no additional/ extra service

benefit can be granted to any employee viz-a-viz promotion/ other benefit

upon validation of degrees other than the benefit which he/she was enjoying

on the date judgment was rendered in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra).

19. Ld. Senior counsel submits that as the private respondents have

acquired degrees in Engineering through distance education, therefore, they

are squarely covered by the Judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra) and the

Order in Ashok Kumar & Ors. (supra). The action of the respondent State

whereby the private respondents are being promoted as Executive Engineers

on the basis of their degrees is in the teeth of the observations of the Hon'ble

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 14 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

Supreme Court in the Order dated 13.8.2019 in Ashok Kumar & Ors. (supra).

No service benefits whatsoever which were not being enjoyed by the private

respondents as on 03.11.2017 can be granted to the private respondents

herein and therefore the action of the respondents whereby they are

promoting the private respondents as Executive Engineers is completely illegal

and arbitrary.

20. Further, despite the fact that the competent authority in the

respondent State has sought clarification from the Higher Education

Department as to whether employees like the private respondents are eligible

for promotion on the basis of the degrees, the respondent State is going ahead

and promoting the private respondents as Executive Engineers on the basis of

invalid degrees.

21. It is reiterated that the candidates who had filed the aforesaid

contempt petition were identically situated to the private respondents in the

present matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid contempt petition

has held that the intent of the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra) was

only to restore such service benefits as a person was enjoying on the date the

Judgment was rendered if such candidate cleared the AICTE exam in the first

attempt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had said that no additional

advantage/benefit can be given to any candidate even after the degree of such

candidate stands validated. Para 66.6 of the main judgement was thus clarified

to the above extent. It is submitted that the private respondents herein at the

time the Judgment was rendered in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra) were not

enjoying the benefit of promotion as Executive Engineer; and therefore, such

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 15 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

benefits cannot be given to them after the Judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation

(supra).

22. Further, two Division Benches of this Court in State of Haryana

Vs. Vijay Goyal & Ors. in LPA No.1426 of 2023 decided on 05.07.2024, and

Jagdish Rai Singla Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. in RA-CW-101-2022 in CWP

525 of 2017 decided on 17.03.2023 have held that benefit of promotion would

come under the purview of additional advantage(s) and if the concerned

candidate had not attained any particular status as on the date when

Judgment was passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra), no benefit which such

person was not enjoying at the time of Judgment can be given. The

observations which are “Ratio Decidendi” are completely in favor of the

petitioners and clinch the case in their favor.

23. Further, a Ld. Single Bench of this Court in Satyawan Nain & Ors.

Vs. UHBVNL & Anr. in CWP No.1228 of 2020 decided on 19.10.2023 has also

held that promotion to a higher post would come under the purview of

additional benefit and if any promotion was not granted to any person as on

date Judgment was passed in Orrisa Lift Irrigation (supra), such benefit of

promotion cannot be given to any person. Relevant portion of the judgment is

reproduced herein under:-

“(18). Further, in Ashok Kumar and others’s case (supra), while

taking cognizance of the fact that the candidates should not stand

deprived of the status which they were enjoying as on the day of

the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. provided the

candidates could prove their worth and ability, the Supreme Court

further held that if, a candidate had not attained any particular

status, as on the date when the Judgment was passed, the width of

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 16 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

the directions was not to confer any additional advantage which

was not even enjoyed as on the date. The Supreme Court cautioned

that it was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to

certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter

of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment and held

that if the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the

Judgment and the Order, the candidates would certainly be eligible

to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but

“restoration” would only be of those benefits, which they were

enjoying as on the date of the Judgment. In short, the intent was to

restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage

by the Judgment and the Order.

(19). In the present case, the Ranking List of Engineering

Subordinates possessing AMIE/BE qualification in Electrical

Engineer as it stood on 01.01.2008, for promotion to the post of

Assistant Engineer, was prepared on 08.01.2013. In the said List,

petitioners’ names were not entered as their Engineering Degrees

were not taken to be valid and hence their claim was rejected as

this Court in Kartar Singh’s case (supra) had declared their degrees

as invalid. Their degrees stood validated during December, 2018 in

compliance to Supreme Court directions in Orissa Lift Irrigation

Corporation Ltd.’s (supra). It is crystal clear that as on the date of

judgment/clarification in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd.’s

(supra), there was no benefit/advantage which can be said to have

been taken away from the petitioners. Albeit, the claim of the

petitioners for promotion arose only after the passing of the Special

Test in December, 2018 which validated their Degrees for being

considered for further promotion.

(20). The directions issued by the Supreme court, referred to above,

were never directed to confer such advantages which the

candidates were otherwise not enjoying, ‘on the date when the

Judgment and clarificatory Order’ were passed. If the promotion

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 17 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

was not granted and was not being enjoyed as on the day when the

judgment was passed, there was no violation of any direction

issued by the Supreme Court by the respondent-Nigam.

(21). In view of the foregoing reasons and observations made, this

Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 01.01.2020

(Annexure P14) passed by the respondent-Nigam.

(22). Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.”

24. It is accordingly prayed that the present Writ Petition be allowed;

and following prayer be accepted: -

“(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ in

the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to not to

consider the candidature(s) of the private respondents for

promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and further restrain

the respondents from taking any positive steps w.r.t.

consideration of their names herein for promotion to the post of

Executive Engineer in view of the fact that they are not eligible to

seek promotion to the said post in view of dictum of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court rendered in 'Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Vs.

Rabi Shankar Patro & Ors.' cited as 1 (2018) 1 SCC 468 and

Contempt Petition (C) No. 408-409 of 2019 in CA No. 17869-17870

of 2017 lead petition titled as 'Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Depinder

Singh Dhesi & Ors.'”

25. Per contra, ld. Senior Counsel representing the private

respondents no.3 to 5, 7, 8 and 11, supported by ld. State Counsel has

vehemently opposed submissions of the petitioners and has urged that

contentions of the petitioners are utterly misconceived being based on a

misreading of the Judgment; the Clarificatory Order; as also the Order, passed

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 18 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

26. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that admittedly, all the petitioners as

well as the private respondents herein are SDE, presently working in the

respondent-Department. It is also undisputed fact on record that the private

respondents are senior to the present petitioners. As such, the private

respondents are entitled to be considered for further promotion to post of

Executive Engineer; and petitioners have no locus at present.

27. Further, undisputedly, private respondents had enrolled in

Academic Session 2001-2005 and had obtained their respective Engineering

degrees through distance education mode from deemed to be Universities

situated in Rajasthan. The validity of such degrees fell for consideration before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra); and

that in compliance of directions contained in the said Judgment and the

subsequent Clarificatory Order dated 22.01.2018, the private respondents had

duly appeared in and successfully cleared the special validation test conducted

by the AICTE in the year 2018 in the first round itself. The aforesaid facts are

not disputed either by the respondent-Department or by the petitioners.

Corresponding entries in the service records of the respondents were also

made without demur and without raising any objection or reservation qua the

genuineness, validity or continued recognition of the said degrees.

28. However, the submission of the petitioners to the effect that

further promotion to the private respondents would be an "additional benefit"

which has been denied by the Apex Court is based on a complete misreading

of the Judgment, Clarificatory Order, and the Order of the Apex Court. It is

contended that such an interpretation and reading of the same is ex-facie

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 19 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

contemptuous and amounts to tweaking the law settled by the Apex Court by

adding words which the Apex Court never intended.

29. It is reiterated that the entire case of the petitioners is based on

selected misreading of Order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the Contempt Petition filed in case of Ashok Kumar

supra. Whereas a true and complete appreciation of the said Order when read

with the context in which each of the said Contempt Petitions were filed,

demonstrates that it does not support the petitioners’ case.

30. It is urged that the issue involved in the Judgment dated

3.11.2017 was the validity of the engineering degree obtained through

Distance Education Mode and the grant of ex-post-facto approval by the UGC

to the degrees obtained from deemed to be universities by students enrolled

during academic session 2001-2005. The Apex Court held the exercise of grant

of ex-post-facto approval to be incorrect and illegal. However, considering the

fact that UGC since 2004 itself had given liberty to the concerned deemed

public universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval, it was considered

appropriate that the interest of those students who were enrolled during

academic session 2001-2005 is protected. Therefore, taking a sympathetic

consideration, the Apex Court deemed it appropriate to grant chance to the

students who enrolled in Academic Session 2001-2005 to have their ability

tested by the authority competent in that behalf; and therefore, it was

directed that all degrees in engineering granted to the students who were

enrolled during the academic session 2001-2005 shall stand suspended till

they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 20 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

manner provided by the Apex Court. In view thereof, it was directed that every

single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand ‘suspended’.

Therefore, there was only ‘suspension’ of benefits till the candidates cleared

the exam.

31. Ld. Senior counsel further submits that the Apex Court directed

AICTE to devise modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in written

examination as well as in practical for the concerned students enrolled during

the academic session 2001-2005 covering all the concerned subjects. Only two

chances were directed to be given to the students and it was directed that if

they do not pass the test their degree shall stand recalled and cancelled; and

that in case, they clear the test, all advantages or benefits shall be ‘restored’ to

the concerned candidates and the degree shall revive fully. Ld. Senior counsel

argues that where on one hand degrees of students enrolled during academic

session 2001-2005 were only suspended and a chance was given to have them

validated, on the other hand, degrees obtained by students enrolled after

academic session 2001-2005 were annulled by the Apex Court. Therefore, the

degrees of the students who cleared the test were directed to be revived and

validated fully as per the directions of the Apex Court. Thereby implying that

upon passing of the test, there would be full revival of the degrees and all

benefits being enjoyed prior to date of Judgement, would be restored.

32. Ld. Senior counsel points out that thereafter several applications

were filed seeking clarification and modification of the directions issued vide

the Judgement dated 3.11.2017, and praying for preservation of the benefits

earned on the basis of the said degrees. It was contended by the applicants

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 21 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

that after securing degrees through distance education mode, applicants had

advanced in career, and their ability had been tested at various levels and as

such requirement of passing the examination in terms of the Judgement be

dispensed with. In this situation, the Apex Court had decided the applications

vide Clarificatory Order dated 22.01.2018 reported as Orissa Lift Irrigation

Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro 2018 (2) SCC 298 and refused to make

any such exception. However, at the same time considering the submissions

being made of losing the job, the Apex Court granted a one-time relaxation in

favour of those candidates who were enrolled during academic session 2001-

2005 and who were eligible to appear in the test to be conducted by AICTE

that all the candidates who clear the test in terms of the Judgment can retain

the degrees in question and the advantages flowing therefrom till one month

after declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018 whichever is

earlier. If the candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be entitled to

retain all the advantages. However, if they fail or chose not to appear, the

directions in the Judgment dated 03.11.2017 shall apply and in that case the

degrees and all advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn. They will be

entitled to appear on the second occasion in terms of the Judgment but the

aforesaid exception shall not apply to such second attempt meaning thereby

they will not be entitled to retain the advantages which they already had and

same shall stand suspended and withdrawn.

33. It is submitted that what the Apex Court directed was that on

clearing of exam at first attempt along with validation of degree, all benefits

which were already being enjoyed shall stand restored i.e., status quo ante

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 22 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

would be restored. But if the test is not cleared in first attempt, though is

cleared in second attempt then degree would stand validated from the date of

clearance of test and there would be no restoration of the benefits already

taken. It is vehemently urged that it was nowhere stated that the degree once

validated on passing of test would not be valid for all purposes or that it

cannot be used later on. It is submitted that in compliance of the directions of

the Hon’ble Apex Court, the private respondents had taken the rigourous test

conducted by the AICTE and passed the same in the first instance itself.

Accordingly, Certificate was awarded by the AICTE validating their degrees. The

said validation has been accepted and acted upon by the Department itself by

making a corresponding entry in each applicant's service book, without demur.

34. However, the Petitioners have thereafter sought to build their

entire case upon a selective and truncated reading of the Order dated

13.08.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Contempt Petitions

Ashok Kumar supra. It is submitted that a true and complete appreciation of

the said Order, read in its proper factual and legal context, demonstrates that

it does not support the Petitioners' case in the slightest and indeed forecloses

it.

35. Ld. Senior counsel clarifies that since the Order dated 13.08.2019

passed in said contempt proceedings has been heavily relied upon by the

petitioners, therefore, it is necessary to give facts of the said case which gives

a clear insight as regards the observations made therein by the Apex Court. It

is submitted that the above said Contempt Petition (C) No. 408-409 of 2019

was instituted before the Apex Court by 9 persons alleging violation and

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 23 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

defiance of the Judgment dated 03.11.2017 and the Clarificatory order dated

22.01.2018. The contempt petitioners were contending that they had enrolled

themselves in the courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through distance

mode during the period 2001-2005. They cleared the test conducted by AICTE

in first attempt. After clearing test, they submitted representations stating that

they are entitled to all the benefits arising from degrees and thus, due benefit

of promotion be released to them. Needless to mention that before judgment

and conducting of test by AICTE they were not given any benefit of promotion

by relying on their degrees, thus, they were seeking benefit retrospectively

after their degrees got validated. It is submitted that it was in the above

context and situation that the stand taken then by the State Government, as

evident from counter affidavit dated 03.04.2019 (Annexure R-7) filed on behalf

of State before the Apex Court, was that Judgment intended to restore only

such benefits which stands already granted and would not include grant of any

benefit which was not granted before validation of degree. A specific stand

was taken by the Government that few of the petitioners have acquired

degree without taking due permission as per the service rules. In this regard,

stand was taken that those petitioners who had obtained permission before

acquiring the degrees and their degrees have been validated upon passing the

test conducted by AICTE, they will be given benefit of acquiring their B.Tech

degree through distance education mode prospectively from the date they

have passed test conducted by AICTE. However, no benefit would be given to

such petitioners who had acquired the degrees in violation of instructions of

the State Government issued from time to time.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 24 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

It is submitted that it was in the above backdrop of the aforesaid

factual matrix, that the Apex Court decided the contempt petitions vide Order

dated 13.08.2019. Ld. Senior counsel in particular refers to para 10 of Order

dated 13.08.2019 whereby the Apex Court crystallized the legal position by

referring to Judgment dated 03.11.2017 and Clarificatory order dated

22.01.2018; and held that on validation of degree, candidate would be eligible

to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but would be of

those benefits which they were already enjoying. Thus, ‘additional benefits’

used by Apex Court was in reference to restoration of benefits and it had

nothing do with non-extension of future benefits which a person may be

entitled to based on the degree which stood validated for all intents and

purposes on passing of the test conducted by AICTE. This is further so evident

from the observations made by the Apex Court as regards the factual aspect in

para 11 of the Order.

36. It is urged that from a bare reading of the Order dated 13.08.2019

passed in Ashok Kumar (supra), it is clear that the Apex Court reiterated that a

candidate cannot claim, by virtue of the retrospective validation of the degree,

some backdated status or benefit that he/she was not already holding or

enjoying as on 03.11.2017. It is expressly recorded in para 10 itself that

validated candidates "would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are

available in accordance with law" which necessarily includes ordinary, future

rule-based promotion earned after the degree stands validated. It is argued

that the expression "additional benefit/advantage" is thus a term of art

confined to backdated, retrospective advantage; it is not, and cannot be read

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 25 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

as, a permanent embargo on prospective promotion, which every other

similarly qualified government servant is entitled to claim in the ordinary

course of service.

37. Ld. Senior counsel submits that the aforesaid aspect is further

clarified by various circulars/communications (Annexure R-8), issued by AICTE

from time to time, wherein it has been specifically stated that suspended

degrees of students enrolled in academic session 2001-2005, on passing of the

exam shall stand valid from the date of acquiring the degree from the

respective deemed to be university and that such degrees are valid in all

aspects. It is reiterated that therefore, the entire case of the petitioners is

based on a misreading of the orders passed by the Apex Court.

38. It is further submitted that except on account of degree, no other

ineligibility has been alleged against the private respondents. Even as per the

governing Service Rules, such degrees obtained from distance education mode

are recognized which are approved by AICTE. Thus, private respondents are

duly entitled for further promotion. It is argued that once the law has been

declared by the Apex Court holding that the degrees shall be revived fully on

passing the test and coupled with the clear stand of AICTE that degrees of the

private respondents are valid for all purposes, under Article 141 of the

Constitution of India, law declared by the Apex Court shall prevail over the

rules.

39. Ld. Senior counsel further points out that the communication

dated 11.06.2026 addressed by Respondent No.2 relied upon by the

Petitioners themselves as Annexure P-4 and the consequent scheduling of the

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 26 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for 13.07.2026, in fact

demonstrates that the Respondent-Department, being the custodian of the

service records of the private Respondents and being fully conscious of the

correct legal position flowing from the judgments discussed hereinabove, has,

after due application of mind, forwarded the names of the private

Respondents, whose degrees stand validated and revived fully, for

consideration on merits by the competent authority in the ordinary and lawful

course of promotional exercise. There is nothing illegal, arbitrary or

contumacious in the said action; on the contrary, it represents the correct and

lawful implementation of the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

40. It is lastly contended that the Petitioners have approached this

Court with considerable and unexplained delay and laches as the private

Respondents had cleared the AICTE validation test as far back as in the year

2018 and their degrees have stood revived, recognised and reflected in their

service records for a period exceeding seven years without a shred of

objection from the Petitioners or from the Respondent-Department. It is only

now, when the private Respondents have, in the ordinary course of seniority

and eligibility, become due for consideration for promotion to the post of

Executive Engineer, that the Petitioners have rushed to invoke the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, in a belated and mala fide attempt to

stall a legitimate promotional process at the very last moment, thereby

causing grave, irreparable damage to some of the private Respondents who

are nearing superannuation, irreversible prejudice to their seniority and career

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 27 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

progression. It is trite that a writ court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not obliged to come to the aid

of a party guilty of such inordinate, unexplained delay, more particularly where

the relief sought would unsettle a position that has held the field,

unchallenged, for several years.

41. It is accordingly prayed that present writ petition be dismissed.

42. Ld. State counsel has reiterated the arguments of the learned

Senior counsel appearing for the private Respondents. It is further submitted

that the petitioners have no locus to file the present writ petition as before

approaching this Court they never made any challenge to the degree of private

Respondents for the purpose of promotion and never made any

representation to the competent authority. Moreover, Petitioners in the

present case are not within the consideration zone for the promotion to the

post of XEN, as they are juniors to the private respondents and do not posses

requisite experience of 8 years as SDE. Ld. State counsel refers to Para 5 of the

Reply filed by the State on behalf of Respondents no. 1 and 2 dated

14.08.2026, wherein it is stated that the private Respondents had obtained

degrees in Civil Engineering from deemed-to-be Universities and thereafter

successfully qualified the AICTE-UGC Special Examination, 2018, conducted

pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift

Irrigation (supra), and the subsequent orders. In terms of the said Judgment,

the engineering degrees of candidates who successfully cleared the Special

Examination stood fully revived. Ld. State counsel also refers to Para 6 of the

above reply to submit that eligibility of each individual officer was examined

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 28 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

independently and strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory

provisions and service record. The Department did not mechanically consider

any officer for promotion. Mere inclusion of any officer within the zone of

consideration did not confer any vested right to promotion.

43. It is further submitted that the intent of Hon’ble Apex Court was

never to let such degree holders stagnate in their career once their degree

stands duly revived after clearing their exams which is clear from the reading

of 2019(8) SCC 280 para no.10 - If the degrees stood restored in terms of the

directions in the Judgment and the Order, the candidates would certainly be

eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law; and

"restoration” would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on

the date of the Judgment. In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante

and not to confer any additional advantage by the Judgment and the Order.

44. In rebuttal, led. Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the

argument of the private respondents that they had not sought the benefit of

their degrees at the time the Judgment was rendered in Orrisa Lift Irrigation

(supra) and therefore, are entitled to seek the benefit now is completely

erroneous. If the private respondents had not taken the benefit of their invalid

degrees at the time Judgment was rendered in Orrisa Lift Irrigation (supra), no

additional advantage/benefit can be granted to them after rendering of the said

Judgment. Additional advantage/benefit will include any service benefit

including promotion. If it was the intent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to

regularise all distance learning degrees and make them at par with their regular

degrees, there was no need of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 29 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

as rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra). The observations of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar (Supra) under Article 141 are law of the land

and once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rejected the same argument and

prayer as raised by the private respondents this Court is bound by the

observations in Ashok Kumar (supra).

45. It is further submitted that the argument of the private

respondents herein that restoration of their degrees and granting of additional

benefit are two different things is also erroneous as any benefit granted in

pursuance to restoration of a degree after judgment in Orrisa Lift Irrigation

(supra) will come under the purview of additional advantages/benefits. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court by taking a sympathetic view has only secured the

employment of candidates who have undergone degrees through distance

learning, otherwise, a person cannot be continued in employment on the basis

of invalid degrees. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar

(supra) has held that if the candidates had enrolled themselves in courses

leading to degrees in Engineering through Distance Education Mode without

express permission of the Department no benefit of Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra)

can be granted to such candidates. Prayer for allowing the writ petition is

reiterated.

46. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard

Ld. Senior Counsel for the parties and perused the case file in minute detail.

After having given my very thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced on behalf of both the parties, I find no merit in the submissions of

the petitioners.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 30 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

47. The Petitioners have approached this Court praying for issuance

of directions to the respondents to not consider the candidature of the private

respondents herein for promotion to post of Executive Engineer. To support

their case, the petitioners have primarily relied upon the Judgment dated

3.11.2017 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation

Corporation Ltd. versus Rabi Shankar Patro and others, reported as (2018) 1

SCC 468; and the Order dated 13.8.2019 (Annexure P-3), rendered in Contempt

Petition (C) Nos.408-409 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of 2017,

Ashok Kumar and others versus Depinder Singh Dhesi and others, to contend

that in view of the abovesaid Rulings, no “additional benefit” such as

promotion etc. - except those benefits which were being enjoyed at time of

suspension of degree - could be granted to private respondents. Further

reference has been made to Rule 7 of Haryana Development and Panchayat

Department (Group B) Service Rules, 2016 to contend that as per Rules degree

obtained through distance education mode could not be considered for

appointment by any mode of recruitment. The issue, therefore, is regarding

eligibility of private respondents to be considered for promotion as Executive

Engineer from the current posting as Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) in Haryana

Development and Panchayat Department.

48. However, before dealing with the legal contentions of the

petitioners, it is first apt to appreciate certain material and important factual

aspects pertinent to the issue at hand. It is evident from the averments made

in Para 2 of the writ petition that petitioners were promoted as Sub Divisional

Engineer on 14.8.2023-2024. Whereas private respondents were promoted as

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 31 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

SDE between 3.9.2019 to 11.7.2023, thereby clearly establishing that the

private respondents are senior to the petitioners. The aforesaid seniority is

duly reflected in the Seniority list (Annexure R-9 of the CM No. 12942 of 2026

filed by the private respondents No. 3 to 5, 7, 8 and 11 for directing the official

respondents to keep in abeyance entire process of promotion to the post of

Executive Engineer including the scheduled meeting of Department Promotion

Committee on 03.08.2026 considering therein names of juniors to the

applicants for promotion till the time application filed by applicants under

Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India is not decided. Vide order dated

3.8.2026 passed by this Court, while showing notice in the said application,

official respondents were directed to keep in abeyance the entire process of

promotion till the next date of hearing i.e. 18.8.2026. Although the said

application has not been formally allowed; however, since the DPC meeting

was to be held on 03.08.2026, and the process was stayed till 18.08.2026,

hence the said application has been rendered infructuous).

Thus, as per the Seniority list (Annexure R-9), it is clearly

established that all the petitioners are junior to the private respondents.

Moreover, as pointed out by the learned State Counsel, petitioners do not

even possess the requisite experience of eight years as SDE. As such,

petitioners are not even in zone of consideration for further promotion to the

post of Executive Engineer. Thus, prima facie, petitioners are unable to

establish their locus as they are not even eligible for promotion as yet and are

junior to the private respondents.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 32 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

49. Further, during the course of arguments, Ld. Senior Counsel for

the petitioners has submitted that even the initial promotion of the private

respondents to the post of SDE (Civil) - which is a feeder post for promotion to

Executive Engineer - was bad on account of it having been made on the basis

of degree obtained through Distance Education Mode by placing reliance on

Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016 (Annexure P-1). However, in this regard ld. Senior

counsel has omitted to refer to Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) of the 2016 Rules, as per which

4 modes are provided for promotion to the post of SDE (Civil), which are as

under:-

i)32% from amongst Diploma Holder Junior Engineers (Civil);

ii)6% from amongst diploma holder Circle Head Draftsmen (Civil)/

Head Draftsmen (Civil);

iii)11% from amongst degree holder Junior Engineers (Civil); and

iv)1 % amongst degree holder Circle Head Draftsmen (Civil), Head

Draftsmen (Civil) and Draftsmen (Civil)

50. The essential qualifications for promotion under each of the

respective category/ quota is provided in Appendix B; which makes it clear

that for promotion to post of SDE under diploma holder category, there is no

requirement for degree in engineering.

51. It is imperative to note that the private respondents have not

been promoted on the basis of the degree but under category of diploma

holder either from amongst Junior Engineers (Civil) or Circle Head Draftsmen

(Civil)/ Head Draftsmen (Civil). This fact is established from CM No. 12942 of

2026. Thus, objection of petitioners to initial promotion of private respondents

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 33 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

as SDE being improper, and therefore their ineligibility for further promotion,

is without basis.

52. Moreover, the aforesaid submission of the petitioners is also

liable to be rejected on the ground that the same is beyond the pleadings; as

neither any prayer to that effect has been made challenging promotion of the

private respondents as SDE nor it has been so pleaded in the entire writ

petition except reproduction of Rule 7 of the Rules, 2016 in para no. 3 of the

writ petition. Thus, the said submission deserves to be rejected at the very

outset; even though it would be seen from the discussion to follow that the

private respondents have established that their promotion, even if it would

have been on the basis of Degree of Engineering obtained through Distance

Education Mode would have been valid in terms of the law settled by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

53. Now as regards the legal aspect of the matter, it is the contention

of the ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioners that in pursuance to the

Clarificatory Order dated 22.1.2018, after the private respondents were

permitted to take the examination conducted by the AICTE in 2018, no further

benefit would be admissible to them; as, vide the Order dated 13.08.2019

(Annexure P-3), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that no “additional

benefit” is admissible to any of the candidates, who had obtained their

degrees through Distance Education Mode from deemed Universities. It is

their contention that the status of the private respondents would freeze as on

03.11.2017 i.e., date of Judgment in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra).

Thus, the controversy is surrounding interpretation and correct reading of the

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 34 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

Judgment, the Clarificatory Order, and the Order of the Apex Court. Upon in-

depth examination of the matter, it is the considered view of this Court that

the aforesaid submission of the petitioners that the envisaged promotion of the

private respondents now is “additional benefit” which cannot be endowed

upon them, is based on reading of selective paras of the Judgment, the

Clarificatory Order, and the Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In this regard, it

is necessary to consider the relevant facts, and the observations made by the

Apex Court in each of the above.

54. In the Judgment dated 3.11.2017 rendered by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi

Sankar Patro and others 2018 (1) SCC 468, the Issue before Apex Court

pertained to the validity of engineering degree obtained through Distance

Education Mode and the grant of ex-post-facto approval by the UGC to the

degrees obtained from deemed to be universities by students enrolled during

academic session 2001-2005. Vide the Judgment dated 3.11.2017, Hon’ble

Supreme Court held the ex post facto approval granted by UGC in 2004 to the

degrees of students enrolled during academic session 2001-2005 to be invalid.

However, such students who obtained degree through distance education

mode and were enrolled in academic session 2001-2005 were given chance to

get their degrees validated on passing of test to be conducted by AICTE.

Further the degrees obtained through distance education mode by students

who enrolled post academic session 2001-2005 were declared to be invalid. To

remove any ambiguity, it would be helpful to refer to the relevant extract of

the Judgment dated 3.11.2017, which is as under: –

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 35 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

“57. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-facto

approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal

circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex-post-

facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall

all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of Courses

leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, since 2004

UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the concerned

Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval, the

matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that

interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic

sessions 2001- 2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the

fact that the Deemed to be Universities concerned flagrantly

violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and

started conducting courses through distance education system

illegally, the over bearing interest of the students concerned

persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering

granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto approval. However, the

fact remains that the facilities available at the concerned Study

Centres were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It

is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But

there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of

the students concerned. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to

grant some chance to the students concerned to have their ability

tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore,

direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who

were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand

suspended till they pass such examination under the joint

supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter.

Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall

also stand suspended.

58. AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of

this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test(s) both in

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 36 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

written examination as well as in practicals for the students

concerned admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005

covering all the subjects concerned. It is entirely left to the

discretion of AICTE 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 students concerned and

if they do not pass the test(s) their degrees shall stand recalled and

cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the

test(s), the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition

and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the Deemed

to be University concerned within a month of the exercise of such

option. The students be given time till 15.01.2018 to exercise such

option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) in respect

of students who wish to undergo test(s) shall be recovered from the

Deemed to be Universities concerned by 31.03.2018. If they clear

the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits

shall be restored to the candidates concerned . We make it clear at

the cost of repetition that if the candidates concerned do not clear

the test(s) within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the

test(s), 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.

59. As regards the students who were admitted after the ex post

facto approval granted in favour of such deemed to be universities,

in our view, there was no sanction whatsoever for their admission.

The policy statements as well as warnings issued from time to time

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 37 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

were absolutely clear. The students were admitted on the strength

either of provisional recognition or on the strength of Interim

orders passed by the High Court. We therefore, declare that in

respect of students admitted after the academic sessions of 2001-

2005, the degrees in Engineering awarded by the deemed to be

universities concerned through distance education mode shall stand

recalled and be treated as cancelled. Any benefit which a candidate

has secured as a result of such degrees in Engineering in the nature

of promotion or advancement in career shall also stand recalled.

However, If any monetary benefit was derived by such candidates

that monetary benefit or advantage will not be recovered by the

departments or employers concerned. We, further direct that the

entire amount paid by such students to the deemed to be

universities concerned towards tuition fee and all other expenditure

for such courses through distance education learning shall be

returned by the deemed to be universities concerned to the

respective students. This direction shall be complied with by the

deemed to be universities concerned scrupulously and the amounts

shall be returned by 31-5-2018 and an appropriate affidavit to that

extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter.

XXX XXX XXX

64.Thus, interest of justice requires that the following issues also

need to be addressed:

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;

64.2. (ii) Manning of the UGC;

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;

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 38 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

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;

XXX XXX XXX

66.4.AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate

test(s) as indicated in Para 58 above. The option be given to the

concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018

to appear at the test(s) to be conducted in accordance with the

directions in Para 58 above. Students be given not more than two

chances to clear test(s) and if they do not successfully clear the

test(s) within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand

cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in

Paras 57 and 58 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the

test(s) shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be

Universities by 31.03.2018.

66.5.Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall

be refunded entire money deposited by 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

58.

66.6.If the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all

the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their

degrees will stand revived fully .” (Emphasis added)

55. It is important to note that in para 57 reproduced above, the

Hon’ble Apex Court has directed to ‘suspend’ all the degrees till such time as

the test is cleared. The word “suspended” has been consciously used in

contradistinction to ‘annulment’ or ‘cancellation’ of degrees altogether. The

terms ‘recalled’ and ‘cancelled’ have been used only in case of failure to clear

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 39 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

the test. The penultimate direction of the Judgment therefore is that the

Hon’ble Apex Court in categoric words held that all degrees obtained by

candidates enrolled in academic session 2001-2005 shall stand ‘suspended’. It

is the clear view of this Court that ‘suspension’ of degrees is merely a

temporary deferment/Interlude/interruption/postponement, that by it’s very

meaning necessarily envisages revival thereof upon fulfilment of the

conditions imposed, which, in the present case are the Two chances which

were given to clear the tests; and on passing test/ tests not only all

advantages/ benefits shall be restored but even the degrees shall revive fully.

Suspension itself is a mere hiatus between two intervening possibilities. Upon

fulfilment of the conditions, the said suspension is revoked. The Judgment is

thus, unequivocal and clear that degrees of candidates who were enrolled in

academic session 2001-2005 obtained through distance education mode were

only ‘suspended’, as opposed to recalled/annulled; and on passing of the AICTE

test, degree shall stand revived fully. A natural corollary thereto is that all

benefits/ advantages shall be restored as directed by the Apex Court. It needs

to be emphasised that the Hon’ble Apex Court used two words “restoration of

benefits” and “revival of degree fully” which means that not only advantages

already taken on account degree shall stand restored on its validation after

passing test; but the degree itself shall revive fully which has only one

meaning i.e. all the benefits which would flow from valid degree, whether past

or future, would flow without any fetter. With utmost deference to the Apex

Court, this is the only interpretation that can be given. Any other

interpretation would be otiose to the fundamental tenets of Service

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 40 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

Jurisprudence, of career progression/ stagnation. If the submission of the

petitioners is accepted it would mean adding unintended words, meanings and

connotations to the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court as the Apex Court

held in clear and categoric words that the degree shall revive fully. Nothing

was mentioned that no further benefit arising out of degree can be obtained.

Consequently, the said degrees constitute valid and legally recognized

qualifications for all purposes under the applicable Service Rules. Only benefits

already obtained were suspended temporarily, and same were also ordered to

be restored on passing of the test. Thus, on a bare reading of the main

Judgment, the argument being canvassed by the petitioners is flawed and

liable to be rejected.

56. Further, in Para no. 58 of the Judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court

directed AICTE to devise modalities of test to be conducted and it was held

that if students clear their test/tests within the stipulated time, all the

advantages or benefits shall be restored to the concerned candidates. The

aforesaid paras makes it clear that intent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was to

save the degrees of students who enrolled in the years 2001-2005; and to the

contrary in para 59 of the Judgment, degrees obtained by students enrolled

thereafter i.e. after 2001-2005 were ordered to be recalled and cancelled - as

opposed to suspension.

57. Thereafter, the Clarificatory Order dated 22.1.2018 came to be

passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro 2018 (2)

SCC 298. The necessity arose as, after passing of main Judgment dated

3.11.2017 several diploma holders and degree holders in Engineering obtained

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 41 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

through distance education mode enrolled in academic session 2001-2005,

had approached the Apex Court contending that exception be made in favour

of such candidates who have obtained jobs directly based on these degrees

(unlike the private respondents herein). Their contention was that the main

Judgment dealt with in-service candidates and therefore, suspension of

degrees of in-service candidates would not result in losing jobs but those

persons who were directly appointed based on such degrees would lose their

jobs. Some other candidates who filed applications, clarified that Judgment

does not apply to M.Tech degrees obtained through distance education mode

and diploma courses are also not covered within the ambit of the Judgment.

58. In light of the aforesaid facts and clarification applications, the

Hon’ble Apex Court clarified and modified directions. The Court observed that

some force is found in submission that upon suspension of degrees the

candidates may lose their jobs and even if they pass test, restoration of their

jobs would pose difficulty. Relevant extract of the Clarificatory Order dated

22.1.2018 is as follows:

“2. The applicants, holding diplomas in Engineering, enrolled

themselves in 2005 in courses leading to award of B.Tech degree

offered by deemed to be university in question through distance

learning mode. Later, on the basis of the degrees awarded by the

deemed to be universities, they underwent independent selection

undertaken by the Union Public Service Commission and entered

certain services as direct recruits and have presently either been

engaged in the same service or have advanced in career on the

basis of such selection by UPSC.

XX XX XX

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 42 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

25. We now turn to the general submission advanced by all the

learned counsel that the candidates after securing the degrees in

Engineering through distance education mode, have advanced in

career and that their ability was tested at various levels and as

such requirement of passing the examination in terms of the

judgment be dispensed with in their case. We cannot make any

such exception. The infirmity in their degrees is basic and

fundamental and cannot be wished away. At the same time, we

find some force in their submission that if the suspension of their

degrees and all advantages were to apply as indicated in the

judgment, the candidates concerned may lose their jobs and even

if they were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs

and present position would pose some difficulty.

26. We, therefore, as a one-time relaxation in favour of those

candidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-

2005 and who, in terms of the judgment, are eligible to appear at

the test to be conducted by AICTE, direct:

26.1. All such candidates, who wish to appear at the

forthcoming test to be conducted by AICTE in May-June

2018 and who exercise option to appear at the test in terms

of the judgment, can retain the degrees in question and all

the advantages flowing therefrom till one month after the

declaration of the result of such test or till 31-7-2018

whichever is earlier.

26.2. This facility is given as one-time exception so that

those who have the ability and can pass the test in the first

attempt Itself, should not be put to inconvenience. If the

candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be

entitled to retain all the advantages. But if they fail or

choose not to appear, the directions in the judgment shall

apply, in that the degrees and all advantages shall stand

suspended and withdrawn. At the cost of repetition, it is

made clear that no more such chances or exceptions will be

given or made. They will undoubtedly be entitled to appear

on the second occasion in terms of the judgment but this

exception shall not apply for such second attempt.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 43 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

26.3. We direct AICTE to conduct the test in May-June 2018

and declare the result well in time, in terms of our

directions in the judgment and this order. AICTE shall

however extend the time to exercise the option to appear at

the test suitably.

27. Except for the directions given in the preceding paragraph i.e.

para 26 and the clarification as regards courses leading to award

of diplomas as mentioned hereinabove, we reject all the other

submissions.

28. All applications, petitions and writ petitions stand disposed of

in aforesaid terms. No costs.” (Emphasis added)

59. The Clarificatory Order dated 22.01.2018 thus, clarified as to how

the period from date of passing of Judgment till passing of Test was to be

treated and granted one time exception to save effect of suspension as was

envisaged in the main Judgment. However, the effective declaration contained

in para 66.6 of the main Judgment as regards revival of the degree fully

remained intact and was not even subject matter of clarification and

modification application. Rather, the same came to be reiterated and

reinforced more explicitly.

60. Lastly, the Order dated 13.8.2019 passed in Contempt Petition

(C) No. 408-409 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of 2017, ‘Ashok

Kumar and others versus Depinder Singh Dhesi and others’ reported as

(2019) 8 SCC 280 has been heavily relied upon by the petitioners to contend

that the Apex Court has held no additional benefit other than the benefit

granted to the candidates on the date of suspension of degree shall be

granted. However, to the contrary, as noted above, the Hon’ble Apex Court

made it explicitly clear that on validation of degrees, the candidates would be

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 44 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

eligible for all entitlements as available in law. Thus, to canvas that no other

additional benefits were to be granted is against the dictum of the Court. No

other the interpretation is possible.

61. In this regard, it is imperative to first clarify the facts which led the

Hon’ble Apex Court to observe that no additional benefits would be

admissible. It is necessary to note that the said direction is to be read in the

context of the facts in which it was issued. The contempt petition was

instituted by 9 petitioners alleging violation of the Judgment dated 03.11.2017

and the Clarificatory Order dated 22.01.2018. The contention of the contempt-

petitioners was that they had enrolled themselves in the courses leading to

Degrees in Engineering through distance mode during the period 2001-2005.

They cleared the test conducted by AICTE in first attempt. After clearing the

test, they submitted representations stating that they are entitled to all the

benefits arising from degrees and thus, due benefit of promotion be released

to them. It is imperative to clarify here that before passing of the Judgment and

conducting of test by AICTE the Contempt-petitioners were not given any

benefit of promotion by relying on their degrees, thus, they were seeking

benefit retrospectively after their degrees got validated. To counter the stand

of the contempt-petitioners therein, the State Government filed Counter

Affidavit (Annexure R-7); in which it was stated that Judgment intended to

restore only such benefits which stands already granted and would not include

grant of any benefit which was not granted; as few of the petitioners have

acquired degree without taking due permission as per the service rules. The

State Government specifically stated in para no. 14 of the said affidavit that

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 45 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

contempt-petitioners who had obtained permission before acquiring the

degrees and their degrees have been validated upon passing the test

conducted by AICTE, they will be given benefit of acquiring their B.Tech degree

through distance education mode prospectively from the date they have

passed test conducted by AICTE, however, no benefit would be given to such

petitioners who had acquired the degrees in violation of instructions of the

State Government issued from time to time.

62. The aforesaid position has been duly taken note of and succinctly

clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para nos. 8 to 11 of the Order dated

13.8.2019 (Annexure P-3) in Ashok Kumar’s case supra, which read as under: -

“11. In spite of the conclusion that (a) courses leading to Degrees

in Engineering could not be taught through Distance Education

Mode without there being express guidelines issued by AICTE

permitting such mode; and (b) the deemed to be Universities in

question were not entitled to start courses in Engineering through

Distance Education Mode without prior approval under the AICTE,

the facility of benefit as detailed in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the

Judgment was extended to the students. Though the Degrees

obtained through Distance Education Mode were prima facie not

in accordance with law, the students enrolled during the academic

sessions 2001-2005 were given two chances to prove their worth

and it was directed that if they clear the test, they would continue

to derive advantages flowing from such Degrees.

12.It may be mentioned here that there could possibly be

variety of advantages derived by the candidates on the basis of

such Degrees awarded at least 10 years before the Judgment was

pronounced. During this period some of the candidates might

have progressed in career on the basis of such Degree, while

some could possibly have acquired Post-Graduate qualifications

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 46 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

such as M.Tech and M.B.A. on the strength of such Degrees. It

was in this light, that the Court ruled that though from the date of

the Judgment all the advantages and benefits flowing or arising

from such Degrees would stand suspended, the benefits or

advantages would get revived after the candidates had cleared

the examination, spoken of in said paragraphs 57 and 58. If any

candidate either failed to clear the examination in two attempts

or if he chose not to appear in the examination, the Degree would

stand annulled completely disentitling the candidate to all the

benefits and advantages flowing from such degrees.

13. Some candidates approached this Court submitting that if in

terms of the Judgment the benefits or advantages were to be

withdrawn and could be regranted or restored only after the

candidates had cleared the examination, it may entail some

prejudice to the candidates. Some of the candidates who had

obtained Post-Graduate Degrees and were employed on the

strength of such Degrees would be required to surrender such

benefits; and even if they were to pass the examination in the first

attempt, it may still require restoration of the benefits leading to

situations of inconvenience and prejudice. The directions in the

Judgment were therefore modified to a certain extent in the

Order. It was, therefore, laid down by way of further concession in

the Order that all the candidates who desired to appear in the

upcoming examination could retain all the advantages and

benefits till one month after declaration of the result of test or till

31.07.2018 whichever was later. The benefit of retaining the

advantages was thus extended only till the first attempt. Those

who could not clear the examination in first attempt or chose not

to appear in the examination conducted in May/June, 2018 were

not entitled to the concessions extended by the Order.

14. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the

strength of such Degrees awarded through Distance Education

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 47 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

Mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were

enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment and if

they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. If

the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt

itself, there would not even be any break in continuous

enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The idea was,

candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were

enjoying as on the day of the Judgment provided the candidates

could prove their worth and ability.

15.But if, the candidates concerned had not attained any

particular status, as on the date when the Judgment was

passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any

additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the

date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to

certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter

of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment. If the

degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the

Judgment and the Order, the candidates would certainly be

eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with

law , but "restoration" would only be of those benefits, which they

were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment. In short, the intent

was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional

advantage by the Judgment and the Order.

16. In the present case serious objection has been raised on behalf

of Department that the candidates concerned had enrolled

themselves in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through

Distance Education Mode without express permission of the

Department and/or the Department did not recognise the

Degrees in Engineering awarded through Distance Education

Mode or that the concerned candidates were not granted any

study leave to pursue such courses. If the Degrees were so

obtained in violation of the norms and parameters laid down by

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 48 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

the Department concerned, the matter assumes completely

different complexion. The directions issued by this Court in the

Judgment and the Order never directed to confer such advantages

which the candidates were otherwise not enjoying on the date

when the Judgment and clarificatory Order were passed. If there

was serious infirmity in the Degrees so obtained by the

candidates, the matter ought to be sorted out either through

representation or through properly instituted challenge in that

behalf. If the promotion was not granted and was not being

enjoyed as on the day when the judgment was passed, there was

no violation of any direction issued by this Court. As is evident, the

representations made by the Contempt Petitioner claimed

conferral of certain status and benefits which they were not

enjoying earlier. If there be any grievance on that front, the

entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other than a

Contempt Petition.” (Emphasis added)

63. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances where even those

employees who had obtained degrees in contravention of the service rules,

the Apex Court crystallized legal position in para 10 of the Order. In Para 10 the

word used again is “restoration” of benefits which were already enjoyed. At

the same time, it was held that candidates would be eligible for “entitlements”

as are available ‘in accordance with law’. The discussion in para 11 of the

Order, as regards the facts of case, makes it clearer that word “additional

benefit” was not intended to stop future promotion as is being canvassed by

the petitioners. In this para also, the Hon’ble Apex Court used two words,

“restoration” and “entitlement” holding that no additional benefit which was

not being enjoyed would be restored and at the same time it was held that

entitlement needs to be established other than a contempt petition.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 49 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

Restoration of benefit is contemplated for persons who had taken the degrees

from Institutes who were functioning without permission from the concerned

authorities. How such persons are to be dealt with and remedy for such

persons, has been clarified in para 11 of the order dated 13.08.2019 in the

Contempt Petition.

64. The legal position thus, culled out from the above discussion is

that:

(i)On passing of test conducted by AICTE, degrees will revive fully (in

terms of Para 66.6 of main Judgment) and candidates are eligible

to such entitlements as are available in law.

(ii)If test is passed in first attempt, the benefits already drawn from

degree shall be retained by the candidate without any break.

(iii)If test is not passed in first attempt, advantages already drawn

shall stand suspended and withdrawn. They will however, be

entitled to give second attempt and in that case also degree will

stand revived but for the period in between advantages taken

based on degree shall stand suspended.

(iv)Any benefit or advantage not already enjoyed would not be

“restored” as Judgment did not intend to confer any “additional

benefit” which was not being enjoyed on the date of degree.

(v)However, post revival or validation of degree, candidate shall be

eligible to all “entitlements” in accordance with law, because

neither the main Judgment nor subsequent Orders put any such

fetter on the degree after its validation.

(vi)Even AICTE vide Circulars dated 09.06.2020, 20.10.2023 and

30.01.2024 (Annexure R-8/ of CM No. 12940 of 2026) has clarified

that on passing of test, degree shall be validated in all respects

from the date of award of original degree.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 50 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

65. To sum up, it can be said that the Petitioners and private

respondents are currently at the post of SDE. All petitioners are junior to the

private respondents, and they have not even acquired qualifying service for

consideration for promotion. Thus, all petitioners are ineligible candidates. The

degrees of private respondents have been validated by AICTE after passing of

test in terms of direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The private

respondents are also eligible for promotion in terms of Rule 7 and 9 of Rules,

2016. Further Appendix B (at page no. 73 of the paperbook) lays down

essential qualification for the promotion to post of Executive Engineer. Besides

Rule 17 of the said rules permits the Government to give such relaxation as

considered expedient for the reasons to be recorded in writing and thus,

names of the private respondents were being considered for promotion to

post of Executive Engineer. In view of above it is clear that the private

respondents are not seeking “restoration of any additional benefit”, instead

they are praying for “entitlement” of promotion based on valid degree

prospectively in accordance with law. Thus, entire premise of the argument of

the petitioners is fallacious and if such argument is accepted it would make the

entire process carried out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in main Judgment

redundant which was only aimed to revive degree fully.

66. In these fact and circumstances, it would be apposite to referred

to judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajpal and

another v. State of Haryana and others CWP No. 1591 of 2017 decided on

09.04.2026. It was case wherein petitioners had cleared exam conducted by

AICTE and were seeking promotion. Their claim was denied on ground that

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 51 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

their qualification is by way of distance education mode. Relevant para is

extracted as follows:-

“6. In that view of the matter we are of the considered

view that once the petitioners' qualification, required for the

promotional post, has been validated under the orders of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. (supra),

there would be no justification not to extend consideration to

petitioners' claim for promotion from the date their immediate

juniors were granted such benefit. The respondents, therefore,

shall examine such claim of the petitioners by passing

appropriate orders within a period of two months. The benefit

of promotion would be notional for the period the petitioners

have not worked on the actual promotional post. The

respondents shall be at liberty to verify the claim of the

petitioners that they are actually holding current duty charge on

the promotional post. In order to extend the consideration to

petitioners' claim the order impugned in the writ petition

contained in Annexure P-5 stands quashed.

7. In view of the legal position settled in the orders of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India Council of Technical

Education and Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. (supra), the Rules

under Challenge in the present petition would have to be read

down in light of the judgment…”

67. Thus, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that once the degrees have

been validated there is no justification to not extend consideration to

petitioner’s claim for promotion. Rules challenged in the petition were read

down in terms of Judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation (supra).

68. Further reference may be made to another Division Bench

judgment of this Court in State of Haryana and another v. Sanjeev Tanwar

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 52 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

LPA No. 1659 of 2024 decided on 21.10.2024, Neutral Citation No.

2024:PHHC:137534-DB, wherein also while interpreting the Judgment it was

held that after passing of degree, candidate shall be entitled to enjoy all fruits

of validated degree. Relevant paras are extracted as follows:-

“(12) A perusal of the afore reproduced paragraphs of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation

Corporation’s case (supra) leaves no room for any doubt in our

minds that if a student who held an Engineering degree through

distance mode and was enrolled in the said Engineering course

between the years 2001-2005 passed the examination conducted

jointly by AICTE-UGC in May-June, 2018 within two attempts, all

the advantages or benefits under the Engineering degree

possessed by him shall be restored and that his degree shall stand

fully revived.

(13) The reliance by the learned State counsel on paragraph

No.10 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar's

case (supra) is found to be misplaced. Rather, the observations

made by the Supreme Court in this paragraph support the

respondent's case as in this paragraph the Supreme Court has

observed that all the benefits being enjoyed by the degree holders

through distance mode on the date of the judgment rendered by

the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation's case

(supra) would get restored if these candidates would show their

worth by passing the examination to be jointly conducted by the

AICTE-UGC in May-June, 2018. Paragraph 10 of the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) reads as follows

:-

"10. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the

strength of such Degrees awarded through Distance

Education Mode, had attained a particular level in their

career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of

the Judgment and if they pass the examination, those

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 53 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear

the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not

even be any break in continuous enjoyment of those

benefits or facilities. The idea was, candidates should not

stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on

the day of the Judgment provided the candidates could

prove their worth and ability.

But if, the concerned candidates had not attained any

particular status, as on the date when the Judgment was

passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any

additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on

the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be

entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates

were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of

the judgment. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the

directions in the Judgment and the Order, the candidates

would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are

available in accordance with law, but "restoration" would

only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on

the date of the Judgment. In short, the intent was to restore

status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage

by the Judgment and the Order."

(14) Thus, the respondent having been enrolled as a student to

pursue his degree course in Civil Engineering between the years

2001-2005 in J.R.N. Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur,

through distance mode and having passed the examination

conducted jointly by the AICTE-UGC in June, 2018 would be

entitled to enjoy all the fruits of his restored and validated degree

in Engineering as on passing the test conducted by the AICTE-UGC

in June, 2018 he has shown his worth. This would result in the

restoration of the respondent's merit position in the select list

drawn by the Commission on 22.07.2009 and since he would then

be meritorious enough, the direction to appoint him as SDE (Civil)

would not constitute "any additional benefit" but would be a

necessary consequence of the restoration of the benefit which

had been taken away from him only on the ground that the

degree possessed by him was through distance mode.”

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 54 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

69. It is clear therefore that in passing the AICTE Test of 2018, the

benefits drawn by the private respondents on the basis of their degrees would

not stand frozen in time. The Hon’ble Division Benches have clearly held that

once the candidate has cleared the AICTE Test, there would be no fetter for

the promotion. SLP (Civil) Diary No. 17013 of 2025 filed against the abovesaid

judgment stands dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated

28.07.2025 passed in The State of Haryana and Another vs. Sanjeev Tanwar.

Thus, in view of the above, arguments of the petitioners cannot sustain.

70. As already noted above, in fact, private respondents have derived

no benefit from their degrees obtained through distance education mode as

the private respondents had been appointed as JE on the basis of their

diplomas; and had been subsequently promoted as SDE on the basis of their

length of service. Therefore, the private respondents are not seeking anything

which was not already given to them on the date of Judgment. The private

respondents have taken the AICTE Test only for the purpose of future career

progression i.e. promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. It is also admitted

fact on record that the private respondents are seniors to all the petitioners.

With the passing of the examination, as stated in para 66.6 of the Judgment “if

the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the

advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand

revived fully.”, all benefits stood restored and degrees stood revived fully. It is

but trite that if the intention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was to put an

embargo on the future career progression of the candidates who had cleared

the Test within the stipulated time, the same would have been explicitly stated

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 55 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

so in the Judgment. Question to be asked is that if such was the intent of the

Hon’ble Apex Court, what prevented their Lordships from explicitly,

unambiguously, and unequivocally directing in no uncertain terms that even

after passing the 2018-Test conducted by the AICTE and restoration and revival

of the degrees, all future promotion, and all benefits thereafter, would stand

cancelled for all times to come. There is no such direction even remotely

indicating the above. In such a situation, it is not for us to add words where

none are intended. The purpose of passing the Test was to bring the persons

such as the private respondents at par with the petitioners i.e. to equate the

degrees of the private respondents obtained through distance education

mode from deemed Universities to the engineering degrees of the petitioners

obtained from recognized Universities. Admittedly, all the private respondents

herein have passed the AICTE Test of 2018 in the first attempt itself. It is my

view that in doing so, private respondents were placed at par with the

petitioners for all and every intent and purpose. To say that private

respondents would not be entitled to any further benefits, would be

inequitable and irrational. Any other interpretation of the Judgment,

Clarificatory Order, and the Order, would render nugatory the very purpose of

conducting the AICTE Test in 2018. In these circumstances, the judgments

relied upon by ld. Senior counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on

facts and law.

71. Keeping in view the above factual and legal position, the present

Writ Petition stands dismissed.

CM-16060-CWP-2026 and 56 of 56

CWP-20943-2026 (O&M)

72. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.

22.09.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)

Divyanshi JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes