ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD. versus RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS. on 22 January 2018

[2018] 1 S.C.R. 839

ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORP. LTD.

v.

RABI SANKAR PATRO & ORS.

(M.A. Nos. 1795-1796 of 2017)

IN

(Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017 )

JANUARY 22, 2018

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions:

Engineering degree – Acquired through Distance Educationmode – From deemed to be University – Held by Supreme Courtorder dated 3.11.2017 that the award of degrees were illegal andopposed to law as it was without the approval of the competentAuthority – However, the Court taking a sympathetic view in theinterest of students who were enrolled during the academic sessions2001-2005, suspended their degrees till they pass the examination/test held by Competent Authority – Applications/Petitions filed bystudents for modification and clarification of the order dated3.11.2017 – They inter alia sought that the test should be exemptedfor those who had got into new service through direct recruitmenton the basis of such degree or acquired higher qualification on thebasis of such degree and also for those whose ability was furthertested by renowned institutions – They also sought that the test shouldnot be applicable for ‘Diploma’ and ‘Masters degree’ – Held:Validity of courses leading to ‘Diploma’ was not the subject matterof the judgment dated 3.11.2017 – However, the courses leading toaward of degrees, whether graduate or post-graduate degrees, wascertainly the matter in issue – The infirmities in the degrees arebasic and fundamental, and therefore, test cannot be exempted –However, as a one time relaxation, all such candidates, who wish toappear in test in terms of the judgment, can retain the degree inquestion and all the advantages flowing therefrom till one monthafter the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.7.2018whichever is earlier – If the candidates pass in such first attempt,they would be entitled to retain all advantages – But if they fail or

839

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Achoose not to appear in the test, the degrees and all advantagesshall stand suspended and withdrawn – They will be entitled toappear on the second occasion in terms of the judgment, but thisexception shall not apply for such second attempt – Applications/petitions disposed of.

BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : M. A. Nos. 1795-1796of 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2010 in Writ Petition(C) No. 3848 of 2010 and final Judgment and order dated 15.03.2012 inReview Petition No. 58 of 2012 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.

C

WITH

Diary No(s).39667/2017

IA 138802/2017 in C.A. No.17870/2017)MA 1807-1808/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 1797-1798/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017DMA 1799-1800/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 1801-1802/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 1803-1804/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 1805-1806/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017EMA 1864-1865/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 1866-1867/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 1870-1871/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 1868-1869/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 1872-1873/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017FMA 11-12/2018 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 1874-1875/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 1876-1877/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017Diary No(s). 42444/2017GIA 487/2018 in C.A. No.17870/2017)MA 5-6/2018 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017Diary No(s).356/2018IA 1080/2018 in C.A. No.17870/2017)MA 17-18/2018 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017

H

MA 13-14/2018 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017MA 15-16/2018 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1233 of 2017M.A. No. 38 of 2018 in C.A. No.17907/2017

Maninder Singh, ASG, V. Mohana, V. Giri, Ms. Meenakshi Arora,Kapil Sibal, Dhruv Mehta, Mahabir Singh, R. S. Suri, Vikramjit Banerjee,Sr. Advs., Apoorv Kurup, Vikas Singh Jangra, A. C. Boxipatro, PrabhasBajaj, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Anmol, Ms. KirtiDua, G. S. Makker, Anmol Chandan, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Ms. RukminiBobde, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Samten Doma, Ms. PragyaBaghel, Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Ms. Supriya Chattopadhyay, Rajesh Singh,Rabin Majumdar, P. S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Bharat Sood, AyushAnand, Shubhendu Anand, Anupam Lal Das, Anirudh Singh, KrishanuBarua, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Deepak Kanwar, Sudarshan S. Rawat, SudhirKumar, Harish Pandey, Gaurav Sharma, Manish Kumar, Rakesh Tiwari,U. C. Mohanty, Kumar Gaurav, A. K. Tandale, Vijay K. Jain, Advs. forthe appearing parties.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. These applications have beenpreferred seeking clarification and modification of directions issued bythis Court in its Judgment and Order dated 03.11.2017 (“the judgment”for short) in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of 2017. Various directionswere issued in the judgment and more particularly in paragraph No.53of the judgment. The gist of the applications and the contentions advancedby the learned counsel were as follows:- A]M.A. Nos. 1795-1796 of 2017 in CIVIL APPEALNos.17869-17870 of 2017 (I.A. No.138771 of 2017)MA 1797-1798/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017 (I.A.No.138778 of 2017) MA 1799-1800/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017(I.A.No.13890 of 2017)MA 1801-1802/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017 (I.A.No.138791 of 2017)MA 1803-1804/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017 (I.A.No.138793 of 2017)MA 1805-1806/2017 in C.A. No. 17869-17870/2017(I.A.No.138795 of 2017)

A

BC

D

E

F

GH

A

AThe applicants, holding diplomas in Engineering, enrolledthemselves in 2005 in courses leading to award of B.Tech degree offeredby Deemed to be University in question through distance learning mode.Later, on the basis of the degrees awarded by the Deemed to beUniversities, they underwent independent selection undertaken by UnionPublic Service Commission and entered certain services as direct recruitsBand have presently either been engaged in the same service or haveadvanced in career on the basis of such selection by UPSC.

Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the controversyin the judgment was principally concerning the cases of in-servicecandidates who were initially employed as diploma holders but while inCservice had been awarded degrees in Engineering by Deemed to beUniversities in question through distance learning mode; and that thisCourt was not called upon to consider cases where such degreesthemselves became the foundation for a subsequent employment orselection and further advancement in career. He further submitted thatDan exception be made in favour of such candidates whose qualificationswere independently considered by an authority such as UPSC and wereselected through competitive selection process and in any case, even ifthe Judgment were to apply to such candidates, the suspension of theirdegrees and all advantages flowing therefrom till they pass the test asindicated in the judgment ought not to be insisted upon. He submittedEthat unlike in-service candidates who may not be losing their jobs, suchcandidates, who had independently undergone fresh selection and weredirectly appointed would lose their jobs completely and even if they wereto successfully pass the test conducted by AICTE, restoration of theiroriginal position and jobs would itself become a difficult proposition.F-14/2018 in C.A. No.17869-17870 of-17870 of B]M.A. Nos.13-14/2018 in C.A. No.17869-17870 of2017(I.A. No.991 & 994 of 2018

M.A. Nos.15-16/2018 in C.A. No.17869-17870 of2017(I.A. No.1019 of 2018

GThe applicants had completed B.Tech courses in Computer Sciencethrough distance education mode in 2004. According to them, instructionswere imparted in ITM International and they were awarded degrees byAllahabad Agricultural Institute, Deemed to be University. Later theyacquired degrees in M.Tech and other qualifications based on suchB.Tech degree and have thereafter advanced in career.H

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate while adoptingthe submissions of Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate submitted thatITM International is an Institution of repute and no infirmity could beattributed to their degrees. Further, her clients in any case had undergonefurther selection process where knowledge of the candidates wasindependently tested and they were appointed in others posts.

-C]Diary No.356 of 2018 in C.A. No.1786917870 of 2017 (I.A.No.1080 of 2018)

M.A. Nos.17-18 of 2018 in C.A. No.17869-17870 of 2017

(I.A. Nos.1049 and 1054 of 2018

The candidates had acquired first degrees in Engineering from aregular and approved Institution and as such their first degrees are notinvalid or irregular on any count. However, these candidates had lateracquired Master’s degrees in Engineering from Deemed to be Universitiesthrough distance education mode.

Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate invited our attention tothe advertisement issued by AICTE in which all candidates includingthose who had secured Master’s degrees in Engineering from Deemedto be Universities in question through distance education mode werealso required to appear at the test. In his submission this Court wasprincipally concerned with first degrees in engineering which wereacquired through distance education mode and not the Master’s degrees.He further submitted that those candidates who had acquired suchMasters’ Degrees in engineering were not covered by the judgment.

D]M.A. Nos.1866-67/2017 in C.A. Nos.17869-17870 of 2017(I.A. Nos.141892 of 2017

M.A. Nos.1868-1869/2017 in C.A. Nos.17869-17870 of2017 (I.A. Nos.141912 of 2017

M.A.Nos.1872-73/17 in C. A. Nos.17869-17870 of 2017(I.A. Nos.141948 of 2017 ON IA 516/2018 ON IA516/2018

The applicants were awarded diplomas in Engineering throughdistance education mode by the concerned Deemed to be Universities.

Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Advocate invited our attentionto paragraphs 34 and 46 of the Judgment and submitted that this Court A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awas concerned with courses leading to degrees of Engineering and notto diplomas and as such rigor of the Judgment ought not to apply to pureand simply diploma holders. In his submission, the public notice issuedby AICTE was beyond the scope of the matter.

E]Diary No.39667 of 2017 in C. A. No.17869-17870 of 2017B(I.A. No.138802 of 2017)M.A. No.1807-1808 of 2017 in C. A. No.17869-17870 of2017 (I.A. Nos.138799 of 2017

Diary No.42444 of 2017 in C.A. Nos.17869-17870 of 2017(I.A. No.487 of 2018

CM.A. Nos.5-6 of 2018 in C.A. No.17869-17870 of 2017(I.A. No.511 of 2018

In the present case, the applicants had enrolled themselves incourses offered by Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation (VMRF)Dthrough distance education mode.

Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate submitted that as isevident from the affidavit of Mr. Ved Prakash, Chairman, UGC asextracted in the judgment, VMRF was granted Deemed to be Universitystatus for its excellence in subjects including engineering and technologyunlike other Deemed to be Universities, namely, JRN, IASE and AAI.EHe invited our attention to Paragraphs 21, 34 and 39 of the judgment andsubmitted that the case of VMRF stood on a different footing and thecourses offered by VMRF were not in any way found to be on thewrong side.

F]M.A. Nos.1874-1875/2017 in C.A. No.17869/2017 (I.A.FNo.141960 of 2017)

M.A. Nos.1876-1877/2017 in C.A. No.17869/2017 (I.A.No.141971/2017

These applicants after being awarded degrees in Engineering byGDeemed to be Universities through distance education mode hadcompleted their post-graduate courses.

While adopting submissions of Mr. V. Giri and Ms. MeenakshiArora, learned Senior Advocates, Mr. R.S. Suri, learned Senior Advocatesubmitted that some weightage be given to the higher qualificationsHacquired by candidates.

G]M.A. Nos.11-12/2018 in C.A. Nos.17869-17870 of 2017(I.A. Nos.972/ 2017, 644/2018, 645/2018 and 973/2018

The applicants had acquired degrees in Mining Engineering throughdistance education mode and have advanced in their career in NMDC,a Statutory Corporation.

Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, leaned Senior Advocate submitted thattheir ability was tested by said organization and his clients be exemptedfrom appearing in examination.

H]Writ Petition Civil No.1233 of 2017

These applicants were awarded degrees in Engineering throughdistance education mode by Deemed to be Universities in question. It isstated that most of the applicants have joined Private, Corporate andGovernment services and some of them are in Corporate jobs and evenin Foreign Countries. Some of them are stated to have obtained M.Techand further degrees and have advanced in life.

Mr. Ranajit Kumar, Mr. P.N. Mishra and Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi,learned Senior Advocates, appearing for the applicants advancedsubmissions on lines similar to the submissions advanced by Mr. V. Giri,Ms. Arora and Mr. Sibal.

I]M.A. No. 38 of 2018 in C.A. No.17907/2017

The applicant, IASE, Deemed to be University seeks clarificationthat the judgment applied only to courses leading to degrees in Engineeringawarded by Deemed to be Universities through distance education modeand that diploma courses are not covered by the judgment.

Mr. M.L. Verma, learned Senior Advocate invited our attention tothe advertisement issued by AICTE. His submissions on the issue inquestion are on lines similar to the submissions advanced by Mr. DhruvMehta, learned Senior Advocate.

2. We also heard Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral who appeared on behalf of AICTE.

3. It is true, as is evident from paragraphs 34 and 46 of thejudgment that the controversy in the present case pertained to validity ofdegrees in Engineering conferred by the Deemed to be Universitiesthrough distance education mode and this Court was not called upon toconsider validity of diplomas conferred by such Deemed to be A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AUniversities. However the advertisement issued by AICTE coversdiploma courses as well. We therefore accept the submissions advancedby Mr. Dhruv Mehta and Mr. M. L. Verma, learned Senior Advocatesand clarify that validity of such courses leading to diplomas was not thesubject matter of the judgment.

B4. At the same time, courses leading to award of degrees, whethergraduate or post graduate degrees, was certainly the matter in issue.We therefore reject the submission of Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned SeniorAdvocate and do not find any infirmity in the understanding of and theadvertisement issued by AICTE.

C5. Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate is right that JRN, AAIand IASE had no expertise in the field or subjects of Engineering andthe status of Deemed Universities conferred on them was not becauseof their excellence in the field of Engineering. As against these threeDeemed to be Universities, the case of VMRF stood on a better footingas its field of activity and excellence also included subjects in Engineering.DHowever that was not the only basis of the judgment. The facts stillremain that conferral of degrees in Engineering through distanceeducation mode was never approved in principle by AICTE and theStudy Centres were never inspected or approved. We therefore rejectthe submission of Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate.E

6. If award of degrees in Engineering through distance educationmode by Deemed to be Universities, as a concept or principle was notaccepted by AICTE, it is immaterial whether the Study Centre in questionwas ITM International. Said Institution was not by itself authorized toaward degrees in Engineering on its own nor was it affiliated to anyFState or Central University at the relevant time. The courses conductedby said institution led to award of degrees of AAI, which had no expertiseor excellence in the field of Engineering and through distance educationmode. We therefore reject the submission advanced by Ms. MeenakshiArora, learned Senior Advocate.

G7. We now turn to the general submission advanced by all thelearned counsel that the candidates after securing the degrees inEngineering through distance education mode, have advanced in careerand that their ability was tested at various levels and as such requirementof passing the examination in terms of the judgment be dispensed with intheir case. We cannot make any such exception. The infirmity in theirHdegrees is basic and fundamental and cannot be wished away. At the same time, we find some force in their submission that if the suspensionof their degrees and all advantages were to apply as indicated in thejudgment, the concerned candidates may lose their jobs and even if theywere to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs and presentposition would pose some difficulty.

We, therefore, as a one-time relaxation in favour of thosecandidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005and who, in terms of the judgment, are eligible to appear at the test to beconducted by AICTE, direct:- a]All such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcoming testto be conducted by AICTE in May-June 2018 and who exerciseoption to appear at the test in terms of the judgment, can retainthe degrees in question and all the advantages flowing therefromtill one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till31.07.2018 whichever is earlier.

b]This facility is given as one-time exception so that those whohave the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt itself,should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass insuch first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all theadvantages. But if they fail or choose not to appear, the directionsin the judgment shall apply, in that the degrees and all advantagesshall stand suspended and withdrawn. At the cost of repetition,it is made clear that no more such chances or exceptions will begiven or made. They will undoubtedly be entitled to appear onthe second occasion in terms of the judgment but this exceptionshall not apply for such second attempt.

c]We direct AICTE to conduct the test in May-June 2018 anddeclare the result well in time, in terms of our directions in thejudgment and this Order. AICTE shall however extend the timeto exercise the option to appear at the test suitably.

8. Except for the directions given in the preceding paragraph i.e.paragraph 7 and the clarification as regards courses leading to award ofdiplomas as mentioned hereinabove, we reject all the other submissions.

9. All applications, petitions and writ petitions stand disposed ofin aforesaid terms. No costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H