R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner responded to a recruitment notification dated 12.05.2015 issued by the 4th respondent-Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and filed an application seeking appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The petitioner had applied for a backlog post under direct recruitment in the reserved category of Scheduled Caste(Rural). After going through the recruitment process, the petitioner was selected to the post of Assistant Engineer in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 18.07.2016 at Annexure-AI. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Hassan Division, as seen in the Official Memorandum dated 19.07.2016. The petitioner reported for duty on 27.07.2016. However, the
5
problem started for the petitioner when a notice dated 06.09.2019 was issued by the Managing Director of the 4threspondent-Board calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his appointment should not be cancelled, in view of the fact that the certificate of Bachelor of Technology (B.Tech) secured by the petitioner from the Karnataka State Open University is not approved by the AICTE. Although the petitioner sought to explain that the certificate obtained by the petitioner from the Karnataka State Open University was of the year 2012 to 2014, the respondent-Board which had obtained clarification from the AICTE, rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner and consequently issued the impugned order dated 13.07.2021 at Annexure-AX declaring the petitioner as ineligible to hold the post in view of the fact that the certificate issued by the Karnataka State Open University in favour of the petitioner was not recognized by the AICTE and University Grants
6
Commission, New Delhi. Consequently, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on a circular/communication dated 1.1.2016 made by the Under Secretary to the Department of Higher Education (Universities) to the Additional Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Council stating that although the University Grants Commission had issued public notice commencing from 16.06.2015 announcing that the degree certificates issued by the Karnataka State Open University till 2012-13 were not valid, however the State Government has consciously taken a decision that the certificates issued by the Karnataka State Open University shall be recognised/valid through out the State of Karnataka. The learned counsel would also seek to place reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS (INDIA) /VS./ STATE OF
7
PUNJAB - (2019) 16 SCC 95 to contend that an exception was made in favour of the candidates enrolled with the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) up to 31.05.2013 and declared that the conclusion drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court will apply after 1.06.2013. Consequently it was directed that the certificates awarded by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India) to such candidates enrolled up to 31.05.2013 shall be considered equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in the Central Government.
3. However, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 6 namely UGC and AICTE submits that the stand taken by the UGC and the AICTE fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED /VS./ RABI SANKAR PATRO AND OTHERS - (2018) 1 SCC 468. It is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that the certificates
8
issued in technical subjects while seeking to impart education through distance learning mode is clearly without recognition at the hands of the UGC and the AICTE. It was also noticed that the policy statements as well as warnings issued from time to time to the general public and to various universities which were offering certificates in technical courses in distance learning mode including the open universities and deemed to be universities having been ignored, the certificates issued to such of the students in the particular period, could not be upheld as valid. Consequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that the students who were admitted after the academic sessions 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.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri H.N.Shashidhara, appearing for the respondent No.4
9
submits that the action taken by the respondent- Board consequent to the communications received from the AICTE in the matter of the petitioner, was in terms of the stand taken by the AICTE and UGC before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore no fault could be found in the impugned orders.
5. At this juncture, the leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had put in nearly 5 years of service and for no fault of his, his appointment with the 4threspondent-Board has been withdrawn and cancelled. Nevertheless, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner also holds a diploma in Civil Engineering and therefore the respondent-Board should be directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the strength of the diploma certificate obtained by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel Sri H.N.Shashidhara appearing for the respondent-Board submits that the petitioner will not
10
be eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer on the strength of the diploma certificate.
6. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-Board is required to consider the request which was made by the petitioner seeking reappointment in the 4th respondent-Board on the strength of the certificate of Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained by the petitioner. The re-appointment should be with retrospective date commencing from the date of original appointment of the petitioner. If the petitioner is eligible to be appointed as Junior Engineer on the strength of the certificate of Diploma in Civil Engineering, then the 4threspondent-Board shall consider the re-appointment of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above. Moreover this Court by an interim order dated 22.07.2021 stayed the operation of the impugned
11
order dated 13.07.2021, till the objections are filed by the respondents or till the next date of hearing, whichever is earlier. The interim order granted has been extended from time to time.
7. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent-Board to reconsider the case of the petitioner for re- appointment on the strength of the certificate of Diploma in Civil Engineering obtained by the petitioner in the post
commensurate to the diploma.
(ii) The re-appointment shall take effect retrospectively from the date of the original appointment
12
of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer. If such appointment order is passed by the 4threspondent-Board, the period spent from the date of the impugned order till the date of reappointment shall be counted for the purpose of continuity of services, seniority and other benefits except back wages.
(iii) The 4threspondent-Board shall reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
13
8. Since no orders have been passed on the merits of the matter, liberty is also granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KLY