Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010066912023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1968/2023 ROHINI PHANGCHOPI AND ANR D/O- LATE HEM CH. PHANGCHO, R/O- VILL.- AMUPUKHURI, DOKMOKA, P.O. AND P.S. DOKMOKA, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782460. 2: HARI DEKA S/O- DINESH CH. DEKA R/O- VILL.- AGDALA BAIHATA CHARIALI P.O. AND P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781121 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (I) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE UNDER SECRETARY (E) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE SELECTION BOARD Page No.# 2/13 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY CUM CHAIRMAN WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-781006. 5:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 ASSAM 6:THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN C8 8436 GATE NO. 4 OPPOSITE RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL VASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI-110070 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MR. A BARKATAKI,MR P BHARDWAJ,MR. M SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU, MR. S C KEYAL ( R 6 ),SC, WATER RESOURCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA Judgment and Order Date : 27-03-2025 Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department and Ms. N. Kakoti learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. SC Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). 2] The petitioners were serving as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Water Page No.# 3/13 Resources Department, Government of Assam. Both the petitioners had acquired the academic qualifications of Diploma in Civil Engineering as Associate Member of Institution of Civil Engineers (India) [AMICE(I)] Diploma from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India) and which Diploma according to the petitioners is equivalent to the Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) Degree in Civil Engineering. The petitioner No.1 joined in her services on 06.07.2010 and the petitioner No.2 joined in his services on 11.07.2011. Since their respective dates of joining, the petitioners have been rendering their services. It is the contention of the petitioners that they had rendered services to the satisfaction of their superior authorities and no departmental proceedings etc had ever been initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners submit that in terms of the service rules they have all the necessary qualifications and have also acquired the required experience for being considered for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Engineering (Civil). The contentions of the petitioners are that although their names were put up for consideration and their cases were duly considered by the Selection Board and having found to be eligible and their names were recommended by the Selection Board for being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as per Rule 11(5) of the Assam Engineering (Flood Control Department) Service Rules, 1981 subject to approval of the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC), however, the petitioners were not Page No.# 4/13 appointed in terms of the recommendation of the Selection Board on the ground that their Diplomas were not recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) which is the premier body in respect of issuing affiliations to various institutions which are imparting various degrees and diplomas in technical education. 3] Being aggrieved, the petitioners along with other similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 889/2018 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court by judgment of order date 24.01.2020 after considering the matter in its entirety including the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rabi Sanka Patro reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468 disposed of the said matter with the observation that the matter will require further examination in terms of decision of the Apex Court, more particularly, with regard to the validity of the Certificates/ Diplomas/ Degree Courses offered by the Technical Institution under the “Distance Education Mode”. Meanwhile, the AICTE in its 52nd Emergent Meeting held on 03.08.2017 decided to recognize the equivalence for all purposes including Higher Education and Employment of Technical Courses conducted by various Professional Bodies/Institution which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners Page No.# 5/13 submits that since the petitioners had obtained their Diplomas from these institutions with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 stood recognized in terms of decision taken by AICTE in its emergent meeting held on 31.05.2013. 4] Pursuant to the Judgment and order dated 24.01.2020 passed in WP(C) No.889/2018 since the cases of the petitioners were not taken up for promotion inspite of their earlier recommendation to be promoted them to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), the petitioners filed a contempt Petition being Contempt Petition No.589/2020. This Contempt Petition came to be disposed of by order dated 14.11.2022. 5] Before this Court in the contempt proceedings, the Water Resources Department contended that all relevant materials and documents with respect to the writ petitioners were forwarded by the Water Resources Department to the AICTE. However, no such responses are forthcoming. The directions contained in the order dated 24.01.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 889/2018 held that non receipt of response or replies from the AICTE cannot be construed to be an act of willful and deliberate disobedience of the direction contained in the order dated 24.01.2020 passed in W.P(C) No. 889/2018 by the Water Resources Department. This Court while closing the Contempt Petition had given liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court again in any appropriate manner as may Page No.# 6/13 be advised. Since the petitioners’ case remained undecided in spite of the directions by the Court, the two of the petitioners, namely, Smt. Rohini Phangchopi and Sri Hari Deka have approached this Court again by filing the present writ petition. 6] The petitioners have reiterated that they had duly acquired the AMICE(I) Diploma in Civil Engineering from the Institution of Civil Engineers India, and which is an institution imparting Technical Education and is recognized by the All India Council for Technical Education and which Diploma is equivalent to the B.E. Degree in Civil Engineering. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the certificates issued clearly reveal that the petitioners had undergone practical training/tests and projects works in the All India Council for Technical Education approved Engineering Institutes. The petitioners, therefore, pray for appropriate orders directing the respondents to promote the petitioners to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). 7] The petitioners’ case has been contested by the respondents by filing their respective affidavits. The Water Resource Department disputes the contention raised by the petitioners that the Department carried on correspondence with the All India Council for Technical Education seeking clarification whether the Page No.# 7/13 Degree/Diploma of the petitioners are recognized by the AICTE. It is their further case that the petitioners did not apply for No Objection Certificates (NOC) from the Department prior to proceeding for continuing their studies and acquiring the Diploma from Institution of Engineers. The further contention is that the petitioners did not place before the Authorities concerned the relevant certificates certifying that the petitioners had successfully undergone the practical training in All India Council for Technical Education approved institutions. 8] The All India Council for Technical Education, on the other hand, filed an affidavit reiterating their stand that in terms of the decision adopted in the 52nd Emergent Meeting held on 03.08.2017 it had decided to recognize certificates equivalence for all purposes including Higher Education and Employment to Technical Courses conducted by various Professional Bodies/Institution which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013. It was contended that all the students who were enrolled in these institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 stood recognized. 9] Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Orrisa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd (supra) has also been carefully Page No.# 8/13 taken note of including judgment of this Court rendered in WP(C)No.889/2018. 10] At the outset it must be mentioned that the certificates which are available as annexures to the writ petition furnished by both the petitioners reflect that in so far as the writ petitioner no.1 is concerned, she had passed Section A and B of Associate Member of Institution of Civil Engineers (India) [AMICE(I)] Diploma in Civil Engineering in the year 2010. The same certificate also certifies that the petitioner no.1 had undergone practical training, tests and project work in an All India Council for Technical Education approved engineering institution and had availed B Grade. A similar certificate was also issued in favour of petitioner no.2 which certifies that the petitioner no.2 had cleared the examination in the year of 2014. Therefore, prima facie, these certificates issued by the Institution of Civil Engineering reveal that both the petitioners had cleared the written examination in Civil Engineering and had also undergone practical training/ tests and project work in an AICTE approved Engineering Institute and had attained B grade. These certificates are not disputed by the Water Resources Department. Furthermore, the decision of the 52nd Emergent Meeting of the All India Council for Technical Education held on 31.05.2013 had taken a decision that the institutions which had permanent enrollment upto 31.06.2013 and the professional courses conducted by such Page No.# 9/13 professional bodies or institutions recognized by MHRD were also given recognition by the All India Council for Technical Education. 11] The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the All India Council for Technical Education contains no averment that the Institution of Civil Engineers, which had issued certificates to petitioners No. 1 and 2 on 15.09.2012 and 15.09.2016, is not duly recognized by the MHRD or that its recognition was cancelled subsequently at any point before 31stMay, 2013. What is also not in dispute is that this is the qualification which was acquired by the petitioners at the time when they entered into the services under the Water Resources Department in the post of Junior Engineering. It is not disputed by the Department that the qualification which the petitioners had acquired through the Institution of Civil Engineers is not the appropriate qualification prescribed for under the Service Rules. Rather the minutes of the Selection Board’s Meeting for Selection of Officers for Promotion to the Rank of Assistant Engineer (Civil) from Junior Engineer (Civil) under Water Resources Department for the year 2017 held on 27.02.2017 reveals that it had duly recommended the writ petitioners for promotion to the next higher post. There is no reference in the minutes to suggest that the petitioners were not duly qualified in terms of the service rules for being considered for promotion to the next higher post. Page No.# 10/13 12] During the course of the hearing the objections raised by learned Standing Counsel for the Water Resources Department was to the effect that the petitioners did not furnish their Practical Coursework Certificates in which they had undergone their practical coursework from such All India Council for Technical Education approved institutions. The further objection is that both the petitioners did not obtain the NOC prior to proceeding for continuing their studies and acquiring the Diploma from Institution of Engineers. However, by a communication dated 16.03.2016, issued by the Under Secretary (E) to the Government of Assam, Water Resources Department, to petitioner No. 2, it is seen that by the said communication, NOC was issued for perusing the Course of Associate Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers India (AMICE[I]) under the Institution of Civil Engineers India, Ludhiana, Punjab, in distance mode, subject to the condition that there is no impediment to day-to-day departmental and official obligations. As such, the grievance that NOC from the Department was not sought for and only orders were issued to the petitioner no.2 is belied by the communication dated 16.03.2016 issued by the Department. Such objection, therefore, is not sustainable in respect of the petitioner no.2. In so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is the claim of the petitioner that she had enrolled in her Diploma prior to her joining in the services under the Water Resources Department and therefore, there was no requirement of any NOC Page No.# 11/13 from the Department. In so far as the writ petitioner no.1 is concerned, with regard to the objection raised by the Department that she did not apply for NOC is concerned, it is seen from the perusal of the minutes of the selection Board held on 27.02.2018 that in respect of the writ petitioner no.1 and 5 other employees, the Selection Committee recorded a finding that they had got admission into the Degree Courses before joining in the Department as Junior Engineer and all these degrees, namely, Diploma in A and B of AMICE(I) in Civil Engineering were acquired by these incumbents concerned, from the Institution of Civil Engineers India, Ludhiana, Punjab and other technical Universities. As such, since there is already a finding by the Selection Committee that the petitioner had enrolled for acquiring a degree/ diploma from the Institution of Engineers prior to her services in the Water Resources Department, therefore, in the case of the petitioner no.1, no NOC is contemplated and the objection raised by the Department therefore cannot be sustained. 13] A circular dated 23.11.2020 issued by the All India Council for Technical Education has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Said circular reiterates the decision of the All India Council for Technical Education taken in its 52nd Emergent Council meeting held on 03.08.2017 that courses conducted by professional body/institutions in accordance with MHRD No.11- Page No.# 12/13 15/2011-AR dated06.12.2012 for all purposes including higher education and employment which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013. Accordingly, as per the above MHRD Office Memorandum, students who were enrolled in these institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 and had obtained their Degrees or Diplomas such Degrees or Diplomas are recognized and to their effect the public notice dated 31.10.2017 was issued. 14] Under such circumstances, this Court finds that the objections raised by the respondents, so far as, in respect of the writ petitioners are concerned for considering their cases for promotion to the next higher post have already been clarified by the All India Council for Technical Education in its 52nd Emergent Meeting of the All India Council for Technical Education held on 31.05.2013 and notice dated 31.10.2017. Therefore the contentions of the respondents cannot be sustained and are therefore rejected. 15] Under such circumstances, this Court is constrained to direct the respondents to constitute a Review Selection Committee and place the cases of the petitioners before the said committee to reconsider their cases for promotion to the next higher post subject to they being found eligible. If they are found to be eligible they shall be promoted with effect from the date when Page No.# 13/13 their juniors were promoted. However, considering that the Department has raised objection that the petitioners did not place the certificates or did not place the certificates of their practical projects undertaken in the AICTE recognised institutes, this Court directs the petitioners also to place such certificates before the concerned respondent Authority within 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon such certificates being placed, the Department will carry out the directions contained in this order by placing their names before the Review Selection Committee/Board for being considered for promotion to the next higher post with effect from the date the notification 01.08.2017 was published. This exercise will be carried out within a further period of 90(ninety) days from the date the petitioners furnish the certificates as directed. 16] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant