1 2025:CGHC:50252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4164 of 2019 1 - Kamal Sharma S/o Late A.R. Sharma Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted At Executive Engineer, Pmgsy, Janjgir District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri G.R. Sahu S/o P.R. Sahu Aged About 61 Years Presently Posted As In- Charge, Superintending Engineer, Res, Circle Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners. versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Development Commissioner, Office Of The Development Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan, Raipur, District Riapur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through The Secretary, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shri Suryakant Pandey, Presently Posted At In Charge Superintending Engineer, Res, Office Of The Development Commissioner, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.10.09 17:02:10 +0530 2 5 - Shri Hariom Sharma, Presently Posted As Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma, Presently Posted As Executive Engineer, Gramin Sampark Prashikshan Evam Anusandhan Kendra, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Shri Sajany Sharma, Presently Posted As Incharge Superintending Engineer, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Authority Project Division, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. For Petitioners : Ms. Priyanka Rai appears on behalf of Shri Abhishek Thakur, Advocates. For State/Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Shri Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.3 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 09/10/2025 1. This Petition has been filed to quash the entire Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings (Annexure P/1) held on 19.12.2018 as well as the promotion order dated 11.01.2019 (Annexure P/2) and also for issuance of a direction to convene a review DPC for consideration of promotion of the petitioners to the post of Superintending Engineer. 2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners submits that in the matter 3 of Mukul Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. All India Council For Technical Education & Ors. in Writ Petition (C) No.382 of 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that B.Tech Degree/Diploma (Engineering) awarded by Indira Gandhi National Open University (hereinafter “IGNOU”) to the students, who were enrolled upto the academic year 2009-10, are to be treated as valid as a special case and it could not be taken as precedence. She further submits that after passing of the said judgment, All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter “AICTE”) had sent a communication to the Vice Chancellor of IGNOU vide letter No.F.No.AICTE/P&AP/Misc/2018/622, dated 11.12.2018 and suggested that IGNOU should not run or start such technical programme(s) in distance education mode which have extensive laboratory component. She also submits that the petitioners have completed their degree course i.e. B. Tech Degree Civil Engineering from IGNOU in the year 2008. Learned counsel further submits that the DPC for the promotion in the instant case was held on 19.12.2018, although on 30.07.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had passed the verdict in favour of the students, directing that those enrolled up to the academic year 2009-10 be treated as valid as a special case. She would further submit that in the return of the State, it is explicit that a policy decision has been taken on 11.09.2013 i.e. prior to passing of the said judgment, by the General Administration Department of the State of Chhattisgarh and accordingly, a communication has been sent by 4 the Panchayat and Rural Development Department on 07.11.2013 to the effect that the B.Tech (Civil) Degree through the distance education mode is not recognized for appointment and promotion. Learned counsel lastly submits that in view of such backdrop, the petitioners may be permitted to prefer a fresh representation stating that their case be treated as a special case, as they were awarded Degree prior to the Academic Year 2009-10. Furthermore, the concerned Authority of the respondents may be directed to decide their representation within a stipulated period of time, however, in case, any adverse order is passed, the petitioners may be granted liberty to file a fresh petition as and when occasion so arises. 3. Learned counsel for the respective respondents present would not oppose the aforesaid prayer. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners have sought only a limited relief to file a fresh representation in light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukul Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. All India Council For Technical Education & Ors. in Writ Petition (C) No.382 of 2018, wherein, a reference has been made about the prior decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar vs. The Chairman and Managing Director Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3697-3698 of 2018, decided on 10.04.2018, wherein, a submission has been advanced that up to 2005, there was no 5 bar for such courses being conducted even by Universities other than the State Universities and that after 2009, the distance education system has been closed. Consequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that the norms must be followed in future, and the degrees and diplomas in question already granted to candidates admitted up to academic year 2009-10 may be left undisturbed. 5. In view of the above and also in light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned cases, it is directed that if the petitioners file a fresh representation(s) within a period of 30 days of passing of this order before the concerned competent Authority, the said Authority shall revisit the policy decision, which was taken earlier, within an outer limit of six months of passing of this order and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. A liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioners that if any adverse order is passed against them, they may file a fresh petition as and when occasion so arises. 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash