1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7766 of 2025 1 - Shiv Kumar Gilhare S/o Lakhan Lal Gilhare Aged About 57 Years Occupation Sdo Cum Assistant Engineer Water Resources Department Posted At- Raipur Water Resources Department Sub-Division Raipur District Raipur(C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary Water Resources Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 12/08/2025 1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer (Civil) in the year 1994. According to the petitioner he was entitled for consideration of promotion from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.13 19:06:46 +0530 2 Engineer, from 2014. The petitioner contended that he was deprived of the right to be considered for promotion. It is also not in dispute that from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer the following criteria was prescribed: Post: Assistant Engineer (Civil) Percentage of promotion: 25% through direct recruitment (PSC) 50% from the diploma holders on promotion 20% from those employees who have done degree while working as Sub Engineer 5% from the Draftsman 2. The petitioner obtained the AMICE degree from ICE Ludhiana, and the same is held to be equivalent to a degree in C.E. by the Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v State of Punjab and Others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 95. However, the respondent State authority promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 21.09.2023. (Annexure P/6). 3. According to the petitioner, he was deprived to be considered from the quota of Sub Engineer and representation having been made the same was not considered on the ground that he obtained the certificate through a distance mode. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Office Memorandum dated 6-12-2012, which was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi (henceforth the MHRD'), would show that with a cut off date the students who were in hold of 3 such like nature of the degree for specified institutes, which has been given equivalence to a degree, were considered. It is stated that the AMICE degree of petitioner was obtained from ICE Ludhiana (Punjab). Learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v State of Punjab and Others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 95. He would submit that since the petitioner was enrolled and obtained the certificate prior to the said cut off date, according to the observation made by the Supreme Court, he should have been considered for such promotion, as the notification was issued prior to the promotion process. According to the learned counsel, undoubtedly the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2023 in routine course, however, he should have been given such promotional benefits from the date the other Sub Engineers were promoted way back in the year 2014. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that the nature of certificate, which was said to be equivalence of a degree of the petitioner, on distance education mode is different. He would submit that such holding of certificate cannot be given equivalence on the degree, as the Institution from which the petitioner obtained the degree has no right under the UGC Act to grant such degree. He would also submit that the degree from the regular Engineering Colleges, which are governed by the All India Council for Technical Eduction (henceforth 'the AICTE) and the degree from the deemed University, was recognised. According to him, it is the prerogative of the employer, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of 4 Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra), that how much importance to be given to such certificate and in the case of the petitioner the State being the employer has used the prerogative and has not recognised the certificate equivalent to the degree and no fault can be attributed. In support of his contention, he would also place reliance upon para 45 of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra). 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 7. The fact remains that the petitioner was taken in the role of the respondent in the year 2002 as a Sub Engineer. During the course of service the petitioner obtained the certificate, which was sought to be equivalent to the degree from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India). 8. As per the Chhattisgarh Water Resources Engineering and Geological Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred as "Rules, 1968") for a consideration of promotion from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer, 20% posts are reserved from those employees who have done degree while working as Sub Engineer. The petitioner claimed that he had obtained the certificate which is equivalent to degree, therefore, he should have been considered in terms of column 3 (i.e. those employees who have done degree while working as Sub Engineer). 5 9. The AICTE by its letter dated 27-11-2017 with respect to the technical course conducted by Professional Bodies Institute informed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, which purport that the AICTE has issued a public notice regarding recognition of equivalence for all purposes including higher education and employment to technical courses conducted by various professional bodies/institutions which were duly recognized and equivalence granted by the MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31" May, 2013. 10. One of the institute namely; Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) in the like matter approached the Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra) wherein the question posed as to whether such certificate could, as a matter of law, be recognized as equivalent to a degree from a recognized Engineering University? The Court observed that it was not clear as to under what statutory regime or under which legal provision can such equivalence to the certificate issued. Making a reference to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v Rabi Sankar Patro and Others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468, wherein the similar issue came to be discussed, the Court observed that the question which falls for consideration is whether a deemed to be University, without taking appropriate prior permission could start courses leading to degrees in Engineering through open distance learning and it was not held in affirmative. 6 11. In Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra) the Supreme Court observed at para 45 that what weightage the certificates must have is for the individual employers to consider in a given case. The concerned employer may attach due importance to such certificates while considering the worth and ability of the concerned candidates but to say that the certificates are equivalent to a degree and as such all the candidates who hold such certificates are entitled to derive the advantages which a degree holder can, is completely is different issue. Para 45 is quoted below for ready reference: "45. If a degree can be awarded only by those institutions which satisfy the description given in sub- section (1) of Section 22 of the UGC Act, the mandate of a parliamentary legislation cannot be circumvented or nullified by awarding equivalence to a certificate issued and awarded by the appellant. What is the value of that certificate will be considered by each employer as and when the occasion arises. The appellant would certainly be entitled to award certificate of membership to its members. What weightage the certificates must have is for the individual employers to consider in a given case. The employer concerned may attach due importance to such certificates while considering the warth and ability of the candidates concerned but to say that the certificates are equivalent to a degree and as such all the candidates who hold such certificates are entitled to derive the advantages which a degree- holder can, is completely a different issue." 7 12. However, subsequently, while taking note of notification, which was issued by the MHRD, the Supreme Court observed that when the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.2013 it is evident from Notification dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Central Government and Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017. Though the fact that the Certificate issued by the likewise institute on successful completion of its annual examination to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a Degree, but importantly an exception is carved out in favour of students enrolled up to 31-5-2013 with particular institution and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 6-12-2012 and Public Notice the benefit was extended to candidates. Paras 49 & 50 are quoted below: "49, However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE up to 31-5-2013 as is evident from Notification dated 6-12-2012 issued by the Central Government and Public Notice issued by AICTE in August 2017, These communications also indicate that all those students who were enrolled up to 31-5-2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though we have laid down that the certificates issued by the appellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of students enrolled up to 31-5-2013 and benefit in terms 8 of the Notification dated 6-12-2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. The candidates had opted to enroll themselves so that they could appear at the examinations conducted by the appellant under a regime which was put in place by the Central Government itself and the course content as well as the curriculum were reviewed by AICTE. However, the aforementioned Notification and Public Notice were clear that after 1-6-2013 the orders concerned granting equivalence would cease to have any effect. 50. In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31-5-2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn int the present matter will apply after 1-6-2013. The Certificate awarded by the appellant to such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 shall be considered equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in the Central Government." 13. Perusal of above quoted excerpts shows that the Supreme Court has consciously adjudicated the issue and carved out an exception in favour of the students enrolled upto 31.05.2013 in view of MHRD notification dated 06.12.2012. 14. The Supreme Court has also declared that degree of candidate enrolled upto 31.05.2013 is perfectly valid. Therefore, the said judgment was judgment-in-rem which has adjudicated upon the issue which has now become the law of land and consequently binding upon all the administrative authority as also upon this Court. 9 15. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the petitioner obtained the certificate being registered for the course prior to 31-5-2013, which was enveloped in such benefit with a cut off date, and, as such, the petitioner would be covered within the exception, which is carved out by the Supreme Court in extending the benefit of notification dated 6-12-2012, which puts a barrier for the students who are enrolled prior to 31-5-2013. Thus, the petitioner, who obtained such certificate within cut off date from the institution which was recognized for limited purpose with a barrier of cut off date, was entitled to the benefit to consider him to be holder of recognized degree. The process of promotion took place in the year 2014, therefore, the petitioner could not have been deprived of the right having been created in his favour. It is important to mention this fact here that the respondent authorities have also recommended for promotion in favour of the petitioner. Further, it is evident that on the basis of said degree, the petitioner was further promoted. The Engineer-in-Chief (Water Resources Development) has also written a communication in favour of the certain persons alike the petitioner and acknowledging the right for promotion and further stating that the promotion required to be granted to the person entitled from the date of his entitlement. 16. In view of peculiar facts, it is directed that, though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 21.09.2023, he would be entitled to all consequential benefits from 2014, the date on which the 10 similarly situated persons were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, as per the applicable rules and circulars governing the field. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved