2025:JHHC:34940 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3855 of 2014 --------- Shekhar Choudhary, Son of Sri Gouri Shankar Choudhary, Resident of Village-Dumariya, P.O.-Dumariya, P.S.-Godda Muffasil, District-Godda. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. Godda, P.S.-Godda Town, District-Godda. 3. The District Superintendent of Education Cum District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Godda, P.O.- Godda, P.S.-Godda Town, District-Godda. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P.-I --------- 12/Dated:-24.11.2025 I.A. No. 13444 of 2025 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for extending the time for filing supplementary counter affidavit, however, the same is filed on 04.11.2025; as such I.A. No. 13444 of 2025 has become infructuous and accordingly, I.A. No. 13444 of 2025 stands dismissed as infructuous. W.P. (S) No. 3855 of 2014 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: (i) For quashing the part of the minutes of the meeting dated 07/02/2014 under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Godda as contained Annexure-5 as far as it relates to the petitioner whereby it has been said that his objection is baseless. (ii) For quashing of the part of the minutes of the meeting dated 26/06/2014 under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Godda as contained Annexure-7 as far as it relates to the petitioner whereby the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected on the sole ground that it was rejected earlier. (iii) For further direction to the respondents to select or appoint to petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer after proper verification of the document of the petitioner in the light of the office 2025:JHHC:34940 2 Memorandum contained F. No. 11-15/2011-AR(TS.II) 06/12/2012 as contained Annexure-9. (iv) During the pendency of this writ application the respondents may reserve one post of the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer. (v) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled for. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein at para-Nos. 7, 8 and 9, a stand has been taken that the concerned certificate belongs to a college which was not recognized under U.G.C. as well as it was not approved by A.I.C.T.E. For brevity, para-Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are extracted hereinbelow: “7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that if the relevant technical qualification certificate is valid as per the rules, then it is necessary that the concerned institute should be recognized by the U.G.C. (University Grant Commission) and should also be approved by A.I.C.T.E. (All India Council for Technical Education) for conducting the technical qualification courses. 8. That after careful perusal of the available record, it was found that the name of the Institute of Civil Engineering, Ludhiyana, Punjab is neither on the list of recognized institutes by the U.G.C. in the year 2012 nor is the name of this institute available in the list of recognized/approved institutes by A.I.C.T.E. in the year 2012 or in the current year session 2025- 26. 9. That in the case of selection on the basis of technical qualification, in the absence of recognition from U.G.C. as well as AICTE, accepting the claim made by the petitioner would be and wrong against the departmental rules.” 4. In reply to the same, a rejoinder has been filed wherein it has been contradicted that the same is not recognized and in para-No.8 of the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated as under: “8. That with regard to paragraphs-7 to 9 of the Supplementary, under reply, it is stated that the Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2012 was issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education wherein the following decision has been taken:- (i) Above order dated 10.07.2012 regarding cases of recognition in perpetuity for equivalence in Central Government job, stands withdrawn. (ii) All those students who are enrolled with the institutions with permanent recognition up-to 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in force pertaining to their course for equivalence in Central Government jobs. However, these concerned orders will cease to have effect from 01.06.2013 2025:JHHC:34940 3 onwards. (iii) After 31.05.2013, based on the review by the regulator i.e. AICTE, a decision on continuation of the certification of equivalence of degree/ diploma shall be taken by statutory regulator. (iv) Statutory regulators should review the fresh proposals/ extension as per their statute and regulations. The Institution of Civil Engineering, Ludhiyana, Punjab was mentioned in the said Memorandum. A Circular dated 23.11.2020 was issued by the AICTE with respect to recognition of Certification awarded by Professional Bodies/ Institutions wherein the AICTE in its 52nd Emergent Council Meeting held on 03.08.2017 has recognized the courses conducted by the Professional Bodies/Institutions in accordance with Memorandum dated 06.12.2012 for equivalence for all purposes including Higher Education and Employment which were duly recognized by Human Resource Development Department with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 and all the those students who were enrolled with these institutions as per the Office Memorandum with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 stand recognized and a public notice was issued on 31.10.2017. The public notice clearly reflected that the students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 stand recognized. AICTE has also issued a letter dated 16.09.2008 for recognition of Degree/Diploma of Institutions of Civil Engineering (India), Ludhiyana, Punjab.” 5. Looking to the diagonally opposite stand taken by the parties, interest of justice would be sufficed that the petitioner should approach the concerned respondent along with all relevant documents afresh. Accordingly, the Petitioner would be at liberty to approach the 2nd Respondent by filing a detailed representation along with all relevant documents with a period of six weeks. If the Petitioner files a fresh representation, then the concerned Respondent shall decide the issue of appointment after verification of record produced by the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. If there is no legal impediment with regard to the certificate as well as their validity, appropriate order shall be passed by the concerned respondent 2025:JHHC:34940 4 No.2. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) November 24, 2025 vikas/- uploaded 02/12/2025