CWP-8363-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1)CWP-8363 Sat Paul and others State of Haryana and others 2)CWP-16347 Arun Singh and others State of Haryana and others 3)CWP-27694 Rakesh Kumar and others State of Haryana and others 4)CWP-27853 Bharat Singh and others State of Haryana and others 5)CWP-28200 Daljit Singh and another State of Haryana and others 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 02.09.2025 Pronounced on: 09.09.2025 8363-2024 (O&M) Sat Paul and others Versus State of Haryana and others 16347-2023 (O&M) Arun Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others 27694-2023 (O&M) Rakesh Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others 27853-2023 (O&M) Bharat Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others 28200-2023 (O&M) Daljit Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and others & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 02.09.2025 Pronounced on: 09.09.2025 ....Petitioners ...Respondents ....Petitioners ...Respondents ....Petitioners ...Respondents ....Petitioners State of Haryana and others ...Respondents ....Petitioners State of Haryana and others ...Respondents MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH Present: Mr. Karan Nehra Mr.Reshabh Bajaj, Advocate and Mr.Harvinder Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP CWP Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate and Ms.Bhoomika, Advocate for Ms.Radha Singh, Advocate, Mr.Shamsher Singh, Advocate and Ms.Meena Singh, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate for Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mrs.Rajni Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CWP Mr.Dharam Pal Saini Advocate for the private respondents (in CWP Mr Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate and Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 & 7 (CWP for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CWP for respondents No.2 to 4 & 7 to 10 (in CWP Mr.NitinKaushal, Advocate and Mr.Sahil, Advocate for the respondent (AICTE). Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate, Mr.RahilMahajan, Advocate and Mr.AnujChaudhary, Advocate 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate, Mr.Reshabh Bajaj, Advocate and Mr.Harvinder Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-16347 CWP-27694-2023 & CWP-8363 Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate and Ms.Bhoomika, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-27853 Ms.Radha Singh, Advocate, Mr.Shamsher Singh, Advocate and Ms.Meena Singh, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP-28200 Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate for the respondent-Nigam (in CWP Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mrs.Rajni Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CWP Mr.Dharam Pal Saini Advocate for the private respondents (in CWP Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate and Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 & 7 (CWP for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CWP for respondents No.2 to 4 & 7 to 10 (in CWP-27853-2023). Mr.NitinKaushal, Advocate and Mr.Sahil, Advocate for the respondent (AICTE). Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate, Mr.RahilMahajan, Advocate and Mr.AnujChaudhary, Advocate & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -2- CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR , Advocate, Mr.Reshabh Bajaj, Advocate and Mr.Harvinder Thakur, Advocate 16347-2023, 8363-2024). Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate and 27853-2023). Ms.Radha Singh, Advocate, Mr.Shamsher Singh, Advocate and Ms.Meena Singh, Advocate 28200-2023). Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Nigam (in CWP-28200-2023). Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CWP-8363-2024). Mr.Dharam Pal Saini Advocate for the private respondents (in CWP-8363-2024). .Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate and for respondents No.2 to 4 & 7 (CWP-16347-2023), for respondents No.2 to 4 (in CWP-27694-2023) and for respondents No.2 to 4 & 7 to 10 Mr.NitinKaushal, Advocate and Mr.Sahil, Advocate for the respondent (AICTE). Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate, Mr.RahilMahajan, Advocate and Mr.AnujChaudhary, Advocate MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 for respondents No.7 to 9, 12 & 13, 17 to 20, 22 to 34 and 3 Mr.Inderpal Singh, Advocate for Mr.NitinKaushal, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr.Mazlish Khan, Advocate for respondent No.15 (in CWP HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 1. This common order shall dispose of aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP 2. The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitu in the nature of No.66/EOM/G order No.67/EOM/G wherein, the private respondents have been promot applicable Service Rules, (Annexure P the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Engineers (India) Through Its Chairman v. State Punjab,2019 SCC Online SC 1023 judgment dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Court in 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES for respondents No.7 to 9, 12 & 13, 17 to 20, 22 to 34 and 36 to 39 (in CWP Mr.Inderpal Singh, Advocate for Mr.NitinKaushal, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr.Mazlish Khan, Advocate for respondent No.15 (in CWP HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. This common order shall dispose of aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-8363-2024. The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing office orde No.66/EOM/G-129 dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P r No.67/EOM/G-129 dated 23.02. wherein, the private respondents have been promot Service Rules, in view of instructions (Annexure P-1),uponmisinterpretation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Engineers (India) Through Its Chairman v. State Punjab,2019 SCC Online SC 1023 (hereinafter ‘IME case’) and judgment dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Court in & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -3- for respondents No.7 to 9, 12 & 13, 6 to 39 (in CWP-8363-2024). Mr.Inderpal Singh, Advocate for Mr.NitinKaushal, Advocate Mr.Mazlish Khan, Advocate for respondent No.15 (in CWP-8363-2024). This common order shall dispose of all the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under tion of India for issuance of a writ for quashing office order 24 (Annexure P-35) and office 129 dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-36), wherein, the private respondents have been promoted de hors the instructions dated 29.12.2004 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) Through Its Chairman v. State of (hereinafter ‘IME case’) and judgment dated 29.08.2023 passed by this Court in CWP MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 No.12344 of 2022 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. Briefly, the facts are that a promotion avenue was carved out for the employees of the respondent Generation Corporation (Annexure P “In exercise of Powers conferred under clause (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 194 Electricity Reforms act, 1997, and all other enabling powers in the this behalf, Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited is pleased to amend Sr. No. A Recruitment and Promotio vide modified vide office order no. 2878/Cadre dated 7.8.85 and further notified vide notification No. 9/Reg 3.2.99. (A) Operation Staff 6. Operator Grade b) 15% p cum Operator Grade Attendant Grade Possessing the qualification of BE/AMIE/In Electrical/Mechanical years Diploma in Engineering provided they have three years service experience on the above posts in HPGC B) Maintenance Staff: 7. Foreman Grade b) 15% posts shall be filled up by promotion seniority cum merit basis form amongst feeder cadres Foreman Grade 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES No.12344 of 2022 titled as Bharat Singh Vs. State of Haryana FACTUAL BACKGROUND Briefly, the facts are that a promotion avenue was carved out for the employees of the respondent Generation Corporation by office order dated 29.12. (Annexure P-1) which reads as follows: “In exercise of Powers conferred under clause (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 194 Electricity Reforms act, 1997, and all other enabling powers in the this behalf, Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited is pleased to amend Sr. No. A Recruitment and Promotion Policy of Thermal Staff notifi office order No. 2845/Cadre dated 27.05.85 and modified vide office order no. 2878/Cadre dated 7.8.85 and further notified vide notification No. 9/Reg 3.2.99. (A) Operation Staff Operator Grade-1 xxx xxx b) 15% posts shall be filled up by prom merit basis from amongst feeder cadres namely Operator Grade-II, Plant Attendant Grade Attendant Grade-II, Helper "Grade Possessing the qualification of BE/AMIE/In Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics Engineering or three years Diploma in Engineering provided they have three years service experience on the above posts in HPGC xxx xxx B) Maintenance Staff: 7. Foreman Grade-II b) 15% posts shall be filled up by promotion seniority cum merit basis form amongst feeder cadres Foreman Grade & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -4- Bharat Singh Vs. State of Haryana. Briefly, the facts are that a promotion avenue was carved out for the employees of the respondent-Haryana Power by office order dated 29.12.2004 1) which reads as follows: “In exercise of Powers conferred under clause (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, read with Haryana Electricity Reforms act, 1997, and all other enabling powers in the this behalf, Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited is pleased to amend Sr. No. A-6 & B- 7 of the n Policy of Thermal Staff notified office order No. 2845/Cadre dated 27.05.85 and modified vide office order no. 2878/Cadre dated 7.8.85 and further notified vide notification No. 9/Reg-129/L-I/A dated xxx illed up by promotion on seniority s from amongst feeder cadres namely II, Plant Attendant Grade-l, Plant II, Helper "Grade-l and Helper Grade-ll. Possessing the qualification of BE/AMIE/In /Electronics Engineering or three years Diploma in Engineering provided they have three years service experience on the above posts in HPGC… xxx b) 15% posts shall be filled up by promotion seniority cum merit basis form amongst feeder cadres Foreman Grade-II, MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 Foreman Grade II, Helper Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics Engineering or three years Diploma holder Helper Grade they have three years service experience on the above post in the HPGC… 4. Accordingly, the petitioners, who were appointed as Plant Attendants Grade posts of Operator Grade the 15 % posts demarcated in this regard. required qualification, the petitioners took a leave without pay and enrolled in a regular spent three years out of service as they acquired the diploma before joining. 5. However, the private respondents, enrolled in distance learning program Mechanical Engineers (IME) not require attendance but allowed students to appear in examination to obtain a qualification advertised as equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineerin derecognised but subsequently, recognised to a limited extent vide notification dated 24.11. promotion of private respondents was kept pending as it was subject to the result of the litigati 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES Foreman Grade-IV.Technician Grade II, Helper Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics Engineering or three years Diploma holder in engineering Grade Helper Grade-II. possessing the qualification of provided they have three years service experience on the above post in the HPGC…”(emphasis added) Accordingly, the petitioners, who were appointed as Plant Attendants Grade-II/Technician- of Operator Grade-I/Foreman Grade the 15 % posts demarcated in this regard. required qualification, the petitioners took a leave without pay and enrolled in a regular diploma course. spent three years out of service as they acquired the diploma before joining. However, the private respondents, enrolled in distance learning programme offered by respondent No.6 Mechanical Engineers (IME). The course provided by IME did not require attendance but allowed students to appear in examination to obtain a qualification advertised as equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Respondent derecognised but subsequently, recognised to a limited extent vide notification dated 24.11.2016 (Annexure P promotion of private respondents was kept pending as it was subject to the result of the litigation initiated & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -5- IV.Technician Grade-l, Technician Grade- II, Helper Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics Engineering or in engineering Grade-1 and . possessing the qualification of provided they have three years service experience on the above post (emphasis added) Accordingly, the petitioners, who were appointed as -II, were promoted to the I/Foreman Grade-II, respectively, under the 15 % posts demarcated in this regard. In order to meet the required qualification, the petitioners took a leave without pay diploma course. Some of the petitioners spent three years out of service as they acquired the diploma However, the private respondents, enrolled in distance offered by respondent No.6-Institute of . The course provided by IME did not require attendance but allowed students to appear in examination to obtain a qualification advertised as equivalent to a Respondent-IME was initially derecognised but subsequently, recognised to a limited extent vide 16 (Annexure P-3). The matter of promotion of private respondents was kept pending as it was on initiated with respect to the MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 validity of the qualifications issued by respondent litigation arrived at its natural conclusion, Corporation promoted the promotion of the petitioners was reversed in order to make room for them. As such, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the private respondents gained an advantage over them fact that they do not possess the requisite edu qualifications for promotion in terms ofoffice order dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P CONTENTIONS 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contended that the respondent the benefit respondents eligible for the said promotion terms of instructions dated 2 instructions dated 29.12.2004 (A nature as the invoking Clause (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 read with Haryana Electricity Reforms Act, 1997 therefore cannot be superseded by imp 19.12.2023 (Annexure P 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES validity of the qualifications issued by respondent litigation arrived at its natural conclusion, Corporation promoted the private respondents promotion of the petitioners was reversed in order to make room As such, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the private respondents gained an advantage over them fact that they do not possess the requisite edu qualifications for promotion in terms ofoffice order dated 04 (Annexure P-1). CONTENTIONS Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the respondent-Corporation ha the benefit arising out of the IME case(supra) respondents, retrospectively, in spite of the fact that they for the said promotion in terms of the terms of instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P nature as they have been issued by the respondent invoking Clause (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 read with Haryana Electricity Reforms Act, 1997 therefore cannot be superseded by imp 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37) being non & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -6- validity of the qualifications issued by respondent-IME. When the litigation arrived at its natural conclusion, the respondent- private respondents. However, the promotion of the petitioners was reversed in order to make room As such, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the private respondents gained an advantage over them in spite of the fact that they do not possess the requisite educational qualifications for promotion in terms ofoffice order dated Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia Corporation haserred in extending IME case(supra) to private retrospectively, in spite of the fact that they are not in terms of the criterion set out in 9.12.2004 (Annexure P-1). The nnexure P-1) are statutory in the respondent-Corporation by invoking Clause (c) of Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 read with Haryana Electricity Reforms Act, 1997 and therefore cannot be superseded by impugned instructions dated 37) being non-statutory. The following MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 qualification seniority-cum 7. Learned counsel further submitted that granted to th interpretation of service rules 1.5-year certificate course offered by distance education ofrespondent conducting necessary examinations diplomas by attending a regular course which is more rigorous in nature and covers all Despite the fundamental difference between the two, the private respondents have been instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P respondent- the private respondents have been al 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES qualification was provided for filling 15% posts cum-merit basis amongst different feeder cadres: “Possessing the qualification of B.E./AMIE Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics Engineering 03 years diploma in Engineering have three yearsexperience on the above posts in the feeder cadre.” (emphasis added) Learned counsel further submitted that granted to the private respondents interpretation of theIME case (supra) service rules as 03-year regular diploma certificate course offered by respondent distance educationprogramme. Further, ofrespondent-IME that it does not provide any education by regular classes but only allows its students to write necessary examinations, while the petitioners have obtained their diplomas by attending a regular course which is more rigorous in nature and covers all requisite fields of technical education. Despite the fundamental difference between the two, the private respondents have been promoted, in contravention of the instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P -Corporation has greatly prejudiced the private respondents have been allowed to steal a march over & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -7- provided for filling 15% posts by promotion on merit basis amongst different feeder cadres: qualification of B.E./AMIE in Electrical/Mechanical/Electronics Engineering or 03 years diploma in Engineering provided they have three yearsexperience on the above posts in (emphasis added) Learned counsel further submitted that the benefit is e private respondents is based on incorrect (supra),de hors the applicable regular diploma has been equated to a respondent-IME through a . Further, it has been the stand not provide any education by but only allows its students to write he petitioners have obtained their diplomas by attending a regular course which is more rigorous in fields of technical education. Despite the fundamental difference between the two, the private d, in contravention of the instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-1). In doing so, the Corporation has greatly prejudiced the petitioners as lowed to steal a march over MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 themas their promotion has been rever private respondents do not meet the criterion of in Engineering. 8. Furthermore, t Education, Department notification dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure P reiterated that education mode, not recognised by the joint committee of A India Council for Technical Education Commission(UGC) not be considered to be valid for selection or promotion in State Technical University and Government Engineering Colleges in the State of Haryana issued a public notice (Annexure P qualifications acquired the field of Engineering and Technology through distance education mode matter was examined by the Irrigation 2017 (4) SCT 683 protect the accrued by virtue of th that the same cannot be used to 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES as their promotion has been reversed, private respondents do not meet the criterion of in Engineering. Furthermore, the Director General, Technical Education, Department, State of Haryana notification dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure P reiterated that the degrees and diplomas obtained through distance mode, not recognised by the joint committee of A India Council for Technical Education(AICTE) Commission(UGC) and Distance Education Council ( not be considered to be valid for selection or promotion in State Technical University and Government Engineering Colleges in the State of Haryana.Moreover, the AICTE issued a public notice (Annexure P qualifications acquired the field of Engineering and Technology distance education mode are not recognised by it matter was examined by theHon’ble Supreme Court in Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro and others 2017 (4) SCT 683wherebyone time relaxation protect the individuals who had already availed the benefits by virtue of the said qualification that the same cannot be used to seek further benefits in service. & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -8- sed, despite the fact that the private respondents do not meet the criterion of 03 years diploma he Director General, Technical State of Haryana, had issued a notification dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure P-9) whereby it was degrees and diplomas obtained through distance mode, not recognised by the joint committee of All (AICTE)/University Grants Distance Education Council (DEC),shall not be considered to be valid for selection or promotion in State Technical University and Government Engineering Colleges in the AICTE, being a regulator, had issued a public notice (Annexure P-10) clarifying that qualifications acquired the field of Engineering and Technology are not recognised by it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift . Rabi SankarPatro and others ne time relaxation was granted only to who had already availed the benefits qualification, however, it was held seek further benefits in service. MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 Additionally wasissued by that require hands under open and distance learning modes. 9. He further contended that a IMEdoes not hold regular classes for technical education candidates are granted the said certificate simply upon passing the examinations conducted by the Constitutional Courts on various occasions point of time, Board, Haryana respondent- instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P no order or instructions have ever been issued by the State of Haryana or equivalence to these certificates diplomas/degrees. 10. Further in CWP No.1640 of 2008 India and others Kumar v. State Pollution Control Board examined the validity of the certificates issued by 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES Additionally, a public notice dated 23.02.201 wasissued by the UGC stating that programmes like engineering that require hands-on training are not permitted to be offe under open and distance learning modes. He further contended that a does not hold regular classes for technical education candidates are granted the said certificate simply upon passing the examinations conducted by it. This issue has been raised before the Constitutional Courts on various occasions point of time, did the State of Haryana or the Haryana recognize these certificate courses offered by -IME nor did it carry out instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P no order or instructions have ever been issued by the State of Haryana or the Department of Technical Education granting ivalence to these certificates degrees. Further still, learned counsel submitted that CWP No.1640 of 2008 titled as Kartar Singh India and others and in CWP No.3727 of 2008 . State Pollution Control Board examined the validity of the certificates issued by & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -9- , a public notice dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure P-14) that programmes like engineering on training are not permitted to be offered under open and distance learning modes. He further contended that admittedly, respondent- does not hold regular classes for technical education and the candidates are granted the said certificate simply upon passing the This issue has been raised before the Constitutional Courts on various occasions. However, at no the State of Haryana or the Technical Education these certificate courses offered by carry out any amendments in the instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-1). As a matter of fact, no order or instructions have ever been issued by the State of Department of Technical Education granting ivalence to these certificates with the regular learned counsel submitted that this Court Kartar Singh v. Union of CWP No.3727 of 2008 titled as Vikas . State Pollution Control Board and others has examined the validity of the certificates issued by respondent- MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 IME and concluded granted by itcannot be treated as equivalent to a degree in Engineering as respondent recognition from any council or board The aforesaid judgments were Supreme Court of India in Vijay Kumar and others etc. AICTE and thereafter that the Engineering degrees learning are not recognized and factoapproval, 11. However, in Court created Government Employees inasmuch that respondent- allowed to Engineering for the purpose of employment in Central Government. Learned while misinterpreting the judgement in Chief Secretary, authority and issued notification/instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES and concluded the degrees in certificates and membership granted by itcannot be treated as equivalent to a degree in Engineering as respondent-IME does not have a permanent ecognition from any council or board The aforesaid judgments were also Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) No. 35793 Vijay Kumar and others etc.v. Kartar Singh and others etc. AICTE and thereafter, the UGC have Engineering degrees obtained learning are not recognized and they shall not be granted approval, as discernible from Annexures P However, in IME case(supra), Court created a one-time exception in case of the Central Government Employees inasmuch that the -IME to candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 be considered equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that while misinterpreting the judgement in Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana authority and issued notification/instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37) wherebythe benefits of the & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -10- the degrees in certificates and membership granted by itcannot be treated as equivalent to a degree in does not have a permanent ecognition from any council or board to conduct these courses. upheld by the Hon’ble SLP (c) No. 35793-96 of 2012 titled as . Kartar Singh and others etc. The UGC have consistently taken a stand obtained by way of open distance shall not be granted ex post nnexures P-7 and P-8. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme time exception in case of the Central the certificates awarded by IME to candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 were ed equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in Central ounsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that while misinterpreting the judgement in IME case(supra),the Government of Haryana, has acted beyond his authority and issued notification/instructions dated 19.12.2023 the benefits of the Diplomas/Degrees courses. MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 awarded by professional bodies/institutions duly recognised by the Ministry of are valid for 12. A consistent recognising engineering qualifications obtained through distance learning, as indicated by instructions and notifications issued by it (Annexures P made for the fir 19.12.2023 (Annexure P granted to the IME, without carrying out any amendment in the Rules. Further, the inquiry carried out by th regard also validity of said qualification Annexure P 13. With regards to the issue of grant of retrospective benefit to the private respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 8 SCC 280, wherein the Orissa Lift (supra) restore the benefits that 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES awarded by professional bodies/institutions duly recognised by inistry of Human Resource Development are valid for the students enrolled therein A consistent stand has been taken by the State against recognising engineering qualifications obtained through distance learning, as indicated by instructions and notifications issued by it (Annexures P-1, P-9, P-10, P-13, P-16 & P made for the first time vide impugned instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37), whereby granted to the certificates granted by institutes like respondent without carrying out any amendment in the Rules. Further, the inquiry carried out by the respondent regard also remained inconclusive and left validity of said qualification to the Court Annexure P-24. With regards to the issue of grant of retrospective benefit to the private respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. Depinder Singh Dhesi (2019) 8 SCC 280, wherein the Court clarified that the directions in the Orissa Lift (supra) were intended to restore restore the benefits that candidates were already enjoying on the & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -11- awarded by professional bodies/institutions duly recognised by evelopment upto 31.05.2013 therein upto 31.05.2013. stand has been taken by the State against recognising engineering qualifications obtained through distance learning, as indicated by instructions and notifications issued by it 16 & P-17). A deviation was vide impugned instructions dated whereby equivalence has been granted by institutes like respondent- without carrying out any amendment in the Rules. Further, respondent-Corporation in this remained inconclusive and left the decision qua to the Court, as discernible from With regards to the issue of grant of retrospective benefit to the private respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Ashok Kumar v. Depinder Singh Dhesi (2019) Court clarified that the directions in the were intended to restore status quo ante, i.e., were already enjoying on the MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 date of passing of advantage. It been to provide obtained their degrees through a The one-time exemption cannot be misinte diploma holders placed on the judgement Court in JagdishRaiSingla v. State of Haryana, 2023 NCPHHC 39806. 14. Per submitted certificates awarded by respondent 2016 and a of Technical Education (Annexure R that have recognition recognised by the Government of Haryana counsel emphasised specifically that dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IMEcase(supra) 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES passing of the judgment and not to confer any additional advantage. It was argued that the intention of the C been to provide retrospective benefits ained their degrees through a distance education time exemption granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be misinterpreted to provide benefit diploma holders retrospectively. Reliance placed on the judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this JagdishRaiSingla v. State of Haryana, 2023 NCPHHC Per contra, Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advo that the dispute with respect to validity of the certificates awarded by respondent-IME clarification was sought. Acco of Technical Education issued a letter (Annexure R-2/3) whereby it was reiterated that diplomas/degrees that have recognition from the Government of India shall also be recognised by the Government of Haryana emphasised specifically that the impugned instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37) is upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra). Further, it is not the case of the petitioner(s) that & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -12- the judgment and not to confer any additional was argued that the intention of the Court has never s to individuals who have distance education programme. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rpreted to provide benefits to distance education . Reliance in this regard is also the Division Bench of this JagdishRaiSingla v. State of Haryana, 2023 NCPHHC , Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Senior Advocate with respect to validity of the IME only arose in the year . Accordingly,the Department ssued a letter dated 27.07.2006 whereby it was reiterated that diplomas/degrees from the Government of India shall also be recognised by the Government of Haryana.Learned Senior the impugned instructions is wholly and solelybased upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Further, it is not the case of the petitioner(s) that MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 the said instructions are tainted by Additionally, statement filed by respondents No.2 to 4 “5. That it is most humbly submitted that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners dated 11.02.2021 P-21), promotion orders which is reproduced as under: "The above promotions have been made on the clear understanding that if there is any senior person(s) to them, they are liable to be reverted to their original post of Operator Grade room for senior person(s)." Although, as per the condition mentioned in promotion order no notice was necessary, however, following the principle of natural justice notices were served upon to petitioners. As per record, no objections have been made by the petitioners against the aforesaid clause mentioned in their promotion orders till the institution of this writ petition. The answering respondent took action in line with the judgment dated 13.08. Civil Appeal no. 17922/2017 Punjab and others no. 42/703/2019 AICTE in its 52nd Emergent Meeting held on 03.08.2017 decide including higher education and employment to technical courses conducted by various professional bodies/institutions which were duly recognized by the MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013. Thus, al institutions with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 stand recognized. 15. Learned counsel for that the diplomas 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES the said instructions are tainted by Additionally, the following stand was taken filed by respondents No.2 to 4 “5. That it is most humbly submitted that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners dated 11.02.2021 21), in view of clear provisions contained in their promotion orders which is reproduced as under: "The above promotions have been made on the clear understanding that if there is any senior person(s) to them, they are liable to be reverted to their original post of Operator Grade-II without any notice to make room for senior person(s)." Although, as per the condition mentioned in promotion order no notice was necessary, however, following the principle of natural justice notices were served upon to oners. As per record, no objections have been made by the petitioners against the aforesaid clause mentioned in their promotion orders till the institution of this writ petition. The answering respondent took action in line with the judgment dated 13.08.2019 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 17922/2017 titled as Punjab and others and Haryana Government notification no. 42/703/2019-5GS-I dated 31.01.2020 clarified that AICTE in its 52nd Emergent Meeting held on 03.08.2017 decided to recognize equivalence for all purposes including higher education and employment to technical courses conducted by various professional bodies/institutions which were duly recognized by the MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013. Thus, all those students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 stand recognized.” Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the diplomas were obtained by the & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -13- the said instructions are tainted by malafide or arbitrariness. following stand was takenin the written filed by respondents No.2 to 4: “5. That it is most humbly submitted that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners dated 11.02.2021 (Annexure in view of clear provisions contained in their promotion orders which is reproduced as under:- "The above promotions have been made on the clear understanding that if there is any senior person(s) to them, they are liable to be reverted to their original II without any notice to make room for senior person(s)." Although, as per the condition mentioned in promotion order no notice was necessary, however, following the principle of natural justice notices were served upon to As per record, no objections have been made by the petitioners against the aforesaid clause mentioned in their promotion orders till the institution of this writ petition. The answering respondent took action in line with the 2019 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in titled as IME Vs State of and Haryana Government notification I dated 31.01.2020 clarified that AICTE in its 52nd Emergent Meeting held on 03.08.2017 d to recognize equivalence for all purposes including higher education and employment to technical courses conducted by various professional bodies/institutions which were duly recognized by the MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013. l those students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013 the private respondents submitted the private respondents prior MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 to the year case(supra) 06.12.2012(Annexure P Development paragraph 4 of “4. On 26.05.1976, the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications provisionally recognized "a in the Associate Membership Examination of the Mechanical Engineers Association of India at par with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University/Institution for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts and services under for a period of three years." On 06.10.1981 the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications, decided to continue to recognize a pass in AMIE of the appellant recruitment to superior posts and services under the Central Government. 16. He further submitted the issue in pertained to engineering degrees and not diplomas. As such diplomas of the private respondents are not adversely IMEcase(supra their diplomas prior to the year 2013 regard to the course duration being three years, does not hold any force in view of the judgment rendered by this Court No.12187 of 2006 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES the year 2013 and therefore, is not affected by case(supra). Further, in terms of the notification (Annexure P-6)by the Ministry of Development, these certificates are valid paragraph 4 of the IME case (supra), which reads as follows: 4. On 26.05.1976, the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications provisionally recognized "a in the Associate Membership Examination of the Mechanical Engineers Association of India at par with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University/Institution for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts and services under for a period of three years." On 06.10.1981 the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications, decided to continue to ognize a pass in AMIE of the appellant recruitment to superior posts and services under the Central Government.” He further submitted the issue in pertained to engineering degrees and not diplomas. As such omas of the private respondents are not adversely (supra).Additionally, the private respondents received their diplomas prior to the year 2013 Further, regard to the course duration being three years, does not hold any in view of the judgment rendered by this Court No.12187 of 2006 titled as Sunil Kumar &Ors. v. & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -14- and therefore, is not affected by IME n terms of the notification dated the Ministry of Human Resource are valid.He further referred to which reads as follows: 4. On 26.05.1976, the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications provisionally recognized "a pass in the Associate Membership Examination of the Mechanical Engineers Association of India at par with a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University/Institution for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts and services under the Central Government for a period of three years." On 06.10.1981 the Government of India, Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Education, on the recommendation of Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications, decided to continue to ognize a pass in AMIE of the appellant for the purpose of recruitment to superior posts and services under the Central He further submitted the issue in IME case(supra) pertained to engineering degrees and not diplomas. As such, the omas of the private respondents are not adversely affected by Additionally, the private respondents received Further, the argument with regard to the course duration being three years, does not hold any in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP Sunil Kumar &Ors. v. State of MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 Haryana.Moreover, petitioners and therefore, their promotion is justified. of the private respondents have already retired, and it would be wholly unjust to withdraw the benefits much prior in time OBSERVATION 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, the following questions arise for adjudication: (i) Whether Court in government employees in the absence of any statutory mandate or specific direction (ii) Whetherstatutory (Annexure P instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P amending the eligibility criteria? (iii) Whether dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P retrospectively?  INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT 18. The seminal issue around interpretation of the judgment rendered by the Hon Supreme Court in the as an imprimatur 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES Moreover, the private respondents are senior and therefore, their promotion is justified. of the private respondents have already retired, and it would be wholly unjust to withdraw the benefits much prior in time. OBSERVATIONS& ANALYSIS Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, the following questions arise for adjudication: Whether the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inIME case(supra) is ipso facto applicable government employees in the absence of any statutory mandate or specific directions by th Whetherstatutory instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-1), can be superseded by executive instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P amending the eligibility criteria? hether the benefits arising out of executive dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P retrospectively? INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT The seminal issue presented before this Court revolves around interpretation of the judgment rendered by the Hon Supreme Court in theIME case (supra) imprimatur with respect to the correctness of the impugned & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -15- he private respondents are senior to the and therefore, their promotion is justified. Lastly, some of the private respondents have already retired, and it would be wholly unjust to withdraw the benefits already granted to them, Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, the following the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme is ipso facto applicable to State government employees in the absence of any statutory s by the Court? instructions dated 29.12.2004 can be superseded by executive instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37), without amending the eligibility criteria? the benefits arising out of executive instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37) can be conferred INTERPRETATION OF THE “IME’s case (supra)” presented before this Court revolves around interpretation of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble (supra), andif it can be construed correctness of the impugned MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 decisions taken by the the respondent the private respondents seniority of the petitioners, in view of the years after its pron interpreted in the context of the facts of the specific case presented before the Court, without reading into it more than what is expressly stated. It is neither appropriate nor permissible to isolate a word or context of the issue being addressed, and complete law in itself. whole, and any observations made in relation to the questio consideration. in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rajkumar and Ors (2007) 12 SCC 768 made the following observations in this regard: “11. Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgme precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES cisions taken by the respondent-Corporation the respondent-Corporation has granted benefit of promotion to the private respondents by upsetting the long seniority of the petitioners, in view of the years after its pronouncement. Tritely, interpreted in the context of the facts of the specific case before the Court, without reading into it more than what is expressly stated. It is neither appropriate nor permissible to isolate a word or a sentence from a judgment, detached context of the issue being addressed, and complete law in itself. Instead, a judgment whole, and any observations made therein in relation to the questions that were actually under consideration.A two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rajkumar and Ors (2007) 12 SCC 768, speaking through Justice ArijitPasayat, J the following observations in this regard: Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgme precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -16- orporation. It transpires that Corporation has granted benefit of promotion to by upsetting the long-standing settled seniority of the petitioners, in view of the IME case(supra), five Tritely, a judgment must be interpreted in the context of the facts of the specific case before the Court, without reading into it more than what is expressly stated. It is neither appropriate nor permissible to judgment, detached from the context of the issue being addressed, and treat it to be the judgment must be read as a thereinought to be understood ns that were actually under he Hon’ble Supreme Court Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rajkumar and Ors speaking through Justice ArijitPasayat, J, the following observations in this regard: Reliance on the decision without looking into the factual background of the case before it is clearly impermissible. A decision is a precedent on its own facts. Each case presents its own features. It is not everything said by a Judge while giving a judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 isolate from it the ratio decidendi. settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statemen legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio an therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See State of Orissa v. SudhansuSekharMisra and Ors., (AIR 1968 Supreme Court 647) and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors., (1996(6) SCC 44). precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their not to be read as if they are words in Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem, (1901) AC 495 (H.L.), Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found and a case is only an authority for what it actually 12. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems no taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provis 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES isolate from it the ratio decidendi. ttled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates - (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See State of Orissa v. SudhansuSekharMisra and Ors., (AIR 1968 Supreme Court 647) and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors., (1996(6) SCC 44). precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their not to be read as if they are words in Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem, (1901) AC 495 (H.L.), Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found and a case is only an authority for what it actually 12. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provis & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -17- isolate from it the ratio decidendi.According to the well- ttled theory of precedents, every decision contains three (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; ts of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence d not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. (See State of Orissa v. SudhansuSekharMisra and Ors., (AIR 1968 Supreme Court 647) and Union of India and Ors. v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors., (1996(6) SCC 44). A case is a precedent and binding for what it explicitly decides and no more. The words used by Judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in Act of Parliament. In Quinn v. Leathem, (1901) AC 495 (H.L.), Earl of Halsbury LC observed that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be generality of the expressions which are found there are not intended to be exposition of the whole law but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are found and a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. 12. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's r as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed : “The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissimavertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an A rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge.” 13. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., (1970(2) All England Reporter 294) Lord Reid said, “Lord Atkin's speech.....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances.” Megarry, J in (1971)1 WLR 1062 observed : “One must not, of course, construe even a re as if it were an Act of Parliament.” And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972(2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said: “ speech or judgment as though they are words in a legis judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.” 14. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. on a decision is not proper 15. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus : 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed : “The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissimavertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge.” 13. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., (1970(2) All gland Reporter 294) Lord Reid said, “Lord Atkin's speech.....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances.” Megarry, J in (1971)1 WLR 1062 observed : “One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament.” And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972(2) WLR 537) Lord Morris “There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.” Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 15. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus : & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -18- may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac “The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissimavertra of Willes, J as though they ct of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished 13. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., (1970(2) All gland Reporter 294) Lord Reid said, “Lord Atkin's speech.....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances.” Megarry, J in (1971)1 WLR 1062 observed : “One must not, served judgment of Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament.” And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972(2) WLR 537) Lord Morris There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a lative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance 15. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus : MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one ca because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.” “Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.”” 19. Further, a t Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. GhanshyamDass, (2011) 4 SCC 374 as follows: “13. The principle laid down in K.I. Shephard (supra) that it is not necessary for every person to approach the court for relief and benefit of a concluded decision in all similar cases without driving every affected person to court to seek relief would apply only in the following circumstances a) Where the order is made in a petition filed representative capacity on behalf of all similarly situated employees; b) Where the relief granted by the court is a declaratory relief which is intended to apply to all 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.” *** *** “Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it.”” (emphasis added Further, a three-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. GhanshyamDass, 4 SCC 374, speaking through Justice A.K. Patnaik, opined The principle laid down in K.I. Shephard (supra) that it is not necessary for every person to approach the court for relief and it is the duty of the authority to extend the benefit of a concluded decision in all similar cases without driving every affected person to court to seek relief would apply only in the following circumstances a) Where the order is made in a petition filed representative capacity on behalf of all similarly situated employees; b) Where the relief granted by the court is a declaratory relief which is intended to apply to all & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -19- “Each case depends on its own facts and a close se and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of . To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is *** “Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could emphasis added) ench of the Hon’ble Supreme Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. GhanshyamDass, speaking through Justice A.K. Patnaik, opined The principle laid down in K.I. Shephard (supra) that it is not necessary for every person to approach the court it is the duty of the authority to extend the benefit of a concluded decision in all similar cases without driving every affected person to court to seek relief would apply only in the following circumstances: a) Where the order is made in a petition filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all similarly b) Where the relief granted by the court is a declaratory relief which is intended to apply to all MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 employees in a particular category, irrespective of whether they are parties to c) Where an order or rule of general application to employees is quashed without any condition or reservation that the relief is restricted to the petitioners before the court; and d) Where the court expressly directs that the relief granted should be extended to those who have not approached the court. On the other hand, where only the affected parties approach the court and relief is given to those parties, the fence- that such reli upsetting or interfering with the rights which had accrued to others. others 1998(1) S.C.T. 26 : (1997) 6 SCC 538., the appellants who were general candidates bel challenged the promotion of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates on the basis of the decisions in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab 1996(2) S.C.T. 278 : (1996) 2 SCC 715., Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan 1995(4) S.C.T. 695 : (199 of Punjab 1995(2) S.C.T. 646 : (1995) 2 SCC 745. and this Court refused to grant the relief saying : “....this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 22 necessary to reiterate all the catena of precedents in this behalf. Suffice it to state that the appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake up when they had the impetus from Virpal and Ajit Singh ratios. Sabharwal cases, kept at rest the promotion already made by that date, and declared them as valid; they were limited to the question of future promotions 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES employees in a particular category, irrespective of whether they are parties to the litigation or not; c) Where an order or rule of general application to employees is quashed without any condition or reservation that the relief is restricted to the petitioners before the court; and d) Where the court expressly directs that the relief granted should be extended to those who have not approached the court. On the other hand, where only the affected parties approach the court and relief is given to those parties, the -sitters who did not approach the court cannot claim that such relief should have been extended to them thereby upsetting or interfering with the rights which had accrued to others. In JagdishLal and others v. State of Haryana and others 1998(1) S.C.T. 26 : (1997) 6 SCC 538., the appellants who were general candidates bel challenged the promotion of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates on the basis of the decisions in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab 1996(2) S.C.T. 278 : (1996) 2 SCC 715., Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan 1995(4) S.C.T. 695 : (1995) 6 SCC 684. and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab 1995(2) S.C.T. 646 : (1995) 2 SCC 745. and this Court refused to grant the relief saying : “....this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to reiterate all the catena of precedents in this behalf. Suffice it to state that the appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake up when they had the impetus from Virpal and Ajit Singh ratios. But VirpalChauhan and Sabharwal cases, kept at rest the promotion already made by that date, and declared them as valid; they were limited to the question of future promotions & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -20- employees in a particular category, irrespective of the litigation or not; c) Where an order or rule of general application to employees is quashed without any condition or reservation that the relief is restricted to the petitioners before the court; and d) Where the court expressly directs that the relief granted should be extended to those who have not On the other hand, where only the affected parties approach the court and relief is given to those parties, the sitters who did not approach the court cannot claim ef should have been extended to them thereby upsetting or interfering with the rights which had accrued In JagdishLal and others v. State of Haryana and others 1998(1) S.C.T. 26 : (1997) 6 SCC 538., the appellants who were general candidates belatedly challenged the promotion of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates on the basis of the decisions in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab 1996(2) S.C.T. 278 : (1996) 2 SCC 715., Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan 1995(4) 5) 6 SCC 684. and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab 1995(2) S.C.T. 646 : (1995) 2 SCC 745. and this Court refused to grant the relief saying : “....this Court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under 6 or Article 32 of the Constitution. It is not necessary to reiterate all the catena of precedents in this behalf. Suffice it to state that the appellants kept sleeping over their rights for long and elected to wake up when they had the impetus from VirpalChauhan But VirpalChauhan and Sabharwal cases, kept at rest the promotion already made by that date, and declared them as valid; they were limited to the question of future promotions MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 given by applying the rule of reservation to all persons prior to the date of judgment in Sabharwal case which required to be examined in the light of the law laid in Sabharwal case. Thus earlier promotions cannot be reopened. Only those cases arising after that date would be examined in the light of VirpalChauhan case and equally Ajit Singh case. If the candidate has already been further promoted to the higher echelons of service, his seniority is not open to be reviewed.In A.B.S. KaramchariSangh case a Bench o Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ. were members, had reiterated the above view and it was also held that all the prior promotions are not open to judicial review. In Chander Pal v. State of Haryana a Bench of two Judges c Nanavati, JJ. considered the effect of VirpalChauhan, Ajit Singh, Sabharwal and A.B.S. KaramchariSangh cases and held that the seniority of those respondents who had already retired or had been promoted to higher posts co The seniority of the petitioner therein and the respondents who were holding the post in the same level or in the same cadre would be adjusted keeping in view the ratio in VirpalChauhan and Ajit Singh; but promotion, if any, had been during the pendency of this writ petition was directed not to be disturbed....” As such conclusion (supra)ought not to be understood as blind and mechanical application, devoid of A judgment is not akin to a universally applicable 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES given by applying the rule of reservation to all persons prior to the date of judgment in Sabharwal case which required to be examined in the light of the law laid in Sabharwal case. Thus earlier promotions cannot be reopened. Only those cases arising after that date would be examined in the light of the law laid down in Sabharwal case and VirpalChauhan case and equally Ajit Singh case. If the candidate has already been further promoted to the higher echelons of service, his seniority is not open to be reviewed.In A.B.S. KaramchariSangh case a Bench of two Judges to which two of us, K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ. were members, had reiterated the above view and it was also held that all the prior promotions are not open to judicial review. In Chander Pal v. State of Haryana a Bench of two Judges consisting of S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ. considered the effect of VirpalChauhan, Ajit Singh, Sabharwal and A.B.S. KaramchariSangh cases and held that the seniority of those respondents who had already retired or had been promoted to higher posts co The seniority of the petitioner therein and the respondents who were holding the post in the same level or in the same cadre would be adjusted keeping in view the ratio in VirpalChauhan and Ajit Singh; but promotion, if any, had been during the pendency of this writ petition was directed not to be disturbed....” (emphasis added As such, with respect to conclusion drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ought not to be understood as lind and mechanical application, devoid of A judgment is not akin to a universally applicable & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -21- given by applying the rule of reservation to all the persons prior to the date of judgment in Sabharwal case which required to be examined in the light of the law laid in Sabharwal case. Thus earlier promotions cannot be reopened. Only those cases arising after that date would be examined in the light the law laid down in Sabharwal case and VirpalChauhan case and equally Ajit Singh case. If the candidate has already been further promoted to the higher echelons of service, his seniority is not open to be reviewed.In A.B.S. KaramchariSangh f two Judges to which two of us, K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ. were members, had reiterated the above view and it was also held that all the prior promotions are not open to judicial review. In Chander Pal v. State of Haryana a Bench onsisting of S.C. Agrawal and G.T. Nanavati, JJ. considered the effect of VirpalChauhan, Ajit Singh, Sabharwal and A.B.S. KaramchariSangh cases and held that the seniority of those respondents who had already retired or had been promoted to higher posts could not be disturbed. The seniority of the petitioner therein and the respondents who were holding the post in the same level or in the same cadre would be adjusted keeping in view the ratio in VirpalChauhan and Ajit Singh; but promotion, if any, had been given to any of them during the pendency of this writ petition was directed emphasis added) with respect to the present case, the the Hon’ble Supreme Court in theIME case ought not to be understood as blanket permission for its lind and mechanical application, devoid of context and nuance. A judgment is not akin to a universally applicable principle that, MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 as if following the simplistic notion of is good for the gander 20. In order to asce Supreme Court in imperative. Therefore, a reference may be made to the dated 06.12.2012 Resource Development that gave rise to the controversy therein; the same is “In modification of Order F.No. dated 10.07.2012 and to facilitate the institutions during transition period; following decision has been taken In the Ministry: (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 upto 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 onwar (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 proposa extension as per their statute and regulations. 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES as if following the simplistic notion of ‘ is good for the gander.’ In order to ascertain the Supreme Court in IME case(supra) imperative. Therefore, a reference may be made to the dated 06.12.2012(Annexure P-6)issued by Resource Development that gave rise to the controversy therein; reproduced below: “In modification of Order F.No. dated 10.07.2012 and to facilitate the institutions during transition period; following decision has been taken In the Ministry: (i) Above order dated 10.07.2012 regarding cases of recognition In perpetuity for equivalence in Central Government job, stands withdrawn. All those students who are enrolled with the institutions with permanent recognition upto 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 onwards. ) 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 proposa extension as per their statute and regulations. & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -22- ‘what is good for the goose rtain the intention of the Hon’ble IME case(supra), a contextual study is imperative. Therefore, a reference may be made to the notification issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development that gave rise to the controversy therein; “In modification of Order F.No. 11-15/2011-AR (TS.II) dated 10.07.2012 and to facilitate the institutions during transition period; following decision has been taken In the (i) Above order dated 10.07.2012 regarding cases of recognition In perpetuity for equivalence in Central Government job, stands withdrawn. All those students who are enrolled with the institutions with permanent recognition upto 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 ) 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 (iv) Statutory regulators should review the fresh proposals/ extension as per their statute and regulations. MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 2. In case, the institution desires to opt for realigning curriculum with NVEQF, It is advised to use this transition period upto 30.05.2013 for necessary action in this regard. This issues with the appro (emphasis supplied) 21. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Ministry of Human Resource Development granted recognition and equivalence to the certificates issued by respondent the notification dated the purposes of employment under the Central Government.In light of the aforesaid notification bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, observations: “40. The point in question was again dealt with in the Order dated 22.01.2018 in paras 23 and 24 and it was stressed that conferral of degrees in Engineering through distance education mode was never approved in principle The appellant does not even claim to be imparting any education through distance education mode and only conducts bi those who qualify such examination. Considered in the light of the decision of this Corporation case, the learned Amicus Curiae is right in his submission that the case of the appellant would be on a footing lower than the cases of deemed to be Universities as dealt with in that decision. 41. The consisten not covered under any of the Acts viz. the UGC Act, Indira 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES 2. In case, the institution desires to opt for realigning curriculum with NVEQF, It is advised to use this transition period upto 30.05.2013 for necessary action in this regard. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.” (emphasis supplied) This Court is of the considered opinion that the Ministry of Human Resource Development granted recognition and equivalence to the certificates issued by respondent otification dated 06.12.2012(Annexure P the purposes of employment under the Central Government.In light of the aforesaid notification (Annexure P the Hon’ble Supreme Court speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, observations: 40. The point in question was again dealt with in the Order dated 22.01.2018 in paras 23 and 24 and it was stressed that conferral of degrees in Engineering through distance education mode was never approved in principle The appellant does not even claim to be imparting any education through distance education mode and only conducts bi-annual examination and awards certificates to those who qualify such examination. Considered in the light of the decision of this Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case, the learned Amicus Curiae is right in his submission that the case of the appellant would be on a footing lower than the cases of deemed to be Universities as dealt with in that decision. 41. The consistent stand of the appellant has been that it is not covered under any of the Acts viz. the UGC Act, Indira & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -23- 2. In case, the institution desires to opt for realigning curriculum with NVEQF, It is advised to use this transition period upto 30.05.2013 for necessary action in this regard. val of the Competent Authority.” This Court is of the considered opinion that the Ministry of Human Resource Development granted recognition and equivalence to the certificates issued by respondent-IME vide (Annexure P-6), exclusively for the purposes of employment under the Central Government.In (Annexure P-6), a two-Judge the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IME case(supra), speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, made the following 40. The point in question was again dealt with in the Order dated 22.01.2018 in paras 23 and 24 and it was stressed that conferral of degrees in Engineering through distance education mode was never approved in principle by AICTE. The appellant does not even claim to be imparting any education through distance education mode and only annual examination and awards certificates to those who qualify such examination. Considered in the light Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case, the learned Amicus Curiae is right in his submission that the case of the appellant would be on a footing lower than the cases of deemed to be Universities as t stand of the appellant has been that it is not covered under any of the Acts viz. the UGC Act, Indira MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 and the AICTE Act. However, since it offers courses or programmes of technical education, as rightly held by t appellant comes within the definition of "technical institution" as defined in the AICTE Act. Neither does the appellant, on its own grant Degrees in Engineering nor does it, in its capacity as an affiliated institution to a recognized U to Degrees in Engineering. Though it does not impart any instructions either in theory or in practical, it holds an examination, on satisfactory clearance of which it awards Certificates of Membership to candi whether such Certificate could, as a matter of law, be recognised as equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognised Indian University? Nothing is clear as to under what statutory regime or under which legal provis issued by the appellant be granted or conferred. No statutory provision has been pressed into service or relied upon to suggest that given the particular circumstances and/or, on satisfaction of certain parameter would be entitled to conferral of such equivalence or status. 47. Consequently, matter of right to be entitled to confer any degree nor can it claim that Certificate awarded by it must be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering. 49. However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.2013 as is evident from Notification dated 06.12.2012 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 upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration i MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though we 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 and the AICTE Act. However, since it offers courses or programmes of technical education, as rightly held by t appellant comes within the definition of "technical institution" as defined in the AICTE Act. Neither does the appellant, on its own grant Degrees in Engineering nor does it, in its capacity as an affiliated institution to a recognized University, prepare students in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering. Though it does not impart any instructions either in theory or in practical, it holds an examination, on satisfactory clearance of which it awards Certificates of Membership to candi whether such Certificate could, as a matter of law, be recognised as equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognised Indian University? Nothing is clear as to under what statutory regime or under which legal provision can such equivalence to the Certificate issued by the appellant be granted or conferred. No statutory provision has been pressed into service or relied upon to suggest that given the particular circumstances and/or, on satisfaction of certain parameter would be entitled to conferral of such equivalence or status. xxx xxx 47. Consequently, neither can the appellant claim, as a matter of right to be entitled to confer any degree nor can it claim that Certificate awarded by it must be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering. xxx xxx However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.2013 as is evident from Notification dated 06.12.2012 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 upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration i MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though we & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -24- Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 and the AICTE Act. However, since it offers courses or programmes of technical education, as rightly held by the High Court, the appellant comes within the definition of "technical institution" as defined in the AICTE Act. Neither does the appellant, on its own grant Degrees in Engineering nor does it, in its capacity as an affiliated institution to a niversity, prepare students in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering. Though it does not impart any instructions either in theory or in practical, it holds an examination, on satisfactory clearance of which it awards Certificates of Membership to candidates. The question is whether such Certificate could, as a matter of law, be recognised as equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognised Indian University? Nothing is clear as to under what statutory regime or under which ion can such equivalence to the Certificate issued by the appellant be granted or conferred. No statutory provision has been pressed into service or relied upon to suggest that given the particular circumstances and/or, on satisfaction of certain parameters the appellant would be entitled to conferral of such equivalence or status. xxx neither can the appellant claim, as a matter of right to be entitled to confer any degree nor can it claim that Certificate awarded by it must be reckoned to be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering. xxx However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.2013 as is evident from Notification dated 06.12.2012 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 upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though we MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 have laid down that the Certificates issued by the appellant on successful completion of its bi its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a Degree, an exce students enrolled up to 31.05.2013 and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 06.12.2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. candidates had opted to enroll themselves so that t appear at the 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 the AICTE. However, the aforementioned Notification and that after 01.06.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence would cease to have any effect. 50. In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 and declare that the conclusion will apply after 01.06.2013. 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 Central Government 22. Palpably, (supra)has valid regulatory mandate to impart technical education. the judgment rendered by the Kartar Singh v. Union of India, 2012(4) SCT 741 affirmed while holding that respondent degrees as a matter of right granted by it 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES have laid down that the Certificates issued by the appellant on successful completion of its bi its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a Degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of students enrolled up to 31.05.2013 and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 06.12.2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. candidates had opted to enroll themselves so that t appear at the examinations conducted by the a 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 the AICTE. However, the aforementioned Notification and that after 01.06.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence would cease to have any effect. In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in the present matter will apply after 01.06.2013. 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 Central vernment.” (emphasisadded) Palpably, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in has clarified thatrespondent-IME does not possess any valid regulatory mandate to impart technical education. judgment rendered by the Division bench of this Kartar Singh v. Union of India, 2012(4) SCT 741 affirmed while holding that respondent degrees as a matter of right, nor can it claim that the certification granted by it must be reckoned to be equ & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -25- 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 ption needs to be made in favour of students enrolled up to 31.05.2013 and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 06.12.2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. The candidates had opted to enroll themselves so that they could 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 the AICTE. However, the Public Notice were clear that after 01.06.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence would cease to have any effect. In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 and s drawn in the present matter will apply after 01.06.2013. 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 Central the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IME case IME does not possess any valid regulatory mandate to impart technical education. Rather, Division bench of this Court in Kartar Singh v. Union of India, 2012(4) SCT 741has been affirmed while holding that respondent-IME cannot confer nor can it claim that the certification must be reckoned to be equivalent to a Degree in MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 Mechanical Engineering. of central government employees, who have claimed benefits in service on the basis of certificates awarded by respo by prescribing a cut upon the notification the Ministry of Human Resource Development 23. Further perceptibly observed that respondent provide technical conducting regular classes examinations and issues certificates to those who pa when viewed in light of the ruling of the Hon in the Orissa significantly lower footing compared to the deemed universities considered 24. While (supra),the Chief Secretary of Government of Haryana issued impugned instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P whereby the Diplomas/Degrees awarded by professional bodies/institutions duly recognised by Resource Development 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES Mechanical Engineering. Further, the exception created in favour of central government employees, who have claimed benefits in service on the basis of certificates awarded by respo by prescribing a cut-off date i.e. 31.05.2 upon the notification dated 06.12.2012 (Annexure P the Ministry of Human Resource Development Further still, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has perceptibly observed that respondent technicaleducation through distance learning conducting regular classes; rather, it merely conducts bi examinations and issues certificates to those who pa when viewed in light of the ruling of the Hon Orissa Lift(supra), respondent significantly lower footing compared to the deemed universities considered therein. While purportedly relying on the the Chief Secretary of Government of Haryana issued impugned instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P the Diplomas/Degrees awarded by professional bodies/institutions duly recognised by Resource Development upto 31.05.2013 & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -26- Further, the exception created in favour of central government employees, who have claimed benefits in service on the basis of certificates awarded by respondent-IME, off date i.e. 31.05.2013, is primarily based dated 06.12.2012 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. ble Supreme Court has perceptibly observed that respondent-IME does not claim to education through distance learning by ; rather, it merely conducts bi-annual examinations and issues certificates to those who pass. As such, when viewed in light of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court respondent-IME stands on a significantly lower footing compared to the deemed-to-be relying on the IME case the Chief Secretary of Government of Haryana issued the impugned instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37), the Diplomas/Degrees awarded by professional bodies/institutions duly recognised by the Ministry for Human upto 31.05.2013 were declared to be valid MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 with respect to th the said executive instructions(Annexure P Corporation ordered the reversion of the petitioners to their feeder posts, as the private eligible to c As such, retrospective supposed to be originally considered attained seniority over the petitioners 25. It is evident that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not intend to equate the certificates degrees or diplomas for all individuals exception was carved setting a cut (Annexure P as a precedent to create further exceptions. and import is clearly erroneous as must be culled out from reading it in its entirety and not from a part thereof. that the Chief Secretary has erred in instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES with respect to the students enrolled upto 31.05.2013. the said executive instructions(Annexure P orporation ordered the reversion of the petitioners to their feeder , as the private respondents, IME diploma holders, became eligible to claim the promotion they previously were ignored for. As such, the private respondents were promoted retrospectively,with effect from the year 2013 i.e. when they were supposed to be originally considered attained seniority over the petitioners It is evident that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not intend to equate the certificates issued by respondent degrees or diplomas for all individuals on was carved out for central government employees, setting a cut-off date in terms of the notification dated 06.12.2012 (Annexure P-6). It was never intended that the same may be used as a precedent to create further exceptions. and import is clearly erroneous as ratio decidendi must be culled out from reading it in its entirety and not from a part thereof. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Chief Secretary has erred in instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -27- students enrolled upto 31.05.2013. In view of the said executive instructions(Annexure P-37), the respondent- orporation ordered the reversion of the petitioners to their feeder s, IME diploma holders, became laim the promotion they previously were ignored for. espondents were promoted from the year 2013 i.e. when they were supposed to be originally considered, and in doing so, they It is evident that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not issued by respondent-IME with degrees or diplomas for all individuals and a limited one time out for central government employees, by in terms of the notification dated 06.12.2012 It was never intended that the same may be used as a precedent to create further exceptions. Any other elucidation ratio decidendi of a judgment must be culled out from reading it in its entirety and not from a this Court is of the considered opinion that the Chief Secretary has erred in issuing impugned instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37), as any other MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 interpretation contrary to the one adopted and intended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the law laid down therein. private respondents at a belated stage, the petitioners, the judgment that the Hon’ble Apex Court intended manner that benefits legitimately accrued to them dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P regular diplomas private respondents to steal a march over the petitioners on the basis of certificates obtained from respondent consistently failed the judicial scrutiny of constitutional courts in the cases of (supra). 26. Further, the stand of the private res contradictory as they have claimed that IME (supra) benefit of the said year degree 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES interpretation contrary to the one adopted and intended by the ble Supreme Court in IME case(supra), the law laid down therein.Further, the promotion grante private respondents at a belated stage, the petitioners, amounts to a violation of the the judgment rendered in IME case (s that the Hon’ble Apex Court intended for it manner that would result in stripping the p benefits legitimately accrued to them dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-1),as they possess regular diplomas in engineering. This Court private respondents to steal a march over the petitioners on the basis of certificates obtained from respondent consistently failed the judicial scrutiny of constitutional courts in the cases of Kartar Singh (supra), Orissa Further, the stand of the private res contradictory as they have claimed that IME (supra) are not applicable to diplomas the said judgments by seeking equivalence year degree, in order tofulfill essential qualification for promotion & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -28- interpretation contrary to the one adopted and intended by the IME case(supra), would fall foul of Further, the promotion granted to the private respondents at a belated stage, by undoing the same for to a violation of the spirit and purpose of supra). It is inconceivable for it to be interpreted in a would result in stripping the petitioners of the benefits legitimately accrued to them in terms of instructions as they possess valid three-year This Court cannot allow the private respondents to steal a march over the petitioners on the basis of certificates obtained from respondent-IME, which has consistently failed the judicial scrutiny of constitutional courts in Orissa Lift (supra), and IME Further, the stand of the private respondents is self- contradictory as they have claimed that Orissa Lift (supra) and are not applicable to diplomas while also seeking judgments by seeking equivalence with a three- fulfill essential qualification for promotion MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 in terms of instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P an approach cannot be approbate and reprobate and adopt before different 27. The fulcrum of the argument of the learned counsel for the private respondents rests on the semblance of identicality and similarly circumstanced position, inasmuch as Supreme Court has clarified in judgment would not be applicable to diplomas, and that they the essential qualification as set out in instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P to 31.05.2013 in terms of by learned counsel for the squarely covered by erroneous and wholly unacceptable. The cannot be allowed to purportedly arising from an alleged defect their educational qualifications were unjustly deprived of their merited bene must be certainty precedent to eliminate ambiguity. By misinterpreting the clear and 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES in terms of instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P an approach cannot be permitted to a party to the approbate and reprobate and adopt two before different fora. The fulcrum of the argument of the learned counsel for the private respondents rests on the semblance of identicality and similarly circumstanced position, inasmuch as Supreme Court has clarified in Orissa Lift (supra) judgment would not be applicable to diplomas, and that they the essential qualification as set out in instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-1), having acquired their diplom to 31.05.2013 in terms of IME (supra) learned counsel for the private respondents that their case is squarely covered by Orissa Lift(supra) erroneous and wholly unacceptable. The cannot be allowed to claim a vested right purportedly arising from an alleged defect their educational qualifications, at the cost of the petitioners, who unjustly deprived of their merited bene must be certainty ex-post litigation in light of established precedent to eliminate ambiguity. By misinterpreting the clear and & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -29- in terms of instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-1). Such a party to the proceedings to two contrary stands taken The fulcrum of the argument of the learned counsel for the private respondents rests on the semblance of identicality and similarly circumstanced position, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Orissa Lift (supra) that the judgment would not be applicable to diplomas, and that they fulfil the essential qualification as set out in instructions dated 1), having acquired their diplomas prior IME (supra). The argument advanced private respondents that their case is Orissa Lift(supra) and IMEcase(supra) is erroneous and wholly unacceptable. The private respondents claim a vested right of promotion, purportedly arising from an alleged defect regarding validity of , at the cost of the petitioners, who unjustly deprived of their merited benefit. Further, there litigation in light of established precedent to eliminate ambiguity. By misinterpreting the clear and MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 unambiguous respondent- scope and implications the rationale adopted by the respondent mechanical factual matrix, that too  PRECEDENCE OF STATUTORY INSTRUCTIONS OVER EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS 28. It must be noted that (Annexure P instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P nature. Executive or administrative instructions do not have the authority to amend, override, or supplement statutory rules, nor can any such instructions be issued in derogation of the statutory framework. This is for the reason that adminis being non-statutory in character, do not carry the force of law. On the contrary, statutory an enabling statute, have the binding force of law, provided they are consistent with and not repugn while statutory rules occupy the field with full legal sanctity, mere executive instructions cannot operate to curtail, modify, or expand 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES unambiguous ratio decidendi of IME -Corporation cannot be allowed scope and implications thereof. This Court must necessarily reject the rationale adopted by the respondent application of the said judgment to this particular factual matrix, that too after a significant dela PRECEDENCE OF STATUTORY INSTRUCTIONS OVER EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS It must be noted that instruction (Annexure P-1) are statutory in nature while the impugned instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P Executive or administrative instructions do not have the authority to amend, override, or supplement statutory rules, nor can any such instructions be issued in derogation of the statutory framework. This is for the reason that adminis statutory in character, do not carry the force of law. On the contrary, statutory instructions, framed under the authority of an enabling statute, have the binding force of law, provided they are consistent with and not repugnant to the parent Act. Thus, while statutory rules occupy the field with full legal sanctity, mere executive instructions cannot operate to curtail, modify, or expand & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -30- IME case (supra), the be allowed to unduly expand the This Court must necessarily reject the rationale adopted by the respondent-Corporation as said judgment to this particular after a significant delay, is wholly unjust. PRECEDENCE OF STATUTORY INSTRUCTIONS OVER EXECUTIVE INSTRUCTIONS instructions dated 29.12.2004 1) are statutory in nature while the impugned instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37), are executive in Executive or administrative instructions do not have the authority to amend, override, or supplement statutory rules, nor can any such instructions be issued in derogation of the statutory framework. This is for the reason that administrative directions, statutory in character, do not carry the force of law. On , framed under the authority of an enabling statute, have the binding force of law, provided they ant to the parent Act. Thus, while statutory rules occupy the field with full legal sanctity, mere executive instructions cannot operate to curtail, modify, or expand MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 their scope. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya, Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1676; State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 711); SCC 622 : (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1676) Maharashtra v. JagannathAchyutKarandikar, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1133; State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.S. Dall& Flour Mills, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 772 v. Karnataka Lokayukta, 1998(3) RCR (Criminal) 547 : AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2496 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in also emphasized the importance of the fact that the power to grant equivalence must be exercised in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. following was held: “41. 26.05.1976 under which the Certificate issued by the appellant was recognized to be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University, does not indicate any s which such equivalence could be granted or conferred. This point becomes more crucial, as after the enactment of AICTE Act, the entirety of the field concerning "technical 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES their scope.(Reference in this regard can be made to v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya, AIR 1961 Supreme Court 751; B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 Supreme Court State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 711); P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P., (1987)3 SCC 622 : (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1676) Maharashtra v. JagannathAchyutKarandikar, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1133; State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.S. Dall& Flour Mills, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 772 v. Karnataka Lokayukta, 1998(3) RCR (Criminal) 547 : AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2496). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in emphasized the importance of the fact that the power to grant equivalence must be exercised in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. Speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, the ng was held: 41. In the present case, the communication dated 26.05.1976 under which the Certificate issued by the appellant was recognized to be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University, does not indicate any s which such equivalence could be granted or conferred. This point becomes more crucial, as after the enactment of AICTE Act, the entirety of the field concerning "technical & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -31- (Reference in this regard can be made to State of U.P. AIR 1961 Supreme Court 751; B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 Supreme Court State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone, AIR 1981 P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P., (1987)3 SCC 622 : (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1676); State of Maharashtra v. JagannathAchyutKarandikar, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1133; State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.S. Dall& Flour Mills, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 772; C. Rangaswamaeah v. Karnataka Lokayukta, 1998(3) RCR (Criminal) 547 : AIR The Hon’ble Supreme Court inIME case (supra) has emphasized the importance of the fact that the power to grant equivalence must be exercised in accordance with the relevant Speaking through Justice U.U. Lalit, the In the present case, the communication dated 26.05.1976 under which the Certificate issued by the appellant was recognized to be equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering from a recognized Indian University, does not indicate any statutory provision under which such equivalence could be granted or conferred. This point becomes more crucial, as after the enactment of AICTE Act, the entirety of the field concerning "technical MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 education" is kept in the domain of AICTE by the Parliament only to lay down norms and standards for courses, curriculum and such other facets of "technical education" but also entitles it under clause (l) to advise the Central Government in respect of grant of chart professional body or institution in the field of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges etc. Going by the width of the power, after the enactment of AICTE Act, even such privileges could be conferred only after express various statutory provisions 30. Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot gran the mandate of the Haryana State Board of Technical Education Act, 2005 (hereinafter ‘Act dated 19.12.2023 recommendation by the Academic Committee nor to of the Haryana State Board of Technical Education. As per Section 22 of the specifically empowered to make recommendations to the on matters of equivalence of qualifications such recommendations that the Board of Technical Education is required to grant equivalenc 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES education" is kept in the domain of AICTE by the Parliament. Section 10 of the AICTE Act entitles AICTE not only to lay down norms and standards for courses, curriculum and such other facets of "technical education" but also entitles it under clause (l) to advise the Central Government in respect of grant of chart professional body or institution in the field of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges etc. Going by the width of the power, after the enactment of AICTE Act, even such privileges could be conferred only after express advice of AICTE and within the confines of various statutory provisions.” (emphasis added) Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner(s) cannot grant any recognition or equivalence the mandate of the Haryana State Board of Technical Education Act, 2005 (hereinafter ‘Act of 2005’). The impugned dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37) recommendation by the Academic Committee nor to of the Haryana State Board of Technical Education. As per Section 22 of the Act of 2005, the Academic Committee is specifically empowered to make recommendations to the on matters of equivalence of qualifications uch recommendations that the Board of Technical Education is required to grant equivalence. Therefore, the impugned & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -32- education" is kept in the domain of AICTE by the Section 10 of the AICTE Act entitles AICTE not only to lay down norms and standards for courses, curriculum and such other facets of "technical education" but also entitles it under clause (l) to advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter to any professional body or institution in the field of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges etc. Going by the width of the power, after the enactment of AICTE Act, even such privileges could be conferred only advice of AICTE and within the confines of (emphasis added) Accordingly, this Court finds merit in the argument of ) that the Respondent-State alence on its own without the mandate of the Haryana State Board of Technical Education ’). The impugned instructions neither refers to any recommendation by the Academic Committee nor to any decision of the Haryana State Board of Technical Education. As per 2005, the Academic Committee is specifically empowered to make recommendations to the Board on matters of equivalence of qualifications. It is on the basis of uch recommendations that the Board of Technical Education is . Therefore, the impugned MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 notification is of a non backing. 31. Also, t not the competent authority to issue any form of validation or equivalence for any Diploma/Degree/Certificate, as this function lies solely within the domain of the Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana. statutory instructions cannot override the instructions issued 29.12.2004 (Annexure P decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation under the power conferred by S Act, 1948.  RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION AND LEGISLATIVE REPAIR 32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Depinder Singh Dhesi (2019) 8 SCC 280 intention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ne a retrospective benefit to individuals who have obtained their degrees or diplomas through the process of distance education. The Apex Court while taking a sympathetic view has only granted a one-time exemption to the individuals who we employed in the Central G 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES notification is of a non-statutory nature and lacks any legal Also, the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, is not the competent authority to issue any form of validation or equivalence for any Diploma/Degree/Certificate, as this function lies solely within the domain of the Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana. The grant of equivalence through non statutory instructions cannot override the instructions issued 2004 (Annexure P-1), which were adopted pursuant to a decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation under the power conferred by Section 79(c) of the RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION AND LEGISLATIVE REPAIR The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Depinder Singh Dhesi (2019) 8 SCC 280 intention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ne a retrospective benefit to individuals who have obtained their degrees or diplomas through the process of distance education. The Apex Court while taking a sympathetic view has only granted time exemption to the individuals who we employed in the Central Government to & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -33- statutory nature and lacks any legal he Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, is not the competent authority to issue any form of validation or equivalence for any Diploma/Degree/Certificate, as this function lies solely within the domain of the Directorate of Technical The grant of equivalence through non- statutory instructions cannot override the instructions issued dated 1), which were adopted pursuant to a decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation under ection 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION AND LEGISLATIVE The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. Depinder Singh Dhesi (2019) 8 SCC 280 has clarified that the intention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has never been to provide a retrospective benefit to individuals who have obtained their degrees or diplomas through the process of distance education. The Apex Court while taking a sympathetic view has only granted time exemption to the individuals who were already to not be reverted back. The MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 judgements cannot be misinterpreted to grant retrospective benefits to distance education diploma holders. “14. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the strength of such degrees awarded through distance education mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigat SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous enjoyme candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] provided the candidates co ability. 15. But if, the candidates concerned had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] was passed, the width of the directi was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] .If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn.Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] and the Order [O SankarPatro, (2018) 2 SCC 298 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 289] , the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but “restoration” would only be of those benefits, 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES judgements cannot be misinterpreted to grant retrospective benefits to distance education diploma holders. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the strength of such degrees awarded through distance education mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigat SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] provided the candidates could prove their worth and ability. But if, the candidates concerned had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] was passed, the width of the directi was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] .If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn.Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] and the Order [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 2 SCC 298 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 289] , the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but “restoration” would only be of those benefits, & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -34- judgements cannot be misinterpreted to grant retrospective benefits to distance education diploma holders. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the strength of such degrees awarded through distance education mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous nt of those benefits or facilities. The idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC uld prove their worth and But if, the candidates concerned had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] was passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even of the judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] .If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn.Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] and rissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 2 SCC 298 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 289] , the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but “restoration” would only be of those benefits, which they MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] . In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the Judgment [Orissa Lift SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] and the Order [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 2 SCC 298 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 289]. 33. It is cannot be done indirectly ( v. K. Shyam Sunder and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 737 v. Ranbir Singh, (1979) 1 SCC 560 the opinion that equivalence can be granted solely within the confines of the statutory provisions of the Act attempt is not permissibleand could not be achieved on account of the technical retrospective application as laid down in the judgment by a three-Judge bench of of S.R. Bhagwat v. State of Mysore, (1995) 6 SCC 16 through Justice S.B. Majumdar,it was pronouncement cannot be made ineffective by exe legislative power. The relevant part is reproduced below: “12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective with the aid of any legislative power by enact 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] . In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] and the Order [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 2 SCC 298 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 289]. It is settled law that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly (See:State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 737 v. Ranbir Singh, (1979) 1 SCC 560). Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that equivalence can be granted solely within the confines of the statutory provisions of the Act attempt is not permissibleand could not be achieved on account of the technical or legal defecteven through legislative repair by retrospective application as laid down in the judgment Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case S.R. Bhagwat v. State of Mysore, (1995) 6 SCC 16 through Justice S.B. Majumdar,it was held that a binding judicial pronouncement cannot be made ineffective by exe legislative power. The relevant part is reproduced below: “12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective with the aid of any legislative power by enacting a provision which in & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -35- were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] . In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 1 SCC 468] and the Order [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi SankarPatro, (2018) 2 SCC 298 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 289].” (emphasis added) that what cannot be done directly also State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. K. Shyam Sunder and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 737; Jagir Singh ). Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that equivalence can be granted solely within the confines of the statutory provisions of the Act of 2005. Such an attempt is not permissibleand could not be achieved on account of legal defecteven through legislative repair by retrospective application as laid down in the judgment rendered the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case S.R. Bhagwat v. State of Mysore, (1995) 6 SCC 16. Speaking held that a binding judicial pronouncement cannot be made ineffective by exercise of such legislative power. The relevant part is reproduced below: “12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective with the aid of any ing a provision which in MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 substance overrules such judgment and is not in the realm of a legislative enactment which displaces the basis or foundation of the judgment and uniformly applies to a class of persons concerned with the entire subject sought to be covered by such an enactment having retrospective effect. We may only refer to two of these judgments.” 34. The aforementioned position of l approved by a Full B 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 484 Kumar, the following was held: “28. recognised existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights. Th provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words, such rules laying down qualifications for promoti made with retrospective effect must necessarily satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the constitution : State of Mysore v. M.N. Krishna Murty, (1973) 2 SCR 575 : AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1146, B.S. Yadav v. State of Punjab, (1981) 1 SCR 1024 : AIR Gujarat v. RamanlalKeshavlalSoni, (1983) 2 SCR 287 : AIR 1984 Supreme Court 161 and KC Arora v. State of Haryana, (1984) 3 SCR 623: 1984 Lab. IC 1015.”  DELAYED DISTURBANCE CAUSED TO SETTLED SENIORITY 35. The High Court, when Article 226 of the Constitution 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES substance overrules such judgment and is not in the realm of a legislative enactment which displaces the basis or foundation of the judgment and uniformly applies to a class of persons concerned with the entire subject sought to be covered by such an enactment having retrospective effect. We may only refer to two of these judgments.” The aforementioned position of l approved by a Full Bench of this Court in 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 484. Speaking through Justice Swatanter Kumar, the following was held: …This rule is however, subject to a well recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words, such rules laying down qualifications for promoti made with retrospective effect must necessarily satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the constitution : State of Mysore v. M.N. Krishna Murty, (1973) 2 SCR 575 : AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1146, B.S. Yadav v. State of Punjab, (1981) 1 SCR 1024 : AIR 1981 Supreme Court 561, State of Gujarat v. RamanlalKeshavlalSoni, (1983) 2 SCR 287 : AIR 1984 Supreme Court 161 and KC Arora v. State of Haryana, (1984) 3 SCR 623: 1984 Lab. IC 1015.” DELAYED DISTURBANCE CAUSED TO SETTLED SENIORITY The High Court, when exercising its powers Article 226 of the Constitution of India & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -36- substance overrules such judgment and is not in the realm of a legislative enactment which displaces the basis or foundation of the judgment and uniformly applies to a class of persons concerned with the entire subject sought to be covered by such an enactment having retrospective effect. We may only refer to two of these judgments.” The aforementioned position of law has also been ench of this Court in Kaka v. Hassan Bano, g through Justice Swatanter This rule is however, subject to a well principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or erefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules, the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words, such rules laying down qualifications for promotion made with retrospective effect must necessarily satisfy the test of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the constitution : State of Mysore v. M.N. Krishna Murty, (1973) 2 SCR 575 : AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1146, B.S. Yadav v. State of Punjab, 1981 Supreme Court 561, State of Gujarat v. RamanlalKeshavlalSoni, (1983) 2 SCR 287 : AIR 1984 Supreme Court 161 and KC Arora v. State of Haryana, (1984) 3 SCR 623: 1984 Lab. IC 1015.” DELAYED DISTURBANCE CAUSED TO SETTLED exercising its powers under of India, has the authority to MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 examine the full facts and circumstances of a case and issue appropriate orders to ensure complete and substantial justice to the parties involv accordance with the principles of equity. A fundamental purpose of equity is to uphold honesty and fair conduct. Therefore, if a party has obtained an unfair advantage prior to approaching the High Court, the party to relinquish it before any relief is granted. Resultantly, it has to be held that the benefits given to the private respondents can be withdrawn. 36. Inconvenience in the form of financial outl difficulty of recasting seniority holds little weight, particularly when rectifying an accidental defect serves to uphold the broader principles of justice and merit. The issue in case is well uncertainty view is tenable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in and another v through Justice C.K. Thakker, observed as follows: “28. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES examine the full facts and circumstances of a case and issue appropriate orders to ensure complete and substantial justice to the parties involved. This extraordinary jurisdiction is exercised in accordance with the principles of equity. A fundamental purpose of equity is to uphold honesty and fair conduct. Therefore, if a party has obtained an unfair advantage prior to approaching the High Court, the Court may consider such advantage and require the party to relinquish it before any relief is granted. Resultantly, it has to be held that the benefits given to the private respondents can be withdrawn. Inconvenience in the form of financial outl difficulty of recasting seniority holds little weight, particularly when rectifying an accidental defect serves to uphold the broader principles of justice and merit. The issue in case is well-settled and cannot be allowed to uncertainty ex-ante, especially when no alternative, reasonable view is tenable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in and another v. Narendra Singh,(2008 through Justice C.K. Thakker, observed as follows: “28. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -37- examine the full facts and circumstances of a case and issue appropriate orders to ensure complete and substantial justice to ed. This extraordinary jurisdiction is exercised in accordance with the principles of equity. A fundamental purpose of equity is to uphold honesty and fair conduct. Therefore, if a party has obtained an unfair advantage prior to approaching the the Court may consider such advantage and require the party to relinquish it before any relief is granted. Resultantly, it has to be held that the benefits given to the private respondents Inconvenience in the form of financial outlay or the difficulty of recasting seniority holds little weight, particularly when rectifying an accidental defect serves to uphold the broader principles of justice and merit. The issue involved in the present settled and cannot be allowed to remain subject to , especially when no alternative, reasonable view is tenable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India 2008) 2 SCC 750, speaking through Justice C.K. Thakker, observed as follows: “28. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible But, we cannot countenance the submission MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and the following due process of law.In Indian Council of Agricultural Research &Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan&Ors., 1997 (4) SCT 156: (1997) 6 SCC 766, it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, th rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore Statutory Rules. 37. Further, i long-standing seniority filed at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as they seek to disturb the vested rights of other persons. Reliance can be placed on the Judgements of the Supreme Court in India and Ors.,(1976) Singh, (1986) 4 SCC 531 India, (1998) 2 SCC 523 service matters, the issue of seniority should not be re after a reasonable period has passe established position without any justifiable cause. In the present case, the respondents could have raised their objection for the first time when the seniority list was prepared and circulated. They cannot be permitted to distu belated stage 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law.In Indian Council of Agricultural Research &Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan&Ors., 1997 (4) SCT 156: (1997) 6 SCC 766, it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore Statutory Rules.” Further, it is settled law that petitions disputing the ing seniority filed at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as they seek to disturb the vested rights of other persons. Reliance can be placed on the Judgements of the Supreme Court in Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India and Ors.,(1976) 1 SCC 599, and Singh, (1986) 4 SCC 531, andB.S. Bajwa and Anr. vs. Union of India, (1998) 2 SCC 523. The Supreme Court cautioned that in service matters, the issue of seniority should not be re after a reasonable period has passed, as doing so unsettles an established position without any justifiable cause. In the present case, the respondents could have raised their objection for the first time when the seniority list was prepared and circulated. They cannot be permitted to disturb the settled position at such a belated stage after 11 years. & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -38- of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. y can always be corrected by following due process of law.In Indian Council of Agricultural Research &Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan&Ors., 1997 (4) SCT 156: (1997) 6 SCC 766, it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the e employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore t is settled law that petitions disputing the ing seniority filed at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as they seek to disturb the vested rights of other persons. Reliance can be placed on the Judgements of the Malcom Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of , and K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. B.S. Bajwa and Anr. vs. Union of The Supreme Court cautioned that in service matters, the issue of seniority should not be re-opened d, as doing so unsettles an established position without any justifiable cause. In the present case, the respondents could have raised their objection for the first time when the seniority list was prepared and circulated. They rb the settled position at such a MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 CONCLUSION 38. In view of the foregoing discussion, framed above are answered in the following terms: (i) T in IME case(supra) government employees in the absence of any statutory mandate or specific directions by the Court. (ii) The statutory P-1), 19.12.2023 (Annexure P eligibility criteria (iii)The benefits arising out of executive 19.12.2023 (Annexure P retrospectively. 39. Accordingly, all the The impugned orders i.e. 23.02.2024 (Annexure P dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P 19.12.2023 (Annexure P respondents are the petitioner(s). 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing discussion, framed above are answered in the following terms: The judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court IME case(supra)is not ipso facto government employees in the absence of any statutory mandate or specific directions by the Court. (ii) The statutory instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure 1), cannot be superseded by executive 9.12.2023 (Annexure P-37), eligibility criteria. ii)The benefits arising out of executive 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37) retrospectively. Accordingly, all the captioned impugned orders i.e.office order No.66/EOM/G 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-35) and office order No.67/EOM/G dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-36) as well as instructions dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P-37) are hereby set aside respondents are directed to restore all consequential benefits to the petitioner(s). & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -39- In view of the foregoing discussion, the questions framed above are answered in the following terms: he judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ipso facto applicable to State government employees in the absence of any statutory mandate or specific directions by the Court. instructions dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure cannot be superseded by executive instructions dated 37), without amending the ii)The benefits arising out of executive instructions dated 37) cannot be conferred, captionedpetitions are allowed. office order No.66/EOM/G-129 dated 35) and office order No.67/EOM/G-129 as well as instructions dated 37) are hereby set aside and the rected to restore all consequential benefits to MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CWP-8363-2024 40. In further directed that the seniority of the petitioners, some of whom were promoted as early as 30.01.2013, shall not be disturbed at this belated stage. private respondents shall be placed below the last promoted petitioner or similarly situated promotees. that the decision of the respondent petitioners to their feeder posts is patently irrational, unjust, and prejudicial to them. 41. In order to do complete justice, and in case of non availability of the posts on which private respondents could hav been promoted, the respondents to accommodate the settled seniority of petitioners who were promoted earlier 42. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 43. A p other connected cases. 09.09.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2024& OTHER CONNECTED CASES In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, further directed that the seniority of the petitioners, some of whom were promoted as early as 30.01.2013, shall not be ed at this belated stage. Accordingly, it is directed that the private respondents shall be placed below the last promoted petitioner or similarly situated promotees. that the decision of the respondent-Corporation to revert the itioners to their feeder posts is patently irrational, unjust, and prejudicial to them. In order to do complete justice, and in case of non availability of the posts on which private respondents could hav been promoted, the respondents may create sup to accommodate them on notional basis without disturbing the settled seniority of petitioners who were promoted earlier All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : & OTHER CONNECTED CASES -40- the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, it is further directed that the seniority of the petitioners, some of whom were promoted as early as 30.01.2013, shall not be Accordingly, it is directed that the private respondents shall be placed below the last promoted petitioner or similarly situated promotees. This Court is satisfied Corporation to revert the itioners to their feeder posts is patently irrational, unjust, and In order to do complete justice, and in case of non- availability of the posts on which private respondents could have may create supernumerary posts on notional basis without disturbing the settled seniority of petitioners who were promoted earlier in time. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, hotocopy of this order be placed on the files of (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE :Yes/No : Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2025.09.13 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh