1 2025:CGHC:59604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3516 of 2014 1. S.K.Bharti S/o Ganesh Prasad Bharti Aged About 44 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar, Irrigation Colony, Ps Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2. Manas Prasad Rathore S/o K.R.Rathore Aged About 50 Years R/o In Frohnt Of Atma Ram Chal, Ward No. 14, Sakti, Ps Sakti, Distt Janjgir Champa, Cg, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. T.R.Anchal S/o Lt Budh Ram Anchal Aged About 43 Years Sub Engineer, Office Of The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, Ps Masturi, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Kumar Dahire S/o Lt G.R.Dahire Aged About 45 Years Sub Engineer, Water Resources Sub Divisiohn, Takhatpur, Ps Takhatpur, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. V.K.Thakre S/o Lt R.V.Tahkre Aged About 46 Years Sub Engineer Kharang, Water Resources Sub Division, Bilaspur, Ps Civil Lines, Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. S.N.Baghel S/o M.R.Baghel Aged About 42 Years Sub Engineer Kharang, Water Resources Sub Division, Bilaspur, Ps Civil Lines, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. R.K.Mittal S/o Lt M.K.Mittal Aged About 50 Years Sub Engineer, Kharang Water Resources Sub Division, Bilaspur, Ps Civil Lines, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 8. G.R.Dewangan S/o S.R.Dewangan Aged About 53 Years Sub Engineer, Water Resources Sub Division, Bilaspur, Ps And Dist Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 9. V.K.Khare S/o R.R.Khare Aged About 48 Years Sub Engineer, Water Resources Sub Division, Bilaspur, Ps And Distt Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 10. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari S/o Lt B.R.Tiwari Aged About 50 Years Sub Engineer National Water Management, Sub Division, Bilaspur, Ps Civil Lines, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 11.Nakul Kurre S/o Lt C.R.Kurre Aged About 47 Years Sub Engineer, Water Resources Sub Division, Bilaspur, Dist Bilaspur, Cg, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.12.10 16:33:52 +0530 2 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2. The Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan, Vidyapeeth Deemed, University, Pratap Nagar, Udaypur, Through Its Director, Janardan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan, Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Pratap Nagar, Udaypur, Rajsthan, District : Udaipur, Rajasthan 4. The Distance Education Council Through Its Director, Maidan Gadhi, New Delhi 110068, District : New Delhi, Delhi 5. All India Council For Technical Education A Statutory Body Of State Of India, Through Its Director, All India Council For Technical Education, 7th Floor, Chandarlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi , District : New Delhi, Delhi ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State/Respondents No. : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. 1 and 2 For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.12 .2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief :- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order Dated 31.08.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department (Annexure-P/1); 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to include the names of the petitioner in the Gradation-list of Graduate Sub- Engineers w.e.f. 01.01.2008 and the petitioners may kindly be granted all the consequential benefits; 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer from the quota of Graduate Sub-Engineers, thereby considering the position of the petitioners as on 01.01.2008, when the names of the petitioners were included in the Gradation-List of the Graduate Sub- Engineers; 10.4 Any other relief(s), which the Hon’ble Court deems fit & proper in favour of petitioners, may kindly be pleased to granted in the facts & circumstances of the case.” 3 2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioners were holding substantive post of Sub-Engineers in Water Resources Department. They acquired degree of B.Tech. (Civil Engineering) through distance education mode from Janardan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Pratapnagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan. In the month of January, 2005, according to documents placed on record, the petitioners were pursuing their third semester. The petitioners acquired B. Tech. degree in the year 2007-08 respectively and on the basis of degrees their names were included in the gradation list published on 01.01.2008 as degree holder Sub-Engineers. Later on names of the petitioners were excluded and deleted from gradation list of graduate Engineers vide order dated 11.11.2008. 3. WPS No. 5537 of 2009 was filed by the petitioners, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.04.2013, wherein direction was issued to consider the candidature of the petitioners in respect of their degrees obtained through distance mode. The registrar of the concerned University informed the Director, Technical Education Chhattisgarh to the effect that the degrees granted by said University are equivalent to the degrees granted by recognized University of the State. The representations made by the petitioners were rejected on the ground that graduation degrees granted by the respondent No. 3 University through distance mode were not recognized by the AICTE/respondent No. 5. 4. Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate appearing for the petitioners would argue that issue involved in the present matter is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and Ors. reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468 has held that AICTE is sole repository of power to law down parameters or 4 qualitative norms for broader concept of “technical education”. It is further held that both theory and practicals constitute and integral part of technical education. No relaxation could be granted for basic things necessary for conferring Engineering degrees. It is also held that starting of said cources without approval of AICTE was illegal and said illegality could not have been cured by mechanical ex post facto approval given by Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC which approved said degrees for academic years 2001-2005. She would submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the AICTE to devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test granting liberty to the students concerned to appear in the test to be conducted in accordance with the directions issued in para 58 of the judgment. She would submit that the petitioners may be granted liberty to participate in the test in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and if the petitioners do not wish to exercise their option, direction may be issued for refund of entire money deposited by the petitioners towards tuition fee and other charges. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Raj Kumar Gutpa, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. appearing for the State would oppose. They would submit that the petitioners were aware since inception that the respondent No. 3/University is not recognized by AICTE, even though, they acquired degrees of B. Tech. They would contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted liberty as mentioned in para 66 of judgment to the candidates, who were enrolled during the academic session 2001-2005. They would contend that the test, if any, has already been conducted by AICTE and a fresh direction cannot be issued to conduct examination. They would contend that the candidates/petitioners who were admitted after academic year 2001-05, their degrees in 5 Engineering awarded by the deemed to be Universities through distance education mode were recalled and benefits secured by those candidates were withdrawn. They would contend that if the petitioners were enrolled during 2001-2005, they would be entitled for refund of tuition fee etc. They would submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document. 7. In the matter of Rabi Sankar Patro (supra), the diploma holder in Electric Engineering joined services as Junior Engineer, and thereafter, acquired B. Tech (Civil) degree from deemed to be University, namely JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur, through Distance Education in the year 2009, he filed a writ petition claiming therein promotion on the basis of subsequent degree. The writ petition was allowed and direction was issued to the State of Orrisa by the High Court to consider his claim. Against the order passed in said writ petition and similar petitions, the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after dealing with various provisions of regulations framed by University Grant Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the Distance Education Council (DEC) concluded in para 58 and 66 as under :- “58. AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in written examination as well as in practicals for the concerned students admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the concerned subjects. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in respective States wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted 6 during May- June, 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the concerned students and if they do not pass the test/tests their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the test/tests, the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the concerned Deemed to be University within a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15th of January, 2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests in respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. If they clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the concerned candidates. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the concerned candidates do not clear the test/tests within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test/tests, their degrees in Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and cancelled. It goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them. 66. Accordingly we direct: 66.1 The 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to Deemed to be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in Technical Education without the approval of AICTE. 66.2 Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside. 66.3 Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand suspended. 66.4 AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not 7 more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and 47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. 66.5 Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say their degrees shall stand cancelled and all advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 58. 66.6 If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully. 66.7 As regards students who were admitted after the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 59 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 59. 66.8 By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities shall refund the sums indicated above in 66.7 and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter. 66.9 We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in Para 60 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation. 66.10 The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct 8 an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above are not refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise. 66.11 We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018- 2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off- campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course specific. 66.12 The UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word ‘University’ within one month from today. 66.13 The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the Deemed to be Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 31, 2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11.09.2018.” 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were enrolled during 2001-2005; therefore, the petitioners are granted liberty to make a representation before respondents No. 4 and 5 in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rabi Sankar Patro (supra) within a period of 30 days from today, and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to examine and consider the representations so 9 made by the petitioners strictly in accordance with the law keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rabi Sankar Patro (supra) preferably within a period of 90 days. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant