APHC010098162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 5295/2024 Between: 1. GUDA VENKATA SESHAGIRI, S/O GUDA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN TGP 7TH BC SUB- DIVISION NO.3, NAIDUPETA,TIRUPATI DISTRICT, DIVISION TELUGU GANGA PROJECT DIVISION, VENKATAGIRI O/O. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TGP AND GNSS CIRCLE (WRD) DEPARTMENT, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH, R/O. NORTH RAJUPALEM VILLAGE, KODAVALUR MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT - 524366 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (WATER RESOURCES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF AW, WATER RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SUPERINTENDINGENGINEER, TGP AND GNSS CIRCLE (WRD) DEPARTMENT, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TGP DIVISION, RAPUR, NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN / SECRETARY, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI - 110070. 2 6. THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, (INDIA) CAREER HOUSE, BINDRA COMPLEX, MODEL TOWN, NEAR TIKONA PARK, LUDHIANA PUNJAB. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in passing the impugned order dated 10-01-2024 which is served on this petitioner only on 29- 01-2024 vide Speaking Order Rc/ENC/I(l)/Abyt/4292156/2019, wherein the promotion proposal of the petitioner through the appointment by transfer from Junior Assistant to the post of Junior Technical Officer is denied by the 2nd respondent based upon the report submitted by the 3rd respondent herein without verifying the correctness of the same from the certificates submitted by this Petitioner which are issued by the 5th and 6th respondent herein under RTI further without taking into consideration the representation made by this Petitioner dated 10-07-2023 as per the directions of this Honble court dated 18-12-2023 passed in W.P.No. 32467/2023 as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to the established principles of law and in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner Guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Impugned Order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 10-01- 2024 which is served on this petitioner only on 29-01-2024 vide Speaking Order Rc/ENC/I(l)/AbyV4292156/2019 by directing the 2nd respondent herein to pass promotion orders in favour of the petitioner by considering the Certificates of this Petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MD AMEEN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY 3. M UMADEVI 3 The Court made the following ORDER:- The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent herein in passing the impugned order dated 10-01- 2024 which is served on this petitioner only on 29- 01-2024 vide Speaking Order Rc/ENC/I(l)/Abyt/4292156/2019, wherein the promotion proposal of the petitioner through the appointment by transfer from Junior Assistant to the post of Junior Technical Officer is denied by the 2nd respondent based upon the report submitted by the 3rd respondent herein without verifying the correctness of the same from the certificates submitted by this Petitioner …” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that initially, the petitioner has made a representation while working as a Junior Assistant in Telugu Ganga Project Division, Venkatagiri, under the control of 3rd respondent. On 09.02.2021, the petitioner made a request to consider him for the post of Junior Technical Officer on appointment by transfer based on the qualifications obtained by the petitioner on 20.04.2013 through the Institutional Member, SVM College, Nellore, AP-IM.No.40241. The Institutional Member is an ICE authorized member that gives academic and administrative support to students. The Civil Engineering Course has section A and B to complete the course. As the 4 petitioner has a Computer Science Degree, he is exempted from doing Section A of AMICE. Further the institution of Civil Engineers, Ludhiana, Punjab is recognized by Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD- Central Government Authority), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The said recognitions are valid for employment/ promotion in Central and State Governments for all the students who are enrolled in the Institution on or before 31.05.2013. In fact, the validity of the said certificates were came up for consideration before Hon’ble Apex Court in Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) Through its Chairman Vs State of Punjab1. Considering the entire material, the Hon’ble Apex Court has passed the following order: “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 have laid down that the Certificates issued by the appellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a Degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of students enrolled up to 31.05.2013 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 1 (2019) 16 SCC 95 5 could appear at the examinations conducted by the appellant under a regime which was put in place by the Central Government itself and the course content as well as the curriculum were reviewed by the AICTE. However, the aforementioned Notification and Public Notice were clear that after 01.06.2013 the concerned orders granting equivalence would cease to have any effect.” 4. As per the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner has enrolled into civil engineering course on 20.04.2013 i.e., much prior to the cutoff date fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that certificates which are granted by MHRD in consultation with the AICTE up to 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD Office Memorandum. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner has also obtained certificate prior to the cut-off date fixed by the Apex Court i.e., 31.05.2013. 5. Learned counsel further argued that the main rejection order passed by the 2nd respondent on 10.01.2024 is only based on the report submitted by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant obtained AMICE degree from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India) Ludhiana, which is not recognized by the UGC or by AICTE. The said observation is contrary to the observations made by the Apex Court in the above referred judgment. So far as 2nd observation is concerned which speaks about recognition of centre, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 6th respondent has categorically admitted in page No.3 and 4 of its affidavit that 6 the centre i.e., SVM College, Nellore was recognized. When that being the admission made by the 6th respondent, the 3rd respondent ought not to have made observations with regard to the genuinity of the certificate. 6. Reply to the said contentions, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has made his submissions based on the averments made in the counter. In that the respondents have taken ground that the petitioner failed to prove that he has undergone practical training from the authorized institution of AICTE and in the absence of the prior permission and leave sanction from the department as the petitioner is working as employee and without undergoing three years practical training and six months project work, the petitioner is not eligible to write AMICE(I) with his name. Hence, petitioner has obtained certificate in a fraudulent manner. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, the rejection is made only on two grounds i.e., with regard to the recognition of the institution by UGC or by AICTE. The said aspect is already considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and held that certificates issued prior to 31.05.2013 are eligible and so far as 2nd ground is concerned, the 6th respondent has confirmed the recognition of the institution. 8. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned rejection order is contrary to law and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside. 7 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by remanding the matter to 2nd respondent to once again consider the case of the petitioner as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment and also based on record. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 21.01.2026 Dvs 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.5295 of 2024 Dated: 21.01.2026 Dvs