AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harinath.N, J
This contempt case is filed seeking to punish the respondents under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for their willful and deliberate disobedience of the Orders passed by this Courts on 31.01.2024 in WP.No.8390 of 2008.
The petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the action of the Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam, Tirumala in not registering the B.Tech Degree obtained by the petitioners from the Institute of Advance Studies in Education (Deemed University), Rajasthan.
This Court after considering the matter on merits allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to extend all service benefits to the petitioners as they would be eligible for. It was within the domain of respondents to follow the roster of seniority. The date of ratification of the degree obtained by the petitioners was directed to be considered for extension of service benefits.
Sri.K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel submits that in pursuance of the directions of this Court the respondents have issued proceedings dated 29.03.2024, whereby the petitioners were informed that their cases would be considered for promotion as per their turn in confirmed seniority. The learned senior counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others (2018) 1 SCC 468 in the clarification sought by some of the applicants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that those who could not pass in the first attempt were given one more opportunity. The petitioners passed the AICTE-UGC Examination in the second attempt in tune with the clarification order passed in MA.No.38 of 2018 in CA.No.17907 of 2017, dated 22.01.2018. The learned senior counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed restoration of the benefits and advantages which were extended to the employees prior to the passing of the Judgment. The petitioners were converted as Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) on 13.10.2017.
It is further submitted that the petitioners qualifications stand on par with other Engineers recruited in the 1st respondent and as such are entitled for all the benefits including promotions. In pursuance of the Judgment, the petitioners submitted a representation on 20.02.2024 and 22.03.2024. The 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 29.03.2024 by informing the petitioners that the order of the Court has been complied and implemented.
The learned senior counsel submits that the 1st petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2024, the 3rd petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation during pendency of writ petition, the 2nd petitioner would be the beneficiary of the order of this Court, however, the illogical proceedings dated 29.03.2024 were issued denying the promotion and service benefits to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the 1st respondent follows the APSEB Service Regulations for promotions and as per APSEB Rules the ratio between the direct recruitment and conversion from Assistant Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer is 50:50, as such the petitioners ought to have been extended the service benefits and promotion as directed by this Court. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that the stand of the 1st respondent, that they are following the R&B Regulations where the ratio is 90:10 is false and misleading. The learned senior counsel further submits that the proposal sent by the 1st respondent to the Government for adopting the R&B Service Rules and Regulations is not notified as on date. In such circumstances, the respondents ought to follow the APSEB Service Regulations. As per the existing regulations, the ratio is 50:50. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent is coming in the way of implementation of the orders and as such he is arrayed as a party in the contempt case though he is not arrayed as a party in the writ petition. The learned senior counsel submits that there was no direction from this Court to pass speaking orders.
He further submits that, on the contrary there is a positive direction from this Court for the respondents to comply. The proceedings dated 29.03.2024 would indicate the stand of the respondents in categorically and with a deliberate intention to disregard the directions of this Court in the writ petition. Such willful disobedience would attract the provisions of Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and prays for the punishment of the respondents.
Sri.O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that, there is no contempt committed by the respondents either wilfully or unknowingly of the orders of this Court. He further submits that the ratio followed by the respondents as on the date of passing of the order by this Court was in accordance with the R&B Service Regulations by following 90:10 ratio and the GOMs.No.128, dated 09.03.1998 was issued adopting the Service Regulations of Transport, Roads and Building Department. The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioners were given conversion from the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 13.10.2017. The directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others were scrupulously followed.
The learned senior counsel further submits that, the petitioners passed the examination conducted by AICTE-UGC in December, 2018. The repeated assertion of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners ought to be extended the service benefits from 18.07.2007 (the date of issuance of provisional certificate) is incorrect and not in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others. It is submitted that the act of the 2nd respondent in passing the proceedings dated 29.03.2024 cannot be held as contemptuous.
Heard both the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the order passed by this Court in writ petition and the following issue is framed for consideration.
(i) Issue No.1 : Whether the respondents have committed willful disobedience of the orders of this Court in WP.No.8390 of 2008 ?
(ii) Issue No.2 : Whether the respondents are liable for punishment under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ?
The petitioners have ratified their qualification on the date of passing the AICTE-UGC Examination in the 2nd attempt in the examination conducted for the second time in December, 2018.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others (supra (2018) 1 SCC 468) held at para 57 and 58 as follows ;
57.Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex-post-facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of Courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001- 2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universities flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned students persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the concerned students. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended.
58 .The 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 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.
The petitioners were also enrolled during the academic sessions 2001 to 2005 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to safeguard the interest of those students granted an opportunity to all those students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 to clear the examination conducted by AICTE-UGC and till then their certificates stood suspended.
The petitioners could not pass the AICTE-UGC examination in the first attempt and could only pass in the second attempt in the examination conducted in December, 2018. The petitioners were promoted with effect from 13.10.2017 much prior to the passing of the judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited case. The benefit extended to the petitioners with effect from 13.10.2017 was suspended till they passed the examination and ratified their certificates in December, 2018. The petitioners were restored their service benefits in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court soon after they passed the AICTE-UGC examination.
The proceedings dated 05.12.2017 issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioners were reverted from the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) to the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). These proceedings were issued in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited case.
The certificates obtained by those students who were admitted during the year 2001 to 2005 in the Institute of Advance Studies in Education (Deemed University), Rajasthan were not considered until the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court subject to the candidates passing the AICTE-UGC Examination. Those certificates stood ratified as on the date of passing the AICTE-UGC Examination. Those students who could not pass the examination in two attempts, their certificates would not be recognized or considered. Passing of the examination conducted by AICTE-UGC would not entitle the candidates to claim ratification of their degree from the date of passing the examination conducted by the Institute of Advance Studies in Education (Deemed University), Rajasthan and issuance of provisional certificate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed restoration of service benefits if any granted to those employees who were granted the benefit of the degree and extended service benefits.
The petitioners were restored their service benefits soon after they passed the AICTE-UGC examination as mandatory and as such this Court finds that there is no violation of order passed in WP.No.8390 of 2008 by the respondents.
This Court finds that the proceedings dated 29.03.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent do not construe of having committed any contempt of the order of this Court.
Accordingly, this Court finds that no act of contempt is committed by the respondents and accordingly issues 1 and 2 framed by this Court in the above case are answered in negative and consequently the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.