AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.This petition is admitted to hearing and taken on board for final consideration as it pertains to the year 2009.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
i) Writ of certiorari to set aside and quash the final select list issued on 12.06.2009 by the Secretary, J&K Service Selection Board, whereby the
respondent No. 3, who is lower in merit than the petitioner, has been selected in O.S.C category, in place of the petitioner.
ii) Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Junior Engineer Mechanical.
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner claims to be a graduate in Automobile Engineering from Gulbarga University. He has passed his
M. Tech. in Mechanical Designs in the year 2007. On 31.05.2008, the J&K Service Selection Board issued Advertisement Notification No. 08 of
2008, inviting applications for the posts of Jr. Engineers (Mechanical). The petitioner being eligible submitted his application form along with the
certificates of qualifications and other Social Caste Category, as the petitioner belongs to OSC category as prescribed in the Reservation Rules for
the post of Jr. Engineers (Mechanical). Thereafter on the basis of the merit of the candidates who had applied to the Service Selection Board
pursuant to the Advertisement Notification dated 31.05.2008. The candidates were invited to participate in the selection process. The petitioner was
also called to appear in the interview. After the interviews were conducted by the Selection Committee/Board, a provisional select list was notified by
the Board, wherein petitioner’s name figures in the provisional select list notified by the Board in other Social Castes Category.
It is further contended that, the select list was issued by the Selection Board, however, instead of the name of the petitioner, name of one Vikas
Chalotra-respondent No. 3 has been shown, who was lower in merit than the petitioner. Once the provisional list was notified, wherein the name of
the petitioner was shown as one of the selected candidates in the OSC Category, the respondents cannot arbitrarily delete the name of the petitioner
from the final list and include the name of private respondent No.3. This action of the respondents of excluding the name of the petitioner from the
final select list and including the name of respondent No.3 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and wrong. The selection of respondent No.3 in
OSC category is assailed in this petition, precisely on the following amongst other grounds:
a) That the posts of Jr. Engineers Mechanical were advertised by the Service Selection Board and in response to the said advertisement notice, the
petitioner submitted his application form as the petitioner is engineering graduate and also possesses Master Degree in engineering i.e. M. Tech. On
the basis of the merit, the petitioner was called by the Service Selection Board to participate in the interview. The petitioner participated in the
selection process and was selected in the provisional list. The said list was notified by the Board in view of the merit of the candidates. The
petitioner’s merit was the highest in the OSC category and, therefore, he was the only candidate shown to have been selected in the OSC
Category. The exclusion of the name of the petitioner from the final list and selection of respondent No. 3 in the final list in placed of the petitioner is
arbitrary, illegal, wrong and unconstitutional. The merit has been framed by the Selection Board on the basis of the Qualification of the candidates
who appeared in the selection process. The petitioner, as already stated herein above, was graduate and also had acquired Post Graduate Degree
before the submission of application form and on the basis of his academic merit and marks of interview he was ahead of private respondent and,
therefore, his name appeared in the provisional select list. The selection process stood concluded with the issuance of provisional list. The respondents
have deleted the name of the petitioner and shown the respondent No. 3 to be selected in place of the petitioner in the final select list. This action of
the respondent is totally arbitrary, illegal, wrong and unconstitutional. No notice was ever issued to the petitioner before deleting his name from the
select list and the whole exercise has been undertaken by the respondents arbitrary and in an illegal manner. The selection of respondent No. 3 in
OSC category is contrary to law and is unsustainable.Â
b) That action of the respondents of deleting the name of the petitioner from the select list and showing the respondent No. 3 who is lower in merit
than that of the petitioner, is a glaring example of colorable and malafide exercise of power, actuated by extraneous reasons and considerations.
c) That the action impugned is against the principles of natural justice.Â
On 02.07.2009, this Court while entertaining the instant writ petition issued notice to the respondents and the selection of respondent No. 3 was
kept subject to the outcome of the CMP.Â
Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Dy.AG enters appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. In the objections filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it is
averred that vide Notification No. 08 of 2008 dated 3rd May, 2008, applications were invited for making selection against 67 posts of Junior Engineers
(Mech) State Cadre with the following break up.
 Open Merit            38
 RBA   13
 SC   06
 ST   07
 ALC   02
 OSC   01
 Total   67
In the said advertisement notification, the qualification prescribed for the post was;
Degree in Mechanical Engineering
  Or
AMIE-Section (A&B) India
  Or
Three years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from
Government Recognized Institute.
For making selection to the aforesaid posts following selection criteria was adopted.
 Weight-age to Basic Qualification      : 70 Points (pro-rata) basis
 M. Tech.         : 10 Points
 Viva voce         :  20 Points
    Total      :  100 Points.
It is further averred that the petitioner was evaluated and he secured 55.06 points under OSC category and the cut off under OSC category was
64.44 points. It is stated that the merit of the petitioner was inclusive of 10 points ear-marked for his M. Tech. qualification obtained by the petitioner
from Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, but subsequently on enquiry conducted by the State Vigilance Organization, which revealed that
engineering courses offered by Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation (Deemed University) are not affiliated with the University Grants
Commission nor are recognized in laws. Â
According to Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Dy. AG on this account, the weight-age of 10 points ear-marked for M. Tech., which had been
awarded to the petitioner, was taken out of consideration and the merit of the petitioner came down and the petitioner came to be ousted from the
provisional select list. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner was not recommended in the final select list and in his place, private respondent No. 3-
Vikas Chalotra, who was a candidate next in merit, was recommended.
I have considered rival contentions. Appellant applied for the post of Jr. Engineer under OSC category in response to the J&K Service Selection
Board Advertisement Notification No. 08 of 2008 dated 31.5.208. Petitioner is M.Tech. having obtained decree from Vinayaka Mission Research
Foundation, which is Deemed University Tamil Naidu. M.Tech. is technical course. Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation Tamil Nadu (Deemed
University) is not affiliated with the University Grants Commission for such course. The course of University which is not recognized by UGS
confers no right on holder of decree. UGC recognises technical degrees by the distant mode only if the University concerned awards such degrees
after obtaining the permission of the AICTE (for offering such degrees/courses by distance education). Petitioner has been granted 10 points for
M.Tech., so when said degree is not recognized, he is not entitled to 10 points. Petitioner had obtained 65.06 points inclusive of 10 points on such
degree under OSC category in the provisional select list, but on inquiry conducted by the State Vigilance Organisation, 10 points ear marked for
M.Tech. were taken out of consideration and the merit of the petitioner came down to 55.06; whereas cut off under OSC category was 64.44 points,
so he cannot claim any right.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Orissa lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and ors., reported in 2018 (1) SCC 468, held as
under:-
 Education law-----Professional colleges /educationâ€"Engineering or Technical colleges or MBA â€"AICTE Role and duties-Technical education
â€"Degree in engineering â€"Grant of--- When Permissible â€" Prescribing and approving authority for grant of degree in engineering held ,is AICTE
and not Distance education council (DEC) under Indira Gandhi National open University Act 1985therefore engineering degree in present case could
not have been conducted by open and Distance learning mode(ODL), even if approved by DEC, as they were not approved or expressly authorized
by AICTE- therefore Engineering degrees in present case conferred through ODL mode ,held illegal â€"consequences and relief for student obtaining
benefits like promotion in Govt. services on the basis of such degree laid down.
Relevant extracts:- 38. Technical education leading to the award of degrees in Engineering consists of imparting of lessons in theory as well as
practicals. The practicals form the backbone of such education which is hands-on approach involving actual application of principles taught in theory
under the watchful eyes of Demonstrators or Lecturers. Face to face imparting of knowledge in theory classes is to be reinforced in practical
classes. The practicals, thus, constitute an integral part of the technical education system. If this established concept of imparting technical education
as a qualitative norm is to be modified or altered and in a given case to be substituted by distance education learning, then as a concept the AICTE
ought to have accepted it in clear terms. What parameters ought to be satisfied if the regular course of imparting technical education is in any way to
be modified or altered, is for AICTE alone to decide. The decision must be specific and unequivocal and cannot be inferred merely because of
absence of any Guidelines in the matter. No such decision was ever expressed by AICTE. On the other hand, it has always maintained that courses
leading to degrees in Engineering cannot be undertaken through distance education mode. Whether that approach is correct or not is not the point in
issue. For the present purposes, if according to AICTE such courses ought not to be taught in distance education mode, that is the final word and is
binding â€" unless rectified in a manner known to law. Even National Policy on Education while emphasizing the need to have a flexible, pattern and
programmes through distance education learning in technical and managerial education, laid down in Para 6.19 that AICTE will be responsible for
planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standards including maintenance of parity of certification and ensuring coordinated and
integrated development of technical and management education. In our view whether subjects leading to degrees in Engineering, could be taught in
distance education mode or not is within the exclusive domain of the AICTE. The answer to the first limb of the first question posed by us is
therefore clear that without the Guidelines having been issued in that behalf by AICTE expressly permitting degree courses in Engineering through
distance education mode, the Deemed to be Universities were not justified in introducing such courses.
In view of what has been discussed above and law on the point, this petition is dismissed.