Rajendra Singh And Anr. vs Union Of India And Others

[1] These petitions have been filed by two petitioners but on substantially similar facts which can be noted from WP(C) No.383 of 2018. Petitioner Shri Rajendra Singh is employed in Border Security Force (BSF, for short). He was initially appointed to the post of Constable (GD). Thereafter, he was re-appointed to the post of Head Constable/Generator Operator on 03.09.2001. On 11.08.2010 he was posted on deputation in the Grade of Junior Engineer (Electrical)/Junior Grade/Sub-Inspector. However, subsequently the department reverted to the petitioner to the post of Head Constable (General Operator) on the ground that qualification of diploma of Electrical Engineering which the petitioner had obtained through distance learning mode was not recognized. The petitioner first challenged this reversion before Rajasthan High Court which petition was later on transferred to Delhi High Court where it is pending. Pending such petition, the Director General of BSF published a seniority list of Sub- Inspectors (Electrical) in which the petitioner is shown to be holding the rank of SI/JE (Electrical) with effect from 11.08.2010. However, in the remarks column it is stated as under :

"Subject to outcome of CWP No.11869 filed at High Court Rajasthan."

In WP (C) 384/2018 facts are very similar except that this petitioner had first filed a petition before Karnataka High Court challenging his reversion which we transferred to Delhi High Court and is pending.

[2] In these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a direction that the said remarks put by the department in the seniority list published in the year 2015, be deleted. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the diploma obtained by the petitioners is valid and duly recognized by AICTE. Counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited versus Rabi Sankar Patro and others dated 22.01.2018 in which in a review petition the Supreme Court clarified its earlier decision observing that the findings given in the judgment concerned only the degree awarded by such distance learning institutions and that the question of diploma awarded by such institutions was not under consideration before the Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners thus there was no cloud over the validity of the diploma obtained by the petitioners from the distance learning institute.

[3] The case of the department, however, is that quite apart from the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation (supra) the course which the petitioners pursued, ought to have been recognized by AICTE which in the present case is missing.

[4] It is neither possible nor correct on my part to examine this controversy of the validity of the qualifications obtained by the petitioners and on the basis of which they were placed in the higher grade on deputation. This is so because the entire issue is at large before Delhi High Court in two independent petitions filed by these petitioners which were initially lodged before Rajasthan and Karnataka High Courts respectively. Entire controversy in the said petitions is with respect to the reversions of the petitioners on account of invalidity of the educational qualifications required for the promotional post. When this dispute is pending before another High Court, the request that these petitioners have made in these petitions before this High Court is to delete the remark in the seniority list that continuation of the petitioners in the higher grade of Junior Engineer is subject to outcome of the petitions before the High Court. Obviously this prayer cannot be granted. The department is perfectly justified in putting these remarks in the remark column since the continuation of the petitioners in the said higher grade for which the seniority list is published, is on account of the reversion orders passed by the department being stayed by the High Court. If the High Court were to dismiss the petitions, the reversion of the petitioners from the promotional post would immediately become operative. On the other hand, if the petitions are allowed, their continuations would be unhindered. In the process of deciding this issue, I simply cannot go into the question whether the petitioners are correct in contending that the diploma certificates they have obtained are valid or not and duly recognized or not. This controversy is subject matter of petitions pending before Delhi High Court and does not and cannot be allowed to be raised in these petitions.

[5] Needless to observe that if eventually the petitioners succeed before Delhi High Court, the remarks which they have objected to in the seniority list would automatically be deleted or be modified in terms of the judgment of Delhi High Court.

[6] With these observations both the petitions are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.