Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.06.10 17:03:06 +0530 2025:CGHC:22872 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2362 of 2020 Reserved on 24-4-2025 Delivered on 10-6-2025 1 - Ravindra Gayakwad S/o Late Shri Vasudev Gayakwad Aged About 57 Years R/o C - 7, Galaxy Residency, Amlideeh, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Printing And Stationery Directorate Block A, 2nd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Directorate Of Technical Education Chhattisgarh, Through The Director, Block - 3, 3rd And 4th Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) C A V ORDER 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 28- 5-2020 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby his promotion order dated 2 17-6-2013 was cancelled and he was reverted back on the post of Tracer from the post of Overseer, Govt. Printing Press, Rajnandgaon. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Tracer on 30-10-1989 by the Controller, Printing and Stationery, Bhopal. His appointment order was modified vide order dated 20-2-1990. After obtaining permission from respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-3, he pursuaded Diploma course in ‘Printing Technology’ through ‘distance education mode’ from Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nasik. Service conditions of petitioner are governed by the Chhattisgarh Printing and Stationery Class-III (Non-Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 2011 (In short, referred to as ‘Service Rules, 2011’). The petitioner had completed more than 5 years of service/experience on the post of Tracer and also obtained Diploma certificate (Ex. P-6) in the year 2008 from aforesaid University in ‘Printing Technology and Graphic Arts’. Therefore, in the year 2013, he was considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (Henceforth, referred to as ‘DPC’) and vide order dated 17-6-2013 (Annexure P-8), he was promoted on the post of Overseer and posted in Government Printing Press, Raipur. After completion
Legal Reasoning
of probation period, his service was confirmed vide order (Annexure P-9) dated 11-8-2015, but vide impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 28-5-2020, his promotion order was cancelled / recalled and he has been reverted back to the post of Tracer, Government (Regional) Printing Press, Rajnandgaon. He was reverted back on the ground that Diploma in Printing Technology is required qualification for promotion on the post of Overseer, but he has obtained Diploma certificate through distance education mode from the open university of other State, which is not recognized in offices of Government of 3 Chhattisgarh for appointment/promotion on technical post. It has been further pleaded that, since there was complaint against the petitioner that, without having valid diploma certificate, he has obtained promotion, therefore, inquiry was conducted and review DPC was also constituted. Necessary information/ clarification was also sought from the Department of Technical Education, in which, they clarified that, the diploma certificate obtained by the petitioner through distance education mode from other state is not valid document for getting promotion and, therefore, he has been reverted back. Aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P-1), petitioner has filed instant petition seeking quashment of impunged order and keeping him in position prior to 28-5-2020 on the post of Overseer with all consequential benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner obtained diploma certificate in Printing Technology through distance education mode from ‘Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University’, which is duly recognized vide Annexure P-4 by the University Grants Commission (henceforth, referred to as ‘UGC’) for running such course. In this regard, the Ministry of Human Resource Development had already issued a clarificatory order/ notification that, course run through distance education mode would be recognized for public employment under the prerogative of employer to take a view on the recognition of degree/ diploma etc. After taking due permission from respondent No. 2, the petitioner completed diploma course in Printing Technology in the year 2008, thereafter, he was promoted in the year 2013, but without providing any opportunity of hearing, he has been reverted back, that too, on the basis of alleged inquiry report annexed with covering memo (Annexure R-11). He further submits 4 that, as per Rules 13 and 14 of the Service Rules, 2011, for promotion to the post of Overseer, only required criteria is 5 years experience on the post of Tracer, which petitioner was already having. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of clarification (Annexure R-4) submitted by the Department of Technical Education that, as per the UGC letter dated 25-7- 2017, ‘no institution is allowed to offer technical and professional courses including M. Phil and Ph.D. through distance mode. The All India Council of Technical Education (henceforth, referred to as ‘AICTE’) also does not recognize any technical qualification acquired through distance mode’. As per aforesaid letter dated 25-7-2017 of the UGC and clarificatory letter (Annexure R-4) dated 4-9-2018 issued by the Director, Technical Education, CG, the programmes like Engineering, Medicine, Dental, Pharmacy, Nursing, Architecture and Physiotherapy are not allowed through distance education mode in view of provisions of ‘Open and Distance Learning Regulation, 2017’, but the petitioner had already obtained Diploma certificate in ‘Printing Technology and Graphic Arts’ prior to effect of Regulation, 2017 and he had already been promoted in the year, 2013. Therefore, clarification letter (Annexure R-4) dated 4-9-2018 based on the UGC Regulation, 2017, could have only prospective effect but not retrospective effect, as such, it could not be implemented against the petitioner. Therefore, reverting the petitioner on the basis of said clarification provided by the Department of Technical Education is completely against the law. 3.1
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to his rejoinder, would submit that, composition of members of review-DPC dated 8-10-2018 was not in accordance with statutory rules, as Accounts Officer was a member in 5 that review-DPC, but as per Service Rules, 2011, he could not be a member of the DPC, as such, that faulty DPC has no jurisdiction/authority to review the order of promotion of the petitioner. Hence on this count also, the impugned order based on the recommendation of review-DPC deserves to be set aside. 3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, though the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University was State university, therefore, its territorial jurisdiction would be within the Maharashtra State, but the petitioner had participated in examination and other activities for said course in the aforesaid University itself, after getting leave from competent authority, he has not participated in the examination and other activities sitting in the State of Chhattisgarh. In this regard, he has also filed copy of various earned leave applications. He also submits that, Clause (2) of Schedule (IV) of Service Rules, 2011 only provides criteria of diploma holder employees of other sections, who have 5 years experience, for promotion on the post of Overseer/Technical officer, it does not provide that, diploma certificate must be from any particular institution or diploma certificate obtained through distance mode will not be acceptable. Learned counsel further submits that, the petitioner had obtained valid diploma certificate from the institution recognized by the UGC and as per Annexure R-3, recognition was accorded to that University by the Distance Education Council (DEC) also, for offering programmes through distance mode for the year 2007-08. Thus, Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University was recognized institution to offer programmes through distance mode by the UGC as well as by the Distance Education Council (DEC), despite that, he has been reverted 6 back on the basis of recommendation of review-DPC which itself is not constituted in accordance with the Service Rules 2017, therefore, he prayed that, the impugned order may be set aside and relief sought for may be granted to the petitioner. 4. State has filed its reply stating inter alia that, the petitioner was promoted vide order (Annexure P-8) dated 17-6-2013 on the post of Overseer treating him to be diploma holder of other section having 5 years of working experience also. In this regard, Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nasik, which is an open University, has issued two diploma certificates to the petitioner, first in the year 2008 as a consolidated mark- sheet and a diploma certificate in Printing Technology and Graphic Arts through the institute of Printing Technology, Pune and second in the year 2010 through institute of Subhadra Education Society, Pune, a consolidated mark-sheet and a diploma certificate in Printing Technology and Graphic Arts has also been issued. Aforesaid University has institutional recognition to offer programmes through distance mode approved by its statutory body within territorial jurisdiction of the State itself but not beyond the boundary of the respective State. 4.1 Learned counsel for the State referring to its reply would submit that, on being clarification sought from the Department of Technical Education, Chhattisgarh vide letter (Annexure R-4) dated 4-9-2018, it has been opined by the Director, Technical Education, that no institution is allowed to offer technical and professional courses including M.Phil and Ph.D. through distance mode. AICTE also does not recognize the certificate acquired through distance mode at diploma, bachlor, or in the field of 7 engineering, technical education, etc which was based on letter dated 25-7- 2017 of the UGC. 4.2 It is further submitted that various engineers of Water Resources Department, who had obtained B.Tech/Engineering degree through distance education mode from various universities/institutions prior to their induction in service and thereafter, had filed writ petition claiming their promotion on the basis of those degree, thereafter in the meeting held with the Secretaries in the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary of CG Government, a decision was taken that such degree obtained from distance education mode shall not be recognized for appointment/promotion, as such, diploma certificate of petitioner obtained through distance education mode cannot be recognized for his promotion. He further submits that, on being complaint received against the petitioner’s diploma certificate, inquiry was conducted and vide inquiry report (Annexure R-11), it was reported that, the diploma certificate obtained by the petitioner through distance education mode cannot be recognized and he is also not having experience of the post of Supervisor, despite that, he has been granted promotion. Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University has been established under the State Act, therefore, it has no right to impart diploma course out of boundaries of its respective state. Further, the petitioner was regular employee in said year when he allegedly pursued diploma course and obtained diploma certificate through distance mode, but it was not possible for him to go and attend necessary classes, practical etc. which is required to get such technical education certificate, as such, the petitioner did not satisfy the criteria of eligibility stipulated in the Service Rules, 2011 to be promoted on the post of 8 Overseer. Therefore, promotion made contrary to the aforesaid rule, would be void in law. Diploma certificate possessed by the petitioner has not been obtained from the University/ institution recognized by the UGC and AICTE and even issuing two certificates to him also creates serious doubt about genuineness of it. Though on being pointed out aforesaid facts, he improvised his pleadings by filing Annexure R-J-4 i.e. letter written by said University, along with its rejoinder, wherein the University has stated that as per University record, he has completed diploma in ‘Printing Technology and Graphic Arts’ in the year 2008, but due to some technical reasons, entry has been made in the Record of 2010 also, which has been subsequently cancelled and removed from the record of University. This fact shows that said University has been making undue efforts to justify the claim of petitioner by one or the other means. 4.3 Learned State counsel referring to its additional return, would submit that, diploma in Printing Technology and Graphic Arts is a technical course and no technical course can be undertaken by a student through a distance mode. AICTE also does not permit any university to impart technical course by distance education mode. In pursuance of objection raised by the respondents in their reply, the petitioner again improvised his pleading that, he obtained said diploma certificate by way of ‘Blended mode’ but this fact itself is completely wrong as Blended mode of education came to be introduced by the AICTE only in the year 2013 by way of All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approval for Technical Education in Blended Learning Mode) Regulation, 2013, but the petitioner has obtained alleged diploma certificate in the year 2008 prior to enactment of Regulation, 9 2013. This fact also contradict the said pleading of petitioner. Learned State counsel raised various other technical aspects which have also been mentioned in additional return, in the light of circular, public notice issued by the UGC / AICTE to substantiate the contention that diploma certificate Annexure P-1 submitted by the petitioner is not issued by following circular, regulation, guidelines issued by the UGC/AICTE, hence it cannot be held to be recognized for promotion of petitioner under the Service Rules, 2011. Hence, it is prayed that petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Undisputedly, vide order Annexure P-8 dated 17-6-2013, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Tracer to the post of Overseer as he was having experience of 5 years and having diploma in Printing Technology as per DPC note sheet dated 12-6-2013. 7. Schedule IV of Rule 13 of the Service Rules, 2011 provides necessary terms/criteria for promotion on the next higher post, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow :- Sr. No. (1) 1. Name of post from which promotion is to be made Name of post on which promotion is to be made For all posts, name of members of Departmental Promotion Committee Work experience on the post prescribed in column (2) (2) (3) (4) (5) Senior Reader Head Examiner/Editor 05 years (1) Joint Director, Printing and Stationery. (2) Joint Director/Deputy Director, Government Printing Press (3) Assistant Director, 10 Government Press (Senior) 05 years ……..do……. Overseer/ Technical Officer 2. (1) Section holder (2) Diploma holder employees of other section which have 5 years experience 3. Assistant Section Holder Section Holder/Sub- Technical Officer 5 years …...do………. … … … … ... 8. The issue in instant case is as to whether the petitioner held the necessary qualification as is required for promotion to the post of Overseer from the post of Tracer in the respondent/department. In this regard, Clause (2) of Schedule IV as mentioned above shows that feeder cadre for the promotion on the post of Overseer/technical officer is (1) Section Holder, (2) Diploma Holder employee of other section which have 5 years experience. 9. As per the petitioner, he was having more than 5 years experience on the post of Tracer and he was also having diploma certificate (Ex. P-6) in ‘Printing Technology and Graphic Arts’ which he had obtained through distance mode in the year 2008 from the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nasik. Having considered his aforesaid experience and diploma certificate, he was promoted vide order Annexure P- 8 dated 17-6-2013. 10. Objection of respondent/State is that Diploma certificate obtained from the open university of other State through distance education mode is not recognized for appointment/promotion on the technical post in the office 11 of Government of Chhattisgarh. But Clause (2) of Schedule (IV) of Service Rules, 2011, nowhere contemplates that, said diploma certificate must have been issued by any particular institution or the diploma certificate obtained from open university of other States through distance education mode will not be recognized, rather, the word employed in Clause (2) is only ‘diploma holder employees’. Therefore, when rule itself does not specify aforesaid fact, then after more than 7 years of promotion of petitioner, respondents are not entitled to raise objection about recognition of diploma certificate obtained by the petitioner. 11. Undisputedly, the petitioner has obtained diploma certificate in Printing Technology and Graphic Arts from Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, which is a university established by the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Act, 1989 (Annexure AD-5). This university has been recognized by the UGC vide memo Annexure P-4 dated 8-12-1992 and by virtue of notification dated 1-3-1995 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, the Universities established by the Act of Parliament or State Legislature have been recognized to impart all the qualifications awarded through distance education mode. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Bharathidasan University & Another Vs. AICTE & Others, [(2001) 8 SCC 676], has interpreted the provisions of AICTE Act and has held that ‘although Universities do not require prior approval of AICTE to commence a new department or course and programmes in technical education, however Universities have obligation or duty to confirm to the standards, and norms laid down by the AICTE. For the purpose of ensuring coordinated and 12 integrated development in technical education and maintenance of standards, AICTE may cause an inspection of the university, which has to be as per provisions under relevant rules / regulations of the AICTE. Further, all institutions running technical education programmes in collaboration with any university requires prior approval of AICTE. Public notice (Annexure AD-4) in this regard was issued by All India Council for Technical Education vide Advt. No. UB/04(03)/2011. Thus, since Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University was established by the State act, therefore, as per aforesaid notification, public notice (Annexure AD/4) and judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharathidasan University (supra), it is entitled to award all qualifications including technical qualification through distance education mode. 12. As per Annexure P-5, the distance division in the Ministry of Human Resources Development receives a number of queries from the general public seeking clarification in respect of recognition of academic qualification acquired through distance mode and their acceptance for the purpose of employment in central/State Government service. Then the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India vide Annexure P-5 clarified the position on 20-12-2011 as under : “(a) It is upto the concerned academic institution/University to recognize the qualification including certificate diploma, degree, etc. for the purpose of academic pursuit, i.e. continuing education for acquiring another academic qualification, with it. As regards recognition of academic qualifications for the purpose of employment, it is 13 the prerogative of the concerned employer to take a view on the recognition of the degree, diploma, etc. (b) xxx xxx xxx It is clarified that the recognition of the qualification by Distance Education Council or All India Council for Teaher Education means the recognition of specific programme or degree and not merely the recognition or approval of the institution / university- offering programme through distance mode.” 13. Respondents/State has filed instructions (Annexure R-3) issued by the Distance Education Council relating to recognition accorded to uneversities/institutions for offering programmes through distance mode. Clause 95 of Annexure R-3 clearly shows that the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University was accorded institutional recognition by the Distance Education Council (DEC) to offer programmes through distance mode, which are approved by its statutory body for the year 2007-08 and 2008-2009 also. Thus, perusal of aforesaid document clearly shows that being State University established under the State Act, Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University was competent to impart technical educational course, through distance mode and Annexure R-3 also shows that, it was granted institutional recognition by Distance Education Council. However, since it was State University, therefore, its territorial jurisdiction was within the State of Maharashtra as per the notification (Annexure R-7) issued by the 14 Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi. 14. It was the contention of respondents/State that the petitioner was regular employee of respondents department of State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2004 to 2008, therefore, it was not possible for him to pursue course of Diploma in Printing Technology and Graphic Arts, that too, from the open University situated out of the State of Chhattisgarh, as it is a technical course and no technical course can be undertaken by a student through distance mode, particularly, through ‘Blended mode’, which itself was started only in the year 2013 by way of All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approval for Technical Education in Blended Mode) Regulation, 2013, further, said University had issued two certificates, first for the year 2008 and second, for the year 2010. On the strength of aforesaid contentions, learned State counsel raised suspicion about genuineness of diploma certificate Ex. P-6 obtained by the petitioner. This contention is found to be misconceived, as, after due permission from respondent No. 2, vide Annexure P-3 dated 10-11- 2004, the petitioner taken admission in course of Diploma in Printing Technology and Graphic Arts in said university. He has also filed copy of various earned leave applications submitted by him (Annexure R-J-5) (Page 21 to 25) by which, he had obtained earned leave to participate in examination and other activities for said course from aforesaid University. It is not a contention of respondents that petitioner had persuaded said course from study centre of the aforesaid University situated in the State of Chhattisgarh, rather petitioner had pursued that course through distance mode and he had taken leave to participate in the examination and other 15 activities. Further, when vide communication dated 15-3-2019 Annexure R-J- 4 issued by the Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, it has clarified the position with regard to issuance of two certificates with the words ‘As per University record, you (petitioner) have completed diploma in Printing Technology and Graphic Arts programme in March, 2008, but due to some technical reason, you (petitioner) have received degree in year 2010 also’. Subsequently, vide other communication made by the University dated 20-5- 2019, the University informed the petitioner that, his data of the year 2010 (which was entered due to some technical reason) has been removed from the University record. In view of above facts and clarification of the said University, doubting genuineness of diploma certificate (Ex. P-6) of the petitioner by the State counsel is not found to be sustainable. 15. Despite that, if respondents authority/department would have any objection with regard to genuineness of the diploma certificate of the petitioner, then they ought to have issued show cause notice to the petitioner and after providing him due opportunity of hearing and by making discreet inquiry, appropriate order ought to have been passed. But in instant case, without conducting any discreet inquiry and without providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, vide inquiry report dated 12-7-2019 submitted through covering memo Annexure R-11 by the sole authority/Inquiry Officer, it was reported, that, the diploma certificate submitted by the petitioner is not recognized as it was obtained through distance education mode from the University of other State whereas, earlier in respect of complaint made against the petitioner with regard to his diploma certificate, the Director, Directorate, Public Relation, Atal Nagar, Raipur vide communication 16 Annexure R-J-2 dated 16-11-2018 had submitted report that the certificate obtained by the petitioner in Printing Technology and Graphic Arts through distance mode has not been de-recognized by the UGC. Thus, there are two contradictory reports submitted by two different officers/ authorities. Therefore, how subsequent inquiry report can be held genuine and earlier inquiry report can be held to be not genuine. As such, review-DPC recommendation based on subsequent inquiry report cannot be held to be valid for penalizing the petitioner by reverting him from his promotional post into the lower post. 16. It is also apt to be noted here that, for reverting the petitioner from the post of Overseer to the post of Tracer, review-DPC was convened on 8-10-2018 comprising of (i) In-charge Dy. Director, Government regional Printing Press, Rajnandgaon, (ii) In-charge, Joint Director, Printing and Stationery, Naya Raipur and (iii) Accounts Officer, Printing and Stationery, Naya Raipur, whereas, as per Column V of Scheduled IV of Service Rules, 2011, Accounts Officer could not be a member of Departmental Promotion Committee. This composition of the review-DPC was against the aforesaid Service Rules, 2011, therefore, it was not competent to review the promotion order of the petitioner, as such, reverting the petitioner from the post of Overseer to the post of Tracer on the basis of recommendation of review- DPC is illegal. It is also worthy to mention here that, perusal of copy of note- sheet (Annexure R-J-1) submitted by the petitioner along with his rejoinder would show that, when it came to the notice that composition of the review- DPC was faulty, then effort was made to correct it by seeking guidance from the General Administration Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, upon which, it 17 was opined by it that, inclusion of Accounts Officer in review-DPC was against the Rules and there is no provision of post facto approval (for inclusion of Accounts Officer in DPC), therefore, it was declined to be approved. Thus, since composition of review-DPC itself was invalid /against the Service Rules, 2011, therefore, its recommendation for reverting the petitioner from the post of Overseer to the post of Tracer is also invalid. Consequently, based on such invalid recommendation, reverting petitioner on the post of Tracer vide Annexure P-1 dated 28-5-2020 is also found to be invalid/illegal. 17. In view of aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Consequently, impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 28-5-2020 is set aside/qushed. Resultantly, the petitioner is held entitled to retain the post of Overseer as he was prior to 28-5-2020 and he is also entitled to subsequent promotion and other benefits as per his entitlement in accordance with rules. 18.
Decision
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-