The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 24439 of 2011 Ramesh Chandra Guin ....... Petitioner State of Orissa & others -Versus- ....... Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.22887 of 2011 Prasanta Kumar Sahoo ....... Petitioner State of Orissa & others -Versus- ....... Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.22888 of 2011 Surendra Kumar Parida ....... Petitioner State of Orissa & others -Versus- ....... Opposite Parties W.P.(C) No.24440 of 2011 Sudhansu Sekhar Jena ....... Petitioner State of Orissa & others -Versus- ....... Opposite Parties Advocates appears in this case: For Petitioners (In all the Writ Petitions) Advocate : Mr. U.C.Mohanty, For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. G.N. Rout,ASC (In all the Writ Petitions) For Opposite Parties (Corporation) : Mr. B.K.Sharma Advocate ................... CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA _____________________________________________________________ Date of Hearing and Judgment: 19.04.2023 _____________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA,J. 1. The Petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, who are at present working as Assistant Engineers, have preferred the present batch of Writ Petitions being aggrieved by the Order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Managing Director, Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2), shortly, the Corporation, vide which the order of posting dated 10.08.2011, as regular Assistant Engineer was kept in abeyance and it was ordered to revert them back to their previous rank and place of posting till further orders. 2. Since the impugned order in the Writ Petitions is a common order and the issues involved in these matters are same, all the matters are being disposed of by this common Judgment and W.P.(C) No.24439 of 2011 is taken up as lead case. 3. The factual matrix, which laid to filing of the Writ Petition is, the Petitioner joined as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 31.03.1992 after passing Diploma in Civil Engineering from the State Council of Technical Education and Training, Orissa. Subsequently, he completed AMIE (Civil), which is equivalent to Degree in Civil Engineering. Page 2 of 40 4. Since the Petitioner was continuing as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Corporation, being a qualified in-service Graduate Engineer in Civil Engineering, a right accrued in his favour to be appointed and hold the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) against the direct recruitment quota as per the provisions of Orissa Service of Engineers’ Rules, 1941, shortly, “Rules, 1941”. The Corporation, as a matter of policy, has adopted the Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules as framed by the State Government, which has got the status of statutory recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India i.e. Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941, so far as Engineering Service under different State Engineering Departments as well as the Corporation (OLIC Ltd.) is concerned. Thereafter, the Cabinet approved the Orissa Engineering Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 in its 27th Council of Minister meeting held on 3rd December, 1994. The Cabinet subsequently also brought some changes in OES Rules (R & C) Service Rules, 1994, formed as 1996 Rules. 5. Pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government to keep reserve and earmark 25% quota out of the direct recruitment quota for the stipendiary Engineers, the Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) strictly followed the same. However, the different State Engineering Departments, in pursuance of the said policy decisions, allowed the in- Page 3 of 40 service degree holder Junior Engineers to remain and function as Assistant Engineer In-charge w.e.f. 07.10.1994, particularly in the Works Department. Similar steps were also taken in the Water Resources Department w.e.f. 18.01.1996 pending finalization of amendment to the OSE Rules, 1941. 6. Thereafter, in continuance of the said policy decision, another Circular was issued on 06.06.1995, followed by Resolution dated 12.03.1996 declaring the intention of the Government to appoint Asst. Engineers on adhoc basis and to regularize/validate their services through a validation Act and to finalize the amendment of OSE Rules, 1941 with approval of the State Cabinet. 7. In pursuance thereof, different State Engineering Departments and PSUs have followed the policy decision of the State Government and formulated their modalities in implementing the said policy of the State and earmarked respective quotas for the in-service degree holder Junior Engineers as well as Stipendiary Engineers i.e. 5% and 25% respectively. The Corporation also accepted the said policy of the State and allowed the Petitioner to function as Asst. Engineer (Civil) and posted him as Asst. Engineer In-charge, Lift Irrigation Sub-Division, Sundergarh, under L.I. Division, Sundergarh vide order dated 6th December, 1997, against Page 4 of 40 the existing vacancy under the Lift Irrigation Division, Sundergarh, until further orders. 8. Petitioner is deprived of promotion and promotional benefits at par with the similarly situated persons like him, who were functioning in the State Engineering Departments as Asst. Engineer (Civil) In-charge against the existing vacancy w.e.f. 26.12.1995. No service benefits attached to the said post was given to the Petitioner. Though the Petitioner is eligible to be appointed as Asst. Engineer (Civil) and also entitled to get the scale of pay in due discharge of his duties, but the Corporation Authority utilized his services without any service benefits, which is purely an act of exploitation and contrary to the settled principles of law i.e. equal pay for equal work. 9. While the Petitioner was continuing as Asst. Engineer (Civil) In- charge, he was appointed as Asst. Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis along with other similarly situated persons like him, by order of the Managing Director of the Corporation, vide order dated 17.11.1998, with scale of pay Rs.2000 to 3500/- with other allowances, as sanctioned by the Corporation. Since then, till date the Petitioner is discharging his duties as an Asst. Engineer (Civil) on adhoc basis satisfactorily, honestly, efficiently and to the best satisfaction of the authority concerned. He has completed 14 years (as on the date of filing Writ Petition) in the post of Page 5 of 40 Asst. Engineer (Civil) continuously and deserves to be regularized in the said post w.e.f. 06.12.1997 with all consequential service benefits attached to the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) and fixation of his seniority in the said Cadre. 10. It is further case of the Petitioner that this Court, adjudicated the issue of In-service Degree Engineers, who were initially appointed as Junior Engineers and subsequently as Asst. Engineers In-charge, as Adhoc Engineers under the Corporation vide order dated 14.12.2009 in OJC No.13251/2001 and other similar batch of cases. Considering the Government decision dated 30.09.1994, a direction was given to the Corporation to reconsider the cases of the Petitioners de novo, who are Graduate Engineers, for regularization of their services. It was further directed, while reconsidering the case of the Petitioners, no discrimination shall be caused in respect of the similarly situated persons and to complete the entire exercise within a period of four months from the date of communication of the said order. Being so directed, the persons, who
Decision
were the Writ Petitioners, have been regularized. 11. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in OJC No.13251 of 2001, the Board of Directors in its 157th meeting held on 29.03.2010, Vide Item No.7 of the said meeting, it was resolved that 15 nos. of Adhoc Assistant Engineers (Civil), who are continuing since the year 1995, will Page 6 of 40 be regularized as per the direction of this Court in OJC No.13251/2001 prospectively against the existing vacancy of Asst. Engineer (Civil) as per Rule by fixing their scale of pay notionally without giving any additional financial benefit from the date of their adhoc appointment till their regularization in the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil). However, so far as the Petitioner is concerned, no decision was taken. Though Petitioner is similarly situated as of the said 15 adhoc Asst. Engineers, even though their cases have been considered for regularization, the case of the Petitioner was not considered despite he is having a right to be regularized. 12. Because of the inaction on the part of the Corporation, the Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.57 of 2010 and it was disposed of by Order dated 07.01.2010. Operative portion of the said order is extracted below:- In course of hearing Mr.Mohanty, learned “4. counsel for the petitioner, drew attention of this court to the order dtd.14.12.09 passed by the Court in O.J.C. No.13251/2001, inter-alia, directing the corporation to engage all the Graduate Engineers in the posts of Asst. Engineer in consonance with the Notification issue by the Govt. 5. Accordingly, We dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Opposite Parties to consider the case of the petitioner alongwith other Graduate Engineers, in the list of Government Notification referred to supra”. Page 7 of 40 13. Despite direction given by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 57 of 2010, as the Authority did not take any action, the Petitioner was constrained to file CONTC No.1590 of 2010. During pendency of the said contempt proceeding, the Board of Directors, in its 162nd meeting, on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee chaired by the FA and CAO (OLIC ltd.), vide Item No.9 & 10, authorized the Managing Director of the Corporation to form a Committee under the chairmanship of FA & CAO (OLIC ltd.) to examine and submit the report on the said matter within 7 days for compliance of the direction given by this Court. 14. On 21st July, 2011, the Committee formed by the M.D.,OLIC Ltd., discussed the matter and recommended for appointment of six persons, including the Petitioner, as Asst. Engineer and to implement the Order passed by this Court dated 07.01.2010. The Committee in the said Report also clarified that there are 30 numbers of post of Asst. Engineer (Civil) lying vacant against the quota meant for the Graduate Engineers (67% quota). The Committee also observed that it is high time to regularize services of such AMIE Graduate Engineers. 15. Thereafter, in view of the decision of the Board of Directors dated 5th July, 2011, read with recommendation of the Committee dated 21.07.2011, five persons were appointed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) Page 8 of 40 and one person as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) vide office order dated 10.08.2011 and 12.08.2011 respectively. They were appointed as Assistant Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.6,500 to 10,500/- against the existing vacancies on regular basis, mentioning therein their respective place of posting, with further observation that their seniority will be maintained from the date of joining of the candidates. 16. Thereafter, the Managing Director of the Corporation, contrary to the decision of the Board, vide Impugned order dated 19.08.2011 ordered to kept in abeyance the said order dated 12.08.2011 and to revert back the Petitioner and similarly placed others to their previous rank and place of posting, till further orders. 17. The Petitioner, along with others, being aggrieved by the said order dated 19.08.2011, have challenged the same before this Court in the present batch of Writ Petitions. This Court, as an interim, had been pleased to stay the operation of the said order and thereby the interim order passed by this Court on 26.08.2011 became absolute by efflux of time without being challenged. 18. On being noticed, the State (Opposite Party No.1) has filed no Counter Affidavit. However, the contesting Opposite Party Corporation (Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3) have filed a common Counter Affidavit indicating therein that against the order dated 07.01.2010 in W.P.(C) Page 9 of 40 No.57 of 2010, the Corporation preferred SLP (Civil) No.19834-35/2012 before the Supreme Court. The said SLP along with other similar connected SLPs have been disposed of by the apex Court on 03.11.2017, vide which the orders passed by this Court were set aside. 19. In view of the disposal of the said SLPs by the apex Court, the claim of the Petitioner to seek regularization of his service in the post of Asst. Engineer has no merit. Hence, the prayer made in the Writ Petition to allow the Petitioner to continue as regular Asst. Engineer also cannot be granted. In order to justify the impugned order as at Annexure-5 to be corrected, it has further been averred in the Counter Affidavit that the Petitioner having been appointed in the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), his next promotional avenue is Asst. Engineer (Civil) basing on principle of Seniority-cum-Merit in the gradation list of Junior Engineer (Civil). Because of the interim order passed by this Court, even though order dated 07.01.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.57 of 2010 has been set aside by the apex Court, the Petitioner is continuing in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). 20. Further, a stand has been taken in the Counter Affidavit that the State Government, in the Department of Water Resources, has restructured the Engineering Cadre of the Corporation vide Order dated 19.06.2017. On the basis of such restructuring, 50% sanctioned strength Page 10 of 40 of Junior Engineers are to be upgraded to the rank of Assistant Engineers, basing on their seniority in the gradation list. 21. On the basis of the upgradation, as provided vide order dated 19.06.2017, the eligible Junior Engineers shall be upgraded to the post of Assistant Engineers under Odisha Diploma Engineers Service (Method of Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2012, shortly, “Rules, 2012”. Those Assistant Engineers are eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer, as per Rule 4 (a) of the said Rules, 2012. 22. Further, Sub-Rule-2 in Rule-4 of the Rules, 2012 provides that the number of post to be filled up by way of promotion under clause (a) of Sub-Rule-1, shall be 33% of the total post and the remaining 67% of the post shall be filled up by direct recruitment. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, the AMIE Degree holders, like the Petitioner, who are claiming for promotion to the rank of the Assistant Executive Engineer on the plea of having degree/acquired degree qualification in course of employment, are not entitled to promotion against the above direct recruitment quota. 23. It has also been averred in the Counter that a person like the Petitioner, appointed in the Corporation as Junior Engineer, having AMIE degree during the course of employment, is eligible for upgradation to the rank of Assistant Engineer, basing on his seniority in the gradation list. Page 11 of 40 Thereafter, his case is to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer on the basis of provisions enumerated under Rules, 2012. 24. Similarly, the Department of Water Resources, Government of Odisha, vide its letter dated 07.11.2013 have circulated that after careful consideration, Government have been pleased to decide that a Bachelor Degree acquired through Distance Mode of Education (DM) in engineering filed, may not be considered sufficiently of higher merit and therefore, will not be considered for grant of two advance increments. 25. It has also been averred that order dated 14.12.2009 passed in OJC No.13251/01 by this Court is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner as the letter dated 30.09.1994 of R.D. Department, Government of Odisha, relates to 22 numbers of Graduate Engineers only. 26. Since the Order dated 07.01.2010 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.57 of 2010 has been set aside by the apex Court in SLP(C) No.19834- 35/2012 vide judgment dated 03.11.2017, the Petitioner’s claim for the post of the Assistant Engineer merits no consideration. 27. In response to the Counter, a Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed reiterating the facts detailed in the Writ Petition. That apart, it has been stated that the Corporation (OLIC Ltd.), vide Order dated 16th May, 2012, Page 12 of 40 while extending appointment on promotion to other degree holder Junior Engineers as Asst. Engineer (Civil), though indicated that the same shall be subject to result of different SLPs (Civil) filed by the Corporation, specifically indicated therein that the said order is not applicable to the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24439 of 2011, so also others, as named in SL No.8 to 12, as they were continuing as Asst. Engineer (Civil) in regular establishment by way of obtaining the stay order from this Court. Further, it has also been stated in the Rejoinder that the averment as to order passed in W.P.(C) No.57 of 2010 and Review Order passed thereon has been set aside by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.19834-35 of 2012 and the Petitioner has no right to get any benefits regarding appointment of Assistant Engineer (Civil), is pre-se misconceived and contrary to the true spirit and purpose of the direction of the apex Court. The appointment of the Petitioner as per the decision of the Board of Directors dated 05.07.2011 in its 162nd proceeding, which was implemented on 10.08.2011, cannot be said to be contrary to Rules, when the Corporation consciously took the decision for appointment of the degree holder Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers against direct recruitment quota of 67% and the same principle has already been effected in respect of other similarly placed persons. The said plea in the present case is contrary to constitutional mandate and Rule of law and the Corporation is under Page 13 of 40 obligation to discharge its function and treat equally to all its employees, being an ideal & model Employer. 28. Mr.Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, the impugned order as at Annexure-5, is not only illegal and unjust but also contrary to principles of natural justice. Before passing the said order to revert back the Petitioner and similarly placed others to their former posts, their previous ranks and places of posting, neither any notice was issued to the Petitioner, giving him opportunity to have his say nor any reason has been assigned in the said impugned order dated 19.08.2011. The order dated 10.08.2011, vide which the Petitioner and similarly placed others, having AMIE Degree, were posted as regular Assistance Engineer (Civil), being outcome of the Board’s Resolution, is justified and accordingly, the order dated 19.08.2011 deserves to be set aside. 29. Mr.Mohanty further submits, pursuant to decision of the Board of Directors in its 162nd meeting, to which the Managing Director was also a party, the order dated 10.08.2011 was issued posting the Petitioner and similarly placed others as regular Assistant Engineer (Civil). However, before issuance of Office Order dated 19.08.2011 by the Managing Director, as at Annexure-5, it was never placed before the Board of Directors of the Corporation to revoke the said decision of the Board, assigning sufficient reason to do so. The Managing Director of the Page 14 of 40 Corporation was incompetent to issue the impugned order dated 19.08.2011 without the prior approval of the Board of Directors of the Corporation. 30. In addition to his submission, Mr.Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, draws attention of this Court to the judgments of the apex Court reported in (2008)1 SCC (Civil) 468 (Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Ors.), (2008) 2 SCC 298 (Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Ors.) and (2008) 2 SCC 95: (2008) 1 SCC (Civil) 478 (Mohd. Akram Ansari v. Chief Election Officer and Ors.). 31. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Corporation, reiterating the stands taken in the Counter Affidavit submits, there is no infirmity in the impugned Order dated 19.08.2011 and the authority concerned was justified to issue the said Order, in view of the reason detailed in the Counter Affidavit and the judgments of the apex Court. 32. It may be appropriate at this stage to reproduce below Para-1 and 2 of the Minutes of the Committee dated 21st July, 2011 and relevant portion of the Office Order dated 16.05.2012. “1. Regularisation of the service of 5 nos. of AMIE (Civil) degree Engineers as regular Asst. Engineers. The following 5 nos. of Graduate Engineers having (Civil) are working as A.M.I.E. degree in Page 15 of 40 Adhoc/incharge Asst. Engineers in OLIC since years long. 1. Sri S.K.Choudhury 2. 3. 4. 5. Sri Dillip Kumar Das Sudhansu Sri Sekhar Das Sri R.C.Guin Sri Surendra Ku. Parida Appointed as Adhox A.E.(C) vide order No.37854 dt. 17.11.98. -do- -do- -do- -do- in execution of 15 nos. of Graduate Engineers in OLIC who were Adhoc Asst. Engineers were regularized to the post of regular Asst. Engineers as per orders of the Hon’ble High Court against case No. W.P.(C) No.13251/2001 and order No.7093 dt.24.4.10 of Managing Director, OLIC. As the Adhoc Graduate Engineers have also filed similar cases and the Hon’ble High Court has also issued directions to regularize their service and due to the court order one Sri delay S.K.Choudhury had also filed a contempt case and the Hon’ble Court had issued directions to take action is therefore high times to within 30.06.11. regularize the service of the 5 AMIE Degree Engineers as regular Asst. Engineer (Civil). There are 30 nos. of post of A.E.(C) are laying vacant now and the posts are against the quota for graduate engineers. Hence the Committee recommends to appoint these 5 nos. of AMIE degree Engineers as regular Asst. Engineer (C) and their seniority in the cadre will be from the date of their joining with protection of their pay. it Page 16 of 40 Regularization of the posts of 1 no. Graduate 2. Engineer (Elect.) against the vacant post. The case is similar to the above & Sri Prasant Kumar Sahu AMIE Degree Engineer working under this corporation as Junior Engineer (Elect.) since 1992 and he had also filed a case in Hon’ble Orissa High Court vide W.P.(C) No.200/2010 and the Hon’ble Court has directed OLIC to absorb him as regular Asst. Engineer (Elect.) There are 5 nos of vacant posts of Asst. Engineer (Elect.) and the post are against the quota for Graduate Engineer. Hence to comply to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court the committee recommends to appoint Sri Sahu as Asst. Engineer (Elect.) under regular establishment and his seniority to the cadre will be from the date of his joining to the post with protection of his pay.” Extract from Office Order dated 16th May, 2012 Sl. No. 8. Designation Remarks Name Asst. Present place of posting L.I.Divn. Koraput 9 Sri Dilip Kumar Das Sri Sudhansu Sekhar Jena 10 Sri Ramesh Ch. Guin 11 Sri Surendra Kumar Parida 12 Sri Subodh Kr. Choudhury 1/C Engineer (civil) 1/C Engineer (civil 1/C Engineer (civil 1/C Engineer (civil Asst. L.I.Divn. Berhampur Asst. L.I.Divn. Kendrapara Asst. L.I.Divn. Keonjhar Asst. 1/C Engineer (civil L.I.Divn. Bhadrak For Sl. No.8 to 12 the present order is not applicable as were they as continuing establishment by way of obtaining the stay order from High Hon’ble Court Orissa in W.P.(C) No.23360/2011,244 40/2011, 24439/2011, 22888/2011 22813/11 OLIC no.13022 dt.19.08.2011 (Emphasis Supplied) & against order 33. In view of the averments made in paragraph 14 of the Counter Affidavit, so also submission made by Mr.Sharma, learned Counsel for the OLIC Ltd, the coordinate Bench, vide order dated 11.08.2022, directed the learned Counsel for the Corporation to place on record by Page 17 of 40 way of an affidavit along with paper book of the M.A. filed by the Petitioner and similarly placed others before the Supreme Court. On being so directed, an affidavit has been filed on 23.02.2023 enclosing thereto copy of the M.A. filed by the Petitioner and others, so also the order passed in M.A. No(s).73-74 of 2018, which was dismissed as withdrawn. 34. On perusal of the said Miscellaneous Application filed before the apex Court, it is ascertained that there is a specific averment in Para 7 to 10 of the said M.A. as follows: That, it is pertinent to mention here that, way “7. back in the year 1978 itself, the Union Public Service Commission vide its letter dated 27th Feb, 1978, written to the Institute of Engineers (India), clarified that, UPSC had already decided that professional and technical qualification such as a pass in Section ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the AMIE, which is recognized by the Government as equivalent to in Engineering for the purpose of Degree recruitment under Central posts government. A copy of the said letter dated 27.02.1978 issued by the UPSC is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-“B” and 8. That further, vide Gazette Notification dated 16th Jan, 2006, the Government of India, Ministry of HRD through Department of Secondary & Higher Education, published that, on recommendation of High Level Committee for Recognition of educations, the Government of India has decided to recognize as many as 15 courses of Section ‘A’ & ‘B’ examination conducted by the Institutions of Engineers (India). A copy of the said Notifications dated 16.01.2006 as ANNEXURE- ‘C’. enclosed herewith is Page 18 of 40 (Applicants 9. That keeping in view of the above, the Board of Directors of the OLIC decided in its 162nd Meeting that as per the recommendations of the Committee chaired by F.A. & C.A.O., the AMIE Degree Engineers are regularized in the post of Asst. Engineer (Civil). Order Consequently, No.12661/OLIC/dated 10.08.2011, the present Applicants were posted as regular Asst-Engineer said Office Order (civil). A copy of the enclosed No.12661/OLIC/dated 10.08.2011 herewith as ANNEXURE-‘D’ herein) office vide is 10. That interestingly, even when the present matter was pending before this Hon’ble Court, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), through Extraordinary Gazettee Notification on 06.01.2016, clarified that passing Sections ‘A’ & ‘B’ Examinations (AMIE), along with M.E./M.Tech. Degree required through regular/part the is appointment as a faculty in Technical Education. A publication to that effect dated nil issued by the Institute of Engineers (India) is enclosed herewith as Annexure-E. accepted time, for 35. Based on the said pleadings made in the M.A., a prayer was made (Emphasis Supplied) to clarified the above position of the Petitioner and similarly placed others and direct accordingly. However, the said Miscellaneous Application was dismissed as withdrawn. 36. Mr.Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, number of miscellaneous applications as well as Writ Petitions were filed as against the judgment passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited. v. Rabi Sankar Patro and Others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468 and the Supreme Court, vide its order dated 22.01.2018, clarified as to Page 19 of 40 applicability of judgment dated 03.11.2017 passed in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (supra) followed by the judgment dated 13.08.2019 passed in Ashok Kumar and Others v. Depinder Singh Dhesi and Others reported in (2019) 8 SCC 280. The apex Court was of the view that in view of such subsequent clarificatory orders passed, as detailed above, no further clarification is required at the instance of the present Petitioner and others. Hence, his client thought it prudent to withdraw the said Miscellaneous Application. 37. He further submits, the said judgment of the apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (supra) is applicable to Degree Engineers, who obtained the engineering degree through distance education mode and not to the degree engineers like the present Petitioner and similarly placed others, who possess technical qualification by passing Section “A” and “B” of AMIE, which is recognized by the Government as equivalent to degree in engineering for the purpose of recruitment and posts under Central Government. 38. Mr.Mohanty further submits, in view of the settled position of law relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Akram Ansari v. Chief Election Officer and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 95, his client and similarly placed others were justified to approach the Supreme Court seeking clarification as to non-coverage of their case under the Page 20 of 40 said judgment, as it was beyond their knowledge that the Supreme Court has already clarified its judgment in the subsequent orders as to applicability of the said judgment and its effect. 39. At this juncture, it is apt to reproduce below Paragraph Nos. 3 to 5, 10, also 57, 58 and 66 of the judgment reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468. “3. The Directorate of Lift Irrigation in the Government of Odisha was converted into Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “OLIC”). The service conditions of Engineers including Junior Engineers which is the base cadre in the Engineering Wing of OLIC are governed by Orissa Service of Engineers’ Rules, 1941 (“the 1941 Rules”, for short) as amended from time to time. Junior Engineers form the feeder cadre for promotion to the next level, namely, that of Assistant Engineers. Respondent No.11–Rabi Sankar Patro, a diploma-holder in Electrical joined OLIC as Junior Engineer Engineering, (Electrical) and while in service, he acquired B.Tech (Civil) Degree from a deemed to be University namely JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur, through distance Education in the year 2009 and thereafter filed Writ Petition No.3848 of 2010 in the High Court Orissa. According to him, he being an in-service graduate Engineer was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineer. The said writ petition was allowed without issuing notice to the respondents, placing reliance on an earlier order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the High Court in Bharat Chandra Rout v. State by which OLIC was directed to consider the case of the candidates in-service graduate as Engineers. OLIC being aggrieved, filed Review Petition No.58 of 2012 which was dismissed by the High Court on 15.03.2012 along with certain similar review petitions. The submissions recorded in support of the review petitions in the order of the High Court were as under:- concerned Page 21 of 40 “The argument advanced by Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioners that the opposite parties- employees have acquired degree Qualification of distance/correspondence education course from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth which is not recognized by AICTE. Therefore, they are not qualified…..The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mohanty placed much reliance upon the letter issued by AICTE on 6.10.2010 wherein the AICTE has categorically stated as under: “It has been the policy of the AICTE, not to recognize the qualifications acquired through distance education mode at diploma, bachelors & master’s level in the fields of Engineering Technology including Architecture, Town Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management & Catering Technology, Applied Arts & Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM).AICTE only recognizes MBA and MCA programme through distance mode.” ” The Review Petition was dismissed by the 4. High Court, observing inter alia: Degree Engineering “… Substantial number of persons have also through acquired Universities providing Distance Education which are also Indian Universities. Further Clause (d) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1941 does not specify that the qualifications obtained through distance education is not permissible & the Degree should be obtained from the approved Universities of the AICTE.” 5. Disposal of Review Petition and similar such petitions led to the filing of these appeals, by special leave, by OLIC. It is principally submitted in Engineering by OLIC that the degrees obtained by the candidates concerned by distance education from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University and similar deemed to be Universities are not recognized degrees and as such the candidates concerned cannot be said to be Page 22 of 40 Graduate Engineers eligible for benefits under the Rules concerned. It is further submitted that in its Circular dated 09.08.2005 the University Grants Commission (“UGC” for short) had notified JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur was neither permitted to affiliate any colleges or institutes nor allowed to conduct any course through distance education. that 6. While issuing notice in the matters, All India Council of Technical Education (“AICTE” for short) and UGC were added as party-respondents, whereafter AICTE filed its counter affidavits. The matters were taken up on 11.12.2014 when the following Order was passed by this Court:- to several addressed “In the course of hearing of these cases we noticed that the UGC even though impleaded as a party respondent had not filed any counter affidavit. We would have proceeded with the hearing even in the absence of a counter affidavit but for the fact that additional documents filed by Respondent No.1 include several documents concerning the UGC some of them in the nature of letters, circulars and communications other authorities. It was in that backdrop that we required the personal presence of the Chairman of the UGC, Professor Ved Prakash who has appeared and broadly explained the UGC stand on the questions that fall for determination. According to Professor Ved Prakash, the 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. Professor Ved Prakash further states that wherever the UGC notices that technical educational degrees are being awarded by deemed university without the approval of the AICTE, it can and does take action against the defaulting university by reporting the matter to the Central Government who confers the status of deemed university on such institutions. When asked whether Professor Ved Prakash can on affidavit state the above position, Prof. Prakash was more than willing to do so. Needless to say some of the counsel appearing in these cases were critical of the stand Page 23 of 40 taken by the UGC and argued that the same was not the true position either on facts or in law. Be that as it may, we deem it just and proper to permit the UGC to file a detailed counter affidavit to this SLP which shall apart from answering other submissions made in the SLP elaborate on the following aspects: 1) Whether the UGC recognises degrees in technical education by open and distance education mode. If so, subject to what conditions, if any? 2) If such degrees are recognised only when they are awarded after obtaining the permission the the AICTE, what happens when of universities award degrees without obtaining such permission? 3) What action, if any, is the UGC empowered to take under the UGC Act or any other provision of the University law against awarding degrees without the approval of the AICTE and whether any such action has been taken in the past or is proposed to be taken against such universities hereafter. 4) Whether the Government of India have issued any instructions/circulars regarding recognition of technical education degrees through ODL mode offered by the deemed or statutory universities. If so, what are these instructions/circulars the action/steps to be taken in regard to the degrees awarded or status of such degrees as have already been issued before the issue of such instructions? and what is 5) How does UGC explain its stand in view of the documents filed by respondent No. 1 in I.As Nos. 5 and 6 of 2014 in these petitions or those enclosed with the SLP or counter affidavit? universities, 6) Since the controversy relates to different deemed namely Vinayaka Mission's research Foundation, Salem, Tamil IASE Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Nadu, Sardarshahr Rajasthan; JRN Vidyapeeth Udaipur, Rajasthan and Allahabad Agriculture Page 24 of 40 Institute, Allahabad, U.P. Research the proposed affidavit by Professor Ved Prakash shall state whether the UGC recognises the degrees awarded by the said Universities by ODL mode even when the same are degrees in technical education including degrees that have already been awarded. We grant to Professor Ved Prakash, Chairman of the UGC four weeks' time to file the affidavit copy whereof shall be served upon learned counsel for the counsel opposite who shall have two weeks' time thereafter to file their response.” 7. Prof. Ved Prakash, Chairman, UGC, filed an affidavit on 30.01.2015 dealing with the aforesaid questions. The subsequent Order dated 04.08.2015 of this Court was as under: “There are a large number of cases pending on the principal issue raised in SLPs (C) Nos.19807-808 of 2012 (Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. & Ors.). Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the principal issue is whether degrees given by some institutions/universities through distant education ought to be recognized by the employer. He submits that All India Council for Technical and University Grants Education Commission (UGC) have taken the stand that such degrees in technical courses are not recognized by AICTE and therefore not recognized by UGC as well. (AICTE) Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for UGC affirms that the UGC does not recognize the degrees. It is the submission of Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel that in a meeting convened by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) on 19th February, 2008 it was decided that the approval granted by Distant Education Council (including) must be reviewed and the approval should be granted to the courses and not to the Institute. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the concerned Secretary in the MHRD should be impleaded as a party so that the Page 25 of 40 stand of the Government of India is clear. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel makes an oral request for impleadment of the Secretary concerned in the MHRD as a party respondent. On his oral request, the concerned Secretary in the MHRD is impleaded as a party respondent. Amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks.” 8. An affidavit has since then been filed on behalf of MHRD2. In the Order dated 26.04.2017 it was recorded:- “………Our attention was drawn to letter dated 03.12.2007 addressed to UGC seeking ex post facto approval annexing a list of 295 courses run by the JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University under Distance Education system. From the record, it is not clear what type of expertise the said University has, for granting degrees for such large number of courses by distance education mode. It is also not clear as to what is the methodology followed for monitoring the standard of education imparted by its centres on the basis of which such professional degrees are granted. It is also not clear what type of infrastructure is available with the said University.” 9. Civil Writ Petition No.1640 of 2008 was filed by one Kartar Singh in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in public interest. Certain Deemed to be Universities, such as JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur, Vinayak Mission Research Foundation, Tamil Nadu, IASE Deemed University, Rajasthan were respondents in the petition. It was submitted that these Deemed to be Universities had set up “off campus centers” and “study centers” in violation of the Regulations framed by the UGC; that very same Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India study center, at times was operating for more than one Deemed to be University; that these study centers completely lacked infrastructure and facilities for courses in Engineering and that the programmes through distance education mode were illegal and without approval. Appropriate reliefs were prayed for, including directions that degrees in Engineering Page 26 of 40 obtained through distance education be declared to be invalid for the purposes of Government jobs in the State. This Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court vide its decision dated 06.11.2012. Para 184 sums up the decision as under:- it was necessary for “184. In terms of the directions of the the Commission, Deemed to the Universities to seek approval from AICTE. In view of the above, we hold that the Deemed to be Universities have started courses in technical education in violation of the guidelines, instructions, circulars and regulations framed by the Commission not only when they started such courses but also in establishing Study Centres outside their territorial limits and in subjects for which they were not granted Deemed to be university status. Therefore, degrees awarded by such Deemed to be Universities is an illegal act and such illegality cannot be removed or cured by the actions of either the Commission or DEC.” 10. The declaration invalidating the degrees in Engineering obtained through distance education mode has been the subject matter of challenge by various students-candidates and institutions. Since the issues raised in those petitions are same as raised in matters arising out of the decision of the High Court of Orissa, these matters were taken up soon after the matters from Orissa. We are principally concerned in these cases only with courses leading to the degrees in Engineering through distance education mode. 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 Deemed to be Universities concerned to apply for ex-post-facto Page 27 of 40 facilities available at 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 Deemed to be Universities concerned 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 students concerned 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 Study Centres the concerned 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 students concerned. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the students concerned 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. test(s)both appropriate 58. AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct in written examination as well as in practicals for the students concerned 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 Page 28 of 40 to the students concerned and if they do not pass the test(s) their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the test(s), the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the Deemed to be University concerned within a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given time till 14-1- 2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) in respect of students who wish to undergo test(s) shall be recovered from the Deemed to be Universities concerned by 31.03.2018. If they clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the candidates concerned. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the candidates concerned do not clear the test(s) within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test(s), 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. 66. Accordingly, we direct: The 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to 66.1 Deemed to be Universities and the Deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not justified in Technical introducing any new courses in Education without the approval of AICTE. 66.2. Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their authorities concerned are set aside. 66.3. Consequent to aforesaid Direction No.II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by Deemed to be Universities concerned stand suspended. 66.4. AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test(s) as indicated in Para 58 above. Page 29 of 40 The option be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15-01-2018 to appear at the test(s) to be conducted in accordance with the directions in Para 58 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test(s) and if they do not successfully clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 57 and 58 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) shall be recovered from the Deemed to be Universities concerned by 31-03- 2018. 66.5. Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all advantages/benefits stand withdrawn as mentioned in Para 58. shall 66.6. If the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully. 66.7. As regards students who were admitted after the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the Deemed to be Universities concerned through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 59 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the Deemed to be Universities concerned towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by to be Universities concerned by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 59. the Deemed By 31.05.2018 all to be 66.8. Universities concerned shall the sums indicated above in para 66.7 and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter. the Deemed refund Page 30 of 40 into We direct the CBI to carry out thorough 66.9. investigation the officials the conduct of concerned who dealt with the matters and went the policy about granting permissions against statement, as indicated in Para 60 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to interest advance illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation. commercial their 66.10. The UGC shall also consider whether the Deemed to be University status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above, are not refunded to the students concerned that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise. 66.11. We restrain all Deemed to be Universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the Academic Session 2018-2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the statutory/regulatory authorities concerned in respect of each of those courses and unless the off- campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the Statutory Authorities concerned. The approvals have to be course specific. is further directed 66.12. The UGC take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain Deemed to be Universities from using the word “University” within one month from today. to 66.13. The Union of India may constitute a three members Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of Page 31 of 40 to regulate the Deemed oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight to be mechanism Universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before August 31, 2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11-09- 2018.” 40. In its judgment reported in (2018) 2 SCC 298, vide Paragraph Nos.21, 25 & 26, the apex Court clarified its previous judgment as follows: “21. It is true, as is evident from paragraphs 43, 44 and 57 of the judgment that the controversy in the present case pertained to validity of degrees in to be Engineering conferred by the Deemed Universities through distance education mode and this Court was not called upon to consider validity of diplomas conferred by such Deemed to be Universities. However the advertisement issued by AICTE covers diploma courses as well. We therefore accept the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhruv learned Senior Mehta and Mr. M.L. Verma, Advocates and clarify that validity of such courses leading to diplomas was not the subject matter of the judgment. the degrees 25. We now turn to the general submission advanced by all the learned counsel that the in securing candidates after Engineering through distance education mode, have advanced in career and that their ability was tested at various levels and as such requirement of passing the examination in terms of the judgment be dispensed with in their case. We cannot make any such exception. The infirmity in their degrees is basic and fundamental and cannot be wished away. At the same time, we find some force in their submission that if the suspension of their degrees Page 32 of 40 and all advantages were to apply as indicated in the judgment, the candidates concerned may lose their jobs and even if they were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs and present position would pose some difficulty. 26. We, therefore, as a one-time relaxation in favour of those candidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 and who, in terms of the judgment, are eligible to appear at the test to be conducted by AICTE, direct:- 26.1. All such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcoming test to be conducted by AICTE in May-June 2018 and who exercise option to appear at the test in terms of the judgment, can retain the degrees in question and all the advantages flowing therefrom till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018 whichever is earlier. This facility is given as one-time exception 26.2. so that those who have the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt itself, should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the advantages. But if they fail or choose not to appear, the directions in the judgment shall apply, in that the degrees and all advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that no more such chances or exceptions will be given or made. They will undoubtedly be entitled to appear on the second occasion in terms of the judgment but this exception shall not apply for such second attempt. 26.3 We direct AICTE to conduct the test in May- June 2018 and declare the result well in time, in terms of our directions in the judgment and this Order. AICTE shall however extend the time to exercise the option to appear at the test suitably.” (Emphasis Supplied) Page 33 of 40 41. Similarly, the said judgment was further clarified in a contempt proceeding in Ashok Kumar and Others v. Depinder Singh Dhesi and Others reported in (2019) 8 SCC 280. Paragraphs 11 to 16 of the said judgment, being relevant, are extracted below. in Engineering “11. In spite of the conclusion that: (a) courses leading to Degrees in Engineering could not be taught through Distance Education Mode without there being express guidelines issued by AICTE permitting such mode; and (b) the deemed to be Universities in question were not entitled to start courses through Distance Education Mode without prior approval under AICTE, the facility of benefit as detailed in paras 57 and 58 of the Judgment was extended to the students. Though the Degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode were prima facie not in accordance with law, the students enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 were given two chances to prove their worth and it was directed that if they clear the test, they would continue to derive advantages flowing from such Degrees. It may be mentioned here that there could 12. possibly be variety of advantages derived by the candidates on the basis of such Degrees awarded at least 10 years before the Judgment was pronounced. During this period some of the candidates might have progressed in career on the basis of such Degree, while some could possibly have acquired Post-Graduate qualifications such as M.Tech and M.B.A. on the strength of such Degrees. It was in this light, that the Court ruled that though from the date of the Judgment all the advantages and benefits flowing or arising from such Degrees would stand suspended, the benefits or advantages would get revived after the examination, spoken of in said paras 57 and 58. If any candidate either failed to clear the examination in two attempts or if he chose not to appear in the examination, the Degree would stand annulled the candidates had cleared Page 34 of 40 completely disentitling the candidate to all the benefits and advantages flowing from such degrees. if to pass they were this Court 13. Some candidates approached submitting that if in terms of the Judgment the benefits or advantages were to be withdrawn and could be regranted or restored only after the candidates had cleared the examination, it may entail some prejudice to the candidates. Some of the candidates who had obtained Post-Graduate Degrees and were employed on the strength of such Degrees would be required to surrender such benefits; and even the examination in the first attempt, it may still require restoration of the benefits leading to situations of inconvenience and prejudice. The directions in the Judgment were therefore, modified to a certain extent in the Order. it was, therefore laid down by way of further concession in the Order that all the candidates who desired to appear in the upcoming examination could retain all the advantages and benefits till one month after declaration of the result of test or till 31.07.2018 whichever was later. The benefit of retaining thus extended only till the first attempt. Those who could not clear the examination in first attempt or chose not to appear in the examination conducted in May/June, 2018 were not entitled to the concessions extended by the Order. the advantages was 14. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the strength of such Degrees awarded through Distance Education Mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment provided the candidates could prove their worth and ability. Page 35 of 40 15. But if, the concerned candidates had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the Judgment was passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment and the Order, the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but “restoration” would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment. In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the Judgment and the Order. the Department and/or 16. In the present case serious objection has been raised on behalf of Department that the candidates concerned had enrolled themselves in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through express Distance Education Mode without permission of the Department did not recognise the Degrees in Engineering awarded through Distance Education Mode or that the candidates concerned were not granted any study leave to pursue such courses. If the Degrees were so obtained in violation of the norms and parameters laid down by the concerned Department, the matter assumes completely different complexion. The directions issued by this Court in the Judgment and the Order never directed to confer such advantages which the candidates were otherwise not enjoying on the date when the Judgment and clarificatory Order were passed. If there was serious infirmity in the Degrees so obtained by the candidates, the matter through to ought representation or instituted challenge in that behalf. If the promotion was not granted and was not being enjoyed as on the day when the judgment was passed, there was no violation of any direction issued by this Court. As is evident, the representations made by the Contempt either out through properly sorted be Page 36 of 40 Petitioner claimed conferral of certain status and benefits which they were not enjoying earlier. If there be any grievance on that front, the entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other than a Contempt Petition.” (Emphasis Supplied) 42. It is amply clear from the said submission made by Mr.Mohanty, so also the judgments of the apex Court, as detailed above, the said direction given by the apex Court is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner and similarly placed others, who have passed AMIE Degree Engineering and is applicable to Degree in Engineering done through Distance Education Mode. 43. That apart, the Corporation has taken a stand as to the Judgment of the apex Court as detailed above vide which the order passed in W.P(C) No.57 of 2010 and review order passed thereon has been set aside by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.19834-35/2012 which was admittedly decided on 03.11.2017 i.e. much after the impugned order was passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation in the year 2011. 44. Admittedly, pursuant to Board Resolution, as has been extracted above, the Petitioner and similarly placed others were appointed in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) vide office Order dated 10.08.2021. However, without placing the matter before the Board, the Managing Director of the Corporation passed the impugned order on 19.08.2011 without any authority. Further, no opportunity was given to the Petitioner Page 37 of 40 and similarly placed others to have their say in the said regard and no reason to do so has been assigned in the impugned order, which was issued immediately after issuance of office Order dated 10.08.2011. 45. Law is well settled that if the power has been vested with the particular Authority, same can only be exercised by the same Authority. In Zuari Cement Limited v. Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad and others, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 690, the apex Court held that it is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this Rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Tailor, reported in (1875) LR I Ch D 426, which was subsequently followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1936 PC 253(2) and subsequently, the said principle has also been followed in Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 422. 46. In Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, reported in AIR 1936 PC 253, it was held that “where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.” The said principles have been followed subsequently in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh reported in AIR 1964 SC 358, in Dhananjay Reddy v. State of Karnataka Page 38 of 40 reported in AIR 2001 SC 1512, in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahabir Prasad reported in AIR 1999 SC 3558, in Gujrat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1921, in Ram Deen Maurya v. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 735. 47. Law is further well settled that before taking any action thereby seriously affecting the service carrier of an employee (including promotion), the employee concerned should be accorded sufficient opportunity to have his say and the principle of natural justice has to be followed before taking such action. But in the present case no opportunity was given to the Petitioner and similarly placed others before reverting back them to their former post. 48. In view of the pleadings and documents on record, so also argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and the judgments of the apex Court, as detailed above, this Court is of view that the impugned order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Managing Director, OLIC (O.P.No.2) is illegal, unjustified and being beyond authority, is liable to be set aside. 49. Accordingly, the said impugned Order dated 19.08.2011, as at Annexure-5, is set aside and quashed. Page 39 of 40 50. In terms of this judgment, the interim order passed in the present case and other connected matters stand confirmed. All the connected Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost. .….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court Dated, 19th April, 2023/Banita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: Jr.Stenographer Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 17-May-2023 13:36:15 Page 40 of 40