The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14253 of 2023 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Satyanarayan Rana …. Petitioner Mr. S. Palit, Sr. Advocate Mr. U.C. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Union of India & others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Nikhil Pratap, A.S.C. Mr. P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I. Mr.A.K.Panigrahi, Advocate for O.P.-5 Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Advocate for O.P.-2 Mr.Bikash Jena, Advocate for O.P.-3 CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of hearing : 12.01.2024 | Date of Judgment: 26.04.2024 ______________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner, who holds a B. Tech degree in Civil Engineering Branch, which was obtained through Open Distance Learning Mode (ODL) while he was in service as a lateral entry candidate from the J.R.N. Bidyapitha, Rajasthan (deemed University) (established Page 1 of 29 under Section-3 of the U.G.C. Act, 1956). By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has sought for a direction to the Opposite Parties, by issuing an appropriate writ, to the effect that the B.Tech degree (civil) obtained by the Petitioner during the year 2009 via ODL mode from the above named university as a registered student of such university for the Academic Session 2001-2005, is a valid degree as per Section-22 of the U.G.C. Act, as has been jointly declared by the U.G.C. and A.I.C.T.E. under Annexure-18 in compliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of O.L.I.C. limited vs. Rabindra Shankar Patro and others reported 2018 (1) SCC 468 and as clarified by A.I.C.T.E. vide its circular dtd.09.06.2020 under Annexure-22 and the circular dtd.19.09.2022 under Annexure-29 to the writ application. Further, a prayer has also been made for issuing a writ of mandamus to the Opposite Party No.5 to take consequential steps pursuant to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabindra Shankar Patro’s case (supra) and to restore the post and position of the Petitioner as he was enjoying on 03.11.2017. 2. Heard Shri S. Palit, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. N. Pratap, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties, Page 2 of 29 Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the
Legal Reasoning
Union of India, Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5 and Mr. T.K. Satpathy, learned counsel representing the Opposite Party No.2. 3. The factual matrix of the Petitioner’s case, as culled out
Decision
from the pleadings in the writ petition, in gist, is that on 12.11.1990 the Petitioner joined O.L.I.C. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.5) as a Junior Engineer (Civil). While continuing as such, the Petitioner acquired B.Tech Degree (Civil) from J.R.N. Bidyapitha, Rajasthan as a lateral entry candidate through the distance learning mode and he was awarded with the degree on 30.10.2009. Thus, the Petitioner has acquired the B.Tech degree as an in-service candidate and accordingly, he was eligible and suitable for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer under the direct recruitment quota. 4. This Court in O.J.C. No.13251 of 2001, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 14.12.2009 had directed the Opposite Party No.5 to de novo consider the case of the graduate engineers and diploma holder engineers in the light of the decision taken by the Government of Odisha on 30.09.1994 with a further direction that while taking such a decision the authority shall not discriminate between the Petitioner and the Opposite Parties with Page 3 of 29 other similarly placed engineers working in different departments of the Government/ corporations. 5. The present Petitioner, who was not a party to the above noted writ application, being aggrieved by such order filed a separate writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.563 of 2010 claiming similar benefits as directed by this Court in the earlier writ application. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.01.2010 this Court disposed of the earlier writ application of the Petitioner along with a batch of similar other writ applications with a direction to consider the case of the Petitioner in light of the order passed earlier by this Court. After disposal of the said writ application the Govt. of Odisha on 15.05.2012 took a decision with the approval of the law department and directed the M.D. of Opposite Party No.5- corporation to implement the order passed by this Court subject to result of the outcome of SLP (Civil) to be filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, the M.D. of Opposite Party No.5-corporation on 16.05.2012 issued the order of appointment in favour of the in-service degree holder Junior Engineers as Assistant Engineers on ad-hoc basis including the present Petitioner under Annexure-5 to the writ application. Page 4 of 29 6. While the matter stood thus, pursuant to the decision of the D.O.W.R., the Opposite Party No.5-Corporation issued a notification for restructuring the engineering candidates along with existing and revised strength. Such notification reveals that the post of Assistant Engineers has been re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil) and against the revised strength of 119 nos. of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil) there were only 23 persons, who were functioning. 7. In the meantime, the A.I.C.T.E., during the pendency of the civil appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, published a public notice to the effect that the council in its 42nd meeting held on 03.08.2017 has taken a decision to recognize the equivalence for degree/ diploma by the said university for all purposes including higher education and admission to technical courses conducted by various professional bodies/ institutions which were duly recognized by the Govt. of India with permanent recognition up to 31.05.2013. While this was so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 03.11.2017 disposed of Civil Appeal No.17869- 17870 of 2017 along with a batch of similar other cases vide a common judgment in the matter of Odisha Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. vs. Rabi Shankar Patro and others reported in 2018 (1) SCC Page 5 of 29 468. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in O.L.I.C. Ltd. case (supra) clearly lays down the procedure to be followed in case of persons holding in-service Bachelor degree obtained through O.D.L. Mode from J.R.N. Bidyapitha, Rajasthan and other deemed Universities. Moreover, para-43 of the judgment specifically provides for modalities to be followed in case of such in-service candidates, who have obtained Bachelor degree through distance learning mode. 8. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that since some doubts arose with regard to interpretation of para-43 of the judgment in O.L.I.C. Ltd.’s case (supra) certain clarifications were sought for before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing I.A. applications. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.01.2018, while clarifying order dated 03.11.2017, as a one-time measure, granted relaxation to the candidates who have obtained the B. Tech degree through distance learning mode during academic session 2001-2005 and such relaxation/ exception is subject to the candidates fulfilling certain conditions. The order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also prescribes the modalities to be followed in case of candidates who choose to appear in the examination and clear the same in the first Page 6 of 29 attempt as well as the candidates, who either choose not to appear or have failed in their first attempt. The candidates who have appeared in the examination and cleared the same in their first attempt, were permitted to retain such service benefits up to 31.07.2018 and such benefits were also continued after the candidate cleared the examination in the first attempt. However, the candidates, who either choose not to appear or have failed in their first attempt, were to be treated differently and they will not be entitled to the one-time measure of getting the service benefits as was protected by the Hon’ble Apex Court up to 31.07.2018. 9. After disposal of the Civil Appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 03.11.2017 and the subsequent clarification thereto vide order dated 22.01.2018, the Opposite Party No.5- Corporation, by interpreting the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a hasty and arbitrary manner, issued orders of reversion in post i.e. from the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) to Junior Engineer to the petitioner. Challenging such reversion order dated 22.03.2018 the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5217 of 2018. This Court while issuing notice vide order dated 02.04.2018 was also pleased to pass an Interim order staying operation of the order of reversion dated 22.03.2018 under Page 7 of 29 Annexure-13 to the writ application. In the meantime, the A.I.C.T.E. has issued a public notice fixing 16th December, 2018 as the date for conducting under-graduate examination for the candidates of the academic session 2001-2005, who had appeared from the deemed universities through O.D.L. mode. Further, it appears from the record that despite interim order dated 22.03.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.5217 of 2018, the Petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Engineer on 17.02.2020. Such order dated 17.02.2020 was challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.12883 of 2020 by the Petitioner with a prayer for restoration of his position as he was enjoying on 03.11.2017 with a further prayer for regularlization of his service. 10. W.P.(C) No.5217 of 2018 was taken up for hearing by this Court on 25.01.2021 and the same was disposed of by a judgment, which is in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in O.L.I.C. Ltd. Case (supra) reported in 2018 (I) SCC 468. Further, a direction was given to the Opposite Party No.5- Corporation for restoration of the benefit in favour of the Petitioner in that case as on 22.03.2018. Similarly, W.P.(C) No.12883 of 2020 was also disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2021 treating the same to be an offshoot of W.P.(C) No.5217 of 2018 and Page 8 of 29 as such the said writ application was disposed of in terms of judgment dated 25.01.2021. Thereafter, challenging the judgment in W.P.(C) No.5217 of 2018 dated 25.01.2021, a writ appeal was preferred bearing W.A. No.187 of 2021. In the said writ appeal, a Division bench of this court was pleased to set aside judgment dated 25.01.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.5217 of 2018 vide its judgment dated 14.07.2021. The order passed in the writ appeal by the Hon’ble Division Bench was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(C) No.11589 of 2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.08.2021 was pleased to issue notice to the respondents. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed by the O.L.I.C. Ltd. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Such counter affidavit reveals that the Petitioner had passed the stipulated second test conducted by the AICTE and UGC in December, 2018 in compliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the S.L.P. filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court bearing S.L.P.(C) No.11589 of 2021 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.11.2021. Finally, in W.P.(C) No.456 of 2023 the Petitioner has once again moved the Hon’ble Apex Court for redressal of his grievance. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as Page 9 of 29 withdrawn vide order dated 28.04.2023 with liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law. 12. The Opposite Party No.3 i.e. AICTE has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.29888 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No.29890 of 2023 and the said counter affidavit has also been adopted in W.P.(C) No.14253 of 2023. In his counter affidavit, the Opposite Party No.3 has referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) I SCC 468 and (2018) II SCC 298. In para-4.3 of the counter affidavit of the AICTE (Opposite Party No.3), it has been admitted that the Petitioners have qualified in the second examination held jointly by the AICTE and UGC in December, 2018 as per Annexure-14 to the writ application. It has also been stated in the aforesaid affidavit that the Petitioner along with similarly situated other persons have been issued with validation certification of degree in Civil Engineering. However, with regard to restoration of post and position in service, it has been stated on behalf of the Opposite Party No.3 that the same comes within the exclusive domain of Opposite Party No.5 and that the Opposite Party No.3 does not have any say in such matter. 13. A Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the O.L.I.C. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.5). In the said counter affidavit, Page 10 of 29 the Opposite Party No.5 while formally denying the claim of the Petitioners, in para-9 have specifically admitted the appointment of the Petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 16.05.2012 which was subject to the final outcome of SLP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the aforesaid SLP which was converted to Civil Appeal No.17869-17870 of 2017 was disposed of on 03.11.2017. In its judgment referred to hereinabove, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the students of Academic Sessions 2001- 2005 are entitled to two chances for their appearance in the special examination/ test within the stipulated time and that in the event, such candidates clear the test within the time stipulated, all the advantages/ benefits, as is due and admissible, shall be restored to them and their degree shall stand revalidated fully. 14. Since there was some confusion with regard to interpretation of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2018) I SCC 468 and (2018) II SCC 298, the Opposite Party No.5 came to an erroneous conclusion that the claim of the Petitioner is devoid of any merit and as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed in terms of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It appears that the Opposite Party No.5 has made a fundamental mistake of not accepting the Petitioners as students of Page 11 of 29 the Academic Sessions 2001-2005 and their appearance in the second Special examination held during December, 2018 has not been taken into consideration by the Opposite Party No.5. As a result of which the validation certificate granted by A.I.C.T.E. and UGC jointly under Annexure-18 in favour of the Petitioners and in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been accepted by the Opposite Party No.5. Thus, it was argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the second judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stands independently and that the same does not merge with the first judgment and as such the second judgment dated 22.01.2018 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all including the Opposite Party No.5. 15. On a careful scrutiny of the present writ application, this Court observes that the conduct of the Opposite Party has been principally challenged on the following grounds; (i) The Petitioners have successfully revalidated their B. Tech Degrees obtained through O.D.L. mode as lateral entry candidate from the J.R.N. Bidyapitha, Rajasthan and that such revalidation certificates were jointly issued by AICTE and UGC in favour of the Petitioners under Annexure-18 in strict compliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (2018) I SCC 468, (ii) The AICTE Page 12 of 29 (Opposite Party No.3) issued clarification dated 19.09.2022 with a reference to both the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, the degree obtained by the Petitioners became valid from the date of acquisition of such degree and that such validation has created a legal right in favour of the Petitioner, (iii) In the second round of litigation the Division Bench of this Court while adjudicating the order of reversion dated 22.03.2018 in W.A. No.187 of 2021 completely ignored the effect of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported (2018) I SCC 468 and similarly they have also misconstrued the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) II SCC 298. The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on both occasions have a binding effect on this Court while adjudicating the issue of benefit of restoration of the Petitioner’s degree; (iv) the dismissal of SLP without assigning any reason, is a Dismissal Simplicitor and thus, the same does not amount to merger and as such, the principle of res-judicata is not attracted to the facts of the Petitioners’ case and accordingly, the writ application is maintainable as the same is based on a fresh cause of action arising out of the AICTE clarification dated 19.09.2022. Moreover, while dismissing the aforesaid SLP, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically granted leave to the Page 13 of 29 petitioner to approach this Court. (v) the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution is binding on all courts and authorities including the O.L.I.C. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.5); (vi) the right to retain the degree conferred under Section 22 of UGC Act, is a statutory right. Therefore, such statutory right cannot be taken away by the clarification of AICTE dated 19.09.2022. Moreover, a clarification gives rise to a fresh cause of action and as such the Petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (2018) I SCC 468. 16. On the basis of a careful analysis of the aforesaid narration of the factual position as well as the question of law involved in the present writ application, this Court is of the considered view that the legal question that is required to be adjudicated in the present writ application is that “whether the case of the present Petitioners is squarely by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.11.2017 reported in (2018) I SCC 468, specifically in view of para-57, 58, 66.6 and, as to whether the Petitioners are entitled for restoration of their degree and consequential service benefits in their favor?” 17. While answering the aforesaid issue, this Court, after a careful examination of both the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Page 14 of 29 Court, is of the observation that all the technical degrees were recalled but the students of Academic Sessions 2001-2005 were treated differently and specially inasmuch as, they were granted two more chances/ attempts to revalidate their degrees by appearing in the joint special examination conducted by the AICTE and UGC. Furthermore, the students who succeed in such test, would have their degrees and benefits restored to them as per para-66.6 of the judgment. 18. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarificatory judgment dated 22.01.2018 reported in (2018) II SCC 298 granted one time relaxation and accordingly directed to keep the suspended degree in abeyance up to 31.07.2018. However, it was made clear that if the students fail or choose not to appear in the first exam, the same shall be put to suspension w.e.f. 01.08.2018 until the second chance to appear in the examination is over. It is also clear from the record that pursuant to the second opportunity granted to the Petitioner as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, such examination was held during December, 2018, which was the second attempt examination, and the result of such examination was published during February, 2019. Accordingly, on successfully qualifying in the said examination, the revalidated degree Page 15 of 29 certificates were issued in favour of the Petitioners. Thus, it was argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the degree that has been issued jointly by the AICTE and UGC in favour of the Petitioner is, in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) I SCC 468. In the course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana & ors. vs. Prem Chand & ors. dated 05.08.2019 rendered in L.P.A. No.260 of 2019. While considering the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has categorically held that candidates who were enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005 and exercised the option to appear at the test to be conducted by the AICTE can retain their degrees in question and all the advantages flowing there from, however, if the benefits are withdrawn from them after 31.07.2018, then such benefits and advantages will be restored to them on passing the examination in first or second chances, as the case may be. A similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Guwahati High Court in W.A. No.189 of 2022 (State of Assam & ors. vs. Munindra Barman & ors.). Wherein, the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court referring to the Page 16 of 29 judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that upon clearing the test by the candidates of the Academic Sessions 2001- 2005, their engineering degrees would revive and all the advantages and benefits flowing there from would be restored. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the validity of degree of the Petitioners for the period from 01.08.2018 to December, 2018, is revived/ revalidated on the Petitioners passing the relevant special joint examination within the two attempts and the second chance of which occurred during December, 2018. It was further contended that upon clearing the aforesaid special test as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the degrees held by the Petitioners get revalidated from the date of acquisition of such degree as clarified by the AICTE in its clarification dated 19.09.2022. Therefore, the stand taken by O.L.I.C. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.5) is legally unsustainable and hence the same is contrary to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgment. 19. To adjudicate the aforesaid contentious issue as to whether the degrees received by the Petitioners can be presumed to be valid and as to whether they are entitled to the benefits which they were getting earlier, this Court is required to analyze the operative Page 17 of 29 portion of the Supreme Court judgment in detail. So far, first judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) I SCC 468 is concerned, this Court observes that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-57 & 58 of the judgment has made the following observations:- “57. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex- post-facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex-post-facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of Courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, since 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be Universities to apply for ex-post-facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001- 2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universities flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned students persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex- post-facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the concerned students. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned students to have their ability tested by authorities competent Page 18 of 29 in that behalf. We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended. 58. The AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test/tests both in written examination as well as in practicals for the concerned students admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the concerned subjects. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in respective States wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during May-June, 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the concerned students and if they do not pass the their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the test/tests, the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the concerned Deemed to be University within a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15th of January, 2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests in respect of students who wish to undergo test/tests shall be recovered from to be Universities by 31.03.2018. If they clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the concerned candidates. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the concerned candidates do not clear the test/tests within the time stipulated or choose not to appear the concerned Deemed test/tests Page 19 of 29 at the test/tests, their degrees in Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and cancelled. It goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.” Similarly, in para-66 the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while disposing of the above noted Civil Appeals No.17869-17870 of 2017 along with Civil Appeals No.17871-905 of 2017, issued certain directions in para-66 of the judgment. Para-66.4 and para 66.6 of the said judgment are relevant for the purpose of the present case, hence the same are quoted hereinbelow:- “66.4. The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 58 above. The option be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance with the directions in Para 58 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the test/tests 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/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. 66.6. If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully.” Thus, on a careful analysis of the directions contained in Para-66 of the judgment it appears that the Hon’ble Supreme Court Page 20 of 29 had directed to give options to the students concerned whose degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018 to appear at the test to be conducted by the AICTE and UGC jointly, and that such students shall be given not more than two chances to clear the test and if they do not successfully clear the test within the stipulated time, their degree shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in para-57 & 58 of the said judgment. It was further directed that if the students clear the test within the stipulated time, all the advantages/ benefits shall be restored to them and their degree will stand revived fully. 20. Failing to understand the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, several applications were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for clarification of the aforesaid judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigations Corporation Ltd’s case. Such clarifications/ applications were clubbed together and were disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 22.01.2018 reported in (2018) II SCC 298. The second judgment as referred to hereinabove is basically clarificatory in nature. Therefore, the same is essentially to be read harmoniously with the earlier judgment. In the second judgment, the relevant paragraphs for the purpose of the Page 21 of 29 present case are 25, 26, 26.1, 26.2, 26.3 which are quoted hereinbelow:- “25. We now turn to the general submission advanced by all the learned counsel that the candidates after securing the degrees in 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 and all advantages were to apply as iridicated 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: All such candidates, who wish to appear at the 26.1. 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 31-7-2018 whichever is earlier. 26.2. This facility is given as one-time exception 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 Page 22 of 29 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.” 21. On a careful reading of the above noted paragraphs this Court observes that the prayer of the Petitioners to dispense with the examination on the ground that they have advanced in career and that their ability was tested at various levels was not acceptable to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that we cannot make any such exception. Further, it has also been observed that deficiency in the degrees cannot be wished away with the passage of time. On such consideration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as a one-time measure granted relaxation in favor of such candidates who were enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005 and accordingly it was directed that all such candidates who wished to appear in the forthcoming test to be conducted by the AICTE in May-June, 2018 and who have exercised their option to appear in such test in terms of the judgment, can retain the degrees in question and all the Page 23 of 29 advantages flowing there from till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018 whichever is earlier. It has been observed in no uncertain terms by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such facility is being given as a one-time exception to the students in order to ensure that the meritorious students are not put to any inconvenience. Such candidates who manage to pass the test in the first attempt would be entitled to retain all the advantages. But, if they fail or choose not to appear, the directions in the judgment shall apply, and as a result the degrees and all advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn. It has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that such chances or exception will not be given or made anymore. The Candidates will undoubtedly be entitled to appear on the second occasion in the terms of the judgment but this exception shall not apply to such second attempt. 22. Keeping in view the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgments, this Court is of the considered view that there is no conflict between two judgments. Moreover, the second judgment is only clarificatory in nature and the same is to be read in furtherance of the earlier judgment with the changes/ exceptions as has been directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the first judgment. On a conjoint reading of both Page 24 of 29 judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the candidates who took admission in the Academic Sessions 2001- 2005 are to be given two chances to revalidate their degrees. Further, in the event, they successfully qualify the test to be conducted by AICTE as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of para-58 of the first judgment, then the degrees of such candidates will automatically be revalidated and they shall retain all the benefits as is due and admissible to them. If any candidate fails in the test, he will get a second opportunity along with the candidates who did not opt to appear in the first examination and in the event such candidates successfully qualify the second test, they will have their degree certificates revalidated and entitled to get the service benefits as per the first judgment. It is needless to mention here that in the event a candidate fails to qualify the test despite attempting such test twice, the degrees of such candidates shall stand cancelled and necessary consequences will follow thereafter. 23. At this stage it is pertinent to refer to the counter affidavit filed by AICTE i.e. Opposite Party No.3 to the writ application. On a perusal of counter affidavit of Opposite Party No.3 it is seen that AICTE, pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, constituted a committee consisting of Senior Professors of NITs Page 25 of 29 and, NITTR to develop modalities and other details as required to conduct the test. An e-Portal for online registration and submission of application was opened on 02.12.2017 for all the candidates interested to take the test, and the last date for such registration was set to 15.01.2018, which was further extended to 22.01.2018. However, pursuant to the judgment dated 22.01.2018 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the last date was again extended up to 05.02.2018 till 5.00 P.M. Accordingly, the registration of the candidates was closed on 05.02.2018. On 03.06.2018, the UG examination was conducted at different venues/ centers followed by practical examination from 04.06.2018 to 07.06.2018 under CCTV surveillance. On 10.06.2018 the PG examination was conducted at 15 centers with practical examination on 11.06.2018 to 12.06.2018. On 27.07.2018, the result of the 2018 examination was announced on the AICTE website. 24. The Counter affidavit further reveals that on 31.08.2018 the registration for the second examination started. After being extended on two occasions, the same was closed on 21.10.2018 (midnight). Finally, the examination for the second test was held on 10th & 16th December, 2018 for PG/ UG students respectively at selected centers followed by practical examination. The result of Page 26 of 29 such second phase test was declared in February, 2019. All successful candidates were provided online mark list as well as certificates. Further, a list of successful candidates was posted on AICTE website vide letter dated 26.04.2019 and the same was communicated to all concerned parties. It has further been specifically stated in the counter of Opposite Party No.3 that the petitioner chose not to appear in the first such degree validation examination held during June, 2018, but appeared in the second examination held in December, 2018. Although, the Petitioner has been issued with a certificate validating his degree in civil engineering. 25. In the ultimate analysis of the factual background as well as the legal position involved in the present writ application, this Court is of the considered view that there is little area left for adjudication. The dispute in the present writ application is basically with regard to interpretation of application of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Keeping in view the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in both the judgments as well as the factual position, as emerged from the counter affidavit of the AICTE (Opposite Party No.3), this Court is also of the considered view that the Opposite Parties are required to consider the case of Page 27 of 29 the Petitioner keeping in view the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by taking into consideration the results of the special test conducted by the AICTE pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, this Court would like to reiterate the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the candidates who have cleared the examination in the first attempt, their degrees will have revalidated and they shall be allowed to retain all service benefits including their positions. Similarly, the candidates who could not appear in the first test or have failed in the first test and consequentially, appeared in the second test conducted by AICTE in December, 2018 and the result of which was published in February, 2019, in the event such candidates have cleared the test as per the result published by the AICTE in its official website, their degree shall be revalidated, however, they shall not be entitled to the benefit of the exception as carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-26 of the second judgment. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties are directed to re-examine the case of the Petitioner and similarly situated other persons in light of the aforesaid analysis and strictly in terms of the first judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly they shall take a final decision within a period of three months from the date of communication of a certified copy of Page 28 of 29 this judgment by the Petitioner. It is, however, further made clear that the Petitioner shall be entitled to such relief as has been prescribed in the first judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468 as per para-66.6. 26. With the aforesaid observations/ directions the writ application stands disposed of. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 26th April, 2024/ Anil. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-May-2024 18:55:23 Page 29 of 29