IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21331 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:03.03.2010 Ravinder Jakhar and others ....Petitioners versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jitender Bedwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioners seek for a mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to give the appointment to the petitioners in pursuance to the result which was declared on 20.08.2008 by the 2nd respondent for the post of Assistant Manager. The appointment was refused to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners 1 & 2 had secured degrees through the Distant Education mode from Janardhan Rai Nagar (JRN) Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University Partap Nagar, Udaipur and as regards the petitioners 3 and 4, the contention was that they had secured degrees Civil Writ Petition No.21331 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - through Distant Education mode from the Institute of Advance Studies in Education (IASE) Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Shahar, Rajasthan, which degrees the All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) has not recognized. 2. The issue whether the degree issued by a University established under an enactment of the Central or the State Legislature would require an approval from AICTE, was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharthidasan University and another Versus All India Council for Technical Education and others-AIR 2001 SC 2861, when it held that no such approval was necessary. Again, the contention that a degree awarded to a student who has undertaken the course through the Distant Education mode was not shown to have been approved by the AICTE is a matter that had fallen for consideration before the Distant Education Council through a Joint Committee which accepted the recommendation of the Committee appointed by the Distance Education Council (DEC) for examining the institutions which had applied for ex-post facto approval. The value of the degrees offered by JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University was considered by me in a decision in Vikash Kumar Versus Haryana State Pollution Control Board and another in Civil Writ Petition No.1405 of 2009, dated 13.01.2010. The same point was also decided in subsequent decision in Vipin Kumar Versus Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan and others in Civil Writ Petition No.575 of 2009, dated 04.02.2010. The point that falls for consideration in this case is the very same issue as what I have decided in the above said two cases. Civil Writ Petition No.21331 of 2008 (O&M) - 3 - 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the decisions rendered by this Court have been subject of an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and the same issue also awaits consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As of today, there is no order directing the transfer of this case to the Hon'ble Division Bench nor there is any stay of the proceedings before this Court. The decisions taken by this Court have not been shown to have been set aside by any superior Court and, therefore, a decision that has been rendered on due legal consideration of the matter need not, in my view, await till the Hon'ble Division Bench or the Hon'ble Supreme Court also takes a decision on the matter. On the other hand, it shall be always open for any party, who feels aggrieved, to seek for a correction in a higher forum, if there is a scope for it. 4. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the AICTE, UGC or DEC have not been made parties. The decision taken by them on the issue of approval would not require their presence also. The petitioner has a relief to obtain only against the respondent who denies to them their employment and, therefore, the contention regarding non-joinder of parties is without merit. 5. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be deemed to have been appointed on 3rd October, 2008, or any other date whichever is later, when the persons, who were considered for selection were actually considered and when the petitioners were entitled to be considered on the basis of the degrees which they have obtained. It shall be only for the purpose of determining their entry into service and the Civil Writ Petition No.21331 of 2008 (O&M) - 4 - petitioners shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits that had accrued during that period. The order shall be given effect within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.03.2010 sanjeev