THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.28685 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are working as Foremen in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, the 1st respondent herein. Call letters, dated 05.06.2008, were issued to the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates, to attend the aptitude test proposed to be held on 22.06.2008 for promotion to the posts in the Non-Unionised Supervisory Cadre. The petitioners attended the test. While several others were issued orders of promotion to the S-8 Cadre in Cluster-C in Stream-S in the pay scale of Rs.5,400/- to Rs.8,751/-, the petitioners have denied that. On verification, the petitioners came to know that the diploma in Mechanical Engineering, obtained by them from Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur (Rajasthan) (for short ‘the Vidyapeeth’) was not recognized. The petitioners contend that they did hold the qualifications that were prescribed at the relevant point of time and the subsequent date, if any, taken by the respondents, cannot be applied to their cases. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that, in all, 88 candidates were appeared and 78 were found to be fit and issued orders of promotion. As regards the petitioners, it is stated that the qualifications possessed by them were not recognized by the statutory bodies concerned and that this was communicated to them through letter, dated 11.02.2010. The fact that the candidates with similar qualification were promoted up to the year 2008, is admitted. It is stated that in view of the clarification, dated 18.09.2008, received from the UGC, it has been decided not to promote candidates with such qualifications. Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the 1st respondent promoted several candidates, who possessed the same qualification in Mechanical Engineering from the same institution and there is no basis for them in denying the promotion to the petitioners. He contends that the so-called policy decision was taken by the respondents, subsequent to the conducting of examination. Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the University Grants Commission (UGC) has communicated to them, through several letters that the courses imparted by the Vidyapeeth are not recognized. He contends that for certain years, ex-post facto recognition was given but not for the period, during which the petitioners studied the course. It is also his case that in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government Information and Tourism Department[1], the Supreme Court deprecated grant of ex-post facto approval. The petitioners obtained Diploma Certificates in Mechanical Engineering at various points of time, up to 2008 from the Vidyapeeth. On the basis of the qualifications obtained by them, the 1st respondent has extended the benefit of special increments. The candidates with such qualifications were also promoted to higher posts, after they cleared the aptitude test. It is for that reason that the 1st respondent issued call letters to the petitioners also in the year 2008. The petitioners have also cleared the aptitude test. The only basis for the respondents to refuse promotion to the petitioners is the clarification issued by the UGC through its letter, dated 18.09.2008. The clarification is to the effect that the courses under distance mode imparted by deemed universities have to be approved by the Joint Committee, of UGC, AICTE and DEC. Except stating that the concerned deemed universities, including the Vidyapeeth, were required to approach the Joint Committee, it was not even mentioned that the Diploma Certificates obtained by the petitioners are invalid. At any rate, the decision, by the 1st respondent not to recognize such courses has been taken in September, 2008, after receiving the clarification, dated 18.09.2008. The aptitude test for the petitioners was held and the other candidates were issued letters of appointments, much earlier to that. Hence, there was no basis for the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioners. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to take necessary steps by treating that the petitioners held the prescribed qualifications, as on the date of their appearance in the aptitude test. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14.12.2010. GJ [1] 2009 (4) SCC 590