IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.11.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NOs.3307 to 3329, 4959 to 4975, 6435 to 6455, 6900 to 6907, 7184, 7849 to 7852, 13233, 18492 to 18495, 18988 and 19798 of 2009 and M.P.NOS.1 TO 1 OF 2009 N.Viswanathan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3307 of 2009 Kumaravel .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3308 of 2009 Neela Mehan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3309 of 2009 Elango .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3310 of 2009 N.Ganesan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3311 of 2009 V.Duraisamy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3312 of 2009 K.Dhanabal .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3313 of 2009 R.Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3314 of 2009 P.Rajendran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3315 of 2009 D.Udhaya Kumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3316 of 2009 A.Jayaraj .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3317 of 2009 Boopathi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3318 of 2009 N.R.Venkatesan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3319 of 2009 A.Devaraj .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3320 of 2009 K.George William .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3321 of 2009 R.Marimuthu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3322 of 2009 P.Murugan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3323 of 2009 N.Matheswaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3324 of 2009 R.Gunasekaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3325 of 2009 A.Sivakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3326 of 2009 P.Ravichandran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3327 of 2009 K.Gopalakrishnan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3328 of 2009 V.Vivekananthan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.3329 of 2009 R.Thirumurugan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4959 of 2009 M.Elango .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4960 of 2009 P.Ramasamy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4961 of 2009 S.Selvaraju .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4962 of 2009 K.Ambika Boopathy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4963 of 2009 R.Ganesan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4964 of 2009 C.Prabakaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4965 of 2009 K.Ravichandran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4966 of 2009 K.Veeramani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4967 of 2009 V.Sakthi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4968 of 2009 R.Rajeskannan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4969 of 2009 M.Gunasekaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4970 of 2009 M.Ganesan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4971 of 2009 K.V.Kumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4972 of 2009 K.Elangovan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4973 of 2009 T.Irudayaraj .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4974 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J.Sivaraman .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4975 of 2009 C.R.Paramashivam .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6435 of 2009 A.Thangavel .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6436 of 2009 K.Sakthivel .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6437 of 2009 S.P.Periasamy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6438 of 2009 T.Narasimman .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6439 of 2009 K.Arupudhasamy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6440 of 2009 A.Raveendran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6441 of 2009 P.Partheeban .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6442 of 2009 P.Ragupathy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6443 of 2009 M.Rajanbabu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6444 of 2009 A.Sundaramoorthy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6445 of 2009 K.Muruganandhan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6446 of 2009 M.R.Sekar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6447 of 2009 S.Thangavel .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6448 of 2009 P.Moorthy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6449 of 2009 S.Saravanan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6450 of 2009 T.Ramanathan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6451 of 2009 S.Marimuthu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6452 of 2009 S.Sekar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6453 of 2009 N.Ravindran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6454 of 2009 R.SEttu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6455 of 2009 S.Senthilvelan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6900 of 2009 A.Vincent Joseph .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6901 of 2009 K.Kalyana Sundaram .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6902 of 2009 P.Tamilarasan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6903 of 2009 P.Murugesan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6904 of 2009 R.Kanagaraj .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6905 of 2009 G.Manoharan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6906 of 2009 K.Nachimuthu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.6907 of 2009 K.Sellamuthu .. Petitioner in W.P.No.7184 of 2009 P.Baskaran .. Petitioner in W.P.No.7849 of 2009 M.Rajakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.7850 of 2009 G.Muruganantham .. Petitioner in W.P.No.7851 of 2009 K.K.Kannan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.7852 of 2009 G.Venkatraman .. Petitioner in W.P.No.13233 of 2009 S.Parthiban .. Petitioner in W.P.No.18492 of 2009 A.Akbar Basha .. Petitioner in W.P.No.18493 of 2009 T.Ganesan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.18494 of 2009 S.Elamparithi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.18495 of 2009 Ragupathi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.19798 of 2009 Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. By its Chairman, Old No.800/New No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Director of Technical Education, Office of the Directorate of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai-25. .. Respondents 1 to 3 in all the petitions 4.The Superintending Engineer, Dharmapuri Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.3307,3308,3310,3316, 3320, 3321,4964,4965,4966, 4967,4968,6438 of 2009 4.The Superintending Engineer, Perambalur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Perambalur .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.3309, 4974 and 13233, of 2009 4.The Superintending Engineer, Namakkal Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Namakkal District. .. Respondent no.4 in W.P.Nos.3311,3315,3322, 3324,3325,3326,3327,3328, 3329,4960,4969, 18492, 18493,18494,18495,19798/09 4.The Superintending Engineer, Trichy-Metro Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Thiruchirappalli. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.3312, 4971 of 2009 4.The Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Mettur. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.Nos.3313,3314,3317, 3319,3323,6435,6436,6437, 6443,6448,6452,6454,6905, 7184 of 2009 4.The Superintending Engineer, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Salem. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.Nos.3318,7849,7850, 7851,7852 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The Superintending Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Mettur Dam. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.4959,4961,4962, 4970,6441,6447,6450,6451, 6455,6900,6903,6904,6906 of 2009 4.The Superintending Engineer, Karur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Karur District. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.4963/09 4.The Superintending Engineer, Trichy Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Trichy District. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.4972/09 4.The Superintending Engineer, Thanjavur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Thanjavur. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.4973, 4975 of 2009 4.The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Generation Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Erode District. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.6439, 6440, 6449, 6902,6907 of 2009 4.The Superintending Engineer, Gobichettipalayam Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Gobichettipalayam. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.6442, 6444,6445 of 2009 4.The Superintending Engineer, Erode Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Erode District. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.6446,6453, of 2009 4.The Superintending Engineer, Erode Hydro Generation Circle, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Erode District. .. Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.6901/09 5.Vinayaga Missions University, Sangagiri Main Road, Ariyanoor, Salem-636 308. .. Respondent No.5 in all the petitions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.18988 of 2009: 1.Sakthivel 2.P.Jayaprakash 3.M.Thopasamy 4.G.Sankar 5.K.Mohan 6.K.Sadasivam 7.B.Venkatakrishnan 8.R.Veeraragavalu 9.M.Muralidharan .. Petitioners Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. By its Chairman, No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamilnadu Electricity Board, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. .. Respondents W.P.Nos.3307 to 3329, 4959 to 4975, 6435 to 6455, 6900 to 6907, 7184, 7849 to 7852, 13233, 18492 to 18495 and 19798 of 2009 are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1,2 and 4 to pass orders selecting and appointing the petitioners as Technical Assistant (Electrical) from the date on which 66 others were selected and appointed as Technical Assistant (Electrical) pursuant to the order in letter No.127614/1339/G3/G3(2)/08-1 dated 24.12.2008 of the second respondent with arrears and consequential benefits without reference to the clarification issued by the office of the third respondent in his letter No.42975/Y3/CDC/2008, dated 23.10.2008 (W.P.3307 to 3329, 4959 to 4975, 6435 to 6455, 7184, 7849 to 7852, 13233, 18292 to 18294, 19798/09) and also appointing the petitioners as Technical Assistant (Mechanical) from the date on which 21 others were selected and appointed as Technical assistant (mechanical) pursuant to the order in letter No.127163/1338/G3/G3(2)/2008-1 dated 24.12.2008 of second respondent with arrears and consequential benefits without reference to clarification issued by the third respondent in his letter No.42975/Y3/CDC/2008, dated 23.10.2008. (WP.6900 to 6907, 18495/09) W.P.No.18988 of 2009 is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that the action of the respondents in withholding the petitioners' selection and not giving the petitioners' appointment to the post of AE(Electrical) along with other in-service candidates who were given appointment as AE (Electrical) under the order dated 27.11.2008 in Memo No.083728/1051/Adm.Br./G.131/2008-1, passed by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently appoint the petitioners as AE (Electrical) under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ internal selection quota on par with and from the date on which other in-service candidates were given appointment as AE (Electrical) in the order, dated 27.11.2008 in memo No.083728/1051/Adm.Br./G.131/ 2008-1 passed by the second respondent with arrears and all other consequential benefits. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaidyanathan for TNEB Mr.A.C.Mani Bharathi, GA for State Mr.C.V.Subramanian for R5 COMMON ORDER Heard both sides. 2.In the first batch of writ petitions, the petitioners, who were originally employed as Helpers in the first respondent Electricity Board, have sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Technical Assistants (Electrical) and (Mechanical) from the date on which 66 and 21 others respectively were internally selected and appointed by a proceedings, dated 24.12.2008 issued by the second respondent (the Chief Engineer (Personnel)) without reference to the clarification issued by the third respondent, the Additional Director of Technical Education, vide his letter, dated 23.10.2008. 3.By proceedings, dated 24.12.2008, the second respondent published the result of the internal selection to the category of Technical Assistant (Electrical) and (Mechanical) and allotted them to various circles as noted in the Annexure to the order. The appointments were made in terms of Regulation 106 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. Pending the writ petitions, in many of the cases, this Court, by an interim order, directed the contesting respondents to keep one post vacant in respect of each of the petitioners, out of the 900 posts, which were said to be vacant and to be filled up by the first respondent TNEB. 4.One of the petitioners Mr.Kumaravel from Aroor obtained certain information through the Right To Information Act. By their reply, dated 25.5.2009, the TNEB informed that for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical), sanctioned posts were 2533 and the existing posts were 488. There were vacancies as many as 2045. It is the case of the petitioners that while they were employed by the respondent TNEB, they have applied to undergo a Diploma Course in Electrical and Electronics Engineering under the Distance Education System run by the fifth respondent. They have got permission from the respondents. The course is for a period of two years. Since some of them were ITI certificate holders, they were admitted to the second year of the Diploma course. The petitioners had finished four semesters and have got their diplomas from the fifth respondent, which is deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act. It was the case of the petitioners that they did not have any Polytechnics or other technical institutes nearby https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ their place of work and they were forced to undergo a Diploma course under the distance education system. 5.The respective Superintending Engineers of the Board on 4.7.2008 invited applications for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) by internal selection from all eligible and qualified employees. The petitioners though applied for being considered, they were not granted any appointment order and only 66 persons were appointed by a communication, dated 24.12.2008. It was stated by them that by a letter, dated 23.10.2008, the Additional Director of Technical Education, in his reply to a clarification sought for by the second respondent vide his letter, dated 29.9.2008, had stated that the diplomas awarded by the fifth respondent cannot be treated on par with the diplomas awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu. The petitioners never got any other reply for their non selection. 6.It is the case of the petitioners that under Regulation 94 of the TNEB, no person shall be eligible for appointment to the post and by the method mentioned in annexure III, unless he possesses the qualification prescribed therein. Note 1 appended to the Regulation reads as follows: "Note 1: In cases where the Regulations prescribe a degree or diploma as a qualification, then a degree or diploma granted by any of the Universities or Institutions recognised by the University Grants Commission for purpose of its grants or any of the Universities recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu, shall be recognised as the qualification." (Emphasis added) 7.The amendment made to Annexure III of the TNEB Regulation with reference to the recruitment to the post of Technical Assistant with effect from 4.2.2008 reads as follows: "In the said Regulations, in Annexure-III referred to in regulation 94, under the heading "Board Office Administrative Branch, Board Office Accounts Branch, Board Office Technical Branch and Circle", for the entries in column (3) against the post "Technical Assistant(Electrical)" in column (1) and the method of recruitment "Direct Recruitment or by Internal Selection" in column (2), the following entries shall be substituted, namely:- "Diploma in Electrical Engineering or Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering or Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering or Diploma in Instrumentation Engineering or Diploma in Computer Science and Engineering or Diploma in Information Technology or Diploma in Computer Technology or Diploma in Computer Networking awarded by the Director of Technical Education https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ or Equivalent thereto. Note:- The percentage of reservation for various disciplines of Diploma in Engineering for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) by Direct Recruitment or by Internal Selection shall be fixed as indicated below:- (i)Diploma in Electrical Engineering} and Diploma in Electrical & }91% Electronics Engineering } (ii)Diploma in Electronics & } Communication Engineering } 5% (iii)Diploma in Instrumentation } 2% Engineering } (iv)Diploma in Computer Science } and Engineering, Diploma in } Information Technology; }2% Diploma in Computer Technology; } and Diploma in Computer } Networking } 8.Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that inasmuch as the fifth respondent is recognized by the UGC, the diplomas granted by them has to be recognized by the Board and it cannot seek for a clarification from the third respondent, who is neither a competent authority nor is in a position to decide such matters. In his clarification, dated 23.10.2008, the Additional Director of Technical Education had informed the second respondent as follows: "With reference to your letter cited, it is hereby informed that the Institute of Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation, Deemed University, Salem is not coming under the purview of Directorate of Technical Education. Study in a Deemed University under Distance Education cannot be considered on par with Diploma awarded by the State Board of Technical Education & Training, Tamil Nadu." 9.The third respondent in his counter affidavit, dated Nil (2009), in paragraph 4 with reference to his authority to write such a letter had averred as follows: "4....inasmuch as the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu is the competent authority to prescribe the Syllabus relating to various Diploma Courses in the field of Technical Education and is also awarding the Diplomas to the students studying in all the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Technical Institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu and all the Technical Institutions in Tamil Nadu are affiliated to the State Board, this Respondent has got the authority to decide as to whether the Diploma awarded by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation, Deemed University, Salem is on par with the Diploma awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu." 10.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since TNEB Regulation only mentions qualification as diploma without further classifying as to whether it should be obtained through a regular course or through part-time course or through distance education programmes, hence the petitioners' diploma also must be considered as a qualifying diploma for getting the post of Technical Assistant. It was further submitted that the fifth respondent is a body legally competent to confer degrees and diplomas. The contesting respondents cannot treat the diploma obtained under the distance education system as not equivalent to the other diplomas awarded by the technical institutions recognised by the Directorate of Technical Education. 11.It was also stated that the Central Government has made it clear that the diplomas obtained through the distance education programme are eligible for appointment for central services and for higher studies. It was further stated by the petitioners that under the relevant rule for recruitment to the post of Technical Assistants apart from the Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, for which 91% posts are reserved for direct recruitment and balance 9% was reserved for different streams such as Diploma holders in Communication, Instrumentation, Computer Science and Information Technology, etc. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the other disciplines are allowed entry to the said post, the petitioners, who are having a direct diploma in the very same subject, were non suited on the ground that they have come through the Open University System. 12.It was also stated by them that as per the permanent Board proceedings (FB) No.5, dated 4.2.2008, the Board has added a condition that the diplomas should be awarded by the Director of Technical Education or equivalent thereto. Therefore, when they can consider equivalent diplomas for the post of Technical Assistants, there is no reason as to why the petitioners having diplomas in the very same discipline cannot be allowed entry into the post of Technical Assistant. It was stated that the fifth respondent was originally a technical institution, coming within Section 2(g) of AICTE Act at the time when it was affiliated to the Anna University. Subsequently, by an order of the Central Government, it was declared to be a deemed university under Section 3 of the UGC Act. Therefore, they can start any course without prior approval and the diplomas granted by the fifth respondent under the distance education system cannot be held to be invalid. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.Per contra, Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for TNEB relied upon the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that 66 candidates, who were found eligible, were selected and they were already appointed on 23.12.2008 as Technical Assistants (Electrical). 135 candidates including the petitioners herein were not selected. 130 candidates were rejected on the ground that the diplomas obtained were from the fifth respondent as it cannot be recognized as a valid qualification in terms of the communication sent by the Additional Director vide his letter, dated 23.10.2008. The said clarification was issued pursuant to the request made by the first respondent Board. 14.On behalf of the third respondent, the Director of Technical Education, a counter affidavit was filed. In that counter affidavit, apart from the other reasons, he had also stated that the technical institutions of the Government and the Government aided and private self financing institutions whether affiliated or not to a University, cannot conduct any technical course without obtaining prior approval of All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The fifth respondent had not obtained permission from the AICTE for conducting diploma courses. 15.It was also stated that AICTE had cautioned the public by giving an advertisement in The Hindu, daily newspaper on 8.1.2009 warning the public, which is as follows: "The Students seeking admission to technical education programmes/courses being imparted through distance education mode by various Technical Institutions, Universities including Deemed to be Universities are hereby cautioned that as per the Memorandum of Understanding signed by University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and Distance Education Council (DEC), Universities including Deemed to be Universities imparting technical education and technical institutions are required to obtain specific prior approval from the "Joint Committee of UGC-AICTE-DEC" for conducting programmes/courses in technical education through distance mode. Any programme/course of technical education conducted through distance mode without prior approval from the said Joint committee is not recognized and such Universities including Deemed to be Universities and Technical Institutions are liable for appropriate action for conducting such unapproved programmes. It has come to the notice of the Council that several Institutions are offering courses in the field of technical education through distance mode without obtaining mandatory approval. Students are hereby advised not to take admission in such unapproved courses/programmes. The status of approval of technical institutions may be verified https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the Council's website www.aicte.ernet.in before taking admission in technical education courses/programmes of distance mode. They are cautioned that joining such unapproved programmes/courses may have serious consequences in terms of eligibility of employment, higher studies etc." 16.Therefore, any diploma awarded by them cannot be recognized as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the TNEB. It was also stated that the Anna University, which is also an affiliating type University for all technical institutions in Tamil Nadu had not recognized such diploma for admission to any of its Post Graduate programmes. It was also not recognized as a sufficient qualification for studying B.E. or B.Tech courses through lateral entry. Further attention was drawn to Rule 9 of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Technical Education Subordinate Services, wherein the term "diploma" was defined as a diploma awarded by the State Board of Technical Education & Training, Tamil Nadu. 17.It is not clear as to why the petitioners have impleaded the fifth respondent as a party respondent in all the writ petitions. In view of their impleadment, the fifth respondent had also entered appearance through a counsel and had filed a counter affidavit, dated 10.11.2009 together with typed set of papers to claim that their degrees are recognized by the UGC. They were informed by the UGC that the Distance Education Council, which is a statutory body for regulating the distance education, had conveyed its approval for certain courses run by their University on the distance mode based upon a joint committee decision comprising of UGC, AICTE and DEC. Therefore, no separate approval was required to recognise their Diplomas. 18.Since this court is not going into the validity of diplomas granted by the fifth respondent, it is unnecessary to traverse the self supporting assertions made by the fifth respondent. It is suffice to state that there was no denial that the fifth respondent is a deemed University in terms of Section 3 of the UGC Act and that the petitioners are having Diplomas in Electrical and Electronics Engineering obtained from them under the distance education programme. 19.Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for TNEB, submitted that the diplomas offered by the fifth respondent has a duration of two years, whereas the diplomas offered by the Polytechnics recognized by the State Board of Technical Education & Training, Tamil Nadu can be got after a period of three years' study. 20.In this context, Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel referred to the guidelines framed by the AICTE in respect of degree and diploma courses in Engineering, dated 11.7.1992, wherein in paragraph 5 in respect of Engineering Diploma Programmes, it is stated as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ B.ENGINEERING DIPLOMA PROGRAMMES: 5.Qualification for admission of general category students.- The minimum qualification for admission to diploma programmes in engineering should be a pass in the 10 + Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination with a minimum aggregate of 60 per cent marks in Science and Mathematics in a single sitting. The duration of diploma programme in engineering will be not less than 3 years and that for sandwich programme not less than 3 ½ years both after 10th standard, unless specified otherwise by the AICTE. The duration of new programmes in emerging technology areas as well as those based on flexible modular structures with multipoint entry will have to be considered separately." (Emphasis added) 21.He also submitted that the respondent TNEB being an employer is entitled to stipulate that they will recognize only the diplomas which are obtained through a regular course and not the ones obtained by distance education mode. Note 1 to Regulation 94 pressed into service by the petitioners though silent in this regard, it is open to them to adopt the relevant rule framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India in support of their contention. Merely because Note 1 to Regulation 94 is silent, it does not mean that it has recognized even the diplomas obtained under the distance education programme. In fact when these regulations were made, there was no concept of obtaining diplomas in technical education under the distance education system. It had always been understood that a diploma means the one obtained after regular attendance either in full time course or by a part time course. 22.In support of his contentions, Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharathidasan University v. All-India Council for Technical Education