2019 (8) TMI 1459 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt Petition - appearance in the test held by AICTE (All India Council for Technical Education) - addition of higher qualification i.e. B.Tech (Civil) - HELD THAT - In the present case serious objection has been raised on behalf of Department that the concerned candidates had enrolled themselves in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education Mode without express permission of the Department and/or the Department did not recognise the Degrees in Engineering awarded through Distance Education Mode or that the concerned candidates 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 ought to be sorted out either through representation or through properly 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. There are no violation on part of the alleged Contemnors. These Contempt Petitions are dismissed - Each of the petitioners shall deposit ₹ 5000/- by way of costs in the concerned Department within four weeks, failing which the Department shall recover the same in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged contempt of court by the respondents for not following the Supreme Court's judgment and order.
2. Validity and recognition of engineering degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode during 2001-2005.
3. Entitlement of petitioners to benefits and promotions based on such degrees.
4. Compliance with departmental norms and permissions for pursuing academic courses.

Detailed Analysis:

Alleged Contempt of Court:
The petitioners claimed that the respondents wilfully and deliberately violated the Supreme Court's judgment dated 03.11.2017 and the clarificatory order dated 22.01.2018. The judgment directed AICTE to conduct tests for students who had obtained engineering degrees through Distance Education Mode during 2001-2005, and stated that degrees would be valid only if students passed these tests. The petitioners alleged that despite passing the tests, their representations for benefits and promotions were ignored, constituting contempt of court.

Validity and Recognition of Degrees:
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode during 2001-2005 would be suspended until students passed a test conducted by AICTE. The judgment acknowledged the illegality of ex-post facto approvals granted to deemed universities but allowed students to validate their degrees through testing. The court emphasized that the judgment aimed to protect the interests of students enrolled during this period.

Entitlement to Benefits and Promotions:
The petitioners argued that passing the AICTE test entitled them to the same benefits and promotions as those who obtained degrees through regular modes. They contended that their degrees were now valid and should be treated equally with regular degrees. However, the respondents argued that the benefits conferred by the judgment were limited to restoring the status quo ante and did not extend to new benefits or promotions not previously enjoyed by the petitioners.

Compliance with Departmental Norms:
The respondents highlighted that the petitioners had pursued their degrees without proper departmental permissions, which was against the norms. The Supreme Court noted that if degrees were obtained in violation of departmental rules, the matter should be resolved through appropriate channels rather than contempt proceedings. The court clarified that the judgment did not intend to grant additional benefits not enjoyed as of the judgment date.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, stating that there was no violation of its directions by the respondents. The court emphasized that the judgment aimed to restore benefits already enjoyed by the petitioners as of the judgment date, not to confer new advantages. The petitioners were directed to deposit costs of ?5000 each within four weeks, failing which the amount would be recovered by the department in accordance with the law.