2019 (7) TMI 142 - HC - Indian Laws

Whether the BGL Degree of Annamalai University held by respondent no. 3 at the time of his promotion was correctly held to be a qualifying degree? HELD THAT - The natural consequence of the above discussion is that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the validity of the degree possessed by respondent no.3 at the time of his promotion was erroneous and is required to be set aside. However, the subsequent developments referred to in paragraph 7 hereinabove led Mr. Sunil to make an alternative prayer that, instead of setting aside the promotion of respondent no. 3 after such a long period of service, his appointment to the post may be reckoned, for the purposes of further promotion, from the year 2015 when he obtained the LL.B. degree, and the petitioner s service in that post be considered, to have commenced from 22.06.2006 when respondent no. 3 was promoted on regular basis. Keeping in mind the peculiar facts of this case, we accept the suggestion made, and direct that the petitioner herein - who was the most senior eligible candidate at the time of the 2004 DPC, be treated as having been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar on the date on which respondent no. 3 was in fact promoted. Respondent no. 3 having obtained the LL.B. degree in 2015 will in turn be treated as having been promoted from the date he acquired the said qualification. Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Validity of the degree possessed by respondent no. 3 at the time of his promotion.
2. Recognition of the BGL degree from Annamalai University as equivalent to a degree in law.
3. Impact of subsequent developments on promotions and eligibility for further promotion.
4. Consideration of post-facto approval granted by DEC and its validity.
5. Applicability of Supreme Court judgment in Annamalai University case.

Issue 1: Validity of the degree possessed by respondent no. 3 at the time of his promotion:
The Tribunal held that the degree held by respondent no. 3 was recognized for employment/promotion in the Central Government. However, the Court found that the Supreme Court's decision in Annamalai University case concluded that degrees obtained through correspondence from Annamalai University were not recognized. The Court emphasized that the post-facto approval granted by DEC could not validate an invalid act retrospectively. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the validity of respondent no. 3's degree at the time of promotion.

Issue 2: Recognition of the BGL degree from Annamalai University as equivalent to a degree in law:
The essential qualifications for the post of Assistant Registrar included a degree in law from a recognized university or equivalent. The Department of Revenue confirmed the equivalence of the BGL degree from Annamalai University for employment/promotion in the Central Government. However, the Court highlighted the absence of DEC approval, which was a prerequisite as per a Ministry of Human Resource Development notification. The Court referred to the Annamalai judgment, which invalidated post-facto approvals granted by DEC, thus rejecting the equivalence claim.

Issue 3: Impact of subsequent developments on promotions and eligibility for further promotion:
Both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 had been promoted to Assistant Registrar and were eligible for promotion to Deputy Registrar. The petitioner was the most senior eligible candidate at the time of the 2004 DPC. Considering the peculiar facts, the Court directed that the petitioner be treated as promoted on the same date as respondent no. 3, and respondent no. 3's promotion date be considered from when he obtained an LL.B. degree in 2015 for further promotion eligibility.

Issue 4: Consideration of post-facto approval granted by DEC and its validity:
The Court referenced the Annamalai judgment to establish that post-facto approvals by DEC were invalid and could not retroactively validate degrees. This finding influenced the decision to set aside the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the validity of respondent no. 3's degree at the time of promotion.

Issue 5: Applicability of Supreme Court judgment in Annamalai University case:
The Court extensively relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Annamalai University case to determine the recognition and validity of degrees obtained through correspondence courses. The judgment clarified that post-facto approvals by DEC did not have retrospective effect and could not validate degrees contrary to mandatory requirements, thus impacting the evaluation of respondent no. 3's qualifications.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the Tribunal's decision regarding the recognition of respondent no. 3's degree, considering the Supreme Court's ruling and subsequent developments in promotions. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to mandatory requirements for degree equivalency and post-facto approvals, ultimately directing the treatment of promotions and eligibility based on the clarified qualifications and dates of attainment.

← Previous Next →