9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - W.P.( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re duly qualified and thus eligible for the promotion which was granted to respondent no. 3. The contention of respondent no. 3 was that he held the degree of Bachelor of General Law (hereinafter, BGL ) from Annamalai University which he had obtained after undertaking a two year correspondence course. The petitioner disputed the status of the said degree as one which was equivalent to a degree in law. 3. By the impugned order dated 13.01.2006, the Tribunal held that the said degree is recognized for the purpose of employment/promotion in the Central Government in view of a communication of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance dated 07.08.1998. However, the promotion of respondent no. 3 was quashed and a review DPC was or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Human Resource Development, Government of India which recognized qualifications awarded through distant education by universities and deemed universities subject to their approval by the Distance Education Council Indira Gandhi Open University, New Delhi (hereinafter, DEC ), and argued that the Supreme Court has held post-facto approval granted by DEC to be illegal and invalid. 6. Mr. S. Sunil, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 accepted that the degree obtained by respondent no. 3 did not have prior approval of the DEC but submitted that the Supreme Court's decision in Annamalai was not applicable as it was rendered in the context of a dispute as to the eligibility for admission to a Master s degree without a three year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posts of Deputy Registrar in CESTAT for which both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 would be eligible to be considered. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the first question for determination is 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. The essential qualifications prescribed in the relevant Recruitment Rules, notified on 05.12.1994, were as follows:- ESSENTIAL (I) DEGREE IN LAW OF A RECOGNISED UNIVERSITY OR EQUIVALENT (II) THREE YEARS ‟EXPERIENCE IN ADMINISTRATIVE/LEGAL MATTERS. 9. The question of whether the BGL degree of Annamalai University could be recogni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liament or State Legislature, Institutions Deemed to be Universities under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 and Institutions of National Importance declared under an Act of Parliament stand automatically recognised for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government, provided it has been approved by Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University, K-76, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 and wherever necessary by All India Council for Technical Education, IG Sports Complex, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002. 11. The grant of a post facto approval by DEC to Annamalai University was the subject matter of consideration in the Supreme Court's Annamalai judgment. The relevant finding of the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT in 1998 is also of no assistance. 13. 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
