TECHNICAL DEGREE BHI VALID HAI JAB TAK SLP 35793 KA FAISLA NAHI AATA SEE THIS CASE ALSO

Raj Kumar Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 April, 2013

PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
OA No.94 of 2012
This the 4th Day of April, 2013
Hon ble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
Hon ble Shri Birendra Kumar Sinha, Member (A)
Raj Kumar Sharma,
Age 16 years,
S/o Sh. O.P. Sharma,
R/o F-1683/1-B, Todarmal Colony,

Najafgarh, Delhi.
.... Applicant
( By Advocate Shri S.K. Gupta )
VERSUS
1. Delhi Development Authority,
Through its Vice Chairman,
Vikas Bhawan, INA Market,
New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner (Pers.),
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Bhawan, INA Market,
New Delhi.
3. The Director (P),
Personnel Branch-II,
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Bhawan, INA Market,
New Delhi.
.. Respondents
( By Advocate : Mrs. P.K. Gupta )
O R D E R (O R A L )
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) :
By way of this Application, the applicant working as Draftsman (Civil) Grade-II in the Office of the respondents authority assails the legality and correctness of their communication/order dated 14.12.2011, as at Annexure A/1, whereby the applicant has been informed that his request for addition of higher qualification in his service record has not been acceded to as the diploma in Civil Engineering acquired by the applicant from Rajasthan Vidyapeth (Deemed) University, Udaipur, Rajasthan, is not recognized by AICTE. The Applicant has accordingly prayed for quashing of this order and issuance of further directions to the respondents to add his higher qualification in their service record and give him all consequential benefits.
2. Per contra, the respondents have opposed the Application claiming in their counter reply to which the applicant has filed his rejoinder.
3. When the application comes up for hearing today, learned counsel for the applicant produced a copy of the order of Delhi High Court in the matter of S.C. Jain and others vs. Union of India and others in W.P. (C) No.1149/2012 decided on 28.1.2013. Paras 4 to 9 of the said Order are reproduced herein below:-
4. The Tribunal has held that the degree obtained by the writ petitioners is not a recognized degree. The reason is the view taken that technical education cannot be imparted through Distance Education.
5. Learned counsel for the parties would agree that similar is the view taken by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in WP(C) 1640/2008 titled Kartar Singh v. UOI and Ors.
6. Matter currently awaits adjudication before the Supreme Court where notices have been issued in the Petition?s seeking Special Leave to Appeal against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Our attention has been drawn to an interim order dated December 14, 2012 passed in SLP(C) No.35793-96/2012 wherein the Supreme Court had held that those students who had obtained degrees and diplomas which have been declared non-recognized by the High Courts would be eligible to take benefit of the degrees and diplomas obtained by them pending final hearing.
7. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the instant writ petition could be disposed of observing that if the Supreme court were to set aside the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kartar Singh case (supra), impugned decisions dated December 21, 2011 and February 02, 2012 passed by the Tribunal would be treated as been over ruled and the result would be the writ petitioners being entitled to the benefit of the degrees obtained by them through Distance Education treating the degrees to be legal and valid. Should the Supreme Court negate the challenge to the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, view taken by the Tribunal would be corrected resulting in the writ petitioners being held not eligible for promotion on the strength of the degrees they rely upon.
8. But till the Supreme Court decides on the subject, petitioners would be treated as having valid degrees but this would be subject to the view which the Supreme Court may finally take.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of declaring as above but without any order as to costs.
4. The applicant s counsel prays that the present Application may be disposed of on the same lines on which W.P. (C) No.1149/2012 has been disposed of as referred to above.
5. Since the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant is based on the High Court s order, she submitted that this Tribunal may pass appropriate orders as is deemed fit.
6. For parity of reasons and on consensual basis, this Application is disposed of with the same observations as have been made by the Hon ble High Court in the case of S.C. Jain referred to above. Accordingly, the issue raised in the present Application would be governed by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the pending Writ Petition as referred to above and till the Hon ble Supreme Court decides on the subject of the said petition, the applicant will be treated as having held additional qualifications of Diploma in Civil Engineering but this would be subject to the view which the Hon ble Supreme Court may finally take.
6. The Application stands disposed of declaring as above but without any order as to costs.
(Birendra Kumar Sinha) (Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma)
Member (A) Member (J)