Judgment :- ElipeDharma Rao, J. These writ appeals are directed against the common order, dated 13.11.2009, made in W.P.No.3307 of 2009 etc. batch, whereby the writ petitions filed by the petitioners/appellants seeking a direction to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 therein to pass orders selecting and appointing them 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 2nd respondent with arrears and consequential benefits without reference to the clarification issued by the office of the 3rd respondent in his Letter No. 42975/Y3/CDC/2008, dated 23.10.2008, was dismissed. 2. It is the case of the appellants that they were selected through the employment exchange and appointed as Helpers in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and later, they were promoted as Commercial Assistants and thereafter as Commercial Inspectors. It is also the case of the appellants that after getting permission from the Superintending Engineer, they have studied Diploma courses in Electrical and Electronic Engineering for the academic year 2006 and 2007 in the fifth respondent University, which is recognized by the University Grants Commission, under distance education mode and after completion of the said courses, they have awarded Diploma certificates in the year 2007. 3. It is the further case of the appellants that the second respondent, as per letter dated 04.07.2008, addressed to all the Superintending Engineers, called for applications for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant(Electrical) by internal selection from all the eligible and qualified employees, for which, the appellants have made their respective applications. It is also the case of the appellants that the second respondent, as per order dated 22.04.2008, selected 66 candidates for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) and directed the respective Superintending Engineers to give appointment orders to them. 4. It is also the case of the appellants that the second respondent, as per order dated 22.04.2008, selected 66 candidates for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical) and directed the respective Superintending Engineers to give appointment orders to them. 4. It is the grievance of the appellants that though they are qualified and eligible for selection and appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical), the second respondent did not issue any order appointing them as Technical Assistant (Electrical) and when they made enquiries, based on the clarification issued by the third respondent, dated 23.10.2008, they were informed that the Diploma awarded by them through the fifth respondent University cannot be treated on par with the Diploma awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu, and hence, they were not selected for the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical). Aggrieved by action of the second respondent in not giving appointment to the post of Technical Assistant (Electrical), the appellants have filed writ petitions before the High Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 therein to pass orders selecting and appointing them as Technical Assistant (Electrical) from the date on which 66 others were selected and appointed as Technical Assistant (Electrical) pursuant to the order, dated 24.12.2008, of the second respondent with arrears and consequential benefits, without reference to the clarification issued by the third respondent, vide his Letter, dated 23.10.2008. 5. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeals have been filed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the entire materials placed on record. 7. The facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the course undergone by the appellants is as per the permission granted by the respondents to obtain Diploma in Electrical Engineering for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant through internal selection. The appellants are already working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board initially as Helper, later promoted as Commercial Assistant and thereafter, as Commercial Inspector at various offices in Tamil Nadu and they want to become Technical Assistant after obtaining Diploma. Accordingly, they have obtained Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering through Distance Education offered by the fifth respondent University. The appellants are already working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board initially as Helper, later promoted as Commercial Assistant and thereafter, as Commercial Inspector at various offices in Tamil Nadu and they want to become Technical Assistant after obtaining Diploma. Accordingly, they have obtained Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering through Distance Education offered by the fifth respondent University. But while selecting 66 candidates and appointing them on the basis of the Diploma obtained by them, as many as 135 candidates including the appellants were not selected and 130 candidates were rejected on the ground that Diplomas were obtained by them from the fifth respondent University and 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. 8. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent University, it is stated that they were informed by the University Grants Commission 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 University Grants Commission, All India Council for Technical Education and Distance Education Council and therefore, no separate approval was required to recognize their Diplomas. 9. But, as seen from the perusal of the materials, the duration of the course, as per the guidelines of the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu, is three years, whereas the course offered by the fifth respondent University is for a duration of two years. Further, with regard to the recognition of the Diploma offered by the fifth respondent, the same is not proved before the learned single Judge except saying that permission was granted in the Joint Committee decision comprising of University Grants Commission, All India Council for Technical Education and Distance Education Council. 10. Further, with regard to the recognition of the Diploma offered by the fifth respondent, the same is not proved before the learned single Judge except saying that permission was granted in the Joint Committee decision comprising of University Grants Commission, All India Council for Technical Education and Distance Education Council. 10. The learned single Judge, during the course of hearing, not only heard the contentions raised by the Counsel for the petitioners, but also the Director of Technical Education, the third respondent herein and the fifth respondent University, which granted the Diplomas through distance education to the appellants and thereafter, arrived at a conclusion that the Board had not violated any constitutional principle and the appellants do not have a fundamental right to urge that the diplomas obtained by them must necessarily be recognized by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as a matter of course. The learned single Judge has agreed with the contention raised by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that the Diploma course undergone by the petitioners is not recognised by the All India Council for Technical education and held that the rejection of the candidature by the Board for consideration and appointment as Technical Assistant is valid, against which, the present writ appeals have been filed. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has emphatically submitted that though permission was obtained by the fifth respondent University from the All India Council for Technical Education, the learned single Judge has committed a mistake in not considering the above said fact and erroneously dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners/appellants. 12. But, there is no material placed either before us or before the learned single Judge for consideration that before starting the course, the All India Council for Technical Education has granted permission to the fifth respondent. On the other hand, the Anna University, under which originally the fifth respondent University is said to have been affiliated and thereafter, declared as Deemed University as per Section 3 of the Universities Act, also do not recognize the diploma offered by the fifth respondent University for entering into any Post Graduate Course and for joining their part time B.E. or B.Tech. Programmes. 13. Programmes. 13. The learned single Judge has also observed in the judgment that though there was no denial that the fifth respondent University is a Deemed University in terms of Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act and the appellants are having Diplomas in Electrical and Electronics Engineering obtained by them under the distance education programme, but the relief sought for by the writ petitioners cannot be granted in view of the guidelines framed by the All India Council for Technical Education in respect of the Degree and Diploma Courses in Engineering, dated 11.07.1992, particularly with regard to Engineering Diploma Programmes, which specifies the qualification for admission of general category students, that 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 percent marks in Science and Mathematics in a single sitting and the duration of diploma programme in engineering will be not less than 3 years and that for sandwich programme not less than 3= years both after 10th standard, unless specified otherwise by the AICTE and the duration of new programme in emerging technology areas as well as those based on flexible modular structures with multipoint entry will have to be considered separately. 14. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the course offered by the fifth respondent is contrary to the guidelines framed by the All India Council for Technical Education, as referred to above, in prescribing the duration for a period of three years instead of two years as prescribed by the fifth respondent as well as in prescribing the educational qualification, viz., 10 + Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination with a minimum aggregate of 60% marks in Science and Mathematics in a single sitting, and it is also doubtful as to whether the appellants have satisfied the above said guidelines. 15. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to extract paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, which reads as follows:- "From the aforesaid materials and approvals granted by the Statutory Bodies including the Joint Committee of U.G.C. - A.I.C.T.E. -D.E.C., the fifth respondent is entitled to conduct Distance Education Programs. 15. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to extract paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, which reads as follows:- "From the aforesaid materials and approvals granted by the Statutory Bodies including the Joint Committee of U.G.C. - A.I.C.T.E. -D.E.C., the fifth respondent is entitled to conduct Distance Education Programs. In any event the Deemed Universities have every right to start new regular programs in Engineering even without the prior approval of the A.I.C.T.E. subject to maintenance of the norms and standards prescribed by the A.I.C.T.E. and to be monitored by a Joint Committee in the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharathidasan Case (2001 (8) SCC P.676) followed by this Hon'ble Court in several cases. In any event, in view of the serious objections raised by the A.I.C.T.E., the fifth respondent have stopped Distance Education Programs in Engineering Courses from 2007, but in any event the programs conducted till 2005 by the fifth respondent has been given one time expost facto approval by the Joint Committee of U.G.C. - A.I.C.T.E. -D.E.C. and therefore, they are estopped from claiming to the contrary." 16. A reading of the aforesaid paragraph makes it clear that the Distance Education Council, by letter dated 18.10.2008, has confirmed that the students, who took admission till 2005 for which one time expost facto approval has been given by Distance Education Council and University Grants Commission, can continue and complete the specific programs as per the maximum duration of the said programs. 17. But as seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants were admitted in 2006-2007 and hence, it makes it abundantly clear that they were admitted in the fifth respondent University, without the permission of either the Distance Education Council or the University Grants Commission. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the issue involved in these writ appeals is a question of fact to be considered by the Director of Technical Education, who has to take appropriate action against the fifth respondent for admitting the students after 2005 and conducting the course and awarding Diplomas without obtaining permission either from the Distance Education Council or from the University Grants Commission. Further, as there is no permission granted after 2005, the action of the fifth respondent in admitting students, like the appellants, and awarding Diplomas is quite illegal, contrary to the guidelines, rules and regulations framed by the All India Council for Technical Education and the University Grants Commission. 19. As we are satisfied that after 2005, the University has not obtained any permission and they have admitted students and conducted the course in 2006, which is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, we recommend the Director of Technical Education to take appropriate action against the fifth respondent and report compliance to this Court within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. In the result, the writ appeals are dismissed. Connected M.Ps. are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.