ORDER : 1. There are a large number of cases pending on the principal issue raised in SLP (C) Nos. 19807-19808 of 2012 (Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. & Ors.). Mr. Raju Ramchandran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the principal issue is whether degrees given by some institutions / universities through distant education ought to be recognized by the employer. He submits that All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and University Grants Commission (UGC) have taken the stand that such degrees in technical courses are not recognized by AICTE and therefore not recognized by UGC as well. 2. Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for UGC affirms that the UGC does not recognize the degrees. It is the submission of Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel that in a meeting convened by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) on 19th February, 2008 it was decided that the approval granted by Distant Education Council (including ex post facto) must be reviewed and the approval should be granted to the courses and not to the Institute. 3. That being the position, we are of the opinion that the concerned Secretary in the MHRD should be impleaded as a party so that the stand of the Government of India is clear. 4. Mr. Raju Ramchandran, learned senior counsel makes an oral request for impleadment of the concerned Secretary in the MHRD as a party respondent. On his oral request, the concerned Secretary in the MHRD is impleaded as a party respondent. Amended memo of parties be filed within two weeks. 5. Notice may be issued to the newly added respondent returnable in four weeks. It should be stated in the notice that the counter affidavit should be filed by the said MHRD at the earliest so that there is no further delay in the disposal of this batch of cases. 6. Needless to say, the stand that has been taken by learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel for the AICTE and UGC and is opposed by learned counsel for the universities / institutions. 7. We are also of the opinion that these special leave petitions (SLP (C) Nos. 6. Needless to say, the stand that has been taken by learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel for the AICTE and UGC and is opposed by learned counsel for the universities / institutions. 7. We are also of the opinion that these special leave petitions (SLP (C) Nos. 19807-19808 of 2012) may be taken up as the main case and in the event any learned counsel wishes to file any written submissions, it may be done in this case only so that there is no multiplicity of pleadings in multiple cases. 8. The matters be listed after pleadings are complete in the main special leave petitions (Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited & Others). 9. Mr. Raju Ramchandran, learned senior counsel clarifies that in the event the degree is recognized, the issue of promotions and violation of the quota rule may also arise. The principal question that we have referred to above arises in all the cases and that is the reason why these special leave petitions (SLP (C) Nos. 19807-19808 of 2012) have been treated as the main case. Other cases will be dealt with separately depending on their facts.