Sandeep Sharma, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner-H.P. State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Federation’), against order dated 11.4.2016 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 5397/2015 and OA No. 3261/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal, while accepting the claim of the respondents No.1 to 12 directed the Federation to consider the cases of all the respondents for promotion to the post of Technical Superintendents within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. 2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that respondents No. 1 to 12, who are In-charge Chilling Centres owned by the Federation, filed a writ petition before this Court for the redressal of their grievances but the same was transferred to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and was registered as TA No. 5397/2015, praying therein for a direction to the Federation to promote them to the post of Technical Superintendents in the Federation, after declaring them as qualified and eligible to be promoted to the said post from the date of their having completed five years of service as In-charge Chilling Centres, with all consequential benefits. Aforesaid claim of the respondents was opposed by the Federation on three grounds, viz. 1. the diploma acquired by the respondents from Indira Gandhi National Open University (‘IGNOU’, for short) is only of one year duration, 2. aforesaid diploma is through distance learning and as such respondents have no practical experience, and 3. Service Rules occupying the field were framed in the year 1994, whereas diploma was started in the year 2005. As per Federation, respondents can not be promoted to the post of Technical Superintendents, in terms of service Rules, wherein, vide Rule-13, post of Technical Superintendents(Production/Store/Marketing/MIS/P&I), is required to be filled up by way of promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis from amongst the In-charge Chilling Centres, having five years regular service on the post, provided that the eligible candidates possess Degree in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry or Diploma in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry. If eligible candidates are not available in the feeder cadre, then posts of Technical Superintendents are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. 3. If eligible candidates are not available in the feeder cadre, then posts of Technical Superintendents are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. 3. In the instant case, main contention of the Federation before the Tribunal was that the diploma obtained by the respondents in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry from IGNOU is only of one year duration and that too through distance learning, and, as such, they can not be given promotion on the basis of same. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings as well as record made available to it, allowed the Original Application as well as TA from the due date alongwith consequential benefits, in accordance with service rules. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid directions issued by the learned Tribunal, Federation has approached this Court, praying therein for the following main relief: “(i) That the order dated 11.4.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Ld. Administrative Tribunal in TA No. 5397/2015 titled as Surinder Kumar & others Vs. H.P. State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 5. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. M.R.Verma, Advocate, vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal below is not sustainable as the same is not based on correct appreciation of the Service Rules, wherein it has been specifically provided that In-charge Chilling Centre must posses five years service and a degree or diploma in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry, as such, same deserves to be set aside. She further contended that though the respondents fulfill the criteria of minimum 5 years’ service as provided under Rule-13, but they do not fulfill criteria of educational qualification because Diploma in Dairy Technology possessed by them has been awarded by IGNOU on the basis of training imparted for a few days i.e. 90 days by the officials of the Federation, who were not professionally qualified. She further stated that training was imparted by the Federation and tuition fee was paid to IGNOU by it and participating candidates were given TA/DA as and when they attended the classes and they were treated on duty at that time. She further stated that training was imparted by the Federation and tuition fee was paid to IGNOU by it and participating candidates were given TA/DA as and when they attended the classes and they were treated on duty at that time. She further stated that representation preferred by the respondents to treat the Diploma in Dairy Technology awarded by IGNOU at par with the diploma issued by the other Institutions after regular course, was considered by the Board of Directors and it was decided that the short term Diploma in Dairy Technology can not be equated with two years regular course provided by Agriculture University. She further stated that in addition to above, reference was made to the Director General, National Dairy Research Institute (‘NDRI’, in short), Education Division, New Delhi, who replied to the reference and informed that Diploma in Dairy Technology is offered by IGNOU of one year duration without practical training and it can not be considered equal to two years Diploma in Dairy Technology with regular practical and theory course offered by NDRI. 6. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, supported the order passed by the learned Tribunal below stating that there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, by this Court, in the order aforesaid, as the same is based on correction appreciation of Service Rule-13. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. It is undisputed that the respondent are In-charge, Chilling Centres owned and controlled by the Federation and they possess essential qualification of 5 years regular services on the post. Before adverting to the merits of the submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to reproduce the Rule 13 of the Service Rules, as under: “13. TECHNICAL SUPERINTENDENTS (PRODUCTION/STORE/ MARKETING/MIS/P&I): (i) By promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis from amongst Incharge Chilling Centres having atleast 5 years regular service on the post, provided that eligible candidates should either be a Graduate in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry or a Diploma Holder in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry. Or (ii) By Direct Recruitment in case eligible candidates are not available in the feeder category.” 9. Perusal of Rule 13 clearly suggests that there are two ladder of promotion to the post of Technical Superintendents (Production/Store/Marketing/MIS/P&I). Or (ii) By Direct Recruitment in case eligible candidates are not available in the feeder category.” 9. Perusal of Rule 13 clearly suggests that there are two ladder of promotion to the post of Technical Superintendents (Production/Store/Marketing/MIS/P&I). Since, respondents are in-service candidates, they are to be governed by Rule 13(i), which provides that the candidate should possess 5 years regular service and he should be either be a Graduate in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry or a Diploma Holder in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry. 10. Since there is no dispute regarding condition contained in Rule 13 with regard to possessing 5 years service, this Court only needs to examine the aspect with regard to educational qualification. 11. Careful perusal of Rule-13, as reproduced herein above, clearly suggests that the candidate should either possess a degree or a diploma in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry. Perusal of certificates placed on record by the respondents clearly suggest that Diploma in Dairy Technology was awarded by IGNOU on 1.3.2010 (available at page 200 of the paperbook). Close scrutiny of certificate suggests that respondents have been awarded Diploma in Dairy Technology, after having undergone above prescribed course of study in the examination. Once there is specific provision in the Rules that the incumbent should possess Diploma in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry, it is not open for the Federation to take stand that diploma offered by IGNOU is only of one year duration and same can not be equated with diploma of two years offered by other institutions. Rules specifically provide for Diploma in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry and it nowhere talks about duration, be it of one year or two years. It is not the case of the Federation that the diploma awarded by IGNOU is not recognized by University Grants Commission (in short, ‘UGC’) and as such same can not be considered in light of Rule 13 aforesaid. Even the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (in short ‘ICAR’) Education Division, while answering the reference made by the Federation, has nowhere disputed the correctness and genuineness of the diploma, admittedly offered by the IGNOU, rather they have stated that the diploma offered by IGNOU can not be equated with two years Diploma in Dairy Technology offered by NDRI. 12. At the cost of repetition, it may be again stated that this is not a condition precedent under rule 13 (i). 12. At the cost of repetition, it may be again stated that this is not a condition precedent under rule 13 (i). Rule 13 (i) specifically talks about Diploma in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry and there is no condition that diploma should be from NDRI. Record reveals that the Diploma in Dairy Technology was imparted to the respondents by IGNOU at the instance of the Federation, which itself sent the respondents to undergo the course/training, rather, entire expenses on account of course fee were borne by the Federation. Perusal of letter dated 15.10.2008, (available at page 311 of the paperbook) itself suggests that the Federation itself sponsored the respondents for Diploma in Dairy Technology through IGNOU, New Delhi, meaning thereby the Federation was fully aware that the respondents sent for course referred to herein above, would be awarded Diploma in Dairy Technology through IGNOU. Leaving everything aside, this Court, after perusing Rule-13, is fully convinced that the respondents, who had passed Diploma in Dairy Technology from IGNOU, had all the essential qualification as required for promotion to the post of Technical Superintendents. 13. Rule-13 of the Service Rules, framed by Federation clearly suggest that appointment to the post of Technical Superintendents, in the first instance, is by way of promotion from amongst the In-charge Chilling Centres having five years service (after amendment, now three years) having a degree or diploma in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry, or, in the alternative, by way of direct recruitment, in case eligible candidates are not available in the feeder cadre. There is no ambiguity in the rule which can persuade this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Tribunal below. 14. Further arguments having been advanced by Ms. Parmar that the candidates should have two years Diploma in Dairy Technology/Dairy Husbandry also needs to be rejected because there is no mention, if any, with regard to duration of course in Service Rule-13, as such we are not inclined to accept the unreasonable distinction being portrayed by Ms. Parmar. Opinion, if any, expressed by the ICAR, which has been heavily relied upon by the Federation while opposing claim of the respondents, definitely can not override the specific provision of Service Rules, until and unless same are amended suitably. Parmar. Opinion, if any, expressed by the ICAR, which has been heavily relied upon by the Federation while opposing claim of the respondents, definitely can not override the specific provision of Service Rules, until and unless same are amended suitably. But as of today, this Court sees no ambiguity in Rule 13 and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, as such, same deserves to be upheld. 15. Otherwise also, IGNOU is a recognized University and courses offered by it are by and large recognized /authorized by UGC, which is the apex body to recognize courses/Universities. Since there is no challenge to the validity of the course/diploma offered by IGNOU, this Court sees no force in the contentions raised on behalf of the Federation that the diploma offered by IGNOU can not be taken into consideration in terms of Rule-13. 16. This Court is not competent to decide the validity/ equivalence of a degree/diploma for appointment/promotion, awarded by an open university and it is not in the domain of the Court to decide issue of equivalence of degree/diploma obtained through open universities and regular universities. Issue with regard to equivalence of diploma obtained by the respondents from IGNOU vis-à-vis diploma offered by NDRI as a valid qualification for promotion to the post of Technical Superintendents, can be decided only by UGC. Federation is bound to approach UGC for getting clarification whether diploma obtained by respondents from IGNOU i.e. Diploma in Dairy Technology is a valid qualification equivalent to diploma obtained by students attending regular course. Hon'ble Apex Court in Annamalai University v. Secy. to Govt. reported in (2009)4 SCC 590 , while considering conflict of UGC Act, 1956 and IGNOU Act, 1985 held that merely because the Distance Education Council of IGNOU, which is an authority under Statute 28 of IGNOU Act, has granted its approval, will not validate the degree awarded by the open university. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that UGC Act will prevail over IGNOU Act, as UGC Act will bind all universities, whether conventional or open. Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f) (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to Open Universities and also to formal Conventional Universities. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that UGC Act will prevail over IGNOU Act, as UGC Act will bind all universities, whether conventional or open. Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f) (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to Open Universities and also to formal Conventional Universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standard of instructions and such minimum standards are required to be defined by UGC, meaning thereby that issue, if any, with regard to equivalence of degree/diploma obtained through open university and regular universities can only be decided by UGC, which is competent authority to do so. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held as under: “40. UGC Act was enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India whereas Open University Act was enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III thereof. The question of repugnancy of the provisions of the said two Acts, therefore, does not arise. It is true that the statement of objects and reasons of Open University Act shows that the formal system of education had not been able to provide an effective means to equalize educational opportunities. The system is rigid inter alia in respect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of subjects are also inflexible. 41. Was the alternative system envisaged under the Open University Act was in substitution of the formal system is the question. In our opinion, in the matter of ensuring the standard of education, it is not. The distinction between a formal system and informal system is in the mode and manner in which education is imparted. UGC Act was enacted for effectuating co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities. The purport and object for which it was enacted must be given full effect. 42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all Universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-Section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to Open Universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Its powers are very broad. Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-Section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to Open Universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the co- ordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. 43. The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of the UGC are all pervasive in respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A and clauses (a) and (c) of sub- section (2) thereof. Indisputably, as has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Solicitor General that Open University Act was enacted to achieve a specific object. It opens new vistas for imparting education in a novel manner. Students do not have to attend classes regularly. They have wide options with regard to the choice of subjects but the same, in our opinion, would not mean that despite a Parliamentary Act having been enacted to give effect to the constitutional mandate contained in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, activities and functions of the private universities and open universities would be wholly unregulated. 44. It has not been denied or disputed before us that in the matter of laying down qualification of the teachers, running of the University and the matters provided for under the UGC Act are applicable and binding on all concerned. Regulations framed, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly aimed at the Open Universities. When the Regulations are part of the statute, it is difficult to comprehend as to how the same which operate in a different field would be ultra vires the Parliamentary Act. IGNOU has not made any regulation; it has not made any ordinance. It is guided by the Regulations framed by the UGC. The validity of the provisions of the Regulations has not been questioned either by IGNOU or by the appellant - University. IGNOU has not made any regulation; it has not made any ordinance. It is guided by the Regulations framed by the UGC. The validity of the provisions of the Regulations has not been questioned either by IGNOU or by the appellant - University. From a letter dated 5.5.2004 issued by Mr. H.P. Dikshit, who was not only the Vice-Chancellor but also the Chairman of the DEC of IGNOU it is evident that the appellant - University has violated the mandatory provisions of the Regulations.” 17. In the present case, as has been observed above, there is nothing in Service Rule-13 framed by the Federation-petitioner, which suggests that department had specifically provided duration, if any, of Diploma in Dairy Technology, as such it does not lie in the mouth of Federation at this stage to refute the claim of the respondents on the ground that they have not acquired two years diploma as recognized by NDRI. Since the Federation failed to place on record any document suggestive of the fact that diploma awarded by IGNOU i.e. Diploma in Dairy Technology is not recognized by University Grants Commission, this Court, sees no reason to conclude that respondents were not having requisite qualification in terms of Service Rule-13 aforesaid. 18. Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.