JUDGMENT : SUDHIR AGARWAL, IFAQAT ALI KHAN, JJ. 1. Heard Sri J.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Abhijit Saxena, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.K. Saxena, Advocate for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by sole petitioner, Brijesh Kumar Bhadauriya, praying for issue of writ of certiorari quashing recommendations of Selection Committee dated 11.02.2013, not recommending petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer, and order dated 24.09.2013 issued by Chief Engineer (E-2-1) U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'CEUPJN'), promoting Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Rakesh Upman, Arvind Kumar Tripathi and Mahesh Kumar as Assistant Engineer (Civil) for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). 3. Subsequently, by way of amendment, four prayers have been added. Petitioner has further prayed for issue of a writ of Certiorari for quashing communications dated 08.07.2008 and 31.12.2013 issued by University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC'); order dated 23.01.2014 issued by CEUPJN; Enquiry report dated 28.02.2014; recommendation dated 14.03.2014 issued by CEUPJN and approval order dated 14.03.2014 granted by respondent-1. Petitioner has also prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to treat B.E. (Civil) Degree conferred and awarded by Naini Extension Centre of Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as "BIT, Ranchi") of the year 2003, as valid and recognized degree for all purposes and consider claim of petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. He has prayed that said degree be treated valid for promotion against vacancies of Assistant Engineers reserved to the extent of 8.33% for Junior Engineer who have obtained Engineering degree. Further petitioner has also sought exemplary damages from respondents. 4. Facts in brief giving rise to present writ petition are as under. 5. U.P. Jal Nigam (hereinafter referred to as 'UPJN') is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1975'). Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer in March 1981 in UPJN. He was permitted to undergo B.Tech course at Birla Institute of Technology, Extension Centre, Naini, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "BIT") by Chief Engineer (Karmik) U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "CEKUPJN"). Permission was granted to undergo Engineering course in evening classes run by the aforesaid Institute. At the time of appointment as Junior Engineer, petitioner's qualification was Diploma in Civil Engineering. Permission was granted to undergo Engineering course in evening classes run by the aforesaid Institute. At the time of appointment as Junior Engineer, petitioner's qualification was Diploma in Civil Engineering. He qualified Bachelor of Technology Degree in Civil Engineering from BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) after undergoing education at its Extension Centre at Naini, Allahabad. 6. Appointment and conditions of service of engineers of UPJN are governed by U.P. Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) Service Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations 1978"). Therein sources of recruitment for the post of Assistant Engineer are direct and promotion of Junior Engineers. Earlier 33.33% quota was prescribed for promotion. Besides, 8.33% quota was prescribed for such Junior Engineers who have obtained qualification of AMIE or BE Degree during course of service. 33.33% quota was enhanced to 40% by Government Order dated 23.11.1998 but for those Junior Engineers who acquired qualification of AMIE/BE Degree, quota remained 8.33%. 7. Certain Junior Engineers, junior to petitioner, were already promoted as Assistant Engineer under 8.33% quota since they acquired qualification of AMIE/BE Degree. They were also confirmed vide order dated 11.02.2006 issued by CEUPJN. A meeting was held for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers for Recruitment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10. 13 Junior Engineers were recommended for promotion. Name of petitioner was not included therein and he was ignored. CEUPJN, by order dated 24.09.2013, promoted four Junior Engineers, i.e., Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Rakesh Upman, Arvind Kumar Tripathi and Mahesh Kumar. Petitioner filed a representation complaining that his juniors have been promoted ignoring him but the same remain unheeded by respondents. Hence, challenging recommendation dated 11.02.2013 and promotion order dated 24.09.2013, present writ petition has been filed. 8. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 sworn by Sri Ravi Kant Gerg, CEUPJN. It is stated that Extension Centre Naini, Allahabad of BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) was not approved by UGC. BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) is a "Deemed University" under Section 3 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "UGC Act, 1956"); it could not have established an Extension Centre at any other place or any other State unless prior approval of UGC and State Government concerned is obtained. Petitioner studied at Extension Centre, Naini, Allahabad of BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) which was not approved by UGC. Petitioner studied at Extension Centre, Naini, Allahabad of BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) which was not approved by UGC. It was approved as "Deemed University" by Government of India's notification dated 28.08.1986 and could/can award degrees from its main campus on regular mode. UPJN sought clarification, whether degrees awarded by BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) through its Extension Centre at Naini, Allahabad, prior to 16.03.2004 are valid or not. In reply to said letter of UPJN, UGC vide letter dated 31.12.2013 said that Extension Centre Naini, Allahabad is not an approved centre. However it also informed that BIT (Mesra, Ranchi), a "Deemed University", has applied for ex post-facto approval which is under consideration. On the website of BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) no Extension Centre approved by Government of India and UGC is shown. 9. Under Rules, 1978 an incumbent must possess a valid degree. The relevant Rule 10 reads as under:- "10(1) He should possess graduate degree recognized by State of any recognized institute or University or equivalent degree; (2) He has passed part "A" and "B" of Assistant Engineer membership/ Examination (Assistant Membership/ Membership) of Institute of Engineer, India. 10. Since petitioner did not possess valid Degree he was not eligible for promotion under 8.33% quota meant for Junior Engineers who possess AMIE/BE Degree. In reply to para 17 of writ petition it is said that Rakesh Kumar Sinha has not been promoted and his writ petition has been dismissed on 04.04.2012. Petitioner's representation was also rejected by order dated 23.01.2014, (Annexure-CA-9 to the counter affidavit). 11. After filing of aforesaid counter affidavit, petitioner got the writ petition amended and amendment having been allowed, paragraphs 24-A to 24-AG have been inserted. 12. The facts stated therein are that BIT (Mesra, Ranchi), an Educational Institution of Prominence, was granted status of "Deemed University" by Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), New Delhi, vide letter dated 28.08.1986, issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956. Clause XXIV of Memorandum of Association of BIT (Mesra, Ranchi), contemplates establishment of outside Ranchi, such campus, to provide facilities for Instruction, Research and Extension as are necessary for furthering the objects of Institute. UGC notified for the first time UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 2003") by exercising power under Section 26(1) (f)(g) of UGC Act, 1956. UGC notified for the first time UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 2003") by exercising power under Section 26(1) (f)(g) of UGC Act, 1956. The aforesaid Regulations are applicable to such private Universities which are established by or incorporated under a State Act before or after commencement of Regulations, 2003. Regulation 1.2 of Regulations, 2003, reads as under:- "1.2. These shall apply to every private university established by or incorporated under a State Act, before or after the commencement of these regulations." (emphasis added) 13. In a query made by Vice Chancellor, Janardan Rai Nagar, Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Udaipur (State of Rajasthan), Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources vide letter dated 17.02.2004 informed that all Degrees and Diplomas awarded by University established by Act of Parliament or State Legislature, Institutions deemed to be Universities under section 3 of UGC Act, 1956 and Institutions of National Importance declared under an Act of Parliament, stand automatically recognized for the purpose of employment under Central Government and no formal order recognizing such Degree or Diploma is necessary. Vide letter dated 16.03.2004 UGC has requested to all Vice Chancellors of "Deemed Universities" not to Open Campus centres without prior approval of UGC, and wherever centres are working, seek approval within six months, failing which such courses/centres run by Universities shall be declared unrecognized by UGC. In a query made by one Sri Santosh Kumar, Advocate of this Court, UGC by letter dated 08.07.2008 informed that Memorandum of Association is not baseless but contain provisions for opening Extension Centre with prior approval of UGC/Ministry of Human Resources and Development; the letter dated 16.03.2004 is not retrospective but all Deemed Universities are advised to seek ex post facto approval in respect to all Campus Centres which have been established without approval of UGC. BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) also sent a letter dated 10.06.2008 certifying that it is operating as per norms and guidelines and said as under:- "1. The Institute is functioning strictly within the well defined objectives and norms recommended by the UGC and approved by the Government of India as given in the MOA and rules. 2. The Institute is not conducting any course under the distance mode. 3. The Institute has not affiliated any college for the degree programmes. 4. The Institute is functioning strictly within the well defined objectives and norms recommended by the UGC and approved by the Government of India as given in the MOA and rules. 2. The Institute is not conducting any course under the distance mode. 3. The Institute has not affiliated any college for the degree programmes. 4. The Institute has not franchised any organization/ concern for the academic programmes." 14. Officiating Vice Chancellor, BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) informed Managing Director, UPJN by letter dated 08.08.2008 that degrees granted/issued by BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) through its Naini Extension Centre and similarly placed other Centres upto 2003 are all valid and no approval separately needed in view of UGC letter dated 16.03.2004. Another reply was given by Public Information Officer, BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) on a query made by one Sri Rajiv Malviya, Advocate, by letter dated 04.02.2008 and reply given reads as under:- "Query No. 1:- B.I.T. does not offer any programme in Distance Education Mode. All its programme are delivered through Direct Contact Mode. This is true for all programmes at Mesra campus as well as extension centers. Query No. 2:- B.I.T. is authorized to establish out side Ranchi such campuses to Provide facilities for instruction, research and extension as are necessary for furthering the objects of the Institute. As per clause III (xxiv) of the Memorandum of Association of the Institute, which has been duly approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, vide its notification no. F.9-2/83.U.3 dated 28.08.1986 on recommendation of the U.G.C. The programmes at Allahabad Extension Centre are being offered by B.I.T. under this authorization. Query No. 3:- Till the U.G.C., issued its letter no. F.6-7/2003 (CPP-I) dated 16.03.2004, there was no formal procedure for approval of campus centers. However the commission advised all Deemed Universities through the said regulation to apply for expost-facto approval for such centers within six month of the issue of the letter failing which the courses/centers run by the Universities shall be declared unrecognized by the U.G.C. Accordingly, application has been submitted within the stipulated time-frame and the Commission is disposing of such applications, as per their convenience. Query No. 4:-However AICTE does not have any role to play in this whole episode." (emphasis added) 15. Query No. 4:-However AICTE does not have any role to play in this whole episode." (emphasis added) 15. With regard to functioning of All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AICET") constituted under All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "AICTE Act 1987") and UGC, Government of India issued notification dated 07.04.2006 clarifying position of both, in the context of various provisions of AICTE Act 1987 and UGC Act 1956. 16. UPJN made an inquiry from UGC by letter dated 16.12.2013, whether degree awarded by BIT (Mesra, Ranchi), through its Extension Centre of Naini, Allahabad, before letter dated 16.03.2004 issued by UGC are valid or not. In reply thereto, UGC vide letter dated 31.12.2013, informed that Extension Centre is not an approved Centre and BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) is authorized to award degrees through its main campus in regular mode only. It is in these circumstances claim of petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 23.01.2014. 17. This Court noticed in its order dated 29.01.2014 that certain Junior Engineers were granted promotion to the posts of Assistant Engineer, treating their degree received through Extension Centre, Naini of BIT (Mesra, Ranchi), valid, then in what circumstances petitioner can be discriminated. It also directed Secretary, Ministry of Nagar Vikas, U.P. Government, Lucknow to hold inquiry in the matter and take appropriate action against erring officials. Operative part of the order dated 29.01.2014 reads as under:- "We, therefore, direct respondent no.1 i.e. Secretary, Ministry of Nagar Vikash, U.P. Government at Lucknow to hold an enquiry in the matter of promotion of junior engineers having same degree of B.Tech. like the petitioner and to decide as to whether the petitioner is qualified for the post of promotion or not. If the petitioner is not found to be qualified, he shall also examine as to how other similarly situate persons could be promoted and who is responsible for the situation. If the petitioner is found to be qualified, he shall decide as to who is responsible for bye-passing the claim of the petitioner. In both the circumstances, senior most officers of the Jal Nigam responsible for the situation must be brought to book so that such acts of discrimination in the matter of promotion are not repeated. Arbitrary actions always adversely affect the moral of the employees and result in uncalled for litigation. In both the circumstances, senior most officers of the Jal Nigam responsible for the situation must be brought to book so that such acts of discrimination in the matter of promotion are not repeated. Arbitrary actions always adversely affect the moral of the employees and result in uncalled for litigation. Action taken by respondent no.1 without any leniency shall be reported to this Court by 17th February, 2014. List this matter on 17th February, 2014 at the top of the list. A certified copy of this order may be issued to Sri Qamarul Hasan Siddhiqui, learned Chief Standing Counsel, who is present in the Court, who may forward the same to respondent no.1 for necessary compliance." (emphasis added) 18. An inquiry was conducted by Sri R. N. Srivastava, Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur Region and its report dated 28.02.2014 has been placed on record along with counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-2, sworn on 02.05.2014. The aforesaid affidavit shows that inquiry was not conducted as per directions of this Court. No concrete action taken by respondents is also placed on record. It appears that there is an attempt to hush up the matter in a regular usual bureaucratic way. 19. Petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondent-2, 3 and 4 wherein basic facts pleaded in writ petition are reiterated and repeated. It also, however, admits that writ petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Sinha and others, i.e., Writ Petition No. 64391 of 2007 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.04.2012. 20. In the light of above facts, the issues, up for consideration in this writ petition, are: (i) Whether BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) which was earlier in the State of Bihar and now in State of Jharkhand, could have validly established and run an Extension Centre at Naini, Allahabad (State of U.P.) and that too without approval or permission of all or any or some of the authorities, i.e., UGC, AICTE, State of U.P. and Government of India. (ii) Whether an Engineering degree conferred after 1988 can be said to be valid degree only on recognition by UGC and/or it will also require approval or recognition of AICTE after enactment of AICTE Act, 1987. (ii) Whether an Engineering degree conferred after 1988 can be said to be valid degree only on recognition by UGC and/or it will also require approval or recognition of AICTE after enactment of AICTE Act, 1987. (iii) Whether the degree obtained by petitioner in the year 2003, after undergoing evening classes at Extension Centre, Naini, Allahabad (State of U.P.) of BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) (State of Jharkhand), is a valid qualification entitling petitioner to be considered for promotion against 8.33% vacancies reserved for Junior Engineers possessing qualification of AMIE/BE Degree as provided under Rule 10 of Rules 1978. (iv) Whether reliefs sought by petitioner challenging promotion of certain Junior Engineers, promoted on the post of Assistant Engineers, can be granted when none of them has been impleaded in the present writ petition. 21. Aforesaid questions have to be examined in the light of operation, requirement and application of inter se provisions of UGC Act, 1956 and AICTE Act, 1987. We first take up UGC Act, 1956. 22. Power of legislation in respect of Institutes of Higher Education, was conferred earlier in Government of India Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1935") and subsequently in Constitution of India. 23. In List I (Federal Legislative Act) of Act, 1935 Entries 12 and 13 read as under: "12. Federal agencies and institutes for the following purposes, that is to say, for research, for professional or technical training, or for the promotion of special studies. 13. The Banaras Hindu University and the Aligarh Muslim University." 24. List II- Provincial Legislative List had Entries 17 and 33 as under: "17. Education including Universities other than specified in paragraph 13 of List I. 33. The incorporation, regulation, and winding up corporations (not being Corporations specified in List I or Universities); unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative societies." 25. In Constitution of India, Entries were drafted in little different manner. For our purposes Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I, Seventh Schedule are relevant and quoted as under: "63. The institutions known at the commencement of this Constitution as the Banaras Hindu University, the Aligarh Muslim University and the Delhi University; the University established in pursuance of Article 371E; any other institution declared by Parliament by law to be an institution of national importance. 64. The institutions known at the commencement of this Constitution as the Banaras Hindu University, the Aligarh Muslim University and the Delhi University; the University established in pursuance of Article 371E; any other institution declared by Parliament by law to be an institution of national importance. 64. Institutions for scientific or technical education financed by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared by Parliament by law to be institutions of national importance. 65. Union agencies and institutions for (a) professional, vocational or technical training, including the training of police officers; or (b) the promotion of special studies or research; or (c) scientific or technical assistance in the investigation or detection of crime. 66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical education." (emphasis added) 26. List II-State List, Seventh Schedule of Constitution Entries 11 and 32 are relevant and quoted as under: "11. Education including universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III. 32. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporation, other than those specified in List I, and universities; unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative societies." 27. The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 w.e.f. 03.01.1977 omitted Entry 11 and transferred that subject so as to be combined with Entry 25 of List III. List III of Seventh Schedule of Constitution contains Entry 25 as under: "25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour." (emphasis added) 28. Incorporation of University, therefore, is under Legislative Head of Provincial Legislation but it cannot be doubted that "University" basically is an institution for Higher Education and Research. 29. Power of legislation dealing with subject of coordination and determination of standards in Institution of Higher Education or Research in Scientific and Technical Institutions has been conferred upon Parliament vide Entry 66, List I. 30. Inter relationship of Provincial and Central Legislation in relation to Entry 63 to 66, List I and Entry 11 of List II, as it was before Forty-second Amendment of Constitution, came to be considered before Supreme Court in Gujarat University vs. Shri Krishna, AIR 1963 SC 703 . Inter relationship of Provincial and Central Legislation in relation to Entry 63 to 66, List I and Entry 11 of List II, as it was before Forty-second Amendment of Constitution, came to be considered before Supreme Court in Gujarat University vs. Shri Krishna, AIR 1963 SC 703 . Court held that Entries 63 to 66 of List I, Seventh Schedule of Constitution are carved out of the subject of education and in respect of these items, power to legislate, is vested exclusively in Parliament. 31. Again in Osmania University Teachers Association vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 1987(4) SCC 671 Court held that exclusive responsibility to determine standards of Higher Education is vested in Central Legislation. It cannot be lowered by Provincial Legislation. 32. It was thus consistent view that the whole gamut of "University" which will include teaching, quality of education being imparted, curriculum, standard of examination and evaluation and also research activity being carried on will not come within the purview of State legislature on account of a specific Entry 66, List I of Constitution conferring power upon Central Legislature on the subject of coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical education. 33. Parliament, therefore, had the responsibility to ensure that proper standards are maintained in institutions for higher education or research throughout the country and also uniformity in standards is maintained. First such legislation made by Parliament to achieve aforesaid objective is UGC Act, 1956. Statement of Objects and Reasons of UGC Act, 1956 says that neither coordination nor determination of standards is possible unless Central Government has some voice in determination of standards of teaching and examination in Universities, both old and new. It is also necessary to ensure that the available resources are utilized to the best possible effect. Parliament thus found that there exist a need for a properly constituted Commission for determining and allocating Universities funds, made available by Central Government, and said Commission also will have power to recommend Universities the measures necessary for reform and improvement of University education etc. Commission will act as an expert body to advise Central Government on problems connected with coordination of facilities and maintenance of standards in Universities. 34. Commission will act as an expert body to advise Central Government on problems connected with coordination of facilities and maintenance of standards in Universities. 34. Section 2(f) of UGC Act, 1956 defines "University" and reads as under: "(f) "University" means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act." 35. Section 2(e) defines the term "prescribed" and reads as under: "(e) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act." 36. With regard to declaration of a "Deemed University", Section 3 provides as under: "3. Application of Act to institutions for higher studies other than Universities.- The Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of section 2." (emphasis added) 37. Therefore an institution of Higher Education other than University, when declared as "Deemed University", it is an "University" within the meaning of Section 2(f) and all the provisions of UGC Act, 1956 would stand attracted. 38. The right to confer Degree has been specifically conferred upon "University" vide Section 22 of UGC Act, 1956 which reads as under: "22. Right to confer degrees.- (1) The right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. (2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree. (3) For the purposes of this section, "degree" means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette." (emphasis added) 39. (3) For the purposes of this section, "degree" means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette." (emphasis added) 39. Section 23 also prohibits use of the word "University" by any institution whether a corporate body or not, other than "University" established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act. Therefore, an educational institution under Section 3, "deemed to be University", if not established or incorporated by or under a Central or Provincial or State Act, shall not be entitled to use the word "University" even if it is declared to be a "Deemed University" under Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956. Contravention of Section 22 and 23 is an offence under Section 24 and penalty is provided under Section 24 of UGC Act, 1956. 40. In view of Section 22 of UGC Act, 1956 it is thus clear that right to confer a degree is exercisable only by University or an Institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of Act, 1956 or an Institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant such degree. 41. What a "degree" is, has not been defined in UGC Act, 1956. If we go by dictionary meaning, we find the same having been defined in different dictionaries as under: Webster's Third New: 1. A title conferred upon students by a college, International Dictionary university, or professional school upon completion of a unified programme of study carrying a specified minimum of credits, passing of certain examinations, and often completion of a thesis or other independent research project. 2. A grade or class of membership attained in a ritualistic order or society denoting a stage of proficiency often after a set ordeal or examination. Wharton's Law Lexicon: The state of a person, as to be a barrister-at-law, or to be a Bachelor or Master of Arts of a University. Chambers's Twentieth: A mark of distinction conferred by universities, Century Dictionary whether earned by examination or granted as a mark of honour. P. Ramanatha Aiyar: A mark of distinction conferred upon a student Law Lexicon (2nd Ed) for proficiency in some art or science; University diploma of specified proficiency. Chambers's Twentieth: A mark of distinction conferred by universities, Century Dictionary whether earned by examination or granted as a mark of honour. P. Ramanatha Aiyar: A mark of distinction conferred upon a student Law Lexicon (2nd Ed) for proficiency in some art or science; University diploma of specified proficiency. Encyclopedia Americana: "DEGREE" - the title conferred by a college or university, signifying that a certain step or grade has been attained in an area of learning. The award of a diploma conferring the bachelor's degree marks completion of undergraduate study. The master's and doctor's degrees reward graduate study. Other degrees constitute evidence of preparation for professional work the M.D. (doctor of medicine) for example. In the 20th century, however, the M.A. is granted in American universities and in those of England and the Commonwealth of Nations (apart from Oxford and Cambridge) on the basis of study beyond the B.A. and the presentation (usually) of a thesis. An exception is Scotland, where the M.A. has been the first degree conferred in all six universities ever since their founding. The bachelor of philosophy and bachelor of letters degrees are given for work beyond the M.A. The New Encyclopedia Britannica - "Degree" in education, any of several titles conferred by colleges and universities to indicate the extent of academic achievement. The hierarchy of degrees, dating from the 13th century, once resembled the medieval guild system. In the United States and Great Britain, the modern gradation of academic degrees is usually bachelor (or baccalaureate), master, and doctor. With some exceptions, intermediate degrees, such as those of bachelor and master, have been abandoned in the universities of continental Europe. 42. The above definitions show that broadly but briefly a degree when conferred by University is a proof that a person has studied a course of particular higher level and successfully passed examination certifying his proficiency in the subject he studied to such level. 43. In Prof. Yashpal & Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors, 2005(5) SCC 420 Court said that mere conferment of degree is not enough. What is necessary is that the degree should be recognized. 44. Value and importance of such degree which are recognized by Government has been considered by Supreme Court in Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662 . 45. What is necessary is that the degree should be recognized. 44. Value and importance of such degree which are recognized by Government has been considered by Supreme Court in Azeez Basha vs. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 662 . 45. In order to regulate proper standard of teaching, one has to maintain a proper standard in respect of infrastructure, faculty etc. For regulating the same, power to frame Rules has been conferred upon Central Government under Section 25 and upon UGC by making Regulations under Section 26 of UGC Act, 1956 and the said provisions read as under: "25. Power to make rules--(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the procedure for the retirement of members under section 6; (b) the disqualifications for continuing as a member of the Commission; (c) the terms and conditions of service of members of the Commission; (d) the terms and conditions of service of employees appointed by the Commission; (e) the additional functions which may be performed by the Commission under clause (j) of section 12; (f) the return and information which are to be furnished by Universities in respect of their financial position or standards of teaching and examination maintained therein; (g) the inspection of Universities; (h) the form and manner in which the budget and reports are to be prepared by the Commission; (i) the manner in which the accounts of the Commission are to be maintained; (j) the form and manner in which returns or other information are to be furnished by the Commission to the Central Government; (k) any other matter which has to be, or may be, prescribed. (3) The power to make rules conferred by this section shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the rules or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any rule so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such rule may be applicable." "26. Power to make regulations--(1) The Commission may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder- (a) regulating the meetings of the Commission and the procedure for conducting business thereat; (b) regulating the manner in which and the purposes for which persons may be associated with the Commission under section 9; (c) specifying the terms and conditions of service of the employees appointed by the Commission; (d) specifying the institutions or class of institutions which may be recognised by the Commission under clause (f) of sub-section 2; (e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University, having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instruction; (f) defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University; (g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities. (h) regulating the establishment of institutions referred to in clause (ccc) of section 12 and other matters relating to such institutions; (i) specifying the matters in respect of which fees may be charged, and scales of fees in accordance with which fees may be charged, by a college under sub-section (2) of section 12A; (j) specifying the manner in which an inquiry may be conducted under sub-section (4) of section 12A; (2) No regulation shall be made under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) 2 or clause (h) or clause (j) or clause (j) of sub-section (1) except with the previous approval of the Central Government. (3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section except clause (i) and clause (j) of subsection (1) shall include the power to give retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this Act, to the regulations or any of them but no retrospective effect shall be given to any regulation so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person to whom such regulation may be applicable." 46. Now we come to AICTE Act, 1987. It was enacted by Parliament. It is also referable to Entry 66, List I, Seventh Schedule of Constitution. Now we come to AICTE Act, 1987. It was enacted by Parliament. It is also referable to Entry 66, List I, Seventh Schedule of Constitution. Prior to enactment of said Act, there already existed a Council, namely, AICTE, set up in 1945 by Government of India, by a resolution, as a National Expert Body to advise Central and State Governments for ensuring coordinated development for technical education in accordance with approved standards. Initially, AICTE functioned quite effectively and phenomenal development of technical education was quite apparent but thereafter it was noticed that a large number of private engineering colleges and polytechnics were set up in complete disregard of guidelines set up by AICTE. Noticing a substantial erosion of technical education standards, AICTE, in its meeting held in 1981 resolved that time has come that it should be vested with statutory power to regulate and maintain standard of technical education in this country. Consequently, a National Working Group was set up in November, 1985 to look into the role of AICTE. It recommended that in order to enable AICTE to play its role effectively it must be vested with some statutory authority. Consequently, a bill was introduced to provide statutory power to AICTE to ensure: (1) proper planning and coordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country; (2) promotion of qualitative improvement of technical education in relation to planned quantitative growth; and (3) regulation of the system and proper maintenance of norms and standards. 47. This resulted in enactment of AICTE Act, 1987 (Act No. 52 of 1987) which came into force on 28.03.1988. 47. This resulted in enactment of AICTE Act, 1987 (Act No. 52 of 1987) which came into force on 28.03.1988. It defines "technical education", "technical institution" and "university" in Section 2(g), (h) and (i) as under: "(g) "technical education" means programmes of education, research and training in engineering technology, architecture, town planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other programme or areas as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare; (h) "technical institution" means an institution, not being a University, which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions; (i) "University" means a University defined under clause (f) of section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) and includes an institution deemed to be a University under section 3 of that Act." (emphasis added) 48. Section 3 talks of establishment of Council, i.e., AICTE through a notification by Government of India, published in official gazette. Section 10, Chapter III of AICTE Act, 1987 deals in detail, functions of AICTE. Section 11 confers power upon AICTE for inspection of a Technical Institution or University for ascertaining on the question of financial needs; standard of teaching, examination and research. Section 22 confers power upon Central Government to make rules and under Section 23 AICTE had power to make regulations. 49. In exercise of powers under Section 23, AICTE has framed certain Regulations and some Regulations relevant for our purpose are as under: (I) All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approval for Starting New Technical Institutions, Introduction of Courses of Programmes and Approval of Intake Capacity of Seats for the Courses or Programmes) Regulations, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 1994"). (II) All India Council for Technical Education (Norms and Guidelines for Fees and Guidelines for Admissions in Professional Colleges) Regulations, 1994. (III) AICTE (Information and Conduct of Inspection of Technical Institutions, Departments of the Universities and Institutions Declared as Deemed to be University and Universities and Institutions Declared as Deemed to be University) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 2010"). (IV) All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ("Approval Regulations, 2010"). 50. (IV) All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ("Approval Regulations, 2010"). 50. For our purposes Regulations, 1994 is relevant. Regulation 2 provides the field of applicability of Regulations, 1994 and reads as under: "2. Applicability.--(1) These regulations shall be applicable to the proposals relating to.-- (a) grant of approval of the Council for establishment of new technical institutions including Universities or University Departments and deemed Universities and for technical institutions functioning on the date of commencement of these regulations at Degree and Diploma levels; (b) grant of approval of the Council for introduction of any course or programme in the technical institutions and technical departments of Universities or deemed Universities; (c) grant of approval of the Council for existing intake capacity of seats and for increase in the annual intake capacity of seats in courses and programmes. (2) These regulations shall not be applicable to the proposals relating to post graduate courses for Master of Business Administration or equivalent, Master of Computer Application or equivalent, and all post graduate courses in the field of technical education." (emphasis added) 51. Regulation 4 provides for grant of approval in the cases where Regulations, 1994 are applicable. It reads as under: "4. Requirement of grant of approval.--(1) After the commencement of these regulations,-- (a) no new technical institution of University Technical Department, shall be started; or (b) no course or programme shall be introduced by any technical institutions, University including a deemed University or University Department or College; or (c) no technical institutions, Universities or deemed Universities or University Departments or Colleges shall continue in admit students for Degree or Diploma courses or programmes; (d) no approved intake capacity of seats shall be increased or varied; except with the approval of the Council. (2) Applications for grant of approval under sub-regulation (1) shall be made by any of the following, namely:-- (i) Government institutions, Government aided institutions, deemed Universities and University departments or Colleges; (ii) registered societies/trusts." (emphasis added) 52. In later part of Regulations, 1994 procedure for seeking approval is given which we are skipping at the moment. 53. (2) Applications for grant of approval under sub-regulation (1) shall be made by any of the following, namely:-- (i) Government institutions, Government aided institutions, deemed Universities and University departments or Colleges; (ii) registered societies/trusts." (emphasis added) 52. In later part of Regulations, 1994 procedure for seeking approval is given which we are skipping at the moment. 53. Inter relationship and extent of power of UGC and AICTE has been considered in Association of Management of Private Colleges vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others, 2013(8) SCC 271 and Court has said as under: "AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of its departments or units. A careful scanning-through of the provisions of the AICTE Act and the provisions of the UGC Act in juxtaposition, will show that the role of AICTE vis-a-vis the universities is only advisory, recommendatory and a guiding factor and thereby subserves the cause of maintaining appropriate standards and qualitative norms and not as an authority empowered to issue and enforce any sanctions by itself, except submitting a report to UGC for appropriate action. The conscious and deliberate omission to enact any such provision in the AICTE Act in respect of universities is not only a positive indicator but should be also one of the determining factors in adjudging the status, role and activities of AICTE vis-à-vis universities and the activities and functioning of its departments and units. All these vitally important facets with so much glaring significance of the scheme underlying the Act and the language of the various provisions seem to have escaped the notice of the learned Judges, their otherwise well-merited attention and consideration in their proper and correct perspective." 54. Similar view was taken in Parashavananth Charitable Truct and others vs. AICTE, 2013(3) SCC 385 . 55. Now coming to the issue in the present case we find that question of B.Tech. Similar view was taken in Parashavananth Charitable Truct and others vs. AICTE, 2013(3) SCC 385 . 55. Now coming to the issue in the present case we find that question of B.Tech. Degree of Engineering granted by BIT (Mesra, Ranchi), whether valid nor not, is an issue not in the context of those students who are imparted education at the main centre of BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) who after examination are conferred with degree but here we are concerned with validity of degree in the context of students who had been admitted at the Extension Centre, Naini, Allahabad and have been awarded degree by BIT (Mesra, Ranchi). Therefore, issue of validity of degree of BIT (Mesra, Ranchi), as such, is not under challenge but it is confined to the cases where education has been imparted to the students at off Campus, i.e., Extension Centre at Naini, Allahabad (State of U.P.). 56. In our view, Extension Centre of BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) though termed as Extension Centre but is a Technical Institution established by BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) and authorized to impart technical education at Naini, Allahabad. Admittedly it not a part of main campus of BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi). This institution is clearly a new technical institution of BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi). It could not have been established or authorized to undergo technical education without seeking approval of UGC and also AICTE under the provisions of Regulations, 1994. Further this authorization or creation of Extension Centre by BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) resulted in addition of intake of students in concerned course. This aspect also attract Regulations, 1994. As we have already quoted from pleadings that BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) has clearly taken a stand that AICTE has no role in the case of establishment centre at Naini, Allahabad hence, non observance of Regulations, 1994 is evident and apparent. 57. BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) has also claimed that it has no education centre running by Distance Education Mode. Therefore, we have not looked into the relevant provisions and law applicable to Distance Education Mode and treat that Extension Centre, Naini, Allahabad is a direct technical education institution where students are imparted education by Faculty, thereat. This Institution being a separate one, could not be treated a part and parcel of BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) and needed separate approval of UGC. Moreover this institution, by all means, is within the ambit of Regulations, 1994 framed under AICTE Act, 1987. This Institution being a separate one, could not be treated a part and parcel of BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) and needed separate approval of UGC. Moreover this institution, by all means, is within the ambit of Regulations, 1994 framed under AICTE Act, 1987. Since no such approval has been obtained, the Engineering Course undergone by petitioner after getting education at Extension Centre, Naini, Allahabad of BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) cannot be said to be a valid degree. We thus also hold that BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) could not have established Extension Centre at Naini without approval of UGC and AICTE. 58. Questions No. 1, 2 and 3, therefore, are answered as under: (I) Extension Centre at Naini, Allahabad could not have been established by BIT (Mesra, Ranchi) without obtaining approval from UGC under UGC Act, 1956 and AICTE under the provisions of Regulations, 1994. (II) The degree of Engineering granted by (Mesra, Ranchi), by itself may not require prior approval of AICTE but where it allows students to undergo examination for the purpose of award of said degree after having education in a technical institution which is not established with approval of UGC and AICTE, to that extent, degree awarded to such students is invalid. (III) Degree of Engineering obtained by petitioner in 2003 after undergoing evening classes at Extension Centre, Naini, Allahabad awarded by BIT, (Mesra, Ranchi) is invlid. It does not render him qualified for claiming promotion under Rule 10 of Rules, 1978 in respect of vacancies reserved for those Junior Engineers who possess qualification of AMIE/BE Degree. 59. Now coming to question no. 4, here also we find that petitioner has serious obstructions. He has challenged promotion order of certain individuals but they have not been impleaded. In absence of persons who are likely to be affected adversely in case relief prayed for is granted, no relief can be granted since granting of such relief would be violative of principle of natural justice qua the persons who would be affected but not impleaded. Their impleadment is must since they are necessary party. 60. A Division Bench of this Court in Jogendra Yadav and others Vs. Their impleadment is must since they are necessary party. 60. A Division Bench of this Court in Jogendra Yadav and others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal 2007 (3) ESC 1705 (DB) with respect to non-joinder of necessary party in a matter of seniority, held: "In case the private respondents intended to seek any direction which would have affected seniority of the persons who were already assigned higher position over the private respondents, their impleadment and opportunity of hearing to them was necessary. In their absence, no order could have been passed by the Tribunal adversely affecting their position in the seniority list." 61. Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Madan Mohan Joshi 2008 (6) SCC 797 set aside judgment of High Court only on the ground that those persons who were likely to lose seniority or benefit under seniority list, if not impleaded, though are necessary party, no relief can be granted to petitioners. Court said that inter-se seniority though is not a fundamental right but a civil right and, therefore, requires determination in presence of all respective parties whose seniority is disputed. In our view same principle will apply where promotion order of some individuals is challenged without impleading them. 62. In view of above, question no. 4 is also answered against petitioner. 63. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly. 64. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.