ORDER : Since the issues raised in all these writ petitions are one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.24594 of 2020 are hereunder discussed:- 3. W.P.No.24594 of 2020 is filed seeking the following relief : “….. to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that orders issued by the 2nd Respondent vide TOO(Jt. Secy.per)Ms.No.923 dated 14.12.2020 and consequential orders of the 3rd Respondent in SPOO(Jt.Secy.IR and M)Ms.No.1250 dated 21.12.2020 are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and are contrary to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Ltd. Vs.Rabi Shankar Patro and others dated 3.11.2017 reported in 2018 (1) SCC 468 ……”. 4. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms.B.Kavitha Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.24594 of 2020, Sri.S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior counsel representing Ms.K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.4067 of 2021, Sri B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.24113 of 2020, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Chinthalapani Avani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.1642 of 2021, Sri K.Manmadha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.5717 of 2021, Sri G.Vidya Sagar, Senior counsel appearing for the official respondents and Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents in W.P.No.24113 of 2020 and W.P.No.24594 of 2020. 5. It has been contended by the petitioners in W.P.No.24594 of 2020 that they were initially appointed as Additional Assistant Engineers in the then A.P.Electricity Board. At the time of their initial appointment, they were possessing the qualification of diploma in Electrical Engineering and later the former A.P. Electricity Board has been bifurcated into various other Corporations and they were allotted to 3rd respondent-Corporation. During the years 2001-2005, they sought prior permission from the respondents to acquire the qualification of degree in Engineering and the respondents were pleased to grant permission to them to pursue degree in Engineering and accordingly, they have taken admission into the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Sardarshahar, Rajasthan (for short ‘IASE, Rajasthan’) through distance education mode and accordingly, they have acquired the said qualification. However, the qualification of degree in Engineering acquired by them was not recognized by All India Council of Technical Education (for short ‘the AICTE’). However, the qualification of degree in Engineering acquired by them was not recognized by All India Council of Technical Education (for short ‘the AICTE’). Therefore, they have been pursuing for recognition of the said qualification and based upon such qualification of degree in Engineering acquired by them from IASE, Rajasthan, through Distance Education Mode, they are seeking conversion from the post of Additional Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Engineer. They have been requesting the respondents to recognize the qualification acquired by them and grant all the benefits to which they are entitled to for acquiring such qualification, but the respondents are not considering their cases for conversion from the post of Additional Assistant Engineer to that of Assistant Engineer. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the issue as to the validity of the degrees awarded by the Institutions/Universities through Distance Education Mode in respect of technical courses fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. RABI SANKAR PATRO, (2018) 1 SCC 468 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass an elaborate order categorically holding as follows :- “57. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex post facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex post facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, since the 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the deemed to be universities concerned to apply for ex post facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the deemed to be universities concerned flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the overbearing interest of the students concerned persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of the said ex post facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the study centres concerned were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the study centres concerned were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the students concerned. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the students concerned to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended. 58. AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test(s) both in written examination as well as in practicals for the students concerned admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the subjects concerned. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in the respective States wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during May-June 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the students concerned and if they do not pass the test(s) their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the test(s), the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the deemed to be university concerned within a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15-1-2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) in respect of students who wish to undergo test(s) shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018. If they clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the candidates concerned. The students be given time till 15-1-2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) in respect of students who wish to undergo test(s) shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018. If they clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the candidates concerned. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the candidates concerned do not clear the test(s) within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test(s), their degrees in Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and cancelled. It goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however, any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, permitted all the candidates, who have acquired the said qualification from Institutions/Universities through Distance Education Mode to appear for the special examination to be conducted by the UGC/AICTE. Accordingly, the petitioners have appeared for the special examination conducted in pursuance of the above said judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited’s case (supra) and in view of the fact that the petitioners have passed the said special examination conducted by the UGC/AICTE, the qualification acquired by them from IASE, Rajasthan, has to be treated as valid and the respondents are bound to extend the all benefits to which the petitioners are entitled to. While so, when the petitioners along with other candidates have appeared for the special examination conducted by the AICTE, the respondents were pleased to issue proceedings vide TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.400, dated 06.07.2019, and as per the said proceedings, though the qualification acquired by the candidates was treated as valid, a distinction was drawn in the said proceedings that the candidates, who have cleared the special examination conducted by the UGC/AICTE in June, 2018 i.e., in the first attempt shall be entitled to all the advantages/benefits and their degrees will stand revived fully; and in respect of the candidates, who have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE in December, 2018, i.e., in the second attempt, shall not be entitled to retain the advantages, however, their degrees will become valid henceforth. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that since the petitioners have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE in the second attempt, the advantages and benefits were not extended to the petitioners. He further contended that as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orrisa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited’s case (supra), though there is no such distinction, whether the person passes in first attempt or second attempt, the respondents have introduced a new theory and trying to deny the benefits to the petitioners for acquiring the said qualification on the ground that the petitioners have cleared the special examination in the second attempt, and hence, the respondents are not extending the said service benefits in favour of the petitioners, even though they have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE. In those set of circumstances, the petitioners have filed W.P.Nos.23026 of 2019 and 24414 of 2019 and when the said writ petitions are still pending, the 2nd respondent had issued proceedings vide TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.740, dated 26.03.2020, extending the service benefits to the candidates, who have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE in the first attempt or second attempt. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent had issued proceedings dated 10.08.2020 extending the service benefits to all the candidates and the qualification was recognized with retrospective effect, and accordingly, all the petitioners were converted to the category of Assistant Engineer on acquiring the qualification of degree in Engineering. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that While the matter stood thus, the respondents have issued impugned proceedings bearing TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.923, dated 14.12.2020, wherein the respondents have amended the Rules and stated that B.Tech. degrees shall be validated and the advantages/benefits shall be extended prospectively i.e., from the date of issuance of the proceedings bearing TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.400, dated 06.07.2019. This amendment made to para 6(iii)(c) has extended the benefits to the candidates only with prospective effect, but not with retrospective effect. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 10. The petitioners had further contended that when once the Rules were amended vide proceedings bearing TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.400, dated 06.07.2019 extending service benefits with retrospective effect, the respondents have unilaterally amended the Rule position by issuing proceedings bearing TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.923, dated 14.12.2020, making it prospective effect and thereby, taking away the benefits, which were granted earlier in favour of the petitioners. 11. 10. The petitioners had further contended that when once the Rules were amended vide proceedings bearing TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.400, dated 06.07.2019 extending service benefits with retrospective effect, the respondents have unilaterally amended the Rule position by issuing proceedings bearing TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.923, dated 14.12.2020, making it prospective effect and thereby, taking away the benefits, which were granted earlier in favour of the petitioners. 11. The petitioners further contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court never made any distinction in respect of the number of attempts taken by the candidates to clear the examination conducted by the UGC/AICTE. The moment the candidates have cleared the examination, the degrees obtained by them stand restored and accordingly, when the qualification acquired by the petitioners was restored, in all fairness, it should have been restored from the date on which they have acquired the said qualification, but not with prospective effect. 12. The petitioners further contended that when several applications were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking clarification of the earlier order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the said applications filed by the applicants seeking clarification/modification of the earlier order passed by it, and the Supreme Court had categorically held as under vide order dated 22.01.2018 as follows :- “4] At the same time, courses leading to award of degrees, whether graduate or post graduate degrees, was certainly the matter in issue. We therefore reject the submission of Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate and do not find any infirmity in the understanding of and the advertisement issued by AICTE. 5] Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate is right that JRN, AAI and IASE had no expertise in the field or subjects of Engineering and the status of Deemed Universities conferred on them was not because of their excellence in the field of Engineering. As against these three Deemed to be Universities, the case of VMRF stood on a better footing as its field of activity and excellence also included subjects in Engineering. However that was not the only basis of the judgment. The facts still remain that conferral of degrees in Engineering through distance education mode was never approved in principle by AICTE and the Study Centres were never inspected or approved. We therefore reject the submission of Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate. However that was not the only basis of the judgment. The facts still remain that conferral of degrees in Engineering through distance education mode was never approved in principle by AICTE and the Study Centres were never inspected or approved. We therefore reject the submission of Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned Advocate. 6] If award of degrees in Engineering through distance education mode by Deemed to be Universities, as a concept or principle was not accepted by AICTE, it is immaterial whether the Study Centre in question was ITM International. Said Institution was not by itself authorized to award degrees in Engineering on its own nor was it affiliated to any State or Central University at the relevant time. The courses conducted by said institution led to award of degrees of AAI, which had no expertise or excellence in the field of Engineering and through distance education mode. We therefore reject the submission advanced by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate. 7] We now turn to the general submission advanced by all the learned counsel that the candidates after securing the degrees in Engineering through distance education mode, have advanced in career and that their ability was tested at various levels and as such requirement of passing the examination in terms of the judgment be dispensed with in their case. We cannot make any such exception. The infirmity in their degrees is basic and fundamental and cannot be wished away. At the same time, we find some force in their submission that if the suspension of their degrees and all advantages were to apply as indicated in the judgment, the concerned candidates may lose their jobs and even if they were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs and present position would pose some difficulty. We, therefore, as a one-time relaxation in favour of those candidates who were enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 and who, in terms of the judgment, are eligible to appear at the test to be conducted by AICTE, direct:- a] All such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcoming test to be conducted by AICTE in May-June 2018 and who exercise option to appear at the test in terms of the judgment, can retain the degrees in question and all the advantages flowing therefrom till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018 whichever is earlier. b] This facility is given as one-time exception so that those who have the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt itself, should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the advantages. But if they fail or choose not to appear, the directions in the judgment shall apply, in that the degrees and all advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that no more such chances or exceptions will be given or made. They will undoubtedly be entitled to appear on the second occasion in terms of the judgment but this exception shall not apply for such second attempt. c] We direct AICTE to conduct the test in May-June 2018 and declare the result well in time, in terms of our directions in the judgment and this Order. AICTE shall however extend the time to exercise the option to appear at the test suitably. 8] Except for the directions given in the preceding paragraph i.e. paragraph 7 and the clarification as regards courses leading to award of diplomas as mentioned hereinabove, we reject all the other submissions. 9] All applications, petitions and writ petitions stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.” 13. The petitioners further contended that similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Cases and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed all the Contempt Cases and the findings recorded therein have no binding effect and the action of the respondents in amending the Rules and making the above said qualification as valid only with prospective effect is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 14. The petitioners further contended that the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the A.P. High Court in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 dated 18.03.2020, wherein the A.P. High Court held that the degrees awarded by the IASE, Rajasthan, were held to be valid, as the petitioners therein have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE, and accordingly allowed the said writ petition. 15. 15. The petitioners further contended that since the A.P. High Court has already rendered the judgment holding that the degrees awarded by IASE, Rajasthan, were held to be valid, when once the petitioners have passed the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE, the present writ petitions may also be allowed and the impugned orders TOO (Jt. Secy.per) Ms.No.923 dated 14.12.2020 is liable to be set aside and further direct the respondents to validate the degrees awarded to the petitioners with retrospective effect and further direct the respondents to re-designate all the petitioners as Assistant Engineers with retrospective effect i.e., the day of acquiring Degree Qualification. 16. Sri O.Manohar Reddy learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.1642 of 2021 had contended that the earlier Service Regulations of APSEB are still holding the field and even though the former APSEB had bifurcated into various Corporations, the Service Regulations of the then APSEB makes it very clear that while in service, the Additional Assistant Engineer, who acquired the qualification of B.E./B.Tech, is entitled to be reckoned as Assistant Engineer from the date of acquisition of the requisite qualification and count 50% of his regular service rendered as Additional Assistant Engineer prior to the date of conversion as Assistant Engineer, subject to a maximum limit of four years, and if such service had been rendered in the post of Assistant Engineer for the purpose of fixation of seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, and as per the existing Rules, the petitioners are entitled to get converted as Assistant Engineers on acquiring the qualification of degree in Engineering. In the instant case, the petitioners’ qualification was held to be valid and the petitioners have acquired the said qualification way back in 2007-2008 and when the degrees obtained by them were held to be valid, then, in all fairness, the respondents must treat the validity of the said degrees with retrospective effect, but the respondents cannot restrict the same with prospective effect. Therefore, the impugned amendment made by the respondents vide proceedings bearing No.TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.923, dated 14.12.2020 are liable to be set aside. 17. Therefore, the impugned amendment made by the respondents vide proceedings bearing No.TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.923, dated 14.12.2020 are liable to be set aside. 17. Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.4067 of 2021 and Sri B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.24113 of 2020 had contended that the petitioners in these two cases have passed the examination in the first attempt itself and in pursuance of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, since the petitioners have passed the special examination in the first attempt itself, all the advantages/benefits can be extended to them. But, in the instant case, though the respondents have declared the qualification obtained by the petitioners in the first attempt itself as valid, but they are not accepting to extend the advantages/benefits in favour of the petitioners, even though the petitioners have passed the said examination in the first attempt itself. 18. Sri K.Manmadha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.5717 of 2021 had adopted the arguments advanced by Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.24594 of 2020 and contended that the impugned amendment made by the respondents vide proceedings TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.923, dated 14.12.2020, are liable to be set aside, as they are contrary to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited’s case (supra). 19. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the respondents have issued proceedings No.TOO(Addl.Secy-Per).Ms.No.186 dated 27.10.2008, wherein the qualification acquired by the petitioners was not considered as valid and only when the petitioners have passed the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE, the respondents have recognized the qualification of the petitioners as valid and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to give a specific finding that if they clear the tests within the stipulated time, all advantages/benefits shall be restored to the candidate concerned can be extended in favour of the petitioners, who have cleared the examination. Since no benefits were extended to the petitioners during 2007-2008 when the petitioners have acquired the qualification from IASE, Rajasthan, through distance education mode, the question of extending such benefits does not arise and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had further clarified in its clarificatory order and also in the contempt cases holding that the benefits, which were not extended earlier cannot be extended to the petitioners, and if any benefit which was extended earlier is discontinued, then the question of restoring such benefits would arise. But, in the instant case, no such advantages/benefits were extended to the petitioners, in the first instance, and the respondents have taken a categorical stand that the qualification of the petitioners was not recongnised vide proceedings TOO(Addl.Secy-Per).Ms.No.186 dated 27.10.2008 and it is only from the date of petitioners clearing the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE in pursuance to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the qualification of the petitioners have been held to be valid and since the qualification of the petitioners have to be treated as valid only on clearing the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE, the degrees obtained by the petitioners were held to be valid and the benefits ought to be extended from the date on which the petitioners have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE. 20. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents had further contended that as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India, The observation and findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are given in the form has given in the form of Rem in clarification orders all becomes law of the land, 22.01.2018 and also in Contempt Petition (C).Nos.408-409 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of 2017, which are applicable to all the candidates across the Country and by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, those findings are applicable even to the petitioners as well as to the respondents. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents in amending the Rules vide proceedings No. TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.923, dated 14.12.2020, is valid. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 21. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents in amending the Rules vide proceedings No. TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.923, dated 14.12.2020, is valid. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 21. Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents had contended that all the contesting respondents were initially appointed as Assistant Engineers with the degree qualification and when the respondents have issued proceedings No.TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.400, dated 06.07.2019, some of the unofficial respondents have filed W.P.No.19947 of 2020 before this Court and this Court was pleased to suspend the proceedings bearing TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.400, dated 06.07.2019, on 10.11.2020 and during pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents have issued amendment order vide proceedings TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.923, dated 14.12.2020, and by virtue of the said amendment made to the Rules validating the degrees of the petitioners and extending advantages and benefits in favour of the petitioners prospectively only. The contesting respondents had withdrawn the W.P.No.19947 of 2020 on 15/3/2021. Therefore, the respondents have rightly issued the amendment orders and rightly amended the Rules and validated the degree in favour of the petitioners and extended the benefits in their favour only prospectively i.e., on the date on which the petitioners have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE in pursuance of the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (referred supra). Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 22. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties is of the considered view that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orrisa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited’s case (supra) after considering the matter, has elaborately held in paras 57, 58 and 66 as under :- “57. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex post facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex post facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, since the 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the deemed to be universities concerned to apply for ex post facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the deemed to be universities concerned flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the overbearing interest of the students concerned persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of the said ex post facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the study centres concerned were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the students concerned. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the students concerned to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended. 58. AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test(s) both in written examination as well as in practicals for the students concerned admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the subjects concerned. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in the respective States wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during May-June 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the students concerned and if they do not pass the test(s) their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. The choice may be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during May-June 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the students concerned and if they do not pass the test(s) their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the test(s), the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the deemed to be university concerned within a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15-1-2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) in respect of students who wish to undergo test(s) shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018. If they clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the candidates concerned. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the candidates concerned do not clear the test(s) within the time stipulated or choose not to appear at the test(s), their degrees in Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and cancelled. It goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however, any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.” 59 to 65……… 66. Accordingly, we direct: 66.1 The 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to deemed to be universities and the deemed to be universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in technical education without the approval of AICTE. 66.2 Insofar as candidates enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their authorities concerned are set aside. 66.3 Consequent to aforesaid Direction II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by deemed to be universities concerned stand suspended. 66.4 AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test(s) as indicated in para 58 above. The option be given to the students concerned whose degrees stand suspended by 15-1-2018 to appear at the test(s) to be conducted in accordance with the directions in para 58 above. 66.4 AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test(s) as indicated in para 58 above. The option be given to the students concerned whose degrees stand suspended by 15-1-2018 to appear at the test(s) to be conducted in accordance with the directions in para 58 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test(s) and if they do not successfully clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in paras 57 and 58 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018. 66.5 Those students who do not wish to exercise the option, shall be refunded entire money deposited by them towards tuition fee and other charges within one month of the exercise of such option. Needless to say, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all advantages/benefits shall stand withdrawn as mentioned in para 58. 66.6 If the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully. 66.7 As regards students who were admitted after the academic sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the deemed to be universities concerned through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in para 59 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the deemed to be universities concerned towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-5-2018, as indicated in para 59. 66.8 By 31-5-2018 all the deemed to be universities concerned shall refund the sums indicated above in para 66.7 and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter. 66.9 We direct CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the officials concerned who dealt with the matters and went about granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in para 60 above and into the conduct of institutions who abused their position to advance their commercial interest illegally. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation. Appropriate steps can thereafter be taken after culmination of such investigation. 66.10 UGC shall also consider whether the deemed to be university status enjoyed by JRN, AAI, IASE and VMRF calls for any withdrawal and conduct an inquiry in that behalf by 30-6-2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above, are not refunded to the students concerned, that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise. 66.11 We restrain all deemed to be universities to carry on any courses in distance education mode from the academic session 2018-2019 onwards unless and until it is permissible to conduct such courses in distance education mode and specific permissions are granted by the statutory/regulatory authorities concerned in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus centres/study centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the statutory authorities concerned. The approvals have to be course specific. 66.12 UGC is further directed to take appropriate steps and implement Section 23 of the UGC Act and restrain deemed to be universities from using the word “university” within one month from today. 66.13 The Union of India may constitute a three-member Committee comprising of eminent persons who have held high positions in the field of education, investigation, administration or law at national level within one month. The Committee may examine the issues indicated above and suggest a road map for strengthening and setting up of oversight and regulatory mechanism in the relevant field of higher education and allied issues within six months. The Committee may also suggest oversight mechanism to regulate the deemed to be universities. The Union of India may examine the said report and take such action as may be considered appropriate within one month thereafter and file an affidavit in this Court of the action taken on or before 31-8-2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11-9-2018.” 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a clarificatory order holding that the benefits, which were not extended earlier, cannot be restored. Admittedly, in the instant case, no benefits were extended earlier in favour of the petitioners. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11-9-2018.” 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a clarificatory order holding that the benefits, which were not extended earlier, cannot be restored. Admittedly, in the instant case, no benefits were extended earlier in favour of the petitioners. In fact, the respondents have not recognized the qualification acquired by the petitioners from IASE, Rajasthan, and to that effect proceedings bearing TOO(Addl.Secy.Per).Ms.No.186 dated 27.10.2008 were issued and these proceedings were holding the filed petitioners have passed the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE in pursuance of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited’s case (supra). Previously, if the respondents had extended any benefits and advantages in favour of the petitioners, then the question of restoring those benefits to the petitioners would not arise. In the instant case, no service benefits were extended in favour of the petitioners and the qualification acquired by the petitioners was treated as valid only after the petitioners have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE in June, 2018 and December, 2018. Therefore, the respondents have rightly amended the Rule vide proceedings TOO(Jt.Secy-Per).Ms.No.923, dated 14.12.2020. 24. As far as the contention of the petitioners in W.P.No.4067 of 2021 and W.P.No.24113 of 2020 is concerned, since they have cleared the examination in the first attempt, they are entitled for the said benefits also cannot be accepted because the respondents have never extended the advantages/benefits in favour of any of the petitioners at the earlier point of time, whether they have passed in the first attempt or second attempt. The benefit, which has not been extended earlier, cannot be restored. These are the specific findings given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment as well as in the clarificatory order and also in the contempt cases which are more in the nature of rem but not in personam. As per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the findings and observations of the Supreme Court, which in rem, will have binding effect and they become law of the land. 25. As per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the findings and observations of the Supreme Court, which in rem, will have binding effect and they become law of the land. 25. Further, on examination of the judgment of Hon’ble A.P. High Court in W.P.No.16319 of 2011 dated 18.03.2020, this Court is of the considered view that the A.P.High Court has never considered the issue, whether the degrees obtained by the petitioners there in are to be treated as valid with retrospective effect or prospective effect and the A.P.High Court has only directed to treat the degrees of the petitioners therein as valid, as the petitioners therein have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE and the above said judgment cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners herein, as the said judgment never dealt with the issue as to whether the qualification acquired by the candidates is to be treated as valid with prospective effect or retrospective effect. In the instant case, the respondents never recognized the qualification of the petitioners as valid and no advantages or benefits were given to the petitioners and proceedings bearing No.TOO No.186 dated 27.10.2008 were in operation till the petitioners have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE and when once the petitioners have cleared the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE, then the qualification of the petitioners has to be treated as valid with prospective effect only. Therefore, the impugned orders TOO(Jt. Secy.per)Ms.No.923 dated 14.12.2020 passed by the respondents are held to be valid. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in these writ petitions and all these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 26. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 27. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.