31. Applying the same principle to the present facts of the case, it is clear that the persons who are in service and acquired benefit on account of degree obtained in IASE, Rajasthan, is suspended, till passing test in first or second attempt. If, they pass the test in the permitted attempts, they are entitled to retain the benefits. The judgment of the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) was challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.17469/2019, wherein the Apex Court disposed of the special leave petition in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar and others v. Depinder Singh Dhesi & others, (2019) 8 SCC 280 . Though the judgment of the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) is not binding, but, still the judgment in Ashok Kumar and others v. Depinder Singh Dhesi & others (referred supra) is binding on this Court. Therefore, applying the principles laid down in the above judgment, it is difficult to accept the contention of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 that they are entitled to claim the benefit of the judgment with retrospective effect, though they have not validated the degree. 32. The very basis for the judgment of the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) is the judgment of the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case. Even according to the principles laid down in Paragraph No.66 read with Paragraph Nos. 57 and 58, such benefits acquired by the persons in service on account of degree obtained from IASE, Rajasthan is suspended till they pass such examination under the supervision of AICTE or UGC in the manner indicated in the judgment. Further, every single advantage on the basis of the degree shall also stand suspended. It further clarified in Paragraph No.58 of the judgment that, “it goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however, any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them. Further, every single advantage on the basis of the degree shall also stand suspended. It further clarified in Paragraph No.58 of the judgment that, “it goes without saying that any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn, however, any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered from them. In Paragraph No.66.6, specific directions were issued by the Apex Court as extracted in the earlier paragraphs that, “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”. Later, a petition was filed for clarification in the same Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case and the Apex Court clarified in detail in Paragraph No.26, as extracted in earlier paragraphs. On reading of both the directions issued in the original order and clarificatory order, it is clear that, “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. 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 students/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”. Therefore, it is clear from both the original judgment and clarificatory judgment of the Apex Court and also the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) that the persons who got through the examination conducted under the supervision of AICTE and UGC in first attempt are entitled to retain the degrees and benefits and that they are not entitled to claim any promotion with retrospective effect from the date of their securing the degree in distant mode. 33. 33. Coming to the present facts of the case, the petitioners who acquired qualification i.e. the petitioners in engineering (electrical) from IASE, Rajasthan, they did not obtain any benefit based on such degree by way of promotion or monetary benefit, since their degrees were obtained from IASE, Rajasthan and they were not taken into consideration by the first respondent and still, they are working as AEs without converting them as Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim the benefit of passing the test conducted by AICTE and UGC in the second attempt and it did not confer any right on them to claim benefit retrospectively i.e. from the date of acquiring qualification. However, it is not known as to whether UGC granted permission to conduct such programmes by distant mode and awarded degrees in engineering by IASE, Rajasthan in the year 2006 or not. 34. In any view of the matter, when the petitioners did not obtain any benefit on account of the degrees obtained from IASE, Rajasthan, they cannot claim service benefits retrospectively from the date when they acquired qualification to convert themselves into AEE. 35. The Apex Court in Ashok Kumar and other v. Depinder Singh Desi and others observed that, “possibly variety of advantages derived by the candidates on the basis of such Degrees awarded at least 10 years before the Judgment was pronounced. During this period some of the candidates might have progressed in career on the basis of such Degree, while some could possibly have acquired Post-Graduate qualifications such as M.Tech and M.B.A. on the strength of such Degrees. It was in this light, that the Court ruled that though from the date of the Judgment all the advantages and benefits flowing or arising from such Degrees would stand suspended, the benefits or advantages would get revived after the candidates had cleared the examination, spoken of in said paragraph Nos. 57 and 58. If any candidate either failed to clear the examination in two attempts or if he chose not to appear in the examination, the Degree would stand annulled completely disentitling the candidate to all the benefits and advantages flowing from such degrees.” 36. In view of these observations of the Apex Court, the degrees obtained by the petitioners would become valid as the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 cleared the test in second attempt. In view of these observations of the Apex Court, the degrees obtained by the petitioners would become valid as the Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 cleared the test in second attempt. Finally, the Apex Court in Paragraph No.10 of the judgment in Ashok Kumar and other v. Depinder Singh Desi and others made it clear that, the candidates who, on the strength of such Degrees awarded through Distance Education Mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment provided the candidates could prove their worth and ability. But if, the concerned candidates had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the Judgment was passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment and the Order, the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but “restoration” would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment. In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the Judgment and the Order.” 37. In view of the categorical findings recorded by the Apex Court, the candidates who, on the strength of such Degrees awarded through Distance Education Mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment and who are in continuous enjoyment of those benefits or facilities are alone entitled to retain the benefits when they clear the test conducted in two attempts. But, merely because the degrees are revalidated, they cannot claim any benefit with retrospective effect. 38. But, merely because the degrees are revalidated, they cannot claim any benefit with retrospective effect. 38. A similar question regarding disturbance of seniority in such contingencies and redraw the seniority, the Apex Court in J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and others held as follows: “6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench.” 39. Based on the principle laid down in the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that even after re-exercising the detailed review, in any proceedings, the Court cannot direct to reset the seniority. Taking into consideration of the above principle, the Apex Court declined to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of High Court of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra). Applying the same to the present facts of the case, as the petitioners did not obtain any benefit in the service based on such degrees, the seniority already fixed cannot be disturbed and the benefit of degree obtained for IASE, Rajasthan, cannot be given retrospective effect. 40. Yet, another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the respondents in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 before this Court obtained an order from this Court to consider their candidature for promotion giving retrospective effect to the validity of the degree, they obtained after clearing the examination. 41. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record, copy of the petition and affidavit in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 and copy of the order passed therein by the learned single Judge of this Court to demonstrate that the relief claimed in the writ petition is different from the relief granted by the learned single Judge. 41. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed on record, copy of the petition and affidavit in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 and copy of the order passed therein by the learned single Judge of this Court to demonstrate that the relief claimed in the writ petition is different from the relief granted by the learned single Judge. Whereas, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel would contend that, when this Court passed a judgment, the remedy open to the petitioners is to challenge the same by way of an appeal as the persons aggrieved and thereby, they are estopped, based on the principle of Estoppel by judgment and the petitioners are debarred to raise such contention by filing separate writ petition. 42. In view of the specific contentions, it is appropriate to extract the relief claimed in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 and it reads as follows: “To issue writ of Mandamus to declare the delay and inaction on the part of respondent temple in converting the post of the petitioners from the Assistant Engineer Elect to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer Elect even inspite of the AICTE-UGC jointly issued certificate for validation of Degree UG Engineering as arbitrary illegal and consequently direct the respondent to convert the post of the petitioners from the Assistant Engineer Elect to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer Elect before giving promotions to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers Elect in the respondent temple Organisation in the interest of justice” 43. Whereas, the first respondent filed it’s counter in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 supporting the action of the respondents, that the degrees were not recognized. However, the learned single Judge passed an order in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 dated 18.03.2020 and observed in Paragraph No.7 that, “Considering all the submissions, the Supreme Court, as 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 the AICTE, directed that 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 there from, till one month after the declaration of the result of such test or till 31.07.2018, whichever is earlier. It does not specify that it would be only in respect of the candidates, who pass the tests. Hence, in spite of passing the tests, the advantages would be available to the candidates till after one month of the result of the test to be conducted in May-June, 2013 is published or till 31.07.2018, whichever is earlier. It does not mean that the degrees of the candidates, who passed in the second attempt, would not be valid. A further clarification, that if the candidates passed in such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the benefits, but if they fail or choose not to appear, the directions in the said judgment shall apply, in that degrees and all the advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn, is also made. That is for the candidates, who do not wish to go for the second attempt and give up on their failure in the first attempt. It is also made clear that the candidates who fail in the first attempt will undoubtedly be entitled to appear on the second occasion in terms of the judgment, but this exception will not apply for such second attempt. The exception is with regard to the withdrawal of all the advantages during the period in which the candidates take the two attempts, which were permitted to be taken by virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in clarified judgment. The effect of the judgment is that the advantages would be suspended till the candidates take two attempts and pass, while the effect of the clarified judgment is that the advantages would be available till one month after the candidates results are declared or 31.07.2018 which ever is earlier. By virtue of the clarification, the Supreme Court only permitted the retention of the advantages for a candidate, who takes first attempt, irrespective of the fact that their degrees are not valid during that period. In this case, undoubtedly the petitioners have passed the examination on the second attempt. The certificate mentions that the degrees stand validated. The validation of a degree would relate back to the date of acquiring of the degrees. In this case, undoubtedly the petitioners have passed the examination on the second attempt. The certificate mentions that the degrees stand validated. The validation of a degree would relate back to the date of acquiring of the degrees. The test conducted by the AICTE-UGC is only to test the calibre of the candidates, who obtained the degrees from the deemed University of Rajasthan and if they are found to be of sufficient calibre, there would not be any need to deprive them of the advantages that they had from the degree from the deemed University. They only seek the advantages which stand resumed by virtue of the dicta of the Supreme Court, after their degrees are validated by the AICTE”. 44. Finally, the learned single Judge concluded that, the petitioners, whose degrees are validated, would be entitled for conversion form their posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) to Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) as prayed for. With the above observations, the Writ Petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to convert the petitioners to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) from the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) before giving promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers (Electrical) in the respondent-Devasthanam, if they are otherwise eligible. 45. In view of this direction, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel contended that, when the learned single Judge issued a direction, it attained finality and the petitioners are entitled to claim benefits from the date of obtaining degree from IASE, Rajasthan retrospectively and the entire seniority has to be re-fixed giving promotions in different cadres to Respondent Nos. 2 to 11. 46. Curiously, in the order passed by the learned single Judge i.e. W.P.No.16320 of 2019 dated 18.03.2020, a direction was issued to convert the petitioners to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) from the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) before giving promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers (Electrical) in the respondent-Devasthanam, if they are otherwise eligible. In view of the language employed in the direction by the learned single Judge, it is clear that, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court referred supra, the petitioners can be converted to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) from the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) before giving promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers (Electrical) in the respondent-Devasthanam. But, the direction is silent as to whether the petitioners are entitled to claim benefits with retrospective effect in the first respondent Devasthanam or not. In any view of the matter, the suffix mentioned in the direction i.e. “if they are otherwise eligible” is indicative that Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 are eligible in terms of those judgments and they are entitled. But, a bare look at the judgments of the Apex Court, referred in earlier paragraphs and Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra), the petitioners are not eligible to get benefits of service with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of obtaining degree from IASE, Rajasthan, disturbing the present seniority in particular cadres of the first respondent Devasthanam, for the simple reason that, the petitioners did not obtain any advantage like promotion in the cadre or any economic benefits like increments etc. When the petitioners did not obtain any benefit based on the degree, they obtained from IASE, Rajasthan, mere clearing the test held under the supervision of AICTE and UGC will not confer any benefit on Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 to claim benefits based on degree obtained by distant made with retrospective effect. Even otherwise, their degree became valid only after they acquired the test conducted by AICTE or UGC. Therefore, they are eligible to claim benefit from the day when their degree is validated under the certificate issued by AICTE or UGC. Therefore, at best, the petitioners an claim such service benefits only from the date of validation and that validation cannot be given retrospective effect. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 will not operate as Estoppel by judgment or estoppel by record, as the petitioners were not parties to the said writ petition. Merely because they fail to file an appeal, being the persons aggrieved, it is not a ground to reject their claim. 47. In any view of the matter, the petitioners are not eligible as on the date of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case and their degrees are deemed to be suspended. When they clear their test in the second attempt, their degrees are validated and that, they did not obtain any benefit based on the degrees obtained from IASE, Rajasthan. Hence, Respondent Nos. When they clear their test in the second attempt, their degrees are validated and that, they did not obtain any benefit based on the degrees obtained from IASE, Rajasthan. Hence, Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 are not entitled to claim service benefits from the date they acquired qualification of engineering degree through distance mode i.e from IASE, Rajasthan. 48. Hence, on strict adherence of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments referred supra, without any hesitation, I hold that the petitioners are not entitled to claim benefit retrospectively, including promotions from the day when they acquired qualification of Engineering Degree from IASE, Rajasthan and for consequential promotions with retrospective effect. Further, the action of the respondents in not conferring the benefit to Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 retrospectively is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra. 49. Hence, the first respondent-Devasthanam is directed not to give retrospective effect to the engineering degrees obtained by the petitioners from IASE, Rajasthan and first respondent is further directed not to disturb the present approved seniority on the basis of such degrees followed by validation on account of clearance of test in the second attempt by Respondent Nos. 2 to 11. Accordingly, the point is answered. 50. In the result, writ petition is allowed, directing the first respondent-Devasthanam not to give retrospective effect to the engineering degrees obtained by the petitioners from IASE, Rajasthan with retrospective effect and first respondent is further directed not to disturb the present approved seniority on the basis of such degrees followed on account of clearance of test in the second attempt by Respondent Nos. 2 to 11, while declaring the action of the first respondent to effect promotions retrospectively as illegal and arbitrary. 51. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ORDER : 1. 2 to 11, while declaring the action of the first respondent to effect promotions retrospectively as illegal and arbitrary. 51. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: “To issue writ of mandamus to declare that the party respondents are entitled for conversion as AEE electrical and prospectively from the date of passing of the special test conducted by AICTE and consequential promotion as Dy.EE electrical based on such prospective conversions as AEE electrical and further declare that the petitioners are seniors to party respondents in the category of AEE electrical by holding the actions and contemplated actions of the TTD in conferring benefits on the party respondents contrary to law laid down by the constitutional courts and contrary to facts by misinterpreting and distorting the law laid down by the constitutional court on the subject as bad illegal and unconstitutional by issuance to writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction” 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the action/contemplated action of the first respondent in conferring the benefit of conversion/redesignating the party respondents as Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) from Assistant Engineer (AE) retrospectively, contrary to the judgments of the Apex Court and the judgment of the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) as confirmed by the Apex Court, a reading of which would show that the benefit of conversion from AE to AEE cannot be conferred retrospectively upon passing the special test conducted by AICTE for the degree holders from IASE Rajasthan, and on the premise that this Court granted such relief of retrospective conversion to the petitioners therein vide its judgment i n W.P.No.16320 of 2019 dated 18.03.2020, the fact is neither there was such prayer in the said writ petition filed by party respondents nor such relief was granted by this Court leading to dislodging the petitioners from post of AEE or DyEE as the case may be, as bad, illegal and unconstitutional. 3. The first petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) in 2008. The second petitioner was initially appointed as helper and as ATO (electrical) in 2005 and was converted as Assistant Executive Engineer (electrical) in 2010. 3. The first petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) in 2008. The second petitioner was initially appointed as helper and as ATO (electrical) in 2005 and was converted as Assistant Executive Engineer (electrical) in 2010. They are working as Assistant Executive Engineer/Deputy Executive Engineer as of now. The first petitioner joined service as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) in the year 2008 with degree in engineering and second petitioner obtained engineering degree while in service from Andhra University and got converted as Assistant Executive Engineer in 2010. 4. As per rules of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, diploma holders in engineering are eligible for the post of Assistant Engineer. The post of Assistant Executive Engineer can be filled up by degree holders in engineering alone Assistant Engineer who are directly recruited with diploma are not eligible to be promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. Therefore several Assistant Engineer (Diploma Holders) acquired engineering degree, while in service in order to get promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. The party respondents who are diploma holders and working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams have obtained engineering degree course through distance mode from IASE, Rajasthan. Despite such acquisition they were not converted as Assistant Executive Engineer doubting the validity of their said degree certificates. 5. The said controversy as to whether the degree certificates obtained from I ASE, Rajasthan and similar such universities are valid or not was the subject matter before Apex Court in a batch of cases in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation v. Rabi Sankar Patro, (2018) 1 SCC 468 . The Apex Court vide its judgment dated 03.11.2017 held that the degrees in engineering granted to students who are enrolled during the academic years 2001-2005 shall stand suspended till they pass the special test/tests to be conducted by AICTE/UGC and directed the AICTE to conduct a special test (two opportunities) to validate the illegal degree certificates and held that those who pass the test, their certificates will be validated/restored. 6. The Apex Court on the c1arificatory petitions filed by several candidates (who have enjoyed the benefits based on such engineering degrees), clarified vide order dated 22.01.2018 that their degrees will continue to be in force till they appear in the first attempt and that the said concession shall not appear for those who qualify in second attempt. 6. The Apex Court on the c1arificatory petitions filed by several candidates (who have enjoyed the benefits based on such engineering degrees), clarified vide order dated 22.01.2018 that their degrees will continue to be in force till they appear in the first attempt and that the said concession shall not appear for those who qualify in second attempt. Such concession in the clarificatory order dated 22-01-2018 was made applicable only for those who have progressed in their career with the aid of such degree certificates. The party respondents do not fall under that category. At any rate neither the original judgment dated 03-11-2017 nor the clarificatory judgment dated 22-01-2018 would say that upon clearing the special test the degree certificates earlier issued by IASE, Rajasthan would get validated retrospectively. 7. Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 who obtained engineering degree certificates from IASE Rajasthan in 2006 have not got the benefit of the said certificates, as TTD has not recognized such certificates in view of the doubt raised about the validity and the controversy arising there upon. In the meanwhile petitioners who are engineering degree holders from recognized universities have been appointed/converted as Assistant Executive Engineer in 2008 and 2010 retrospectively and got promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer as the case may be. 8. It is contended that though they have obtained engineering degree certificates from IASE Rajasthan, their degrees were not recognized by their employer and now they have cleared the special test conducted by AICTE as directed by the Apex Court, still they were not being given service benefits by their employer retrospectively as the said degrees got validated retrospectively upon passing the above special test conducted by AICTE. The Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) rejected the said contentions by specifically holding that the petitioners therein are entitled to be considered for any benefits based on such degree certificates only from the date on which they have passed the exam/special test but not prior to that date and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. This was affirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 14-10-2019 by referring to order dated 13-08-2019 i.e. Ashok Kumar and other v. Depinder Singh Desi and others, 2019 (8) SCC 280 . This was affirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 14-10-2019 by referring to order dated 13-08-2019 i.e. Ashok Kumar and other v. Depinder Singh Desi and others, 2019 (8) SCC 280 . The Apex Court disposed of SLP filed against the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand in terms of the judgment reported in Ashok Kumar and other v. Depinder Singh Desi because the claim of the petitioners before the High Court of Uttarakhand in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand and the claim in Ashok Kumar and other v. Depinder Singh Desi is one and the same. In both the cases the claim of the petitioners therein was that they were claiming that upon passing the special test conducted by AICTE, they are entitled for validation of their engineering degrees from IASE Rajasthan retrospectively. However, in both the cases, the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) and the Supreme Court categorically held against such ambitious claim. A reading of the above judgments would clarify that there is a clear distinction drawn by the Apex Court between the homogeneous groups of engineering graduates from IASE Rajasthan. One group is those who have obtained engineering graduation from IASE Rajasthan after being enrolled during 2001 to 2005 and who have enjoyed the benefits based upon such certificates and grown in their life/career and the other group are those who got enrolled during 2001-2005 and obtained engineering certificates but have not enjoyed any benefit from out of such certificates. In so far as the first group (benefited group) is concerned the Honourable Supreme Court and High Court of Uttarakhand clarified that such benefits which are already enjoyed can be continued till they pass the special test conducted by AICTE in first attempt despite suspension of such degree certificates. However, in the present case the party respondents fall under the second/later group (those who did not get any benefit out of such degree certificates). 9. While so, the party respondents filed W.P No.16320 of 2019 before this Court contending that they possessed polytechnic diploma courses and that based on the said qualifications they were appointed as Assistant engineers (AE) in TTD. 9. While so, the party respondents filed W.P No.16320 of 2019 before this Court contending that they possessed polytechnic diploma courses and that based on the said qualifications they were appointed as Assistant engineers (AE) in TTD. They further contended that they acquired degree in engineering from I ASE Rajasthan in the year 2006 through distance mode, while in service and became eligible for conversion as Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) and consequential promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (DyEE). It is further contended that despite their above qualification they were not being considered for AEE and DyEE by TTD doubting their certificates and that accordingly they filed W.P No.37487 of 2013 before this Court and that interim direction was issued by this C ourt on 20-12-2013 that their cases be considered. However, it is further contended that while so, an issue as to whether their certificates from IASE Rajasthan and similar such universities are valid or not, fell for consideration before the Apex Court, and that the Apex Court held that such certificates are not valid and directed ACCTE to conduct special test twice by giving two opportunities to such unqualified candidates to get their said certificates validated. It is also contended by the petitioners that they have appeared for the special test conducted by AICTE and cleared it in the second attempt, that, as TTD was still not considering their claim/they filed contempt case before the Supreme Court which was disposed of by directing the petitioner's therein to approach this Court and accordingly they filed the said WP No.16320 of 2019, while contending that their certificates which got validated by virtue of their passing the special test were ignored and no conversion as Assistant Executive Engineer being affected by TTD and on the other hand promotions to the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer was being contemplated. Thus, the High Court allowed the writ petition directing to consider the case in accordance with law. 10. Thus, the High Court allowed the writ petition directing to consider the case in accordance with law. 10. It is specifically contended that, the benefit accorded to the employees working on the basis of degree is saved till they pass test in the first time and later, with the clarificatory order, it was extended to two times/tests, the petitioners did not acquire any benefit on account of those illegal degrees, thereby they are not entitled to claim the benefit with retrospective effect and not entitled to claim the promotions with retrospective effect based on such validation of degree and thereby, the action of the second respondent in issuing various proceedings proposing to promote Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) and Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical) with retrospective effect as illegal, arbitrary and requested to pass a direction as claimed above. 11. Respondent No.1/Executive Officer, TTD filed counter affidavit, admitting about the appointment of these petitioners in different cadres on the basis of their qualifications i.e. as Assistant Executive Engineer & Deputy Assistant Executive Engineer, more particularly, based on their diploma qualification, but whereas, appointment of these petitioners initially and promotion to higher different categories, based on their degree in engineering obtained from different universities which are valid, while admitting that Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 were initially diploma holders, but they passed test and claimed filing of various writ petitions including contempt case and W.P.No.16320 of 2019 and obtained and interim order in the said writ petition for consideration of their case in accordance with law, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra. 12. The main contention of the first respondent is that, though the party respondents herein have completed the B.Tech degrees from IASE, Rajasthan in the years 2007 and 2008, they were not converted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), since the AICTE has not recognized the said degrees. In the meantime, certain juniors to the party respondents herein were converted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) and the seniors i.e. party respondents herein were overlooked. 13. It is contended that, in the affidavit in Contempt Petition (C) Nos. In the meantime, certain juniors to the party respondents herein were converted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) and the seniors i.e. party respondents herein were overlooked. 13. It is contended that, in the affidavit in Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 408-409 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of 2017 in Ashok Kumar and other v. Depinder Singh Desi and others, the petitioners have alleged that the action of their Management in initiating process for giving promotions to their Juniors instead of considering them, though they have passed the AICTE-UGC special exam in first attempt conducted in June-2018 is arbitrary and contempt of the Supreme Court orders dated 03.11.2017. on the said contempt petition, the Supreme Court of India in its orders dated 13.08.2019 has clarified that as per its judgment dated 03.11.2017 and clarificatory orders dated 22.01.2018 whatever the benefits/advantages that were enjoyed based on the engineering degrees of deemed universities and withdrawn by virtue of the Supreme Court judgment dated 03.11.2017, shall only be restored on successful completion of the AICTE-UGC special exam within the stipulated time. Further, held that if the concerned candidates had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the judgment was passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date and the ‘restoration’ would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of judgment. Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. However, the party respondents herein have filed contempt petition in the Supreme Court and the same was converted into an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.137284 of 2019 by the Court and dismissed the same with liberty to agitate the issue in accordance with law vide orders dated 14.10.2019. Consequently the party respondents filed W.P.No.16320 of 2019 with a prayer to convert them to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) from the date of passing of their B.Tech degrees i.e. from 2006. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 18.03.2020 in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 held that the petitioners therein i.e. party respondents herein have passed the examination on the second attempt. The certificate mentions that the degrees stand validated. The validation of a degree would relate back to the date of acquiring of the degrees. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 18.03.2020 in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 held that the petitioners therein i.e. party respondents herein have passed the examination on the second attempt. The certificate mentions that the degrees stand validated. The validation of a degree would relate back to the date of acquiring of the degrees. The test conducted by the AICTE-UGC is only to test the calibre of the candidates, who obtained the degrees from the deemed University of Rajasthan and if they are found to be of sufficient calibre, there would not be any need to deprive them of the advantages that they had from the degree from the deemed University. They only seek advantages which stand resumed by virtue of the dicta of the Supreme Court, after their degrees are validated by the AICTE. Accordingly, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has allowed the writ petition and directed to convert the petitioners to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) as prayed for by them. Hence, the view taken by the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) is not binding on the other Courts in India. 14. It is further contended that, one M.S. Hari Kumar and A. Venkata Reddy have filed W.P.No.37487 of 2013 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh to issue a direction to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam to consider their B.Tech Degrees and to convert them as Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical). This Court vide order dated 20.12.2013 in WPMP No.46640 of 2013 in W.P.No.37487 of 2013 has directed the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam to consider the case of the petitioners for conversion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), without disqualifying them on the ground that B.Tech Degree was obtained by them from the IASE Deemed to be University, Rajasthan. In view of the ambiguity with regard to validity of the IASE Deemed to be University B.Tech Degrees obtained by the petitioners, the TTD Management has decided to file an writ appeal in the High Court with a request to set-aside the said orders dated 20.12.2013. Meanwhile, the petitioners have filed C.C.No.682 of 2014 in WPMP No.46640 of 2013 and the same is still pending before this Court. Meanwhile, the petitioners have filed C.C.No.682 of 2014 in WPMP No.46640 of 2013 and the same is still pending before this Court. Subsequently, Sri C. Balaiah and two others (IASE B.Tech Degree holders) have filed C.C.No.618 of 2014 due to non-implementation of interim orders dated 20.01.2014 in WPMP No.46136 of 2013 of this Court, in which it was directed to consider IASE B.Tech Degrees. Due to seriousness of the contempt case and as no option was left, as per seniority, among the party respondents, Sri P. Ramachandraiah, Sri C. Balaiah, Sri B. Bhaskarudu and Sri M.S. Hari Kumar were converted as Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) against the vacancies reserved for direct recruitment, subject to outcome of the Court cases filed on the Degrees of Deemed to be Universities, vide Proceedings Roc.No.TL7/12713/2017 dated 13.10.2017. Subsequently, in view of the judgment dated 03.11.2017 of the Apex Court suspending the engineering degrees of the deemed universities, the above conversion orders were cancelled and they were reverted as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) vide Proceedings Roc.No.TL8/12713/2017 dated 05.12.2017. Further, in terms of the judgment dated 03.11.2017, the party respondents herein have passed the special test of AICTE in second attempt and accordingly they have made representation to the TTD Management to give them conversion retrospectively from 2006 i.e. from the date of passing of B.Tech degrees from IASE, Rajasthan. But, they were informed vide Memo. Roc.No.TL8/2797/CE/2005 dated 05.11.2019 that it is not feasible to consider them for conversion to Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) cadre retrospectively i.e. from 2006 and also informed that their cases will be considered for conversion to Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) henceforth, subject to availability of vacancies and other eligibilities. Meantime, the party respondents herein have filed Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No.27858/2019 in Supreme Court and the said contempt petition was converted as an interlocutory application by the Apex Court vide I.A.No.137284 of 2019 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to agitate the issue in accordance with law vide orders I.A.No.14.10.2019. Subsequently, the party respondents Sri A. Venkata Reddy and nine others have filed WP.No.16320 of 2019 before this Court with a prayer to issue directions to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam to convert them to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) from 2006 i.e from their date of passing of B.Tech degrees in IASE, Rajasthan and to effect subsequent promotion to the next cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical). Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams has filed counter affidavit in the said writ petition duly stating that the party respondents herein i.e. the petitioners therein are not entitled for conversion to Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) with retrospective date in 2006 i..e from their date of passing of IASE, Rajasthan B.Tech degrees in view of Apex Court judgment dated 03.11.2017; clarificatory orders dated 22.01.2018 and 13.08.2019. Also appraised that TTD has already taken a stand to consider the cases of the party respondents herein prospectively henceforth for conversion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), subject to seniority, availability of vacancies, ROR, etc. Further, in the counter affidavit, it was also brought to the notice of the High Court about the orders dated 13.08.2019 of the Apex Court. 15. It is specifically contended that, since the prayer of the petitioners in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 herein is to consider them for conversion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer from 2006 i.e from the date of passing of their B.Tech degree from IASE, Rajasthan and consequent promotion to the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical). In compliance to the said orders, TTD has initiated process for reviewing all the conversions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) given after the date of B.Tech degrees awarded to the respondents i.e from 2007, so as to revert the juniors who have overlooked the party respondents herein, in conversion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) and to readjust by converting the respondents herein, in the said Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) posts retrospectively from 2007. In view of such exercise some of the respondents herein, will also get promotion to the next cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical), resulting which some employees presently working in the cadres of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical) and Deputy Electrical Engineer (Electrical) will get reversion to the lower posts including the petitioners and requested to pass appropriate orders. 16. Respondent Nos.2 to 11 filed common counter affidavit along with the vacate stay petition, denying material allegations, inter alia¸ contending that, as a matter of fact, the prayer in the writ petition is misconceived, since it runs counter to the judgment in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 dated 18.03.2020. The relief granted by this Court in the writ petition is as under: “8. The relief granted by this Court in the writ petition is as under: “8. Hence, in view of the above, this Court holds that the petitioners, whose degrees are validated, would be entitled for conversion from their posts of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) to Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) as prayed for. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to convert the petitions to the post of Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical) from the post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) before giving promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineers (Electrical) in the respondent-Devasthanam, if they are otherwise eligible.” 17. In view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 dated 18.03.2020, the first respondent undertaken the exercise to promote this petitioner giving retrospective effect. Hence, it is not open to file the present writ petition seeking a contradictory relief. As per the Principle of Estoppel by judgment of the Apex Court in Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade and Another, (1999) 5 SCC 590 , the present writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and hence the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. 18. It is further contended that, there is no necessity to go into the merits of the case. Suffice it to say that the interpretation sought to be given by the writ petitioners to the judgment of the Supreme Court which has already been interpreted by this Court is again misconceived and that, there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petitioners are not entitled to any interim order which is directly contradictory to the final relief granted in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. It is contended that, Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 have passed the qualifying examination i.e. B.Tech through distant mode from IASE, Rajasthan during the year 2006-2007 and that the Apex Court validated the engineering degree. But, as per Paragraph No.66 of the judgment, it has given a chance to the passed candidates to appear for two chances in an examination to be conducted by UGC/AICTE and all the petitioners passed the qualifying examination in the second attempt. It is further stated that, the stand of the TTD that the benefit of validating the degree of the petitioners which arises only for the candidates who have passed first attempt but not for others is misconceived. It is further stated that, the stand of the TTD that the benefit of validating the degree of the petitioners which arises only for the candidates who have passed first attempt but not for others is misconceived. The argument was rejected by this Court in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 since the said judgment has not been challenged and since the judgment is holding the field as on date, the prayer in the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and cannot be granted. The remedy available to the writ petitioners is, at best to file a writ appeal against the said judgment. But, without filing any writ appeal against the judgment, the present writ petition is not maintainable and prayed to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 of W.P.No.9175 of 2020 dated 28.05.2020. 20. The petitioners filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 2 to 11, once again reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition. 21. During hearing, Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners mostly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court and the order clarifying the earlier order and judgment of the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra). On the basis of the principles laid down in the above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the degrees obtained by the employees from IASE Rajasthan are valid, if they passed the test conducted by AICTE/UGC and the benefit conferred on them will continue till first attempt. But, those who did not obtain the benefit on account of such degree obtained from IASE, Rajasthan, are not entitled to claim any benefit out of such judgment and that, those degrees are still invalid, thereby, Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 are not entitled to claim any benefit out of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 22. It is further contended that, though Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 contended that the degrees are validated by the judgment in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 and without filing an appeal, the petitioners cannot challenge the proposed promotion with retrospective effect. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners refuted such contention on the ground that they were not parties to the writ petition. Hence, they have chosen to file the writ petition, as such, there is not merit and requested to grant the relief claimed in the writ petition. 23. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners refuted such contention on the ground that they were not parties to the writ petition. Hence, they have chosen to file the writ petition, as such, there is not merit and requested to grant the relief claimed in the writ petition. 23. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel for TTD/first respondent herein contended that, the first respondent is implementing the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.16320 of 2019 and not more than that. However, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel contended that, without filing an appeal, being aggrieved person, against the judgment in W.P.No.16320 of 2019, the petition is not maintainable and the attempt made by the petitioners to misinterpret the judgment is illegal and the degrees obtained by these petitioners are valid in terms of Paragraph No.66 of the judgment of the Apex Court and thereby, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 24. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether by interpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court, the degree illegally obtained by Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 from IASE, Rajasthan becomes valid on competing the test conducted by AICTE-UGC in the second attempt, though, they did not acquire any benefit on the basis of the degree in the first respondent Devasthanam as on the date of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation case. If so, whether the petitioners are entitled to claim a writ of mandamus to declare Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 that they are not eligible to claim benefit with retrospective effect, pushing these petitioners down in seniority? POINT: 25. There is no controversy about obtaining degrees by Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 from IASE, Rajasthan, a Deemed University, in the year 2006 – 2007, so also, the original judgment of the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation dated 03.11.2017 and it’s clarificatory order dated 22.01.2018. Therefore, the dispute is revolving around the interpretation of the judgment and clarificatory order in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation. In view of the limited controversy, it is appropriate to advert to relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation. Therefore, the dispute is revolving around the interpretation of the judgment and clarificatory order in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation. In view of the limited controversy, it is appropriate to advert to relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation. After elaborate consideration of entire law, the Apex Court concluded in Paragraph No.57 as follows: “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 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the concerned Deemed to be Universities 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 20012005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the concerned Deemed to be Universities flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the over bearing interest of the concerned students persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of said ex-post-facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the concerned Study Centres 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 concerned students. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the concerned students 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. 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.” At the end of the judgment, in Paragraph No.66, the Apex Court issued the following direction: (i) 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. (ii) Insofar as candidates enrolled during the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, in the present case the ex post facto approvals granted by UGC and their concerned authorities are set aside. (iii) Consequent to aforesaid direction No.II, all the degrees in Engineering awarded by concerned Deemed to be Universities stand suspended. (iv) The AICTE shall devise the modalities to conduct an appropriate test/tests as indicated in Para 47 above. The option be given to the concerned students whose degrees stand suspended by 15.01.2018 to appear at the test/tests to be conducted in accordance with the directions in Para 47 above. Students be given not more than two chances to clear test/tests and if they do not successfully clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, their degrees shall stand cancelled and all the advantages shall stand withdrawn as stated in Paras 46 and 47 above. The entire expenditure for conducting the test/tests shall be recovered from the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.03.2018. (v) 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 47. (vi) If the students clear the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees will stand revived fully. (vii) As regards students who were admitted after the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 48 above. (vii) As regards students who were admitted after the Academic Sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the concerned Deemed to be Universities through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 48 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the concerned Deemed to be Universities towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the concerned Deemed to be Universities by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 48. (viii) By 31.05.2018 all the concerned Deemed to be Universities shall refund the sums indicated above in VII and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter. (ix) We direct the CBI to carry out thorough investigation into the conduct of the concerned officials who dealt with the matters and went about the granting permissions against the policy statement, as indicated in Para 49 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. (x) The 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 30.06.2018 as indicated above. If the moneys, as directed above are not refunded to the concerned students that factor shall be taken into account while conducting such exercise. (xi) 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 concerned statutory/regulatory authorities in respect of each of those courses and unless the off-campus Centres/Study Centres are individually inspected and found adequate by the concerned Statutory Authorities. The approvals have to be course specific. (xii) The 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. (xiii) The Union of India may constitute a three members 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. (xiii) The Union of India may constitute a three members 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 August 31, 2018. The matter shall be placed for consideration of this aspect on 11.09.2018. 26. Later, petitions were filed seeking clarification in the above judgment, wherein, the Apex Court again clarified the earlier original order on 22.01.2018 in Paragraph Nos. 26.12 to 26.13, which reads as follows: “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. 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. 27. When such controversy arose, the ratio laid down in the judgment, alone is relevant for the purpose of deciding the said judgment. Then how to trace the ratio laid down depends upon the facts of each case. 28. The ratio analysis depends upon facts of different cases. Even the broad system of legal culture, the components of the Courts, other culture can be explained in different ways. The importance of ascertaining the ratio of the case cannot be over-mentioned. When understanding the ratio and other concepts of authority, distinguishing, overruling per incuriam are rather meaningless. Therefore, the Court cannot look into the judgments distinguished, overruled or held as per incuriam and the ratio alone is to be taken out from the judgment. While reading judgment of the Court, an individual understanding or perception is irrelevant, but the exact ratio is relevant for the purpose of application of the ratio laid down in the judgment. The Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) made a sincere and honest attempt as to explain as to the width of the judgment, while analyzing a similar case. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assume to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The case cannot be quoted for a preposition that may seem to follow logically from it. The case cannot be quoted for a preposition that may seem to follow logically from it. It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build up on it. (State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 647 ; Quinn v. Loathem, 1901 AC 495). Judgments ought not to be read as statutes. They are an authority for what they decide. A word here or a word there should not be read out of context. (Sri Koanaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. N. Seetharama Raju, AIR 1990 AP 171 ). Observations of the Courts are not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark upon lengthy discussions, but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes (vide Haryana Financial Corpn. V. Jagdama Oil Mills, (2002) 3 SCC 496 ). In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V. Horton, (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL):- "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished Judge." Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham, (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537 Lord Morris said: "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case….” (emphasis supplied) 29. These observations have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Singh v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2003) 11 SCC 584 ; Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda, (2004) 3 SCC 75 ; Escorts Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi II, (2004) 7 SCC 214 ; Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579 ; Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 368 . 30. Based on the principles laid down in the above judgments, the Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Parshuram v. State of Uttarakhand (referred supra) held as follows: “15. Having held that all the degrees in Engineering of the students, obtained through the distance mode, stood suspended till they pass the examination, and every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall stand suspended, the Supreme Court observed that, if they cleared the test/tests within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits would be restored, meaning thereby that, consequent on their passing the examination, their Bachelor's Degree and all advantages and benefits which these students had received in the light of the said degree, would stand restored. The petitioners' Bachelors' Degree in Engineering were to be restored only from the date they passed the examination, which is 3rd to 6th June, 2018 with respect to three of them, and December, 2018 with respect to the fourth. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioners are entitled to claim only those advantages and benefits which remained suspended because of the order of the Supreme Court, and which stood restored consequent on the petitioners passing the test. 16. Accepting the submission of the Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the aforesaid sentence in the order of the Supreme Court would require this Court to deem the petitioners' Degree in Engineering to be valid from its very inception, would negate the very basis of the order of the Supreme Court which, while holding that such degrees were required to be withdrawn, took a sympathetic view and permitted such degrees to remain in force consequent on the candidates appearing for, and on passing, the test to be conducted pursuant to the judgment. Any advantage or benefit which the petitioners had, before their Bachelor in Engineering degree stood suspended as a result of the judgment of the Supreme Court, stood restored on their passing the test. As the petitioners had not been promoted earlier as Assistant Engineers, under the Graduates in Engineering quota, the question of restoration of a benefit, which was not extended to them earlier, does not arise. The petitioners are entitled to claim the right to be considered for promotion as Assistant Engineer, under the Engineering degree quota, only from the date on which they passed the examination, and not from a date ten years prior thereto, and nine years prior to the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court.”