Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 33 (ORI)

Satyanarayana Rana v. State Of Odisha

2021-01-25

BISWANATH RATH

body2021
JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves a challenge to the order of reversion dated 22.3.2018 passed by the Managing Director, Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (in short, 'the Corporation'), O.P.3, particularly involving the person placed at serial no.2 therein, vide Anexure-1 and further to declare the petitioner to be legally entitled to continue and function as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) and the petitioner should not be reverted to the cadre of Junior Engineer (Civil) besides granting all consequential service benefits attached to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and also entitlement to benefits accrued in the meantime. 2. Factual narrations appearing from the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioner initially joined in the Corporation in the year 1990 as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on regular basis through regular process of selection. In course of his continuing as Junior Engineer (Civil), being a Diploma Holder the petitioner acquired Degree Qualification in Civil Engineering, B.Tech. (Civil) in the year 2009 through distance mode from the JRN Vidyapitha (Deemed University). While the matter stood thus, ten numbers of Graduate Engineers in Agriculture, who also joined initially as Junior Engineers (Civil), were subsequently appointed as Assistant Engineers-in-charge and Ad hoc Assistant Engineers filed O.J.C. No.13251/2001 claiming their regular appointment as Assistant Engineer (Civil). This writ application had a background involving earlier subject matter of dispute in O.J.C. No.2920/1990 in the matter of fixation of inter-se seniority as per the Orissa Junior Engineers Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 so also the Orissa Junior Engineers Conditions of Cadre Rules, 1982, disposed of by this Court on 14.1.1994 directing the Government of Orissa in the Rural Development Department to consider the grievance of Graduate Engineers and Diploma Engineers regarding fixation of their seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers. It was observed therein that it was open to the parties to file their objection and the decision of the Government would also be subject to challenge by such parties in appropriate forum. It is pursuant to such direction, Government of Odisha in Rural Development Department by its communication dated 30.9.1994 directed that twenty-two numbers of Graduate Engineers would be adjusted against the vacant posts of Assistant Engineer or against future vacancies in such posts till these twenty-two numbers of Graduate Engineers are adjusted. It is pursuant to such direction, Government of Odisha in Rural Development Department by its communication dated 30.9.1994 directed that twenty-two numbers of Graduate Engineers would be adjusted against the vacant posts of Assistant Engineer or against future vacancies in such posts till these twenty-two numbers of Graduate Engineers are adjusted. It is involving this decision, there arose a number of writ petitions at the instance of the Diploma Engineers taking advantage of the liberty granted by this High Court in the above order. Consequently, these parties filed O.J.C. No.6937/1994. This matter was heard along with OJC No.13251/2001. These matters were disposed of on 14.12.2009 recording the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that the Corporation has taken decision in the light of direction issued by the Government, vide letter dated 30.9.1994 to absorb the Graduate Junior Engineers in the posts of Assistant Engineer. The present petitioner was neither a petitioner in the said writ applications nor an opposite party in these writ applications. The order dated 14.12.2009 passed in the said writ application was also beyond the knowledge of the petitioner. It is at this stage, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.563 of 2010 on 11.1.2010 making therein a prayer for consideration of his case for promotion/appointment as Assistant Engineer (Civil) being an inservice Graduate Engineer standing at par with the persons involving the cases indicated herein above. This writ petition was listed on 18.1.2010. In course of hearing, when the order dated 14.12.2009 passed in OJC No.13251/2001 was brought to the notice of this Court, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation did not raise any objection, this Court upon hearing both the parties, however, disposed of W.P.(C) No.563/2010 on 18.1.2010 on contest by simply recording the submission of Sri Mohanty, learned counsel for the Corporation in respect of the order dated 14.12.2009 passed in OJC No.13251/2001 directing the Corporation to engage all Graduate Junior Engineers in the posts of Assistant Engineer in consonance with the Notification issued by the Government and in disposal of the Review Petition, this Court directed to consider the case of the petitioner herein along with other Graduate Engineers in the line of Government Notification dated 30.9.1994 referred to hereinabove. It is consequent upon the above direction of the High Court, it appears, the Managing Director of the Corporation, vide letter no.4149 dtd.11.3.2010 wrote to the Special Secretary to Government in W.R. Department clarifying the position regarding the vacancies of Assistant Engineers (Civil) mentioning therein that out of eighty-one sanctioned posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil), sixty-five numbers of such posts are lying vacant by 11.3.2010, out of which twenty-seven numbers of posts are to be filled up against the promotion quota of 33% following the Orissa Service of Engineers of Rules, 1941. The Corporation in its Board of Directors' meeting dated 29.3.2010 though considered the cases of the parties taking into account the direction of this Court dated 14.12.2009 in O.J.C. No.13251/2001 but however did not consider the case of the opposite party being a Graduate Junior Engineer and thereby caused discrimination to the opposite party therein. The Board of Directors of the Corporation in the proceeding of its 161st meeting dated 25.3.2011 at item no.12 decided for filling up the base level vacant posts in the cadre of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers for administrative requirement and in the 162nd meeting of the Corporation dated 5.7.2011 at item nos.9 & 10 proceeded to appoint a Committee to consider the cases of six persons for regular appointment, as Assistant Engineers in compliance of the direction of this Court. Another Committee meeting was held under the Chairmanship, F.A. & C.E.O. on 21.7.2011 and discussed regarding available vacancy in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) involving thirty numbers of vacant posts and at item no.2 therein also considered the vacant posts in Electrical Wing in five numbers and accordingly recommended for appointment of such persons again in compliance of the order of this Court, which were already landed in contempt proceedings. Those six persons approached this Court whose cases were decided on 7.1.2010 and not contested by the opposite parties. Keeping in view the order of this Court dated 14.12.2009 passed in OJC No.13251/2001 the direction of the High Court was implemented and all the six persons were appointed in their respective posts, vide office order dated 10.8.2011. Those six persons approached this Court whose cases were decided on 7.1.2010 and not contested by the opposite parties. Keeping in view the order of this Court dated 14.12.2009 passed in OJC No.13251/2001 the direction of the High Court was implemented and all the six persons were appointed in their respective posts, vide office order dated 10.8.2011. In the meantime, vide communication dated 9.9.2011, the Managing Director of the Corporation also directed all the Superintending Engineers/ Executive Engineers of the Corporation for submission of information in respect of Junior Engineers having B.Tech./AMIE Degree Qualification for consideration of their cases as against the existing vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Engineers so as to comply with the orders of the High Court passed in the meantime. It is alleged that it is, at this point of time, in spite of development through WP(C) No.563/2010 the petitioner being a B.Tech./Degree Graduate Engineer was continued in the Corporation as Junior Engineer, his case was not considered giving a complete discriminatory treatment to the petitioner. A Review Petition was also filed by the Corporation involving the order of this Court dated 18.1.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.563/2010. It is alleged that listing of the Review Petition was avoided keeping in view to avoid the Judge passed the order in the writ petitions and to make their attempt before a new Judge on the superannuation of the Judge passing the order. Documents supplied by the parties disclose that the Review Petition was heard along with other writ petitions involving parallel orders by a new Bench and all these review petitions have been dismissed. 3. Sri M.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel being assisted by Sri U.C.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner bringing to the notice of this Court the aforesaid facts contended that the petitioner joined as a regular Junior Engineer in 1991. As per the Government Notification, the post of Junior Engineer has been upgraded to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Government Establishment, which was also being followed by the Corporation involving similarly situated persons. As per the Government Notification, the post of Junior Engineer has been upgraded to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Government Establishment, which was also being followed by the Corporation involving similarly situated persons. It is complained that when the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941 postulates that 33% of the posts in Assistant Engineer shall be filled up by way of promotion quota, which is also being followed in the Rules amended in the year 2012 and there have been several numbers of vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil), the Corporation even though upgraded the status of some of the Graduate Junior Engineers, who have also approached this Court like the petitioner, but did not upgrade the position of the petitioner while giving benefit to other similarly situated persons. However, after much persuasion and pursuant to disposal of the W.P.(C) No.563 of 2010 vide Annexure-2, vide communication dated 16.5.2012, the Corporation communicated that pursuant to the direction of the High Court in a batch of writ petitions including that of the petitioner numbering WP(C) No.563/2010 also involving a batch of contempt petitions appointed the petitioner along with several others whose names find place in the said communication of Asst. Engineer (Civil), but however on ad hoc basis in the Scale of Pay of Rs.6500-700-10500/- with usual D.A., H.R.A. and M.A. etc. however subject to final outcome of Special Leave Petition filed by the Corporation. It was also indicated therein that the persons named therein given appointment in the said order are to be confirmed which is again subject to approval of their Degree by the Technical Committee of the Administrative Department. Taking through the orders passed in SLP(Civil) Nos.19814-19815 of 2012 taken up along with SLP(Civil) Nos.19807-19808 of 2012 with several similar cases, Sri Mishra, learned senior counsel submitted that for the protection granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein and the petitioner having been enrolled for Degree Certificate during the Academic Session 2001-05, in clear contravention of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Corporation instead of waiting for the outcome in the examination to be conducted as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court illegally reverted the petitioner to the former post of Junior Engineer, vide order dated 22.3.2018 under Annexure-1. Taking this Court to the direction part of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court involving 1st judgment in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vrs. Rabi Sankar Patro and Ors. : (2018)ISCC 468 as well as in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vrs. Rabi Sankar Patro & Ors. : (2018) 2 SCC 298 both involving the petitioner as well as the persons like the petitioner vis-a-vis the Corporation, Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the clear direction and observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was no room for the Corporation to revert the petitioner from the position he was allowed, vide Annexure-1. Referring to certain clarifications being raised on the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases involving completely outside parties vide Ashok Kumar and Ors. Vrs. Depinder Singh Dhesi & Ors. : (2019) 8 SCC 280 , reading through paragraphs-10, 12, 13 & 15 therein, Sri Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that for the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction through the above decisions permitting the petitioner and others like the petitioner having Degree Certificates from JRN Vidyapitha (Deemed University), providing such persons at least to clear the Special Examinations/Tests to be conducted by the AICT & UGC combined at least in two chances provided giving their consent to appear in such tests by 15.1.2018 more particularly covering the candidates obtaining such Degree in between 2001-2005 and the petitioner referring to the document at Annexure-5 of the brief establishing through the same that the petitioner having already registered himself to appear in the test to be conducted in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further giving reference to the document trough the rejoinder affidavit in response to the counter of O.Ps.2, 3 & 4 for the petitioner passing out in the second test following the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was required to be restored with his position as Assistant Engineer (Civil). Sri Mishra, learned senior counsel here also taking this Court to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 1st judgment vide (2018) I SCC 468, 1st order in (2018) 2 SC 298 and 2nd order in (2019) 8 SCC 280 contended that even assuming that the petitioner though registered himself to be a candidate to appear in the first test but did not appear in the said test, but however, the petitioner appeared in the 2nd test and got qualified. Taking into account the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decisions, in the worse the Degree involving the petitioner would have been invalidated/kept under suspension at least till he could have cleared the second test. Under the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reversion from the post, if any, for not appearing in the first test or failing in the first test would have been also subject to the outcome in his appearance in the second test. Taking this Court to the pleading in the writ petition as well as in the rejoinder and establishing through the pleading as well as the documents that the petitioner following the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not only registered himself for appearing in the tests to be conducted in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court having provided two options minimum to each of the persons involved and the petitioner having appeared in the second test and passing out being established through the further certificate in confirmation of the Degree of the petitioner, vide the rejoinder affidavit, there was no occasion on the part of the Corporation to revert the petitioner from the position of Assistant Engineer to Diploma Junior Engineer at least till expiry of the first test to be conducted in the light of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the month of May-June, 2018. It is taking to the further pleading that the first test was scheduled to be conducted in between May and June of 2018, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court requiring to fill up the posts for the purpose on 15.1.2018 and the petitioner since already registered himself by 15.1.2018 established through Annexure-5 of the writ petition. It is taking to the further pleading that the first test was scheduled to be conducted in between May and June of 2018, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court requiring to fill up the posts for the purpose on 15.1.2018 and the petitioner since already registered himself by 15.1.2018 established through Annexure-5 of the writ petition. Sri Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the first test was to take place between May and June of 2018 and considering that petitioner had already shown his interest to appear in the 1st test, there was absolutely no occasion on the part of the Corporation to revert the petitioner on 22.3.2018 vide Annexure-1. It is, in this view of the matter and further for the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos.57, 58 and 66.6 in the judgment vide (2018) I SCC 468, Sri Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner while pressing the relief claimed by the petitioner and seeking to quash the order at Annexure-1 also requested this Court to direct the Corporation while restoring the petitioner's position in the post of Assistant Engineer also to grant all consequential relief including financial benefits and any further upgradation to similarly situated persons taking place in the meantime. 4. Sri B.K.Sharma, learned counsel for theCorporation, the contesting O.P., while not disputing the fact of first round of litigation by the petitioner, submitted that in fact the first writ petition was at the instance of similarly situated persons through W.P.(C) No.13251 of 2001 and several other writ petitions where this Court in disposal of such matters directed to consider the case of the petitioner involved therein in the light of the Circular of the Government dated 30.9.1994. Sri Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation referring to the provisions at Rules-5, 6, 7 & 16 of the Orissa Service of Engineers Rules, 1941 substituted by Rule, 2012 attempted to demonstrate the provision involving recruitment, manner of recruitment, manner of promotion in percentage, filling of vacancies through different channels and the criteria of promotion involving the employees in the Establishment of the Corporation. Similarly even though not disputed with regard to the directions and observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but however taking this Court to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs-53, 57 & 58 through the decision in (2018) I SCC 468 the 1st judgment also involving the Corporation Sri Sharma attempted to submit that the petitioner having not registered in time, i.e. before 15.1.2018 for appearing in the 1st test to be conducted in the joint venture of AICTE and UGC in the month of May-June, 2018, the Corporation remain justified in reverting the petitioner, vide Annexure-1. Sri Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation further taking this Court to the document at Annexure-5 attempted to submit that the said document cannot be simply establishing that the petitioner had applied for registration to appear in the first test in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court before 15.1.2018 and thus opposed the claim of the petitioner, rather attempted to justify the impugned order at Annexure-1. 5. It is at this stage of the matter, Sri Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner controverting the submissions of Sri Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation and taking this Court to the plea of the petitioner in paragraph-17 of the brief also reading through the document at Annexure-5 and further taking this Court to the grant of passing certificate in the second test conducted by the AICTE and UGC through rejoinder strongly objected to the claim of the Corporation. Sri Mishra, learned senior counsel further submitted that unless the petitioner would have registered prior to 15.1.2018, there was no occasion on the part of the AICTE and UGC allowing the petitioner to appear in the second test conducted under the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to hereinabove. Further, taking to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2018) I SCC 468 particularly through paragraph 66.6 Sri Mishra, learned senior counsel submitted that once the petitioner passed in the test, there is validation of degree involving the petitioner, all benefits accrued to him at the time of keeping the degree suspended and withdrawn, should have been simply restored and there is no other go. 6. 6. Taking into consideration the contentions and rival contentions of the respective counsel, this Court finds, for the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court giving a sympathetic consideration to the Degree Holders through JRM Vidyapitha (Deemed University) to at least qualify in two tests to be conducted under the guidance of AICT & UGC to validate their Degrees through 1st judgment vide (2018) I SCC 468. Questions arise for consideration here are as under:- I) If the petitioner's case covers the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court II) If the petitioner passed the second test, he will be entitled to what relief? 7. With the aforesaid background involving the claim of the parties this Court now proceeds to assemble the factual background and the issues required to be adjudicated taking into account the prayer involved in the Writ Petition. From the factual narration/ pleadings taken note hereinabove, it is noticed that petitioner initially joined as Jr. Engineer in the feeder cadre being a diploma holder in Civil Engineering. While working as such, petitioner got degree in Civil Engineering from the so called Institution, JRN Vidyapitha (Deemed University) in the year 2009 also being registered in between 2001 to 2005. In the meantime there came some development, where Agricultural Graduate Engineers who initially joined as Jr. Engineers and subsequently upgraded as Asst. Engineer in-charge and Ad.hoc Asst. Engineer claimed their regular absorption as Asst. Engineer in filing O.J.C. No.13251 of 2001. In disposal of the said Writ Petition on 14.12.2009 a Divisional Bench of this Court taking note of the letter of the Government dated 30.09.1994 directed that the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. shall de novo consider the cases of the Graduate Engineers that is the case of the petitioner and the O.Ps.4 to 9 therein who were Diploma Holder/ Jr. Engineers in the light of the Government of Odisha communication dated 30.09.1994 by undertaking such exercise within four months. After the above development it appears, there are several similar Writ Petitions moved to this Court by Graduate Civil Engineers, Electrical Engineers etc. Engineers in the light of the Government of Odisha communication dated 30.09.1994 by undertaking such exercise within four months. After the above development it appears, there are several similar Writ Petitions moved to this Court by Graduate Civil Engineers, Electrical Engineers etc. in several Writ Petitions and that of petitioner in Writ Petition No.563 of 2010 and all these Writ Petitions were disposed of again by a Division Bench of this Court with common order / direction to the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners involved in the light of the Government of Odisha communication dated 30.09.1994, which is, however, after recording the statement made by the learned counsel for the Corporation. 8. It is, at this stage of the matter, the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. chose to file review application in this Court involving the bunch of Writ Petitions indicated hereinabove, which also includes review application involving the Writ Petition of the petitioner herein. All these Review Petitions were disposed of by another Division Bench and on retirement of the Principal Judge involved in disposal of the batch of the Writ Petitions, ultimately all the review petitions were dismissed by its order dated 15.03.2012. In the meantime, for the contempt applications being moved, the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. implemented the direction of this Court in disposal of the batch of Writ Petitions including that of the present petitioner and communicated their decisions dated 16.05.2012 vide Annexure-2 intimating the persons named therein who all were working then as Jr. Engineer (Civil) and In-charge Asst. Engineer (Civil) under the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. and thereby appointing all of them as Asst. Engineer (Civil) on ad.hoc basis, therein also indicating that such appointment, however, is subject to the final outcome in the Special Leave Petition(s) indicated therein pending at that point of time before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. It is needless to mention here that the Special Leave Petition(s) indicated therein are arising out of disposal of batch of Writ Petitions on selfsame issue by this Court and also involving consequential rejection of the review petition including that of the petitioner's Writ Petition and review petition, by the Corporation. Annexure-2 order appears to be an attempt by the Corporation to circumvent the difficulty to be faced involving the Contempt applications against the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. pending therein. Annexure-2 order appears to be an attempt by the Corporation to circumvent the difficulty to be faced involving the Contempt applications against the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. pending therein. In the meantime the SLP(C) Nos.19807-08 of 2012, No.19829 of 2012, 19830-31 of 2012, No.19814-15 of 2012 were entertained by the Hon'ble Apex Court as appears confining to the issues regarding the validity of the degrees obtained by the persons involved there through the deemed University, on the plea that the said degrees have no approval of AICTE-the competent authority. The SLP(C)s were converted as Civil Appeals and consequently were taken up for final hearing on 3.11.2017 and were all disposed of by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide 2018(I)SCC 498. In deciding the matter ultimately the Hon'ble Apex Court through paragraph nos.57, 58, 66.4, 66.6 finally giving a sympathetical approach to the case of the petitioners involved therein as onetime measure gave specific directions in the above paragraphs. For the matter of conveniences the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos.3, 57, 58, 66.2, 66.4 and 66.6 are quoted herein below: '3. The Directorate of Lift Irrigation in the Government of Odisha was converted into Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'OLIC'). The service conditions of Engineers including Junior Engineers which is the base cadre in the Engineering Wing of OLIC are governed by the Orissa Service of Engineers' Rules, 1941 ('the 1941 Rules', for short) as amended from time to time. Junior Engineers form the feeder cadre for promotion to the next level, namely, that of Assistant Engineers. Respondent 1 [ In the matter arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 19807-808 of 2012.] , Rabi Sankar Patro, a diploma-holder in Electrical Engineering, joined OLIC as Junior Engineer (Electrical) and while in service, he acquired BTech (Civil) Degree from a deemed to be University, namely, JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur, through distance education in the year 2009 and thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 3848 of 2010 in the High Court of Orissa. According to him, he being an in-service graduate Engineer was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineer. According to him, he being an in-service graduate Engineer was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineer. The said writ petition was allowed [ Rabi Sankar Patro v. State, WP (C) No. 3848 of 2010, decided on 26-2-2010 (Ori)] without issuing notice to the respondents, placing reliance on an earlier order dated 14-12-2009 passed by the High Court in Bharat Chandra Rout v. State [Bharat Chandra Rout v. State, OJC No. 13251 of 2001, order dated 14-12-2009 (Ori)] by which OLIC was directed to consider the case of the candidates concerned as in-service graduate Engineers. OLIC being aggrieved, filed Review Petition No. 58 of 2012 which was dismissed by the High Court on 15-3-2012 [Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro, Review Petition No. 58 of 2012, order dated 15-3-2012 (Ori)] along with certain similar review petitions. The submissions recorded in support of the review petitions in the order of the High Court were as under: 'The argument advanced by Mr Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioners that the opposite parties-employees have acquired degree qualification of distance/correspondence education course from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth which is not recognised by AICTE. Therefore, they are not qualified.... The learned Senior Counsel Mr Mohanty placed much reliance upon the letter issued by AICTE on 6-10-2010 wherein AICTE has categorically stated as under: 'It has been the policy of Aicte, not to recognise the qualifications acquired through distance education mode at diploma, bachelors and master's level in the fields of Engineering Technology including Architecture, Town Planning, Pharmacy, Hotel Management & Catering Technology, Applied Arts & Crafts and Post Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM). Aicte only recognises MBA and MCA programme through distance mode.' 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. 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. 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. 66.4. 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. 66.6. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018. 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.' 10. Adverting to the claim of petitioner based on 1st order the judgment reported in (2018) II SCC 298, it appears, there was filing of several clarificatory applications as well as attempt for modification of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its 1st judgment dated 3.11.2017, at the instance of the persons holding Diploma Engineering also enrolled themselves in 2005, in courses leading to award of such degrees offered by the deemed to be University in question through distance learning mode and after obtaining degrees being awarded by the deemed University the applicants involving the Miscellaneous Applications underwent independent selection undertaken by the UPSC and entered certain services as direct recruits and were at that point of time either been engaged in the same services or have advanced in career on the basis of such selection and some applications also include candidates who have even obtained masters degrees on the basis of such Graduate degree by then. All the miscellaneous applications were taken up and decided in one go by the Hon'ble Apex Court and again by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2018(II)SCC 298 and in paragraph nos.25, 26, 26.1, 26.2 & 26.3 therein the Hon'ble Apex Court finding some force in the submission of the respective counsel that for the observation in the original judgment petitioners are likely to lose their jobs, even if, they successfully pass the test, there will be difficulty in restoration of their jobs and position. Here the Hon'ble Apex Court as onetime relaxation permitted the candidates, who were enrolled in the academic years 2001-05, to appear in the test to be conducted by the AICTE also with some further directions therein. For better appreciation this Court likes to take note of direction in paragraph nos.25, 26, 26.1, 26.2 & 26.3, which is reflected herein below: '25. For better appreciation this Court likes to take note of direction in paragraph nos.25, 26, 26.1, 26.2 & 26.3, which is reflected herein below: '25. 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 candidates concerned 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. 26. 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: 26.1. 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 31-72018 whichever is earlier. 26.2. 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. 26.3. 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. 26.3. 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.' It is needless to mention here that the miscellaneous applications were moved by a different class of people and the 1st order indicated herein involves different class of people. For deciding a case involving altogether different class of people, further for grant of more chances to the Engineers involving the judgment vide (2018) I SCC 468 pronounced on 3.11.2018, the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2018) II SCC 298 taken note hereinabove has no application to the case of petitioner involved herein. This Court has also examined the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2019) 8 SCC 280 and finds, observation is in nature of clarification involving some action by the State of Punjab & Haryana and this decision has also nothing to do with the case of the petitioner. 11. It is, after disposal of the first batch of the Civil Appeals by the judgment vide (2018) I SCC 468 on 3.11.2017 and the miscellaneous applications being disposed of in the second judgment vide (2018) II SCC 298, while the petitioner was waiting for the first examination to be taking place in May & June, 2018 as per the time fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court after registering him on 15.01.2018, the Opposite party-Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. by letter dated 22.03.2018 vide Annexure-1 communicated their decision to a group of people including the petitioner whose name find place at Sl.No.2 therein, regarding reverting them back from the post of ad.hoc Asst. Engineers to the post of Jr. Engineer. 12. This Court here takes note of submission of Mr. Engineers to the post of Jr. Engineer. 12. This Court here takes note of submission of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that through Annexure-5 it becomes clear that petitioner had already registered himself for the purpose of appearing in the test to be conducted by the AICTE & UGC under the direction of the Supreme Court in the first judgment vide 2018 (I) SCC 498. Looking to the challenge of the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation that the petitioner did not register him by 15.01.2018 and that he did not clear his position on appearance in the first test resulting the passing of the impugned order at Annexure-1, this Court here apart from the statement of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate also takes into account the plea of the petitioner in the Writ Petition in paragraph 17 : 'That, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner in response to the aforesaid judgment dtd.3.11.2017 and modified order dtd.22.1.2018 has filled up his form and registered himself to appear in the Examination to be held in the month of May-June, 2018 on online basis vide Candidate ID No.20180120084614 (Satyanarayan Rana) the time prescribed by the AICTE' 13. This Court here records the statement made by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner involved herein though filled up the form and register himself by the cut-off date fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court through online candidate I.D 20180120084614, but the petitioner did not appear in the first test conducted by the AICTE & UGC, but, however, appeared in the second test being permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the meanwhile petitioner has also been provided with a certificate of passing out in the examination jointly conducted by the AICTE & UGC to validate the degree granted by the JRN Vidyapitha (Deemed University) as appearing at running page 76 of the brief and internal page 24 of the rejoinder affidavit. 14. Looking to the counter averments and keeping in mind the objection raised by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd., this Court perusing the counter affidavit at the instance of O.Ps.2, 3 & 4 finds, there is no objection to the claim of the petitioner in establishing that petitioner had already applied and registered himself to appear in the first test. Sharma, learned counsel for the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd., this Court perusing the counter affidavit at the instance of O.Ps.2, 3 & 4 finds, there is no objection to the claim of the petitioner in establishing that petitioner had already applied and registered himself to appear in the first test. Entire reading of the counter affidavit, this Court nowhere finds any foundation on the allegation at the instance of Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. In absence of which, this Court outrightly rejects the contentions of the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation that the petitioner did not apply and register himself by 15.01.2018 in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble apex Court. It is, at this stage of the matter, this Court while finding that petitioner had already applied for registration by 15.01.2018, observes, unless he has applied by 15.01.2018, there was no scope on the part of the AICTE & UGC to allow the petitioner to sit in the second test even. From the discussions in paragraph no.13 (supra) it also becomes clear that petitioner had in the meantime also cleared in the 2nd test thereby validating his degree involved in terms of direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide paragraph nos.57, 58 & 66.6 involving (2018) I SCC 468. It is, at this stage, this Court answering the issue no.1 framed by this Court, holds, petitioner's case is squarely covered by the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2018) I SCC 468 involved herein. 15. Now coming to deal with issue no.2 vis-a-vis the impugned order at Annexure-1, this Court on reiteration observe, looking to the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.57 of (2018) I SCC 468, the Hon'ble Apex Court by this judgment dated 3.11.2017 through above paragraph clearly observed that till such candidates pass such examination to be jointly conducted by the AICTE & UGC, the degrees in Engineering granted to the students enrolled in between 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended and further every single advantage on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn. It is, in this view of the matter and for the degrees including that of petitioner being suspended since 3.11.2017, there arose situation in suspending the degree involving the petitioner besides also withdrawing the benefits conferred on him by the Corporation on the basis of such degree till petitioner establishes validation of his degree certificate. It is, in this view of the matter and for the degrees including that of petitioner being suspended since 3.11.2017, there arose situation in suspending the degree involving the petitioner besides also withdrawing the benefits conferred on him by the Corporation on the basis of such degree till petitioner establishes validation of his degree certificate. This Court, therefore, finds, there is no infirmity in the order at Annexure-1 passed by the Corporation herein. 16. With the above background, next question arises herein, since the petitioner passed through the 2nd test which is also as per the sympathetic concern shown by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment, thereby petitioner validated his degree appearing in second test conducted by the AICTE and UGC in between December, 16 to 19 of 2018, this Court here taking note of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.66.6 involving (2018) I SCC 468, the Corporation was duty bound to restore the position of the petitioner to the position of Asst. Engineer (Civil) along with all such benefits he was enjoying at the time of passing of withdrawal of all such benefits vide order at Annexure-1. 17. This Court, therefore, here while answering the issue no.II in favor of the petitioner as flowing in terms of paragraph no.66.6 involving (2018) I SCC 468 directs, while restoring the position of the petitioner as on 22.03.2018, release the benefits the petitioner was entitled to as on passing of order at Annexure-1 and also consider the case of petitioner for benefits, if any, to have been accrued to him in the meantime, by completing the entire exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this judgment. 18. The Writ Petition thus succeeds, but in the circumstance however, there is no order as to costs.