JUDGMENT : Heard Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Avinash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Ramesh, learned GP for Services – IV and Sri D. Kasim Saheb, learned standing counsel for Municipalities’ Services. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “...(i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction declaring the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent vide Memo No.13748/CS1/2019, Dt.23.10.2019 declaring the same as violate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India besides directing to give notional promotion in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer from 23.07.2010 and grant such order or orders...” “....(ii) to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the cadre of Executive Engineer, (Public Health and Municipal Engineering Service), Vijayawada Municipal Corporation pending writ petition and grant such other reliefs...” 3. Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, learned senior Advocate submitted that the petitioner K. Narayana Murthy, who was working as Work Inspector, Kakinada Municipality was appointed by transfer as Municipal Assistant Engineer (MAE) and allotted to the Office of the 3rd respondent/Superintendent Engineer (Public Health Circle), East Godavari District, Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide proceedings dated 15.05.1992 by the Engineer-in-Chief-2nd respondent. The academic qualification for appointment on the post of Municipal Assistant Engineer (MAE) was Diploma in Engineering, whereas for the post of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer (MAEE), the academic qualification required was Degree in Engineering. The promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer are made from both the posts which serve as feeding cadre. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 20.06.2008 of Engineer-in- Chief, the petitioner was appointed by transfer as Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer (MAEE) based on Engineering Degree obtained by him from a deemed university and was posted to work with respondent No.4- Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Later on, vide proceedings dated 26.06.2013 by Engineer-in-Chief, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (Dy.EE) from the feeding cadre post of Municipal Assistant Engineer. The Engineer-in-Chief circulated the provisional seniority list of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineers inviting objections, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted his objections, but the Engineer-in-Chief vide proceedings dated 24.07.2018 communicated the final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers, in which the name of V. Srinivas and Ch. The Engineer-in-Chief circulated the provisional seniority list of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineers inviting objections, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted his objections, but the Engineer-in-Chief vide proceedings dated 24.07.2018 communicated the final seniority list of Deputy Executive Engineers, in which the name of V. Srinivas and Ch. Venkateswararao were shown at serial Nos.9 and 10, though they are juniors to the petitioner in the cadre of Municipal Assistant Engineer and the petitioner’s name was omitted, for which, the petitioner submitted representation dated 07.03.2019 to fix his seniority in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer after giving notional promotion on par with his juniors. As no action was taken on such representation, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13748 of 2019 which was disposed of with direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the petitioner’s representation, vide judgment dated 17.09.2019. Pursuant there to the Respondent No.2 by the proceedings impugned, dated 23.10.2019, rejected the petitioner’s representation against which present Writ Petition No.21143 of 2020 is filed. 4. During pendency of the Writ Petition No. 21143 of 2020 the respondents issued proceedings, vide G.O.Ms.No.50, MA&UD, dated 29.04.2021 and G.O.Rt.No.225, MA&UD (C1) Dept., dated 06.05.2021 with respect to many persons for the post of the Deputy Executive Engineers Zone-III, including Sri V. Srinivas, respondent No.5 in W.P.No. 11801 of 2021. The petitioner, then filed Writ Petition No.11801 of 2021 for the following relief: “...to issue a Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring G. O. Ms. No. 50 MA&UD (C1) Department, Dt.29. 04. 2021 and G. O. Rt. No. 225, MA&UD (C1) Department, Dt.06. 05. 2021, issued by the respondent No.1, as illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides directing to promote him as Deputy Executive Engineer w. e. f. Dt.20. 09. 2010 with all consequential benefits and pass such order or orders...” On 08.04.2022, W.P.No. 11801 of 2021 was dismissed to the extent of challenge to the G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 29.04.2021 and G.O.Rt.No.225, dated 06.05.2021 with respect to the respondent No.5 therein, without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having acquired the qualification of B.Tech. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having acquired the qualification of B.Tech. degree requested for conversion of his post from Municipal Assistant Engineer (MAE) to the post of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer (MAEE) and to grant seniority with effect from the date of his junior V. Srinivas and consequently, to grant the notional promotion from the date of the promotion of V. Srinivas on the post of Deputy Executive Engineer which was made in the year 2010. Sri V. Srinivas and Sri Ch. Venkateswararao are junior to the petitioner at the initial cadre of Municipal Assistant Engineers, however, they were converted to the post of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer prior to the petitioner’s conversion and were further promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 2010, whereas the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer on 26.06.2013. All these persons had obtained B.Tech Degree from the same institution i.e., Rajasthan Vidya Peeth, deemed to be university. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since promotions were stopped to the holders of degree in Engineering B.Tech from ‘Deemed to be University’, many candidates approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.17869-17870 of 2017 Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp.Ltd. vs. Rabi Shankar Patro & ors., (2018) 1 SCC 468 : 2017 SCC Online SC 1281 which was decided vide judgment dated 03.11.2017. Later on, on an application for clarification / modification of the judgment / order dated 03.11.2017, the Hon’ble Apex Court passed order dated 22.01.2018. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of judgment dated 03.11.2017 read with the clarified order dated 22.01.2018, as the order dated 22.01.2018 did not obliterate the earlier order dated 03.11.2017, but the respondents misunderstood the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and consequently illegally rejected the petitioner’s representation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of judgment dated 03.11.2017 read with the clarified order dated 22.01.2018, as the order dated 22.01.2018 did not obliterate the earlier order dated 03.11.2017, but the respondents misunderstood the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and consequently illegally rejected the petitioner’s representation. He submitted that in view of the clarification judgment dated 22.01.2018, the petitioner having succeeded in the examination conducted by AICTE in December, 2018 (second attempt), the petitioner became eligible for the benefits in terms of the judgment dated 03.11.2017 as on passing of the test / examination in the second attempt the petitioner’s B.Tech degree from ‘Deemed to be University’ was validated and all the benefits flowing from the said degree right from the very beginning would be available to the petitioner, meaning thereby, that the petitioner became entitled for conversion of his post from Municipal Assistant Engineer to Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer based on the degree qualification and consequently for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and to reckon his seniority from the date, such benefits were extended to those two persons juniors to the petitioner, as in the feeding cadre on the post of Municipal Assistant Engineer. 7. Sri V. Ramesh, learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was appointed by transfer as Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer vide proceedings dated 20.06.2008 from the post of Municipal Assistant Engineer based on the engineering degree obtained by him from a deemed university but at the own request of the petitioner he was reverted to the post of Municipal Assistant Engineer in the year 2013 itself. The petitioner was then promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 2013 from the lower post/slot of Municipal Assistant Engineer. He submitted that the petitioner cannot compare him with Sri V. Srinivas and Sri Ch. Venkateswararao, as they were appointed to the post of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer prior to the petitioner and were also promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in 2010 from Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer, whereas the petitioner was promoted in 2013 from the post of Municipal Assistant Engineer. 8. Venkateswararao, as they were appointed to the post of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer prior to the petitioner and were also promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in 2010 from Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer, whereas the petitioner was promoted in 2013 from the post of Municipal Assistant Engineer. 8. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner passed the test conducted by AICTE in December, 2018 in the second attempt and consequently, the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefits to which the petitioner would have been entitled if he had passed such examination conducted in May – June, 2018 i.e., in the first attempt, at par those candidates who passed the said examination in the first attempt. His submission is that the benefits of the degree from the ‘Deemed to be University’ on its validation would be available only to those persons who had passed the examination in the first attempt, but not to those candidates who failed in the first attempt, and passed in the second attempt. Alternatively, he submitted that in any case the benefits of passing the test in the second attempt may be available w.e.f. 2013, when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer considering his B.Tech degree having been validated, for future promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, as the petitioner was promoted to the posted of Deputy Executive Engineer from the feeding cadre post of Municipal Assistant Engineer and not Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The impugned order dated 23.10.2019, has been passed on two grounds; (1) that the petitioner failed in the first qualifying examination conducted by AICTE in June, 2008 (first chance) pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, dated 03.11.2017, but passed in the second examination held in December, 2018 (second chance) and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 22.01.2018 the petitioner is not eligible for notional promotion in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer from the date claimed and the seniority of the petitioner is to be considered in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer from the date of his promotion in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer i.e. June, 2013 and accordingly, his further promotion in the cadre of Executive Engineer will be examined and considered as per his seniority and eligibility in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer; (2) that though Sri V. Srinivas and Sri Ch. Venkateswararao are juniors to the petitioner in the initial cadre of Municipal Assistant Engineer, but they were converted on the post of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer prior to the petitioner and they were further promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 2010 prior to the petitioner, from the quota of Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer, whereas the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer in the month of June, 2013 from the quota of Municipal Assistant Engineer, hence the petitioner cannot compare his promotion/seniority in the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer on par with those two persons. 11. The entire case depends upon consideration of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn.Ltd. (supra). 12. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn.Ltd. v Rabi Sankar Patro & ors., (supra) decided on 03.11.2017, (hereinafter called “the first judgment”), the question for consideration arose with respect to the award of degrees in Engineering by the concerned “Deemed to be University” through Distance Education. 12. In Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn.Ltd. v Rabi Sankar Patro & ors., (supra) decided on 03.11.2017, (hereinafter called “the first judgment”), the question for consideration arose with respect to the award of degrees in Engineering by the concerned “Deemed to be University” through Distance Education. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para- 57 of the judgment directed that all the degrees in Engineering granted to the students who were enrolled during the academic year 2001-05 shall stand suspended till they pass ‘such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE – UGC in the manner indicated’ and further every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended. Paragraph Nos.57 and 58 are being reproduced as under: “57. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex post facto approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex post facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of courses leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, since the 2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the deemed to be universities concerned to apply for ex post facto approval, the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so that interest of those students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot wish away the fact that the deemed to be universities concerned flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no experience and started conducting courses through distance education system illegally, the overbearing interest of the students concerned persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in Engineering granted in pursuance of the said ex post facto approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available at the study centres concerned were never checked nor any inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the students concerned. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the students concerned to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. It is not possible at this length of time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and assurance about the worthiness of the students concerned. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the students concerned to have their ability tested by authorities competent in that behalf. We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years 2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such examination under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended. 58. AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test(s) both in written examination as well as in practicals for the students concerned admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005 covering all the subjects concerned. It is entirely left to the discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in the National Institutes of Technology in the respective States wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be conducted during May-June 2018 or on such dates as AICTE may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the students concerned and if they do not pass the test(s) their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish to appear in the test(s), the entire money deposited by such student towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student by the deemed to be university concerned within a month of the exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15-1-2018 to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting the test(s) in respect of students who wish to undergo test(s) shall be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by 31-3-2018. If they clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the candidates concerned. 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. 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.” 13. Subsequently, on M.A.Nos.1795 of 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-70 of 2017 in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corpn.Ltd. v Rabi Sankar Patro (2018) 2 SCC 298 the Hon’ble Apex Court issued the directions and clarification, vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2018. Paragraphs - 25 to 26.3 of the judgment, dated 22.01.2018 is being reproduced as under: “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 31-7-2018 whichever is earlier. 26.2. 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. 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.” 14. From paragraphs - 57 and 58 of the first judgment, it is clear that; (1) all the Degrees in Engineering from deemed to be University, granted to the students who were enrolled during the academic year 2001-2005 shall stand suspended; till the students pass the examination conducted under the joint supervision of AICTE – UGC in the prescribed manner; and (2) every single advantage on the basis of that degree shall also stand suspended, i.e, till the students pass the aforesaid examination; (3) not more than two chances were to be given to the concerned candidate; (4) if the student cleared the test/tests within the stipulated time all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the concerned candidate; (5) if the candidate did not appear or did not pass the test/tests their degrees shall stand recalled and cancelled and any promotion or advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also stand withdrawn; and (6) any monetary benefits or advantages in that behalf shall not be recovered. 15. By the second judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the requirement of passing the examination in terms of the judgment cannot be dispensed with and no such exception can be made as the infirmity in the degrees is basic and fundamental. 15. By the second judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the requirement of passing the examination in terms of the judgment cannot be dispensed with and no such exception can be made as the infirmity in the degrees is basic and fundamental. At the same time, the Hon’ble Apex Court, finding force in the submissions that if suspension of the degrees and all advantages were to apply as indicated in the first judgment the concerned candidates might loose their jobs and even if they were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs and their then present position would pose some difficulty, granted as one time relaxation vide para-26, in favour of those candidates who were enrolled during the academic year 2001-2005 and who in terms of the first judgment were eligible to appear at the test to be conducted by AICTE. 16. As per Para-26.1 all such candidates who wished to appear at the then forthcoming test to be conducted by AICTE in May /June, 2018 and who exercised option to appear at the test in terms of the judgment, could retain 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 was earlier. 17. Thus, now as per para-26.1 of the second judgment, the degree in Engineering and every single advantage based on such degree, instead of remaining under suspension in terms of the first judgment was permitted to be retained for a period of one month from the date of declaration of the result of the test or till 31.07.2018 whichever was earlier. 18. Para-26.2 of the second judgment provided that this facility was given as one time exception, so that those candidates who had the ability and could pass the test in the first attempt itself should not be put to any inconvenience. If the candidates passed in such first attempt, they were held to be entitled to retain all the advantages. 19. Para-26.2 of the second judgment provided that this facility was given as one time exception, so that those candidates who had the ability and could pass the test in the first attempt itself should not be put to any inconvenience. If the candidates passed in such first attempt, they were held to be entitled to retain all the advantages. 19. Thus, now as per Para-26.2, the degree of B.Tech and the advantages flowing there from, which were initially directed to be kept under suspension till passing of the test, vide the first judgment, were no more under suspension but were to be retained by the candidates for a specified period as in para-26.1, and after the declaration of the result, the candidates passing the test (first attempt), they were entitled to retain all the advantages. 20. With respect to those candidates who failed in the test (first attempt) para-26.2 provided that if they failed or chosen not to appear, the directions in the judgment i.e., the first judgment, shall apply, in that the degrees and all the advantages shall stand suspended and withdrawn and it was made clear that no more such chances or exceptions will be given or made, but they will be entitled to appear on the second occasion in terms of the judgment but the exception shall not apply for such second attempt. 21. The exception is mentioned in para-26.1. Paragraph-26.2 says ‘this facility is given as one time exception’. The facility was as given under para-26.1, i.e., to retain the engineering degrees and all the advantages flowing there from till one month after the declaration of the result of first test or till 31.07.2018 whichever was earlier. This facility was as one time exception, and shall not apply, for the second attempt, meaning thereby, that those candidates, who failed in the first attempt but appeared in the second attempt, could not retain the B.Tech degree or the advantages flowing there from and those candidates were appearing in the second attempt without any advantage / facility mentioned in para-26.1, although when they appeared in the first attempt such facility as one time exception, was given to them. On failure in the first attempt their degrees and advantages flowing there from stood suspended and withdrawn in terms of the first judgment, i.e., till passing of the test (second attempt). 22. On failure in the first attempt their degrees and advantages flowing there from stood suspended and withdrawn in terms of the first judgment, i.e., till passing of the test (second attempt). 22. On passing the test in second attempt, as per para-26.2 of the second judgment, the terms of the first judgment shall apply. It provided that “they will undoubtedly be entitled to appear on the second occasion in terms of the judgment”. What was not to apply for the second attempt was the exception, i.e., the facility in para-26.1. So on passing the test in the second attempt, as per the first judgment, the degree of B.Tech and the advantages flowing there from shall be restored. The first judgment in para-58 provided that “If they clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the candidates concerned.” No distinction was made, with respect to the restoration of all the advantages or benefits, between the candidates based on clearing the test in the first attempt or the second attempt. 23. In A. Venkata Reddy and ors. v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (W.P.No. 16320 of 2019, decided on 18.03.2020), a coordinate bench has also taken the view that “ From the above judgment it is more than clear that two chances were given to the students to pass the test, which is to be held under the joint supervision of AICTE –UGC in the manner indicated therein. The advantages that have accrued on the basis of the degree from the Deemed to be University of Rajasthan would stand suspended during that period, and if the candidates clear the test within the stipulated time, which is two attempts, all of the advantages and benefits shall be restored to the candidates.” In that case also the petitioner therein had cleared the examination in the second attempt. 24. In A. Venkata Reddy (supra) this Court held that on passing the examination even on the second attempt, the B.Tech degrees stand validated and the validation of a degree would relate back from the date of acquiring the degrees. Such candidates being successful on the second attempt are found to be of sufficient calibre and there would not be any need to deprive them of the advantages that they had from the degree from the “Deemed to be University”. 25. Such candidates being successful on the second attempt are found to be of sufficient calibre and there would not be any need to deprive them of the advantages that they had from the degree from the “Deemed to be University”. 25. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 5 to 9 of A. Venkata Reddy as under: “5. From the above judgment, it is more than clear that two chances were given to the students to pass the test, which is to be held under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated therein. The advantages that have accrued on the basis of the degree from the deemed university of Rajasthan, would stand suspended during that period and if the candidates clear the test within the stipulated time, which is two attempts, all of the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the candidates. There is no dispute that the petitioners have cleared the examination within the two attempts. But the objection raised by the respondents is on the basis of the clarification given by the Supreme Court about the said Judgment in MA Nos.1795-1796 of 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, “Clarified judgment”). 6. Applications were preferred seeking clarification and modification of the directions issued by the court in the judgment. The general submission advanced by all the learned counsel therein, that the candidates after securing the degrees in Engineering through distance education mode have advanced in career and 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, was taken into consideration. It was sought that even if the judgment were to apply to the candidates whose qualifications were independently considered by an authority as UPSC, suspension of their degrees and all advantages flowing there from till they pass the tests, as indicated in the judgment, may not be insisted upon. Answering the said prayer, the Supreme Court held that such exception cannot be made, since the infirmity in their degrees is basic and fundamental and cannot be washed away. Answering the said prayer, the Supreme Court held that such exception cannot be made, since the infirmity in their degrees is basic and fundamental and cannot be washed away. But, some force was found in the contention that if the suspension of the degrees and all the advantages were to apply, as indicated in the judgment, the concerned candidates may lose their jobs and even if they were to successfully pass the test, restoration of their jobs and present position would pose some difficulty. 7. 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. 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 whichever 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. The test conducted by the AICTE-UGC is only to test the caliber of the candidates, who obtained the degrees from the deemed University of Rajasthan and if they are found to be of sufficient caliber, 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. 8. Hence, in view of the above, this court holds 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. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are 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.” 26. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are 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.” 26. In A. Venkata Reddy (supra) this Court further held that the degrees having been validated the petitioners would be entitled for conversion from their post of Assistant Engineers (Electrical) to Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical). Consequently, the petition was allowed and the respondents therein were directed to convert the petitioners therein 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) if they were otherwise eligible. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the rejection of the petitioner’s representation on the stated grounds is not according to law, and is the result of appreciating the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court not in correct perspective. 28. Following the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in A. Venkata Reddy (supra) it is held that on passing test on the second attempt the petitioner’s engineering degree stood validated and such validation would relate back to the date of acquiring the degree. The petitioner as such would be entitled for consideration of his case for conversion of his post of Municipal Assistant Engineer to Municipal Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from the date of conversion of such post in respect of the petitioner’s juniors, viz., (1) Sri V. Srinivas and (2) Sri Ch. Venkateswararao, who are admittedly juniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Municipal Assistant Engineer and consequential the seniority, as also promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer by granting notional promotion with effect from the date the juniors were promoted, if there is no other legal impediment. The view taken by the respondents that the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of the degree and the consequential benefits there from only from June, 2013 is unsustainable. 29. The Writ Petition is allowed. The Order dated 23.10.2019, impugned herein, is quashed, with a direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the petitioner’s case, vide representation dated 04.06.2019, in view of the observations and directions contained herein above, and if required, opportunity of hearing may also be afforded to the petitioner. 29. The Writ Petition is allowed. The Order dated 23.10.2019, impugned herein, is quashed, with a direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the petitioner’s case, vide representation dated 04.06.2019, in view of the observations and directions contained herein above, and if required, opportunity of hearing may also be afforded to the petitioner. The above exercise shall be completed, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order before the 2nd respondent. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.