ORDER : 1. The petitioner joined the service on the post of Tracer in the year 1984. It is not in dispute that his services are governed by the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Water Resources Engineering and Geological Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1968 (henceforth ‘the Rules’ 1968’). Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Tracer to the post of Sub Engineer in the year 2002. According to the petitioner he was entitled for consideration of promotion from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer, which took place in the year 2014. The petitioner contended that he was deprived of the right to be considered for promotion as per the Rules, 1968. It is also not in dispute that from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer the following criteria was prescribed : Post : Assistant Engineer (Civil) Qualification : - 25% through direct recruitment (PSC) - 50% from the diploma holders on promotion - 20% from those employees who have done degree while working as Sub Engineer - 5% from Draftsman 2. The petitioner obtained the certificate from Associate Membership Examination [AMICE(I)] from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab) and passed out in the year 2009 & 2011 (Annexure – R/1). According to the petitioner, he was deprived to be considered from the quota of Sub Engineer and representation having been made the same was not considered on the ground that he obtained the certificate through a distance mode and his claim was rejected on 31-8-2013. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Office Memorandum dated 6-12-2012, which was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi (henceforth ‘the MHRD’), would show that with a cut off date the students who were in hold of such like nature of the degree for specified institutes, which has been given equivalence to a degree, were considered. It is stated that the degree of petitioner was from Associate Membership Examination [AMICE(I)] from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab). It is stated that the degree of petitioner was from Associate Membership Examination [AMICE(I)] from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab). Learned counsel would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) v State of Punjab and Others, (2019) 16 SCC 95 to submit that in generality though the certificates have not been given the equivalence but with a cut off date 31-5-2013 exception was carved out. He would submit that since the petitioner was enrolled and obtained the certificate prior to the said cut off date, according to the observation made by the Supreme Court, he should have been considered for such promotion, as the notification was issued prior to the promotion process. According to the learned counsel, undoubtedly the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2023 in routine course, however, he should have been given such promotional benefits from the date the other Sub Engineers were promoted way back in the year 2014. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that the nature of certificate, which was said to be equivalence of a degree of the petitioner, which is filed as Annexure – R/1, in the AMICE (I) Civil Section B was on distance education mode. He would submit that such holding of certificate cannot be given equivalence on the degree, as the Institution from which the petitioner obtained the degree has no right under the UGC Act to grant such degree. He would also submit that the degree from the regular Engineering Colleges, which are governed by the All India Council for Technical Education (henceforth ‘the AICTE’) and the degree from the deemed University, was recognised. According to him, it is the prerogative of the employer, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra), that how much importance to be given to such certificate and in the case of the petitioner the State being the employer has used the prerogative and has not recognised the certificate equivalent to the degree and no fault can be attributed. In support of his contention, he would also place reliance upon para 45 of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra). 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In support of his contention, he would also place reliance upon para 45 of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra). 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The fact remains that the petitioner was taken in the role of the respondent in the year 1984 as a Tracer and subsequently promoted to the post of Sub Engineer in the year 2002. During the course of service the petitioner obtained the certificate of AMICE (I), which was sought to be equivalent to the degree from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab). 7. As per the Rules, 1968 for a consideration of promotion from the post of Sub Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer, 20% posts are reserved from those employees who have done degree while working as Sub Engineer. The petitioner claimed that he had obtained the certificate which is equivalent to degree, therefore, he should have been considered in terms of column 3 (i.e. those employees who have done degree while working as Sub Engineer). Copies of certain notifications have been filed before the Court. 8. Notification dated 6-11-2007 bearing No.F.24-I/2007-T.S.III and the Office Memorandum dated 6-12-2012 bearing F.No.11- 15/2011-AR(TS.II) of the MHRD are relevant and the same are quote below : Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education ****** Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, 6th November, 2007 NOTIFICATION No.F.24 - 1/2007 - TS.III. On the recommendations of the High Level Committee for recognition of Educational Qualifications in its meeting held on 22nd May 2007, the Government of India has decided to give recognition to the Section A & B of Associate Membership course, equivalent to Degree and Part - I & II of Technician Engineers (T) equivalent to Diploma in. Civil Engineering and Architecture Engineering Courses conducted by the institution of Civil Engineers India, Ludhiana (Punjab) as per syllabus approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) w.e.f. the academic session 2007-2008 for the purpose of employment to the post and services under Central Government in the appropriate field. It is subject to the conditions that the total number of candidates who can be admitted for the said examination would not exceed the authorized strength of the concerned Institutions with which institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab) has entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). It is subject to the conditions that the total number of candidates who can be admitted for the said examination would not exceed the authorized strength of the concerned Institutions with which institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab) has entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). A review in respect of recognition of educational qualifications shall be made by Ministry of Human Resource Development after one year through All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). Sd/- (RAVI MATHUR) Joint Secretary to the Government of India Tel: 2338 1097 * * * F.No.11-15/2011-AR (TS.II) Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education **** Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi- 110115. Date: 06.12.2012 OFFICE MEMORANDUM In modification of Order F.No. 11-15/2011-AR (TS.II) dated 10.07.2012 and to facilitate the institutions during transition period, following decision has been taken in the Ministry : (i) Above order dated 10.07.2012 regarding cases of recognition in perpetuity for equivalence in Central Government job, stands withdrawn. (ii) All those students who are enrolled with the institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in force pertaining to their course for equivalence in Central Government jobs. However, these concerned orders will cease to have effect from 01.06.2013 onwards. (iii) After 31.05.2013, based on the review by the regulator i.e. AICTE, a decision on continuation of the certification of equivalence of degree/diploma shall be taken by statutory regulator. (iv) Statutory regulators should review the fresh proposals/extension as per their statute and regulations. 2. In case, the institution desires to opt for realigning curriculum with NVEQF, it is advised to use this transition period upto 30.05.2013 for necessary action in this regard. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Sd/- (R.K. Maheshwari) Under Secretary to the Government of India 9. Reading of the aforesaid notification and the office memorandum would show that the MHRD has set up a cut off date of 31-5-2013 wherein the students who are enrolled prior to that and their certificates would be recognised in respect of certain institutions. Copy of the notification dated 6-11-2007 was forwarded to all the State Public Service Commission, Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab). Copy of the office memorandum dated 6-12-2012 was also forwarded to the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab) where from the petitioner obtained the certificate. Copy of the notification dated 6-11-2007 was forwarded to all the State Public Service Commission, Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab). Copy of the office memorandum dated 6-12-2012 was also forwarded to the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab) where from the petitioner obtained the certificate. Copy of one of the letter dated 11-5-2010 is on record, which is by the State Government of Chhattisgarh to the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab), which issued the certificate, wherein the correspondence shows that the qualifications recognised by the Government of India would be automatically recognised by the Chhattisgarh State Govt. for employment, therefore, no separate orders were issued. 10. The AICTE by its letter dated 27-11-2017 with respect to the technical course conducted by Professional Bodies Institute informed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, which purport that the AICTE has issued a public notice regarding recognition of equivalence for all purposes including higher education and employment to technical courses conducted by various professional bodies/institutions which were duly recognised and equivalence granted by the MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013. For ready reference the public notice and the letter dated 27-11-2017 of the AICTE are quoted below : PUBLIC NOTICE (For Professional Bodies/Institutes Imparting Technical Education) Whereas MHRD, Govt. of India, through an order (vide OM no. 11-15/2011-AR (TS.II) dated 06.12.2012) withdrew the recognition granted to all certificates/qualifications awarded by professional bodies/institutions in the field of technical education. The MHRD further stipulated that from 01.06.2013 onwards the courses for equivalence will cease to have effect for employment in Central Government and the decision on the continuation of the certification of equivalence of degree/diploma would be taken by the statutory regulator (AICTE) after review. Accordingly, the Council in its 52nd Emergent Meeting held on August 03, 2017 decided to recognize equivalence for all purposes including Higher Education & Employment to Technical Courses conducted by various Professional Bodies/Institutions which were duly recognized by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May 2013. Thus all those students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013, stand recognized. Advt. No. P&AP/10(04)/2017 Member Secretary * * * F.No. AICTE/P&AP/Misc/2017 Date: 27-11-2017 To, The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) Sub: - Public Notice (Advt. No, P&AP/10(04)/2017) issued by AICTE regarding Technical Courses conducted by Professional Bodies Institute. Thus all those students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition upto 31.05.2013, stand recognized. Advt. No. P&AP/10(04)/2017 Member Secretary * * * F.No. AICTE/P&AP/Misc/2017 Date: 27-11-2017 To, The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) Sub: - Public Notice (Advt. No, P&AP/10(04)/2017) issued by AICTE regarding Technical Courses conducted by Professional Bodies Institute. Dear Sir, We are in a receipt of a letter no nil dated 09th November, 2017 from Sh. Sandeep Kumar Dubey, Raipur addressed to Hon’ble Minister, MHRD, Govt. of India on the above noted subject. We would like to inform you that AICTE has issued a Public Notice regarding recognition of equivalence for all purposes including higher education and employment to technical courses conducted by various professional bodies/institutions which were duly recognized and equivalence granted by MHRD with permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013. Thus Associateship/Certificate awarded to all those students who were enrolled with these institutions with permanent recognition upto 31st May, 2013 stand recognized. A Copy of the public notice issued by AICTE is enclosed here with for your information and kind per user. Regards Sd/- (Prof. R.Hariharan) Advisor-II (P&AP) 11. One of the institute namely; Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) in the like matter approached the Supreme Court in the matter of Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra) wherein the question posed as to whether such certificate could, as a matter of law, be recognised as equivalent to a degree from a recognised Engineering University ? The Court observed that it was not clear as to under what statutory regime or under which legal provision can such equivalence to the certificate issued. Making a reference to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v Rabi Sankar Patro and Others, (2018) 1 SCC 468 , wherein the similar issue came to be discussed, the Court observed that the question which falls for consideration is whether a deemed to be University, without taking appropriate prior permission could start courses leading to degrees in Engineering through open distance learning and it was not held in affirmative. 12. In Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra) the Supreme Court observed at para 45 that what weightage the certificates must have is for the individual employers to consider in a given case. 12. In Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) (supra) the Supreme Court observed at para 45 that what weightage the certificates must have is for the individual employers to consider in a given case. The concerned employer may attach due importance to such certificates while considering the worth and ability of the concerned candidates but to say that the certificates are equivalent to a degree and as such all the candidates who hold such certificates are entitled to derive the advantages which a degree holder can, is completely a different issue. Para 45 is quoted below for ready reference : 45. If a degree can be awarded only by those institutions which satisfy the description given in sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the UGC Act, the mandate of a parliamentary legislation cannot be circumvented or nullified by awarding equivalence to a certificate issued and awarded by the appellant. What is the value of that certificate will be considered by each employer as and when the occasion arises. The appellant would certainly be entitled to award certificate of membership to its members. What weightage the certificates must have is for the individual employers to consider in a given case. The employer concerned may attach due importance to such certificates while considering the worth and ability of the candidates concerned but to say that the certificates are equivalent to a degree and as such all the candidates who hold such certificates are entitled to derive the advantages which a degree-holder can, is completely a different issue. 13. However, subsequently, while taking note of notification, which was issued by the MHRD, the Supreme Court observed that when the equivalence to the Certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE upto 31.05.2013 it is evident from Notification dated 06.12.2012 issued by the Central Government and Public Notice issued by AICTE in August, 2017. Though the fact that the Certificate issued by the likewise institute on successful completion of its annual examination to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a Degree, but importantly an exception is carved out in favour of students enrolled up to 31-5-2013 with particular institution and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 6-12-2012 and Public Notice the benefit was extended to candidates. Paras 49 & 50 are quoted below : 49. Paras 49 & 50 are quoted below : 49. However, the fact remains that the equivalence to the certificates awarded by the appellant was granted by the MHRD in consultation with AICTE up to 31-5-2013 as is evident from Notification dated 6-12-2012 issued by the Central Government and Public Notice issued by AICTE in August 2017. These communications also indicate that all those students who were enrolled up to 31-5-2013 would be eligible for consideration in accordance with MHRD office memorandum/order in course. Though we have laid down that the certificates issued by the appellant on successful completion of its bi-annual examination to its Members cannot be considered to be equivalent to a degree, an exception needs to be made in favour of students enrolled up to 31-5-2013 and benefit in terms of the Notification dated 6-12-2012 and Public Notice as aforesaid ought to be extended to such candidates. The candidates had opted to enrol themselves so that they could appear at the examinations conducted by the appellant under a regime which was put in place by the Central Government itself and the course content as well as the curriculum were reviewed by AICTE. However, the aforementioned Notification and Public Notice were clear that after 1-6-2013 the orders concerned granting equivalence would cease to have any effect. 50. In the circumstances we do make an exception in favour of such candidates enrolled upto 31-5- 2013 and declare that the conclusions drawn in the present matter will apply after 1-6-2013. The Certificate awarded by the appellant to such candidates enrolled upto 31.05.2013 shall be considered equivalent to a Degree in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of employment in the Central Government. 14. Perusal of above quoted excerpts shows that the Supreme Court has consciously adjudicated the issue and carved out an exception in favour of the students enrolled upto 31.05.2013 in view of MHRD notification dated 06.12.2012. 15. The Supreme Court has also declared that degree of candidate enrolled upto 31.05.2013 is perfectly valid. Therefore, the said judgment was judgment-in-rem which has adjudicated upon the issue which has now become the law of land and consequently binding upon all the administrative authority as also upon this Court. 16. 15. The Supreme Court has also declared that degree of candidate enrolled upto 31.05.2013 is perfectly valid. Therefore, the said judgment was judgment-in-rem which has adjudicated upon the issue which has now become the law of land and consequently binding upon all the administrative authority as also upon this Court. 16. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the petitioner obtained the certificate prior to 31-5-2013 from the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana (Punjab), which was enveloped in such benefit with a cut off date, and, as such, the petitioner would be covered within the exception, which is carved out by the Supreme Court in extending the benefit of notification dated 6-12- 2012, which puts a barrier for the students who are enrolled prior to 31-5-2013. Thus, the petitioner, who obtained such certificate within cut off date from the institution which was recognised for limited purpose with a barrier of cut off date, was entitled to the benefit to consider him to be holder of recognised degree. The process of promotion took place in the year 2014, therefore, the petitioner could not have been deprived of the right having been created in his favour. In view of peculiar facts, it is directed that, though the petitioner promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2023, he would be entitled to all consequential benefits from 22-1-2014, the date on which the similarly situated persons were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).