ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. versus DEPINDER SINGH DHESI AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 13-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
581
ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.
v.
DEPINDER SINGH DHESI AND ORS.
(Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 408-409 of 2019)
In
(Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017)
AUGUST 13, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – When not – Judgment dtd. 03.11.17
passed in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870/2017  and Clarificatory
Order dtd. 22.01.18 passed in miscellaneous applications arising
from the aforesaid Civil Appeals – Contempt Petitions filed by the
candidates (enrolled in academic sessions 2001-05 and attained
Degrees in Engineering  through Distance Education Mode)
presently posted as Junior Engineers in Public Health Engineering
Department, alleging that the respondents-contemnors violated the
aforesaid judgment and order– As per the petitioners, in terms of
the judgment they appeared in the test held by AICTE and qualified
in the first attempt, however, they were denied benefits arising from
their Degrees which became valid after clearing the examination –
It was also alleged that their representations for adding their higher
qualification, B.Tech (Civil) and due benefit for promotion at par
with junior candidates who obtained their B.Tech Degrees through
regular mode, were not considered– Held: Though the Degrees
obtained through Distance Education Mode were prima facie not in
accordance with law, the students enrolled in the academic sessions
2001-05 were given two chances to prove their worth and it was
directed that if they clear the test, they would continue to derive
advantages flowing from such Degrees– If the candidates could
clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even
be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits– Idea was,
candidates should not stand deprived of the status they were
enjoying on the day of the Judgment, provided the candidates prove
their worth– Directions did not confer any additional advantage
which was not even enjoyed as on the date– In the present case,
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 581
581
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
serious objection were raised by Department that the concerned
candidates enrolled in courses in Engineering through Distance
Education Mode without express permission of the Department and/
or the Department did not recognise Degrees awarded through said
mode or that the concerned candidates were not granted any study
leave to pursue such courses– If there was serious infirmity in the
Degrees obtained by the candidates, the matter ought to be sorted
out either through representation or through properly instituted
challenge in that behalf – Representations made claimed conferral
of certain status/benefits which they were not enjoying earlier –
Such entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other than
Contempt Petition –If the promotion was not granted and was not
being enjoyed as on the day when the judgment was passed, there
was no violation on part of the alleged Contemnors, of any direction
issued by Supreme Court – Cost of Rs.5000/- imposed on the
petitioners to be deposited in the concerned Department within four
weeks, failing which the Department to recover the same in
accordance with law – Guidelines/Norms/Directions – 2004
University Grants Commission Guidelines.
Dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Two kinds of students were before the Court
(i) those who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-
2005 and (ii) those who were enrolled after the academic sessions
2001-2005. It was noted in para 23.6 that UGC had issued “2004
UGC Guidelines” in terms of which concept of ex-post facto
approval in respect of deemed to be Universities which had started
courses in Distance Education without any approval from the
concerned authorities was introduced. In accordance with these
“2004 UGC Guidelines” some of the deemed to be Universities
applied for ex-post facto approval and were granted such approval,
as a result of which the students enrolled during academic
sessions 2001-2005 stood on a different footing as against those
who were enrolled after the academic sessions 2001-2005. Though
the Judgment did not approve of the entire exercise undertaken
by the concerned authorities, including the grant of ex-post facto
approvals, a concession was given to the students who were
enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005. Though the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
ASHOK KUMAR v. DEPINDER SINGH DHESI
Degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode were prima
facie not in accorda

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.