'Court Should Not Judge Standard Of Degrees': Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds State Varsity's Part-Time B.Tech Degree

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the validity of part-time B.Tech (Civil Engineering) degrees awarded by Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal, declaring them equivalent to regular courses for promotional purposes.

Referring to Supreme Court's decision in Dr.B. L. Asawa vs State of Rajasthan and others (1982) a division bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice H.S. Grewal in its order observed, "once a degree is awarded by a duly recognized institution, the question of its recognition or equivalence is primarily for the employer to determine and unless specifically declared invalid by a competent authority such a degree must be treated as valid for all service matters. It was further held that the Courts should not sit in judgment over the standards or quality of degree awarded by a university unless there is an allegation of gross regularities."

Speaking for the bench Justice Sharma noted that, B.Tech (Civil Engineering) weekend/ part-time being run by the University was duly approved by its academic and executive councils. The representative of Technical Education Department of the State Government had also participated.

The bench pointed that the programme required physical attendance, full curricula as equivalent to a three year course and the faculty members are of the University. It is a residential course being run in the university itself and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a distance education programme.

It said that the State Government recognized the courses and allowed its employees to join the course in the evening classes after they performed the duties with the State Government. 

The Court appreciated the State Government's approach to allow its employees to improve their technical knowhow and education.

These observations were made while hearing the batch of intra court appeal challenging the decision of single judge that had declared the degrees invalid.

The petitioners were mainly Junior Engineers (JE) whose degrees had been invalidated by the single judge's judgment in 2022. These JEs, appointed as diploma holders, had enrolled in the B.Tech programme while in service, after securing departmental permission. The course was initially launched in 2011 as a weekend programme for working professionals and was later rebranded in 2013 as a part-time B. Tech programme. It required passing an entrance test and attending physical classes on campus for two days a week. 

The Division Bench opined that the courses in question— initially offered as weekend programmes and later renamed as part-time evening courses —could not be equated with distance education and must be treated as regular programmes.

"We find the documents which are on record only lead us to one single conclusion that all the courses being run by the university have to be treated as regular courses," the Bench categorically asserted. “The three-year course and the four-year part-time evening course have to be treated as equivalent for all purposes as understood by the university itself.”

The bench also took note of the an AICTE public 2020 notification , which clarified that technical programmes conducted in weekend/part-time or evening shift modes with physical attendance and adherence to prescribed curriculum are to be treated as regular courses. I

Hence, the bench opined that “Those who have already passed such type of courses would be seen to have done a regular course.”

Referring to Bharathidasan University and another vs All India Council for Technical Education and others [2001 (8) SCC 676]  the Court found that after examining the AICTE Act provisions whereof have been noticed by us the Supreme Court held that the University does not require to seek prior approval for commencing technical courses as Section 2(h) of the Act defining 'technical institution' excludes a university.

"The university being a State university, however, does not require such approval. We find that 4 years degree has parity with regular 3 years degree as the contents of the course and the faculty members imparting education and infrastructure and the time provided for teaching make them equal in all respects," the bench said.

In the light of the above, the Court set aside the Single judge's order and clarified that "appellants shall be considered as duly qualified as per their seniority for promotion from the date the persons junior to them have been granted with all consequential benefits."

Case Title: Virender Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others [with connected matters]

 Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate, for the appellant(s) in LPA-146-2023.

Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate, for the appellant(s) in LPA-128-2023.

Mr. Jagbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant(s) in LPAs-215 to 217, 223 to 226, 228 and 229 of 2023 and for respondent No.4 in LPAs-128 and 146 of 2023.

Mr. Pankaj Middha, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Gurminder Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jatinder Singh Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.5 in LPA-146-2023.

Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate

Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate, and Ms. Nancy Antwal, Advocate for respondents No.9 to 13 in LPA-128-2023.

Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.9 in LPA-216-2023.

Mr. Inder Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate, for the respondents-AICTE.

Mr. R.P. Dangi, Advocate and Mr. Sagar Dangi, Advocate for respondents No. 9 to 13 in LPA-128-2023,

Mr. S.P. Lather, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Saroha, Advocate, for respondent No.8 in LPA- 128-2023 and for respondents No.2 and 3 in LPA-225-2023.

Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate and Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in LPA-217-2023.

Click here to read/download the order