Ch.Sampath Kumar vs. The Transmission Corporation Of Telangana LTD And Another

Held

The Court held that the impugned proceedings, which amended the clause regarding the recognition of qualifications, were valid. The Court reasoned that the Supreme Court's clarificatory order explicitly stated that benefits not previously extended cannot be restored. In this case, the respondents had not recognized the petitioners' qualifications from IASE, Rajasthan, prior to them clearing the special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE. The Court noted that the petitioners' qualifications were only treated as valid after they cleared this examination. Therefore, the amendment to the rule was justified. The Court further observed that the petitioners' contention that they are entitled to benefits because they cleared the examination in the first attempt could not be accepted, as the respondents had never extended such advantages earlier, irrespective of the attempt. The Court distinguished a previous Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment, stating it did not address the retrospective or prospective validity of degrees. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed all the writ petitions.

Facts

The petitioners, employees of Telangana State electricity distribution and transmission companies, challenged proceedings issued by their employers. These proceedings amended a clause regarding the recognition of qualifications obtained from the Indian Academy of Science and Education (IASE), Rajasthan. The petitioners argued that their qualifications, obtained through a special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE, should be recognized retrospectively. The impugned proceedings, dated December 14, 2020, and consequential orders dated December 21, 2020, were challenged as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Supreme Court judgments. The core issue revolved around whether the recognition of their qualifications should be prospective or retrospective, particularly in light of prior Supreme Court pronouncements and a clarification order stating that benefits not extended earlier cannot be restored. The petitioners contended that their qualifications were treated as valid only after clearing the special examination, and therefore, the amendment was unjustified.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amendment to Clause-C of the impugned proceedings, dated December 14, 2020, issued by the 2nd Respondent, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017 and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the amendment was illegal and arbitrary, violating their fundamental rights under Article 14. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Orissa Lift Irrigation Ltd. Vs. Rabi Shankar Patro and others (2018(1) SCC 468) and a subsequent clarificatory order. They contended that since they cleared the special examination in the first attempt, they are entitled to the benefits. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents argued that the Supreme Court's clarificatory order held that benefits not extended earlier cannot be restored. They stated that no benefits were extended to the petitioners prior to their clearing the UGC/AICTE special examination. The respondents also argued that a previous judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 16319 of 2011 did not consider the retrospective or prospective validity of degrees and therefore could not rescue the petitioners. They asserted that the qualifications should be treated as valid only with prospective effect.