Shaik Apsar Bhasha vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the impugned proceedings, which amended the clause regarding the recognition of qualifications, are valid. The Court reasoned that the Supreme Court, in its clarificatory order, held that benefits not extended earlier cannot be restored. In this case, no benefits were extended to the petitioners before they cleared the UGC/AICTE special examination. The respondents had not recognized the petitioners' qualifications from IASE, Rajasthan, until they passed the special examination. Therefore, the amendment clarifying that the qualification would be treated as valid only prospectively, after clearing the examination, was deemed correct. The Court also noted that the Andhra Pradesh High Court's prior judgment did not address the retrospective or prospective validity of such qualifications. 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 power distribution companies, challenged proceedings that amended a clause concerning the recognition of their qualifications. These qualifications were obtained from the Indian Academy of Sciences and Engineering (IASE), Rajasthan. The petitioners argued that these proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to a Supreme Court judgment. The impugned proceedings, dated December 14, 2020, issued by the Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited (TSTRANSCO), and consequential orders dated December 21, 2020, issued by Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL), amended a clause regarding the validity of qualifications. The petitioners had previously been informed that their qualifications were not recognized until they cleared a special examination conducted by UGC/AICTE. The amendment aimed to clarify that benefits would not be extended retrospectively if not granted earlier.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amendment to Clause-C of the impugned proceedings, which altered the recognition of qualifications obtained from IASE, Rajasthan, is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the impugned proceedings were illegal and arbitrary, violating the Supreme Court's judgment. They contended that the Supreme Court's decision in Orissa Lift Irrigation Ltd. Vs. Rabi Shankar Patro and others (2018(1) SCC 468) should be implemented. They also argued that if they cleared the examination in the first attempt, they are entitled to the benefits. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents argued that the Supreme Court, in a clarificatory order, held that benefits not extended earlier cannot be restored. They stated that no benefits were extended to the petitioners prior to them clearing the UGC/AICTE special examination. The respondents further contended that the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in a similar case did not consider the retrospective or prospective effect of treating degrees as valid. They asserted that once petitioners cleared the special examination, their qualification should be treated as valid only prospectively.