The Punjab and Haryana high court, setting aside an order of the Haryana Police Housing Corporation (HPHC), said that a person can not be called an engineer with a degree obtained through distance mode.
The bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal issued the judgement while hearing a petition filed by Naresh Kumar and others, seeking to set aside the order dated November 18, 2019, whereby Vinod Rawal was promoted to the post of executive engineer (civil).
“It is difficult to accept that an engineering degree through distance mode of education would be at par with a course undertaken through physical mode. In the study of engineering, theoretical concepts are taught which are then put in practice through practical training. A person who has not physically attended the classes/course and has not undertaken practical training cannot be said to be an engineer. If we accept such degrees obtained through distance learning, the day is not far when there will be MBBS courses being conducted through distant modes of learning which would have disastrous consequences,” The Indian Express quoted Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal as saying.
Anurag Goyal, counsel of the Petitioners, argued that Vinod Rawal was promoted as executive engineer in violation of Section 6(a) (proviso) of Haryana Service of Engineers, Group-A, Public Works (Building and Roads) Department Act, 2010, wherein it is said that a person, who has obtained a degree of civil engineering through distance education mode will not be eligible for promotion.
Also Read | ICAI CA Inter Result 2022 declared, check out how to download scorecard
Vinod had obtained the degree in engineering through distance education from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, which is not recognised by UGC and AICTE, Goyal added.
However, Rawal's lawyer argued that his client had qualified in the AICTE examination which was conducted in pursuance to the directions of the Supreme Court in Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation versus Rabi Sankar Patro and others (2018) and therefore, his degree was valid.
Interestingly, Rawal had subsequently retired after promotion. Arguing further, counsel of Rawal said, since his client, in the course of these proceedings has now retired, so therefore, the benefits which had already been granted to him by way of promotion to the post of executive engineer (civil) should not be taken away at this stage.
Also Read | Jio Institute will prepare the next generation of global leaders: Nita Ambani
Justice Grewal – after perusing Sections 6 and 9 of the 2010 Act and citing judgments of the Supreme Court – held, “Respondent No. 3 (Rawal) is not qualified for entry into Group A service or promotion to the post of executive engineer as it has been specified in Section 6 of the 2010 Act that no degree obtained through distance learning would be acceptable for appointment to the Group A service. The 2010 Act is stated to be under challenge but it has not been set aside. There is no interim order staying the operation of the Act. The Act is in force as on date and Respondent No. 3 does not possess the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of executive engineer,” as quoted by the Indian Express.
