High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2022-10-19Dismissed

Ali Mubarak B.B. v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and others

Case / Petition Number:OP(CAT) No. 167 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Mohammed Nias C.P.
Judgment Date: 2022-10-19
Court Decision / Holding: OP(CAT) No. 167 of 2019 dismissed; the High Court upheld the CAT order and refused to interfere, holding that the 4th respondent’s PG degree was recognised during the relevant period and that the Lakshadweep Administration’s appointment is valid.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ali Mubarak B.B.

Respondents

Union Territory of Lakshadweep represented by its Administrator, Lakshadweep Administration
The Secretary, Department of Education, Lakshadweep Administration, Government of India
Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Lakshadweep Administration, Government of India
Asif Shah Mashood E.P.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Nirmal V Nair
• Rahul S. Nath

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Lal K. Joseph
• Sri A. A. Ziyad Rahman
• Sri V. S. Shiraz Bava
• Sri Anzil Salim N.P. Shiga
• Sri V Sajith Kumar
• Sri S. Manu

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner Ali Mubarak B.B. approached the High Court of Kerala challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Ernakulam Bench) dismissing his original application O.A.899 of 2017 filed before the CAT. The underlying dispute concerns the recruitment process for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (English) in the Lakshadweep Administration. The 4th respondent was selected for the post despite the petitioner's contention that the 4th respondent did not satisfy the advertised qualifications, arguing that the 4th respondent’s Post Graduate English degree was obtained through Open and Distance Learning (ODL) from Annamalai University in 2010 and should be treated as not valid under the recruitment rules, in light of Supreme Court decisions like Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420 and Kurumanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma v. Chancellor, Rohilkhand University (2007 KHC 3640). The CAT dismissed the original application, holding the 4th respondent’s degree to be recognised within the recruitment framework. On review, the High Court noted that the UGC, by public notices after 2015, had derecognised certain ODL programs, but recognised the Annamalai University’s degree until 2014-2015; thus the degree was recognised at the relevant time. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the OP(CAT), affirming the CAT’s order and refusing to interfere in the appointment.

Provisions of Law Cited

State University ActUGC ActUGC notifications/public noticesDistance Education Council guidelinesUGC recognition policy

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that the 4th respondent’s Post Graduate Degree in English obtained through Open and Distance Learning from Annamalai University (2010) does not satisfy the eligibility criteria under the advertisement and recruitment rules, in light of the Supreme Court decisions in Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Kurumanchal Institute v. Chancellor, Rohilkhand University, which cast doubt on the validity of off-campus/ODL degrees and the state’s competence to permit such centers. He submits that the UGC’s post-2014-15 derecognition of certain ODL degrees reinforces the argument that the degree cannot be treated as a recognised qualification for appointment. He urges the CAT order to be set aside and the candidate not to be appointed on this basis.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the degree held by the 4th respondent was recognised during the relevant period under recruitment rules, with UGC having recognised Annamalai University’s ODL program until 2014-15 (as per public notices). They contend that the decision of the CAT correctly treated the degree as a recognised qualification at the relevant time, and that post-2015 derecognition concerns only degrees awarded after 2014-15; thus no interference with the Tribunal’s order is warranted.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh	(2005) 5 SCC 420	Mentioned Only	Cited by the petitioner to argue that off-campus centers outside the state are beyond legislative competence; the court acknowledges the position but relies on UGC recognition to determine validity of the degree.
Kurumanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma and others v. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University and others	(2007) KHC 3640	Mentioned Only	Cited as supporting a similar view about study centers under state enactments; not treated as controlling in this case because UGC recognition governs degree validity in the relevant period.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Ali Mubarak B.B. v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. WEDNESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944 OP (CAT) NO. 167 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/IN OA 899/2017 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE** **TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/APPELLANT:** ALI MUBARAK B.B, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER T.P., RESEARCH SCHOLAR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, HAVING PRESENT RESIDING AT BIYATHABIYODA HOUSE, AGATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADVS. NIRMAL V NAIR RAHUL S.NATH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION, KAVARATTI ISLAND-682555. 2 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KAVARATTI ISLAND-682555. 3 DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KAVARATTI ISLAND-682555. OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 2 4 ASIF SHAH MASHOOD E.P., EKKARAPALLI HOUSE, KAVARATTI -682555. BY ADVS. STANDING COUNSEL (B/O) SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.ANZIL SALIM N.P.SHIGA SRI. V SAJITH KUMAR, SC (R1, R2). SRI.S.MANU, DSGI THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 3 **A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ …................................................... OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 ….............................................................. Dated this the 19[th] day of October, 2022.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The applicant in O.A.No.899 of 2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, is the petitioner herein aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2019 in the said O.A. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the OP(CAT) are as follows:- The petitioner and the 4[th] respondent had both applied for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (English) by responding to Annexure A2 notice dated 4.7.2016 published by the Lakshadweep Administration (Directorate of Education). In the selection process that ensued the 4[th] respondent was found qualified in all respects for the post in question and was offered the appointment. The petitioner therefore approached the Tribunal through the original application OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 4 aforementioned contending that the 4[th] respondent did not satisfy the educational qualifications that were required for the post as advertised in the notice dated 4.7.2016. The contention essentially was that while the qualifications stipulated for the post was a Post Graduate Degree with atleast 50% marks or its equivalent in the concerned subject as main subject from a recognised university and a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) in the same subject from National Council for Teacher Education recognised Institution, the 4[th] responent had obtained his post graduate degree in English through an Open and Distance Learning Programme conducted by the Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu, and he had pursued the course from Calicut in Kerala. According to the petitioner the said fact effectively disqualified the 4[th] respondent from being considered for the post in question since the Supreme Court had as early as in 2005, through the decision in **Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh** [(2005) 5 SCC 420], interpreted the provisions of the State University Act concerned and found that the provisions therein that enabled the university to have an off campus centre outside the particular State was clearly beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature. It is pointed out that acting on the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the UGC had taken steps to de-recognise the degrees awarded by the various universities pursuant to the Open and Distance Learning Programme and in that view of the matter the qualifications obtained by the 4[th] respondent could not be seen as valid and as awarded by a recognised University. He also refers to the OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 5 decision of the Supreme Court in **Kurumanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma and others v. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University and others** (2007 KHC 3640), where a similar view was taken with regard to the study centres set up by the University under the State Enactment. 3. The Tribunal that considered the original application did not accept the contention of the applicant before it and dismissed the original application by finding _inter alia_ , that the post graduate degree obtained by the 4[th] respondent from Annamalai University under the Distance mode of education was an approved degree which came under the definition of degree by a recognised university as required under the recruitment rules. 4. Before us, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is essentially that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred above, and the fact that the UGC had itself through subsequent notifications issued after 2015 not recognised the programmes offered through the Open and Distance Learning Mode, the qualifications obtained by the 4[th] respondent could not have been accepted by the Lakshadweep Administration for the purposes of offering him an appointment to the post notified. 5. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent that the UGC itself had recognised the OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 6 degrees awarded under the Open and Distance and Leaning programme till the academic year 2014-2015 and this fact was corroborated through a public notice dated 25.3.2022 issued by the University Grants Commission itself. The contention therefore is that even assuming that the UGC had acted pursuant to the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above and issued directions derecognising the degrees awarded under the Open and Distance Learning programme, the same would only adversely affect those degrees that were awarded after 2014-2015 and not the degrees awarded prior to that date. The degree awarded to the 4[th] respondent having been awarded in 2010 [Ext.R4(c)], it is his submission that the disqualification as alleged by the petitioner did not really exist. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and we find ourselves unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court referred above. While it may be a fact that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner deal with the illegalities/irregularities in universities established under State Enactment, setting up off campus sites outside the territorial limits of the States in question, when it comes to de-recognition of a degree that is already awarded, that is a matter that falls within the exclusive domain of the UGC which is the regulating authority in such matters. From the public notice dated 25.3.2022 that is produced before us by the learned standing counsel appearing for the OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 7 Lakshadweep Administration, we find that the UGC had recognised the Annamalai University in relation to its Open and Distance Learning Programme till the academic year 2014-2015 but had chosen not to recognise the degrees awarded under that Programme in future years. This being the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal that finds that the Post Graduate Degree obtained by the 4[th] respondent was one that was recognised during the relevant point in time. We therefore, find no merit in the OP(CAT) and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ## **A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE** Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE** dlk/19.10.22 OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 167/2019** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.899 OF 2017 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. EXHIBIT P1(A1) A TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST ISSUED AS PER PROCEEDINGS NO.F.NO.18/3/2016EDN/ESTT DATED 27.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A2) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.F.NO.18/3/2016-EDN/ESTT(1) DATED 04.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A3) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTICE NO.F.NO.18/2016-EDN/ESTT/701 DATED 18.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A4) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.F.NO.18/3/2016-EDN/ESTT DATED 23.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A5) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.F.NO.18/3/2017-DEN/ESTT DATED 12.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A6) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.F.NO.18/03/2016-EDN/ESTT/753 DATED 27.10.17 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1(A7) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS VIDES OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.F.BO.6/03/2017EDN/ESTT/(2)/513 DATED 30.06.2017 ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. EXHIBIT P1(A8) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE OF TAMIL NADU CIRCULATED AS PER G.O.(MS) NO.170, HIGHER EDUCATION (H1) DATED 25.09.2013. EXHIBIT P1(A9) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.NO.UGC/DEB/QMC/2013 DATED 09.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE UNION GRANTS OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 9 COMMISSION. ||COMMISSION.| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1(A10)|A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.F.27-1/2012| ||(CPP-II) DATED 27.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE| ||UNION GRANTS COMMISSION.| |EXHIBIT P1(A11)|A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE| ||NO.DEB/UGC/WEBSITE/2013 DATED 30.10.2014| ||ISSUED BY THE UNION GRANTS COMMISSION.| |EXHIBIT P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS| ||APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.| |EXHIBIT P2(A12)|A TRUE COPY OF THE STUDENT BIODATA| ||RELEASED BY THE ERNAKULAM CENTER,| ||ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY.| |EXHIBIT P2(A13)|A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.F.9-| ||8/2008 (CPP-I) DATED 16.04.2009 ISSUED| ||BY THE UGC.| |EXHIBIT P2(A14)|A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.F.27-| ||1/2012(CPP-II) DATED 27.06.2013 ISSUED| ||BY THE UGC.| |EXHIBIT P2(A15)|A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE| ||CIRCULAR F.NO.12-13/2016 (DEB-III) DATED| ||08.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE UGC.| |EXHIBIT P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED| ||22.05.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS| ||1-3.| |EXHIBIT P3(R1(A))|TRUE COPY OF THE OM DATED 26.12.2017| ||ALONG WITH THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF| ||THE CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE.| |EXHIBIT P3 (R1(B))|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING| ||OF CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE| ||WHICH WAS HELD IN THE CHAMBER OF| ||EDUCATION OFFICER ON 30.01.2018.| |EXHIBIT P3(R1(C))|TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION| ||NO.6-1/2013 DATED 10.06.2015 PUBLISHED| ||IN GAZETTE DATED 25.07.2015.| |EXHIBIT P3(R1(D))|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.12-4/2016| ||(DEB-III) DATED 27.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE| ||UGC.| OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 10 |EXHIBIT P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED| |---|---| ||BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P4 (R4(A))|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING| ||F.NO.18/3/2016-EDN/ESTT/1194 DATED| ||25.11.2016.| |EXHIBIT P4 (R4(B))|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED| ||01.03.1995 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF| ||HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT.| |EXHIBIT P4(R4(C))|TRUE COPY OF THE POST GRADUATE DEGREE| ||CERTIFICATE MA(ENGLISH) ISSUED BY THE| ||ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH| ||RESPONDENT BASED ON THE EXAMINATION HELD| ||IN DECEMBER 2010.| |EXHIBIT P4(R4(D))|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED| ||15.02.2007 EVIDENCING THE POSTGRADUATE| ||DEGREE OBTAINED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT| ||FROM ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, IS APPROVED| ||BY THE DISTANCE EDUCATION COUNCIL ALONG| ||WITH THE LIST OF THE COURSES CONDUCTED| ||BY THE ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY WHICH ARE| ||RECOGNIZED.| |EXHIBIT P4(R4(E))|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING| ||F.NO.1-4/2013(CPP-II) DATED 17.06.2013.| |EXHIBIT P4(RE(F))|TRUE COPY OF THE RECOGNITION POLICY| ||DATED 23.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE DISTANCE| ||EDUCATION COUNCIL.| |EXHIBIT P4(R4(G))|TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED| ||08.11.2007 BY WHICH THE NECESSARY| ||DOCUMENTS WERE FORWARDED TO THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P4(R4(H))|TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE| ||DATED 15.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL| ||BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, DELHI.| |EXHIBIT P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT| ||FILED IN REPLY TO THE REPLY STATEMENT OF| ||RESPONDENTS 1-3.| |EXHIBIT P5 (A16)|A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE| ||VERIFICATION COMMITTEE HELD ON 15TH,| ||19TH AND 20TH OF DECEMBER OF 2017.| OP((CAT)No.167 of 2019 ||11| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT| ||FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT| ||P4.| |EXHIBIT P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY| ||STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1-3.| |EXHIBIT P7(R1(E))|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING| ||OF THE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE FOR THE| ||POST OF POST GRADUATE TEACHERS HELD| ||UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF SECRETARY| ||(EDUCATION) ON 27.10.2017 AT 10.30 AM.| |EXHIBIT P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL| ||DATED 29.06.2019 IN O.A.NO.899 OF 2017.|