TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/2006. 2. The writ petitioner was the applicant in O.A. No. 1960/2004. He moved the Tribunal against an order dated 04.08.2004 by which the respondent no. 3 herein had been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar in the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, "CESTAT") and sought a direction for a review Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter, "DPC"). It is undisputed that the petitioner and respondent no. 3 were both Court Masters in CESTAT and respondent no. 3 was the senior of the two. However, the petitioner's principal contention was that respondent no. 3 did not possess the qualification for appointment as Assistant Registrar in CESTAT, inasmuch as he did not have a degree in law of a recogni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent no. 3 had been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar on regular basis on 22.06.2006 and ordered as follows:- "We, therefore, modify our order dated 13.10.2006 in the circumstances before us to direct that the respondent may continue in its present posting pending decision of the writ petition and the same shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition." 5. Mr. Prashant Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the status of degrees obtained by correspondence from Annamalai University has since been settled conclusively by the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Others (2009) 4 SCC 590, wherein it has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that High Court. 7. Learned Counsel for both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 were in agreement on the occurrence of some subsequent developments which may bear significance in respect of the relief that can be granted in this petition. They submitted that the petitioner has also been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar in 2007, one year after the respondent no. 3 was promoted. Further, respondent no. 3 has also, in the meantime, obtained an LL.B. degree in the year 2015 which now places his qualification beyond controversy. Both of them are presently serving as Assistant Registrars and will be eligible for promotion as Deputy Registrars, for which five years' service as Assistant Registrar is required. They also submitted, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtificates/degrees issued by them are automatically recognised for the purposes of employment/promotion in Central Government. As such BGD degree issued from that University is also recognised aiblt its being not recognised as a professional degree." 10. Significantly, the said communication dated 07.08.1998 does not advert to the requirement of any approval of DEC although this condition had been expressly incorporated in the relevant notification of the Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 01.03.1995, which is extracted below : "No. 44, F. No. 18-15/93-TD.V/TS.IV.- On the recommendation of the Board of Assessment for Educational Qualifications, the Government of India has decided that all the qualifications awarded thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n terms of the provisions of one Act, an authority under another Act could not have validated the same and that too with a retrospective effect." 12. In our view, this settles the issue against respondent no. 3. The emphasis placed by Mr. Sunil on the word "ordinarily" is misplaced as respondent no. 3 has not been able to show any special dispensation applicable to the present case, or any circumstance which would warrant a departure from the ordinary consequence indicated by the Supreme Court. In view of the Supreme Court's judgment, rendered long after the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.S.R.N. Sarma (supra), the said decision also cannot justify the stand taken on behalf of respondent no. 3. For the same reason, the....