HC validates part-time B.Tech degrees of Murthal university, holds them equivalent to regular courses for promotions

In a significant judgment impacting the career progression of in-service engineers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the validity of part-time B.Tech (Civil Engineering) degrees awarded by Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal, ruling them equivalent to regular courses for promotional purposes.

Setting aside a 2022 single Bench decision that had declared the degrees invalid, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice HS Grewal ruled that the courses in question — initially offered as weekend programmes and later renamed as part-time evening courses —could not be equated with distance education and must be treated as regular programmes.

"We find the documents which are on record only lead us to one single conclusion that all the courses being run by the university have to be treated as regular courses," the Bench categorically asserted. “The three-year course and the four-year part-time evening course have to be treated as equivalent for all purposes as understood by the university itself.”

The matter had reached the High Court after a bunch of Letters Patent Appeals were filed by the university and the affected Junior Engineers whose degrees had been invalidated by the single judge’s judgment dated December 21, 2022. These JEs, appointed as diploma holders, had enrolled in the B.Tech programme while in service, after securing departmental permission. The course was initially launched in 2011 as a weekend programme for working professionals and was later rebranded in 2013 as a part-time B. Tech programme. It required passing an entrance test and attending physical classes on campus for two days a week. The appellants were represented, among others, by senior advocate DS Patwalia.

The appellants contended that the curriculum and faculty were the same as those for the regular course, and that the only difference lay in the duration — four years instead of three — owing to the limited weekly contact hours. The course was duly approved by the university's academic and executive councils and the state government had allowed its employees to pursue the degree in evening hours after duty. The degrees had also been recorded in the service books of the appellants.

The Division Bench took note of an AICTE public notification dated August 13, 2020, which clarified that technical programmes conducted in weekend/part-time or evening shift modes with physical attendance and adherence to prescribed curriculum are to be treated as regular courses. In view of the facts, the Bench held: “Those who have already passed such type of courses would be seen to have done a regular course.”

The Court further appreciated the state government’s progressive approach in permitting its employees to enhance their technical education, terming it a step in the right direction for capacity-building. It added that since the degrees were recognised by the State, recorded in service books, and met all physical and academic parameters, the appellants were entitled to be considered for promotion based on the qualification.

The Court concluded by setting aside the single judge’s judgment, allowing the appeals, and directing that the appellants be considered for promotion from the date juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits. Compliance was ordered within two months.