Telangana HC Upholds Termination of Auditor Appointed on Basis of Unrecognized Degree

Deepak Vashisht Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court)

Telangana High Court Upholds Termination of Auditor Appointed on Basis of Unrecognized Degree 

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an Auditor whose appointment was based on a degree obtained from an institution that lacked the requisite recognition during the relevant academic period. The Court held that absence of the prescribed educational qualification strikes at the root of eligibility and cannot be cured merely because the employee continued in service under an interim order.

Introduction

In Deepak Vashisht v. Union of India & Others, the petitioner challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench, which had upheld the termination of his services as an Auditor in the office of the Principal Accountant General, Telangana.

The central issue before the Court was whether a candidate appointed on the basis of a degree that was not recognized during the relevant period could continue in government service merely because he had worked for several years under interim judicial protection.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was appointed as an Auditor pursuant to a recruitment process conducted by the office of the Principal Accountant General.

During certificate verification:

• The petitioner relied upon a Bachelor of Arts degree obtained from the Institute of Advanced Studies in Education (IASE), Rajasthan.
• The authorities found that the institution did not possess the necessary recognition from the competent authorities during the academic session 2008–2011, when the petitioner pursued the course.
• The petitioner had himself requested a provisional appointment, undertaking that if verification revealed the qualification was not recognized, his services could be terminated.

Accordingly:

• A provisional appointment order was issued on 08.02.2016.
• The appointment order specifically provided that if the educational certificates were found not to be genuine or recognized, the services could be terminated without further notice.
• Subsequently, the petitioner’s services were terminated through Office Order No. 44 dated 01.06.2016.

The petitioner challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application on 03.07.2025, leading to the present writ petition.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner argued that:

• He had continued in service for several years due to interim protection granted by the Tribunal.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Viplav Sharma v. Union of India and subsequent decisions of the Rajasthan High Court contemplated remedial measures for students affected by recognition issues relating to institutions such as IASE.
• The University Grants Commission (UGC) should provide an opportunity to such students to regularize their qualifications through special examinations.
• Until such remedial measures were implemented, his employment ought to be protected.

Respondents’ Stand

The respondents contended that:

• The petitioner never possessed the prescribed recognized educational qualification for appointment to the post of Auditor.
• The appointment was expressly provisional and subject to verification of educational credentials.
• Continuance under an interim order does not confer any legal right to hold public employment.
• A person lacking the essential qualification cannot be permitted to continue in service contrary to recruitment rules.

Court’s Observations

The High Court observed that:

• The petitioner had expressly sought provisional appointment and accepted the condition that his services could be terminated if his qualification was found unrecognized.
• The issue related to the petitioner’s basic eligibility for appointment and not merely to a procedural defect.
• Continuance in service under interim judicial protection does not cure the fundamental defect of lacking the prescribed qualification.
• The decisions relied upon by the petitioner did not confer any enforceable right to continue in government employment despite absence of eligibility.

The Court emphasized that eligibility conditions for public employment cannot be diluted on equitable considerations.

Final Decision

The Telangana High Court:

• Upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
• Held that the petitioner lacked the essential recognized educational qualification required for appointment as Auditor.
• Ruled that continuation in service would be contrary to law.
• Declined to grant any equitable relief based on the petitioner’s long period of service under interim orders.
• Dismissed the writ petition.
• Passed no order as to costs.

Key Takeaways

1. Essential Qualification Is Mandatory

A candidate who lacks the prescribed recognized educational qualification cannot claim continuation in public service.

2. Interim Orders Do Not Create Permanent Rights

Service rendered under interim judicial protection does not validate an otherwise invalid appointment.

3. Provisional Appointments Remain Subject to Verification

Where appointment is expressly made subject to verification of qualifications, termination upon adverse verification is legally sustainable.

4. Equity Cannot Override Eligibility Requirements

Courts will not permit continuation in public employment solely on sympathetic grounds when the foundational eligibility criteria are not met.

Conclusion

In Deepak Vashisht v. Union of India, the Telangana High Court reaffirmed that possession of recognized educational qualifications is a fundamental requirement for public employment. Since the petitioner’s degree lacked the necessary recognition during the relevant period and his appointment was expressly provisional, the Court upheld his termination and dismissed the writ petition.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Mr. G.S.Prasen, learned counsel appears for petitioner.

Ms. T. Bala Jayasree, learned counsel appears for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. By the impugned order dated 03.07.2025, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short `the Tribunal’), has dismissed 0.A.No.p235/2016 filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition.

3. The challenge before the learned Tribunal was to the Office Order No.44 dated 01.06.2016 terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the qualification of Bachelor of Arts Degree obtained by him from the Institute of Advance Studies in Education, Deemed University, Rajasthan (IASE), for the academic session 2008-2011, was not recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The said University had provisional institutional recognition for the year 2007-08. But, thereafter, it did not have recognition during the period the petitioner undertook his studies. The petitioner had been appointed to the post of Auditor in the respondent Office of Principal Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, pursuant to a recruitment exercise vide offer of appointment dated 22.01.2016. During certificate verification, the petitioner had stated that the degree/diploma offered by IASE is recognized by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD) for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government. He enclosed a copy o f the reply under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development and requested for offer of appointment to him on provisional basis and to terminate him, if the verification revealed that the courses offered by IASE are not recognized by UGC. He was provisionally appointed on 08.02.2016 indicating in the terms and conditions of his appointment that if the authenticity of the certificates produced by the candidate upon verification from the certificate issuing authorities reveals that the certificates are not genuine/recognized, his services will be terminated without assigning any further reason and without prejudice to such further action as may be taken under the Indian Penal Code for production of false certificates. The learned Tribunal after considering the case of the parties came to the opinion that the essential educational qualification of the petitioner is not recognized for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference. The O.A. was accordingly dismissed.

4. In the present Writ Petition, on the previous date, a specific query was made on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of an interim order dated 07.05.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, his services continued. After the dismissal of 0.A., his services have not been terminated. The respondents were asked to bring on record the counter-affidavit filed before the Tribunal based on which., the learned Tribunal recorded at para 3 that the petitioner requested to offer appointment to him on provisional basis and terminate him if verification reveals that the courses offered by IASE are not recognized by UGC.

5. When the matter has been taken up today, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has referred to the memo filed by them which contains the letter dated 08.02.2016 submitted by the petitioner for seeking provisional appointment. She has also referred to the appointment order dated 08.02.2016. Para 7 thereof has also been referred to in the impugned order. It says that during verification, it reveals that the certificates are not genuine or not recognized, his services will be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reason.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue in the absence of the essential eligibility educational qualification though he may have continued in service by virtue of an interim order passed by the learned Tribunal till the dismissal of O.A. filed by the petitioner. On instructions, she submits that the petitioner’s services have not been terminated after dismissal of O.A.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in line with the directions issued by the Apex Court in Viplav Sharma Union of India’, a direction can be issued for holding of special exams for candidates who appeared through distance learning from IASE like the petitioner during the session 2008-11. It is submitted that since 2013 onwards, the courses offered by this institution have again been recognized. The petitioner may not be allowed to suffer for such reasons. He has also referred to the decisions of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, (LASE), v. Union of India and others² and Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University v, Union of India and others³. He submits that the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan has issued a slew of directions to remedy the mischief caused by these institutes by undertaking courser without recognition from the Ministry of Human Resource Development or UGC or IGNOU. UGC has been directed to promptly take steps to conduct fresh examinations for students whose degrees have been suspended following aforesaid directives within a year. The concerned institutes have been directed to refund the entire amount charged to students enrolled in new unapproved courses, off-campus study centers without prior approval, or distance education without approval. It also clarifies that until students pass the fresh examinations, any benefits obtained based on their diplomas and degrees shall also remain suspended. However, the employers were restrained from recovering monetary benefits or other advantages provided to candidates employed based on these diplomas and degrees. Upon their failure to pass examination to be conducted/organized by UGC, the consequences shall follow but no money recoveries even then be made by the employers. The institutes were directed to promptly close their off-campus study centers and cease offering courses through classroom or distance mode unless prior approval has been obtained.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therefore, till the time the UGC makes such provisions for taking exam of students who undertook studies of courses not recognized by UGC, the employment of the petitioner may be protected.

9. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 however has strongly opposed the submission by stating that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not passed any such direction in the decision rendered in Viptav Sharma (supra) for conduct of exams by such institutes and no such protection of employment be granted in favour of the petitioner who does not have the basic educational qualifications for the post of Auditor.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. From> the con3pectus of facts and materials as are available from the record referred to hereinabove, the question of continuance of the petitioner on the basis of his certificate of graduation obtained from IASE for the course undertaken between 2008-2011 goes to the root of the matter regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Auditor under the respondent Office of Principal Accountant General. The petitioner had been offered provisional appointment only on the basis of his undertaking that in case the certificate produced by him is not found to be recognized, he may be terminated. As such, continuance of the petitioner in the employment on the basis of interim direction of the learned Tribunal even for considerable period does not rectify the basic infirmity of eligibility which the petitioner suffers. As on date, the petitioner does not have eligibility educational qualification for appointment to the said post. Any continuance in employment under the respondent Office of Principal Accountant General would be contrary to law. .No equitable considerations can weigh in such circumstances. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

The instant Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

Notes:

¹ W.P. (Civil) No.142 of 2006

² S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5531 of 2015 dated 08.01.2024

³ D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.501/2024 and batch dated 30.05.2024