CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that seniority or promotions cannot be claimed by staff of state transport corporations (STCs) if their higher educational degrees are not duly recognised or approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) during the relevant period.
The court set aside and dismissed the writ petitions filed by certain employees of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Limited, while allowing the review applications filed by the corporation.
The order was passed on review applications seeking a review of a division bench order dated June 25, 2025, dismissing the appeals against a single judge’s order dated March 26, 2024 on the writ petitions filed by the staff.
The single judge had ordered the corporation to include the names. The corporation’s appeals against the order were dismissed by a division bench, following which it filed review applications.
Additional Advocate General P Kumaresan, appearing for the corporation, submitted that recognition/approval of AICTE is mandatory for technical courses. However, in this case, the B.E. degrees obtained by the staff had not been approved by AICTE during the academic years in which they completed the course.
He said the division bench, while dismissing the appeals, had not considered relevant parts of the Supreme Court judgment in the Orissa case regarding due approval of the courses.
Referring to a communication from Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Mahavidyalaya, Kancheepuram, which stated that the institution did not have AICTE approval from the academic year 2002 to 2017, the bench noted that the staff had completed their B.E (Mechanical Engineering) degrees during this period.
Citing certain portions of the SC judgment in the Orissa case, the bench held that engineering degrees obtained during the said period cannot be construed as valid degrees, since the university had not obtained approval for the course at the time.
It said that neither the single judge nor the division bench, which dismissed the appeal, had considered the relevant parts of the Orissa case judgment and so, such error is construed as ‘an error apparent’ warranting the exercise of review powers.