HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER Review Application Nos.98 and 100 of 2026 and C.M.P.Nos.9860 and 9865 of 2026 Review Application No.98 of 2026 1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Rep. By Managing Director 3/137, Salamedu Valudhareddy Post
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER
Review Application Nos.98 and 100 of 2026
and
C.M.P.Nos.9860 and 9865 of 2026
Review Application No.98 of 2026
1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Rep. By Managing Director
3/137, Salamedu
Valudhareddy Post
Villupuram – 605 602.
2. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) ltd.,
Rep. By the Senior Deputy Manager (HRD)
3/137, Salamedu
Valudhareddy Post
Villupuram – 605 602.
3. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Rep. By the General Manager
Thiruvannamalai Regional Office
Thiruvannamalai – 606 601. … Applicants
vs.
M.Ismail Sharief
(T.S.11456)
S/o.Mohamed Hussain … Respondent
Review Application filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent and Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114 of CPC, praying to review the order passed in W.A.No.1851 of 2025 dated 25.06.2025 and set aside the order passed in W.P.No.8369 of 2024 dated 26.03.2024 and allow this review application.
Review Application No.100 of 2026
1. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Rep. By Managing Director
3/137, Salamedu
Valudhareddy Post
Villupuram – 605 602.
2. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) ltd.,
Rep. By the Senior Deputy Manager (HRD)
3/137, Salamedu
Valudhareddy Post
Villupuram – 605 602.
3. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd.,
Rep. By the General Manager
Kancheepuram Regional Office
Ponnerikkarai, Karapettai
Chennai-Bangaluru Highway
Kancheepuram – 631 552. … Applicants
vs.
1. K.Muthusamy
S/o.Kandavel
2. V.Jegannathan
S/o.Varadharajulu … Respondents
Review Application filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent and Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114 of CPC, praying to review the order passed in W.A.No.893 of 2025 dated 25.06.2025 and set aside the order passed in W.P.No.6547 of 2023 dated 13.03.2024 and allow this review application.
For Applicants in both applications : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.T.Chandrasekaran
For Respondents in both applications : Mr.N.Ishak
*****
C O M M O N O R D E R
[Made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,]
The present review applications have been instituted seeking review of a common order of this Court dated 25.06.2025 passed in W.A.Nos.893 and 8851 of 2025.
2. The respondents herein filed writ petitions seeking to direct the review applicants / Transport Corporation to include their names in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers with degree qualification at the appropriate place, taking into consideration their B.E. degree certificates in compliance with the guidelines of the AICTE. Since the writ Court disposed of the writ petitions, directing the review applicants / Transport Corporation to include the names of the respondents herein in the seniority list of Assistant Engineers with B.E. degree qualification in the appropriate place, the review applicants / Transport Corporation filed intra-Court appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. This Court dismissed the writ appeals relying on paragraph Nos.25 and 26 of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd., Vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others reported in (2018) 1 SCC 468.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the review applicants would mainly contend that paragraph Nos.25 and 26 of Orissa judgment cited supra alone has been referred to for dismissing the writ appeals. However, the relevant paragraphs applicable to the issues raised in the lis have not been considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench while dismissing the writ appeals and thus, the Transport Corporation has chosen to file the present review applications.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General drew the attention of this Court with reference to paragraph Nos.27.7, 59, 66.1 and 66.7 of Orissa judgment. Referring to these paragraphs, he would contend that recognition / approval of AICTE for technical courses is mandatory and in the present case, the B.E. degrees obtained by the respondents admittedly had not been approved by AICTE during the academic years in which they have underwent and completed the degree. Thus, an unrecognised engineering degree cannot be construed as a valid decree in the eye of law, in view of paragraph Nos.59, 66.1 and 66.7 of Orissa case cited supra.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents strenuously opposed by stating that this Court has considered paragraph Nos.25 and 26 of Orissa case, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to the case of Bharathidasan University Vs. AICTE reported in (2001) 8 SCC 676. As per the said judgment, no such recognition for technical courses is required for deemed Universities. In the present case, the respondents completed their engineering degree from Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Mahavidyalaya, Kanchipuram, which is a deemed University, during the year 2013 and there was no requirement of recognition / approval by AICTE at that point of time. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated that no approval / recognition is required to be obtained as far as deemed Universities are concerned and therefore, the present review applications are to be rejected. The learned counsel would further submit that a similarly placed person has been given promotion based on a similar engineering degree obtained from the very same University and therefore, the case of the respondents is to be considered.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis.
7. To entertain a review application, this Court has to examine, whether there is any error apparent. To consider the ground relating to error apparent, the applicants would state that though the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Orissa was referred to, the relevant portions of the judgement were not considered and only paragraph Nos.25 and 26, which are not directly connected with the issues raised in the present case, were relied upon.
8. Thus, this Court has to examine the relevant paragraphs of the judgement applicable to the facts of the present case. Before adverting to the judgment, the review applicants – Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, addressed a letter to the University namely, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Mahavidyalaya, Kanchipuram, and the University sent a reply to the review applicants vide letter dated 05.06.2024. The said letter indicates that the said University had obtained approval of AICTE for conducting B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) from the year 1999, and the approval was duly obtained / renewed every year till 2001.
9. In conclusion, the University stated that the approval of AICTE for part-time and full-time B.E courses conducted by the University was mandatory only from the academic year 2018-2019. Therefore, the engineering degrees granted after 2001 are valid degrees. However, the said University, admitted the fact that it had not obtained any approval / recognition from AICTE to conduct B.E.(Mechanical) engineering course from the academic year 2002 onwards till 2017. Admittedly, the respondents studied the course between the academic years 2011, 2013 and 2015. They had completed the engineering degree after the academic year 2001 and before 2017, during which period the University had not obtained approval from AICTE for B.E (Mechanical) course.
10. Therefore, in the context of the fact that the respondents completed B.E. Mechanical engineering course during the period for which no recognition / approval was obtained by the University, the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Orissa case has to be looked into. For the purpose of understanding, it would be relevant to extract the paragraphs applicable to the present case i.e., paragraph Nos.27.7, 59, 66.1 and 66.7 which read as under:
“27.7. On 28.11.2005, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) Grant of Approval for starting new technical institutions, introduction of courses or programmes and increase/variation of intake capacity of seats for the courses or programmes and extension of approval for the existing technical institutions and maintenance of norms and standards in Universities including deemed to be Universities Regulations, 2005 (“2005 AICTE Regulations”, for short) were issued. Para 2.5 of the Regulations dealing with grant of approval was to the following effect:-
“2.5 Requirement of grant of approval – (1) No new technical institution of Government, Government Aided or Private (self financing) institution, whether affiliated or not affiliated to any University shall be started and no new courses or programmes shall be introduced and no increase and/or variation of intake in the existing courses/programmes shall be effected at all levels in the field of “technical education” without obtaining prior approval of the Council. The Council may take legal action against such defaulting Institution/Society/Company/Associated Individuals as the case may be for contravening provisions of these regulations by conducting courses/programmes in “technical education” without obtaining prior approval from AICTE.
(2) No existing technical institution of Government, Government aided or orivate (self financing) institution whether affiliated or not affiliated to an University shall conduct any technical course/programme without prior approval of the Council.
(3) No University including deemed University shall conduct technical courses/programmes without ensuring maintenance of the norms and standards prescribed by AICTE.
(4) No University, Board or any other body shall affiliate technical courses/programmes not approved by AICTE.
(5) No admission authority/body/institution shall admit students to a course/programme of technical education not approved by AICTE.”
59. As regards the students who were admitted after the ex post facto approval granted in favour of such deemed to be Universities, in our view, there was no sanction whatsoever for their admission. The policy statements as well as warnings issued from time to time were absolutely clear. The students were admitted on the strength either of provisional recognition or on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Court. We therefore, declare that in respect of students admitted after the academic sessions of 2001-2005, the degrees in Engineering awarded by the deemed to be Universities concerned through distance education mode shall stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. Any benefit which a candidate has secured as a result of such degrees in Engineering in the nature of promotion or advancement in career shall also stand recalled. However, if any monetary benefit was derived by such candidates that monetary benefit or advantage will not be recovered by the departments or employers concerned. We, further direct that the entire amount paid by such students to the deemed to be Universities concerned towards tuition fee and all other expenditure for such courses through distance education learning shall be returned by the deemed to be Universities concerned to the respective students. This direction shall be complied with by the deemed to be Universities concerned scrupulously and the amounts shall be returned by 31.05.2018 and an appropriate affidavit to that extent shall be filed with UGC within a week thereafter.
66. Accordingly we direct:
66.1 The 1994 AICTE Regulations, do apply to deemed to be Universities and the deemed to be Universities in the present matter were not justified in introducing any new courses in technical education without the approval of AICTE.
66.2 ……………………….
66.3 ……………………….
66.4 ……………………….
66.5 ……………………….
66.6 ……………………….
66.7. As regards students who were admitted after the academic sessions 2001-2005, their degrees in Engineering awarded by the deemed to be Universities concerned through distance education mode stand recalled and be treated as cancelled. All benefits secured by such candidates shall stand withdrawn as indicated in Para 59 above. However, the entire amount paid by such students to the deemed to be Universities concerned towards tuition fees and other expenditure shall be returned by the deemed to be Universities concerned by 31.05.2018, as indicated in Para 59.”
11. Paragraph Nos.25 and 26 referred to in the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench sought to be reviewed dealt with the case of Bharathidasan University and therefore, the said paragraphs alone would be insufficient to form a correct view regarding the issues raised in the present case. The concluding paragraphs of the Orissa case make it clear that only engineering degrees recognised / approved by AICTE are to be construed as valid degrees.
12. Paragraph Nos.59, 66.1 and 66.7 make it amply clear that recognition / approval of engineering degree is mandatory under law and in the present case, admittedly no such recognition / approval was obtained by the said University between the years 2001 and 2017. The respondents completed their degrees during the said period and therefore, the engineering degrees obtained by them cannot be construed as valid engineering degrees in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Orissa case, which is binding on this Court. Since the relevant paragraphs of the Orissa judgment were not considered neither by the learned single Judge in the writ order nor by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ appeal order sought to be reviewed, the said error is to be construed as an error apparent warranting exercise of review powers by this Court. If those relevant paragraphs, including paragraph Nos.59, 66.1 and 66.7 of Orissa case, had been considered, the decision would have been otherwise and therefore, the present review applications are fit cases for review.
13. In respect of the submission made on behalf of the respondents that one employee was already promoted, such promotion cannot be a ground to extend the benefits to the respondents, since this Court has found that the degree obtained is invalid in the eye of law. That part, no one can claim equality relying on an illegality.
14. Accordingly, the review applications stand allowed. The common judgement dated 25.06.2025 passed in W.A.Nos.893 and 1851 of 2025 is set aside and writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.)
22.04.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
Speaking order
mk
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,
and
K. SURENDER, J.,
mk
Review Application Nos.98 and 100 of 2026
22.04.2026
