JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who is serving as a trained teacher Grade III in the State Primary School run by Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti at Neem-Ka-Thana District Sikar has filed this writ petition contending inter alia that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds under the (Recruitment of Dependents) Rules ''for short the Rules of 1978'' and the appointment was a regular appointment and hence he was entitled for the regular pay-scale, which was subsequently revised w.e.f. 1.9.86 from the earlier un-revised pay-scale of Rs. 490-940 to Rs. 880-1680 and Rs. 1200-2050 w.e.f. 1.9.88. The petitioner has enclosed the appointment letter dated 5.2.87 vide Annexure-1 and pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner submitted his joining report with the respondents on 5.2.87 itself. 2. Subsequently, on 18.4.89, a circular was issued by the Director, Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department for the grant of minimum salary to the un-trained teachers, appointed on contract basis, a copy of which was sent to all Vikas Adhikaries. In spite of this neither the minimum nor the revised pay-scale was given to the petitioner. It has been further contended by the petitioner that subsequent to his appointment, the petitioner was directed by the respondents to complete the requisite training for obtaining B.Ed. Degree Course within the stipulated period of 3 years w.e.f. from the date of joining the office of the respondents i.e. dated 5.2.87. The said training was to be undergone by the petitioner at his own expenses and responsibility and as in absence of which, the appointment was to be treated as cancelled from the said date. 3. It has further been contended by the petitioner that in pursuance of the above, the petitioner obtained the requisite training and passed the B.Ed. Examination in December, 1989 through correspondence course from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The said university is an established institution and is declared as a university in accordance with Section 3 of the University Grants Commission's Act, 1956. A copy of the said certificate is on the record vide Annexure-3. The petitioner passed the said examination by obtaining 467 marks out of 900 and secured second division vide certificate dated 30th December, 1989. The said documents were duly submitted by the petitioner with the office of respondent No. 3. A copy of the said certificate is on the record vide Annexure-3. The petitioner passed the said examination by obtaining 467 marks out of 900 and secured second division vide certificate dated 30th December, 1989. The said documents were duly submitted by the petitioner with the office of respondent No. 3. That on 12.4.90, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 3 with a request for the revision of the pay-scale since in spite of fulfilment of requisite qualifications as per the rules, he had not been fixed in the regular pay- scale as admissible to the teachers in the said Grade vide Annexure-4, dated 21.4.90. It has further been contended by the petitioner that on 21.6.90 respondent No. 3 sent a communication to Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of the respondent for giving revised pay-scale to the petitioner of Rs. 1200-2050/- to which the petitioner was entitled in accordance with the rules. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the bar that though the petitioner had obtained the B.Ed. qualification through a correspondence course yet the petitioner cannot be discriminated qua other similarly placed candidates for the reason that the B.Ed. Degree obtained on the basis of the correspondence course from the University is as good a degree as obtained by a student, who has perused the regular course of study in the said institution. This controversy has already been resolved by this Court in the series of its decision vide S.B.C.W.P. Nos. 2502/89 and 3699/90, decided by this Court on 21st February, 1991, wherein this Court has held that Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak is a university established by an Act of Parliament and the communication dated 8.7.88 of the State of Rajasthan has already given recognition to the said University and hence it has been treated as an equivalent degree to that, issued by the University of Rajasthan and the appointment cannot be denied to such candidate on the basis of the said degree. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the circular dated 3rd April, 1993 of the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan wherein it is specified that the minimum pay-scale in respect of un-trained teachers as well as other allowances shall be effective w.e.f. 16.5.88 pursuant to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Maharishi Dayanand University Teachers' Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and another in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2502/89 decided on 21st February, 1991 , whereby this Court had directed the respondents to consider the B.Ed. Correspondence Course degree of Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak as a valid qualification for appointment in the State of Rajasthan. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the letter issued by respondent No. 3, dated 26.4.90, which is an internal correspondence of respondent No. 3. The perusal of which reveals that an employee of the respondents in order to be entitled for the benefit of the revised pay-scale should obtain B.Ed. qualification within the requisite period of 3 years and which the petitioner has obtained in the year 1989, but the said qualification is not recognised by the State Government. It has been contended by the learned counsel that no reliance can be placed on the said circular by the respondents in view of the above referred decision of this Court since the B.Ed. Degree (Correspondence) Course is to be given due recognition by the State Government w.e.f. the dates as referred to above. 6. The above contentions of the petitioner have been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioner took the B.Ed. Degree from the Maharishi Dayanand University, which was not a recognised prior to 23.11.91 and hence the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits for the period of service rendered by him prior to the said date. It has further been contended that he had obtained the aforesaid degree without obtaining prior permission of the department and at the relevant time there was no recognition to the said degree by the State University in Rajasthan. Moreover, the petitioner himself had sought permission vide his application for admission to the B.Ed. Course in the examination of teachers training Mahavidhayala at Jodhpur vide Annexure-N and attained the training course and having passed the B.Ed. Moreover, the petitioner himself had sought permission vide his application for admission to the B.Ed. Course in the examination of teachers training Mahavidhayala at Jodhpur vide Annexure-N and attained the training course and having passed the B.Ed. examination from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and hence no reliance can be placed to the certificates/degrees furnished by the petitioner in this regard. It has further been contended that in absence of permission or a sanctioned leave, the petitioner was not entitled to appear in the examination for obtaining the degree from the aforesaid university and hence the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents, placed on the record and also perused the pleadings of the parties in this regard. In my considered view once the petitioner had obtained the requisite qualification for being considered for appointment for the post of teacher Grade III as per the rules promulgated by the university and had passed the said examination conducted by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in December, 1989 and has also submitted the provisional certificate as well as the B.Ed. Degree with the respondents which is equivalent to the said qualification obtained by any other similarly placed candidate from University of Rajasthan, hence it is not open to the respondents to discriminate the petitioner as that would be arbitrary act of the respondents being grossly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents were not justified in contending that the aforesaid degree obtained by the petitioner from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak was forged and no recognition can be given to the said degree particularly when in his application vide Annexure-R 1, the petitioner had applied for obtaining permission from the respondents afresh for obtaining said degree, and which he did obtain in accordance with the rules. On this basis, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently contended at the bar that the provisional certificate obtained by the petitioner is forged, since he had not furnished a regular degree of the aforesaid University. I am of the view, that a document cannot be treated as forged merely because a provisional certificate has earlier been submitted by a candidate. I am of the view, that a document cannot be treated as forged merely because a provisional certificate has earlier been submitted by a candidate. If it was, then it was the bounden duty of the respondents to have conducted a fresh enquiry into the matter in order to verify the validity of the document in question and prima-facie no such presumption can be drawn against the petitioner in absence of an inquiry in this regard. I am of the considered view that the respondents have basically failed in their duty of conduct either an inquiry or to have obtained relevant information from the Maharishi Dayanand University in this regard, which was incumbent upon them to do so. 8. Now, the only question, which survives for consideration of this Court is as to in what pay-scale the petitioner should be fixed as admissible to the similarly placed candidates, who have obtained the B.Ed. qualification from Rajasthan University or equivalent from any other university and if so from with effect (sic) ? 9. Prima facie, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the benefit of revised pay-scale w.e.f. the year 1989 since the State Government of Rajasthan had given recognition to the B.Ed. qualification from Maharishi Dayanand University only w.e.f. 23rd November, 1991. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be given the benefit of revised pay-scale retrospectively from any earlier date. 10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that the petitioner will obtain the copy of the original B.Ed. degree from Maharishi Dayanand University and shall furnish the same in the office of respondent No. 3 within 4 weeks from today. In case the petitioner furnishes the same within the aforesaid period as directed by this Court, the respondents shall also verify the authenticity of the said document from the Dayanand University, if they so desire within 2 weeks thereafter. 11. In case the petitioner complies with the aforesaid directions within the aforesaid period, then it shall be obligatory upon the respondents to place the petitioner in the revised pay-scale as admissible to Teacher Grade-III w.e.f. 23rd November, 1991. 12. If, however, the petitioner fails to furnish the B.Ed. 11. In case the petitioner complies with the aforesaid directions within the aforesaid period, then it shall be obligatory upon the respondents to place the petitioner in the revised pay-scale as admissible to Teacher Grade-III w.e.f. 23rd November, 1991. 12. If, however, the petitioner fails to furnish the B.Ed. Degree from the aforesaid university, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, then he will not be entitled to any protection under the law and the respondents will be at liberty to terminate the services of the petitioner on this ground. 13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.Order accordingly. *******