JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.3.1992 as contained in Annx. 12-C, by which the services of the petitioner on the post of Stenographer was ordered to be terminated from 31.3.1992. The petitioner, however, by virtue of an order of stay granted by this Court, on 27.5.1992, has been allowed to continue to work on the post of Stenographer/General Assistant. The petitioner has further prayed to regularise his services on the post of Stenographer and place him in the regular pay scale on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work from the date of his appointment in the University with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts of the case which have given rise to the dispute between the petitioner and the University of Rajasthan, are these : the petitioner had been initially appointed on daily wages on the post of Stenographer. His services were, thereafter extended from time to time and ultimately his appointment was made for a fixed term upto 31.3.1992 on a fixed salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month because in-between, a sub-committee appointed by the Academic Advisory Committee of Academic Staff College, respondent No.3 herein, in its meeting dated 24.9.1991, resolved that the petitioner should be appointed as a Stenographer Gr. II on minimum of the scale and other admissible allowances on ad hoc basis for a period of one year in the first instance and thereafter he may be appointed on substantive basis if such post exists in Academic Staff College for selection by the Selection Committee. It was on this recommendation that an order was issued on 15.4.1992 in favour of the petitioner, whereby he was given an extension upto 31.3.1992. 3. It has been stated by the petitioner that he earned credit for his service as a Stenographer by virtue of his background of long experience in stenography and in order to throw light on his experience it has been stated that after passing out his Secondary School Examination in the year 1959, he obtained diploma in secretarial practice from the State of Maharashtra and then Diploma in Accountancy from the State of Maharashtra and also studied upto Intermediate at the Institute of Company Secretaries of India after clearing the preliminary examination. The petitioner also had 25 years of experience as Sr. The petitioner also had 25 years of experience as Sr. Stenographer/Personal Assistant with Senior IAS Officers and also worked in the General Public Health Engineering Research Institute, Government of India from October 1964 to 1970 and from 24.6.1972 to 1979 he worked in Rajasthan State Agro-industries Corporation. It has been given out that in September, 1988, the Academic Staff College was set up by the University of Rajasthan due to which it was on the look out for capable and efficient stenographers who could cope with the heavy workload which was required for setting up the new establishment. The petitioner having come to know of this demand, offered his services to the said College as the University was employing even superannuated and retired persons on the post of stenographers as it was under compulsion to avail of the services of the persons as Stenographers from outside the University cadre of stenographers. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner was appointed in the manner as indicated hereinbefore upto 31.3.1992. The petitioner under the circumstances requested that he should be given regular appointment in the grade of stenographer or at least he should be paid a fixed emolument of Rs. 2,500/- p.m. By this time, the University Grants Commission had also approved one post of Stenographer for the Academic Staff College and since the scheme of such colleges was to continue during the 8th plan period, hence the financial assistance by the University Grants Commission was to continue upto 31.3.1995. It has been further stated by the petitioner that the Director, Academic Staff College, respondent No.2 herein, on various occasions strongly recommended to the University to make the petitioner regular on the post of Stenographer and provide him regular pay scale. 4. The trouble, however, arose for the petitioner when the University raised an objection regarding his qualification on the ground that the petitioner obtained diploma in secretarial practice and diploma in accountancy from the State of Maharashtra. According to the petitioner, the course for Diploma in Accountancy is two years and is recognised as equivalent to Intermediate Examination of the University of Maharashtra which, according to the respondent, is applicable in Maharashtra only, and the Diploma in Accountancy is not recognised by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer as well as by the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur for the purpose of equivalence to Intermediate Examination. The University, however, enquired about the status of the Diploma Examination in Accountancy/Secretarial Practice in Maharashtra and in reply to the same, it had been communicated by the University of Bombay (marked as Annex. R/1/1) that the aforesaid Diploma Examination conducted by Sydenhan College of Economics is recognised for the purpose of admission to the First Year Class of B. Com. This, according to the University of Rajasthan was not a sufficient qualification as, according to this University, a person could be considered eligible for the post of Stenographer only if Diploma Examination passed by him was recognised by this University, or the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Examination of the Rajasthan Board. In order to get over this hurdle, the petitioner urged the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, respondent No. 1 herein, requesting him to put his case before the Syndicate of the University for obtaining exemption/relaxation in the qualification of the petitioner in view of his long experience and also his appointment in that capacity since 1988. This relaxation could be made by the University under the exemption clause laid down in Chapter 6, Rule No. 39 of the Rajasthan University Employees (Non-teaching Recruitment) Rules, which vests power in the Syndicate of the University to relax the minimum qualification in order to relieve any employee of any undue hardship from operation of such provision in the interest of University. The relevant clause is quoted herein as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Syndicate may in case of any employee, relax any of provisions of these Rules, to relieve him of any undue hardship arising from operation of such provisions in the interest of the University." 5. The representation of the petitioner, however, did not find favour with the concerned authority and they refused to relax the minimum qualification i.e. Higher Secondary in case of the petitioner by treating his Diploma in Accountancy not equivalent to Higher Secondary of the Rajasthan Board, although the said qualification of Diploma in Accountancy conducted by Sydeham College has been recognised as equivalent to Intermediate Examination and the said examination makes a candidate eligible for admission to the First Year Course of B. Com. Accordingly, a letter of regret dated 11.3.1991 was sent to him refusing appointment as Stenographer which is annexed to the reply as Annx. Accordingly, a letter of regret dated 11.3.1991 was sent to him refusing appointment as Stenographer which is annexed to the reply as Annx. R11/5 and the petitioner was ordered to be relieved from the post latest by 31.5.1992 after which no payment was ordered to be made to him. The petitioner, therefore, rushed to this Court and filed this writ petition requesting for an order of stay of his termination. While a show-cause notice was issued on the writ petition, an order of stay was also granted in his favour on 27.5.1992. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Virendra Dangi has, inter alia, contended that the action of the respondents is patently illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and, he has substantiated the plea of discrimination by stating that number of persons holding the post of Stenographers have been regularised after relaxing the minimum qualification for the post, and has given two examples in this regard naming one Thomas, working as Stenographer at the University Law College and another Mr. Jayanani who was PA/ Stenographer to the Registrar who are only Matriculates, whereas in case of the petitioner a convenient scapegoat has been made by stating that the petitioner is not having the minimum qualification of Higher Secondary totally ignoring the fact that the petitioner is holding a Diploma in Accountancy which is recognised in the State of Maharashtra as equivalent to Intermediate. It has been submitted that the said Diploma, therefore, ought to have been treated equivalent to the Higher Secondary certificate. 7. It has been further contended in support of the petitioner's plea of relaxation that although the University had been appointing even retired persons as Stenographers, the petitioner who had a vast experience to his credit as a Stenographer and had also been working in the University ever since 1988, was sought to be terminated since he had raised the plea of equal pay for equal work and had also been requesting for regularisation. It has, therefore, been submitted that the said experience itself made him eligible for regularisation and equal pay at par with persons who were working on regular basis, apart from the fact that he could not be disqualified on the ground that he lacked the minimum qualification. In support of his plea, Shri Dangi has relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in [ (1986) 1 SCC 637 ) Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. In support of his plea, Shri Dangi has relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in [ (1986) 1 SCC 637 ) Dhirendra Chamoli Vs. State of U.P. and AIR 1990 Supreme Court 372 Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation. A perusal of the judgments of the Apex Court, in the matter of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (supra) shows that the learned Judges while considering the question regarding equal pay for equal work for those workers who at the time of their appointment were not possessing the initial minimum prescribed educational qualification but while being in service for many years, gained sufficient experience, it was held that confirmation cannot be refused to them on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification and, it was held that they would be entitled to pay equal to the persons appointed in regular basis by virtue of their experience. As I find the case of the petitioner quite similar to the case of Bhagwati Prasad (supra), it would be worthwile to quote the relevant passage of the aforesaid judgment in this regard:- "Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtely a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of initial entry into the service. Once the appointments of petitioners were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. It can be said that three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the management, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation." 8. It can be said that three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the management, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation." 8. When the facts of the instant case are considered in the light of the facts of the case of Bhagwati Prasad (supra), it is quite obvious that the petitioner's case is still on a higher footing, especially for the reason that the petitioner has already got a qualification of Intermediate level which is equivalent to Higher Secondary and the only hitch in his regularisation was that he had passed out from the State of Maharashtra and not from the Board of Secondary Education, or University of Rajasthan. When the authorities of the University were reasonable enough to examine the sancity of the Diploma in Accountancy and it was made clear by the University of Bombay that a candidate holding such qualification from Sydenham College of Economics is entitled for admission into B.Com. in Maharashtra, I find no reasonable justification disqualifying the petitioner only on the ground that he is not possessing a certificate of Higher Secondary from Rajasthan Board. In addition, the petitioner's long experience in the field of Stenography was totally ignored despite the fact that the University itself had strong recommended that he should be regularised on a sanctioned post which is evident from the fact that the University in its meeting dated 24.9.1991 had itself resolved that the petitioner be appointed as Stenographer Gr. II at the minimum of the scale on substantive post, if the said post exists in the Academic Staff College, after selection by the Selection Committee. The question of fresh selection, however, in case of the petitioner, cannot be allowed to be raised in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove. In addition, it is not the plea of the respondent that the post in the Academic Staff College is not in existence. The termination of the petitioner, therefore, does not appear to be bona fide. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in the light of the judgments relied upon, and I find that the same succeeds the test of judicial scrutiny. The termination of the petitioner, therefore, does not appear to be bona fide. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in the light of the judgments relied upon, and I find that the same succeeds the test of judicial scrutiny. The facts narrated hereinabove clearly indicate that the petitioner not only had long experience as Stenographer at the time of his initial appointment, but he was also having a Diploma in Accountancy equivalent to Intermediate/Higher Secondary. The question, therefore, of seeking exemption from the University of Rajasthan for relaxing the minimum qualification does not arise as it is a well recognised position and needs no authority of law that if a particular degree is recognised in one State, the same does not lose its validity merely because the person has migrated to any other State where he applies for a job. The position, however, would certaintly be different in case the said degree or diploma was under cloud in the parent State also. That is not the situation in case of the petitioner, as he was having a certificate equivalent to Intermediate/Higher Secondary, besides the rich experience that he had to his credit, I see no reason why he should have been disqualified only on the ground of lack of minimum prescribed educational qualification in order to deny him euual pay at par with the regular Stenographer as also the benefit of regularisation. It needs no reiteration that the case of the petitioner stands fortified by ratio of the judgments referred to hereinabove, where long experience itself was considered to be a sufficient ground for granting the benefit of regularisation and the lack of minimum qualification at the time of entry had been waived only after three years of service. However, as already stated, the petitioner's case rests on a higher plank as the petitioner by virtue of an interim order of stay granted by this Court on 27.5.1992, is still continuing on the post as Stenographer and, thus, by now he is in the 8th year of his service apart from the fact that he could not have been disqualified for reasons which I have found wholly unsustainable. 10. 10. I, therefore, consider it perfectly just and proper to allow this writ petition and direct the authorities of the respondent University to put the petitioner in the regular scale of pay with usual allowances for the post of Stenographer from the date of this order and continue to pay him the salary at par with the Stenographers who are in the regular scale of pay. However, the prayer for equal pay from the date of his appointment in the University with consequential benefits is refused as his regularisation can be said to be effective only from the date of this order and prior to this his appointment was effective only till 31.3.1992 on fixed terms and conditions after which he continued only by virtue of an interim order of stay granted by this Court. The prayer for arrears of pay from the date of initial appointment is, therefore, refused. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed but with the exception indicated regarding arrears of salary. 12. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******