Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 75 (CHH)

P. Anasuya Naidu v. Union of India (Uoi)

2002-09-04

P.C.NAIK

body2002
ORDER P.C. Naik, J. 1. The petitioner had applied for and was selected as a pre-primary teacher for which the required qualification was B.A/B.Sc., B.Ed. preferably in nursery tainting. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner had not obtained the Bachelor of Education degree but had obtained a certificate of Shiksha Visharad in the year 1989 from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which was said to be recognized. She was selected and was issued an appointment order and accordingly she joined sometime in July, 2000. However, vide letter dated 3-8-2001, the petitioner was informed that as she had not submitted her professional qualification certificate of B.Ed, recognized by University Grants Commission (UGC) or Montessory Diploma recognized by Govt of India/ State Government, her services will not be required w.e.f. 1-8-2001 and the period intervening was to be treated as one month's notice. Accordingly, her services were dispensed with and her appointment was revoked. Aggrieved with the action of revocation of her appointment, the petitioner approached this Court for relief, 3. That the petitioner does not possess the B.Ed, qualification nor a diploma recognized by University Grants Commission or a Montessory Diploma recognized by the Government of India/State Government is not disputed. However, reliance is placed on a letter dated 23-5-1988 of the Central Board of Secondary Education, in short the CBSE, that as per the handbook for Personal Officers, Govt. of India, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad is recognized and as such, a person possessing a B.Ed. Degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad, is to be treated as a trained teacher. Annexure P-5 to the writ petition is a copy of the advertisement issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad, which in fact is an information regarding the examination conducted by it. With regard to the Shiksha Visharad, it is indicated that it is a one-year course and the eligibility for the course is Madhyamik or Graduate or equivalent degree thereto. If further indicates that it is recognized by Government of Orissa as equivalent to BTC and a trained teacher for the CBSE, However, there is nothing on record to indicate that the examinations conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are recognized by the State of Chhattisgarh. If further indicates that it is recognized by Government of Orissa as equivalent to BTC and a trained teacher for the CBSE, However, there is nothing on record to indicate that the examinations conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are recognized by the State of Chhattisgarh. In reply, attention of the Court is invited to the extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the Affiliation Committee of CBSE held on 15th September, 1995, where the question of considering equivalence of Shiksha Visharad Degree as equivalent to B.Ed. Degree of other recognized Universities was taken up for consideration. The agenda and the resolution read thus:-- "Item No, 4 : To consider equivalence of Shiksha Visharad Degree issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh as equivalent to B.Ed. Degree of other recognized Universities. Resolved that Shiksha Visharad Degree is not being treated as equivalent to B.Ed, of other recognized universities and the letter No. CBSE/AFF/3325/88/3006, dated 23-5-1988 be treated as cancelled." 4. The Court's attention was also invited to a letter dated 20th August, 2001 of the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi, whereby on a query raised, the Principal of the Tata DAV Public School, Raipur was informed thus:-- "Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad is one of the Voluntary institutions set up for promotion of Hindi language; its examinations/certificates are not (NOT) equated with the secondary stage/degree examinations. As per Govt. of India (Ministry of Human Resource Development) Press Notification dated 5th May, 1988 the recognition of its exams is valid/restricted to the subject of Hindi only." Thus, the letter dated 23-5-1988 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner having been withdrawn, the very foundation of which her case rests, disappears. Thus, the contention that, having obtained the degree of Shiksha Visharad from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, she should be treated to be a trained teacher, cannot be accepted. 5. It was then contended that as the petitioner had admittedly obtained the degree of Shiksha Visharad, the Court should issue a direction for treating it to be equivalent to B.Ed. Degree. 5. It was then contended that as the petitioner had admittedly obtained the degree of Shiksha Visharad, the Court should issue a direction for treating it to be equivalent to B.Ed. Degree. Such a direction cannot obviously be issued in view of the fact that to treat or not to treat a particular degree or certificate of a body as equivalent to that of another, is a matter to be decided by the Academic Bodies and not by Courts of law as that question, the Court feels, is purely within the jurisdiction of the Academic Bodies. A more or less a similar question had recently come up before the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, 2002 AIR SCW 2966. In that case the provisional admission of the respondent to the General Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course was cancelled on the ground that she did not possess the requisite qualification which was first year of Three Years Decree Course (TDC) or 10-4-2. The respondent had, however, obtained a Madhyama Certificate from the Hindi Sahitya Sammclan, Prayag. The writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court was disposed of with a direction to the Nursing Council to consider the matter sympathetically by taking into consideration the equivalence of course. Allowing the appeal of the State of Rajasthan, the Court observed thus :-- "9. The points involved in the case are two fold : one relating to prescription of minimum educational qualification for admission to the course and the other relating to recognition of the Madhyama Certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to or higher than + 2 or 1st year of TDC for the purpose of admission. Both these points relate to matters in the realm of policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with power under any statute. It is not for Courts to determine whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognized as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the case. That is not to say that such matters are not justiciable. It is not for Courts to determine whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognized as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the case. That is not to say that such matters are not justiciable. In an appropriate case the Court can examine whether the policy decision or the administrative order dealing with the matter is based on a fair, rational and reasonable ground; whether the decision has been taken on consideration of relevant aspects of the matter; whether exercise of the power is obtained with malafide intention; whether the decision serves the purpose of giving proper training to the candidates admitted or it is based on irrelevant and irrational consideration or intended to benefit an individual or a group of candidates." 6. After making a reference to its earlier judgments in Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners vs. Director of Health, Delhi Admn. Services and Ors., [(1997) 11 SCC 687J and Dr. Ravinder Nath vs. State of H.P, and Ors., [1993 Supp (2) SCC 639], the Court in para 12 observed thus:-- "From the ratio of the decision noted above it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority." 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.