Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 456 (UTT)

Anil Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and others

2007-08-21

J.C.S.RAWAT, RAJEEV GUPTA

body2007
Judgment Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for appellant. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondents 1 to 3. Sri Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4. They are heard on admission. 2. Appellant Anil Kumar has filed this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules against the judgment and order dated 19-07-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 574 of 2007 (S/S). 3. Appellant Anil Kumar filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the respondents to consider the B.Ed. correspondence course equivalent to the B.Ed. regular course and they may further be directed to consider the petitioner's candidature for appointment in the Special B.T.C. course for the year 2006-07 in pursuance of advertisement dated 09-072006 issued by the respondent no. 2, contained annexure no. 4 to this writ petition. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned circular dated 01-08-2006 issued by the Additional Secretary, Primary Education, Uttaranchal, contained annexure no. 6 to this writ petition. iii) issue any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner. iv) cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 4. The petitioner, thus, in substance, was seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the B.Ed. (correspondence course) equivalent to B.Ed. (regular course) and also to consider the petitioner's candidature for selection in the Special B.T.C. training course for the year 2006-2007. The petitioner also sought quashing of the circular dated 01-08-2006 issued by Additional Secretary, Primary Education, Uttaranchal. 5. The petitioner's candidature in response to the Advertisement dated 09-07-2006 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) was not considered as the petitioner had obtained B. Ed. degree from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut throuqh correspondence course. 6. The learned Single Judge, on a thorough consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, held that as the advertisement categorically prescribed that only those candidates who had obtained the B.Ed. degree as regular student shall be eligible for Special B.T.C. training course, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition• cannot be granted. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment dated 19-07-2007. 7. degree as regular student shall be eligible for Special B.T.C. training course, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition• cannot be granted. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment dated 19-07-2007. 7. Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition on the ground that the B.Ed. Degree obtained by the petitioner was through correspondence course, and as such the petitioner was not eligible, without giving due weight to the Press Release of the Chaudhary Charan Singh University declaring that the B.Ed. degree obtained through correspondence course was equivalent to regular B.Ed. degree. 8. It is not in dispute that the Advertisement dated 09-07-2006, in response whereof the petitioner has applied, categorically prescribed that to become eligible, a candidate should have obtained B.Ed. degree as regular student. It would certainly mean that those candidates, who have obtained B.Ed. degree through correspondence course, shall not be eligible. 9. Whether B.Ed. degree obtained through correspondence course should be treated as equivalent to regular B.Ed. degree is to be decided by the concerned authorities and the Courts have no role to play in such matters. The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Lata Arun reported in AIR 2002 SC 2642 observed in para 12 : "12. 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." 10. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment which may warrant interference in this Special Appeal. 11. The Special Appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily.