Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1606 (PNJ)

Mandipander Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2008-09-18

JORA SINGH, M.M.KUMAR

body2008
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. Through the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the prayer made by the petitioner is for quashing resolution dated 19.10.2007 (Annexure P. 12) vide which Municipal Council (Nagar Panchayat) Machhiwara, respondent No. 2 (for brevity the Municipal Council) has taken a decision to terminate the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. A further prayer made is for issuance of direction to the respondents to allow her to continue to work on the post of ETT Teacher and to release her salary w.e.f. 29.12.2006 which is the date of her appointment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement (Annexure P.5) inviting applications for filling up 7 posts of ETT Teachers for Primary Schools situated at Machhiwara. The educational qualifications prescribed were that a candidate should have passed 10+2 and Elementary Teacher Training Course (for brevity ETT). If the 10+2 and ETT candidates were not available then the candidates having B.A./B.Sc./B.Com and B.Ed. Degree were to be considered. It was further required that the candidate must have passed Punjabi upto Matric level and preference was to be given to the candidates who were living within the municipal limits of respondent No. 2 and if no candidate was found eligible, then the preference was to be given to the candidates firstly from the sub division and thereafter residents of district. The petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Ccaste category and was fully eligible and qualified in terms of advertisement (Annexure P.5) applied for the post. She also submitted her Punjab resident/domicile certificate(Annexure P.6). After scrutinizing the applications, the name of the petitioner was considered under the Scheduled Caste category and her name figured at serial No. 2 in the merit list of the said category. She was accordingly issued, appointment Letter on 29.12.2006 for the post of ETT Teacher at Government Primary School No. 1 Machhiwara on temporary/provisional basis and also the posting order (Annexures P.7 and P.8). The petitioner immediately joined her duties and continued to work but she was not paid salary. The petitioner on various occasions requested the respondents to release her salary. When no response was received, she filed a representation on 17.9,2007 (Annexure P.9). The petitioner immediately joined her duties and continued to work but she was not paid salary. The petitioner on various occasions requested the respondents to release her salary. When no response was received, she filed a representation on 17.9,2007 (Annexure P.9). The respondents on 24.9.2007, (Annexure P. 10) served a show cause notice on the petitioner wherein it was stated that on an anonymous complaint having been received against the petitioner it was found that degree of Shiksha Visharad is not equivalent to B.Ed. Degree of Panjab University and that she was not the domicile of Machhiwara. By the said notice, she was informed that there was a proposal to terminate her services and she may give clarification in writing within 21 days. In the show cause notice the following discrepancies were pointed out: i) that the institution, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad from where she has passed B.Ed, is not recognised one nor its degree has been considered as equivalent to that of B.Ed. Degree. In this regard requisite information was furnished by the Panjab University in writing to the Nagar Panchayat office as the recruitment of the Primary teachers was made by the Nagar Panchayat; ii) that as per the instructions of the Government, Nagar Panchayat offered you the appointment being the domicile of Machhiwara. While inquiring the matter regarding your domicile it has been found that the resident proof furnished by her is not correct. It was alleged that you have secured appointment by furnishing false certificate. It was further alleged that the ration card submitted by her has been found to "be cancelled on 14.9.2006 and she got prepared the domicile certificate thereafter. 3. On 4.10.2007 (Annexure P. 11), the petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. Along with the reply, she annexed documentary proof to prove that as the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad is a statutqry body created by virtue of Hindi Sahitya Samelen Act, 1972 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said institution was not recognised one as the same was statutory in nature. The petitioner also highlighted that as per letter dated 17.2.2004 issued by the Government of India the degrees conferred upon by the said institute was considered to be recognised for the purpose of employment throughout the country. The petitioner also highlighted that as per letter dated 17.2.2004 issued by the Government of India the degrees conferred upon by the said institute was considered to be recognised for the purpose of employment throughout the country. The petitioner also highlighted that the degree of Shiksha Visharad is also recognised degree under the UGC Act and the said institution from where the petitioner obtained degree has been held to be a deemed university. The petitioner also relied upon instructions dated 23.5.1988 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education showing that the degree of Shiksha Visharad was recognised as equivalent to B.Ed, which fact has aiso been certified by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad to the respondents vide their letter dated 1.10.2007 issued in response to a specific query raised by the respondents on 19.9.2007. After considering the reply the impugned resolution dated 19.10.2007 (Annexure P. 12) was passed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 4. In response to the notice of motion, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and 4 have filed their separate replies. Respondent No. 1 in his short reply has stated that no relief has been claimed against them therefore no separate reply is required as respondent No. 1 is a proforma party. 5. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their joint reply have raised the preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal available under Rule 16 of the Punjab Municipal Primary Teachers (Recruitment and Conditions) of Service) Rules, 2006 (for brevity the Rules). Instead of availing that remedy the petitioner has approached this Court by making false averments. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 22.10.2007 and she was relieved in the forenoon on the same day. However, the petitioner has only challenged the resolution of the Nagar Panchayat and has not challenged her termination/relieving order and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed being premature and on the ground of concealment of facts. On merits, it is stated that although the petitioner was not eligible for appointment, as per the advertisement and the Rules, but she applied for the post of Primary Teacher. It is asserted that the petitioner belongs to Kalka and by procuring a ration card she got residence certificate dated 23.11.2006 from Naib Tehsildar, Machhiwara. On merits, it is stated that although the petitioner was not eligible for appointment, as per the advertisement and the Rules, but she applied for the post of Primary Teacher. It is asserted that the petitioner belongs to Kalka and by procuring a ration card she got residence certificate dated 23.11.2006 from Naib Tehsildar, Machhiwara. The ration card was got prepared by her on 18.5.2006 and the same was got cancelled on 14.9.2006 prior to the issuance of residence certificate on 23.11.2006. On the basis of false representation about her qualification and residence she was selected as Primary Teacher. In the letter of appointment it was clarified that if any discrepancy is found in the certificates, her services were to be dispensed with immediately and action was to be taken against her. On acceptance of the above mentioned terms and conditions of appointment, she joined the duty. After her joining,on verification it was revealed that she is not B.Ed, rather the petitioner has a certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad of Shiksha Vishard of the year 1998. In the written statement, reliance has also been placed on a judgement rendered in the case of Ram Bhagat Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 1997(4) RSJ 134. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. The question raised before this Court is whether the degree certificate of B.Ed. issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in the year 1998 (Annexure P.3) is a bogus or it is genuine and recognised. The question is not res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Bhagat Sharma and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 1997(4) RSJ 134 had the opportunity to determine the aforementioned question. The Division Bench before concluding that the certificates and degrees issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are bogus, constituted a Committee to make a thorough investigation in the working of the Examination Centres established by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad and similar other institutions. The Committee visited Allahabad and made a detailed inquiry of the working of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad. The Committee visited Allahabad and made a detailed inquiry of the working of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad. The Committee found that there were numerous examination centres spread all over the streets of Haryana who attract the children to get Shiksha Visharad or other degrees of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad. Out of these, Committee visited ten centres in a short span of time situated at Hissar, Bhiwani, Chiria, Charkhi Dadri, Ambala Cantt. and Shahbad-Markanda. The centres were found to be housed in single room or in the residences. They were found charging a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 6,000/- depending upon the economic status and the requirements of the candidates. The centres in-charges were not well qualified for coaching of Shiksha Visharad students. No High School was attached to any of the centres for the class-room teaching practice of the so- called examinees. They used to receive question papers, date-sheet and answer- sheets from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag/Allahabad. Thereafter, they would run their centres independently and have been giving guarantee to the students to get through the examination by securing good marks. In the statement made before the Committee, they had stated that cow-herds would come to them and they would give them the certificates procured. The Division Bench after noticing the afore- mentioned opinion of the Committee, accepted the conclusion expressed by it which reads as :- "Finally the Committee is of the opinion that Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag/ Allahabad are doing dis-service to the cause of education, especially Hindi, by issuing such certificates through a network of agents throughout the country". 7. The Division Bench also expressed the opinion that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad have neither been established under an Act of Parliament or of the State Legislature nor have they been recognised by the Kurukshetra University or Maharishi Dayanand University. The so-called exmaination centres being run in the State of Haryana appear to be bogus who charge a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 6, 000/-. The Division Bench after noticing various other facts recorded its findings that the examination conducted at these centres are totally false and degrees/diplomas/certificates awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad on the basis of such examination have to be treated as bogus. 1,500/- to Rs. 6, 000/-. The Division Bench after noticing various other facts recorded its findings that the examination conducted at these centres are totally false and degrees/diplomas/certificates awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad on the basis of such examination have to be treated as bogus. It was further held that no candidate could claim eligibility for the purpose of appointment to a public post on the basis of such degree. 8. A Constitution Bench of Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Smt Damyanti Narang vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1971 SC 678, has also declared that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 was violative of Article 19(1 )(c) of the Constitution of India. The Constitution Bench had found that no statute was enacted by the Legislature of Uttar Pradesh conferring statutory status on Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Accordingly the Constitution Bench came to the conclusion that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad is neither a body created by a statute nor it is recognised for the purposes of awarding dagrees/diplomas/certificates. 9. The question of conferring Ayurveda Ratna and Vaid Visharada Degrees awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad also fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Pradesha, Registered Medical Practioner vs. Delhi Administration, 1997(11) SCC 687. Upholding the view taken by Honble Delni High Court, Honble the Supreme Court has held that such degrees are not genuine and cannot be relied upon for determining the eligibility of a candidate to permit him to practise medicine. Similar view has been taken by Honble the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ravinder Nath vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1993 Supplementary (2) SCC 639. 10. The aforesaid catena of judgments good established that the B.Ed, degree acquired by the petitioner is patently bogus and on that basis she could not secure appointment to the post of ETT Teacher. We are amazed at the adventurous enterprise of the petitioner who despite the wall of judgments and loud declaration about the bogus nature of degrees/certificates being issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad/Prayag, has placed reliance on such certificate, therefore, the claim made by the petitioner that her termination order and the Resolution No. 85 dated 19.10.2007(Annexure P. .12) being invalid, is rejected. It is accordingly held that her termination is in accordance with law because she had secured appointment on the post of ETT Teacher on the basis of a bogus certificate. 11. It is pertinent to notice that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad/Prayag is a party respondent No. 4 and it has filed its reply claiming that the certificates issued by it have been recognised by various bodies like University Grant Commission. However tne counsel for UGC respondent No. 5 has categorically opposed the afore-mentioned assertion by submitting that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad/Prayag cannot be considered as recognised after categorical declaration given by a Division Bench of this Court and University Grant Commission has not issued any notification permitting the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad/ Prayag to issue any certificates or diplomas or degrees. 12. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed with cost which we quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. We further direct University Grant Commission - respondent No. 5 to take appropriate steps against Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad/Prayag - respondent No. 4, so that its illegal activities could be stopped and the gullible public may be saved from blatent misrepresentation and trickery being practised in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Bhagat Sharma (supra) and that of the Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Damyanti Narang (supra), Mr. Ravinder Nath (supra) and Delhi Pradesha (supra). It is further directed that the University Grant Commission shall submit its report to this Court on or before February 16, 2009. The action taken report be placed before the Bench within a week thereafter. A copy of this order be sent to the University Grant Commission-respondent No. 5 along with a copy of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Bhagat Sharma case.