Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1341 (HP)

DUNI CHAND v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-12-23

R.B.MISRA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.- Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, they have been taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The core issue involved in these writ petitions is whether the Diplomas/Degrees awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad are duly recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of employment or not. 3. Mr. Hamender Chandel and Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan have vehemently argued on the basis of various letters issued by the authorities that the Diplomas/Degrees awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad are duly recognized for the purpose of employment and the action of the respondent-State not to offer appointment to the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. 4. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioners did not possess the necessary essential qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post in question. Mr. Sharma then argued that a person to be recruited to the post of Language Teacher in the State of Himachal Pradesh must possess degree of Prabhakar and thereafter one year Diploma in language Teacher. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Mr. Hamender Chandel has drawn the attention of the Court to letter dated 10th January, 1979, Annexure A-3 annexed with CWP (T) No.12021 of 2008. Similar letter was relied upon by the petitioner in CWP No. 7521 of 2008. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General in that case has informed the Court that the letter dated 10th January, 1979 was never issued by the Director of Education. Since the veracity of this letter is in dispute, the same cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. 7. Mr. Hamender Chandel has also relied upon letter dated 24th July, 2001 (CWP (T) No.12021 of 2008). This letter has been issued by the Section Officer of the Himachal Pradesh University. It is only for the purpose of admission in Educational Institutions. This letter will not advance the case of the petitioners in any manner. 8. The decision whether a particular qualification is equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules is to be primarily taken by the State Government. It is only for the purpose of admission in Educational Institutions. This letter will not advance the case of the petitioners in any manner. 8. The decision whether a particular qualification is equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules is to be primarily taken by the State Government. This Court interferes only if the decision taken on the face of it is arbitrary and the relevant considerations have not been taken into consideration. 9. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel has also relied upon letter dated 15th January, 2003 (CWP (T) No.11959 of 2008). A bare perusal of this letter reveals that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad is neither a University nor University affiliated Institution. It is only voluntary Institution set up for promotion of Hindi language. The examinations of these Institutions are not equated with the secondary/degree examinations. These qualifications are only recognized and restricted to the subject of Hindi only. It is also mentioned therein that Shiksha Visharad, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad may not be considered equivalent to BA degree of an Indian University. The degrees/diplomas can only be awarded by the Universities/Boards established under the State or Central Acts 10. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure A-7 dated 22.7.2004(CWP (T) No.11959 of 2008). It is a Press Note. It is clearly stipulated in this Press Note that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag is a voluntary organization and it is neither a University nor a Board and the examinations conducted by these Institutions cannot be treated at par with the University examinations and are not given any recognition and are not equivalent to any degree, diploma or certificate issued by the University or Board. The examinations conducted by these Institutions are only relevant for the subject of Hindi. So far as letter dated 23rd May, 1998 is concerned issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, it cannot be applied straightaway. It is required to be adopted by the State Government. The petitioners have not placed on record any contemporaneous material to establish that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad has been created under any Act. 11. So far as letter dated 23rd May, 1998 is concerned issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education, it cannot be applied straightaway. It is required to be adopted by the State Government. The petitioners have not placed on record any contemporaneous material to establish that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad has been created under any Act. 11. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar versus U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 153 have held as under: “ The qualifications for holding a post have been laid down under a statute, any appointment in violation thereof would be a nullity. It is a matter of some concern that appointments are being offered by the authorities of the State without verifying the fact as to whether the degree(s) possessed by the candidate(s) are valid or not. It was an ad hoc appointment. Why despite the same, he was allowed to obtain degree from another university is not known. If the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be regularized, particularly, when the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, ((2006) 4SCC 1) National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. v. Somvir Singh,((2006) 5 SCC 493) and Post Master General, Kolkata and Ors.v. Tutu Das (Dutta), ((2007)5 SCC 317)). Various institutions have sprung up in different parts of India representing that their degrees are recognized. However, even no such representation appears to have been made to the appellant by the said institution. The directory of institutions for higher education merely gives details of the institutions. No statement was made therein that it was a recognised university. Maithil Vishwa Vidyapeeth Sankat Mochan Dham was a name given to an institution. It was not a University. It is said to have been founded in the year 1962. Admittedly, it is a privately managed institution. Although it offered a large number of courses like Madhyama, Visarad, Shastri, Acharya, Vidyabhaskar, Vidyaratna, Vidyavaridhi, Vidyavachaspati, Mahamahopadhyaya, the number of teachers therein was nine only. What sort of education was imparted therein is not known. It was not a University. It is said to have been founded in the year 1962. Admittedly, it is a privately managed institution. Although it offered a large number of courses like Madhyama, Visarad, Shastri, Acharya, Vidyabhaskar, Vidyaratna, Vidyavaridhi, Vidyavachaspati, Mahamahopadhyaya, the number of teachers therein was nine only. What sort of education was imparted therein is not known. How an institution could be run with a teacher strength of nine can very well be imagined. It is not in dispute that the said institution was not recognized by any University. A degree is recognized only if it is granted by a University constituted in terms of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or under any State Or Parliamentary Act. No University can be established by a private management without any statutory backing. The management of the school, when it came to learn that the appellant did not possess a degree of B.Ed, from a recognised University, should have terminated his services forthwith. It did not do so for reasons best known to it. It has not been shown to us that the management of the school had any authority to allow the appellant to obtain the requisite degree from any other University during the tenure of his services. Even the Commission in its counter affidavit, although otherwise supports the case of the appellant, did not say so.” 12. In this judgment, their Lordships have also considered the judgment rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ram Bhagat Sharma versus State of Haryana, (1997) 4 RSJ 134 (P&H). It is evident from the paragraph quoted in this judgment that the Punjab & Haryana High Court had directed the Government of Haryana to take steps to prevent the recruitment of persons possessing qualifications awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad and at the same time to take appropriate measures to dispense with the services of the unqualified teachers. However, Punjab & Haryana High Court has dealt with the cases of those persons who had put in three years of service compassionately by permitting them to acquire the qualifications within a stipulated time. This direction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has not been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar’s case. 13. However, Punjab & Haryana High Court has dealt with the cases of those persons who had put in three years of service compassionately by permitting them to acquire the qualifications within a stipulated time. This direction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has not been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar’s case. 13. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed.