Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1139 (MP)

Indra Kumar Borban v. State of MP

2010-11-16

RAJENDRA MENON

body2010
ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. 1. As common questions are involved in all these writ petitions and as the question involved stands decided by various orders passed by the Indore Bench of this Court on 11.10.2010, all these petitions are being heard and decided by this common order. For the sake convenience, documents and pleadings of the parties available in the record of W.P. No. 6906/2010 - Indra Kumar Borban and Anr. v. State of MP and Ors., is referred to in this order. 2. Petitioners in all these cases were candidates, who had participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Patwari. After submitting their candidature, Petitioners' claim were rejected by the Dy. Commissioner, Land Revenue by the impugned action/orders and the Collectors of each and every district were directed to cancel the candidature of the Petitioners on the ground that the certificates, namely, the Diploma Certificates or the Degree Certificates with regard to passing the Computer Application Examination, in the case of each of the Petitioner is issued by Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur. It was pointed out in the impugned communication that the said University is not entitled to issue the Certificates and, therefore, the candidature of each of the Petitioners be cancelled. 3. Contending that Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur is a recognized University, which is approved and affiliated to the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC') and the University is entitled to impart education and issue the Certificates and Diploma in the subject in question, Petitioners seek interference into the matter. 4. Even though various grounds are raised in the writ petition and the same is refuted by the rival parties, but the question involved in the writ petitions and the question with regard to entitlement of Dr. C.V. Raman University to confer the Diploma or Degree Certificate and the right of the candidates, who had obtained the Diploma or Degree from the said University, to participate in the process of selection has been considered by the Indore Bench of this Court in various writ petitions and by a common order passed on 11.10.2010, in W.P. No. 1465/2010(s) Vijay Saudal and Ors. v. State of MP and Ors., the learned Bench after considering the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Awasthi and Anr. v. State of MP and Ors. v. State of MP and Ors., the learned Bench after considering the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Awasthi and Anr. v. State of MP and Ors. W.P. No. 8802/2009, decided on 5.10.2009, has decided the controversy in the following manner: The Respondents relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court have not stated that the certificate is a forged certificate or the Petitioners have not qualified the examination in question from a recognized University and, therefore, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated January 15, 2010 is hereby quashed. However, the Respondent-State shall be at liberty to verify the certificate issued by the Respondent-University, in accordance with law. Needless to mention that if such an examination of verifying the certificate issued by the University is undertaken by the State Government, the Petitioners shall also be granted an opportunity of hearing in the matter before passing any final order. The Writ Petition stands allowed with the aforesaid. No order as to costs. 5. Even though Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General, during the course of hearing tried to emphasize that in the aforesaid judgment, UGC was not a party and the say of UGC has not been taken note of, I have perused the pleadings of the UGC as is available on record and it is seen that UGC's reply does not materially affect the final outcome. In the reply filed by the UGC, in this case and the connected cases, it is specifically stated in paragraphs 9 and 10, that Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh is a Private State University established by the State Legislature of Chhattisgarh in terms of Section of the UGC Act, 1956 and is empowered to award under-graduate degrees and certificates. In the light of the reply filed by Respondent UGC, the contention of Shri P.K. Kaurav cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, I find no difference in the present cases and the cases decided by the Indore Bench. As far as the objection of the State Government is concerned, the objection of the State Government in this writ petition is same as was canvassed before the Indore Bench and is already considered in the order referred to hereinabove. As far as the objection of the State Government is concerned, the objection of the State Government in this writ petition is same as was canvassed before the Indore Bench and is already considered in the order referred to hereinabove. Now, as far as Respondent AICTE is concerned, in their reply they have stated that their approval or sanction is not necessary and it is only the UGC, which has to recognize the degree or diploma. 6. Apart from the fact that the objections raised by the State Government are similar to the one which is considered by the Indore Bench, in paragraph 4 of the reply, it is stated by the State Government that it is for the UGC and the AICTE, which is the apex body, to clarify the position with regard to the degree and certificate granted by Dr. C.V. Raman University. In paragraph 4 of the reply, it is so stated by the State Government: 4. ...The authenticity of letter dated 24.6.2008 is disputed. The UGC has to clarify the fact that without approval of AICTE, which is the Apex body empowered to grant recognition in the field of Technical Education whether degree granted by Dr. C.V. Raman University is valid. In view of the aforesaid facts without issuing any specific instructions from the UGC or from AICTE the Respondent University is not empowered to grant the degree and hence the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 7. As far as UGC is concerned, they specifically say that Dr. C.V. Raman University is empowered to issue the degree certificate and AICTE says that it is for the UGC to recognize the University and the AICTE has no role to play in the matter. 8. In view of the totality of the circumstances as indicated hereinabove and the order passed by the Indore Bench, this petition is also allowed. The impugned communication made by the Respondent State Government is quashed and the State is directed to proceed to verify the certificates issued by the University in accordance with law and grant opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners in case required. Respondent State shall proceed in the matter in identical terms, as has been ordered by the Indore Bench in the order as has been reproduced hereinabove. 9. Respondent State shall proceed in the matter in identical terms, as has been ordered by the Indore Bench in the order as has been reproduced hereinabove. 9. All these petitions are allowed and disposed of in identical terms and the State Government is expected to take action in the same manner, as is ordered by the Indore Bench and is reproduced hereinabove. 10. Such of the Petitioners, who have not been permitted to participate in the process of training, shall now be sent for training in accordance with the requirement of the statutory provisions and if required, special training course be held. 11. Petitions stand allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.