Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 155 (JK)

Dilshada Parveen v. University of Kashmir & Ors.

2011-03-31

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2011
1. The petitioners are working as Physical Education Teachers in Physical Education Department. They were deputed to undergo B.P.Ed, training course at Government College of Physical Education, Ganderbal, vide Order No. DYSS/Estt/1038-43 dated 26th May, 2009 issued by the Director Physical Education Department. The deputation order provided that the deputation of in-service Physical Education Teachers is subject to the verification of testimonials by the Principal, Government College of Physical Education, Ganderbal. The petitioners have been awarded bachelors certificate in Arts Programme (B.A) under distance education system conducted by Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. Issue was joined about the competence of the aforementioned Institution to issue such certificates by the authorities of University of Kashmir. The petitioners in order to enable them to undergo the course filed affidavits. Copies of said affidavits have been placed on record alongwith reply affidavit filed by University of Kashmir. Affidavit of petitioner No. 1 is reproduced as under:- Affidavit "I, Disshada Parveen W/O. Ghulam Nabi Mir R/O Sofe Shali, Kokernag, Anantnag do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as under:- 1. That I am permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir State. 2. That I agree on the basis of having passed B.A. Examination through Bharatiya Shikhsha Prishad University Lakhnow, U.P. that I have got admission to B.P.Ed course through Government College of Physical Edu­cation Ganderbal. 3. That the reorganization of the said university if subjudice of U.G. C. bearing No. F2-2/91 (M.C.P) Dated 25 Oct. 2005. 4. That pending the final decision of the Hon'ble court I may be allowed to appear in the examination and to continue the course passes provisional basis on my own risk and responsibility and the result of my appearance in the examination be kept with held till the final decision of the Honourable Court. 5. That whatever will be the decision of the Hon'ble Court shall be binding upon me, if it would be adverse also and there would be no claim subse­quently." 2. The petitioners though were permitted to appear in the examination but their results were not declared by the respondents and it is for this reason petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter. 4. The petitioners though were permitted to appear in the examination but their results were not declared by the respondents and it is for this reason petition is filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Communication No. GOPE/GBL/341 dated 30th September, 2009 sent by Principal Government College of Physical Education, Ganderbal, Kashmir to Assistant Registrar, Registration, University of Kashmir, Hazratbal, Srinagar and submitted that the Principal in this communication has informed the said authority that the results of two candidates, whose certificates were issued by Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Utter Pradesh, and were allowed to appear in the B.P.Ed examination have been declared, so, on the same enology, the results of persons whose roll numbers are mentioned in the communication be also declared. Learned counsel also submitted that the candi­dates equipped with identical certificates from same Institution viz. Bhartiya Shikhsha Parishad, Utter Pradesh, (for short "BSP") have been appointed as General Line Teachers and even as R-e-T's. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that this petition be allowed and respondents be directed to declare the results of the petitioners. 5. Mr. J. A.Kawoosa, learned counsel for University of Kashmir, submitted that Bhartiya Shikhsha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, is not a University in terms of Univer­sity Grants Commission Act, 1956. Learned counsel further submitted that the certificates issued by the BSP can not be said to be degrees and no reliance can be placed on them. Learned counsel also submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in one of the writ petition, the government has taken a decision that the certificates issued by the aforementioned Institution shall not be considered as valid certificates/degrees. Learned counsel also submitted that on the basis of affidavits executed by the petitioners, they can not seek declaration of results from University. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that this petition be dismissed. 6. It is submitted at Bar by learned counsel for the parties that the matter regarding status of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. The entire thrust of learned counsel for the petitioners is on the alleged discrimination, to which the petitioners have been allegedly subjected to. The issue raised requires to be answered. It is admitted, that as on date, the status of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh is under eclipse. 7. The entire thrust of learned counsel for the petitioners is on the alleged discrimination, to which the petitioners have been allegedly subjected to. The issue raised requires to be answered. It is admitted, that as on date, the status of Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh is under eclipse. The certificates issued by the said Institution have to suffer the same fate till such time the status of the said Institution is determined. The respondent-University and even the authorities of State govern­ment have to act in accordance with the mandate contained in University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and only those certificates which are legal and lawful can be considered for securing and granting any benefit in accordance with law. If any authority, including that of the University of Kashmir, has conferred any benefit on any person on the basis of certificate issued by Bhartiya Shikhsha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, the same can be said to be only an illegal act committed by such authority. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is couched in positive language. Article 14, which provides for equality before law and equal protection of law, can not be pressed into service to achieve negative goals. No wrong order issued by any authority can become the basis for issuing direction to commit a wrong or to repeat a wrong. The petitioners in the affidavits have in unequivocal terms stated that they though will continue to pursue the course and take examinations, but same will be on their own risk and responsibility. It is also stated by them that the results of such examination be kept with held till the final decision of the Court. The petitioners are, thus, conscious that the certificates/degrees on the basis of which they staked their claim to pursue their courses in Government College of Physical Education, Ganderbal, Kashmir, are under eclipse. They have given undertaking that till such time the fate of the Institution which conferred certificates on them is not decided by the Court, their results be not declared. The petitioners are precluded from maintaining the writ petition for this reason as well. This petition, in the aforementioned background, is not maintainable at this stage and is accordingly dismissed. They have given undertaking that till such time the fate of the Institution which conferred certificates on them is not decided by the Court, their results be not declared. The petitioners are precluded from maintaining the writ petition for this reason as well. This petition, in the aforementioned background, is not maintainable at this stage and is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of the writ petition, however, shall not affect the rights of the petitioners to seek declaration of their results, in the event the competent authority declares the certificates conferred on them to be legal one.