Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 94 (MP)

Ved Prakash Sharma v. State Of M. P.

2011-01-21

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) IN all the connected writ petitions common questions relate to having one year Computer Diploma course from the Institute run by a registered/recognized/affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC as required under the eligibility criteria for Patwari Selection Examination of year 2008, along with the issue of necessity of registration in Employment Exchange of the concerned District within the time as prescribed in the advertisement are involved. The petitioners have appeared in the Patwari Selection Examination 2008 conducted as per the Rules known as Bhu Abhilekh Evam Bandobast, Rajasva Vibhag Ke Antargat Patwari Ke Samanya Evam Backlog Bharti Ke Pad Hetu Chayan Pariksha -2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2008'). The petitioners have been selected in the examination conducted by the Professional Examination Board, and sent the selection list to the respective districts commensurate to available vacancies. On receiving the list and at the time of counselling, even on found place in the merit list their candidature were rejected denying them to send for Patwari training on the pretext that the diploma certificate obtained by them from Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal (M. P.) or Bhoj University, Bhopal (M. P.) or Makhanlal Chaturvedi Vishwavidyalaya Bhopal (M. P.) or Chhattisgarh University Raipur, or Dr. C. V. Raman University Bilaspur or University of Technical Science Raipur (Chhattisgarh) or Doon INternational University Raipur (Chhattisgarh) cannot be accepted for want of affiliation/registration/recognition by the UGC. Some of the petitioners have not been included in the said list because of non-availability of the employment exchange registration, in the concerned district. Being aggrieved by the communication Annexure P/1 dated 15-1-2010 or to deny the selection on the said pretext the petitioners have come before this Court seeking relief to quash such communication and to direct, the registration in employment exchange is not necessarily required, however, the petitioners may be held entitled to send for Patwari training in lieu of their selection in the Patwari Examination 2008. ( 2. ) IN the cases, wherein the certificates of aforementioned Universities have not been accepted the facts are taken from W. P. No. 841/2010 (S) while in the cases wherein the petitioners have been denied the selection due to non-availability of the employment exchange registration the facts are taken from W. P. No. 648/2010(S). ( 2. ) IN the cases, wherein the certificates of aforementioned Universities have not been accepted the facts are taken from W. P. No. 841/2010 (S) while in the cases wherein the petitioners have been denied the selection due to non-availability of the employment exchange registration the facts are taken from W. P. No. 648/2010(S). It is the case of the petitioners that they have passed the Diploma/Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from the recognized Universities like Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal (M. P.), Bhoj University, Bhopal (M. P.), Makhanlal Chaturvedi Vishwavidyalaya Bhopal (M. P.), Chhattisgarh University Raipur, Dr. C. V. Raman University Bilaspur, University of Technical Science Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Doon International University Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and those are valid for their appointment on the post of Patwari as recognized by the UGC. It is said that in Writ Petition No. 1283/2010 (S) dated 11-2-2010 the Indore Bench of this Court has decided the said issue and held that the computer diploma certificate obtained from Dr. C. V. Raman University, Bilaspur is recognized. In such a circumstance the letter Annexure P/1 as issued by the respondents of not having recognition/registered/affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC of the aforesaid Universities is arbitrary, hence, it is liable to be quashed. Referring the document Annexure P/4 it is contended that all the aforementioned Universities have been established or incorporated by or under the Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act and having powers under section 22 of the UGC Act to grant degrees. However, the refusal of inclusion of the name of the petitioners in the merit list/selection panel by the district authorities at the time of counselling to the said pretext is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed and the respondents be directed to accept the certificates issued by the aforementioned Universities as recognized by the UGC, and appropriate direction to send them for Patwari training may be issued. ( 3. ) IN the bunch of another cases the petitioners were denied to send them in Patwari training because of non-availability of the registration in the employment exchange of the district concerned within the time as specified in the advertisement. ( 3. ) IN the bunch of another cases the petitioners were denied to send them in Patwari training because of non-availability of the registration in the employment exchange of the district concerned within the time as specified in the advertisement. IN those petitions filing various documents an attempt is made to demonstrate that the petitioners are having valid registration in the employment exchange, even then they have been expelled from the merit list/selection panel by the district authorities. It is contended that not having the registration in the employment exchange may not be impediment for inclusion of their names in the selection list in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard, however, by virtue of the said condition they cannot be deprived from the patwari training after qualifying eligibility test after following due process of selection. ( 4. ) THE respondents by filing their reply contends that under the Rules of 2008 clause 1.8 specifies educational qualification, whereby the candidate who possessed Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) is in addition required 'O' Level certification from DOEACC/IETE or one year diploma in Computer Application (DCA) from an institute run by a registered/recognized/ affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC or higher education in computer. As the petitioners are not possessing the degree/certificate from the registered/recognized/affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC or Higher Education in computer, therefore, their names have rightly been expelled from the merit list/selection panel by the respondents. It is contended that the UGC has issued a public notice onl3th November, 2009 Annexure R/1 whereby the aforesaid position has been clarified. It is further said that this Court in W. P. No. 8802/2009, Ajay Awasthy and others vs. State of M. P. and others has considered the issue regarding issuance of the degree/certificate by the institution who are not recognized and the several writ petitions have been dismissed by this Court. However, accepting the said enunciation of law the rejection of the candidature by the respondents is inconformity to law, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the facts of the present case. However, accepting the said enunciation of law the rejection of the candidature by the respondents is inconformity to law, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the facts of the present case. On the point of non-availability of the registration from employment exchange, it is contended by the respondents that as per clause 1.12 of the Rules of 2008 it is necessary to have a valid registration in the employment exchange office of the concerned district, however, on non-availability of the said registration certificate which is one of the requisite condition, the petitioners have rightly been refused to include in the merit list/selection panel at the time of counselling by the officers at district level. In view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to dismiss these petitions. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners laid emphasis on the judgment delivered by the Indore Bench in W. P. No. 1456/2010 (S) and also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Principal Seat, Jabalpur in the case of Indra Kumar Borban and another vs. State of M. P. and others, W. P. No. 6906/2010 (S) wherein it has been held, the diploma certificate issued by Dr. C. V. Raman University, Bilaspur of Computer Applications is valid as it has been established either under the Central Act or Provincial Act or State Act as defined under section 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956. The said Universities having right to issue the degree or certificate in view of section 22 of the said Act. It is submitted that the respondents have not contended that the certificates issued by the Universities are fake or forged document. In absence of the said pleadings, the petitioners fulfill the educational qualification as specified under clause 1.8 of the Rules of 2008, therefore, the order impugned Annexure P/1 or the action of the respondents to not to accept the degree and certificate issued from the aforementioned Universities is unsustainable in law. ( 6. ) SHRI K. N. Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing in the bunch of the cases wherein the petitioners have been denied to include in the merit list/selection panel by the district authorities due to non-availability of the valid registration in employment exchange, it is urged that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kishore K. Pati vs. Distt. Inspector of Schools, Midnapore and others, (2000) 9 SCC 405 , held that it was wrong view that a candidate not sponsored by employment exchange could not be interviewed and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was found unsustainable in law. However, the action of the respondents to not to include the petitioners on the said pretext is illegal and arbitrary. A preliminary objection to adjourn all these cases have been raised, by Shri Newaskar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, in view of the order of reference passed on 13-1-2011 in W. P. No. 1925/2010 (S) by the Principal Seat of this Court. After going through the said order, in the opinion of this Court the scope of the said reference is limited to the candidates who are graduate in Commerce, Arts and Science with Computer as one of the subject and they are claiming appointment to the post of Patwari and whether such degree/course is within the purview of eligibility as prescribed under clause 1.8 of the Rules of 2008. For ready reference the question as posed is reproduced as under : "The question as to whether the qualification prescribed in the advertisement can be said to be fulfilled by a candidate, who is a Graduate in Arts, Science or Commerce with Computer Science as one of the subject, is an important question, which arises for consideration not only in the matter of recruitment of 'Patwari', but also in various other cases that are pending." Thus, the preliminary objection as raised by Shri Niwaskar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate is accordingly spelled out. ( 7. ) PER contra, on merit, Shri Praveen Niwaskar, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate placing reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2005) 5 SCC 420 contends that the notifications of various Universities established in the State of Chhattisgarh has been quashed declaring the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidhyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2002 as ultra vires and struck down. The UGC has issued a public notice in this regard on 13-11-2009 as apparent from Annexure R/1 notifying the private universities wherein Dr. C. V. Raman University has also been specified. In view of the said notification the order de-recognizing the certificates from the said Universities have rightly been passed. The UGC has issued a public notice in this regard on 13-11-2009 as apparent from Annexure R/1 notifying the private universities wherein Dr. C. V. Raman University has also been specified. In view of the said notification the order de-recognizing the certificates from the said Universities have rightly been passed. Therefore, the certificates issued by the various Universities of the State of Chhattisgarh cannot be validated in view of the said judgment. Placing reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Ajay Awasthi (supra), it is submitted that the educational qualification as prescribed under clause 1.8 of the Rules of 2008 was found justifiable and reasonable and the vires of the said Rules has been upheld, therefore, in absence of the qualification as specified in the said clause the petitioners cannot be held eligible for the merit list/selection panel, therefore, the order impugned Annexure P/1 has rightly been passed. ( 8. ) ON the point of non-availability of the valid registration from the employment exchange of the concerned district, it is contended that it is the requirement of the clause 1.12 of the Rules of 2008, however, if the valid registration in the employment exchange is not available the petitioners are not entitled to claim the appointment or selection in the merit list/selection panel. Therefore, the orders have rightly been issued by the respondents. After having heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment to the post of Patwari conducting the examination through M. P. Professional Examination Board (VYAPAM). The Rules of 2008 have been made for the said selection. Clause 1.8 prescribes the educational qualification which reads thus :- *********** Clause 1.9 specifies the process of selection on the basis of written objective type examination of certain subjects, clause 1.10 specifies places of holding the examination. The Rules of 2008 have been made for the said selection. Clause 1.8 prescribes the educational qualification which reads thus :- *********** Clause 1.9 specifies the process of selection on the basis of written objective type examination of certain subjects, clause 1.10 specifies places of holding the examination. As per clause 1.11 the candidate must be the bona fide residence of the concerned district and as per clause 1.12 the candidate is required to have valid registration in the employment exchange on the date of the application, which reads as under : ******** After submission of the application forms the candidates are required to appear in the eligibility test and on having passed, and found place in the list prepared by the Professional Examination Board their names are required to be send to the district heads as per their respective merit and in proportion to the vacancies available in the said district. On receiving the merit list in proportion to the vacancies the district authorities are required to hold a counselling under the supervision of the Collector of the district, and to verify the certificates of the educational qualifications, bona fide residence, valid registration in employment exchange and thereafter they were required to place them in merit list/selection panel in proportionate to the available vacancies. On found place in the said merit list their names may be recommended for the Patwari training. ( 9. ) IN the present case undisputedly the petitioners have appeared in the eligibility test conducted by the Professional Examination Board and on found place in the eligibility list, their names have been recommended to the district authorities for verification of their documents and for further action to recommend and send for Patwari training. At the time of counselling or in some of the cases after recommendation their names for Patwari training and their candidature have been rejected on account of having the diploma in Computer Application/Post Graduate Diploma from the aforementioned Universities by passing the order Annexure P/1 or by issuing oral instructions. Assailing the said order or the action of the respondents the petitioners have filed these petitions. Assailing the said order or the action of the respondents the petitioners have filed these petitions. As per clause 1.8 which deals with the educational qualification it is clear that the petitioners must passed out Higher Secondary or High School (10+2) examination along with 'O' Level certification from DOEACC/IETE or one year diploma in Computer Application (DCA) from an institute run by a registered/recognized/ affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC or higher education in computer. Meaning thereby in addition to the necessary qualification of Higher Secondary or High School 'O' level certificate from DOEACC/IETE or one year diploma in Computer Application (DCA) from an institute run by a registered/recognized/ affiliated with the University recognized by the UGC or higher education in computer is necessary. Undisputedly considering the validity of the certificate of computer application issued by Dr. C.V. Raman University, Bilaspur the Principal Seat of this Court in W. P. No. 6906/2010 (S) found it valid and also in conformity to clause 1.8 of the Rules of 2008. Relying upon the said decision the INdore Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 1456/2010 (S) and the Gwalior Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 879/2010 (S). The order passed by the Main Seat at Jabalpur in W. P. No. 6906/2010 (S) reads as under : "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, lndra Kumar Borban and another vs. State of M. P. and others, 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. 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 others vs. State of M. P. and others, the learned Bench after considering the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Awasthi and another vs. State of M. P. and others, 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. 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 2(f) of the UGC Act, 1956 and is empowered to award undergraduate 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. 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. 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 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. 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." ( 10. ) IN the case of Ajay Awasthi this Court has considered the scope of the executive instructions issued for educational qualifications in the context of the Rules and it has emphasis that the rules contemplates the educational qualification, while the circular contemplates regarding seal and signature of the University which may validate those certificates. IN this context it has been held that the certificates must be issued by the recognized universities and not by the institutions. IN this context it has been held that the certificates must be issued by the recognized universities and not by the institutions. The Court further held that issuance of the certificate by the institution may not be acceptable, but, if those certificates have been issued by the seal and signature of the University may be accepted. However, in the case of Ajay Awasthy validity of the certificate issued by a particular University was not a issue for consideration. The said issue governs the field from the judgment of the Principal Seat as well as the Indore and Gwalior Bench of this Court. IN this context it may be referred profitably that the Universities have been established under the UGC Act, Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam or under the State enactment. The said recognition found place in section 2(f) of the UGC Act which reads as under :- "Section 2(f) "University" means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act." As per section 22 the said University enables the power for grant of degree or the certificates. Section 23 deals with issuance of the certificate by the Institution or the Corporate body established under the Central Act, and violation of the provisions of section 22 and 23 has been made punishable as per section 24. IN the present case nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Universities from which the certificates have been issued and not found valid, by the respondents, as it has not been established under the Central Act, Provincial Act or the State Act. If the said certificates issued by the aforesaid Universities and produced with the seal and signature of the Universities and issued prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra) i.e. 11th February, 2005. It has also not been brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the various universities of Chhattisgarh State the notification of those Universities have been quashed in pursuance to the said judgment. The Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra) in para 64 and 65 has held as thus : "64. It has also not been brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the various universities of Chhattisgarh State the notification of those Universities have been quashed in pursuance to the said judgment. The Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra) in para 64 and 65 has held as thus : "64. As a consequence of the discussion made and the findings recorded that the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act are ultra vires and the gazette notifications notifying the universities are liable to be quashed, all such universities shall cease to exist. Shri Amarendera Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General has submitted that UGC had conducted an inquiry and it was found that the most of the universities were non-existent, but the report was not placed before the Court as the complete exercise had not been done. Learned counsel for the universities have seriously disputed this fact and have submitted that the universities are functioning. We have not gone into this question as it is purely factual. IN order to protect the interests of the students who may be actually studying in the institutions established by such private universities, it is directed that the State Government may take appropriate measures to have such institutions affiliated to the already existing State universities in Chhattisgarh. We are issuing this direction keeping in mind the interest of the students and also sections 33 and 34 of the Act, which contemplate dissolution of the sponsoring body and liquidation of a university where under responsibility has to be assumed by the State Government. It is, however, made clear that the benefit of affiliation of an institution shall be extended only if it fulfils the requisite norms and standards laid down for such purpose and not to every kind of institution. Regarding technical, medical or dental colleges, etc. affiliation may be accorded if they have been established after fulfilling the prescribed criteria laid down by All India Council of Technical Education, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India or any other statutory authority and with their approval or sanction as prescribed by law. 65. IN view of the discussions made above, Writ Petition (C) No. 19 of 2004, Prof. 65. IN view of the discussions made above, Writ Petition (C) No. 19 of 2004, Prof. Yashpal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Writ Petition (C) No. 565 of 2003, Gopalji Agarwal vs. Union of INdia are allowed and provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidhyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 are declared to be ultra vires and are struck down. As a consequence of such declaration, all notifications issued by the State Government in the gazette in the purported exercise of power under section 5 of the aforesaid Act notifying the universities (including Respondents 3 to 94) are quashed and such universities shall cease to exist. If any institutions have been established by such universities, steps may be taken for their affiliation to already existing. State universities in accordance with the direction contained in para 64 above. Parties would be at liberty to approach the High Court if any dispute arises in implementation of this direction. All writ petitions, civil appeals and transferred cases filed by the private universities are dismissed." The said judgment of Prof. Yashpal (supra) has been clarified by the Apex Court in the judgment of Rai University vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, AIR 2005 SC 3959 , wherein the Apex Court has held thus : "8. The Second Schedule to the Act gives the territorial jurisdiction of Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur and Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, which are the two State universities functioning in Chhattisgarh. The territorial jurisdiction of these universities is confined to districts which are within the State of Chhattisgarh. IN view of this clear provision of the Adhiniyam, no statute can be made which may permit affiliation of any institution or college to a State university in Chhattisgarh if the said institution or college is situate outside the State of Chhattisgarh. The validity of the impugned statute, therefore, cannot be assailed on the ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. At the time of hearing of the writ petition filed by Prof. Yashpal, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the private universities had established large number of study centres at various laces all over the country. We, therefore, consider it proper to clarify that while making the aforesaid observation, it was not meant that affiliation must necessarily be sought only with an already existing State university in Chhattisgarh. We, therefore, consider it proper to clarify that while making the aforesaid observation, it was not meant that affiliation must necessarily be sought only with an already existing State university in Chhattisgarh. The institutions of the erstwhile private universities, if otherwise eligible, may apply and seek affiliation with any other university which has jurisdiction over the area where the institution is functioning and is empowered under the relevant Rules and Regulations and other provisions of law applicable to the said university to grant affiliation. The decision on the application may be taken expeditiously in the interest of student community and there should be no prolonged uncertainty about their future." Bare reading of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the notification establishing all the Universities under the said Act have been quashed. It is further apparent that the arguments with respect to non-existence of the various universities which were enlisted in the said case have not been answered as it is purely a factual issue. The Apex Court in order to protect the interest of the students actually studying in the Institute established under such private Universities have directed the State Government to take appropriate measurement to have such institutions affiliated to the already existing State Universities in the Chhattisgarh. A direction for further affiliation on fulfilling the requisite norms and standards laid down have also been issued. In order to understand the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Apex Court has taken care of the standards and the students who are studying in those Universities at the time of pronouncement of such judgment. The judgment has been pronounced on 11-2- 2005. The said judgment do not throw any light on the degrees or the certificates obtained by the students on prior dates. ( 11. ) IN this context the arguments advanced relying upon the document Annexure R/1 is required to be taken into consideration. As per Annexure R/1 i.e. public notice issued by the UGC on 13-11-2009 requires to take note off, whereby it is said that as many as 49 Universities are the Private Universities established by the Act of the Legislatures of different States. IN the State of Chhattisgarh Dr. C. V. Raman University, Kargi Road, Kota, Bilaspur has been enacted as a Private University. IN the State of Chhattisgarh Dr. C. V. Raman University, Kargi Road, Kota, Bilaspur has been enacted as a Private University. Bare reading of the aforesaid notice, it is crystal clear that the said public notice has been issued in view of the pronouncement of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yash Pal and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others. The University Grants Commission by way of an abandoned caution issued public notice that the 49 Universities have specified in the said list are the private Universities and they have affiliated the colleges and started off campus centers beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their State in violation of the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. IN the said notification itself it is not said that Dr. C. V. Raman University, Kargi Road, Kota, Bilaspur being a private university is not recognized merely it is said that the aforesaid 49 Universities are competent to award the degrees as specified by the UGC under section 22 of the UGC Act and with the approval of the statutory councils, wherever required through their main campus. It has further been explained that if the approval of the statutory council is not a pre-requisite to start a programme, in such a cases the universities ought to have maintained the minimum standards regarding academic and physical infrastructure as laid down by the council. It has further been explained that the private universities cannot affiliate any institution/college. They cannot establish off campus centres beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned State, meaning thereby they can establish off campus centres within the territorial jurisdiction of the State, but such establishment must be after the existence of the said University for five years with the prior approval of the UGC. It has also been made clear therein that the UGC has not approved any off campus centres of any of the Private University, meaning thereby that if the certificates issued by any of the off campus institution beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State wherein the said University is situated such certificate cannot be recognized for all purposes. But, if the students studies within the State and the University situated thereat in their main campus then in such a case they may issue a certificate. But, if the students studies within the State and the University situated thereat in their main campus then in such a case they may issue a certificate. IN the present case a common reply has been filed denying the eligibility of issuance of the certificates by those Universities without explaining the position whether the certificates have been received from the main campus of the University or the same have been issued by off campus institute or the institute situated beyond the territorial limits of the State wherever the University is situated. ( 12. ) ALTHOUGH, it is not contended that the certificates obtained by some of the petitioners from Chhattisgarh University Raipur, Dr. C. V. Raman University Bilaspur, University of Technical Science Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Doon International University Raipur Chhattisgarh) have ceases its existence in view of the judgment of Prof. Yashpal (supra). But, it is a matter of scrutiny. It is also submitted that in such cases principle of prospective overruling may be made applicable. In this context as per the General Clauses Act the effect of repealing of any of the provision may not be retrospective, unless and until a different intention appears by such repeal. The right, privilege, obligation or liability, acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed may be saved. The Apex Court in the case of Raymond Ltd. and another vs. M. P. Electricity Board and others, (2001) 1 SCC 534 in para 23 has held as under : "23. So far as the challenge made to the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court, in confining its operation and applicability only for future period is concerned, Shri G. L. Sanghi, learned counsel, followed by the others have strongly contended that the High Court as such cannot apply the principle of prospective overruling. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the decision reported in State of H. P. vs. Nurpur Private Bus Operators' Union to which one of us (B. N. Kirpal, J.) was a party. Passing reference has been made to the decision in Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab and the observation contained therein that the doctrine of prospective overruling can be invoked only in matters arising under the Constitution and that it can be applied by the Supreme Court of India. Passing reference has been made to the decision in Golak Nath vs. State of Punjab and the observation contained therein that the doctrine of prospective overruling can be invoked only in matters arising under the Constitution and that it can be applied by the Supreme Court of India. The decision in Golak Nath case as such was subsequently overruled by the decision reported in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala though not specifically on this point. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision reported in K. S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras even to contend that if the High Court had no such power, this Court while hearing an appeal from such judgment of the High Court, equally cannot exercise such powers. This submission of the learned counsel overlooks the vital fact in that case that not only was the High Court found to exercise under section 66 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 a special advisory jurisdiction the scope of which stood limited by the section conferring such jurisdiction but even the appeal to the Supreme Court having been made only under section 66-A (2) of the said Act was noticed to hold that the jurisdiction of this Court also does not get enlarged and that the Supreme Court can also only do what the High Court could do. Apart from the fact that the writ jurisdiction conferred upon High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution does not carry any restriction in the quality and content of such powers, this Court could always have recourse to the said doctrine or principle or even de hors the necessity to fall back upon the said principle pass such orders under powers which are inherent in its being the highest Court in the country whose dictates, declaration and mandate run throughout the country and bind all Courts and every authority or persons therein and having regard to Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. The appellate powers under Article 136 of the Constitution itself would also be sufficient to pass any such orders. This Court has been from time to time exercising such powers whenever found to be necessary in balancing the rights of parties and in the interests of justice (vide: Union of India vs. Mohd. The appellate powers under Article 136 of the Constitution itself would also be sufficient to pass any such orders. This Court has been from time to time exercising such powers whenever found to be necessary in balancing the rights of parties and in the interests of justice (vide: Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar and India Cement Ltd vs. State of T. N.). The decision reported in Nurpur Private Bus Operators Union at any rate is no authority for any contra position to deny such powers to this Court." Similarly in the case of M/s Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 1723 the Apex Court by majority judgment held as under : It is true that the effect of a legislation without legislative competence is that it is non est. [See Behram Khurshed Pesikaka vs. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 613 at pp.652, 653 : ( AIR 1955 SC 123 at pages 145, 146 : 1955 Cri LJ 215]; R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla vs. Union of India, 1957 SCR 930 at page 940: ( AIR 1957 SC 628 at page 633); M. P.V. Sundararamier and Co. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1958 SC 468 at 489) (supra) at 1468 (of SCC) and Mahendra Lal Jaini vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) Supp (1) SCR 912 at pages 937-941: ( AIR 1963 SC 1019 at pages 1029 to 1031) Nevertheless a law enacted without legislative competence remains on the statute book till a Court of competent jurisdiction adjudicates thereon and declares it to be void. When the Court declares it to be void it is only then that it can be said that it is non est for all purposes. In Synthetics and Chemicals case ( AIR 1990 SC 1927 ) the invalidity of the provisions was a declaration under Art. 141 of the Constitution. It was for doing complete justice that the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 142 moulded the relief in such a way as to give effect, to its declaration prospectively. It is not possible to accept that such an order of prospective overruling is contrary to law. An invalid law has not been held to be valid. It was for doing complete justice that the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 142 moulded the relief in such a way as to give effect, to its declaration prospectively. It is not possible to accept that such an order of prospective overruling is contrary to law. An invalid law has not been held to be valid. All that has happened is that the declaration of invalidity of the legislation was directed to take effect from a future date." 38. The principle of prospective overruling is too well enshrined in our jurisprudence for it to be disturbed. Therefore, by reason of the decision in second Synthetics case (AIR 1950 SC 1927) what has actually happened is collection and non-collection of vend fee prior to 25th October, 1989 is left untouched. However, the Court in the second Synthetics case did not specifically deal with the question of deposits made pursuant to interim orders of Courts. The word used there was 'realisation'. It might have been arguable that the 'deposits' were not 'realisations' in the sense the word has been used in taxation statutes in general and the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 in particular. However, the interim orders passed by the High Court show that deposits were made of vend fee and the purchase tax. Although these 'deposits' were to be kept in a separate account, nevertheless in the circumstances of this case, it would be mere sophistry to hold that the monies so deposited were not 'realisations' for the purposes of the U. P. Excise Act. Therefore, what was deposited by the appellants with the State would remain with notwithstanding, the interim orders which required the State to keep it in a separate account but, at the same time, what has not been collected by the State cannot be realised by it, even in those cases where a bank guarantee had been furnished. ( 13. ) IN view of the foregoing it is to be made clear here that by the judgment of Prof. Yashpal (supra) the standards of the Universities are required to be maintained, but at the same time as observed the fate and fortune of the students is not required to be astonished. ( 13. ) IN view of the foregoing it is to be made clear here that by the judgment of Prof. Yashpal (supra) the standards of the Universities are required to be maintained, but at the same time as observed the fate and fortune of the students is not required to be astonished. As aforementioned the details of the Universities are not with the Court, however, the scrutiny is required to be made by the authorities with respect to the certificates issued by those Universities who were party to the Prof. Yashpal's case. It is further made clear here that the certificates issued by those Universities prior to the date of the judgment of Prof. Yashpal may not be made the subject of scrutiny on the ground of quashment of notification while the genuineness of those certificates may be looked into. It is also made clear here that if the certificates of the Universities produced by the students is after the said cut off date i.e. 11-2-2005 then it may be required to be examined in view of the observations made in the said judgment by the Apex Court. ( 14. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion in the opinion of this Court the certificate issued by Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal (M. P.), Bhoj University, Bhopal (M. P.), Makhanlal Chaturvedi Vishwavidyalaya Bhopal (M. P.), Chhattisgarh University Raipur, Dr. C. V. Raman University Bilaspur, University of Technical Science Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Doon INternational University Raipur (Chhattisgarh) are hereby made valid subject to observations made hereinabove and the order issued contrary to the said observation Annexure P/1 is hereby quashed. Now coming to the issue of non-availability of the valid registration in the employment exchange is concerned the said issue has been duly considered by the Apex Court in the case of Kishore K. Pati (supra). The Apex Court has held as thus :- "4. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for respondent 7 contended that in the writ appeal filed by him before the Division Bench, he has raised several questions which have not been answered and therefore it would be appropriate for this Court to remit the matter to the Division Bench for redisposal. On going through the counter-affidavit and the impugned judgment of the High Court, we do not find any contention raised not being answered by the Division Bench. On going through the counter-affidavit and the impugned judgment of the High Court, we do not find any contention raised not being answered by the Division Bench. On the other hand, the Division Bench has disposed of the appeal on the ground that the consideration of the case of the appellant and Respondent 7 whose case has not been sponsored by the employment exchange is not sustainable in law and as we have said earlier, the said view is not correct. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and allow this appeal." ( 15. ) IT is to be observed that condition No.,1 .12 is not the mandatory condition pertaining to eligibility, but it is directory to regulate the process of selection. In the present case the selection on the post of Patwari has been made after issuing the advertisement and holding the eligibility test. On found eligible in the test and possessing the other requisite qualification merely on the ground of non-availability of valid registration in the employment exchange of the concerned district may not be a ground to reject the candidature of the petitioners, on qualifying the eligibility test. Non-availability of the certificate may term as irregularity, but thereby eligible candidate cannot be held ineligible only for the said reason. Therefore, the order passed by the respondents rejecting the candidature of the selected candidates is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable and such orders or instructions or action by the respondents taken by the oral orders is hereby quashed. ( 16. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion in the opinion of this Court the action taken by the respondents to pass the order Annexure P/1 rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on account of possessing the diploma in Computer Application or Post Graduate course from the aforementioned Universities is hereby quashed. If the petitioners possess the certificate from the aforementioned Universities it may be examined in the light of the observations made by this Court in the aforementioned paragraphs and if they found place in the merit list the petitioners be sent for training. Similarly the orders passed by the authorities rejecting the candidature of the petitioners or hold them ineligible on account of not having valid registration in the employment exchange is also quashed. Similarly the orders passed by the authorities rejecting the candidature of the petitioners or hold them ineligible on account of not having valid registration in the employment exchange is also quashed. Accordingly all these petitions are allowed and disposed of with the following directions : (1) The order passed by the respondent No. 1 vide Annexure P/l dated 15-1-2010 and the orders issued in this respect derecognizing the certificates issued by the Barkatullah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal (M. P.), Bhoj University, Bhopal (M. P.), Makhanlal Chaturvedi Vishwavidyalaya Bhopal (M. P.), Chhattisgarh University Raipur, Dr. C. V. Raman University Bilaspur, University of Technical Science Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and Doon INternational University Raipur (Chhattisgarh) and do not have the educational qualification as per clause 1.8 is hereby quashed. (2) The respondents may examine the genuineness of the certificates issued by the various Universities of the State of Madhya Pradesh and they may ascertain the fact that those Universities have been established under any of the Act as specified under section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. If it is found that those Universities have been established under the said Act, the certificates issued by the various Universities in the State of Madhya Pradesh be treated as valid. (3) The respondents are directed to scrutinize the cases of those petitioners whose certificates have been issued by various ' Universities at Chhattisgarh State after 11-2-2005 in the light of para 64 and 65 of the judgment of Prof. Yashpal (supra) and the appropriate orders be passed in this regard. (4) The judgment of Prof. Yashpal (supra) shall be applicable prospectively only on those certificates issued by the universities after the date of the said judgment i.e. 11-2-2005. (5) The impugned order issued by the authorities treating the petitioners to be ineligible on account of not having the valid registration in the employment exchange in the district concerned is hereby quashed. (6) The district authorities shall be at liberty to examine and to verify the genuineness of the documents of the educational and other qualifications. (7) It is also made clear here that the respondents shall take appropriate steps in view of the foregoing direction within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order along with the representation, if any. (7) It is also made clear here that the respondents shall take appropriate steps in view of the foregoing direction within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order along with the representation, if any. (8) IN view of the foregoing directions and on scrutiny if the petitioners find placed in the merit list/selection panel then they be sent for patwari training irrespective to the availability of posts. (9) It is further made clear here that if the posts have been filled up by the person below in the merit on account of passing the order impugned then appropriate orders may be passed in this regard by giving an opportunity to those candidates who have already sent for training or otherwise, it is the discretion of the respondents to adjust them by creating the posts, if any. (10) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs Order accordingly.