Judgment : “TELUGU” 1. Puraanamityeva na saadhu sarvam, na caapi kaavyam navamityavadyam I Santah parikshyaanyataradbhajante, mudhah parapratyayaneyabuddhih II -Maalavikaagnimitram, 1-2 (Everything is not great just because it is ancient. Nothing is bad just because it is modern. Intelligent people take things after properly examining it. Idiot simply believes what others say) 2. The petitioner who is aged about 50 years is a scholar in Sanskrit. He also obtained Ubhaya Basha Praveena (both Sanskrit and Telugu) qualification from Municipal Oriental College, Vijayawada, which is affiliated to Acharya Nagarjuna University. He underwent Grade-I Pandit Training in Government College of Education, Hanamkonda of arangal District. He also underwent training in Sanskrit and Telugu. He obtained proficiency certificate in Oriental Learning (POL) in literary criticism as applied to Sanskrit literature and passed the examination held by Acharya Nagarjuna University in May 1986. He passed M.A. (Telugu) and M.Phil from Acharya Nagarjuna University and M.A. (Sanskrit) from Sri Venkateswara University. Apart from that, he got vast experience as Lecturer in Sanskrit. He is also a Pracharak of Sanskritha Basha Samithi since 1998 onwards. 3. The petitioner established a Smartha Veda Patasala with the blessings of Sri Jagadguru Balaswamy of Kanchipuram Peetham and named it as Jagadguru Arsha Vidyapeetam in Vijayawada. It was established on 14.06.2002. The main purpose of the Patasala is to impart coaching in Yajurveda Smartham. More than 20 students were undergoing teaching in the said Veda Patasala. The Patasala was continuing in a rented accommodation. Hence, he made a request to the Commissioner of Endowments for allotment of some land to construct a building of its own. The Commissioner sought clarification from the Executive Officer of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Temple, Vijayawada and took a decision to take over the entire School. The Board of Trustees of the second respondent-Devasthanam passed a resolution on 31.07.2004 to take over the entire institution under the control of the temple and the Executive Officer was directed to submit a detailed report to the first respondent. Accordingly, the Executive Officer sent a report on 19.01.2005 stating that the petitioner has been functioning as Principal-cum-Sanskrit Adhyapaka with a consolidated pay of Rs.8000/- per month and sought permission for taking over the management of Smartha Veda Patasala by the temple and run it from the funds of the temple. The said proposal was accepted by the first respondent by proceedings dated 07.03.2005. 4. The said proposal was accepted by the first respondent by proceedings dated 07.03.2005. 4. The Endowments Agama Advisor, Sri Madduri Venkateswara Yajulu recommended his name. After taking over the institution by the second respondent-temple, the petitioner was paid only an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.8000/- per month. He represented his case to the Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department for enhancement of salary from Rs.4000/- to Rs.8000/- as he was drawing the said amount before taking over the institution. However, proceedings were issued on 28.01.2008 enhancing the remuneration from Rs.4000/- per month to Rs.5000/- per month. The matter of enhancement of remuneration from Rs.4000/- to Rs.8000/- per month was placed before the members of the Trust Board and they passed a Resolution No.375, dated 30.05.2008 approving the proposal for payment of Rs.8000/- per month, but the same was not implemented. The Executive Officer addressed a letter to the Commissioner, Endowments Department on 29.01.2009 for enhancement of the remuneration. The Commissioner issued a memo on 08.07.2009 sanctioning only Rs.6000/- per month. However, all of a sudden, the petitioner was asked not to attend the institution. He submitted an appeal to the first respondent on 28.04.2011 and as there was no response he filed W.P. No.19980 of 2015 and this court passed an order on 02.07.2015 directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within eight weeks. When there was no response, the petitioner filed Contempt Case No.1907 of 2015. After receiving notice in the Contempt Case, proceedings were issued on 09.10.2015 by the first respondent rejecting the case of the petitioner. The Contempt Case was closed on 28.12.2015 giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings dated 09.10.2015. Accordingly, he filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 09.10.2015 of the first respondent and the action of the second respondent in orally asking him not to attend the institution with effect from 01.10.2010. 5. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting that the petitioner was working as Principal of Veda Patasala having 20 students. One student by name V. Pavan Kumar got injured on 22.04.2010, he was taken to the hospital for treatment and thereafter he was handed over to his parents. The said matter was not revealed by the petitioner either to the temple or to the first respondent. One student by name V. Pavan Kumar got injured on 22.04.2010, he was taken to the hospital for treatment and thereafter he was handed over to his parents. The said matter was not revealed by the petitioner either to the temple or to the first respondent. The petitioner filed applications stating that Vedic Committee should not dominate Veda Patasala and should not interfere with the said Patasala. The petitioner is only working on consolidated pay and there are no orders appointing the petitioner as Principal of Veda Patasala. Since there were allegations and complaints against the petitioner, the Senior Veda Pandit of the second respondent-temple, Sri Shanmukha Sastry was asked to enquire into the incident and the behaviour of the petitioner. The enquiry revealed that the qualifications of the petitioner are not known, the students in the Patasala are lacking the basic knowledge, the petitioner is not attending to duties regularly, he is a habitual litigant with indecent behaviour and hence his services were found not necessary. The second respondent informed the petitioner not to attend the duties from 01.10.2010. One P.P.Y. Venkateswara Sastry, M.A. in Sanskrit was appointed in his place to teach the students. After lapse of seven months, the petitioner submitted a representation to continue him in service. Thereafter, the Temple had converted the Veda Patasala into Smartha Veda Patasala from June 2015 keeping the existing Senior Veda Pandit working in the second respondent-temple as Principal and the said school management is given to Smartha Veda Pandits and Adhyapakas of the Temple. There are 72 students now. After disposal of the Writ Petition No.19980 of 2015 for considering the representation dated 28.4.2011 of the petitioner, the Executive Officer of the second respondent-temple was directed to submit a report and accordingly he submitted a report on 30.09.2015. After considering the same, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected on 09.10.2015. Thus, the petitioner was not in service from 01.10.2010 till date. He took seven months time to submit a representation and four years time to pursue the representation by filing the Writ Petition. The petitioner is not having interest to teach students. The petitioner is not well versed in teaching the students and it is evident from the report of M. Shanmukha Sastry, Veda Pandit dated 14.04.2010. As of now Veda Patasala is not in existence and the same was closed. The petitioner is not having interest to teach students. The petitioner is not well versed in teaching the students and it is evident from the report of M. Shanmukha Sastry, Veda Pandit dated 14.04.2010. As of now Veda Patasala is not in existence and the same was closed. The Temple has started a new Smartha Veda Patasala which is now run by Veda Pandits of the second respondent-Temple. 6. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the averments made in the counter. He stated that the enquiry was entrusted to one M. Shanmukha Sastry who is member of Vedic Committee of the second respondent-temple. The Vedic Committee was constituted to supervise the rituals performed by the Archakas in the temple. They have nothing to do with Veda Patasala run by the second respondent-temple. The said M. Shanmukha Sastry, who is holding the post of Principal on deputation basis is not well versed in Sanskrit and knows only Yajurvedam through Gurumukhatah without knowing the Sanskirt script. He developed prejudice against the petitioner. He further stated that Veda Patasala was amalgamated with the second respondent-temple on 07.03.2005 and not on 07.03.2015. He states that the enquiry was made behind his back and unfounded allegations were levelled against him in the impugned order. The very fact that the students strength rose from 20 to 60 on the day when he was arbitrarily removed from service shows his capacity. The said P.P.Y. Venkateswara Sastry who was stated to have replaced the petitioner is a Purana Pandit and it cannot be construed as regular arrangement. He stated that the delay in disposing of the appeal cannot be attributed to him and the delay occurred due to lapse of the respondents only. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was on consolidated pay, the termination of the petitioners services on oral orders of the second respondent and confirmation of the same by the first respondent by the impugned proceedings dated 09.10.2015 is bad in law. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-temple, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was removed from service after conducting an enquiry. 9. In view of the said submissions, this Court called for the records from the second respondent-temple. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-temple, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was removed from service after conducting an enquiry. 9. In view of the said submissions, this Court called for the records from the second respondent-temple. The records reveal that Sri Jagadguru Aarsha Vidya Peetham, V.D. Puram, Vijayawada town was registered under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (hereinafter called as the Act). The school was registered under the AP Societies Registration Act on 13.06.2002. The petitioner submitted a representation on 31.07.2004 for taking over the management of the school and the Board of Trustees of the temple passed a resolution on 31.07.2004 for preparing a report for taking over the management of the school and the land of Devasthanam to an extent of Ac.2-00 and submit the same to the first respondent for consideration. Accordingly, the second respondent submitted a report on 06.08.2004. When a report was called by the first respondent on Sri Durga Malleswara Samskruthandra Kalasala and taking over the management of Smartha Veda Samskruta Patasala run by Sri Jagadguru Aarsha Vidya Peetham, Vijayawada, the second respondent submitted a report to the first respondent on 19.01.2005 wherein it was clearly stated that the petitioner has been functioning as Principal-cum-Samskrutha Adhyapaka on consolidated salary of Rs.8000/- per month. It was also stated that apart from the petitioner two other Smartha Adhyapaks, one Clerk, one Cook and one Sweeper were working. 10. The second respondent issued proceedings on 30.07.2005 constituting a committee consisting of five members for advising the Executive Officer in running the school and in the said proceedings it was stated that the school was having 30 students. The committee consisted of one Vedic supervisor, three Veda Pandits and one Personal Assistant who should act as Convener. It was directed that they should meet once in 10 days and submit a report to the second respondent. 11. The records also reveal that the first respondent issued proceedings on 07.03.2005 according permission to take over the management of Smartha Patasala run by Sri Jagadguru Aarsha Vidya Peetham, Vijayawada by the second respondent-temple and to run the said Veda Patasala with the funds of Devasthanam. 11. The records also reveal that the first respondent issued proceedings on 07.03.2005 according permission to take over the management of Smartha Patasala run by Sri Jagadguru Aarsha Vidya Peetham, Vijayawada by the second respondent-temple and to run the said Veda Patasala with the funds of Devasthanam. The petitioner submitted a representation on 02.02.2007 to the Executive Officer seeking enhancement of his remuneration from Rs.4000/- per month to Rs.8000/- per month as he was drawing the said amount at the time of taking over of the management of the school by proceedings of the first respondent dated 07.03.2005. The petitioner was asked to produce the proof of his qualifications and accordingly he submitted the certificates of his qualification. The first respondent issued a memo on 28.01.2008 enhancing the remuneration from Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- with effect from 01.01.2008 on the basis of the report submitted by the second respondent on 07.04.2006. The petitioner submitted a representation on 05.11.2008 to the first respondent seeking enhancement of the remuneration from Rs.4000/- to Rs.8000/-. The Board of Trustees of the second respondent-Temple passed a resolution No.375 on 30.05.2008 for enhancing the remuneration from Rs.4000/- per month to Rs.8000/- per month and the same was forwarded to the second respondent on 28.11.2008. The second respondent in turn forwarded the same to the first respondent on 20.03.2009. The first respondent issued a memo on 08.07.2009 fixing the remuneration at Rs.6000/- per month from September 2009 onwards. 12. The school was transferred to a permanent building of the second respondent-Temple in Poranki on 02.06.2015 and 15 Vedic students and 15 Smartha students have been studying. The second respondent addressed a letter on 07.06.2015 furnishing the expenditure for running the school. The second respondent issued proceedings on 27.05.2015 fixing the duties and responsibilities of the teaching and non-teaching staff. Separate proceedings were issued on 16.06.2015 for providing medical facilities to the students. A selection committee was constituted for admitting the students. A letter was addressed to Sri Venkateswara Veda Viswa Vidyalayam, Tirupathi seeking affiliation and also guidance for maintenance of the school. A letter was addressed on 24.09.2015 by the second respondent to the first respondent seeking permission for deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- each for 15 Smartha students and Rs.3,00,000/- each for 15 Vedic students as per the sanctioned amount of Rs.75,00,000/- issued by the first respondent earlier. 13. A letter was addressed on 24.09.2015 by the second respondent to the first respondent seeking permission for deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- each for 15 Smartha students and Rs.3,00,000/- each for 15 Vedic students as per the sanctioned amount of Rs.75,00,000/- issued by the first respondent earlier. 13. In the light of the above facts as revealed from the record, it has to be seen whether the termination of the services of the petitioner by oral orders are proper or not. 14. The undisputed facts in this case are that the Commissioner, first respondent herein permitted the second respondent for taking over the management of Smartha Patasala run by Sri Jagadguru Aarsha Vidya Peetham, Vijayawada by Sri Durga Malleswaraswamy Devasthanam and to run the same with the funds of the Devasthanam by proceedings dated 07.03.2005. At the time of such taking over, the petitioner was working as Principal of the school on a monthly remuneration of Rs.8000/- but he was paid only Rs.4000/- at the time of taking over. The repeated requests of the petitioner for enhancement of the remuneration to Rs.8000/- did not yield any result, but the remuneration was periodically enhanced from Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- and from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6000/-. The second respondent constituted a committee of five members for advising the second respondent on running the school. One M. Shanmukha Sastry, a Veda Pandit is one among them. A meeting was conducted by the members of the committee of the school in December 2005, wherein the code of conduct for the students and parents and the time table for teaching was approved. The approved time table contains 2 hours teaching of Sanskrit, 3 hours teaching of Smartha learning and 2 hours teaching of traditional literature apart from 3 times Sandhya Vandanam. There is no prescribed syllabus or text books. The second respondent issued proceedings on 11.07.2009 directing the said Veda Pandit to submit a report on the working of the school. The approved time table contains 2 hours teaching of Sanskrit, 3 hours teaching of Smartha learning and 2 hours teaching of traditional literature apart from 3 times Sandhya Vandanam. There is no prescribed syllabus or text books. The second respondent issued proceedings on 11.07.2009 directing the said Veda Pandit to submit a report on the working of the school. He reported as follows: (1) the teaching of Smartha and training is proper; (2) there is no elementary knowledge to the students in Sanskrit, the reason being the Sanskrit teacher has not been attending properly and he has been stating that nobody has authority to question him and he has been behaving independently styling himself as Principal; (3) when asked to show the time table he did not show the same (there is no time table); (4) nobody knows his qualifications and teaching experience; (5) there are allegations that he has been working in other organizations; (6) he has been utilizing the services of the students in his house; (7) he neither teaches to the students nor the students learn anything. 15. He ultimately opined that there is no use of him and his services are not required apart from being a financial burden to the temple. There is no need for Sanskrit for Smartha education and if Sanskrit has to be taught as an additional learning, if somebody is appointed from renowned universities it would be proper. The report was submitted on 14.04.2010. The petitioner was asked not to attend to duties orally with effect from 01.10.2010. Thereafter, he submitted an appeal to the first respondent on 28.04.2011 and when there was no response, he filed W.P. No.19980 of 2015. In spite of disposal of the said writ petition by this Court on 02.07.2015, when no orders were passed by the first respondent, he filed a Contempt Case No.1907 of 2015. After receipt of the notice in the Contempt Case the first respondent passed an order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner by proceeding dated 09.10.2015 with the following observations. 16. In pursuance of the above orders, a report of the Executive Officer of the subject Devasthanam has been called for. After receipt of the notice in the Contempt Case the first respondent passed an order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner by proceeding dated 09.10.2015 with the following observations. 16. In pursuance of the above orders, a report of the Executive Officer of the subject Devasthanam has been called for. Accordingly in the reference 5th cited, the present Special Grade Deputy Collector and Executive Officer, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, Krishna District has submitted his report dated 30.09.2015 stating that there is no vacancy of Pradhana Upadhyaya/Principal post in the Patasala and the Patasala is converted as Smartha Veda Patasala from June 2015 by keeping a existing senior Veda Pandit of the subject Devasthanam as Principal and the Smartha Veda patasala is being run by the existing Veda Pandits in the Devasthanam as Adhyapakas. At present there are (72) students in Smartham and Vedam in the Patasala. 17. In pursuance of the orders of the Honble High Court dated 02.07.2015 in the W.P. No.19980/2015 and in view of the representation made by Sri P.V. Suryanarayana Sharma dated 28.04.2011, taking into consideration of the reports submitted by the then Executive Officer and the present Special Grade Deputy Collector and Executive officer, Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, Krishna District dated 09.06.2011 and 30.09.2015, the representation dated 28.04.2011 of Sri P.V. Suryanarayana Sharma deserves no consideration. Therefore the representation made by Sri P.V. Suryanarayana Sharma dated 28.04.2011 to consider his request for performing his duties in the subject Devasthanam Patasala is hereby rejected. 18. The first respondent did not apply her mind to the legality or otherwise of the removal of the petitioner by oral orders of the second respondent. Though the school was shifted to a new building in Poranki and a combined Smartha and Veda school is being run with effect from 02.06.2015, there is no reason for not accommodating the petitioner. The person who is kept in-charge as Principal is none other than the said M. Shanmukha Sastry who wrote a report against the petitioner and already working as a Veda Pandit in the temple. He is not a regularly appointed Principal but he is on deputation from the temple. Now his pay appears to be Rs.55,000/- per month. An Archaka of the Devasthanam namely P.P.Y. Venkateswara Sastry is appointed as Sanskrit lecturer. 19. He is not a regularly appointed Principal but he is on deputation from the temple. Now his pay appears to be Rs.55,000/- per month. An Archaka of the Devasthanam namely P.P.Y. Venkateswara Sastry is appointed as Sanskrit lecturer. 19. A careful perusal of the record reveals that there was some strained relationship between the petitioner and the school committee appointed to advise the Executive Officer. A report was obtained from one of the members of the school committee and the second respondent submitted a report based on the report of the said member along with the complaint of report of hospitalization of one student in connection with a small accident. The petitioner was not issued even a single memo at any point of time and he was summarily removed from service without any written order. He is a Sanskrit Pandit. He was treated worse than an industrial worker by asking him not to attend to duties. The first respondent appears to have not perused the record and has not come to an objective decision. This Court is of the opinion that the termination of the petitioner is clearly arbitrary and unbecoming of the conduct of the second respondent at that time. The first respondent should have remedied the situation. Even if there are any lapses on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner should have been asked to mend his ways. The report of the school committee member says that there is no need for Sanskrit lecturer but Archaka of the temple was appointed as Sanskrit lecturer who obviously is not having teaching experience. All the observations made in the report made against the petitioner are negated in practice now. The petitioner was appointed after verifying the qualifications with which none can have any doubt as the petitioner obtained those qualifications from Acharya Nagarjuna University and Sri Venkateswara University. He obtained Grade-I Pandit Training Certificate and Ubhaya Basha Praveena in Telugu and Sanskrit. 20. In view of the above facts, the oral termination of the petitioner by the second respondent and rejection of the appeal of the petitioner by the first respondent are held illegal and the second respondent is directed to take the petitioner in service within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for which he should submit an application. The Petitioner shall be placed in the regular pay scale applicable to the teachers of Veda Patasala. The period during which the petitioner was out of service shall not be treated as duty and he shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances. 21. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. 22. Though the case is disposed of as aforesaid, the facts in the present case and in other cases compel me to make some observations in this connection. This case shows the present state of affairs of Vedic learning under the control of the temple administration and government. The administration executive appears to be acting without any policy direction. There appears to be no policy framed by the Government for running schools imparting education in religious rituals and vedic studies. There are different schools run by individuals with their own funds, certain Mutts/Peethams and Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. There is Sri Venkateswara Vedic University established under an Act of the State legislature. Though the State has no religion of its own, it has a constitutional duty to protect the faith of the people and regulate the activity connected with such faith. Majority of the people follow Hindu religion and those who believe perform certain rituals. Those rituals have to be performed in accordance with the Sastric prescriptions whose origin is traced to Vedas. The priest, who performs the rituals, is a professional on religious side like any other professional discharging secular duties. Though the State is ill-equipped to determine the nature and quality of study in such areas of learning, it is not incompetent to frame a policy and legislate on the subject. This is an important area touching the daily life of many Hindus. In the absence of any regulation determining the competency of persons performing rituals, there is scope for incompetent people and fraudsters posing themselves as learned to perform rituals. When the Government is discharging its duties under the provisions of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, it is incumbent upon it to regulate the religious learning, for which purpose they should frame a policy under the guidance of renowned Vedic Pandits. When the Government is discharging its duties under the provisions of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, it is incumbent upon it to regulate the religious learning, for which purpose they should frame a policy under the guidance of renowned Vedic Pandits. It cannot be left to the whims and fancies of the people running the temples or to bureaucrats. They should not be allowed to hire and fire scholars or religious teachers. When the funds of the devotees are utilized for running the schools for religious instruction in rituals, there should be proper staff, syllabus and certification of learning. Though each temple is having its own budget, the over all control of all the temples is vested in the Government. It is high time for the Government either to amend the Charitiable and Religious Endowments Act or to form a society by executive order for imparting religious instruction and bringing all schools teaching Vedic knowledge and practice in rituals under the control of the said Society by framing appropriate syllabus, recruitment of qualified staff and conducting examinations. When more and more devotees are thronging temples and performing rituals in their homes, there is an imperative need for the State to certify the religious practitioners without leaving the believers to their own belief and exposing them to unqualified practitioners. The following extract from the recent recommendations made by the Committee appointed by the Ministry of Human Resources Development of Government of India in its vision and road map for development of Sanskrit 10 years perspective is apposite in this connection: 23. Recommendations for Veda Vidya Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Veda Sanskrita Vidya Parishat (MSRVSVP) 1. The committee is of the opinion that the primary level of Vedic and Sanskrit studies should be inspiring, motivating and joyful. With regard to Sanskrit Pathashalas it is desirable to give greater importance to the use of Sanskrit more and more in order to eventually evolve Sanskrit as the medium of instruction in the coming years. It is also desirable to include subjects of modern education into Vedic and Sanskrit Pathashalas in a balancing way. The course content of these Pathashalas should be designed to suit to the needs of the contemporary society and also for finding solutions to modern problems using ancient knowledge. 2. It is also desirable to include subjects of modern education into Vedic and Sanskrit Pathashalas in a balancing way. The course content of these Pathashalas should be designed to suit to the needs of the contemporary society and also for finding solutions to modern problems using ancient knowledge. 2. With regard to Veda Pathashalas it is felt that they need further standardization of recitation skills along with introduction of graded material of Sanskrit and modern subjects so that the students can ultimately reach the point of studying Veda bhashyas. Due emphasis may also be given for the study of Vikriti Patha of Vedas at an appropriate level. The members have also expressed their concern that the Vedic recitation studies are not uniformly spread all over India, therefore due steps may be taken to improve the situation without in anyway interfering with regional variations of recitation styles and teaching method of Vedic recitation. 3. The committee took note of various forms of Gurukulas which follow Artha parampara. The committee also took note of Gurukulas in Shramana Parampara. It is felt that, in all these Gurukulas, content of modern subjects should also be introduced in a balanced way. 4. The committee observes that the examinations conducted by these institutions should have legally valid recognition enjoying parity with modern system of education like CBSE. Further it is emphasized that these institutions be provided with substantial financial support not only for teachers salary and scholarship for students but also for infrastructure and library development. Hence, MHRD may establish a Board of Examinations for standardization, affiliation, recognition, authentication of the above said traditional forms of school level education, which will also help to lay proper foundation for the growth of traditional knowledge systems and undertaking new and innovative contemporarily relevant programs in these traditional educational institutions. 5. Since Veda and Sanskrit are inseparable and complementary to each other and since the recognition and affiliation problems are same for all the Veda Pathashalas and Sanskrit Pathashalas throughout the country a Board may be constituted for both together. The Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Veda Vidya Pratishthan, Ujjain may be given the status of Board of Examinations with the following name Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Veda Sanskrita Vidya Parishat (MSRVSVP) with headquarters in Ujjain which will continue all programs and activities which were being conducted hitherto in addition to being a Board of Examinations. 6. The Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Veda Vidya Pratishthan, Ujjain may be given the status of Board of Examinations with the following name Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Veda Sanskrita Vidya Parishat (MSRVSVP) with headquarters in Ujjain which will continue all programs and activities which were being conducted hitherto in addition to being a Board of Examinations. 6. The proposed Board will hold VIII, X and XII standard examinations and award certificates in all the above said streams of traditional school education. It will also help standardization of traditional education and appropriately blending with modern and contemporarily relevant subjects. 7. It is worth recalling here the unique provisions incorporated in the MoA of MSRVVP as desired and directed by His Holiness the Paramacharya Sri Chandrashekharendra Saraswati Swamiji of Kanhi Kamakoti Peetham and the kind of importance attached by him to the Shabdaraksha parampara of Vedic studies and unique, age old practices of Acharyas, students and organizers of Vedapathashalas which are termed as Sadachara being passed on from generation to generation. It may be noted that only because of this kind of Vedic studies and practices oral transmission of Vedas has received the recognition as World Oral Heritage from UNESCO. Therefore, due emphasis be given to maintain the purity and integrity of the centuries old tradition of Shabda parampara of Vedadhyayana. 8. The proposed Board is recommended to have number of faculties for each one of above said different forms of traditional knowledge systems, namely 1) Shabda Parampara Veda Pathashalas, 2) Artha Parampara Veda Pathashalas 3) Sanskrit Pathashalas 4) Shramana Parampara Pathashsalas 5) Gurukulas. 9. In addition to supporting and developing the existing types of pathashalas, the proposed Board is recommended to evolve a few new types of pathashalas such as 1) Pathashalas with Veda and Sanskrit as major subjects and modern subjects as minor, 2) Modern subjects as major and Veda/Sanskrit as minor 3) Schools of general education courses through Sanskrit medium 4) Evening schools of Veda/Sanskrit which are the compelling and sustaining needs of Veda Sanskrit Education. It is strongly felt that these steps would herald a new era in Veda Sanskrit Education. 10. It is strongly felt that these steps would herald a new era in Veda Sanskrit Education. 10. The proposed Board in addition to conducting the above said examinations will also have different departments at its headquarters to take care of 1) In-service training of the teachers of these pathashalas 2) Pedagogy department for designing and conducting of D.Ed and B.Ed equivalent courses in the above said subjects 3) A department devoted for the preservation, propagation and development of various methods for the teaching of Vikriti Pathas, Varnasarakrama, Vedangas etc 4) Research, Material production, Editing and Publishing departments. These four types of works are non-existent today anywhere in the country. 11. The Committee feels that the proposed Board will go a long way in all round development of existing pathashalas and in undertaking efforts to evolve innovative and experimental development of the pathashalas. It will also work as catalyst in evolving alternative Indian knowledge based school education parallel to the model of modern school education. 12. The Committee recommends for providing financial support in the form of grants for recurring and non-recurring expenditure of all the above pathashalas more generously with a view to let the board discharge its responsibility towards development of indigenous knowledge systems. In this connection, numbers shall not be the criteria but the knowledge and its perceived contribution for the humanity should take primacy. 13. The committee also recommends that those who impart Vedic knowledge to their kin at home which is traditionally called Niyamadhyayanam should also be supported. 14. Further the committee recommends that all the available Vedic knowledge system, oral and written should be made available on line for public access. 15. It is felt that the temple rituals and architecture are at the verge of extinction. The proposed MSRVSP may take up this task and offer regular courses on this traditional knowledge system and also organize short term training programs. A list of authorized or licentiate experts in this field may also be made available online. Measures for preservation, propagation and sustenance of Veda Vidya. 24. Vedas are the treasure house of knowledge and regarded as the foremost ancient literature available on Earth. They are transmitted till now through oral tradition under Guru Shishya system of fool proof and time tested method. Measures for preservation, propagation and sustenance of Veda Vidya. 24. Vedas are the treasure house of knowledge and regarded as the foremost ancient literature available on Earth. They are transmitted till now through oral tradition under Guru Shishya system of fool proof and time tested method. It is our duty to preserve, conserve and develop the oral tradition of Vedic studies and for that various activities, such as support traditional Vedic Institutions and Scholars, provide fellowships, undertake production of audio/video tapes, etc. are needed. This system of oral transmission is to be protected and the tradition of intonation and recitation through the human agency must be preserved. Facilities should be provided for research to students with the background of Vedic knowledge to equip them with sufficient grounding in scientific and analytical methodology, so that scientific information contained in the Vedas, particularly in disciplines like Mathematics, Astronomy, Meteorology, Chemistry, Hydraulics, etc. could be linked with modern sciences and technology and a rapport established between them and modern scholars. For this purpose, existing Veda Pathashalas and research institutions engaging in Vedic research will require to be supported. 25. A special attention needs to be paid towards various Shakhas and particularly those that are at the verge of extinction. For this purpose, Human Repositories are to be indentified and supported. A Knowledge Storehouse of information about the state of textual material, printed manuscripts, texts, commentaries and interpretations etc., is to be created, wherein information about the present state of recordings both audio and visual available in the country is available. Academicians and researchers should be encouraged to take up research in the knowledge contained in Vedic texts and Vedic literature from the earliest time of Vedic period to the present day, in areas of science, agriculture, technology, philosophy, yoga, education, poetics, grammar, linguistics and Vedic tradition with sufficient support in terms of physical infrastructure and man power. 26. Recommendations for Schemes for Development of Veda Vidya (A) Existing schemes for the Development of Veda Vidya 1. Preservation of Oral Veda Tradition through various means such as recording, digitization etc. 2. Financial Assistance to Veda Pathashalas These existing schemes may be continued. However, a number Veda Pathashalas may be increased for assistance. Establishing of new Pathashalas may be encouraged in rare shakhas. 3. Preservation of Oral Veda Tradition through various means such as recording, digitization etc. 2. Financial Assistance to Veda Pathashalas These existing schemes may be continued. However, a number Veda Pathashalas may be increased for assistance. Establishing of new Pathashalas may be encouraged in rare shakhas. 3. Parampara Adhyayana Scheme Financial assistance to Veda tradition where parental Veda Adhyayana takes place through Father, Grand Father (both Paternal and Maternal) and Uncle (both Paternal and Maternal). Exam through rigorous Shalaka Parikasha. Exam through the proposed Secondary Board. On successful completion each Antevasin may be paid a sum of Rs. One lack in line with TTD scheme. (B) New schemes proposed 1. Digitization of Veda Oral Tradition - Under this scheme, following activities may be undertaken (1) Pooling of scattered digitization efforts and undertaking of digitization of the hitherto non-digitized Shakhas (2) Execute done through Agency or through NGOs,/Organizations/Institutions both formal and non-formal (3) Maximum aid may be fixed 80% of the project cost if undertaken by an Agency (4) Actual expenditure if undertaken by Government agency 2. Grant for Publications - Assistance for Publications related to Veda is proposed under this scheme 3. Assistance for Popularizing Vedas - Publications as booklets will be encouraged under this scheme 4. Vedas to Society - Under this scheme taking Veda wisdom to the society at large in a planned manner will be encouraged 5. Preserving Vikriti Pathas - Under this scheme Veda Pathis will be encouraged to pursue Various Vikriti Pathas. Under this scheme digitization of Vikiriti Pathas will also be done 6. Preserving Varnasaara Krama - This area of study is almost on the verge of extinction and therefore requires encouragement and support. Vedapathis will be given rigorous training in this area 7. All India Vedic Competitions - Under this scheme an all India Vedic competitions will be organized in various shakhas on different aspects, from State level competition to National level with attractive prize money to provide fillip to learning Veda. 29. It is hoped that the Government would take note of the above observations in public interest and act accordingly.