JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Praveen Shukla learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri Bhim Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 15.12.2018 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar/respondent No.2. A further prayer has been made to issue a mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to issue order of joining of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra at Primary School Kaidi, Block Morna, District Muzaffarnagar. 3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner passed his Adhikari Pariksha in the year 2003 as a regular student with first division from the institution namely Maharshi Dayanand Sanskrit Gurukul Mahavidyalaya Ghaziabad which was recognized by Gurukul Viswavidyalaya Vrindavan Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. It is contended that the aforesaid examination is held as equivalent to High School. Subsequently, the petitioner passed his Intermediate Examination from U.P. Baord as a regular student in the year 2005. 4. It is contended that after passing the aforesaid examination, the petitioner became entitled for his appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. For his appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra, the petitioner submitted his application form and thereafter he was duly selected for the post of Shiksha Mitra and appointed in a Primary School, Kaidi, Block Morna, District Muzaffarnagar. In this regard, the petitioner was also issued an appointment letter dated 13.2.2009 and in pursuance of the same, he joined the Institution and thereafter he also completed his training from 10.10.2009 to 12.10.2009. 5. It is contended that at the time when the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra, his educational qualification certificates were duly verified from the office of Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan and the same was found correct and only thereafter, the petitioner was issued appointment letter on the post of Shiksha Mitra. 6. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent No.2 by order dated 19.8.2014 and a consequential order was also passed by the Gram Shiksha Samiti on 9.9.2014. The aforesaid orders were duly challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being Writ A No.52068 of 2014. 6. The appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent No.2 by order dated 19.8.2014 and a consequential order was also passed by the Gram Shiksha Samiti on 9.9.2014. The aforesaid orders were duly challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being Writ A No.52068 of 2014. The said writ petition was allowed on 15.3.2018 and the matter was remitted back before the District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar/respondent No.2 for decision afresh. 7. That in compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 15.3.2018, District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar wrote a letter dated 24.6.2018 to the Registrar, Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya at its Head Office at Lucknow in respect of verification of the certificate. A reply was given by the University vide its letter dated 2.7.2018 stated that the certificate of the petitioner pertaining to Adikhari Pariksha is correct. It is contended that in spite of the same, the petitioner was not permitted to join his services. It is contended that thereafter wholly illegally the claim of the petitioner was again rejected by the respondent No.2/District Basic Education Officer Muzaffarnagar vide its order dated 15.12.2018. The aforesaid order namely order dated 15.12.2018 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 8. The claim of the petitioner was basically rejected on the ground that vide letter of the State Government dated 9.4.2013, the certificates of Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindavan Mathura, Uttar Pradesh have been removed from the recognition as per Chapter XIV Regulation 2(30) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act which has been informed by the Regional Secretary, Intermediate Education Board Meerut vide its letter dated 25.10.2018. 9. It is further contended by Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned passed by the respondent No.2 is in teeth of Full bench judgment of this Court reported in (2013) 4 UPLBEC PAGE 3229 (Dhanpal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was followed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.601 of 2012 (Namrata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 4.4.2014. 10. It is further contended that the order impugned was completely based upon non-application of mind. State of U.P. and others) which was followed by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.601 of 2012 (Namrata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 4.4.2014. 10. It is further contended that the order impugned was completely based upon non-application of mind. It is further contended that Adhikari Pariksha certificate, which is equivalent to the High School certificate prior to 2008, issued by Gurukul Viswavidyalaya Vrindavan Mathura, has been held to be valid and legal whereas the certificate of the petitioner of Adhikari Pariksha is of the year 2003. It is further contended that correct interpretation of the aforesaid judgments were not taken into consideration by the respondent No.2 while passing the order impugned. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it is contended that the order impugned passed is absolutely perfect and valid order. It is further contended that vide his letter dated 24.6.2018 sought for re-verification of the educational record of the petitioner by verifying officer of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow and the verifying officer vide its letter dated 2.7.2018 verified the certificate of the petitioner as genuine and correct. 12. It is further contended that Secretary High School and Intermediate Board U.P. vide its letter dated 15.10.2016 intimated that Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindavan Mathura is not presently recognized as Institution or Board equivalent to High School and Intermediate examination conducted by the U.P. Board and in this situation, respondent No.2 further sought for verification of the certificate issued by Gurukul Viswavidyalaya Brindavan Mathura but the Regional Secretary Education Board Meerut vide its letter dated 25.10.2018 intimated to respondent No.2 that office of the Secretary High School and Intermediate Board U.P. Allahabad has repudiated the regulation in question. It is further contended that the respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner acting on the basis of verification report sent by Principal, Maharshi Dayanand Sanskrit Gurukul Mahavidyalaya Ghaziabad (Annexure -2 to the counter affidavit) in which it is stated that there is no record of the petitioner is available with the college. 13. A short counter affidavit was also filed by the respondent No.3 supporting the case of the petitioner. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. 13. A short counter affidavit was also filed by the respondent No.3 supporting the case of the petitioner. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. From the perusal on record, it is clear that the petitioner passed his Adikhari Pariksha examination in the year 2003 as a regular student from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya Brindavan Mathura, the mark-sheet in respect of the aforesaid examination is appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. From perusal of the same, it is clear that English is one of the subject of the petitioner. 16. The question involved in the writ petition is regarding the validity of the certificate of Adikhari Pariksha issued by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Brindavan Mathura. The full Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanpal (supra) has already decided the aforesaid issue. It so happened that a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.1990 of 2011 decided on 13.10.2011 (Indrawati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others) held that the certificate conferred by Gurukul which has been declared a fake university by the University Grant Commission cannot be accepted as a valid certificate, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for declaration of result cannot be accepted. Subsequently a single Judge of this Court in the case of Akansha Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (6) ADJ 107 decided on 30.3.2012, after examining the various provisions of University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Constitution of India and the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 including Entry No.30 of Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed there under proceeded to hold that recognition of Adhikari Pariksha as equivalent to High School was not dependent on the status of Gurukul as a University within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and therefore, declaration of Gurukul as a fake University by the University Grants Commission would not affect the decision of the Board to accord equivalence to Adikhari Pariksha with High School. It was further held that as the Board had accorded equivalence to Adhikari Pariksha with High School, up to the year 2008, therefore, all those persons who had obtained Adhikari Pariksha certificate up to the year 2008 were entitled to its benefit, regardless of Gurukul being declared a fake University by the University Grant Commission. 17. It was further held that as the Board had accorded equivalence to Adhikari Pariksha with High School, up to the year 2008, therefore, all those persons who had obtained Adhikari Pariksha certificate up to the year 2008 were entitled to its benefit, regardless of Gurukul being declared a fake University by the University Grant Commission. 17. Faced with conflicting judgments, one rendered by a single judge of this court in Akanksha Gautam's case (supra) and the other rendered by a division bench of this court in Special Appeal No. 1990 of 2011 in Indrawati Devi's case (supra), a single judge of this court, vide order dated 19.09.2012, referred the matter for consideration by a larger bench, in the following terms:- "Judgment in the case of Akanksha Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (6) ADJ 107 has not at all taken into consideration, the judgment delivered in Special Appeal No. 1990 of 2011 (Indrawati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 13.10.2011 whereas aforesaid judgment in question has been delivered on 30th March, 2012. Both the judgments are running in different direction adopting different set of reasoning for arriving at definitive conclusion, in view of this it would be much more appropriate that this matter be referred to Larger Bench to examine i. As to whether view taken in case of Akanksha Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (6) ADJ 107 is correct view. Or ii. as to whether view taken in Special Appeal No. 1990 of 2011 (Indrawati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 13.10.2011 is correct view. Let the papers be laid before the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice for constituting the Larger Bench, in this regard." 18. The notification dated 19.9.2008 issued by the Secretary, U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board Allahabad as well as the notification dated 10.5.2013 issued by the Secretary of the Board were taken into consideration by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanpal (supra). 19. The notification dated 19.9.2008 issued by the Secretary, U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board Allahabad as well as the notification dated 10.5.2013 issued by the Secretary of the Board were taken into consideration by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanpal (supra). 19. That vide Notification dated 19.09.2008 issued by the Secretary, U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board, Allahabad, it was notified that the Government by its letter No. 2085/15-7-08-1(139)/05, dated 03.09.2008, had approved amendment to Entry No.30 in Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, in exercise of its power under Section 16(2) of the said Act, and the said amendment would be operative with immediate effect. The unamended and the amended Regulation 2(30), as per the notification, reads as under:- orZeku Lo:i v/;k;&pkSng] fofu;e&2 ¼30½ xq:dqy fo'ofo|ky; o`Unkou }kjk lapkfyr vaxzsth ds vf/kdkjh ijh{kk] tks ,d ls vf/kd o"kZ esa [k.Mksa esa mRrh.kZ u dh xbZ gksA fVIi.kh& bl fofu;e esa iz;qDr 'kCn [k.Mksa ls rkRi;Z iwjd ijh{kk ls gSA la'kksf/kr Lo:i v/;k;&pkSng] fofu;e&2 ¼30½ xq:dqy fo'ofo|ky;] o`Unkou }kjk o"kZ 2008 dh ijh{kk rd lapkfyr vaxszth ds lkFk vf/kdkjh ijh{kk] tks ,d ls vf/kd o"kZ esa [k.Mks esa mRrh.kZ u dh xbZ gksA fVIi.kh&bl fofu;e esa iz;qDr 'kCn [k.Mksa ls rkRi;Z iwjd ijh{kk ls gSA 20. That vide Notification No. 09/85, dated 10th May, 2013, the Secretary of the Board notified that the Government, vide its letter No. 500/15-7-2013-1(139)/2005, dated 09th April, 2013, has approved the revocation of Entry No.30 in Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, in exercise of its power under Section 16(2) of the Act. The notification provides as follows:- orZeku fofu;e v/;k;&pkSng] fofu;e&2 ¼30½ xq:dqy fo'ofo|ky; o`Unkou] eFkqjk }kjk o"kZ&2008 dh ijh{kk rd lapkfyr vaxsth ds lkFk vf/kdkjh ijh{kk] tks ,d ls vf/kd o"kZ esa [k.M+ks esa mRrh.kZ u dh xbZ gksA fVIi.kh& bl fofu;e esa iz;qDr 'kCn [k.Mksa ls rkRi;Z iwjd ijh{kk ls gSA la'kksf/kr fofu;e v/;k;&pkSng] fofu;e&2 ¼30 ½ fo[kf.Mr 21. The notification provides as follows:- orZeku fofu;e v/;k;&pkSng] fofu;e&2 ¼30½ xq:dqy fo'ofo|ky; o`Unkou] eFkqjk }kjk o"kZ&2008 dh ijh{kk rd lapkfyr vaxsth ds lkFk vf/kdkjh ijh{kk] tks ,d ls vf/kd o"kZ esa [k.M+ks esa mRrh.kZ u dh xbZ gksA fVIi.kh& bl fofu;e esa iz;qDr 'kCn [k.Mksa ls rkRi;Z iwjd ijh{kk ls gSA la'kksf/kr fofu;e v/;k;&pkSng] fofu;e&2 ¼30 ½ fo[kf.Mr 21. It was further held by the Full Bench that from a careful examination of the record as also the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the following position emerges: (a) That "Adhikari Pariksha" certificate awarded by Gurukul Viswavidhyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura was accorded equivalence with a High School certificate by the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board vide Entry No. 30 in Regulation No.2 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, provided the same was passed in one year with English as one of the subject. (b) That UGC declared a list of fake Universities wherein the name of Gurukul Vishwavidhyalaya, Vrindavan finds mention. (c) That in deference to the declaration by UGC, vide notification dated 19th September, 2008, Entry No. 30 in Regulation No.2 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 was amended with the sanction of the State Government, under Section 16(2) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, whereby the equivalence accorded to "Adhikari Pariksha" was limited up to the year 2008. (d) That subsequently, vide notification dated 10th May, 2013, Entry 30 in Regulation 2, under Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act was revoked by amendment, with the sanction of the Government, under Section 16(2) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 22. Ultimately, the full Bench of this Court in Dhanpal (supra) answered the above referred question as follows:- “53. In the instant case, the revocation of the Entry No.30 from Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV was made in deference to the order of this court in Indrawati Devi's case (supra). From the document enclosed with the compilation, as has been noticed by us in paragraph 27 herein above, it does not appear that the Board carried out any independent exercise to ascertain that Gurukul, as an institution imparting education up to the secondary level, for which it had been accorded recognition, never existed. From the document enclosed with the compilation, as has been noticed by us in paragraph 27 herein above, it does not appear that the Board carried out any independent exercise to ascertain that Gurukul, as an institution imparting education up to the secondary level, for which it had been accorded recognition, never existed. No material has been brought on record to suggest that Gurukul was a bogus or a fictitious institution. Thus, in view of the law noticed herein above, providing retrospectivity to the amendment in the Regulations would be completely unjustified inasmuch as the equivalence earlier accorded to "Adhikari Pariksha", up to the year 2008, by the U.P. Board, in exercise of its power under section 15 read with section 7 of the Act, 1921, has conferred rights of enduring character on persons who pursued the course and obtained such certificates, and such right having vested in them cannot be extinguished by mere deletion of Entry No.30 from Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921, particularly, in absence of any statutory intendment to make it applicable from retrospective effect. Providing retrospectivity to such an amendment would play havoc with the life and career of innumerable persons who, on the strength of Adhikari Pariksha certificate, have pursued and obtained higher qualifications. 54. In view of the discussion made above, we answer the reference thus: (a) Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, up to the year 2008 i.e. till it was recognized by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School, obtained with English as one of the subject, and passed in one year, is a valid qualification equivalent to High School, regardless of Gurukul having been declared a fake University by the UGC. (b) The decision of the division bench in Special Appeal No. 1990 of 2011 dated 13.10.2011 (Indrawati Devi v. State of U.P. and others), which holds that "Adhikari Pariksha" certificate obtained from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura cannot be held to be a valid degree, does not lay down the correct law. Let the papers of this writ petition be placed before the appropriate Court for further orders. 23. The aforesaid controversy was also came up before this Court in Namrata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra). Let the papers of this writ petition be placed before the appropriate Court for further orders. 23. The aforesaid controversy was also came up before this Court in Namrata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra). It was held by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case that since the petitioner was issued Adikhari Pariksha Examination Certificate from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Brindavan Mathura in the year 2003 and Adikhari Pariksha Examination Certificate issued by Gurukul Viswavidyalaya Brindavan Mathura up to year 2008 was recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. as equivalent to the High School obtained in one year with English as one of the Subject. From perusal of the mark-sheet of the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner passed Adikhari Pariksha examination in the year 2003 from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya Brindavan Mathura in one year with English as one of the subject. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.2/District Basic Education Officer, Muzaffarnagar only on the ground that vide letter of the State Government dated 9.4.2013, the certificate of Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Brindavan Mathura has been removed from the recognition as per Chapter XIV Rule 2(30) of the Intermediate Education Act. 24. From perusal of the same, it is clear that Adikhari Pariksha Certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalaya Brindavan Mathura which is equivalent to High School was declared as a valid certificate till the year 2008, i.e., till it was recognized by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education Board as equivalent to High School obtained with English as one subject and passed in one year. The petitioner has passed the aforesaid examination in the year 2003 in English as one subject in one year. It is not a case of any party that the aforesaid examination was not passed by the petitioner in one year. 25. In view of the same and in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanpal (supra) the certificate of the Adhikari Parkisha of 2003 of the petitioner cannot be declared invalid only on the ground that the name of the University has been deleted from the Regulation framed by the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Now the question of consideration in the present case is that whether the aforesaid notification have any retrospective effect or not. Now the question of consideration in the present case is that whether the aforesaid notification have any retrospective effect or not. Full Bench in the case of Dhanpal (supra) has already held that the certificate in question is deemed to be a valid certificate till the year 2008. 26. In view of the same, the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 15.12.2018 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. A mandamus is issued to the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate order in respect of joining of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in the Institution in question. The respondent No.2 is also directed to release salary of the petitioner for the period his service was terminated illegally. The petitioner is also entitled for all other consequential benefits specially the continuity of service and seniority. The aforesaid exercises be completed by the respondent No.2 within a period of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 27. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.