Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 September, 2014
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Arun Palli
LPA No.1121 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. LPA No.1121 of 2014(O&M)
Date of Decision:10.09.2014
Satish Kumar
... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
2. LPA No.1149 of 2014(O&M)
Vikas Sharma
... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar Rohilla, Advocate,
for the appellant(s).
*****
1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest?
*****
ARUN PALLI, J.
These are intra-court appeals, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 20.01.2014, vide which the prayer advanced by the appellants to direct the Haryana School Teachers Selection Board [for short, 'the Board'] to treat Acharya degree equal to M.A.(Sanskrit), was rejected and Rajan Kumar 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.1121 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. -2- consequently the civil writ petitions preferred by them were dismissed by a common order.
The appellants obtained a Acharya degree from Kurukshetra University and pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Board, they applied for the post of Post Graduate Teachers (PGT), Sanskrit. Their candidature was rejected by the Board on the ground that the qualification stipulated in the advertisement was M.A. in Sanskrit and whereas the appellants possessed a Acharya degree. That is how, appellants vide civil writ petitions prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Board to treat the Acharya degree equal to M.A.(Sanskrit). And they be held eligible for consideration for appointment to the post of PGT (Sanskrit). Before the learned Single Judge, what was sought to be urged was that the Shashtri degree obtained by the appellants was treated to be equivalent to B.A. in Sanskrit and therefore on the same analogy the Acharya degree, which they had acquired from the Kurukshetra University, had to be treated equal to M.A. in Sanskrit. Reliance was placed upon a decision of this court in Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana [CWP No.6686 of 1996 decided on 24.01.1996] wherein the Acharya degree was held to be equal to M.A. in Sanskrit in the wake of the letter issued by the Government of India on 23.01.1964. Further, a decision of the Hon'ble Rajan Kumar 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.1121 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. -3- Supreme Court in Rampalit Vyakaran Acharya and others v. Punjab University and another, 1976(3) SCC 2 was also relied upon.
As against this, it was maintained by the State that pursuant to the promulgation of Haryana State Education School Cadre (Group-B) Rules, 2012 [for short, 'the 2012 Rules'], specific qualifications have been prescribed for the post of PGT (Sanskrit) i.e. M.A. (Sanskrit) with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from recognized University. The said Rules, it was submitted, do not stipulate any equivalent clause and thus, the prayer of the appellants could not be countenanced. The recognition/equivalence list issued by the Maharshi Dayananad University (MDU), Rohtak, in April, 2011, does not postulate that Acharya degree of MDU, Rohtak, would be equal to M.A.(Sanskrit). In fact entry No.55 reveals that Acharya degree of Sampurnanand University was equivalent to Acharya degree of MDU, Rohtak and that could not be construed to mean that of was equal to M.A.(Sanskrit).
The stand set out by Kurukshetra University has been that in the year 1975, the Academic Council did resolve that the examination in M.A.(Sanskrit) passed from Kurukshetra University would be equal to a degree in Acharya, provided that the candidates passed subject of English of B.A. standard in the examination of Rashtriya Rajan Kumar 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.1121 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. -4- Sanskrit Sansthan New Delhi. However, the Academic Council reviewed the said decision and it was resolved that Acharya examination from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan New Delhi would be equivalent to Acharya examination of Kurukshetra University. Therefore, in the list of equivalence prepared by the Kurukshetra University, Acharya examination passed from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan New Delhi is declared to be equivalent to Acharya examination from Kurukshetra University.
Learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the matter in issue and material on record, found that the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of PGT(Sanskrit) under the advertisement and 2012 Rules, were identical. Under the said Rules, a candidate was required to be "M.A. Sanskrit with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from recognized University." Accordingly, it was observed that the requisite qualifications required for appointment to the post of PGT(Sanskrit) were clear and specific and there being no equivalence clause under the rules, the contention of the appellants could not be countenanced. In reference to the decision of the Full Bench of this court in Som Dutt v. State of Haryana and another, 1983(3) SLR 141, it was further observed that it was purely prerogative of the employer to provide for the qualifications for appointment to the post and Rajan Kumar 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.1121 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. -5- it could insist upon the qualifications so prescribed under the statutory rules. Insofar as the reliance being placed by the appellants upon a decision of this court in Ravinder Kumar's case (supra), it was observed that the said decision would not advance the cause of the appellants as subsequently the statutory rules governing the service i.e. the 2012 Rules had come into existence. The conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge reads as thus:
"That apart, although the petitioners in cases where they have passed their Acharya from Sampurnanand University, which is a State University and recognized by the UGC, but the qualifications possessed by the petitioners are not the same as has been provided under the statutory rules. Even the recognition/equivalence list of the MDU or the KUK do not, in any of them, recognize or declare it to be equivalent to M.A. Sanskrit except that the Acharya possessed by the petitioners is equal to that of Acharya of the concerned University but that would not entitle the petitioners to be declared as possessing qualifications of M.A. in Sanskrit. There is nothing on the record to suggest that M.A. in Sanskrit of MDU or KUK is accepted as equal to that of Acharya of these very universities, rather the stand of KUK in the reply filed by them is that M.A. in Sanskrit of KUK is not equal to that of Acharya of the same University.Rajan Kumar 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.1121 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. -6-
As regards the claim of the petitioners that this Court in its judgment in Ravinder Kumar's case (supra) has held that Acharya degree is equal to that of M.A. Sanskrit also cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the statutory rules governing the service i.e. the 2012 Rules have come into existence which is subsequent to the judgment passed by this Court. The ground taken by the respondents in Ravinder Kumar's case (supra) where the petitioner had successfully competed for the post and even selected was that the Acharya degree possessed by the petitioner was not equivalent to M.A. It is not a position in the present case as it is not reflected therein whether the equivalent qualification was permissible or not. Similar was the position in Ramphalit Vyakaran Acharya's case (supra) where again it appears that the equivalent qualification was acceptable and, therefore, the degree of Acharya was treated as equivalent to that of M.A. Reliance upon the Central Government letter dated 21.11.1990 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi, to contend that the Acharya degree is equivalent to the M.A. degree, cannot be pressed into service to the benefit of the petitioners as it is the right, privilege and prerogative of the employer to accept a particular qualification as equivalent or not. In any case, in the present case, there is no Rajan Kumar 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.1121 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. -7- question of treating an equivalent qualification when there is no such discretion provided for under the statutory rules."
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant(s) and perused the LPA paper books.
Learned counsel for the appellant(s) simply seeks to reiterate the submissions that were advanced before the learned Single Judge and were rejected after due consideration. He submits that this court in Ravinder Kumar's case (supra) had held that Acharya degree obtained from Kurukshetra University was equivalent to M.A. in Sanskrit, on the basis of the letter issued by the Government of India on 23.01.1964. Further, Acharya degree in Sanskrit is indeed equal to M.A. in Sanskrit and, therefore, they were eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of PGT(Sanskrit).
In our considered view the argument, that is being advanced, lacks conviction and cannot be imbibed.
Concededly, the advertisement and the 2012 Rules clearly postulate, that the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of PGT(Sanskrit) is "M.A. Sanskrit with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from recognized University." And appellants before us, possess a degree in Acharya from Kurukshetra University. Indisputably, the statutory rules do Rajan Kumar not envisage any equivalence clause. Still further, the 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.1121 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. -8- recognition/equivalence list issued in April, 2011, by the MDU, Rohtak, nowhere stipulates that Acharya degree of MDU, Rohtak, would be equivalent to M.A.(Sanskrit).
Likewise, the list of equivalence of examinations/degrees/ diplomas, corrected upto 2011, issued by the Kurukshetra University reveals that, Acharya degree from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan New Delhi, was/is treated to be equal to Acharya degree of Kurukshetra University. Nothing was brought on record to show that any decision was ever taken by the Kurukshetra University declaring Acharya degree of the said University equal to M.A.(Sanskrit) of the same University.
Rather, stand set out by the University was that M.A.(Sanskrit) of Kurukshetra University was not equal to Acharya degree of the same University. The letter dated 23.01.1964 issued by the Government of India and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramphalit Vyakaran Acharya's case (supra), upon which the claim of the appellants was predicated, would also not advance their cause as subsequently with the promulgation of the 2012 Rules, specific qualifications, without any equivalence clause, were prescribed for appointment to the post of PGT(Sanskrit).
Thus, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly concluded that there was no occasion to treat Acharya degree as an equivalent qualification, since there was no such Rajan Kumar 2014.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.1121 of 2014(O&M) & Anr. -9- discretion provided under the statutory rules. Further, it was prerogative of the State to determine as to what qualifications are required to be prescribed for a particular post and the State was well within its domain to insist upon the said qualifications as were so provided under the statutory rules.
That being so, we hardly find any ground, least plausible in law, to interfere with the order being assailed in the present appeals. The same being devoid of merit are, accordingly, dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE JUDGE
September 10, 2014
Rajan
Rajan Kumar
2014.09.30 16:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh