Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 December, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1936
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16075 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Jaiswal,Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25712 of 2018 Petitioner :- Tauseef Alam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15745 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sandeep Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Purushottam Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17044 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shashikala Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17201 of 2018 Petitioner :- Susheel Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17206 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Yadav And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17232 of 2018 Petitioner :- Abhay Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17269 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vipin Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17289 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17439 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anant Siddharath And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17694 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bharat Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17716 of 2018 Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17866 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18133 of 2018 Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Anuj Prajapati,Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18143 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rakesh Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18286 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pradeep Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lokesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18509 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anoop Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18575 of 2018 Petitioner :- Prateek Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18691 of 2018 Petitioner :- Satish Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18707 of 2018 Petitioner :- Aditya Rathi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18858 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rohit Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uday Shankar Tiwari,Dinesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19030 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ranjeet Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dashrath Prasad,Ramesh Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20795 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ramlata And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Devesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20799 of 2018 Petitioner :- Gaurav Tyagi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20825 of 2018 Petitioner :- Omkar And 48 Others Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Mishra,Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20833 of 2018 Petitioner :- Satish Dhama And 27 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24827 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari,Shyam Sundar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25728 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mohd. Sabeel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25729 of 2018 Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Piyush Shukla learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
This batch of writ petitions have, with the consent of parties, been taken up for final disposal together.
The issue raised essentially turns upon the validity of the Class-X and XII qualifications held by the petitioners herein and awarded by the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as ''the Gwalior Board')and the Board of Higher Secondary Education Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Delhi Board'). The dispute arose upon the petitioners participating in a recruitment exercise initiated by the respondents for selection of Police Constables in the year 2015. All the petitioners have been non-suited on the ground that the certificates held by them and issued by the Gwalior Board and the Delhi Board are not recognised. Insofar as the Gwalior Board is concerned, the Court notes that the petitioners in the leading writ petition being Writ-A No. 16075 of 2018 passed the High School Examination from the G.C.S. Higher Secondary School Dayampur Meerut which is stated to be affiliated to the said Board. The petitioners in Writ-A No. 25712 of 2018 passed the High School examination from the Shiv Prem Senior Secondary School Pratapgarh which is stated to be affiliated to the Delhi Board.
The principal submission of the petitioners was that both the Delhi as well as the Gwalior Boards were duly recognised by the State Of U.P. According to them the High School and Intermediate examinations conducted by these two Boards were recognised as equivalent to the High School and Intermediate examinations conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. The petitioners contend that the examinations conducted by the Delhi Board and the Gwalior Boards were recognised as equivalent under Chapter-XIV of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act, 19211. It is further submitted that the entries of equivalence in respect of these two Boards were admittedly deleted by a notification dated 5 March 2014. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners contend that the certificates issued in their favour by the Boards in question prior to 05 March 2014 must be recognised and held to be valid qualifications. The submission noted above principally rests on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Dhanpal and others Vs. State of U.P.2 Placing reliance upon a supplementary affidavit filed in these proceedings, reliance is also sought to be placed on various communications issued by different educational institutions of the country to contend that both these Boards have been recognised as being equivalent to the High School and Intermediate certificates issued by various educational boards throughout the country.
On 2 August 2018 a learned Judge of the Court passed the following detailed order in Writ A No. 16075 of 2018:-
"Petitioners are permitted to implead Board of Secondary Education, U.P., Allahabad, through its Secretary as respondent no. 4 in the writ petition. Learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent.
One of the questions, that incidentally falls for consideration in this petition, is as to whether Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior (M.P.) was ever granted recognition / equivalence by the U.P. Intermediate Education Board, Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the provisions contained under Chapter - XIV, Regulation 2, as per which equivalence had been granted to various Boards, which includes, at serial no. 40, Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior (M.P.). Reliance is placed upon page no. 477 of U.P. Education Manual, 5th Edition, published by Alia Law Agency with Shri H.S. Nigam as its author. It is contended that only on 05.03.2014, such equivalence / recognition has been withdrawn.
Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, places reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 630 of 2016 (District Basic Education Officer, Kannauj Vs. Smt. Sadhna Katiyar and Others) to state that the Board was never granted any recognition / equivalence by the U.P. Intermediate Education Board. Instructions have also been furnished in that regard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that specific provisions, contained under Chapter - XIV regulation - 2, had not been placed before the Division Bench, nor has it been referred to in the judgment.
Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be appropriate to obtain specific instructions from the U.P. Secondary Education Board, Allahabad, as to whether it had ever granted equivalence / recognition to the Board in question, on the basis of which it was included in Chapter - XIV, Regulation - 2 or not?
Learned standing counsel prays for and is allowed a week's time to obtain specific instructions from the Secretary of the Board. A short affidavit, in that regard, would also be filed clarifying the position in that regard.
Put up this matter, in the additional cause list, on 09.08.2018."
Thereafter the matter was heard in further detail on 05 September 2018 when the following order came to be passed:-
"Pursuant to the orders passed on the previous occasions, Secretary of the U.P. Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad is present before the Court alongwith records. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the only recognition granted to the Gwalior Board was in the year 1951-52 for High School, which has not been extended thereafter.
Submission is that continuance of recognition in the records was inadvertent inasmuch as there was no conscious decision taken to extend the recognition. It is also stated that in respect of Intermediate Examination, no recognition was ever granted by the U. P. Board to the Madhya Bharat Board, Gwalior (M.P.) and the Delhi Secondary Education Board. Reliance is also placed upon the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Desh Raj Vs. State of Haryana and others passed in Writ Petition No. 15204 of 2015 on 09.02.2016 and Parvinder Kumar Vs. Lala Lajpat Rai University passed in Writ Petition No. 10250 of 2013 on 21.08.2013.
Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to require the Secretary of Board to file her personal affidavit clarifying the position in that regard. The required affidavit would be served upon the counsel for the petitioners by the respondents on 12.09.2018.
Put up in the additional cause list on 14.09.2018, by which time the petitioners may file further reply, if any."
Pursuant to the orders passed and referred to above, the Additional Secretary (Administrative) Madhyamik Siksha Parishad Allahabad filed an affidavit dated 20 August 2018 and the Secretary Madhyamik Siksha Parishad filed her personal affidavit on 14 September 2018. From the disclosures made in these two affidavits, the following position emerges with respect to the Boards in question:
THE GWALIOR BOARD The respondents submits that the Madhyamik Siksha Parishad came to be formed in 1921 upon promulgation of the 1921 Act. At the time when the statute was originally promulgated, examinations conducted by various other educational Boards and institutions of the country were granted equivalence. It is further stated that prior to 1952 numerous examinations Boards existed in Delhi and different States of the country. The respondents state that consequent to the formation of the Central Board of Secondary Education New Delhi by the Government of India in 1952, all other educational boards ceased to exist and no longer had the right to conduct examinations or to award certificates. It is further asserted that around the time of restructuring of States in India, various Siksha Parishads came to be established by law in different States. The basic submission appears to be that post reorganisation of States and the formation of the Central Board of Secondary Education, all States proceeded to establish examination Boards independently and by way of a statutory conferment of rights these Boards were empowered to conduct examinations and grant certificates for the Classes X and XII examinations. It is asserted that post formation of Boards in different States by law, all other private boards and examining bodies ceased to have the right to either conduct examinations or grant certificates.
The affidavit of the Additional Secretary as well as the personal affidavit of the Secretary places on record extracts of Chapter-XIV comprised in the Regulations framed under the 1921 Act and as existing in 1951-52. The Gwalior Board is mentioned at item No. 40. The relevant entry reads thus:-
"(40) the High School Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, in 1951 and 1952"
Chapter XIV and Entry 40 therein continues without amendment in 1954. Sometime thereafter, the suffix "in 1951 and 1952" appears to have been deleted from Entry 40. However, no details of these amendment have been placed on the record by the respondents. The respondents then refer to a communication addressed by the Council of Boards of School Education In India [COBSE] dated 24 July 2010 when the following information was provided to the respondents:-
" We continue to receive letters from the Boards seeking clarification regarding recognition of a Board by COBSE.
In this regard, it may be mentioned that COBSE has laid down a criteria for recognizing Boards, which has the support of Government of India. This criteria is followed scrupulously in examining the cases of recognition of boards/institutions by COBSE.
The criteria for recognition has time and again been conveyed to all the members of COBSE. However, for the convenience of members, this criteria is being reiterated as under:
i. The board should have either been created by Govt. of India through an Act or Parliament or, by a State Government through State Legislation;
ii. An executive order of the Govt of India or a State government.
I am writing this letter to facilitate you to take decision at your own level and minimize the necessity of referring such cases to COBSE."
On 16 December 2010, COBSE specifically apprised the respondents of the position of the two Boards in question as follows:-
"It is to inform you that COBSE is not aware of the existence of the above two Boards and these are not members of COBSE. You may be aware that CBSE, ICSE and NIOS are members of COBSE. The chairman of CBSE is the president of COBSE.
We hope that will meet your requirement."
On 8 July 2011, the Board is shown to have taken a decision to amend Chapter-XIV and to consequently delete the existence of entry 40 therefrom consequent to the information provided by the Council of Boards of School Education in India. A notification was thereafter issued on 05 March 2014 to effect consequential amendments in Chapter-XIV and it is by this notification that entry 40 relating to the Gwalior Board was deleted from the Schedule of equivalent qualifications. The respondents then refer to a detailed decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Court in District Basic Education Officer Kannauj Vs. Smt Sadhna Katiyar and 6 others3. The Division Bench, it becomes relevant to note, while deciding the aforementioned Special Appeal also dismissed by the same judgment Special Appeal No. 453 of 2016 [Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat thru. Chairman Vs. Sanjay Kumar and 6 Others] which was an appeal preferred by the Gwalior Board. The Division Bench was dealing with the correctness of a judgment rendered by a learned Judge which had permitted the candidature of certain persons seeking appointment as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools resting their case of eligibility on the certificates issued by the Gwalior Board. Noticing the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the Gwalior Board of being an unrecognised, unauthorised and non existent Board, the Court directed the Secretary of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad to constitute an Enquiry Committee to examine the genuineness of the Gwalior Board. The Enquiry Committee so constituted thereafter submitted its report along with the affidavit of the then Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad in which the following disclosures came to be made:-
"Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the Division Bench, Smt. Shail Yadav, Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. has filed her personal affidavit through Ms. Subhash Rathi, Standing Counsel, the relevant paragraphs of which are quoted as under:-
"6. That an enquiry committee was constituted to judge the legality of examinations held by Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. The enquiry committee consists of following members:
(i) Rakesh Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Headquarter, Allahabad.
(ii) Santosh Kumar Dev Pandey, Deputy Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha parishad, Headquarter, Allahabad.
(iii) Shri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Senior Administrative Officer, madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Headquarter, Allahabad.
7. That the aforesaid enquiry committee contacted Madhya Pradesh Government on 24.10.2016 regarding information of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat Gwalior. The Ministry of Madhya Pradesh Government, Education Board, Vallabh Bhawsan, Bhopal, through its Deputy Secretary informed vide Letter No.50-4/2015/20-3 Dated 24.10.2016, that no such Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was established vide any Government Order nor Chairman, Secretary or other employees are being appointed by the State Government. Nor it has been authorized to organize and conduct public examination for Class 10th and 12th or issue certificate regarding the same. Photostat copy of letter dated 24.10.2016 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 to this affidavit.
1. That likewise the enquiry committee also contacted Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. The Deputy Secretary of the Shiksha Mandal also apprised the enquiry committee vide letter/1123 dated 24.10.2016 that Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal has not provided any recognition or equivalence to the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior nor any order, notification or advertisement or Government Order has been issued for granting equivalence to the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior for conducting examination of Class 10th and 12th. Photostat copy of letter dated 24.10.2016 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-2 to this affidavit.
9. That apart from the aforesaid, the enquiry committee also went to the Registered Address N-13, Gandhi Nagar, Gwalior, M.P., as stated in the Special Appeal to enquire about the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior and its existence and status. On the aforesaid address the land owner apprised the enquiry committee that no such Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was running from his building about 3 years ago. its office was being run from its office which has already been transferred to other place and the land owner has also given legal notice for not using its address to the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. Copy of Enquiry Report of the Committee as well as copy of statement of the land owner dated 25.10.2016 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-3 & 4 respectively to this affidavit.
10. That from the aforesaid facts and circumstances as adduced by the enquiry committee it is clear that no recognition is being granted by Government of Madhya Pradesh to Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior nor such recognition is being granted by Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, hence Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior is not institution established under law nor its Chairman/ Secretary or other employees are appointed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh nor the appellant Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat is authorized in any manner to conduct examination of Class 10th and 12th or issue certificates for the same.
11. That it is also relevant to submit here that Secondary Education Board, U.P. is constituted in the year 1921 under Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Since then the examination of High School and Intermediate are being conducted by the Board. In Chapter XII and XIV the equivalence of High School and Intermediate Examination is being granted for the examination conducted by any other examination board. But vide order dated 5.3.2014 name of the appellant institution has been expunged and has never been recognized nor its certificates and degree are granted equivalence.
12. That in view of the facts and circumstances stated aforesaid, in the present scenario the appellant are not in existence, status less. It is also relevant to state here that due to inadvertence the name of appellant remained in the record of Intermediate Education Act but the same has been removed vide Notification dated 5th March, 2014. Photostat copy of order dated 5.3.2014 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-5 to this affidavit.
13. That as per the Education Board it is submitted in the Intermediate Education Act:
ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn dk xBu o"kZ 1921 essa b.VjehfM,V f'k{kk vf/kfu;e 1921 ds v/khu fd;k x;k FkkA ifj"kn }kjk rHkh ls gkbZ Ldwy rFkk b.VjehfM,V ijh{kkvksa dk lapkyu fd;k tk jgk gSA ifj"kn fofu;eksa ds v/;k; ckjg rFkk pkSng esa ifj"kn dh gkbZLdwy rFkk b.VjehfM,V ijh{kkvksa dh led{krk ns'k ds vU; f'k{kk cksMksZ rFkk vU; ijh{kk laLFkkvksa }kjk lapkfyr blh Lrj dh ijh{kkvksa ds led{k ?kksf"kr dh xbZ gSA dfri; ijh{kk laLFkk;sa orZeku ifjizs{; esa vfLrRoghu gks x;h gS rFkk dqN ijh{kk laLFkk;sa fons'kksa ;Fkk Jhyadk] ikfdLrku] ckaXykns'k vkfn esa fLFkr gSA o"kZ 1952 ds iwoZ fnYyh rFkk ns'k ds vU; izkUrksa esa dbZ cksMZ ;Fkk ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn fnYyh] cksMZ vkQ gk;j lsds.Mjh ,twds'ku fnYyh] cksMZ vkQ lsds.Mjh ,twds'ku e/; Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk o"kZ 1951 esa lsUVz~y cksMZ vkQ lsds.Mjh ,twds'ku] ubZ fnYyh dh LFkkiuk fd;s tkus ds i'Pkkr rRle; izpfyr vU; lHkh f'k{kk ifj"knksa dk vfLrRo lekIr gks x;kA lkFk gh Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk ns'k ds jkT;ksa dk iquZxBu fd;s tkus ds i'pkr lHkh jkT;ksa esa fof/k }kjk ( Establishment by law) f'k{kk ifj"knksa dh LFkkiuk dh xbZ A ijUrq ifj"kn fofu;eksa esa bldk mYys[k cuk jg x;kA ifj"kn fofu;eksa esa mYys[k cus jgus ds dkj.k dfri; ijh{kk laLFkk;sa ftudk mYys[k fofu;eksa esa cuk jg x;k] vkt Hkh ijh{kkvksa dk lapkyu dj jgh gSA ,slh QthZ ijh{kk laLFkk;sa ns'k ,oa izns'k ds Nk=ksa dks xqejkg dj muds Hkfo"; ds lkFk f[kyokM dj jgh gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd ;kph dh ijh{kk laLFkk dh Hkkafr gh ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn] fnYyh ds uke dh ijh{kk laLFkk] ftldk mYys[k ifj"kn fofu;eksa esa Fkk }kjk gkbZLdwy dh led{krk ds lEcaU/k esa dkmfUly vkWQ cksMZl vkWQ gkbZLdwy ,twds'ku bu bf.M;k ubZ fnYyh¼ dkscls½ ls tkudkjh izkIr djus ij irk pyk fd bl uke dk dksbZ cksMZ fnYyh esa fLFkr ugh gSA ckn esa ijh{kk laPkkydksa }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk la[;k 26310@ 2005 pUnzlsu cuke LVsV vkQ ;w0ih0 ;ksftr dh xbZ] ftls ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA It is also relevant to submit here that a writ petition filed by the examination organizer being Writ Petition No.26310 of 2005, Chandrasen Chauhan v. State of U.P. & others, too was dismissed on 15.7.2011. Copy of the order dated 15.7.2011 is being annexed herewith and marked as Anneuxre-6 to this affidavit.
1. That Government Order No.5692/15-7-2004-1 (289)/2004 dated 7.2.2005 was issued and the equivalence of the examination was suspended. It is also relevant to state here that the existence of Board of Madhya Bharat too was enquired from the Council of Boards of School Education in India, New Delhi, Secondary Education (COBSE) and in its reply it has shown disability to provide any information since Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was not its member. Photostat copy of information is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-7 to this affidavit.
15. That it is relevant to submit here that Council for Board of School Education in India, New Delhi, COBSE, provide the recognition for conducting the Intermediate and High School Examination to the Institution which are being run under Central or State Act. But since the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, is not legally established organization nor its constitution is being made under Central or State Act hence even in the Directory published by COBSE, the name of this institution is not available since this institution is neither run/ recognized by State or Central Government.
16. That in view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the certificates of Class 10th and 12th issued by Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior are not recognized hence are not equivalent. It is unrecognized institution hence the certificates as well. Such institutions are conducting examination by misleading the students thus playing with the future of such students which is not viable or appreciable, educationally or in public interest or in the interest of Nation at large. Such examination conducted by the institutions not recognized under law must be closed in public interest and the present institution is already not been in existence as stated in the preceding paragraphs from 5.3.2014."
The Division Bench after going through the report of the Enquiry Committee and the voluminous material placed before it proceeded to observe as follows:
"In compliance of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, Smt. Shail Yadav, Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad has filed her personal affidavit through Ms. Subhas Rathi Advocate in which she has tried to satisfy the queries raised by the Division Bench. In her affidavit she has stated that an enquiry committee was constituted to judge the legality of examinations held by Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. The said enquiry committee contacted Madhya Pradesh Government on 24.10.2016 regarding information of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat Gwalior. The Ministry of Madhya Pradesh Government, Education Board, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal through its Deputy Secretary informed vide letter dated 24.10.2016 that no such Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was established vide any Government Order nor Chairman, Secretary or other employees are being appointed by the State Government nor it has been authorized to organize and conduct public examination for Class 10th and 12th or issue certificates regarding the same.
The enquiry committee also contacted Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. The Deputy Secretary of the Shiksha Mandal also apprised the enquiry committee vide letter dated 24.10.2016 that Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal has not provided any recognition or equivalence to the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior nor any order, notification or advertisement or Government Order has been issued for granting equivalence to the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior for conducting examination of Class 10th and 12th.
It is also stated that the enquiry committee also went to the Registered Address N-13, Gandhi Nagar, Gwalior, M.P., as stated in the Special Appeal to enquire about the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior and its existence and status. On the aforesaid address the land owner apprised the enquiry committee that no such Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was running from his building about 3 years ago. Its office was being run from its office which has already been transferred to other place and the land owner has also given legal notice for not using its address to the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. It is also stated that the existence of Board of Madhya Bharat too was enquired from the Council of Boards of School Education in India, New Delhi, Secondary Education (COBSE) and in its reply it has shown disability to provide any information since Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior was not its member. It is further submitted that Council for Board of School Education in India, New Delhi, COBSE, provide the recognition for conducting the Intermediate and High School Examination to the Institution which are being run under Central or State Act. But since the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, is not legally established organization nor its constitution is being made under Central or State Act hence even in the Directory published by COBSE, the name of this institution is not available since this institution is neither run/ recognized by State or Central Government.
After perusal of the entire record as well as the personal affidavit of Smt. Shail Yadav, Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad, we are of the considered opinion that no recognition has ever been granted by Government of Madhya Pradesh to Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior nor such recognition has ever been granted by Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, therefore, Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior is not the institution established under law nor its Chairman/ Secretary or other employees are appointed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh nor the said Board is authorized in any manner to conduct examination of Class 10th and 12th or issue certificates for the same."
It ultimately held as under:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances stated aforesaid and in the present scenario, we find that the said Board is not at all in existence and issuance of certificate is a designed activity, by luring such candidates who on their own will not at all be in a position to clear examination conducted by duly recognized Board. We gave repeated opportunity to the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, to show before us their authority to accord recognition to institution as examination center in the State of U.P. and their authority to hold examination and to this specific question posed there is no specific reply, but for the fact that it's a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and had been conducting examination. Authority to hold examination and issue certificate is completely lacking and missing and accordingly the inevitable conclusion is that the certificates of Class 10th and 12th issued by Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior are not recognized and same is merely an outcome of paper work, therefore, are not equivalent. It is unrecognized Board and the certificates as well. Such institutions are conducting examination by misleading the students thus playing with the future of such students which is not viable or appreciable, educationally or in public interest or in the interest of Nation at large. Such examination conducted by the institutions is not recognized under law and must be closed in public interest. We find that this is not the case of equivalence of the Board but it is the case of fake institution. Nothing has been brought before us that at any point of time the alleged board was ever accorded approval in the State of M.P. as such no question arises for its equivalence in the State of U.P."
The Division further proceeded to frame peremptory directions for an enquiry into the conduct of affairs by the Gwalior Board in the following terms:-
"Most surprisingly, in reference of petitioner, the Board of Secondary Education Madhya Bharat, Gwalior has proceeded to make a mention that certificate submitted by the petitioner is forged, obtained from gang headed by Dr. Ganga Dayal Shakya and same has never been issued by the said Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. Various first information report has been lodged at Haryana, Delhi and Gwalior, in reference of such fake certificates. We are of the firm view that holding of examinations and issuance of certificate without any authority of law on its face value is a designed criminal activity and Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior claims that it has All India Networking, in view of this, it would be much more expedient and in the interest of cleansing of education system that Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at New Delhi should take up the matter, to which State of U.P. has no objection, and get enquiry conducted of all cases of issuance of fake certificate and lodge cases where fraudulent activities are writ apparent, for bringing guilty persons to the book and keeping spurious incumbents away from the arena be it pursuing further studies or trying to procure appointment based on such certificate. Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad should produce copy of this order before CBI Director, New Delhi for further follow up action."
THE DELHI BOARD The Delhi Board also stood included in Chapter-XIV as it stood in 1949-50. Appearing at time No. 29, the relevant entry read thus:-
"(29) The Higher Secondary Examination (one-year or three-year course) of the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi;
This entry is shown to continue unamended in 1954 and 1955. On 07 March 2005 the entry with respect to the Delhi Board was amended as under:-
"2[13] माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद् दिल्ली की हाई स्कूल परीक्षा इस प्रतिबन्ध के साथ की परीक्षार्थियों ने परीक्षा ऐसे पांच विषयों से उत्तीर्ण की है, जो माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद् उत्तर प्रदेश की हाई स्कूल परीक्षा के लिए स्वीकृत है।
टिपण्णी -
दिल्ली परिषद् की हाई स्कूल परीक्षा के निम्नलिखित विषय उत्तर प्रदेश को समान परीक्षा के लिए स्वीकृत विषय समझे जाने चाहिए [क] शरीर क्रिया विज्ञानं तथा स्वास्थय विज्ञानं।
[ख] दो स्वीकृत विषयों के संगठित अंगो से युक्त विषय जैसे प्रारंभिक नागरिकशास्त्र तथा प्रारंभिक अर्थशास्त्र तथा भारतीय इतिहास इत्यादि ।
उन परीक्षार्थियों के सम्बन्ध में जिन्होंने 1937 ई० तक दिल्ली परिषद् की हाई स्कूल परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण की है । पांच विषयों की गढ़ना उस समय लागू नियमों के आधार पर की जानी चाहिए।"
As is evident from the said amendments, the certificate issued by the Delhi Board was recognised as being equivalent subject to the certificate evidencing the holder thereof having been taught the following subjects:
Physical Education and Health Science.
Additionally it was also mandated that a candidate holding a certificate issued by the Delhi Board would also have to be shown to have been taught Elementary Civics, Economics and Indian History.
The respondents state that the Delhi Board too is a wholly unrecognised examining body having no statutory status and in any view of the matter not being statutorily empowered to confer any High School or Intermediate certificate. Reliance in this respect is also placed upon a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Desh Raj Vs. State of Haryana and Others4.
In Desh Raj a leaned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court noticed the factual position in respect of the Delhi Board as under:-
"As per the terms of eligibility prescribed in the advertisement, only those candidates, who had passed their Matriculation examination from a recognized Board, were to be considered eligible for appointment. On the repeated queries posed by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to show any document by any statutory Authority granting recognition to the Board, from where the petitioner claims to have passed his Matriculation examination. Rather, a perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India in a connected matter being C. W. P. No. 17499 of 2015 - Raffik Mohmad vs. State of Haryana and others, to which there is no rebuttal by the petitioner, shows that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, from which the petitioner claims to have passed his Matriculation examination, is not recognized by the Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India. The relevant portion of the affidavit is reproduced below for ready reference :-
"4. That the three Education Boards, namely Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi and Council of Secondary Education, Mohali, as mentioned in the order dated 01.10.2015 ( Annexure-A1) of this Hon'ble Court are neither set up nor recognized by MHRD.
5. That MHRD, in order to ensure that innocent students do not become victim of unscrupulous and illegal activities of fake/unrecognised boards, had issued an advisory on 20.11.2008 (Annexure-A3) to all Education Secretaries of the State Governments and Union Territories and Chairpersons of CBSE and NIOS for prevention of functioning of fake boards within their defined territorial jurisdiction, as stipulated in the State Education Acts or Rules. It is thus imperative that every State and Union Territory ought to have a provision to regulate recognition of Education Boards, conduct of public examination and issue of certificates by such Boards. The States/UTs are expected to function as watchdogs so that fake institutions, calling themselves examination boards and issuing certificates, do not operate under their territorial jurisdiction and if any such Boards exist, they should have appropriate mechanism to deal with such fake Boards. [Emphasis supplied]"
The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in District Basic Education vs. Asha Pandey - LAWS (ALL) - 2013-3-162 which is based on a letter of the Government of India dated 28.02.1964, in view of the aforesaid affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India, also does not further his case. In this regard, a letter dated 14.01.2013 of the Government of India, which is attached as Annexure A-4 to the aforesaid affidavit, filed on behalf of the Government of India, may also be referred to, in which it has been specifically stated that the letter dated 28.02.1964 was never issued by the Government of India and was a fake document. The relevant portion of the letter dated 14.01.2013 is reproduced below :-
"2. On the examination of papers received from Joint Secretary of the Board claiming a prior recognition from Ministry of Human Resource Development, it is found that letters No. F-46-1/67-S.U. dated 28th February, 1964, No. 1808/2009/SKT-1 dated 26.06.2009 and No. 8-21/2011-DS&HE dated 12th November, 2011, supposed to have been issued from the Ministry of HRD, are fake. Use of the above letters for vested interests is highly objectionable as the Board is misleading the students and parents in the name of Ministry of HRD and mounts to a criminal act."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on a judgment of Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 5135 of 2003 - Nek Mohmmad vs. Union of India and others, decided on 04.06.2010, a perusal of which shows that the Board, qua which the judgment was rendered, was the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi, whereas the Board, from which the petitioner claims to have passed his Matriculation examination, is Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi. There is nothing placed on the record to show that both the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi and Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi are the same. Even otherwise, that judgment shows that the same was based on a counter affidavit filed by the respondents in that case before that Court, in which it was admitted that the Board in question therein had been recognized by the State Governments and the Universities. Paragraph 13 of the judgment is reproduced below for ready reference :-
"13. In the counter affidavit which has been filed before this court, the respondents admit that the Board has been recognised by the aforesaid state governments and the universities.
The only contention of the respondents is that the board is not listed in the accredited institutions and programmes recognised by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education and the Central Board of Secondary Education."
In the case in hand, a specific affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government of India in Raffik Mohmad's case (supra), as referred and quoted above, which is to the effect that the Board in question is not recognised by the Government of India. Thus, the petitioner can derive no benefit of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Nek Mohmmad's case (supra).
The next argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi is recognized under the Uttar Pradesh Educational Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as - the 1921 Act) also deserves to be considered and rejected. On repeated queries posed by the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner to refer to the relevant provision of the 1921 Act to show the Schedule attached to the 1921 Act containing the name of the Board in question, as also the date till which the Act remained in force, yielded no response. Only a list of institutions, purportedly attached to the 1921 Act, was produced, a translated version of the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under :-
"14. Examination of High School of Central Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer (which was earlier known as Board of HighSchool and Intermediate Education Rajputana (including Ajmer and Marwar), Madhya Bharat and Gwalior Ajmer and later named as Board of High School and Inter Education, Ajmer, Bhopal and Vindhya Pradesh, Ajmer).
A perusal of the afore-quoted entry recognizes a Board situated at Ajmer and not the Board in question, which is the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi.
In view of the above, the reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the 1921 Act is also misplaced."
The learned Single Judge ultimately held as under:-
"Once the Board has no statutory backing, having not been recognized by any statutory Authority and is found operating on the basis of fake and forged letters of recognition, there is no hesitation in my mind to hold that the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualifications and that the Matriculation qualification, claimed to have been passed by him, has no recognition in law."
Having noticed the backdrop of the objection taken by the respondents to the validity of the certificates issued by these two Boards and in order to complete the narration of facts, the Court also takes note of yet another decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pravinder Kumar Vs. Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Science Hisar and Others5 wherein it was held as follows:-
"There is no doubt that the petitioner had two different certificates of 10+2 examination from two different Boards, one from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi and other from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. The petitioner took admission in CSKHPKV, Palampur on the basis of certificate of 10+2 examination conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi but while applying for the migration, he has mentioned the certificate of 10+2 examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. Though, he got the admission in CSKHPKV, Palampur on the basis of 10+2 certificate of Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. As a matter of fact, the Delhi Police had busted the fake education board from which the petitioner had obtained the 10+2 certificate and in order to mislead the respondents/University, the certificate of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior has been attached about which it has been mentioned by the Public Information Officer, Secondary Education Board, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior that the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior has not been granted equivalence recognition under Sr. No.216 of the Booklet by the Secondary Education Board, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. The verification sought to be done by the petitioner could not get the desired result because the letter sent was returned with endorsement that due to Police action Board has been closed. Moreover, the judgment of the Allahabad High Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case."
From the above narration of facts, it is more than evident that both the Delhi as well as the Gwalior Boards have been found by the courts to be bodies which are wholly unrecognised, lacking all statutory authority to conduct examinations or to confer certificates relating to Classes X and XII. Insofar as the Gwalior Board is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court has found after an in depth analysis that it is a non existent Board. The Division Bench has entered scathing remarks with respect to the manner in which this non existent Board has duped students at large and was even constrained to direct the CBI to investigate into its affairs. The Division Bench had also proceeded to dismiss the appeal preferred by the Gwalior Board. This decision has admittedly attained finality. In the face of the categorical findings returned by the Division Bench, which undoubtedly bind this Court, it is manifest that the certificates issued by the Gwalior Board cannot possibly be recognised in law to be valid.
Similar findings have been recorded in respect of the Delhi Board by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This Board too has been found to lack all statutory backing and has been described to be an unrecognised Board clearly not empowered to either conduct examinations or to confer any certificates.
Before proceeding to deal with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is relevant to underline and highlight the fact that the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners rest solely on the entry of equivalence as was shown to exist in Chapter XIV of the Regulations. Despite repeated queries and opportunities offered during the course of hearing of this batch, learned counsels were unable to draw the attention of the Court to any independent material or evidence which may have even remotely established a statutory conferment of authority upon these two Boards to confer the certificates of Classes X and XII. The attention of the Court was not drawn to a single document or piece of evidence which may have indicated or established these two Boards having been authorised or empowered in law to either conduct examinations or to confer the certificates held by the petitioners.
The fact that a Class X and XII examination can only be conducted by a Board or examining authority duly established under and empowered by law was not disputed. In any case, this Court finds itself unable to hold that an examining body can under the prevalent statutory regimen grant a certificate for Class X or XII without the requisite statutory conferment of authority. It would be wholly preposterous to accept a submission to the contrary.
This then leaves the Court to evaluate the correctness of the submissions advanced based upon the entries in Chapter XIV and the communications issued by different educational institutions recognising the certificates issued by these Boards.
This Court has no hesitation in holding that a mere entry of equivalence cannot clothe the Delhi or the Gwalior Boards with authority to confer certificates. The power and the authority to issue these certificates must principally and necessarily be established to independently exist. A Board or examining authority must primordially be one which has statutory or official recognition. It must essentially be a body which is bestowed the authority and the power to conduct examinations and award certificates by law. The body must necessarily be one which can be recognised in law to have the authority to conduct examinations and confer certificates pursuant thereto. In the absence of these essential attributes and prerequisites it cannot possibly be conferred any imprimatur. It would, in law, be non existent and lack essence recognisable in law.
The Court cannot shut its eyes to the stark and undisputed reality of these two Boards having been established to be non existent and lacking in all authority to conduct examinations and grant certificates. This Court as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court have authoritatively held as such. The mere existence of entries of equivalence in Chapter XIV would, therefore, not invest in or confer on them authority or character which is otherwise lacking and totally absent. The Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad had candidly admitted before the Division Bench of this Court that the continuance of the entry with respect to the Gwalior Board was due to inadvertence. The same appears to be the position with regard to the Delhi Board.
While it may be true that the Madhaymik Shiksha Parishad has committed a great disservice in having failed to amend Chapter XIV with promptitude and having permitted the position to perpetuate and fester, this does not and cannot compel the Court to invoke equitable principles. No purpose as such would be served in pursuing this line further since undisputedly the requisite amendments have been introduced in Chapter XIV, albeit in 2014. The Court only feels compelled to castigate and reprimand the Parishad for its evident inaction and record its strong displeasure for its lack of care, vigilance and prudence. Its conduct in this matter has been clearly unbecoming of a pivotal educational authority that it undisputedly is under the 1921 Act.
The Court then proceeds to consider whether the decision of the Full Bench in Dhanpal can be read in aid of the petitioners. As is evident from the following extracts of the decision of the Full Bench, Dhanpal was not dealing with a non existent institution or an examining body lacking all legal attributes which must exist. The principal objection against Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindavan Mathur was its use of the word "Vishwavidyalaya" in its name. The University Grants Commission [UGC] came to hold that it was clearly unauthorised to use the expression "university" since it was neither created by any act of the legislature of a State or of the Union nor granted any recognition by the UGC. The State Government in deference to the decision of the UGC to declare it a "fake university" deleted the entry of Gurukul as appearing in Chapter XIV. It was in this backdrop that a Division Bench of the Court in Indrawati Devi Vs. State of U.P.6 following the decision of the Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal7 came to hold that the Adhikari Pariksha certificates issued by it cannot be considered as valid.
However, as the Full Bench noted, Indrawati had failed to notice that the decision in Prof. Yashpal was confined to "universities" and "degrees" as distinct from certificates issued in respect of Classes X and XII. This aspect was noted by the Full Bench in the following terms:-
"39. What we find from the record is that the U.P. Board, in exercise of its power conferred by Section 15, vide Entry No. 30 in Regulation 2 of Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the Act, 1921, provided equivalence to the Adhikari Pariksha conducted by the Gurukul Vishwavidhyalaya, Vrindavan with High School examination for the purpose of admitting a candidate to its intermediate level course provided the Adhikari Pariksha was underwent in one year with English as one of the subjects. Such recognition accorded to Adhikari Pariksha by the Board was within its power conferred by Act, 1921 and is independent of the status of Gurukul as a University. Conferment of Adhikari Pariksha certificate does not amount to conferment of a degree by a University, which relates to higher level education and not to the secondary level education.
40. We, therefore, find that the judgment rendered in the case of Indrawati Devi's case (supra), which placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in the case of Prof. Yashpal's case (supra), fails to notice the distinction between two different levels of education. No doubt, a degree conferred by Gurukul, as a University, for graduate, post-graduate or higher level cannot be accorded recognition unless Gurukul is conferred with the status of a University within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. However, its secondary level examination such as "Adhikari Pariksha", which has been accorded equivalence with high school examination by the Board, in exercise of its power conferred under the Act, 1921, cannot be set at naught merely by a notification of the UGC declaring Gurukul Viswavidhyalaya, Vrindavan as a fake University."
The Full Bench in the aforesaid backdrop then proceeded to consider the impact of the deletion made from Chapter XIV with respect to Gurukul. It noted that if the deletion were to be recognised as having retroactive operation, it would cause immense prejudice and have serious repercussions upon students who had proceeded to acquire and pursue higher qualifications on the strength of the Adhikari Pariksha certificate. It was in that context that it proceeded to save certificates issued by Gurukul prior to the amendments made in Chapter XIV. This is borne out from the following observations of the Full Bench:-
"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. 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."
The Full Bench then proceeded to record its conclusions as follows:-
"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."
From the above discussion and the factual backdrop in which Dhanpal came to be rendered, it is evident that the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case. Dhanpal was dealing with the validity of a certificate issued by a recognised institution. The certificate issued by the said institution had been validly included in Chapter XIV. The only fault found was with the institution describing itself to be a university. The Full Bench in that backdrop came to hold that the mere fact that the institution was declared to be a fake university would not detract from its authority to confer certificates relating to secondary education. Having noticed this position it proceeded to uphold and save certificates issued by Gurukul prior to the amendments made in its respect in Chapter XIV. Dhanpal cannot possibly be read as an authority for the proposition that certificates issued by a non existent body or one otherwise not having statutory or legal sanction can also be saved merely by reason of its inclusion in Chapter XIV.
The institutions with which we are concerned, namely the Delhi and Gwalior Boards have been established to be non existent and never authorised in law to confer certificates relating to Classes X and XII. The petitioners have failed to establish or prove that either of these Boards were statutorily or otherwise authorised in law to grant the certificates in issue. They have not been established to have ever been officially granted the requisite authority to either conduct examinations or grant certificates in respect of courses conducted by them.
As has been held earlier, no examining body or Board can possibly be recognised to have the lawful authority to either conduct examinations or grant certificates unless officially sanctioned or statutorily empowered to do so. It is pertinent to bear in mind that Chapter XIV is not a source of power to confer recognition on an examining body or Board to conduct examinations or grant certificates. That power clearly exists independently and separate from Chapter XIV. The Chapter merely confers a discretion in the Madhayamik Shiksha Parishad to recognise equivalence of courses of studies conducted by various examining bodies throughout the country. Likewise similar communications issued by different bodies holding out a position of equivalence cannot lead this Court to conclude that the Delhi and Gwalior Boards were otherwise empowered in law to conduct these courses and award certificates. The power of an examining body or Board to discharge such functions must be shown and established to independently exist in law. This the petitioners have woefully failed to establish and prove. The petitions must consequently fail.
The writ petitions are, in light of the above, dismissed.
Order date: 17.12.2018 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)