Calcutta High Court
Kalidas Gangopadhyay And Ors., Ajai Kr. ... vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 10 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)1CALLT373(HC)
JUDGMENT Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.
1. The writ petitioners of all these writ petitions are aggrieved by and victims of the decisions of the School Education Department (Secondary Branch) of the Government of West Bengal as communicated by its Assistant Secretary to the Director of School Education under his No. 904-SE (Secy) dated the 19th December, 1994, the relevant portion of which runs thus :--
"Sub: Claim for higher scale of Pay from teachers enhancing qualification from Himachal Pradesh University through correspondence course.
***************************** "The undersigned is directed to refer to the subject noted above and to say that the State Government in Education (School) Department as a matter of policy, have not agreed to recognise a decree/diploma/ Master Degree etc. acquired through correspondence course from any University etc, as equivalent to a regular course conducted by recognized Universities.
"As such, the question of extending the benefit of higher scale for acquiring such a degree/diploma/Master Degree through correspondence course does not arise."
In all the writ petitions the validity of the aforesaid G.O. No. 904-SE(Secy) dt. 19.12.94 has been challenged.
2. In C.O. 1622(W)/96 (Kalidas Gangopadhyay and Ors. v. State of W.B.) there are seven writ petitioners. Out of those seven writ petitioners, the petitioners Nos. 1,5,6 and 7 are working as Assistant teachers in schools and the petitioners No. 3 is working as Teacher-in-change in a school. The petitioner No. 2 is working as a clerk in a school. The petitioner No. 4 is unemployed. The petitioner No. 3 has appeared in M.A. (English) final examination of the Himachal Pradesh University through its correspondence course and all the other six writ petitioners also improved their qualification by passing M.A./M.Sc (Maths) examination of the said University through its correspondence course. By reason of improving their qualification by obtaining M.A./M.Sc (Maths) degree from a recognised University the concerned writ petitioners serving as teachers in schools are entitled to enhanced scale of pay, namely, the post graduate scale, but they are not being given or will not be given the said scale because of the issuance of the impugned G.O. No. 904 SE(Secy) dt. 19.12.94. The petitioner No. 2, who is serving as a clerk in a school, after obtaining M.A. degree in English from the Himachal Pradesh University through its correspondence course got his name enrolled as a post graduate candidate in the Employment Exchange and on two occasion his name, on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, was forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) Jalpaiguri for participation in the interview for the post of Assistant Teacher in English on the basis of his post graduate qualification of the M.A. degree obtained by him from the Himachal Pradesh University through its correspondence course. He however now apprehend that his name will not be forwarded any more by the D.I. of Schools for such post because of the existence of the said G.O. dated 19.12.94. His grievance is that while the Directorate of Employment, Government of W. Bengal recognised his post graduate qualification of M.A. Degree from H.P. University and even the D.I. also forwarded his name on two occasions by recognising such qualification, the Education Department of the Government of W. Bengal cannot now capriciously derecognise his such qualification. The petitioner No. 4 who is an unemployed person obtained B.Sc (Honours in Maths) Degree from the North Bengal University and then obtained M.Sc (Maths) degree from Himachal Pradesh University through its correspondence course. He was then admitted to B.Ed. course in A.C. Training College, Jalpaiguri under the North Bengal University where admission to B.Ed. course for fresher candidates is restricted to post graduate degree holders only and that is why he had to obtain migration certificate from Himachal Pradesh University for prosecuting the B.Ed course under North Bengal University (vide, para 5 of the writ petition). His contention is that when his post graduate degree obtained from Himachal Pradesh University has been accepted as a recognised degree for admission to the B.Ed. course under the North Bengal University, it is wholly arbitrary on the part of the Education (School) Department of the Government of West Bengal to issue the impugned G.O. No. 904-SE (Secy) dt 19.12.94 denying recognition to such degree. The contention, I must say, is wholly Justified for reasons discussed latter.
3. In C.O. 14572(W)/95 (Ajai Kr. Rai and Anr. v. State of W.B.) there are two writ petitioners. Both of them are serving as Assistant teacher in a school. The petitioner No. 1 while so serving in the school obtained M.A. degree in History from the Himachal Pradesh University through its correspondence course and the petitioner No. 2 obtained M.A. degree in Hindi from the said University. They prosecuted the course with the permission of the Managing Committee of the school. After obtaining M.A. degree from the Himachal Pradesh University both the petitioners applied for post graduate scale of pay and the District Inspector of Schools released pay to them in such higher scale in recognition of the post graduate qualification obtained by them from Himachal Pradesh University. Subsequently however the said benefit of higher scale for higher qualification as sanctioned earlier, was withdrawn by the D.I. of Schools in view of the Government order No. 904-SE dt. 19.12.94. The petitioners are aggrieved by withdrawal of recognition of their M.A. degree and cancellation of the benefit of higher scale for higher qualification which they were already enjoying on the basis of earlier order of the D.I. The State respondents were given opportunity to affirm affidavit-in-opposition but no affidavit was filed. However the record was produced.
4. In C.O. 14571CW) of 1995 (Surendra Rai v. State of W.B.) also the petitioner has been serving as an Assistant Teacher in a school. While so serving, he also obtained M.A. degree in History from the Himachal Pradesh University through its correspondence course. He also obtained prior permission from the Managing Committee of the school. He was also granted higher scale of pay by the D.I. of schools for the higher qualification he obtained from the Himachal Pradesh University. But subsequently that benefit was withdrawn by the D.I. in view of the said Government order No. 904-SE dt. 19.12.94. In this case also the State respondents preferred not to affirm any affidavit-in-opposition inspite of opportunity given for the purpose, but of course, as already noted, record was produced by the Government respondents and such record is the same for all the cases in which the G.O. No. 904-SE dt. 19.12.94 is under challenge. The officers of the Educati6n Department of the Government of West Bengal were also present at the time of hearing.
5. Since in all these cases we are concerned with the question of recognition of the Master Degree awarded by the Himachal Pradesh University through its correspondence course of study, let us first examine the status of the Himachal Pradesh University and of the degrees awarded by that University. This university having been established by an Act of the State Legislature, namely, the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 (Act No. 17 of 1970), is a statutory University functioning since 1st January, 1971. The said Act received the assent of the President of India on 13.7.70 (vide page 463 of he Universities Handbook published by the Association of India Universities in 1992). In the Handbook of information 1995-1996 ICDEOL, published by the Himachal Pradesh University it is recorded that this University is wholly financed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the University Grants Commission. It enjoys the status of an 'A' class University according to the U.G.C. grading system. It offers courses under various disciplines. As many as sixty five colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh are affiliated to this University. The Governor of Himachal Pradesh is its Chancellor. The Directorate of Correspondence Courses which was established by the University in 1970 has now been re-christened as the international Centre for Distance Education and Open Learning (ICDEOL). In Muchha Mondal v. State of W. Bengal, it has been held by this court that there is absolutely no reason not to treat the M.A. degree of the Himachal Pradesh University awarded through correspondence courses as recognised M.A. degree for all purposes. It was further held by this court therein that the correspondence course M.A. degree of the Himachal Pradesh University is as valid and potent degree as an M.A. Degree of any other recognised University in India. In that connection the court also took notice of the letter written by the Dy. Registrar (Acad), H.P. University dated 19/20.11.93 stating that M.A./M.Sc (Maths) Degree awarded by the H.P. University in respect of the students who are enrolled as students of that University in the Directorate of Correspondence Courses of that University is equivalent to the degree of M.A./M.Sc (Maths) in case of regular students, as the syllabus as well as course in both the cases is similar and that the candidates who are awarded degrees by that University in both the cases are eligible to get admission in higher studies and/or other benefits because duration of the study and evaluation etc. of the students are same as available to the regular students of the said University. This court also took notice of the letter No. F-7/6/93 (opp-1) dt. 6.9.94 written by the University Grants Commission stating that the Himachal Pradesh University is included in the list of Universities maintained by UGC under Section 2(O) of the UGC Act and is recognised by the UGC. The court also noticed, while rendering that decision, that on a number of occasions earlier the District Inspectors of Schools of different districts approved appointment and also granted higher scale of pay by accepting the M.A. degree obtained from Himachal Pradesh University through its correspondence course. This court in the said decision in Muchha Mondal v. State of W.Bengal (supra) C.O. No. 13041 (W) of 1995) directed the D.I. of Schools (S.E.), South 24-Parganas to give due credit to the petitioner for his M.A. degree awarded by the H.P. University through its correspondence course. For initial non-compliances of that order of the court a contempt proceeding was started but during the pendency of the contempt proceeding, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), South 24-Parganas complied with the order of the court by issuing appropriate order under his memo. No. Spl. 14 dt. 16.4.96. Apology was also tendered. In view of such compliance and apology the contempt proceeding was dropped. On this connection here I would like to reproduce below the contents of the letter No. DR/Exams/HPU dt. 17.4.95 addressed to the Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, West Bengal by the Registrar of the Himachal Pradesh University, (vide, annexure-I at page 48 of the contempt application in C.O. 13041(W) of 1995):
"Sub : Clarification with regard to degree being issued to the students of Correspondence Courses."
"Dear Sir, Some students are appearing in various subjects for post-graduate courses through Directorate of Correspondence Courses of this University from various States of the Country. It is confirmed that the syllabus, courses, question papers, mode of examination, result, degrees etc. are the same both for the students of correspondence courses and regular students of this University."
It is not understood, how even after this, the Education Department of the Government of W. Bengal can justify their stand that while they may recognise a degree of a recognised University obtained through regular study, that is, study in campus, they will not recognise the same degree of the same recognised University obtained through correspondence course even if the syllabus, courses, question papers, mode of examination and evaluation are the same for the correspondence course students and the regular students of the University. The Degree or the certificate or the mark-sheet issued by the University also does not indicate or mention whether the student was a regular or correspondence course student, and no distinction is maintained in the matter and indeed there is no scope of maintaining any distinction in the matter. It may be mentioned here that the Correspondence Courses do not include any laboratory-oriented subject, like Physics, Chemistry, etc.
6. As we have seen the Himachal Pradesh University is a statutory University of which the Governor of the State is its Chancellor. This University is recognised by the University Grants Commission and also receives grant from the UGC. Under Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 this University is entitled to confer or grant degrees. Under Section 12 of the UGC Act the UGC has been empowered to take all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of University Education and for the determination and maintenance of standard of teaching, examination and research in Universities. Section 12(i) empowers the UGC to require a University to furnish information relating to the studies in the various branches of teaching undertaken in that University, together with all the rules and regulations relating to the standards of teaching and examination in that University respecting each of such branches of learning. The UGC is also authorised under Section 13(1) of the UGC Act to cause an inspection of any department of a University, after consolation with the University, for the purpose of ascertaining its standards of teaching, examination and research. Section 26(1) of the UGC Act empowers the UGC to make regulations and rules for certain purposes including the purpose of defining the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University and of regulating the maintenance of standards in Universities. These provisions are pointed out by me to indicate that the UGC is there to act as watch-dog of the standard of teaching and examination conducted by the Universities. The Education Department of the Government of West Bengal can not capriciously say that they will not recognise a degree awarded by a recognised University. It is also worth mentioning here that the Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi also wrote a letter bearing No. 36428 dt. 26th May, 1995 to the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal (Vide, annexure-o to the writ petition in C.O. 14571(W) of 1995) requesting the State Government to recognise the degrees of Himachal Pradesh University awarded through its correspondence courses. In the said letter it is stated that the Himachal Pradesh University is a statutory institution and all its degree programes conducted through regular/correspondence studies are automatically recognised. It is also stated in the said letter that the H.P. University has prescribed syllabi, standards and duration of studies for the correspondence courses as for their regular students and that the evaluation, grading, degree awarding also remain the same as for regular programme. The letter ends with a request to the State Government to accept the degree done through the correspondence courses of the Himachal Pradesh University. The Education Department of the Government of West Bengal, I must say, has been ill-advised to ignore this request of the Association of Indian Universities, particularly where the request of this important body is based on good and powerful reasons as recorded therein. In this connection I would also like to refer to annexure-G to the writ petition in C.O. 14571(W) of 1995 which is a letter bearing No. Mig/491/Eq. dt. 4th May, 1993 written by the Assistant Registrar, University of Calcutta. In that letter it has been categorically certified that the M.A. Examination in English of the Himachal Pradesh University is recognised as equivalent to the corresponding examination of the Calcutta University.
7. It may be noted here that the minimum qualification for admission to the M.A. Course of Himachal Pradesh University is graduation and for M.Sc (Maths) it is graduation with Mathematics as an elective subject, vide, Handbook of information 1995-96 issued by the Himachal Pradesh University ICDEOL. The duration of the M.A./M.Sc(Maths) correspondence course is two years in four semesters. The lessons are prepared by eminent scholars and teachers. The post-graduate students, ordinarily are sent ten to sixteen written lessons covering each course. The students are required to submit written responses for each assignment. Those students, who do not submit at least 75% of the response/sheets within the stipulated date and cannot secure at least 30% of maximum total marks in those assignments are not eligible to take the examinations. These requirements are pointed out here to indicate that the preparatory requirements for attaining eligibility through correspondence course to sit in examination are quite systematic in their qualitative, quantitative and duration aspects.
8. Now let us test the validity of the reasons that prompted the Education Department of the Government of West Bengal to issue the G.O. No. 904-SE (Secy) dt. 19.12.94 in refusing to recognise the M.A./ M.Sc (Maths) degree of the Himachal Pradesh University obtained through its correspondence course. The said impugned G.O. 904 however does not contain any reason in support of the decision of the Education Department not to recognise Master Degree, etc. acquired through correspondence course from any recognised University, etc. as equivalent to a regular course conducted by recognised Universities, expect that such decision has been taken as a matter of policy. It is needless to state that a bold statement invoking 'matter of policy' cannot sustain a capricious or arbitrary decision not to recognise a degree of a recognise University obtained through correspondence course where the University empowered to award such degree certifies for valid and spelt out reasons that the degree awarded to correspondence course students is the same as or equivalent to the degree awarded to regular students. In fact, the degree is the same. As I have already mentioned the State-respondents did not file any affidavit in support of the impugned G.O. No. 904 inspite of repeated opportunities offered to them. However at the time of hearing the concerned file of the Education Department (Secondary), being file No. (S) 5p-l/94 from which the Impugned G.O. No. 904 was issued, was produced before the court. On a perusal of the same I am astonished to find that while at the lower level the notings in the matter were rather analytical and logical, the same at the level of Joint Secretary and Secretary were disappointingly capricious and uninformed. On 1.12.94 the Joint Secretary records the following note:--
"The question is whether the correspondence courses may be treated as equivalent to regular courses of the H.P. University, for the purpose of appointment of Asstt. teachers and /or for awarding higher scales of pay to them.
We are not accustomed as yet with different correspondence courses run by different Universities for various degrees. But it can be said safely that there is a difference between a correspondence course and a regular course academically, though for spread of higher education, correspondence courses are being introduced liberally.
We may not recognise such courses for the purpose of employment or for giving higher economic benefits in the schools."
The file then goes to the Secretary and his note dt. 2.12.94 runs thus:--
"Note of the Jt. Secy(s) above explains the case. As a matter of fact, we in the School Education department, as a matter of policy, have not agreed to recognise a degree/diploma/Master Degree, etc. acquired through correspondence course from any University, etc. is equivalent to a regular course conducted by recognised Universities.
As such the question of extending the benefit of higher scale for acquiring such a degree/diploma/Master degree through correspondence course does not arise. We may inform the Directorate of School Education accordingly."
Recently in its letter No.17-SE(s) dt. 3.1.96 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) North 24-Parganas, the Department of School Education (Secondary Branch) Government of West Bengal sought to explain the reason which prompted the issuance of the G.O. No. 904-SE (Secy) dt. 19.12.94, in the following language:--
"1, Unlike regular system, correspondence system of study does not require the student to attend classes regularly. Prosecution of studies in the regular system requires a lot of engagement exclusively for education and hence spending a lot of time for this purpose. By issuing G.O. No. 904-SE (Secy) dated 19th December, 1994 the Government intended to value this aspect.
2. Secondly in the correspondence mode of study there is no Interaction between a teacher and a student; sometimes the course contents are also different from those of regular system of studies. A teacher is expected to know the art of teaching and managing the classes; he is expected to know how a student may react to the behavioural pattern of a teacher.
All these are missing in the correspondence system of study and hence a candidate obtaining a Degree or Diploma in this system is hardly capable of doing the Job of a teacher satisfactorily.
All these reasoning are also applicable to the approved teachers claiming higher scale of pay".
It may be noted here that the impugned G.O. No. 904-SE(Secy) dt. 19.12.94 was issued in the back-ground of the credit claimed on the basis of the Master Degree obtained from the Himachal Pradesh University through its correspondence course.
9. The assumption mentioned in the aforesaid letter of the Education Department that sometimes the course contents are also different from those of regular system of studies is not true in the case of correspondence course of the Himachal Pradesh University because, as we have seen, in the said University the course, syllabus, mode of examination, evaluation, etc. are the same both in respect of regular course students and in respect of correspondence course students. But even a difference of course contents, had there been any, by itself would not have Justified non-recognition of a degree awarded by a recognised University. Course contents even may differ--indeed do differ--from University to University in respect of regular course of study for a Master Degree or graduation. Even the same University at times may make change in its syllabus for graduation or post-graduation course on any subject from any particular year. Suppose, the Calcutta University makes change in its syllabus for M.A. Degree in any particular subject from 1996. Will the Education Department be entitled to say that they will not recognise the M.A. Degree awarded by the said University upto 1995 because the course contents for that Degree at that time were different from the course contents introduced by the University in 1996 ? Obviously the answer is, an emphatic 'no'. It must also be known to every body that at time the University takes examination for the same degree for two separate set of students, namely the students under the old course and the students under the New Course, sitting in examination in the same year. Therefore the mere difference in course contents, even had there been any, could not have been a good reason for non-recognition of a degree awarded by a recognised University. In the case of Himachal Pradesh University however, as we have seen, there is no difference in course contents.
10. So far as the reasoning of the Education Department that the regular system requires a lot of engagement, on the part of the student, exclusively for education which is supposed to be missing in the correspondence system of study, I must say that this reasoning is grossly misconceived. The validity of a degree awarded by a recognised University cannot be dependent on the question whether the student kept himself exclusively engaged for education. There are students who are allowed to appear as external or private candidates in many University examinations. There are many students who appear in many University examinations by attending classes in night Colleges or morning Colleges, while keeping themselves engaged in non-educational pursuits during day time for maintaining livelihood or for other reasons. The imposition of a new criterion by the Education Department for the recognition of a degree awarded by a recognised University that although the degree may be the same yet it will not recognise the degree unless the person obtaining the degree had 'exclusively engaged himself for education', is wholly untenable, capricious and arbitrary. But even then it was absolutely wrong on the part of the Education Department to suppose that the correspondence course students of the Himachal Pradesh University were not required to keep themself engaged on study and education. As we have seen the correspondence course students of the H.P. University receive a large number of assignments from the University and they have to submit at least 75% of the response sheets within the stipulated date and if they do not do that or if they fail to secure at least 30% of the maximum total marks in those assignments they will not be eligible to take the examinations. How can it be said therefore that the correspondence course students are not required to keep themselves engaged in studies? For the regular course students, perhaps they are only required to attend classes by maintaining certain minimum percentage of attendance for being qualified to sit in M.A. examination without requiring to prove their qualitative worth attained through study before sitting in the examination whereas the correspondence course students will have to prove their qualitative worth attained through study by submitting at least 75% of response sheets and by obtaining at least 30% of the total marks in those assignments for qualifying themselves to sit in the examination, let alone the question that a correspondence course student can obtain the Master Degree only if he passes the examinations taken for the purpose by undergoing the same mode of examination on the same academic curriculam and the same process of evaluation as for the regular students. Any discrimination in the matter after a student obtains the same degree from the H.P.University will therefore, be invidious.
11. The plea of the Education Department that one obtaining a degree from a University through correspondence system of study is hardly capable of doing the job of a teacher satisfactorily because of absence of interaction between teacher and student in this system is as fragile as anything. A University awards degree on the basis of the attainment's of a student tested within the parameters of its curriculum. The question of its recognition can not be linked up with extraneous considerations. For proficiency in the art of teaching in school, separate course, like B.Ed., is there. It must be known to the officials of the Education Department also that the technique, method and style of teaching in school have to be radically different from the method of teaching at higher levels. A teacher is bound to be a failure if he wants to impart teaching to school students or to manage a class in school on the model of the style of teaching experienced by him as a University student in post-graduate classes. The post-graduate style of teaching is wholly inapplicable for teaching and managing school students.
12. The notes of the Jt. Secretary and the Secretary as quoted earlier would show that they proposed not to recognise the degrees obtained through correspondence courses because they are not accustomed as yet with different correspondence courses run by different Universities for various degrees. Well, if they are not accustomed as yet with different correspondence courses run by different Universities, it is their obligation as the officials of a welfare state to get themselves informed about the actual state of affairs before taking a summary decision not to recognise any degree obtained from a recognised University through its correspondence course. A reference to the University Handbook published by the Association of Indian Universities would have made it known to the officers of the Education Department that there are at least 41 Institutes/ Directorates of distance Education attached to various conventional Universities in India, if not more. They should have known that the Directorate of Employment, Government of West Bengal was giving effect to the Master Degree awarded by the Himachal Pradesh University which is a statutory University recognised by the UGC. Nay, they were not required to go even that far. In their own Department namely the Education Department they could have found that the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education under their No. D.S. (AC)/63 dt. 5.4.90 informed the Asstt. Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Education Department (Secondary Branch) that the High School Certificate Examination (Correspondence Course) held by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, is equivalent to that of the Madhyamik Priksha held by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Vide, annexure-N to the writ petition in C.O. 1622(W) of 1996) and that was circulated by the Directorate of School Education to all District Inspectors of Schools for information and guidance, under No. 2223(18) G.A. dt. 1.8.90. Then again the Deputy Secretary to Government of West Bengal, Education Department (Secondary Branch) writes to the Director of School Education, West Bengal under his No. 1243-Edn(S) dt. 10.9.91 thus (vide annexure-N to the writ petition in C.O. 3674(W) of 1996, Sanjukta v. State of West Bengal):-
"The undersigned is directed to say that it has been reported to this department that a number of approved teachers of aided secondary schools have obtained B.Ed. degree from the Annamali University through correspondence course and prayed for yearly increaments on their time scales of pay and other benefit as admissible to a regular B.Ed/B.T teacher.
2. A question has arisen as to whether the aforesaid training qualification may be treated at part with regular B.Ed/B.T of a recognised University.
3. After careful consideration it has been decided by the Government that the B.Ed. degree obtained through correspondence course from the Annamalai University by approved teachers of Government aided secondary schools/Madrashs. shall be treated as equivalent to the regular B.T./B.Ed. degree of a recognised University ..............."
We thus find that as far back as in 1990 this very Education Department (Secondary Branch) Government of W. Bengal was informed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education that the High School Certificate Examination (Correspondence Course) held by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa is equivalent to that of the Madhyamik Examination held by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, and this was communicated by the Education Department, Government of W. Bengal to the Director of School Education, West Bengal who in turn circulated the same to all the District Inspectors of Schools (S.E.) for information and guidance. Yet the Jt. Secretary and the Secretary to the Education Department (Secondary), Government of West Bengal record notes in the file in 1995 that this department is not accustomed to recognising correspondence courses as equivalent to regular courses. They are putting up such notes in 1995 even when in 1991 their Department after careful consideration issued order declaring and instructing that the B.Ed. degree obtained through correspondence course from the Annamalai University shall be treated as equivalent to the regular B.T./B.Ed. degree of a recognised University. That is not all. The said officers it seems, are either not aware or by reason of their own attitude are not inclined to accept the fact that even in this State some of the Universities are offering correspondence courses for awarding post-graduate degrees on a number of subjects. Vidyasagar University and Burdwan University, both of West Bengal issued advertisement in newspapers (vide pages 65 & 66 of the writ petition in C.O. 1622(W) of 1996 for admission to their M.A./M.Com correspondence courses in various subjects. A prospectus (1994-1995) issued by the Directorate of correspondence courses of the University of Burdwan in respect of M.A./M.Com. Courses has been placed before me. In the second paragraph under the caption introduction in the prospectus it is recited that the University of Burdwan proposes to offer several courses under its Correspondence Courses Programme with the approval of the Government of West Bengal. How surprising that the senior officials of the Education Department of the State Government say that the correspondence courses are not be recognised because they are not accustomed to such courses while the same State Government approves introduction of correspondence courses in a University of this very State. It is also to be noted here that the said prospectus of the Burdwan University proclaims in its very first page that with the introduction of correspondence courses in the enumerated subjects, permission to appear at the M.A./M.Com Examination as external students in the relevant subjects is discontinued. The Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi writes in their letter No. EV/VII(5)/93 dt. 15.6.93 (annexure-Q to the writ petition in C.O. 1622(W) of 1996) that the Degrees awarded through correspondence studies from University Institution in India are recognised programmes and treated at per with Degrees obtained after regular studies. This is only a common sense view of the matter, a logical view of the matter. Unfortunately the Education Department of the Government of West Bengal took its impugned decision by keeping itself carefully but deplorably insulated from all relevant information and consideration.
13. A statutory University recognised by the UGC, be it Himachal Pradesh University, Vidyasagar University or Burdwan University is empowered to grant academic degree. Correspondence courses introduced by many recognised Universities are now a prevalent phenomenon in the sphere of education. Such University courses afford opportunity of education to persons who, for a variety of reasons, are unable to avail of the conventional method of campus education. Articles 41 of the Constitution of India lays down the directive principle of making effective provision inter alia for securing the right to education. The correspondence courses introduced by recognised Universities are a step in that direction. The recognised Universities like Himachal Pradesh University, Burdwan University grant degrees to student of their correspondence courses only after such students qualify for the same by passing examinations on the prescribed academic curriculum after carrying on a study of course for the prescribed duration during which they receive study materials and assignments from the University and answer assignments which must be of qualifying standard, else they are not allowed to sit for examination. The correspondence courses are introduced by a University not for the mere fun of it and not for alluring the students to be duped nor for the purpose of gaining financial profit for the University like an unscrupulous business organisation. It has a purpose, a meaningful, honest and genuine purpose, the purpose of awarding genuine degrees to the students of its correspondence courses who have qualified themselves for such a degree by testedly attaining the standard set for the purpose by the University. The students undergoing the necessary exercises for the prescribed duration including passing of examinations cannot at the whims of Education Department, be driven to accept the degree as a mere farcical end product of all these exercises of a recognised University of the Country. This will be a worst type of injustice to which this court cannot remain a mere idle spectator. Undoubtedly, judged by any standard, the degree awarded by the Himachal Pradesh University, to its correspondence course students for reasons elaborately discussed earlier, can not be treated as a farce. It is the same degree awarded by the University to its regular students. Any discrimination in the matter as has been done by the Education Department of the Government of West Bengal in issuing the impugned G.O. No. 407 is highly arbitrary, misconceived and untenable. This court after thorugh examination of the matter in all its imperative aspects holds that the Master Degree awarded by the Himachal Pradesh University to its correspondence Course students is as valid and potent a degree as is awarded to its regular students and also as valid and potent as a Master Degree of any other recognised University in India. The impugned G.O. No. 904-SE(Secy) dt. 19.12.94 issued by the School Education Department (Secondary Branch) of the Government of West Bengal is hereby quashed. So is quashed the Memo. No. 1566 dt. 22.8.95 issued by the D.I. of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri which is annexure-A to the writ petition in C.O. 1622(W) of 1996. The respondent No. 4 is directed to grant in accordance with law the higher scale of pay to the petitioner No. 1 in C.O. No. 1622(W) of 1996 by giving due credit for the Master Degree awarded by the Himachal Pradesh University, within four weeks from this date. In the case of other writ petitioners in C.O. 1622(W) of 1996 also the respondents Nos. 1,2,3,4 & 7 shall give due recognition to the Master Degree obtained from the Himachal Pradesh University, irrespective of the question whether such Degree was obtained through correspondence course or through campus study. In C.O. No. 14571(W) of 1995 and C.O. No. 14572(W) of 1995 also the impugned Memo. No. 904-SE(Secy) dt. 19.12.94 stand quashed. In C.O. No. 14571(W) of 1995 the letters dt. 31.7.95 and dt. 9.6.95 which are collectively marked as annexure-E to the writ petition are also hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to give full effect to the Memo. No. 3506/M dt. 12.12.94 issued by the D.I. of Schools (S.E.) Calcutta, annexure-D to the writ petition by which the petitioner was granted higher scale of pay with effect from 10.7.90. Likewise in C.O. No. 14572(W) of 1995 the letters dt. 1.8.95 and 26.7.95 collectively marked as F to the writ petition are also quashed hereby and the respondents are directed to give full effect to Memo. No. 3162/M dt. 2.11.94 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Calcutta, annexure-E to the writ petition by which the petitioners were granted higher scale of pay with effect from 20.12.89 and 27.2.92 respectively.
All the writ petitions stand disputed of accordingly.