Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Satveer Singh Shekhawt vs C M R S R T C And Ors on 14 December, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17102/2012 (Satveer Singh Vs. Chief Manager, RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors.) Date of Order :: 14th December, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Ajay Tanenia, for the petitioner. By the Court:
By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the action of the respondents for rejecting candidature of the petitioner for the post of Driver though he is in possession of required qualification of Secondary.
It is stated that respondents have rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that his qualification of Adeeb is not valid as per the Guidelines of 2011 of the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer and as per the order of the Corporation dated 21.05.2012 whereas not only University of Rajasthan but Government of India has recognized aforesaid course for employment, however, State Government is not giving recognition to the course of Adeeb. Accordingly, the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Driver.
Learned counsel made reference of judgments of this Court in the case of Tayyab Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2003) 3 RLW 1886 and in the case of Altaf Bano Vs. State in DB Civil Special Appeal No.258/2004 decided on 04.06.2005.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.
In the present matter, the learned counsel for petitioner has not placed any document on record to show recognition of Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh under any University or the Board. The orders referred in that regard are of no consequence, inasmuch as, the first order of State Government was issued in the year 1975 but subsequently, State Government issued an order on 29.04.1993 holding Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh to be not a recognized institution and contrary to the order of the State Government, nothing has been placed on record to show recognition of the institution, moreso when, question of recognition of the institution itself has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court by a detailed judgment. In any case, the Circular issued by the Government of India cannot be applied to the State Government service but the same can be applicable for the services of the Central Government. The issue raised herein has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Firdos Tarannum reported in 2006(1) RDD 467. Therein, earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Tayyab Hussain and Altaf Bano (supra) were also considered and after taking note of the order issued by the State Government dated 29.04.1993 and other aspects, Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not held to be a recognized institution. Accordingly, no cognizance can be given to the certificates and the degrees issued by such an institution. There are subsequent judgments of the Division Bench, where same view has been taken as was of this Court in the case of Firdos Tarannum (supra). The Government of Rajasthan had issued a Circular on 29.08.1993 giving out that Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not a recognized institution under the law as it is neither an University nor a Board, thus recognition to the course cannot be given.
In the aforesaid background, I do not find any document to support contention of the learned counsel to show that Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh to be a recognized institution. Para Nos.4 to 20 of the judgment in the case of Firdos Tarannum (supra) are relevant, thus quoted hereunder for ready reference:
4.The State Government ignored to file reply in the writ petition. The matter was disposed of by the learned Single Judge at the admission stage. The learned single Judge noticed that a Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of DB Civil Special Appeal NO. 258/2004 Miss. Altaf Bano vs. State of Rajasthan has considered the qualifications of the similarly situated persons as valid. On the basis of the letter of the State Government dated 03.02.1965 qualifications of the petitioner, were considered, to be valid, and therefore, directed the State Government to consider the case of the incumbent as he was possessed of the qualification required by the Education Department. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Miss. Altaf Bano's case (supra), the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The learned Single Judge also noticed a decision of this Court in the matter of Tayyab Hussain vs. State of Rajasthan, DB Civil Review Petition No.22/2002, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, considering the review petition, came to the conclusion that for the appointment of Teacher Grade III, the qualifications of Urdu as granted by Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh as Adib Mahir and Adib Kamil are sufficient qualifications. While holding so, the Division Bench held:
We may also notice that it was not the case of the respondents at any time that recruitment for the post of Teacher Gr.III, Adib Mahir/Adib Kamil are not recognized qualification for the purpose of recruitment.
5. The appellant State of Rajasthan, assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, contended that since the writ petition was decided at the admission stage, therefore, no reply could be filed and the case of the State Government was not placed before the learned Single Judge in the right perspective. The learned Additional Advocate General has filed an application under order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151, alongwith two orders of State Government contending that the qualifications possessed by the petitioner are the qualifications acquired from Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh. Such qualifications have been held to be not recognized vide State Government order dated 24.04.1993.-
"???????? ?????
?????? (????? ?) ?????
???????:??.7(15) ??????-3/85 ?????, ?????? 24 ??????, 93 ??????, ???????? ??? ???????? ??????, ????????, ???????.
????: ?????? ?????, ????? ?????? ????? ????????-?-????? ?? ??.??. ?? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????.
?????, ??????? ???????? ???????????? ????????????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ??.7(18) ??????-3/80 ?????? 23.11.91 ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???????????/????? ???? ??. ??: ????????-?-????? ?? ??.??. ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ????.
????? : ?????????????
?????, ?.
(?.??.??. ?????) ????? ????"
6. The learned counsel appearing for the State Government further urged that State of Rajasthan has issued a letter on 23.11.1991 in which it has been specified inter alia :-
??? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? 216/4/52-???? ?????? 30.9.1952 ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? 6.7.62 ?????? ?? ?????? 4.7.1952 ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??, ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????????????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????????????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?(????) ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ????????????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ??, ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ????. ?? ?????? ?? ????????????? ?? ????????????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ??????? (??????/????????) ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ??.
7.The learned Counsel contended that in view of the orders of the State of Rajasthan, any qualification which is not required from an Institution which is established under the orders of the Central Government, State Government or by the sanction of the University Grants Commission, such qualifications would not be valid qualifications for the purposes of employment. Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not an institution as established by and under the orders of the Central Government, State Government or University Grants Commission. Therefore, for the purposes of employment these qualifications cannot be considered to be one which is valid.
8.The learned Counsel for the State further asserted that Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is a private institution. So called recognition granted to it by a letter of the State Government which was issued in the year 1965 establishes equivalence with the qualifications of High School, Intermediate and B.A. Today, neither there is any High School Examination nor Intermediate Examination available, as held by the Board of Secondary Education. The examinations are Secondary and Higher Secondary and B.A. as mentioned 1965 order, was a Four Year Course with intermediate which is now a Three Year Degree Course. Thus, the order of the Government of Rajasthan, as relied on by the petitioner is an antiquated piece of evidence. In fact after the orders of the Central Government, which was amended in the year 1965, 1962, order also loses significance. Because, this is an order which clearly envisages that only those qualifications can be recognized for the purposes of employment, which are established either under the orders of the Central Government, State Government or University Grants Commission.
9.The Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh being an installation not established by either of these authoritative institutions, the degree cannot be recognized. This aspect was made more clear by the orders of the State Government dated 24.04.1993 which has been produced by the State Government which recites that Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not an institution established by the sanction of law, therefore, the Degree or certificate granted by this institution is of no consequence for the purpose of employment.
10.The learned Additional Advocate General further asserted that in the judgment of review in Tayyab Hussain's case (supra), the Court has proceeded on the premise wherein it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the certificate as granted by the Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh are not the recognized qualifications in view of the State Government orders dated 23.11.1991 and 24.04.1993. Thus, it cannot be considered that the judgment delivered in the case of Tayyab Hussain (supra), in review, will be able to govern the facts of this case because that judgment has been passed by the Court without correct facts being brought before it.
11.Similarly, the learned Additional Advocate General, asserted that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Miss Altaf Bano (supra), also have not been delivered after considering the two aforesaid letters. It only proceeds after noticing the order dated 03.02.1965, which has lost its force after the orders of the State Government as issued on 23.11.1991 and 24.04.1993. Therefore, the law laid down in these cases cannot be held to be the law governing the controversy involved.
12.The learned Additional Advocate General then brought to the notice of the Court of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Jalaudin Silawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.522/1999 wherein this Court had expressed doubts about the genuineness of the Notification of 03.02.1965. Its original was not produced a copy was filed on a letterhead of Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. This Court further held that even if for the sake of argument this Notification is assumed to be correct that the circular issued by the State Government vide its letters dated 23.11.1991 and 24.04.1993 the position was clearly explained and it was held that Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh cannot be considered to be a recognized institution. It could not confer a qualification which can be recognized for the purposes of employment. It was contended that the Division Bench decisions referred to hereinabove wherein the qualifications acquired from Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh has been considered to be sufficient qualification, has proceeded on wrong assumption and, therefore, cannot be considered to be a law governing the field.
13.Similarly, some Single Bench decisions have also been brought to notice but they also proceed on the basis of the aforesaid Division Bench decisions, therefore, will not be of any consequence as they also proceed on the assumption of incorrect facts.
14.The learned counsel for respondents writ petitioner, per contra, stated that in view of the orders of this Court in Tayyab Hussain (Supra), and Miss Altaf Bano (Supra), the law has been clearly stated by the Division Bench of this Court that the qualifications acquired after taking examinations of Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh, are the valid qualifications. On the basis of these qualifications many teachers have already been appointed by the State of Rajasthan and if the petitioner-respondents is not appointed then it will be a discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15.By the State Government, what is sought to be done before this Court now, could have been done before the Court earlier. These Notifications could be brought to the notice of the Court when the earlier two Division Bench decisions were rendered. In any case, they should have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, while the writ petition was decided. But the State Government Officers, even after service of notice had not chosen to file reply before the learned Single Judge and thus the State is acting in a fashion which shows that it is not certain of its position and it is taking wavering stand. At a relevant point of time it fails to bring in its best case as it considers fit and permits the court to proceed even in review petition to hold against it. It subsequently contends that the law laid down is not correct. This kind of fluid position shows that the consumers of justice have to suffer on account of the action/inaction of the State Government.
16.We have considered the rival submissions and have given out thoughtful consideration.
17.Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is an Institution which is allegedly parting Urdu Education. The respondent-petitioners have not shown us any sanction of law which had authorized this Institution to function as an Institution teaching Urdu and issuing Certificates and Degrees. The recognition of a Certificate or Degree being a valid qualification for an appointment is that the Institution issuing it should have legal sanction behind it. It may be either under the orders of the Central Government, State Government or the University Grants Commission. None of these three authorities have issued any sanction in favour of the Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh. Had it been there, the learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent would have placed it before the Court.
18.The best case of the petitioner-respondent before us is that the qualification was recognized by the State Government to be equivalent as shown in the letter dated 3rd February, 1965, quoted in the writ petition. Firstly, a Division Bench of this Court has not given credence to this Notification because the original Notification had not been placed either before us or before the Division Bench deciding the case of Jalaludin Silawat (supra). In any case, the qualification enumerated in that Notification are antiquated qualifications because now the qualification has undergone a sea change. It cannot be read to be equivalent to the present day qualifications. The State of Rajasthan had issued letters dated 24.41993 making it explicit that only those qualifications which are issued by the Institutions, which are the creation of law, can alone be recognized. Apart from this in this Notification dated 24.4.1993 it has been made clear that Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not an Institution established by law. Thus, the State of Rajasthan in its Notification dated 23.11.1991 had made it more than obvious that any qualification acquired by taking up examination held by Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh would not be a qualification which would be available for seeking to be appointed.
19.In this background, the law laid down in this case of Tayyab Hussain (supra) is clearly distinguishable because while the case was decided it was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the Certificates as issued by the Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh are not recognized by the State of Rajasthan, atleast after 1991, and the decision in Miss Altaf Bano (supra) is also distinguishable because while that judgment was rendered, the State Government Notification of 23.11.1991 and 24.4.1993 were not brought to the notice of the Court. Therefore, these two cases and certificate Single Bench decisions rendered in the light of these decisions, will not lay down a correct proposition of law.
20.In the light of the matter, it is considered that the petitioner who has acquired Urdu qualifications issued by Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh, possesses a qualification which is not a qualification awarded by an Institution which had a legal sanction behind it, therefore, the same is not available for the purposes of employment in the State of Rajasthan.
In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench had considered earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Altaf Bano annd Tayyab Hussain (supra). Accordingly, those two judgments cannot be applied to the present matter in view of the subsequent well considered judgment of the Division Bench.
Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition or any material to hold that qualification possessed by the petitioner from Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is recognized or equivalent.
In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is dismissed so as the stay application.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/Nos.81 preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.