Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Khursheed Ahmad Sheikh & Ors vs Vikas Sahebrao on 6 June, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
OWP No. 674 of 2010
c/w OWP Nos. 888 of 2010
SWP Nos. 53 of 2011, 1466 of 2010, 737 of 2011, 238 of 2011, 680 of
2011, 2332 of 2011, 2219 of 2011, 979 of 2011, 1432 of 2010, 1481 of 2011,
739 of 2011, 726 of 2011, 894 of 2011, 756 of 2011, 837 of 2011, 823 of
2011, 2275 of 2011
Khursheed Ahmad Sheikh & Ors.
Petitioners
State and others
Respondents
!M/s R. A. Jan, Advocate
Mr. M. Ajaz, Advocate
Mr. H. Furrhi, Advocate
Mr. Zahoor A. Shah, Advocate
Mr. S. R. Khawar, Advocate
Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Advocate
Mr. Mudasir Bin Hassan, Advocate
Mr. Mir Javed, Advocate
Mr. Mir Shafaqat Hussain, Advocate
Mr. Javed Hamid, Advocate
^M/s A. M. Magray, Advocate
Mr. J.A.Kawoosa, Advocate
Mr. S. A. Naik, Advocate
Mr. Mir Suhail, Advocate
Mr. S. A. Makroo, Advocate
Mr.Shabir Ahmad Khan, Advocate
Mr. B. A. Bashir, Advocate
Mr. Tassaduq H. Khawaja, Advocate
Mr. Mufti Mehraj-ud-Din, Advocate
Mr. G. A. Lone, Advocate
Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Dar, Advocate
Mr. Qazi Ayaz, Advocate
Honble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Judge
Date:06/06/2012
: J U D G M E N T :
1) By the medium of this judgment, all the writ petitions are proposed to be disposed of together as the controversy involved is similar and raise common question of law and facts.
OWP No. 674/2010 c/w 888/2010, SWP Nos. 1432/2011, & 1481/2011
2) In these writ petitions, the petitioners have averred that they have on their credit the Post Graduate Degrees obtained from Ponnaiyah Ramajayan Institute of Science & Technology, University, Tamil Nadu, Thanjavur, hereinafter for short as PRIST and the same has not been considered by the respondents while making selection for the posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem for different Primary and Middle Schools of District Budgam.
3) The petitioners allege discrimination on the part of respondents to the effect that while making selection, the degrees obtained from PRIST have not been given any weight-age resulting in petitioners exit from the consideration zone. That the University is recognized by respondent No. 5 and is competent to undertake Post Graduate Courses and thereafter issue certificates to successful candidates.
4) It is further averred that petitioners merit has been turned into demerit by the inaction of respondents; therefore, they are aggrieved of the same and seek appropriate directions.
SWP No. 53/2011 c/w 1466/2010, 737/2011, 238/2011, 680/2011, & 2332/2010
5) In these writ petitions, the petitioners again seek weight-age to their academic qualification obtained through PRIST, but have in addition sought writ of certiorari to the effect that notification No. 47063-66 dated 05.01.2011- Annexure D, by virtue of which the selection was notified and respondent No. 5 and 6 were shown selected, be quashed. In OWP No. 2332/2010 it is also prayed that respondents be prohibited not to make any appointment in pursuance to impugned selection.
SWP No. 2219/2011 c/w 979/2011,
6) The petitioners in these petitions have to their credit, B.A, M.A. & B.Ed from Kashmir University and M.Ed. from PRIST University; have been interviewed for the post of Teacher in District Cadre Pulwama. They apprehend that despite being interviewed, they, like others, may not receive the due consideration to their M.Ed degrees obtained from PRIST University, therefore, seek a direction to this effect in the name of respondents. SWP No. 739/2011, c/w 726/2011, 894/2011, 756/2011, 837/2011, & 823/2011
7) Petitioners in this writ petition seek a direction in the name of respondents to the effect that they be interviewed and their higher qualification of M.Ed. obtained from PRIST be given due weight-age.
SWP No. 2275/20118) The petitioners in this writ petition are nine in number, out of which one stands deleted. The petitioners 1 to 7 seek due consideration and weight-age to their higher qualification of M.Ed. obtained through PRIST in an open category for the post of Teacher in District Shopian, while as petitioner No. 8 seeks the same relief but in reserved category, being the Resident of Backward Area. The petitioners seek quashment of the selection list dated 3.10.2011 also.
9) Respondents have filed their reply/ objections to all the writ petitions. The stand of the respondents in all the writ petitions is quite similar.
10) Primarily, this court has to see as to whether the degrees obtained and in possession of the petitioners are valid in the eyes of law? When this question is answered, the next would be, as to how far the respondents are justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on the ground of their having acquired the higher academic qualification through Universities other than Jammu University/ Kashmir University, Moulana Azad National Urdu University, for short as MANUU, Department of Electronics and Accreditation Computer Courses, for short as DOEACC, or Indira Gandhi National Open University, for short as IGNOU?
11) Before the controversy is dwelled upon, it is thought appropriate to recount the events the way it reached to this court.
12) Petitioners in response to various advertisement notices, issued by the respondents for filling up different posts as reflected in respective writ petitions, submitted their candidature and sought consideration, as they, in their belief, were not only eligible but possessing quite a fair merit too.
13) In all the writ petitions, the petitioners contend that they have been denied consideration for selection against the advertised posts, either before or after their interview, for; they have obtained the post graduate degrees from PRIST or from University other than Jammu University/ Kashmir University, DOEACC, MANNU or IGNOU.
14) The respondents in their reply do not deny the contention of petitioners that their post graduate degree certificates obtained through PRIST or some other University other than Jammu University, Kashmir University, DOEACC, or IGNOU, have been denied weight-age.
15) It is specifically pleaded by all the respondents except PRIST University that PRIST has not been granted recognition for offering B.Ed, M.Ed courses and is also not recognized as per the mandate of provisions of University Grants Commission, 1956; hereinafter for short as UGC, Distance Education Council; for short as DEC, the Jammu and Kashmir Private Colleges (Regulation and Control), Act, 2002; IGNOU Act, 1985, National Council for Teacher Education, for short as NCTE. University of Kashmir has specifically averred that any degree granted by PRIST have no equivalence with the corresponding degrees of the University.
16) Mr. B. A. Bashir, learned counsel for DEC has made a statement, in terms of order dated 1st May, 2012, to the effect that PRIST is not recognized by the DEC.
17) The reply filed by Mr. S. A. Naik, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State, reflects that State of J&K does not recognize PRIST as a UGC recognized university.
18) Mr. S. A. Makroo, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, representing Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, Govt. of India, also made a statement to the effect that PRIST is not recognized at all and any degree granted by it is not a degree in the eyes of law. He has also produced some documents viz. communication made by Under Secretary to Govt. of India dated 13th March, 2012 in support of his contention. The communication for ready reference is reproduced below:-
In continuation of our letter of even no. dated 6.2.2012 and your letter no. 5.3.2012 on the above subject, it is to inform you that clarifications regarding validity of the courses (M.Ed/ B. Ed) offered by PRIST, Deemed to be University were called from National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The Council has informed that PRIST has not been granted recognition by it for offering B.Ed/ M.Ed Course. A copy of letter No. FAPSO 2421/B.Ed/KA/2012/39423, dated 22.3.2012 received from NCTE is enclosed for ready reference. You are, therefore, requested to kindly inform the Honble High Court of J&K at Srinagar accordingly.
19) Letter addressed by the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education dated 22nd March, 2012 to Under Secretary to Government of India, too is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
With reference to the above, this is to inform that Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and Technology (PRIST), Thanjavur, Tamilnadu has not been granted recognition by SRC, NCTE for offering B.Ed/ M.Ed course.
20) University Grants Commission vide its circular dated 23rd August, 2005 has made it clear that no deemed university is approved to have study centres.
21) Mr. Mufti Mehraj-ud-din, learned counsel representing PRIST has filed his reply and in Para no. 12 it is averred that University has no study centre in Kashmir Valley, as such any assertion made by the petitioners in this regard is denied for want of knowledge. It is admitted, however that PRIST has established collaborative centres in J&K State and the students who are enrolled in the said centres are regular students and certificates issued to them are valid.
22) Heard counsel for the parties. 23) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the petitions
are taken up for final disposal at admission stage itself.
24) At the very outset let us advert to the essence of word Education being the foundation of all the writ petitions. The purpose and essence of education is a basis for foundation of nation, thus while establishing Universities or Centres outside State, necessary requirements of the enactments/ Acts/ Rules and Regulations are to be followed. Any institution established or run in dehors of rules virtually amounts to demolishing the society. The Regulations, Acts, Rules, applicable serve the interests of students, teachers and the public at large. Their role is of paramount importance; the good education aims at to preserve harmony among affiliated institution.
25) The Apex Court in case titled Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and Ors. v. Subhash Rahangdale and Ors. reported as AIR SCW 2012 March, 1573 observed as under:-
Regulations which will serve the interests of the students, regulations which will serve the interests of the teachers are of paramount importance in good administration. Regulations in the interest of efficiency of teachers, discipline and fairness in administration are necessary for preserving harmony among affiliated institutions.
Education should be a great cohesive force in developing integrity of the nation. Education develops the ethos of the nation. Regulations are, therefore, necessary to see that there are no divisive or disintegrating forces in administration.
26) Apex court in case titled State of Maharashtra versus Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others reported as 1992 Vol. 4 SCC, 435 has held that writ petition filed by the students, after having completed B.Ed course from unrecognized institution, for direction to State Govt. to permit them to appear in examination and to allocate the passed candidates in a recognized institution to prosecute their further courses, was wrongly allowed being a direction to disobey the law.
27) It is held that before running private institution they must obtain NOC-
approval in terms of the provisions applicable. Any institution that runs in violation of the standards laid down by the laws, rules applicable goes against the interests of nation and will have far reaching consequences.
28) Apex court in case titled State of Orissa and another versus Mamata Mohanty reported as 2011 (3) SCC 436 has discussed the meaning of word Education; the importance of academic excellence of teachers. It is apt to reproduce Para 29 and 33 herein:-
EDUCATION:
29. Education is the systematic instruction, schooling or training given to the young persons in preparation for the work of life.
It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. Education connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling. The excellence of instruction provided by an educational institution mainly depends directly on the excellence of the teaching staff. Therefore, unless they themselves possess a good academic record/minimum qualifications prescribed as an eligibility, it is beyond imagination of anyone that standard of education can be maintained/enhanced.
18. "We have to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and maintaining academic discipline and academic rigour if our country is to progress.
30 Democracy depends for its very life on a high standard of general, vocational and professional education. Dissemination of 'learning with search for new knowledge with discipline all round must be 1 maintained at all costs.
"33. In view of the above, it is evident that education is necessary to develop the personality of a person as a whole and in totality as it provides the process of training and acquiring the knowledge, skills, developing mind and character by formal schooling. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain a high academic standard and academic discipline along with academic rigour for the progress of a nation. Democracy depends for its own survival on a high standard of vocational and professional education. Paucity of funds cannot be a ground for the State not to provide quality education to its future citizens. It is for this reason that in order to maintain the standard of education the State Government provides grant-in- aid to private schools to ensure the smooth running of the institution so that the standard of teaching may not suffer for want of funds.
29) Apex court in a case titled Annamalai University versus Secy. To Govt. Information & Tourism Deptt. reported as 2009 Vol. 4 SCC 590 while interpreting UGC Act, 1956, IGNOU Act, 1985 and Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, held that any institution run in breach is no institution at all and any certificate issued is no certificate in the eyes of law.
30) Apex court in case titled Pramod Kumar versus U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others reported as 2008 (7) SCC 153 discussed the various provisions of law and the purpose of making selections, the conditions of fixing educational qualifications, granting of degrees by University and held that any degree which is issued by any institution in violation of UGC Act, 1956 and the other laws applicable is not a valid degree at all.
31) Supreme Court has laid down principles in case titled Professor Yashpaul versus State of Chhattisgarh and others reported as 2005 (5) SCC
420. The Honble court while considering the entire gamut discussed the purpose of education, rules of education, recognizing degree, laid certain parameters as to how the institution is established and when the degree is a valid degree. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 38 and 39 herein:-
38. A degree conferred by a University is a proof of the fact that a person has studied a course of a particular higher level and has successfully passed the examination certifying his proficiency in the said subject of study to such level. In the case of a Doctorate degree, it certifies that the holder of the degree has attained a high level of knowledge and study in the concerned subject by doing some original research work. A University degree confers a kind of a status upon a person like a graduate or a post-graduate. Those who have done research work and have obtained a Ph.D., D.Lit., or D.Sc.
degree become entitled to write the word "Doctor" before their name and command certain amount of respect in society as educated and knowledgeable persons. That apart the principal advantage of holding a University degree is in the matter of employment, where a minimum qualification like a graduate, post-graduate or a professional degree from a recognized institute is prescribed. Even for those who do not want to take up a job and want to remain in private profession like a doctor or lawyer, registration with Medical Council or Bar Council is necessary for which purpose a degree in medicine or law, as the case may be, from an institution recognized by the said bodies is essential. An academic degree is, therefore, of great significance and value for the holder thereof and goes a long way in shaping his future. The interest of society also requires that the holder of an academic degree must possess the requisite proficiency and expertise in the subject which the degree certifies.
39. Mere conferment of degree is not enough. What is necessary is that the degree should be recognized. It is for this purpose that the right to confer degree has been given under Section 22 of UGC Act only to a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. Sub-section (3) of this Section provides that "degree" means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette. The value and importance of such degrees which are recognized by Government was pointed out by a Constitution Bench in Azeez Basha v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC
662.
32) To resolve the controversy in hand, some interesting and important aspects need to be looked at. The competence and authorization of the Universities to undertake in-campus and off-campus courses; the courses that require the services of a full fledged guide at the back; the courses which have practicals as a pre-requisite etc etc..
33) It may be pointed out here that the affairs of the Colleges are run and managed by the University it is affiliated with. The University as a governing body empowers the Colleges to undertake particular courses and the College cannot, of its own, offer courses beyond its competence and authorization. This is true with the University also, as it also is empowered and authorized to undertake courses; impart education and thereafter issue certificates to the successful candidates. The University also, cannot, of its own, offer courses beyond permissible limits.
In this background, the stake and credibility of the PRIST, has to be adjudged in the first instance, therefore, the registration accorded to the said University gains significance. The perusal of the document placed on record by the petitioners which is contended to be the Registration Certificate of the PRIST, reveals that the same is not valid for undertaking Education courses. Therefore, those of the candidates who have obtained degrees in the said streams viz. B.Ed, M. Ed, etc., cannot seek the consideration of certificates, the validity of which is put under cloud by the very Registration Certificate of the University they have pursued such courses from. Therefore, the credibility of the said certificates vanishes along with the Institution it had been obtained from without hyperbole.
It does not come to fore as to how the PRIST, has of its own, offered courses and issued certificates, beyond authorized limits. The PRIST cannot escape responsibility in the given situation.
34) Having said so, it needs to be seen as to how the Institution which is involved in a noble profession of imparting education and producing great minds for the society, has exceeded and acted beyond permissible limits and in a nasty way. The conduct depicted by the PRIST in undertaking courses for which it is not affiliated or recognized, is ashaming, and the petitioners who have undertaken courses from an unrecognized institution have done so blindfoldedly and cannot expect this court to put its seal on the said blindfolded act to legalize the illegal.
35) Before proceeding further on the issue, the purpose and concept of Education be reminiscent:
The dictionary meaning of Education is learning; to gain knowledge. The petitioners, like all those people who pursue and are in search of particular knowledge, have a propensity to become the torch bearers only if the same is pursued and accomplished in a very fair; transparent and legal manner; but if the degrees, as in the case in hand, are provided like a street commodity the fate of the future can just be anticipated.
36) This court would not hesitate even to say that if the objection regarding the sanctity of petitioners degrees would not have been raised by the respondents, the probability was that they would have made their entry on different posts, again meant for imparting education, and the same would have resulted in generational waywardness, for, a candle cannot light another unless it continues to burn its own flame.
37) The irony is that an Institution that is granted the status of a University, though for limited purpose, has been unjust, dishonest and unfair in its all activities and approach. PRIST had to mould its affairs in terms of the mandate of relevant provisions of law. In this regard, reference be had to Notification dated 4th January, 2008 published in the Gazette of India Part-1 Section-1 issued by the Govt. of India Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) which is reproduced herein:
ix. The PRIST, as a deemed-to-be-university shall award degrees in respect of the courses run by the Ponnaiyah Ramajayam College, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu only to those students who are admitted to the said college subsequent to the date on which this Notification takes effect for the purpose of the UGC Act, 1956. Accordingly, the PRIST shall make admission and enrolment of students to the academic courses of the Ponnaiyah Ramajayam College under it only with effect from the ensuing academic year (i.e. from 2008- 2009).
x. As for those students who were already admitted prior to this notification and are pursuing their studies at the Ponnaiyah Ramajayam College presently, they shall continue to pursue their courses of study under affiliation to the present affiliating university, namely, the Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu, which shall agree to continue to conduct examinations for them and also to award degrees to them upon successful completion of the courses/ programmes of study they are pursuing at the said institution presently. xvii. The PRIST or its constituent unit shall not conduct any distance education programmes without prior approval of the UGC and Distance Education Council (DEC). The guidelines issued by both the DEC and UGC in the matter of imparting education through distance mode from time to time have to be strictly complied with by the Institute.
xviii. The PRIST shall not run any study centre/ off-campus centre without obtaining the requisite prior approval of the UGC/ Government of India, as the case may be.
38) The conditions reproduced above are amongst many others stipulated in the notification itself. The perusal of the notification makes explicit mention of the bindings those were put on the PRIST, and it also demonstrates that the students enrolled before the issuance of said notification have to obtain their degrees not from PRIST but from Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu, therefore, the certificates placed on record are not in accordance with the guidelines as were provided in the said notification.
39) In the 2nd para of its reply, the PRIST University very specifically avers that it has established collaborative centres outside the State in terms of the UGC Act. The laws applicable read with the mandate of Act provides that no recognized institution can establish centres for imparting education outside state in view of mandate of Section 22 of UGC Act. PRIST, though mentions in its reply that it has established collaborative centres outside State in terms of the UGC Act, has failed to place on record any order by virtue of which it has been allowed/ permitted to run study centres outside state. It is apt to reproduce Section 22 of the UGC Act herein:-
22. Right to confer degrees.-(1) The right of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised only by a University established or incorported by or under a Central Act, a Provisional Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree.
(3) For the purposes of this section, degree means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette.
40) Mr. Mufti Mehraj-ud-din, learned counsel appearing for the PRIST while addressing arguments produced some documents which appear to have been communicated to him by the Chancellor of the PRIST. It is apt to reproduce the same herein:-
1. As per UGC regulation 2000, we have established collaborative centres as partner institute (as in the case of IGNOU).
2. As per UGC regulation 2010, we can establish collaborative centres only with the prior approval of UGC. But regulation 2010 has been challenged in Madras High Court and it is still pending with high court bench.
3. As our collaborative centres are concerned, kept in suspension till we get clearance from Supreme Court in the case of 44 Universities. We have already stopped admissions in our collaborative centres those who have already completed their courses are issued with their mark sheets and other certificates. This is for your kind information.
41) It is admitted by the Chancellor that PRIST has established collaborative centres outside the premises without approval of UGC, but has stated that it has questioned the UGC regulation 2010, which is still pending, and thereafter in para 3 it is stated that they have kept all those collaborative centres in suspension till clearance from Supreme Court, meaning thereby that collaborative centres were established without permission and now have been kept in suspension.
42) How, in the depicted background, the writ petitioners were regular students of the PRIST; how have certificates been issued in their favour is not forthcoming. While taking into consideration the communication made by PRIST through its Chancellor it becomes obvious that it has established collaborative centres in breach of UGC Act and University Rules, 2010. Since it failed to obtain any relief from any court of law, therefore has now placed the centres in suspension. Only on this count, these writ petitions merit to be dismissed, and the certificates awarded are to be declared invalid.
43) Mr. Makroo has placed on file a document which discloses that the PRIST is not recognized in terms of the mandate of UGC Act.
44) Mr. J. A. Kawoosa, has specifically stated that the Govt. of J&K has not recognized the PRIST.
45) The judgment cited by the Mufti Mehraj-ud-din of Madras High Court is not applicable to the instant case for the simple reason that it is recorded in the said judgment that, Madras Govt. has granted equivalence to the degrees in question. But still an appeal has been preferred by the State of Madras against that judgment which is reserved for judgment. But the stand of the J&K Govt. is that PRIST is not recognized for any purpose, thus the judgment cited is inapplicable.
46) This court in case titled Bilal Ahmad Najar versus State of J&K & Ors. bearing SWP No. 187/06 decided on 27th February, 2009, has held that degrees issued by various universities in violation of UGC Act and the other laws applicable are not valid degrees in so far as employment of the State is concerned and the persons holding such degrees cannot claim any weightage on the basis of such degrees. It is apt to reproduce last 3 paras herein:-
On consideration of the matter I could not find any ground for admission of the present petition. The petitioner has obtained a degree in distance education which admittedly is not a recognized degree by the University of Kashmir or by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir as such the degree obtained by the petitioner cannot be treated as a valid degree in so far as employment in the State is concerned.
It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the degree obtained by the petitioner is through distance education mode it is not in fact so as the petitioner has attended regular classes at the Kawa Institute of Management. This in my view will not help the petitioner. Admittedly the degree under the distance education programme by the said Institute or the said University has not till date been recognized either by the University of Kashmir or by the Government, so the petitioner cannot take benefit of the same.
Learned counsel has further referred to the stand taken by the University of Kashmir wherein the University authorities have stated that the degree is not recognized by the University for academic purpose and that it is for the State Government to consider it for employment purpose. The State Government has admittedly not recognized the degree for the purpose of employment as such the petitioner cannot claim any weightage on the basis of such degree.
In these circumstances this petition is dismissed.
47) This judgment has not been questioned, therefore holds good even today and is binding.
48) Mr. Moulvi Ajaz while addressing arguments argued that in terms of a communication, the Government has made a policy vide circular dated 10th July, 2009, that those institutions which are unauthorized and unrecognized were directed to complete the course and he stressed that same is applicable to sessions 2008-09.
49) The argument though appears to be attractive but does not carry enough weight to come to petitioners rescue, as the reference made and reliance placed to, is a communication which appears to have been made by Deputy Secretary to Govt. Higher Education Department to all the unauthorized institutions of J&K State dated 10th July, 2009. The para 3 of the said communication on which he laid emphasis relates to the period when the Jammu and Kashmir Private College Rules (Rule 2005) came into force and those rules came into force in terms of SRO 339 of 20th December, 2005, and those of the institutions which were at that time being run unauthorizedly were asked to let students complete their courses which pertain to session 2005 and not to 2009.
50) It is worthwhile to mention herein that there are number of certificates on file which do disclose that some of the petitioners have obtained degrees as regular students though they were, as per the stand taken by the respondents, working in Govt. establishments and in some other private institutions, and have drawn salary also for the said period. How have they appeared and completed courses as regular students and simultaneously drawn pay for the same period from the Govt. establishment is still a mystery and calls for an explanation. In this regard reference may be had to the instances placed on record as annexure R1 with SWP No. 2275/2011 and SWP No. 1481/2011.
51) This aspect of the matter also reflects bad about the affairs of the PRIST and it raises a serious finger of suspicion against its conduct as also of the petitioners.
52) The court being the custodian of the public interests is duty bound to come forward in matters of such grave nature and play its role. It becomes inevitable more importantly for the reason that the people who, for one reason or the other, are party to the wrong and illegal conduct etc., have approached the court and are seeking direction in the name of respondents to have regard and give due weightage to their degrees obtained through PRIST. Virtually the petitioners seek advantage of an illegal and wrong act.
In the depicted background the Chief Secretary of the State is directed to examine the entire case; see how and where these unauthorized centres are being run. He is further directed to leave no stone unturned to unearth the conspiracy and fix the responsibility accordingly. He can even go for registration of a criminal case, if required and monitor its investigation. Given the fact that it relates to future of our nation, the Chief Secretary may bear in mind the sensitivity of the matter, while taking up the task in his hands.
53) For what is stated hereinbefore all the writ petitions are held to be without any merit, therefore, dismissed. Interim directions in all writ petitions shall stand vacated.
54) Registry to send copies of this judgment to learned Advocate General and the Chief Secretary of the State.
55) Disposed of.
56) Copy of this judgment be placed on each file.
Srinagar (Mansoor Ahmad Mir)
06.06.2012 Judge
Amjad lone PS