Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 July, 2014
1 WP No.1157/2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SB: Justice Sujoy Paul
WP No. 1157/2014
Rajoo Singh
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 814/2014
Vivek Kumar Sharma
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 951/2014
Devendra Singh
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.S. Bhadoriya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 955/2014
Vikash Sharma
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 WP No.1157/2014
WP No. 956/2014
Dhruv Singh
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 954/2014
Roop Singh Tomar
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 953/2014
Amit Kumar Sharma
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 1102/2014
Pradeep Singh & Ors.
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vivek Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 1073/2014
Narendra Singh and Anr.
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
3 WP No.1157/2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Vivek Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 1043/2014
Durgesh Sharma
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 1007/2014
Ram Niwas Jatav
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Amit Lahoti, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 957/2014
Jitendra Singh
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Amit Lahoti, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 902/2014
Manoj Pal and Anr.
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ankit Saxena, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
4 WP No.1157/2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 1931/2014
Atul Sharma
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rajesh Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WP No. 1204/2014
Sonveer Singh
VS.
State of M.P. & Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.6/Sanskrit
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( 15 / 07 / 2014) In these batch of petitions, the single point needs to be decided is whether the "Poorva Madhyama Certificate Examination" (two years course) and "Uttar Madhyama Certificate Examination" (two years course) are equivalent to High School Examination ( 10th Class) and Higher Secondary Examination ( 10 + 2) conducted by M.P. Board of Secondary Eduction.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they submitted their candidature for Police Constable Recruitment Examination. They possess necessary qualification and passed the examination from Sanskrit Board. By taking this Court to various documents available on record, it is submitted that General Administration Department ( GAD) of the State Government, Professional Examination Board and other bodies have already accepted the qualification of Poorva Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama examination granted by Maharishi Patanjali Sanskrit Sansthan.
3. Shri R.P. Rathi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State, 5 WP No.1157/2014 relied on main return filed in WP No. 1102/2014. It is submitted that in State of M.P. Only Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Bhopal can approve any of the courses. Since the M.P. Board of Secondary Education in its booklet (Annexure R/1) has not recognized the qualification of the petitioner and certificate issued by Sanskrit Board does not find place in Annexure R/1, the said certificate cannot be accepted. In the entire return, the stand of the State is that in Annexure R/1 issued by the Board of Secondary Education, name of Sanskrit Board does not find place and therefore, it cannot be accepted as recognized institution.
4. Shri Nakul Khedkar, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in WP No. 951/2014 submits that Maharishi Patanjali Sanskrit Sansthan is a Government body. It is constituted under Maharishi Patanjali Sansthan Adhiniyam, 2007. The aim and object of the Adhiniyam is establishment and incorporation of an institution in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purpose of research and comprehensive study in the field of Sanskrit and its literature and to regulate Sanskrit Education at school level and for other matters connected and ancillary thereto. He submits that aforesaid Adhiniyam came into being in the year 2007 and on that basis Sanskrit Board was constituted. The examination of 10th and 12th Class ( Poorva Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama respectively) conducted by respondent No.6 are treated as equivalent by Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal, Council of Board of School Education in India and General Administration Department of State Government. He submits that stand of official respondent / State that certificate issued by respondent No.6 cannot be admitted is illegal and runs contrary to the document Annexure R/1, R/2 and R/3.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. A plain reading of Annexure R/6 shows that this booklet is updated up to January, 2004. Admittedly, respondent No.6/ Board is constituted in the year 2007. Thus, there was no question of mentioning its name in the brochure issued and revised up to 2004. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, M.P., Bhopal issued memo dated 27.04.2014, which reads as under:-
6 WP No.1157/2014** dzekad @ 578@ fo|ksfpr @2009 Hkksiky] fnukad 27@04@2009 &%% foKfIr %%& e-iz- 'kklu] Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx ds i= dzekad ,Q&44&1&chl&3&2007] fnukad 18 vxLr 2008 ds }kjk e/;izns'k laLd`r cksMZ e/;izns'k laLd`r cksMZ dk foy; egf"kZ irUtfy laLd`r laLFkku Hkksiky] esa gks tkus ds QyLo:i egf"kZ irUtfy laLd`r cksMZ laLFkku dh iwoZ e/;ek ,oa mRrj e/;ek ijh{kk dks ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky dh dze'k% gkbZLdwy ,oa gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kkvksa ds led{k ekU; fd;k tkrk gSSA ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky
7. The Council of Board of School Education in India (COBSE) by communication dated 24th January, 2011 directed as under:_ Council of Board of School Education in India ( COBSE) Sub : Membership of COBSE of Maharshi Patanjali Sanskrit Sansthan ( MPSS)- A new member of COBSE COBSE examine the application of MPSS to become a member of COBSE and accepted its membership based on attested copies of the following documents :-
1. "Madhya Pradesh Act No. 15 of 2007" which provides for establishment and incorporation of an institution in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the field of teaching Sanskrit, its literature and regulates Sanskrit education at school level.
2. A copy of the order from Madhya Pradesh Administration, Department of School Education, Bhopal vide letter No. F.44-13/2008/20-3 dated 14/05/2009 and a copy of the circular of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal stating that consequent upon the merger of M.P. Sanskrit Board with Maharshi Patanjali Sanskrit Sanstha, examinations conducted by the MPSS Poorva Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama is being recognized equivalent to High School and Higher Secondary respectively vide letter No. 579 / Vidyochit / 2009 dated 27/ 4/ 2009.
3. It is for the information of all the members of COBSE that MPSS has been accepted as member w.e.f. 21st September, 2010.
(Pooran Chand) Joint Secretary, COBSE
8. The General Administration Department (GAD) by order dated 05/07/2010 directed as under :-
7 WP No.1157/2014**izfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx] v/;{k] jktLo eaMy] e-iz- Xokfy;j] leLr laHkkxh; vk;qDr] leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr dysDVj] leLr eq[; dk;kZikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r] e/; izns'kA fo"k; %& egf"kZ iratfy laLd`r laLFkku e/; izns'k Hkksiky }kjk vk;ksftr gksus okys iwoZ e/;ek rFkk mRrj e/;ek dh ijh{kkvksa dh led{krkA jkT; 'kklu us egf"kZ iratfy laLd`r laLFkku }kjk vk;ksftr iwoZ e/;ek ,oa mRrj e/;ek dh ijh{kkvks dks jkT; 'kklu ds v/khu lsokvksa esa fu;qfDr ds fy;s fuEukuqlkj izR;sd ds lkeus dze'k% mYysf[kr f'k{kk ds lkekU; <kaps ds varxZr 'kS{kf.kd ijh{kk ds led{k ekU;rk nsus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gS %& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& dzekad ijh{kk dk uke led{krk &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 1- iwoZ e/;ek ¼ f}o"khZ; ikB~;dze ½ gkbZ Ldwy ijh{kk ¼ e0iz0 cksMZ }kjk lapkfyr d{kk 10½ ds led{k 2- mRrj e/;ek ¼ f}o"khZ; ikB~;dze ½ gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk ¼e0iz0 cksMZ }kjk lapkfyr d{kk 10+2½ ds led{k &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼ vdhyk g'ker ½ mi lfpo e/;izns'k 'kklu lkekU; 'kklu foHkkx
9. It is sorry state of affair that despite filing of these documents dated 27.04.2009 and 05.07.2010 by the petitioners and respondent No.6, the State Government has not thought it proper to devote a single line in the return on these documents. The return is silent about the effect of above referred orders despite the fact that these documents were field along with certain petitions decided by this order. This kind of evasive reply is not expected from the State Government.
10. The Division Bench of this Court in WP NO. 8117/2012 ( Smt. Pooja Chouhan Vs. Secretary Health Department and others) had 8 WP No.1157/2014 occasion to consider the question of eligibility of candidates who passed the examination from Sanskrit Board. The Division Bench opined as under :-
"Respondents No.5 and 6 along with the reply filed a notification dt. 26.02.2005 issued by the Board of Secondary Education., M.P. Bhopal. In the notification, it is mentioned that Poorva Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama examinations conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Sanskrit Board having recognition equivalent to examination of High School and Higher Secondary conducted by the M.P. Board of Secondary Education.
From the other issued by the GAD dt. 05.07.2010 and the notification dt. 26.02.2005 issued by the M.P. Board of Secondary Education mentioned earlier in the order, it is clear that the examinations of Poorva Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Sanskrit Board have been treated as equivalent to the examinations of High School and Higher Secondary conducted by the M.P. Board of Secondary Education Bhopal. In this view of the matter, the candidature of the petitioner could not be rejected on the ground that she did not have qualification of High School and Higher Secondary pass for the post of ANM because the petitioner passed Poorva Madhyama examination from Madhya Pradesh Sanskrit Boar, Bhopal. A copy of the mark sheet has been filed as Annexure A/2 along with the petition. Consequently, petition is hereby allowed. The order dt. 26.06.2012 (Annexure A/7) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the training of ANM if she fulfills other qualifications in accordance with law."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that the aforesaid courses are equivalent to High School (10th Class) and Higher Secondary School (10 +2) courses conducted by M.P. Board of Secondary Education. Thus, in view of the orders quoted above and Division Bench judgment, I am unable to approve the action of respondents in treating the petitioners as ineligible. However, it is clear that it will be open for the respondents to examine the correctness and genuineness of the certificate submitted by the petitioner.
12. Before parting with the matter, I deem it fit to record that the reply filed by the State was an evasive reply. In various petitions and along with return of Sanskrit Board, the above quoted documents were filed. State in its reply has not chosen to meet the said point and 9 WP No.1157/2014 relied on 2004 document (Annexure R/1). This is not expected from the State Government. The State being a model employer must deal with all the points raised in the petition. I hope that due care will be taken by the State to remove this kind of deficiency in future. In the result, petitions are allowed. Qualification of "Poorva Madhyama Certificate Examination" and "Uttar Madhyama Certificate Examination" are declared as equivalent to High School Examination ( 10th Class) and Higher Secondary Examination ( 10 + 2) conducted by M.P. Board of Secondary Eduction.
13. Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. Registry is directed to keep true copy of this order on the record of all the connected petitions.
(Sujoy Paul)
sarathe/- Judge