Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Sifhora vs District Educational Officer Kurnool ... on 7 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)ALD510, 2001(2)ALT467
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
ORDER
S.B. Sinha, CJ
1. The question, which arises in this writ petition, is as to whether Hindi Sikshak course of Karnataka State can be said to be equivalent to B.Ed., or Pandit Training course recognised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
2. The petitioner herein along with other applicants filed an application before the learned Tribunal, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to issue the hall tickets to them so as to enable them to participate in DSC, 2000 and select them as suitable candidates for the said posts. The said application was dismissed in Limine having regard to the earlier judgment of the Tribunal passed in OA No.4808 of 2000 on 28-9-2000.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of the aforementioned judgment would clearly show that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that it is the sole prerogative of the Government as regards the equivalence of the certificates. The learned Counsel would contend that the State cannot be said to have absolute power in this regard and exercise of such power must be based on materials.
4. The learned Tribunal in the aforementioned case, inter alia, held that the standard of such course is low compared to the standard of course of this State. Such a finding was arrived at on the basis of the averments made by the State in the counter-affidavit filed therein.
5. It is not for the Tribunal or for the High Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the Expert Committee, which looks into such matters. No person having a particular degree or diploma or certificate granted by one State can claim that the same may be recognised as equivalent to another degree or diploma or certificate of another State. The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not, normally, interfere with such a decision of the State inasmuch as, as indicated hereinbefore, such a decision is arrived at by the authority having expertise in the matter, which the Tribunal or the Courts do not possess.
6. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.