Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Lajja Ram Sanskrit Mahavidyalya vs Union Of India And Others on 18 September, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9204 OF 2007 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
Shri Lajja Ram Sanskrit Mahavidyalya, Jind
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. A. K. Kansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. A. S. Virk, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondent No.5.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner-Institution seeks quashing of order, Annexure P-8, whereby one student, named, Sunil Lather, has been held ineligible on the ground that Shastri Examination passed by him from Kavigulguru Kalidas Sanskrit Vishwavidhlaya, Ramtek (Maharashtra) is not recognized equivalent to B.A examination of Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. His admission to LL.B. Part I was accordingly cancelled being void, abinitio. The challenge is also CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9204 OF 2007 :{ 2 }:
made to communication, Annexure P-7, whereby the proposal of the petitioner-Institution, seeking equivalence of the Class of Prathma conducted by Rashtriya Shiksha Sansthan is not treated as equivalent to Class 8th by Director, Secondary Education, Haryana. A writ of mandamus is, therefore, prayed for directing the respondents to treat various degrees/courses in Sanskrit as equivalent to other regular courses as are laid down in Government of India, notification dated 23.1.1964 and Government of Haryana notification dated
2.9.1974, as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the year 1970, the Government of India, based on the recommendation of Sanskrit Commission has established Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan to undertake, aid, promote, coordinate search in all branches of Sanskrit learning. In the year 1971-72, the petitioner- Institution was established as a registered Society. Haryana Government issued a notification in 1974, directing all Government departments to treat various degrees/courses in Sanskrit as equivalent to different classes, which is noticed below:-
"Name of Course Equivalent to
Prathama Middle School
Madhyama Higher Secondary
Shastri B.A
Acharya M.A.
Shiksha (Shastri) B.Ed. Or B.T
On 2.8.1999, the State Government further issued a letter that all examinations of foreign Universities/ Boards/Examination CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9204 OF 2007 :{ 3 }:
bodies, which have been recognized by Association of Indian Universities and University Grant Commission, New Delhi, be also recognized. The petitioner-Institution, however, received a letter from the Director, Secondary Education that degree of Prathma in Sanskrit given by Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi, can not be treated as equivalent to 8th Class. On this basis, respondent No.4 has cancelled the candidature of one of the students, who has completed three years degree course in Sanskrit from the petitioner-Institute.
The grievance of the petitioner is that various examinations in Sanskrit having been treated as equivalent to other course of modern education, the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order, not equating the examination of some of the subject of study in Sanskrit is illegal. It is pleaded that Sanskrit is a life line of Indian Society. The Scheme of re-organized Sanskrit Education in Pathshala as laid by the Government of India has clearly agreed to recognize the traditional system of Sanskrit education as integral part of Indian Education System. The main out lines of the scheme of reorganized education of Sanskrit Pathshala and their equivalence is stated to be as follows:-
"a. Praveshik or Primary Stage 5 years b. Prathma or Middle or Lower Secondary Stage 3 years c. Madhyama or Higher Secondary stage 3 years d. Shastri or B.A 3 years e.Acharya or M.A 2 years"
The petitioner accordingly has approached this Court CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9204 OF 2007 :{ 4 }:
through the present writ petition to impugn the orders, Annexures P-7 and P-8.
Separate replies have been filed on behalf of University- respondent No.4 and by the respondent Board (respondent No.6).
University in its reply has contested the averments made in the petition that law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable in this case to resolve the present controversy. It is stated that the said judgement relates to pay scale admissible to the employees having Acharya degree of those Colleges, which were taken over by the Panjab University, Chandigarh. It is also stated that the decision taken by Government of Haryana clearly mentions that the degrees/diplomas/certificates/examinations recognized by the University including the answering respondent-University would automatically stand recognized by the State of Haryana for admission and recruitment purposes.
For imparting recognition/equivalence in examination in the State, the University or the Board has to take a decision and impart recognition/equivalence. While justifying the order passed in the case of Sunil Lather, it is stated that his degree is not recognized/ equalized to degree of B.A. and hence he was not eligible to LL.B. Professional Course. The impugned order was passed after issuing show cause notice and his admission was accordingly cancelled.
Similarly, the Board in its written statement has mentioned that the grievance of the petitioner is against the Education Department. It is pointed out that the petitioner-Institution has filed this petition with a delay of six years as the communication impugned CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9204 OF 2007 :{ 5 }:
in the petition is dated 26.11.2001 whereas the writ petition is filed in the year 2007. It is stated that the petitioner-Institution never took any challenge to Annexure P-7 for all these years. It is otherwise pointed out that the Board has no authority to grant equivalence of degree as is prayed for.
Separate written statement is also filed by Commissioner and Director General School Education, Haryana. It is pointed out in this written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the claim of the petitioner to seek equivalence of Prathma with middle class examination was referred to State Council of Education Research and Training (for short, "SCERT"), which is responsible for preparing the syllabus and publishing the text books. The SCERT was asked to compare the syllabus of Prathma with middle class and has intimated that the Prathma examination can not be treated as equivalent to 8th Class.
The question that would require consideration is whether this Court would be in any competent position to issue direction for treating the courses of studies as conducted by the petitioner- Institution being equal to any degree issued by the University or the Board. This Court has no expertise to equate the courses or syllabi with any course of study being conducted by University or the Board. It is the job of the expert body constituted for this purpose to examine this aspect and then determine whether any course of study conducted by the petitioner-Institution could be treated equivalent to the study of any standard for which the Board is issuing any degree.
Somewhat similar question arose before this Court, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9204 OF 2007 :{ 6 }:
though in different context, for equating the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post with the qualification held by the petitioner in the said case. In case of Babita Rani Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2002 (2) SCT 1029, the Court in this regard has held whether a given qualification is equivalent to or higher than the prescribed qualification and that too on certain conjectures and surmises is not for the Court to determine. It is further observed that it is for the specialized agencies to determine equivalence of qualification or such allied matters. The Court may even not be proper forum to comment whether study of a subject at Post Graduate level without studying the same at the Graduation level would be a higher qualification or not. As held by the Court, what should be the prescribed qualification or whether it needs to be relaxed at any stage, is not the matter squarely falling in the domain of judicial determination and must necessarily be decided by specialized agencies created for that purpose.
Relying on this judgement, this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.23214 of 2010 (Satyawan Singh Mehra Vs. Haryana Staff Selection Commission & Others), decided on 23.8.2011 has held that it is not for the Court to determine the equivalence of qualification and found that this proposition of law is very well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampalit Vyakaran Acharya and others Vs. Punjab University, Chandigarh and another, (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 282 found that Acharya is equivalent to M.A on the basis of a letter issued by the Government of India dated 23.1.1964. This was while considering the qualification like Shastri CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9204 OF 2007 :{ 7 }:
plus B.A or Shastri plus Prabhakar in one category and inferior to Acharya, which was held at par with M.A (Sanskrit). That is not the situation in the present case. Here the petitioner is seeking equivalence with the different types of courses and degrees issued by the University for the purpose of equivalence and that may not fall within the domain of this Court.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
September 18, 2012 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE