Allahabad High Court
Keerti Nanda vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 28 April, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 2025:AHC:64637 Reserved :- 21/04/2025 Delivered :- 28/04/2025 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9992 of 2020 Petitioner :- Keerti Nanda Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Vikram Yadav,Shantanu Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava,C.S.C.,Gagan Mehta,Shad Khan,Suresh Kumar with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18025 of 2024 Petitioner :- Keerti Nanda Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shad Khan with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32778 of 2024 Petitioner :- Keerti Nanda Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. I proceed to consider rival submissions on basis of undisputed fact that the petitioner has simultaneously obtained two regular courses, first B.T.C. Certificate/Degree of Training (Batch 2014 to 2017 (passing year)) from District Education and Training Center, Etah (a two year Training Course) and L.L.B. (2015-2018) (a three year course) from Om Shanti College of Law, Anjani, Mainpuri affiliated with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra. She has not disclosed about her L.L.B. Degree and on basis of BTC Training Certificate got appointment by an order dated 05.09.2018.
2. Aforesaid fact of two simultaneous degree came into light when an inquiry was initiated on basis of a complaint and a notice was issued and a reply to it was submitted wherein she has admitted above fact, though taken a plea of ignorance of any law, imposing bar on two simultaneous courses. She has also approached the University to cancel her LLB Degree.
3. An Order dated 31.08.2020 was passed by District Basic Education Officer, Kasganj, whereby her salary was stopped, which was subject matter of challenge in Writ No. 9992 of 2020, wherever by an interim order dated 11.01.2021, direction to stop salary was stayed.
4. The respondent has also passed an Order dated 10.09.2024, whereby candidature of the petitioner for B.T.C. training batch was cancelled; which was subject matter of 2nd Writ Petition being Writ C No. 32778 of 2024, wherein by interim order dated 03.10.2024, impugned order was stayed.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, another impugned order dated 3.10.2024 was passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kasganj, was passed, terminating services of the petitioner, which is impugned in 3rd Writ Petition being Writ A No. 18025 of 2024, wherein vide interim order dated 03.11.2024, impugned order was stayed.
6. Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that:-
(a) There is no bar to undertake two simultaneous regular course and, therefore, it could not be a ground for termination.
(b) Petitioner has already communicated to the University to cancel her L.L.B degree, even before present controversy erupted.
(c) Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on Himanshi Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, Writ A No. 3254/2021 decided on 04.07.2022, State of U.P. and others vs. Himanshi Yadav, 2023:AHC:67097-DB, A Dharmaraj vs. Chief Educational Officer, Pudukkoptai and others, (2022) 11 SCC 692 and Rao Mohammad Arif vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023:AHC:70582-DB and relevant paragraph thereof are reproduced hereinafter:-
"Himanshi Yadav (supra)
27. Now coming to the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is premature as it has been instituted against the show cause notice. In this regard, it is apposite to state that though it is settled in law that this Court should refrain from interfering at the stage of show cause notice, there is no bar that this Court cannot exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the notice itself is bad as having been issued on irrelevant considerations. In the instant case, the only allegation in the notice is that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on account of obtaining two degrees simultaneously, besides this, no other ground has been raised for invalidating the appointment of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit also the only stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed because of para 16 of the letter dated 18.01.2021 as she has pursued two courses simultaneously.
28. From the discussion aforesaid, it is evident that the allegation made in the notice for declaring the petitioner to be ineligible for the appointment is based upon irrelevant considerations and is not supported by any material on record which requires any factual investigation. Since the counter affidavit in the instant case has been invited and filed, this Court finds that it is one such case that falls in the exceptional category where the Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, in such view of the fact, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is not sustainable.
State of U.P. and others vs. Himanshi Yadav There is no dispute about the fact that the B.T.C. Programme is a certificate course whereas the B.Ed. is a regular degree course. From Clause-'b' of the paragraph '1' of the minutes of the aforesaid meeting, it is evident that a candidate who is pursuing the degree programme is allowed to pursue the maximum of one certificates/diploma/advance diploma/PG diploma programme simultaneously, either in regular or open and distance mode in the same university or from other institutions.
A Dharmaraj (supra)
11. Assuming that the subsequent degree obtained by the appellant namely M.A. (Tamil) is ignored, in that case also, considering his degree in B.A. (English) he could have been promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (English). That both the degrees secured by the appellant cannot be ignored. It is not in dispute that the degree of B.A. (English) was sufficient as per the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (English).
Rao Mohammad Arif(supra)
22. Recently, in the case of A. Dharamraj (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-5.1 has observed as under:-
"5.1 Assuming that the subsequent degree obtained by the appellant namely M.A. (Tamil) is ignored, in that case also, considering his degree in B.A. (English) he could have been promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant (English). That both the degrees secured by the appellant cannot be ignored. It is not in dispute that the degree of B.A. (English) was sufficient as per the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (English)."
23. A division bench of this Court in Laxmi Shankar Yadav (supra) while following the judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Pathak (supra) has observed as under:
"10. Having perused the record and considered the rival submissions, we may observe that no doubt it may appear improbable as to how a person could obtain two degrees simultaneously but that cannot be taken as a ground to annul both the degrees. There has to be an exercise to annul either one or both the degrees on the basis of material collected, after giving opportunity of hearing to the holder of such a degree. Such an exercise has to be on case to case basis. Here, what is important is that neither the B.A. degree obtained from Awadh University, Faizabad, nor the Shastri degree obtained from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, has been cancelled. Importantly, the petitioner had sought appointment by relying on the Shastri degree and on the basis of the marks obtained therein the petitioner was placed in the select list and was ultimately selected and appointed. At this stage, it be noticed that the learned single Judge has returned a specific finding that the opposite party counsel could not place any regulation/ statutory enactment or even an order having statutory flavour to demonstrate that obtaining of two degrees simultaneously is prohibited. The learned standing counsel despite our request could not demonstrate that the said finding is incorrect. The U.G.C. clarificatory letter dated 15th January, 2016 on which the appellant has placed reliance only deprecates obtaining of two degrees simultaneously, but it does not mandate the University to annul the degree so obtained. In so far the clarificatory letter dated 4th December, 2020 is concerned that also does not mandate the authorities to cancel the candidature of a candidate who has set up such degrees but requires a case to case examination. In the instant case, the petitioner has set up Shastri degree obtained from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi for the purposes of selection in the recruitment process undertaken by the appellants. This degree has admittedly not been cancelled. In our view, therefore, unless the professed qualification is annulled or is found in the teeth of statutory regulation or order, rendering the same ineffective or null, it would not be permissible to overlook or discard the same."
24. Since the learned counsel for the appellant had not pointed out a single provision, which puts an embargo in possession of two degrees obtained in the same academic year, thus, this Court finds its inability to hold the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner illegal. Our view further gathers support from the fact that it is neither the case set out in the order impugned of the second respondent / Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur nor from the arguments so advanced before us that the writ petitioner did not possess the minimum necessary qualifications for being selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher (Science)."
7. S/Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Shad Khan and Manvendra Singh, learned advocates for respondents have referred personal affidavit filed by respondents that during enquiry petitioner has tried to conceal above facts.
8. Learned advocates have referred paragraph 22 of personal affidavit as well as paragraph 8 to 10 of counter affidavit filed in Writ A No. 9992 of 2020 which are quoted below :-
"22. That it is admitted fact that the petitioner has obtained degree in L.L.B. course as regular student and had also completed 2 years training program as Basic Teaching Certificate Course in regular mode simultaneously by concealment. The Bar Council of India has framed Rules of Legal Education - 2008, Rule 1 and Rule - 6 produced as under: -
1. Title and Commencement:
(a) These Rules including the Schedules may be known as Rules of Legal Education - 2008
(b) These Rules shall come into force in whole of India as soon as notified.
(c) These Rules shall replace all previous Rules, Directives, notifications and resolutions relating to matters covered under these rules.
6. Prohibition to register for two regular courses of study :-
No student shall be allowed to simultaneously register for a law degree program with any other graduate or postgraduate or certificate course run by the same or any other University or an Institute for academic or professional learning excepting in the integrated degree program of the same institution.
Provided that any short period part time certificate course on language, computer science or computer application of an Institute or any course run by a Centre for Distance Learning of a University however, shall be excepted."
Paragraph 8, 9 and 10 of counter affidavit "8. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition the deponent submitted that in response to the notice dated 26.04. 2019 the petitioner submitted her reply on 06.05.2019 on the affidavit, in which she stated that she does not possessing the educational qualification perusal photocopy of of L.L.B. For this Hon'ble court kind the the affidavit dated-of 06.05.2019 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.1 to this affidavit.
9. That the contents of the paragraph No. 10 & 11 of the aforesaid writ petition are being a matter of record, hence need no comments.
10. That the contents of paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition as stated are not correct hence denied and in reply there to it is submitted by the deponent that it is, admitted fact that the petitioner obtained two degrees in the same year as a regular student but on 06.05.2019 she filed her affidavit before the respondent no. 3, that she does not possessing the degree L.L.B. of and thus knowingly and deliberately she committed forgery before the answering respondent."
9. Learned advocates for respondents have placed reliance on judgments of R. Vishwanath Pilai vs. State of Kerala and others, 2004 (1) SCR 360, Union of India and others vs. Prohlad Guha and others, 2024:INSC:563 and Distt. Basic Education Officer and another vs. Smt. Punita Singh and others, 2024:AHC-LKO:69392-DB.
10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner has passed two regular courses simultaneously (BTC Training and LLB), therefore, in view of a clear prohibition to undertake two regular course (Rule 6 of Rules of Legal Education, 2008), therefore, she could not allow to take admission LLB Degree course simultaneously. Accordingly, concerned University is directed to cancel degree of LLB on basis of an application already filed by the petitioner.
12. Now the question, whether in aforesaid circumstances, BTC Training Certificate could be cancelled or not. If the answer is yes, it would be a case of double jeopardy since I have already directed the University to proceed to cancel LLB Degree of the petitioner especially when there is no allegation of fraud.
13. In aforesaid circumstances, I take note of a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs Laxmi Shakya And 3 Others, 2024:AHC:94194-DB, wherein in similar circumstances, a challenge to a judgment passed by a Single Bench was rejected and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:-
"35. From the aforesaid discussion, it is crystal clear that as per the guidelines issued by the U.G.C., no person could undergo two full time academic programmes simultaneously and it is only after April, 2022, with certain restrictions as provided in the guidelines, it has been provided to a student for pursuing two academic programmes simultaneously. The U.G.C. has permitted the persons to undergo two academic programmes simultaneously subject to the conditions as laid down in the aforesaid guidelines.
39. Similarly, relying upon judgements of the Division Bench of this Court in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak (supra) and Laxmi Shanker Yadav (Supra), A. Dharmraj vs. The Educational Officer Puddukkottai & Others : (2022) 11 SCC 692, this Court has passed the judgement on 21.3.2023 in Special Appeal No. 124 of 2023 (Rao Mohammad Arif vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others), which reads as under:-
"24. Since the learned counsel for the appellant had not pointed out a single provision, which puts an embargo in possession of two degrees obtained in the same academic year, thus, this Court finds its inability to hold the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner illegal. Our view further gathers support from the fact that it is neither the case set out in the order impugned of the second respondent / Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur nor from the arguments so advanced before us that the writ petitioner did not possess the minimum necessary qualifications for being selected and appointed as Assistant Teacher (Science).
25. More so, it is also the case of the writ petitioner as pleaded in the paragraphs-'10' and '11' of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner had surrendered the BUMS degree, thus, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petitioner while quashing the order dated 05.04.2014 of the second respondent. Additionally, it has not been demonstrated before us that the degrees in question have been either withdrawn or cancelled. "
(Emphasis Supplied)"
14. The Court also takes not that for purpose of appointment of a Assistant Teacher qualification of B.T.C. Training Certificate would be relevant and not LLB and since there is no ground to cancel B.T.C. certificate, therefore, all arguments of State-respondents are rejected and accordingly, order dated 31.08.2020 impugned in Writ A No. 9992/2020 is set aside as well as consequential orders dated 03.10.2024 impugned in Writ A No. 18025/2024 and order dated 10.09.2024 impugned in Writ A No. 32778/2024 are also set aside.
15. All writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- April 28, 2025 Sinha_N.
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]