Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sonia Langeh vs State Of J&K; And Others. on 8 August, 2018
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SWP No.313/2011
IA No.403/2011
Date of Judgment:08. 08.2018
Sonia Langeh v. State of J&K and others.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Appearing Counsel:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meharban Singh, Advocate.
For Respondents(s) : Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
Mr. Jatinder Choudhary, Advocate.
(i) Whether to be reported in Yes/No
Digest/Law Journals etc.
(ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in Media/Press.
1. Vide advertisement notification published in the newspaper "Kashmir Times" on 15.06.2010, the respondent No.3 invited applications for engagement of a Rehbar-e-Taleem in new primary school, Dhraman Kote, Village Laiter Zone Pouni. The petitioner claiming to have done her Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) from Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyala Bhopal through its facilitator, Kawa Institute of Management & Technology, Jammu and Master of Computer Application (MCA) from Sikkim Manipal University, applied for the post along with other eligible candidates of the village concerned.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she being the most qualified candidate was placed at Serial No.1 of the panel prepared by respondent No.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though, she was placed at SWP No.312/2011 Page 1 of 4 serial No.1 of the tentative panel because of her qualification and merit, yet no formal order of engagement was issued in her favour by the respondents.
3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed their objections in which the respondents have taken the stand that the qualifications possessed by the petitioner i.e. BCA from Makhan Lal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyala, Bhopal and MCA from Sikkim Manipal University through distance mode are not valid in the absence of any approval from University Grants Commission (UGC). It is, thus, stated that the qualifications of BCA and MCA claimed by the petitioner was not considered and her merit was determined on the basis of her 10+2 qualification. The petitioner figures very low in the merit as compared to the other candidates in the panel, as such, was not selected for the post in question.
4. The University Grants Commission (UGC), respondent No.6 has filed a separate reply. The stand of the UGC is that in terms of the notification issued by respondent No.4 bearing No.F.Acd/V/128/05/6368- 6517 dated 05.10.2005, the courses run by study centres as franchise of any university in the Country except IGNOU are not recognized. Referring to various guidelines, framed under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, it has been submitted that unless a private University is granted permission by the UGC and that too after five years of its coming into existence, the private University cannot open any off-campus, off-shore campus and study centres. It is, thus, submitted that the Sikkim Manipal University is a private university established by the Act of Sikkim and has not been granted any permission or approval by the UGC to open any off- campus or a study centre other than its main campus established under the Act. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court rendered SWP No.312/2011 Page 2 of 4 in the case of Prof. Yashpal and anr. V. State of Chattisgarh and others; 2005(5) SCC 420.
5. Having heard learned for the parties and perused the record, it is seen that the only question that arises for determination in this petition is that as to whether the qualification of BCA acquired by the petitioner from Makhan Lal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyala, Bhopal through study centre i.e. Kawa Institute of Management & Technology, Jammu is a valid qualification for the purpose of employment in the State.
6. Having regard to the stand taken by the UGC on the basis of the University Grants Commission (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yash Pal (supra), there is no manner of doubt that any degree issued by a private University through its study centre or off campus centres established without prior approval of the UGC is not a valid degree and cannot be used for any purpose including for the purpose of securing employment in government service. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Kawa Institute of Management and Technology, Jammu was only a facilitator and not a study centre cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the marks certificate issued by the Makhan Lal Chaturvedi Rashtriya Patrakarita Vishwavidyala, Bhopal itself specifically mentioned that the degree has been given to the petitioner as a regular student of study centre (9083) i.e. Kawa Institute of Management & Technology, Jammu.
7. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yash Pal (supra) and the express provisions of the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of Standards in Private Universities) Regulations, 2003 SWP No.312/2011 Page 3 of 4 qualification of BCA possessed by the petitioner cannot be held to be a valid qualification. The aforesaid conclusion is further fortified by the provisions of Government Order No.252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 issued by the Government of J&K in the Higher Education Department. Recognising the position of law, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Prof. Yash Pal (supra), in paragraph No.a(iii) of the aforesaid government order, it has been provided as under:-
"the degree obtained through distance mode from off-campus which have been established by the State Universities beyond their territorial jurisdiction shall not be recognized;"
8. Since the qualification of graduation (BCA) possessed by the petitioner is not a valid qualification, a fortiori the qualification of MCA obtained by her from Sikkim Manipal University, that too through distance mode, cannot also held to be valid because for doing MCA a candidate must possess the bachelor degree.
9. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is found to be without any merit. Same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Jammu 08/08/2018 Vinod.
SWP No.312/2011 Page 4 of 4