Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 May, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 17558 of 1999 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 17558 of 1999
Date of Decision: 07.05.2012
Satish Kumar
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
PRESENT:Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Krishan K. Chahal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the letter dated 05.07.1999 (Annexure P-5), vide which despite his selection against the post of Lecturer in History (School Cadre), he has not been issued the appointment letter by the respondents on the ground that he has passed his M.A. (History) from the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur on the ground that the same is not recognized by the Haryana Government. Prayer has also been made for quashing of appointment of respondent No. 6-Manoj Kumar CWP No. 17558 of 1999 2 as Lecturer in History, who is lower in merit to the petitioner in the select list and has been appointed in place of the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned letter dated 05.07.1999 (Annexure P-5), vide which it has been conveyed to the petitioner that he cannot be appointed to the post of Lecturer in History as the degree of M.A. in History obtained by him from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is not recognized by the Government of Haryana cannot sustain in the light of the notification dated 12.01.1987 (Annexure P-1), vide which Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), Government of India has, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 on advice of the Commission, declared Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur to be a deemed University and the instructions dated 18.03.1975 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary of Government of Haryana, Education Department, wherein it was provided that the degree and diplomas etc. recognized by the Government of India shall be recognized by the Government of Haryana and the degrees, diplomas etc. issued by the recognized universities and High/Higher Secondary Board established by the State shall be recognized ipso- facto. He, on this basis, contends that the Post Graduate degree, as possessed by the petitioner, is recognized by the Government of Haryana and the stand of the respondents for not issuing him the appointment letter deserve to be rejected.
CWP No. 17558 of 1999 3
In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in CWP No. 12161 of 2006 titled as Manoj Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 01.11.2006 (Annexure P-
9). He further contends that the posts, which were advertised by the respondents, have not been filled up and certain posts are still lying vacant, against which the petitioner can be appointed even if the appointment given to respondent No. 4 is not to be set aside after such a long period. He submits that the petitioner foregoes his claim of monetary benefits, which he would be entitled to, in case the present writ petition is allowed and shall be satisfied if other consequential benefits are granted to the petitioner.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the degree of M.A. History obtained by the petitioner from the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur has not been recognized by the Kurukshetra University as equivalent to M.A. History of this University. For a degree to be recognized by the State of Haryana, there has to be a specific order passed in this regard and as no such order has been passed by the State of Haryana, the degree possessed by the petitioner cannot be deemed to have been recognized. He further contends that the notification dated 12.01.1987 (Annexure P-1) only declares the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur to be a deemed University for the purpose of Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 but that does not mean CWP No. 17558 of 1999 4 that any degree or diploma awarded by the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur would be recognized. He, on this basis, supports the decision of the respondents for not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner despite his selection to the post of Lecturer in History (Male) School Cadre and, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner passed his B.Com. examination from Rajasthan University, Jaipur in the year 1990 and thereafter, passed M.A. (History) from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur in the year 1992. Thereafter, he passed B.Ed. examination from Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, in the year 1999. On 22.12.1997, the Staff Selection Commission, Haryana-respondent No. 3 advertised 41 posts of Lecturers in History (School Cadre) vide advertisement No. 6/97. Out of these posts, 21 were for the General Category and as the petitioner belongs to this category, he applied for the post within the stipulated period. He appeared in the interview on 28.12.1998. Result of the selection for the post of Lecturer in History was published in the newspaper on 28.12.1998. Petitioner was shown in the select list and was placed at merit No. 21. Appointment letters were issued to 15 candidates belonging to the General Category on 21.06.1999, who were selected along with the petitioner despite advertisement for filling up 21 posts. Petitioner CWP No. 17558 of 1999 5 approached the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana-respondent No. 2 and made a representation for issuance of appointment letter. A letter dated 05.07.1999 (Annexure P-5) was issued to the petitioner where he was informed that although he has been selected for the post of Lecturer in History by the Commission but the degree of M.A. in History obtained by him from the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, is not recognized by the Haryana Government as the same is not equivalent to the degree of M.A. History in Haryana. In response to this communication, petitioner served a legal notice dated 25.09.1999 (Annexure P-6) wherein he relied upon the notification dated 12.01.1987 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education (Annexure P-1) and the instructions dated 18.03.1975 issued by the Government of Haryana to contend that the degree obtained by the petitioner is deemed to be recognized by the Haryana Government and, therefore, he be issued appointment letter and be treated as appointed w.e.f. 21.06.1999, the date on which similarly selected candidates have been issued the appointment letters. No response was received by the petitioner and thereafter, he has come to know that respondent No. 4-Manoj Kumar was issued appointment letter on 27.09.1999 (Annexure P-6/A), who was lower in merit than the petitioner and has been appointed. He, therefore, approached this Court by way of present writ petition, wherein reliance has also been placed upon a communication dated 18.10.1995 (Annexure P-8) CWP No. 17558 of 1999 6 issued by the Director, Employment Department, Haryana, to the Executive Officers of all Employment Offices of State of Haryana, wherein list of Universities recognized by the University Grants Commission has been appended where at Sr. No. 152, name of Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, finds mention. On this basis, it has been asserted by the petitioner that the degree of M.A. History obtained by the petitioner from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is duly recognized by the State of Haryana and, therefore, the petitioner is fully eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer in History (School Cadre).
The aspect with regard to the validity and recognition of degrees/diplomas issued by the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur has been duly considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Manoj Kumar's case (supra), wherein it has been held as follows:-
" The only question which requires consideration by this Court is whether the diploma certificate obtained by the petitioner from a deemed university would be considered as requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health worker or the respondents could be permitted derecognize it declaring the petitioner as ineligible. Admittedly, he has acquired the qualification from a deemed university which is recognized by the University Grants Commission. The notification issued by the University Grants Commission CWP No. 17558 of 1999 7 dated 19.8.2003 (Annexure P-12) shows that Rajasthan Vidya Peeth is declared as a deemed university. The afore-mentioned notification which also deals with the changes made in the name of Rajasthan Vidya Peeth reads as under:
" Rajasthan Vidya Peeth Udaipur was granted Deemed to be University status under the provisions of Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956) vide his Ministry's notification no. F.9-5/84 -U.3 dated January 12,1987.
The Central Govt. on the request of the Rajasthan Vidya Peeth and on the advice of the University Grants Commission hereby declare that the name of the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is changed to Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, Rajasthan with immediate effect."
According to the instructions issued by the respondent-State on 18.3.1975 (Annexure P.6) all those degrees and diplomas which have been awarded by the recognized Universities and by the Boards established by the State Government for High/Higher Secondary, were ipso facto recognized . It has further been provided that those degrees and diplomas which are recognized by Govt. of India are deemed to be recognized by the Government of Haryana. The afore-mentioned instructions have been reiterated again by another set of instructions CWP No. 17558 of 1999 8 issued on 2.11.1999 by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Education Department. Those instructions have been placed on record in a connected writ petition namely CWP No. 12187 of 2006 as Annexure P.18. Even otherwise we find that once the University Grant Commission has accepted the qualification which is recognized as a deemed University then it would not be within the competence of respondent-State to refuse recognition of such qualification. This question has repeatedly been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in numerous judgements. In the case of University of Delhi v. Raj Singh AIR 1995 SC 336 certain qualifications for appointment of Lecturer were laid down by the University Grants Commission by the University Grants Commission (Qualifications required of a person for appointment to the teaching Staff of a University and Institutions affiliated to it), Regulations 1991. The University of Delhi refused to accept those regulations as binding by arguing that various provisions of Delhi University Act,1922 grant them autonomy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 alongwith Sections 12 A(2) and Section 26(1)(c) came to the conclusion that the regulations were binding on the University. The conflict which was sought to be brought before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by arguing that the CWP No. 17558 of 1999 9 Delhi University Act has granted complete autonomy to them has been resolved by referring to entry 66 in List I of Seventh Schedule.
A similar question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and others(1995)4 SCC-104. The question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the State Government has power to grant and withdraw permission to start a technical institution as defined in the Central Act after coming into force of the All India Council for Technical Education Act,1987.
Dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again placed reliance on Entry No.66 of Union List(List -I) of the VIIth Schedule of Article 254 of the Constitution to hold that if the State Legislature frames any law, which is repugnant to the Central Law like the All India Council for Technical Education Act,1987 then the law framed by the State Legislature would be ultra vires to the extent of its repugnancy to the Central Law. In other words, the State laws in respect of subjects on the Union List (List-I) have to give way to the Central Laws and therefore, the de-recognition by the State government or the disaffiliation by the State University on the ground which are inconsistent with those enumerated in the Central Statute were held to be inoperative. In the other judgment in the case of Prof. Yash Pal and another CWP No. 17558 of 1999 10 Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others (2005)5 SCC 420, the statute framed by the State of Chhattisgarh providing for creation of a University by issuance of notification was held to be beyond the competence of the State Legislature on account of Entry 66 in List-I of the VIIth Schedule dealing with co-ordination and determination of standards in Institution for Higher Education or Research and Scientific and Technical Education being in the Union List for which Parliament alone is competent to frame laws. It has been held that Parliament alone is responsible to ensure that proper standards are maintained in Institution for Higher Education or Research throughout the country and also uniformity in standards is maintained. Emphasizing the importance of right of conferring degree by reference to Section 22 of the of the University Grant Commission Act,1956. It has been held that degree can be conferred or granted only by a University or an Institution deemed to be University under Section 3 read with Section 22 of the 1956 Act, it has also been held that mere conferment of degree is not enough but it should be recognized as well. The aforementioned view flows from a reading of para 39 of the judgment which is as under:-
"39. Mere conferment of degree is not enough. What is necessary is that the degree should be recognized. It is for this purpose that the right to confer degree has been CWP No. 17558 of 1999 11 given under Section 22 of the UGC Act only to a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act or an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees, Sub-section (3) of this section provides that "degree" means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette. The value and importance of such degrees which are recognized by the Government was pointed out by a Constitution Bench in S. Azeez Basha Vs. Union of India-AIR 1968 SC 662."
On the basis of principle as well as precedent mentioned above, it must be concluded that a diploma certificate issued by a deemed university like Rajasthan Vidya Peeth has to be held as valid because the University Grant Commission vide its notification dated 19.8.2003 has conferred upon Rajasthan Vidya Peeth,Udaipur, the status of deemed University under Section 3 of the 1956 Act. Once it is so, then the respondent-state or any of its agencies cannot be permitted to de-recognize such degree or diploma, because such an action on their part would be repugnant to the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. We are further of the view that the argument of the CWP No. 17558 of 1999 12 learned State counsel that only those certificate courses are accepted by the respondent-State which are from an institution approved by the Haryana Government cannot be accepted as it would amount to keeping out of eligible candidates merely because they have obtained their qualifications from a University or an institution outside the State of Haryana. However, such a course would not be available to the respondent-state because other institutions located in the country have been conferring the similar type of diploma certificates which are in no way inferior to the one approved by the respondent State. As per their own instructions dated 18.3.1975 all those degrees and diplomas which have been awarded by the recognized universities and by the Boards established by the State Government for high/higher secondary were ipso facto recognized. The instruction further provided that those degrees and diplomas which are recognized by the Government of India are deemed to be recognized by the respondent-State. There is nothing contrary in the instructions issued on 2.11.1999 and therefore, the diploma certificate issued by the Rajasthan Vidya Peeth must be recognized as a requisite qualification fulfilling the requirement of multipurpose health workers training CWP No. 17558 of 1999 13 course as postulated by the advertisement dated 7.5.2006."
In view of the above, the contention of the respondents that the degree obtained by the petitioner from the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is not recognized by the State of Haryana, cannot be accepted. It would not be out of way to mention here that the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana dated 18.03.1975 contain the decision of the Government regarding recognization for various qualifications for appointment. The contents thereof read as follows:-
" It is informed by inviting your attention on the subject noted above that the Government had been considering to change in the present policy or recognizing various qualifications. Now the Government has taken following decisions:-
1. The degree and diplomas etc. Recognized by the Government of India, shall be recognized by the Government of Haryana.
2. The degrees and diplomas etc. Issued by the recognized Universities and High/Higher Secondary Board established by the State shall be recognized ipso-
facto.
3. Besides it, if any reference has been received from CWP No. 17558 of 1999 14 some other State Government regarding rest of degrees/diplomas, that shall be inspected and these diplomas/degrees etc. shall be recognized only on reciprocal basis.
4. Besides it, requests for granting recognition are being made from some such institutions which do not fall in any of the three categories and these institutions are mainly being run in the subject of music and art etc. and some have already been recognized. No general policy can be made regarding degrees/diplomas given by these institutions. If there is any such request, it can be considered on the merits.
In the above decisions, Universities shall be meant such recognized Universities which:-
1. have been incorporated by the law in any State of India;
2. In the case of certificate, diplomas and degrees conferred as a result of examinations held before 15th August, 1947, Punjab, Sind or Dacca Universities.
3. any other University which is declared by the Government to be recognized.
But if the State Government derecognizes or derecognized even any degree of any University, that degree shall not be deemed to be recognized until the Government does not take an independent decision about it.
CWP No. 17558 of 1999 15
If any department of other state awards such certificates/diploma, on the basis of any kind of examination, which makes one eligible for appointments and it requests for giving recognition to that certificate/diploma for the purpose of appointments in Haryana State, then concerned department shall compare the period, eligibility and syllabus etc. of such degree of other State with the degree used by our State.
Thereafter, if it comes to be conclusion that there is no objection in granting recognition on reciprocal basis, to the degree of other State equivalent to such degree, if may make due recommendations to the Education Department so that necessary action may be taken on it." A perusal of the above would show the degrees and diplomas recognized by the Government of India would itself confer recognizition on them by the Government of Haryana. Similarly, the degrees and diplomas etc. issued by the recognized Universities shall be recognized ipso facto. Universities have been defined to mean such recognized Universities which have been incorporated by law in any State of India and any other University, which is declared by the Government to be recognized. In the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra), Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur would be a University recognized by the Government of Haryana. The degrees issued by a University cannot be de-recognized but for that, an independent decision de- CWP No. 17558 of 1999 16 recognizing the said degree of that University has to be taken by the Government.
It is not in dispute that till date, no such decision has been taken by the State of Haryana specifically de-recognizing the degree of M.A. History issued by the Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the degree of M.A. History obtained from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur is recognized by the Central Government. If that be so, then in the light of the instructions dated 18.03.1975 Clause-1, this degree stands recognized by the Government of Haryana. The decision of the respondents in not issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in History on the ground that the petitioner has obtained degree in M.A. History from Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.07.1999 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana-respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed.
A direction is issued to the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana-respondent No. 2 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in History (Male) School Cadre w.e.f. the date when persons lower in merit to the petitioner in the General Category were appointed and in any case w.e.f. 25.09.1999 (Annexure P-6) when Manoj Kumar-respondent No. 4 was issued the appointment letter.
CWP No. 17558 of 1999 17
In the light of the statement made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as recorded above, which is just and equitable, that the petitioner would not claim any monetary benefits for the period he had remained out of service, petitioner is held not entitled to any monetary benefits from the date of his appointment till today. However, he is entitled to all other consequential benefits treating him to be appointed from the date persons lower in merit to the petitioner were appointed or from 27.09.1999, the date of appointment of Manoj Kumar-respondent No. 4. Petitioner be issued the appointment letter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and all consequential benefits be released within a period of two months thereafter.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
May 07, 2012 JUDGE
pj