Allahabad High Court
Akanksha Gautam vs State Of U.P. & Others on 30 March, 2012
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 18.01.2012 Delivered on 30.03.2012 Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 68714 of 2011 Petitioner :- Akanksha Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- V.K. Upadhyay,S.K. Upadhyay Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Durga Prasad Singh With Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1640 of 2012 Petitioner :- Smt. Nirja Parmar Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Babu Nandan Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3287 of 2012 Petitioner :- Poonam Bharti Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Babu Nandan Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. In all these matters common questions of law and facts are involved hence as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, all the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in Writ Petition No.68714 of 2011 (Akanksha Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) hence as requested by learned counsel for the parties, the pleadings therein have been read in other two matters also and during the course of argument learned counsel for the parties have referred to those pleadings with the consent of other side.
3. Heard Sri S.K.Upadhyay and Sri Babu Nandan Singh, Advocates for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 and Sri D.P.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
4. The issue raised herein though is a short one but with wide impact having a large number of persons within its ambit who are likely to be affected by judgment either way. It relates to the validity of certificate granted by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan (Mathura) (hereinafter referred to as "GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura)") under the title "Adhikari Pariksha".
5. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are as under.
6. The petitioner Akanksha Gautam appeared in an examination known as Adhikari Pariksha conduced by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) in the session 2001-02. She passed the aforesaid examination in 2002 as a regular student of Shri Vinod Bal Mandir I.C., Surendra Nagar, Aligarh in first division. The pass certificate was issued by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) on 30.06.2002. The aforesaid examination is claimed to be 10th class examination and was recognized by Board of High School and Intermediate, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Board") under Regulation 2(30) Chapter 14 of the Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1921") being equivalent to High School examination conducted by U.P. Board.
7. Having passed the said examination, petitioner took admission in two year intermediate course of U.P. Board through an intermediate College namely S.B.B.M. Intermediate College, Ramghat Road Aligarh and passed the intermediate examination 2004 conducted by U.P. Board. Thereafter she took admission in graduation course i.e. Bachelor of Commerce in Dev Education College, Barhan, Agra affiliated to Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra and passed three years graduation course in 2008-10.
8. For admission in BTC Course-2011 an advertisement was published by respondent No.3 on 5.11.2011 pursuant whereto petitioner applied but her name was not included in the list of selected candidates. The petitioner came to this Court in writ petition No.64643 of 2011 which was disposed of on 16.11.2011 with direction to Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Madrak, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as "DIET") to consider and decide petitioner's candidature and pass speaking order. Pursuant thereto impugned order dated 19.11.2011 has been passed holding that GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) is an institution which has been found to be forged and fictitious, no examination or certificate issued thereby can be recognized for any purpose and therefore, petitioner cannot be allowed admission in B.T.C.- 2011. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.11.2011, this writ petition No.68714 of 2011 has been filed seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the same.
9. In Writ Petition No.3287 of 2012 (Poonam Bharti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), the sole petitioner passed Adhikari Pariksha from GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) in 1995 and thereafter did intermediate from U.P.Board (Shaheed Inter College Madhuban, Mau) in 1998 and graduation from Global Open University, Nagaland in 2010. She applied for admission in BTC Training Course-2011 in DIET, Mau and her claim has been rejected by Principal, DIET Mau by order dated 16.12.2011 which is impugned in this writ petition.
10. In writ petition No.1640 of 2012 (Smt. Nirja Parmar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), the sole petitioner passed Adhikari Pariksha from GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) in 1998, Intermediate from U.P.Board (N.P.Intermediate College, Auraiya) in 2000 and B.A. from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur in 2001-03. Her candidature for B.T.C. Training Course 2011 at DIET, Ramabai Nagar has been rejected by Principal, DIET, Ramabai Nagar by order dated 5.12.2011 which is the order impugned in this writ petition.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in Chapter 14 Regulation 2(30) of the Regulations, U.P. Board has recognized "Adhikari Pariksha" conducted by GVV, Mathura as equivalent to High School Examination of U.P. Board and the entry in the aforesaid regulation prior to 8.9.2008 was as under:
^^xqLdqy fo'ofo|ky;] o`Unkou }kjk lapkfyr vaxzsth ds lkFk vf/kdkjh ijh{kk] tks ,d ls vf/kd o"kZ esa [k.Mksa esa mRrh.kZ u dh xbZ gksA fVIi.kh&bl fofu;e esa iz;qDr 'kCn [k.Mksa ls rkRi;Z iwjd ijh{kk ls gSA**
12. He has submitted that aforesaid entry was amended confining above equivalence and recognition Adhikari Pariksha examination of GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) up to the year 2008 only, by an amendment made vide Government Order dated 8.9.2008 notifying an amendment in the regulations which has been published by U.P. Board vide its notification dated 19.9.2008 and now it reads as under:
^^xqLdqy fo'ofo|ky;] o`Unkou }kjk o"kZ 2008 dh ijh{kk rd lapkfyr vaxzsth ds lkFk vf/kdkjh ijh{kk] tks ,d ls vf/kd o"kZ esa [k.Mksa esa mRrh.kZ u dh xbZ gksA fVIi.kh&bl fofu;e esa iz;qDr 'kCn [k.Mksa ls rkRi;Z iwjd ijh{kk ls gSA** (emphasis added)
13. Based on aforesaid Regulations, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that they having passed examination before 2008, when the said qualification was duly recognized by U.P. Board, now it cannot be said that the said qualification is a nullity as it would have the effect of invalidating all subsequent educational qualifications acquired by the petitioners for which petitioners cannot be said to be responsible in any manner. An interpretation, which is benevolent and does not cause any prejudice to the persons who have no control over the situation, must be given and qualification acquired by petitioners should be held valid. He also refers to letter dated 12.9.2008 issued by Secretary, U.P. Board addressed to Principal, S.B.B.M. Inter College, Ramghat Road, Aligarh clarifying that students, who have passed Adhikari Pariksha from GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) till examination of 2008 may be treated to have acquired the said qualification, equivalent to 10th class examination of U.P. Board, validly and such students may be given admission in Class 11 i.e. intermediate course of U.P. Board but those, who have passed Adhikari Pariksha from GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) after 2008, shall not be entitled for the same as the said qualification ceased to be valid after 2008. He, therefore, submitted that according to status clarified by U.P. Board also, Adhikari Pariksha held by GVV, Mathura upto 2008 cannot be said to be illegal for any purpose.
14. Per contra, stand taken by respondents No.1 and 3 in their counter affidavit, which has been sworn by Sri Sudhir Kumar, Senior Lecturer, District Institute of Education and Training, Aligarh is that institution namely GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) itself has been found a bogus and fictitious institution, any examination or course undertaken by it would be a nullity and would have no legal consequence for any purposes. He has referred to letter dated 22.2.2008 issued by Principal Secretary, U.P. Government addressed to all District Magistrates mentioning a list of various institutions including GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) stating that these are forged and fictitious institutions and therefore, be closed, taking help of police and if necessary and first information report be also lodged against those who are still running those institutions. There are nine such institutions mentioned therein and GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) is one of them. These institutions are :
^^¼1½ efgyk xzke fo|kihB @ fo'ofo|ky; iz;kx] bykgkcknA ¼2½ okjkulh laLd`r fo'ofo|ky; okjk.klhA ¼3½ bf.M;u ,twds'ku dkSafly vkWQ ;w0ih0] y[kuÅA ¼4½ xka/kh fgUnh fo|kihB iz;kx] bykgkcknA ¼5½ us'kuy ;wfuoflZVh vkWQ bysDV~hdkEiysDl gksE;ksiSFkh dkuiqjA ¼6½ usrk th lqHkk"k pUnz cksl ;wfuoflZVh ¼vksisu ;wfuoflZVh½ vpyrky] vyhx<+A ¼7½ mRrj izns'k fo'ofo|ky; dkslhdyk] eFkqjkA ¼8½ egkjk.kk izrki f'k{kk fudsru fo'ofo|ky;] izrkix<+A ¼9½ xq:dqy fo'ofo|ky;] o`UnkouA**
15. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 i.e. Basic Education Board through its Secretary. It has also referred to the press note dated 27.11.2007 published by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, giving a list of fake universities/institutions and in the State of U.P. which also mention nine institutions, mentioned above except Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi and in its place Indraprastha Shiksha Parishad, Institutional Area, Khoda, Makanpur, Noida is mentioned.
16. Pursuant to the said press note published by Government of India, U.P. Board issued a notification on 28.7.2008 revoking the equivalent declaration and recognition granted to Adhikari Pariksha of GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) with immediate effect. It also made an amendment in Regulations published vide Government Order dated 8.9.2008, copy whereof has been filed at page 9 of counter affidavit of respondent No.2. It has justified the action of Principal, District Institute of Education and Training in rejecting candidature of petitioner on the ground that institution itself being bogus and fictitious, any examination conducted by such institution cannot be conferred with any validity.
17. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit wherein it is said that in several matters, persons even after year 2008, have been given benefit either for admission in B.T.C. Course or for appointment in Shiksha Mitra despite that they have passed Adhikari Pariksha from GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) and for some of the candidates, who have been given admission by Principal, District Institute of Education and Training in B.T.C.-2011 itself, he has annexed a copy of the letter dated 20.10.2011 of Principal, DIET Agra seeking verification of marks obtained by about seven candidates who had passed Adhikari Pariksha from GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) and have been given admission in BTC- 2011 at DIET, Agra. He has also referred to a decision of this Court dated 10.7.2006 in Writ Petition No.33667 of 2006 (Smt. Tabbassum Jhan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) wherein this Court observed that Regulation recognize 'Adhikari Pariksha' equivalent to High School having not been amended so far, the authorities cannot ignore the said declaration and would have to consider candidature of candidates accordingly since their "Adhikari Pariksha" cannot be ignored. He also referred to an interim order to this effect passed by this Court on 1.11.2006 in Writ Petition No.58267 of 2006 (Shyam Behari Shastri Vs. State of U.P. and others)
18. Learned Standing Counsel opposing the writ petition submits when GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) itself was held to be a fictitious university, all its activities are nullity in the eyes of law and therefore no sanctity can be conferred upon "Adhikari Pariksha" held by it whether up to year 2008 or thereafter. He refers to a judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.72328 of 2011 (Surjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) decided on 14.12.2011, Writ Petition No.7376 of 2011 (Bal Govind Joshi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 17.2.2011 and Writ Petition No.55671 of 2011 (Rita Rani Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.) decided on 27.9.2011 as also writ petition No.66958 of 2010 (Irshad Ali Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 16.11.2010.
19. The short question up for consideration whether Adhikari Pariksha conducted by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) till 2008 and certificate granted by said institution can be considered to be valid in view of declaration of Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development that aforesaid institution is a fake University. The question that GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) whether a university or not need not detain this court much. Under the Constitution of India, Entry 66 List-1 Schedule-VII vests Parliament with exclusive authority to legislate in respect to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. The "State" legislature also has legislative power with respect to Universities under Entry 32, List II, Schedule-VII. But obviously, the said power so far as the standards of higher education is concerned, has to subserve the power of Parliament. The Central Legislature has enacted "University Grants Commission Act, 1956" (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Act, 1956). The aforesaid Act has been enacted to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose to establish a University Grants Commission. The term "University" has been defined under Section 2(f) and in respect to certain other institutions for higher studies other than universities, provisions have been made under Section 3 for declaring such institution as "Deemed University" for the purposes of 1956 Act. The aforesaid provisions are quoted herein below:
"2(f) "university" means a university established or incorporated by or under a central act, a provincial act or a state act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the university concern, be recognised by a commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this act.
3. Application of Act to institutions for higher studies other than Universities. - The Central Government may, on the advise of the Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University with the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2."
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not place anything before this Court to show that GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) was established in a manner so as to qualify definition of 'University' under Section 2(f) of 1956 Act. It is also not their case that it can be treated a "Deemed University under Section 3 of 1956 Act nor it can be said to be an institution specially conferred power to grant or confer degree by an Act of Parliament. To this extent virtually learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that in these circumstances the University Grant Commission has identified the aforesaid institution a "fake university/institution" running in violation of Section 22 of 1956 Act and therefore State of Uttar Pradesh in furtherance thereof has taken action to stop functioning of aforesaid institution as a University so as not to cheat, mislead and misguide innocent young students aspiring higher standard and legal education in this country. The result would be that GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) was never a body authorized and entitled to either run any degree and diploma course nor any such degree or diploma awarded by it would be valid for any purpose. This is what has been said by this Court also in Surjeet Singh (supra), Ishrat Ali (supra) and Rita Rani (supra). The Apex Court has said in Prof. Yashpal & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 420 that a degree does not mean a mere degree but it means the degree which is recognized. Right to confer a degree has been conferred on a University established or incorporated or is considered to be a University under 1956 Act. Section 22 of 1956 Act restricts right of conferment of degree upon University or institutions entitled to do so under the said Act. Thus, if a question would have arisen as to whether a degree issued by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) can be considered a valid degree or not, it would have to be answered in negative to the extent it offends provisions of 1956 Act relating to the level of education governed by the said Act. The GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) is not a University under UGC Act, 1956.
21. However, in the present case, I am concerned with "Adhikari Pariksha" which is an examination claimed to be equivalent with High School Exam of U.P. Board. The Secondary Education admittedly is not governed by 1956 Act but it is within the legislative competence of State Legislature. In the State of U.P.; it is governed by the provisions of 1921 Act. A person who has obtained education upto Class 10, may seek admission in Class 11 i.e. Intermediate course duly recognized under 1921 Act. Chapter 14 of Regulations provides for Intermediate examination and Regulation 1 reads as under:
^ ^b.VjehfM;V ijh{kk esa izos'k ds fy;s ;k ijh{kk ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr ikB~;dze dk v/;;u izkjEHk djus ls iwoZ izR;sd ijh{kkFkhZ dks ifj"kn dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk vFkok gkbZLdwy izkfof/kd ijh{kk vFkok fofue; }kjk mlds ¼gkbZLdwy ijh{kk½ led{k ?kksf"kr ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZ gksuk vko';d gksxkA^^ "For entrance in Intermediate Examination or prior to commencement of study of the syllabus prescribed for the said examination, every candidate must have passed the High School Examination or High School (Technical) Examination of the Board or any examination declared by the Regulations equivalent to it (High School Examination)."
(English Translation by the Court)
22. For the benefit of students and public at large, various examination, which have been declared equivalent to High School examination of U.P. Board, Regulation 2 chapter 14 contains a list, and the relevant extract thereof may be reproduced as under:
^^2- fuEufyf[kr ijh{kk;sa b.VjehfM,V ijh{kk ds fu/kkZfjr ikB~;dze ds v/;;u ds fy;s ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks izos'k dk ik= cukus ds mn~ns'; ls ifj"kn dks gkbZLdwy ijh{kk ds led{k ?kksf"kr dh tkrh gS& ¼1½ Hkkjr esa fof/kor~ LFkkfir fdlh fo'ofo|ky; dh eSV~hD;wys'ku ijh{kk] tks ifj"kn }kjk bl mn~ns'; ls ekU; gSA fuEufyf[kr fo'ofo|ky;ksa dh eSV~hD;wys'ku ijh{kk;s ifj"kn }kjk ekU; gSa& bykgkckn] iatkc] cEcbZ] dydRrk] enzkl] cukjl vkSj vyhx<+A izfrcU/k ;g gS fd cEcbZ fo'ofo|ky; ds lEcU/k esa ijh{kkFkhZ dks izR;sd fo"k; esa 35 izfr'kr vadksa ls vFkok izFke vFkok f}rh; Js.kh mRrh.kZ gksuk pkfg,A KkrO;& cukjl fgUnw rFkk vyhx<+ eqfLye fo'ofo|ky;ksa dh eSV~hD;wys'ku ijh{kk dk rkRi;Z izFke dh izos'k ijh{kk rFkk f}rh; dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk ls gSA ¼2½ mRrj izns'k vFkok fdlh vU; jkT; dk gkbZLdwy yhfoax lVhZfQdsV ijh{kk bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk fd ;g ijh{kk ml jkT; esa fof/kor~ LFkkfir fo'ofo|ky; }kjk eSV~hD;wys'ku ds led{k Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA ¼3½ dSfEczt Ldwy lVhZfQdsV ¼tks igys lhfu;j yksdy dgykrh Fkh½ ijh{kk;sa] ¼4½ phQ dkystksa dh fMIyksek ijh{kk] ¼5½ e/; izns'k rFkk vU; jkT;ksa esa ;wjksfi;u Ldwyksa dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk] ¼6½ e/; izns'k dh gkbZLdwy f'k{kk ifj"kn dh gkbZLdwy lVhZfQdsV ijh{kk] ¼7½ gkbZLdwy Qkbuy eSV~hD;wys'ku ijh{kk ifj"kn oekZ }kjk lapkfyr gkbZLdwy QkbZuy rFkk eSV~hD;wys'ku ijh{kk tks igys oekZ dh ,aXyks oukZD;wyj gkbZLdwy rFkk baxfy'k gkbZLdwy ijh{kk dgykrh FkhA KkrO;& mu Hkkjrh; fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esa] tks oekZ ls fu"dkUr gSa] jaxwu fo'ofo|ky; dh eSV~hD;wys'ku ijh{kk esa oekZ ds vfrfjDr vU; fo"k;ksa esa mRrh.kZ ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa] ftUgksaus vyx&vyx fo"k;ksa esa U;wure vad rFkk oekZ ds vfrfjDr leLr fo"k;ksa esa okafNr U;wure ;ksxkad izkIr fd;s gSa] b.VjehfM,V ijh{kk esa izos'k ds ik= le>s tkrs gSaA ¼8½ yUnu fo'ofo|ky; dh eSV~hD;wys'ku ijh{kk] ¼9½ V~koudksj jkT; dh gkbZLdwy yhfoax lVhZfQdsV ijh{kk] ¼10½ gSnjkckn ¼nfD[ku½ dh gkbZLdwy yhfoax lVhZfQdsV ijh{kk] bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk fd ijh{kkFkhZ izFke vFkok f}rh; Js.kh esa mRrh.kZ gqvk gS] ¼11½ eSlwj dh lsdsUM~jh Ldwy yhfoax lVhZfQdsV ijh{kk bl izfroU/k ds lkFk fd ijh{kkFkhZ fo'ofo|ky; ikB~;dze esa izos'k dk ik= ?kksf"kr gqvk gS] ¼12½ jk"V~h; bf.M;u fefyVjh dkyst] nsgjknwu ¼tks igys lSfud Ldwy nsgjknwu rFkk ekSfyd :i ls jk;y bf.M;u fefyVjh dkyst dgykrk Fkk½ dh fMIyksek ijh{kk] ¼13½ ¿*******À ¼14½ lsUV~y cksMZ vkQ lsdsUMjh ,twds'ku] vtesj tks igys cksMZ vkQ gkbZLdwy ,.M bUVjehfM;V ,twds'ku] jktiwrkuk ftlesa vtesj] ekjokM Hkh lfEefyr Fks] e/; Hkkjr vkSj Xokfy;j] vtesj dgykrk Fkk rFkk ckn esa ftldk uke cksMZ vkQ gkbZLdwy ,UM bUVjehfM;V ,twds'ku] vtesj] Hkksiky vkSj foU/; izns'k vtesj] j[kk x;k] dh gkbZLdwy dh ijh{kk] ¼15½ Hkkjrh; ukS lsuk dk gk;j ,twds'kuy VsLV tks igys ^^bf.M;u ekdsZUVkby eSfju V~sfuax f'ki MQfju** dk MQfju QkbZuy ikflax vkmV bXtkeus'ku vf/k'kklh vFkok vfHk;U=.k dSMsVksa ds fy, dgykrk Fkk] ¼16½ dksphu jkT; dh lsdsUM~h Ldwy yhfoax lkfVZfQdsV ijh{kk bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk fd lkfVZfQdsV izkIr drkZ enzkl fo'ofo|ky; }kjk fo'ofo|ky; ds v/;;u ds ikB~;dze esa izos'k dk ik= ?kksf"kr gqvk gS] ¼17½ us'kuy ;wfuoflZVh vk;jyS.M dh eSfV~D;wys'ku dh ijh{kk bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk fd ijh{kkFkhZ izFke vFkok f}rh; Js.kh esa mRrh.kZ gqvk gS] ¼18½ mLekfu;k fo'ofo|ky;] gSnjkckn ¼nfD[ku½ dh eSfV~D;wys'ku ijh{kk bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk fd ijh{kkFkhZ izFke vFkok f}rh; Js.kh esa mRrh.kZ gqvk gS] ¼19½ cksMZ vkQ b.VjehfM;V ,.M lsdsUM~jh ,twds'ku ¼20½ usiky 'kklu }kjk lapkfyr Ldwy yhfoax lkfVZfQdsV ijh{kk] ¼21½ eSupsLVj] yhojiqy] ykMZl] 'kSfQYM rFkk cjfy?ke fo'ofo|ky; ds la;qDr cksMZ dh gkbZLdwy lkfVZfQdsV ijh{kkk bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk fd ijh{kkFkhZ us ijh{kk] vaxzsth] xf.kr] bfrgkl vFkok Hkwxksy rFkk nks vU; fo"k;ksa esa mRrh.kZ dh gS] tks ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn mRrj izns'k }kjk gkbZLdwy ijh{kk ds fy, Lohd`r gSA ¼22½ la;qDr eSfV~D;wys'ku cksMZ fizaVkfj;k nf{k.k dh eSV~hD;wys'ku dh ijh{kk] ¼23½ cksMZ vkQ lsdsUMjh ,twds'ku gSnjkckn dh gk;j ldsUM~h lkfVZfQdsV ijh{kk bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk fd ijh{kkFkhZ ,d iz;Ru es mRrh.kZ gqvk gS vkSj mlus ijh{kk esa lEiw.kZ ;ksxkad ds de ls de 35 izfr'kr vad izkIr fd;s gSa rFkk og mLekfu;k fo'ofo|ky; dh gSnjkckn dh iwoZ fo'ofo|ky; - - - esa izos'k dk ik= gS] ¼24½ mRdy fo'ofo|ky; dh eSV~hD;wys'ku ijh{kk] ¼25½ izeq[k ,;j dSQ~V'kueSu ds fy, iquZoxhZdj.k gsrq vkbZ-,-,y- ,twds'kuy VSLV] ¼26½ Hkkjrh; lsuk dk Lis'ky lkfVZfQdsV vkQ ,twds'ku] ¼27½ lu~ 1946 bZ0 ls ebZ] 1964 bZ0 rd dh iz;kx efgyk fo|kihB }kjk lapkfyr fo|k fouksnuh ¼eSV~hD;wys'ku½ ijh{kk bl izfrcU/k ds lkFk fd og ,Mokal vaxzsth oSdfYid fo"k; ds lkFk mRrh.kZ dh x;h gks rFkk iw.kZ ijh{kk ,d lkFk vFkok ,d nwljs ls nks o"kksZ ds chp ¼nks ls vf/kd [k.Mksa esa ugha½ mRrh.kZ dh xbZ gks] iqu'p& iz;kx efgyk fo|kihB ds - - -nkjkxat] bykgkckn rFkk 106 ghosV jksM bykgkckn fLFkr dk;kZy;ksa ls iznRr izek.k&i= Lohdkj fd;s tk;saxsA ¼28½ yadk dh lhfu;j Ldwy lkfVAfQdsV ijh{kk] ftldk ckn esa uke tujy lkfVZfQdsV vkQ ,twds'ku ¼vkfMZujh - - -½ ijh{kk yadk j[k x;k gSA ¼29½ cksMZ vkQ gk;j lsdsUM~h ,twds'ku] fnYyh dh gk;j lsdsUM~h ijh{kk ¼ ,d o"khZ; vFkok rhu o"khZ; ikB~;dze½ ¼30½ xq:dqy fo'ofo|ky;] o`Unkou }kjk lapkfyr vaxzsth ds lkFk vf/kdkjh ijh{kk] tks ,d ls vf/kd o"kZ esa [k.Mksa esa mRrh.kZ u dh xbZ gks] * ........* (emphasis added)
23. Besides above, Clause 2-A, Chapter 14 of Regulations contemplates certain examination conducted by institutions privately managed which are not governed by any statute or charter but satisfy the requirement with respect to recognition as laid down therein and it reads as under:
^^2- d& uhps fy[kh gqbZ 'krsZ mu O;fDrxr :i ls O;ofLFkr laLFkkvksa ij ykxw gksxh] tks fdlh vf/kfu;e vFkok pkVZj ds vUrxZr vfuok;Z 'krZ ds :i esa ugha py jgh gSA ;s 'krsZ muds }kjk lapkfyr ijh{kkvksa dh ifj"kn dh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk ds led{k fofu;e 2] v/;k; 14 ds vUrxZr ekU;rk nsus ds mn~ns'; ls ykxw gksxh%& 1- ifj"kn dk ,d izfrfuf/k ml izkf/kdkj esa gksxk] tks ijh{kk ds fy, v/;;u ds fu/kkZfjr ikB~;dze dk vuqeksnu djrk gSA 2- og laLFkk vius ijh{kk dsUnzks dh ifj"kn ds izfrfuf/k }kjk fujhf{kr fd;s tkus dh vuqefr nsxh] 3- og laLFkk ifj"kn ds izfrfuf/k;ksa dks ifj"kn ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ;k=k ,oa nSfud HkRrk nsxhA ;s 'krsZ mu leLr laLFkkvksa ij ykxw gksxh tks ifj"kn }kjk ekU;rk izkIr djus ds fy, vkosnu i= nsrh gSa rFkk mu fudk;ksa ds fy, Hkh] ftudh ijh{kk;sa bl v/;k; ds fofu;e 2 ¼30½ rFkk 2 ¼33½ ds vUrxZr ifj"kn }kjk mldh gkbZLdwy ijh{kk ds led{k ekU; gSA**
24. The list, extract whereof has been referred to hereinabove, would show that besides matriculation examinations conducted by certain Universities established by law, it also recognises certain courses, examination whereof is conducted by the institutions which are not Universities established by law but are bodies like Societies or others institutions. It also recognises private institutions and bodies with certain conditions. Therefore, for the purposes of High School Examination conducted by U.P. Board, recognition as equivalent course has been given not only to the equivalent courses run by Universities established by law but also to the Societies and other bodies including certain private bodies.
25. A perusal of aforesaid list would show that Adhikari Examination of GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) was recognized separately without including it along with category of Universities established in the country conducting matriculation examination and others. But various courses recognized therein is equivalent to high school examination of U.P. Board are bodies which either satisfy the term 'University' under 1956 Act or bodies established under some charter of concerned provincial government. Those bodies who do not fulfill the said requirement but are private, in respect thereto also a separate provision was made in chapter 14 Regulation 2-A.
26. It appear that at the time when Adhikari Pariksha of GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) was included in the list of recognized institution, Board treated GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) to be a University governed by provisions of 1956 Act and therefore the same was included therein. It is for this reason when Government of India acting upon identification made by UGC declared GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) as a fake university, the consequential exclusion of GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) Adhikari Pariksha from the Regulation underwent with the U.P. Board. The said declaration and existing Regulation has not wiped out the examination already conducted by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) up to 2008. Earlier Adhikari Pariksha without any restriction of time was recognized as equivalent to High School of U.P. Board but after amendment made vide notification dated 08.09.2008, Regulation, as it stand today, it continue to recognise Adhikari Pariksha conducted by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) but now it is confined upto 2008 and not beyond that. The validity of this Regulation, as it stand today, has not been disputed or assailed by anyone.
27. The Regulation, as it stood prior to 2008 or thereafter, gives a clear impression to all that U.P. Board still reconises Adhikari Pariksha conducted by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) upto 2008 as a valid qualification equivalent to High School Examination of U.P. Board. It cannot be controverted that in the aforesaid scenario a very large number of candidates must have appeared till 2008 in Adhikahri Pariksha conducted by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) and have passed the same. For giving admission in Intermediate course of U.P. Board the aforesaid examination i.e. Adhikari Pariksha upto 2008 conducted by GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) is still a valid qualification and learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that for giving admission in Intermediate Course, there is no bar or disqualification for such candidates. The recognition vis a vis equivalence up to High School Examination to Adhikari Pariksha as such does not depend upon the status of the institution in question namely GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) to be a University or not since such equivalence under the list, as aforesaid, is available to various examination bodies other than Universities under UGC Act, 1956. This is very clear and evident.
28. That being so, the mere fact that GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) is not a University under U.G.C. Act, 1956 can it be said that Adhikari Pariksha, which is a course in respect to secondary education would have any adverse effect particularly when there is no complete de-recognition by U.P. Board in respect to its equivalence with High School Examination conducted by U.P. Board. The answer would be 'No'. Even otherwise, this Court find it appropriate to stick to this interpretation for the reason that a huge number of candidates founded on Adhikari Pariksha have obtained higher education from various institutions including U.P. Board and various Universities. Any decision otherwise would wipe out all these qualifications earned by these students for no fault on their part. Such a drastic consequence can be save particularly when there is no compulsion to take such a view.
29. All these petitioners have passed Adhikari Pariksha admittedly before 2008 and have obtained higher qualifications from legal and valid institutions. No body has ever doubted the validity of such qualifications. It is not a case where the petitioners are guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation. The existing provision applicable to U.P. Board still recognize and declare Adhikar Pariksha of GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) equivalent to High School Examination provided the said examination was conducted upto 2008. The intention is very clear. The de recognition is prospective. In the circumstances the decision taken by respondents in passing the orders impugned in these writ petitions holding that petitioners' qualification of Adhikari Pariksha obtained upto 2008 is not valid for any purpose cannot sustain.
30. The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.11.2011 (Annexure No.11 to Writ Petition No.68714 of 2011), 05.12.2011 (Annexure No.1 to Writ Petition No.1640 of 2012) and 16.12.2011 (Annexure No.15 to Writ Petition No.3287 of 2012) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for BTC Training -2011 and the same shall not be rejected only on the ground that petitioners have obtained qualification of Adhikari Pariksha from GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura). This decision shall apply to all similarly placed candidates provided they have passed Adhikari Pariksha from GVV, Vrindavan (Mathura) upto 2008 examination and not beyond that.
31. The petitioners shall also be entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs.5,000/- for each set of writ petition.
Order date:-30.03.2012 KA