CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16231 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 20, 2009 Sawarn Singh and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana 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. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16231 of 2008 (Sawarn Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others) , and 20161 of 2008 (Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others). The issue raised in both the writ petitions is common and is concerning the recognition of a qualification acquired by person while serving in the Army. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.16231 of 2008. Petitioner No.1 joined the Army service after passing CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16231 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: matriculation examination, whereas petitioner No.2 was graduate when he joined the service. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 passed Intermediate Examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education (U.P.) and passed Bachelor of Commerce from Bundelkhand University in 1995. He has also completed one year degree course of Bachelor of Physical Education from Amarawati University. In November, 2004, he has passed Certificate in Teaching from Army Education Cops Training College & Centre Panchmarhi (M.P.). As per the petitioners, this certificate is equated with J.B.T.Course. Similarly, petitioner No.2 has also passed this Certificate in Teaching from AEC Training College & Centre, Panchmarhi on 28.2.2006. After discharge from Army, both the petitioners applied for post of J.B.T.Teacher in the State of Haryana. The petitioners were called for interview. They, however, were not selected on the ground that the petitioners did not possess the requisite valid qualification. Claiming that the teaching training certificate has been equated with J.B.T., the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking their appointment after consideration and selection. In the reply filed by the Commission, it is pointed out that the petitioners have done three months course at Army Education Corps Training College and Centre and the Primary Education Department of Haryana has not recognised this course equivalent to two years D.Ed.Course of Haryana State. The petitioners have accordingly been held ineligible for appointment. Similar is the stand taken by the State. The counsel for the petitioners has made detailed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16231 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: submissions and would vehemently argue that the degree/certificate possessed by the petitioners have already been equated with the J.B.T. and hence the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners as eligible is not justified. Mr.Rathee, on the other hand, would draw my attention to order passed in CWP 8882 of 1997, decided on 8.7.1997, copy of which is annexed with the reply as Annexure R-2. In view of the detailed discussion concerning the similar certificates, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners would not need any elaborate discussion. This issue has been duly considered by Division Bench of this court in CWP No.8882 of 1997 titled as Azad Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others and it has been held that the petitioners possessing similar certificates are not entitled to be considered for recruitment as J.B.T. Teachers. The decision of the Board in this regard was found to be not suffering from any error of law. The relevant observations of the Court are as under:- “A look at the certificate issued in favour of petitioner- Azad Singh shows that he had undergone training for a short period of three months. At present the duration of the JBT Diploma Course is two years. Earlier the duration of this course was one year. Thus, there cannot be any justification to treat the training course undergone by the petitioners as equivalent to JBT Diploma. In any case, it is not the function of the court to declare a particular qualification as recognized even though the employer has not taken such a decision. This issue has been considered in Director, AIIMS & others V. Dr.Nikhil CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16231 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: Tandon & others: (1996) 7 SCC 741. While accepting the appeal filed by the employer on the issue of recognition of qualification, the Supreme Court observed:- “The two years training at the Cambridge University undergone by the respondent while working for his Ph.D.cannot be treated as a qualification recognized as equivalent to DM. Schedule 1 to the AIIMS Recruitment Rules speaks of DM qualification or a qualification recognized as equivalent thereto. It is not mere equivalence that is enough. It must also be recognized as equivalent. Recognized evide3ntly means recognized by the Institute or at least by the Medical Council of India. Admittedly, neither has recognized the said research work/training for two years in the Cambridge University as equivalent to DM.” The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the afore mentioned case is directly attracted in the instant case.” In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in identical situation which is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no case for interference in the writ petitions is made out. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. October 20, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE