IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.4872-74 of 2011 & LPA No. 1813 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.9.2011. Surender Kumar & others --Appellants Versus Statement of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present:- Mr. G.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the appellants. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) C.M. No. 4872 of 2011 Application is allowed. Delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. Nos. 4873-74 of 2011 & L.P.A. No.1813 of 2011 This L.P.A arises out of judgement dated 5.8.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by the appellants herein seeking appointment against the post of Veterinary Livestock Development Assistants in Animal Husbandry & Dairy Department of State of Haryana has been dismissed. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State of Haryana for the posts of Veterinary Livestock Development Assistants in Animal Husbandry & Dairy Department the appellants also applied. All the appellants possess Diploma in Veterinary Livestock Development. This diploma was acquired by the appellants from Janardhan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as LPA No. 1813 of 2011 -2- Rajasthan University). The applications of the appellants were rejected on the ground that the said diploma is not recognized by the Department of Animal Husbandry. Appellants, accordingly, filed a number of writ petitions. All these petitions have been disposed of by a common order impugned herein. Appellants were allowed to interview provisionally by interim directions, however, finally the writ petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the qualification (Diploma) possessed by the appellants is not recognized by the State of Haryana and they were ineligible. Appellants have relied upon various communications before the learned Single Judge in support of their contention that the diploma possessed by them is a recognized qualification. The contention is reiterated before us. We may briefly notice the documents relied upon and the contentions raised by the appellants. Reliance is placed upon letter dated 18.3.1975 (Annexure P-4 with the appeal), whereby the Govt. of India has taken a decision that the degrees and diplomas, which are recognized by the Govt. of India will be deemed to be recognized by the Govt. of Haryana. It further says that degrees and diplomas which are issued by the recognized universities and High/Higher Secondary Boards, established by the State will also be recognized ipso facto. This letter further provides that, if, any reference is received from any other State Govt. in respect to other degrees/diplomas, the same will be examined and such degrees/diplomas will be recognized on reciprocal basis. Another letter dated 2.11.1999 issued by the Financial Commissioner, Education Department, Haryana refers to an order of this Court regarding appointment of a Committee headed by the Secretary to Govt., Department LPA No. 1813 of 2011 -3- of Education to go into the question of equivalence and recognition of degrees/diplomas and other qualifications awarded by the institutions other than the universities established by law as deemed universities. A Committee was formed, however, this Committee has not dealt with the diploma issued by the Rajasthan University, where from the appellants have acquired the qualification. Appellants have referred to a notification dated 25.6.2002, whereunder Rajasthan University has been declared to be a deemed university for purposes of provisions of the U.G.C Act. It is followed by another notification dated 17.7.2002 declaring Rajasthan University as a deemed university subject to the condition that it will adhere to the guidelines/instructions issued by the U.G.C from time to time. Further reference is made to a Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resources letter dated 17.2.2004 communicating that all degrees/diplomas awarded by the universities established by the Act of Parliament or a State Legislature to be deemed universities under Section 3 of the U.G.C. Act. It further mentions institutions of national importance declared under an Act of Parliament to be automatically recognized for the purpose of employment under the Central Govt. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, it is sought to be argued that the diploma possessed by the appellants being granted by a recognized university is deemed to be a recognized qualification for purposes of employment in the State of Haryana. The appellants possess the diploma in Veterinary Livestock Development. It is not in dispute that Rajasthan University is recognized by U.G.C being a deemed university, however, the course i.e. Diploma in Veterinary Livestock Development has not been shown to be recognized LPA No. 1813 of 2011 -4- either by the State of Haryana or by the Govt. of India in any of the letters, referred to herein above by the appellants. Such diploma can only be recognized, if, the course is permitted to be commenced and continued by the Veterinary Council of India. Learned counsel for the appellants has fairly conceded that there is no document on record to indicate that the diploma awarded by Rajasthan University was recognized by the Veterinary Council of India. Recognition of a university is one thing and recognition of a qualification by the concerned council is another question. Even if, a university is recognized, it cannot commence any course for which permission is required to be granted by the concerned council, constituted under the relevant Act like Medical Council of India for purposes of medical qualifications, A.I.C.T.E for purposes of technical education, N.C.T.E for purposes of teachers' training program and veterinary diplomas by the Veterinary Council of India. In absence of any material on record to indicate that this course was commenced by the Rajasthan University with the permission of Veterinary Council of India or the Veterinary Council of India has granted permission to grant such diplomas, the contention of the appellants cannot be accepted. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgement impugned. Appeal dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 26.9.2011. lucky