IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.7614/2008 Decided on:2.6.2009 Kanta Chauhan …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sankhayan, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) The petitioner has obtained Prathma diploma from Bombai Hindi Vidyapeeth, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh. She got her name registered with the Employment Exchange, Mandi District. She was called for interview on various occasions for considering her candidature for the post of Language Teacher. She was not selected on the ground that the diploma issued by Bombai Hindi Vidyapeeth, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh was not recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of employment. The petitioner has though mentioned in the petition that the diploma awarded by this institution is duly recognized by the State of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Himachal Pradesh, however, no tangible evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner to this effect. The minimum qualification prescribed for the post of C&V Teacher, as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, is that the candidate must be in possession of a Language Teacher’s certificate from the institution recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh. The certificate of Prathma issued by Bombai Hindi Vidyapeeth, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh is not recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh, as noticed above. It is settled law by now that the degrees/certificates could only be issued by the Universities/Boards established or incorporated under the Central or State Act. The Bombai Hindi Vidyapeeth, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh is neither established under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 nor under the Central or State Act. The diplomas/degrees awarded by this institution cannot be treated at par with the degrees/certificates awarded by the institution established either under the University Grants Commission Act or Central or State Act. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar versus U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, (2008) 7 SCC 153 have held as under: “16.The qualifications for holding a post have been laid down under a statute, any appointment in violation thereof would be a nullity. 17. It is a matter of some concern that appointments are being offered by the authorities of the State without verifying the fact as to whether the degree(s) possessed by the candidate(s) are valid or not. It was an ad hoc appointment. Why despite the same, he was allowed to obtain degree from another university is not known. 18. If the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same 3 cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be regularized, particularly, when the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, ((2006) 4 SCC 1) National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. v. Somvir Singh, ((2006) 5 SCC 493) and Post Master General, Kolkataand Ors. v. Tutu Das (Dutta), ((2007)5 SCC 317)). 19. Various institutions have sprung up in different parts of India representing that their degrees are recognized. However, even no such representation appears to have been made to the appellant by the said institution. The directory of institutions for higher education merely gives details of the institutions. No statement was made therein that it was a recognised university. 20. Maithili Vishwa Vidyapeeth Sankat Mochan Dham was a name given to an institution. It was not a University. It is said to have been founded in the year 1962. Admittedly, it is a privately managed institution. Although it offered a large number of courses like Madhyama, Visarad, Shastri, Acharya, Vidyabhaskar, Vidyaratna,Vidyavaridhi, Vidyavachaspati, Mahamahopadhyaya, the number of teachers therein were nine only. What sort of education was imparted therein is not known. How an institution could be run with a teacher strength of nine can very well be imagined. 21. It is not in dispute that the said institution was not recognized by any University. A degree is recognized only if it is granted by a University constituted in terms of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or under any State Or Parliamentary Act. No University can be established by a private management without any statutory backing.” 4 Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petitioner is not eligible for being considered for the post of Language Teacher since she is not in possession of requisite essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules i.e. Language Teacher’s certificate from the recognized institution. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. 2.6. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*