IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (S/S) 1180 of 2010 Arun Kumar Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ….Respondents Present : Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prakash Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. B. D. Kandpal, Advocate present for respondent no.2. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prakash Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. B. D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. The petitioners were the candidates for the post of Lecturer (Hindi). The selections to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) were to be conducted by the State Public Service Commission (from hereinafter referred to as “Commission”). The qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer (Hindi) is given under the rules known as “Uttarakhand Special Subordinate Education (Lecturer Grade) Service Rules, 2008” (from hereinafter referred to as “2008 Rules”). According to rule 5 of 2008 Rules read with schedule A, the following essential conditions are there for appointment to the post of lecturer (Hindi): (a) A candidate should have a degree of post graduation from a university established by law. (b) He must have done his graduation with Sanskrit as one of the subjects or a 2 degree/certificate of Shastri from Sanskrit University, Varanasi. (c) L.T. Diploma from a Government College or from an Institute recognized by the Government or a B.Ed. degree from a University established under the law. 3. What is common to all these petitioners is that they admittedly are qualified, as required in condition nos. 1 and 3. All the petitioners have done their post graduation in Hindi and also having B.Ed. degree as given under the said provison. However, according to the Commission, petitioners do not have the requirement given under condition no.2 inasmuch as they never had “Sanskrit” as one of the subjects in their graduation. Admittedly, all the petitioners have done their graduation from University but none of them had “Sanskrit” as their subjects in their graduation. However, the petitioners have overcome this by doing a separate correspondence course from an Open University known as “Rajarshi Tandon Open University, Allahabad”(from hereinafter referred to as “Open University”) which was established by Uttar Pradesh Rajarshi Tandon Open University Act, 1999 (Act No. 10 of 1999). All these candidates have a graduation degree in “Sanskrit” from this Open University. Hence, all of them stated that they are qualified. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Commission though has defended the stand of the Commission stating that both the statute as well as the advertisement against which the petitioners had applied for the selection requires that the candidates must have done graduation with “Sanskrit” as one of the subjects and 3 since they do not have Sanskrit as one of the subjects in graduation they are not qualified and hence their candidatures cannot be accepted. 5. The petitioners, on the other hand, contended that they had given their all particulars in their application forms and they were issued admit cards and consequently appeared in the written examination. They have also qualified. All the same, after the petitioners were short-listed, they faced interview. Their credentials, including the documents were screened and the Commission found that since they have not done their graduation with “Sanskrit” as one of the subjects, their candidatures were rejected as they were not allowed to appear for interview. Aggrieved, all the petitioners have filed the present writ petition before this Court. By an interim order of this Court dated 20.12.2010 the petitioners were though allowed to appear in the interview, which shall be subject to the final determination of the writ petition. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners have appeared in the interview. However, their results have not been declared by the Commission for their alleged disqualification. Counsel appearing for the Commission Mr. B. D. Kandpal has vehemently argued that this Court cannot go beyond the statutory requirement as given in the 2008 Rules as well as in the advertisement where it has been clearly stated that one of the essential conditions is post graduation with “Sanskrit” as one of the subjects and therefore the petitioners stand disqualified. This argument of the Commission is rebutted by the counsel for the petitioners stating that though admittedly they never had “Sanskrit” as one of the subjects in their 4 Graduations, however, this shortcoming they have overcome by completing their graduation in “Sanskrit” from an Open University. Counsel for the Commission though defends the stand of the Commission stating that this would not make the petitioner eligible for the simple reason that the petitioners never had Sanskrit as a subject in their graduation. Moreover, these graduations have been done from an Open University, which is a two years course and not a three years course. The petitioners must have the requirement given under 2008 Rules. Admittedly, it is nowhere stated in the Rules that graduation must be of three years. Therefore even a two years graduation for the “Sanskrit” is an eligible qualification, provided it is from a University established by law. Moreover, this is a considered view of this Court that the petitioners have done their graduation in “Sanskrit” from an Open University. This Open University is recognized in terms of Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which reads as follows: “22. Right to confer degrees.- (1) The right of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised only a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a 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. (2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree. (3) For the purpose of this section, “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.” 7. There is no dispute with the degree granted by the Open University, which is a correspondence degree is not a valid degree. This Court is of the view that it would also 5 be considered a valid degree for the purposes of eligibility, as the petitioners, inter alia, are also graduates in “Sanskrit”. Therefore they are qualified not merely in view of this Court but in terms of the guidelines given under Section 22 of the University Grant Commission. Moreover, the degree procured by the petitioners is by a University, which is a creation of a Statute known as Uttar Pradesh Rajarshi Tandon Open University Act, 1999. It is therefore a recognized degree. The petitioners are declared to be qualified. A mandamus is issued to declare the results of the petitioners treating the petitioners as qualified for Lecturer (Hindi) and in case they are qualified their results shall be declared and appointments orders be issued to the petitioners. 8. The writ petition is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. 9. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.11.2011 Kuldeep