Z IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 142 of 2007 Hira Singh Bhandari. .……… Appellant Versus District Inspector of Schools & another. .………. Respondents. Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent No. 2. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The question to be adjudicated upon, while disposing of the instant Special Appeal is, whether the certificate of Madhyama (Visharad), issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, is equivalent to the High School Examination of the U.P. Board. If the answer to the aforesaid query is in the affirmative, the appellant would be entitled to be promoted to the post of Clerk in the college run by respondent No. 2, and if not, he would be ineligible for promotion to the post of Clerk, on account of the fact, that the High School Examination of the U.P. Board or an equivalent examination is the prescribed condition of eligibility for promotion as a Clerk. 2. Since the promotion of the appellant to the post of Clerk was not being approved, the appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, by filing Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 12715 of 1990. On the reorganisation of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, the aforesaid writ petition was transferred to this Court, wherein it was re- numbered as Writ Petition (S/S) No. 6928 of 2001. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition, by an order dated 11.09.2007, by recording the conclusion, that the qualification of Madhyama (Visharad), issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, is not equivalent to the High School Examination of the U.P. Board. 2 3. Through the instant Special Appeal, the appellant has assailed the determination rendered by the learned Single Judge. Before this Court, the appellant has relied upon Regulation 9, contained in Chapter III (Part II-A) of the Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Regulation 9, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, is being extracted hereunder: “9. No teacher or head of Institution will be confirmed in his appointment until he has passed the High School Examination with compulsory Hindi as one of his subjects, or an equivalent Examination with Hindi (Regular not Elementary) of an examining body situated within a State where Hindi is the Regional language, or any one of the following examinations – (a) The Adhikari of the Shiromani Examination conducted by Gurukul University, Vindraban. (b) The Vidyadhikari or the Alankar Examination conducted by the Gurukul University, Kangri (Haridwar). (c) The Purva Madhyama Examination conducted by the Government Sanskrit College, Varanasi of Varanseya Sanskrit Vishwavidalaya, Varanasi. (d) The Visharad Examination with Hindi Literature or the Sahitya Ratna Examination with Hindi Literature conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. (e) The Kovid of the Advanced Language (with Hindi) Examination conducted by the Department of Education, Uttar Pradesh. (f) The Prabhakar Examination of the Punjab University, Punjab. (g) The Indian School Certificate Examination / The Cambridge School Certificate Examination with Hindi (as a first language). (h) The erstwhile Departmental Special Vernacular Examination in Hindi conducted by the Department of Education, Uttar Pradesh. Provided that the Board may after considering the report of the Director grant exemption for sufficient reasons in exceptional circumstances.” Based on the aforesaid Regulation, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the High School Examination, with compulsory Hindi as one of the subjects, is equivalent to the 8 illustrative cases, depicted in the aforesaid Regulation, including the Visharad Examination with Hindi Literature or the Sahitya Ratna Examination with Hindi Literature, conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. 4. On a perusal of Regulation 9 (extracted herein above), the inference sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis 3 of Regulation 9 contained in Chapter III (Part II-A) of the Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, seems to be correct. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we called upon the learned counsel for the respondents to demonstrate why the aforesaid inference should not be accepted as correct. 5. In order to repudiate the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the first instance, learned counsel for the respondents invited the attention of this Court to Regulation 2, contained in Chapter XIV (Part II-B) of the Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Under the aforesaid Regulation, the competent authority has delineated all qualifications equivalent to the High School Examination. The qualification of Madhyama (Visharad), issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, is not one of the qualifications delineated therein. Based on Regulation 2 (referred to above), it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the qualification possessed by the appellant cannot be treated as a qualification equivalent to the High School Examination of the U.P. Board. Additionally, learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to Appendix A, with Chapter II (Part II-A) of the Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Insofar as the post of Head of the Institution is concerned, Appendix A depicts the necessary qualifications as under: “Essential Qualification S. No. Name of the post & Educational Training Experience Age Desirable Qualification 1 2 3 4 1. Head of the Institution (1) Trained M.A. or M.Sc. or M.Com. or M.Sc. (Agri.) or any other degree which is awarded by corporate body specified in abovementioned para one and should have at least teaching experience of four years in classes 9 to 12 in any training institute or in any institution or University specified in abovementioned para one or in any degree college affiliated to such University or institution, recognized by the Board or any institution affiliated from Boards of other States or such other institutions whose Examinations are recognized by the Board, or should the condition is also that he/she should not be below 30 years of age. or Minimum 30 years 4 (2) (3) First or second class post-graduate degree along with teaching experience of ten years in Intermediate classes of any recognized institutions or third class post-graduate degree with teaching experience of fifteen years. or Trained post-graduate diploma-holder in Science. The condition is that he has passed this diploma course in first or second class and have efficiently worked for 15 or 20 years respectively after passing such diploma course.” It is sought to be contended at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondents, that for appointment against the post of Head of the Institution, the qualifications are not as those, which have been depicted in Regulation 9, contained in Chapter III (Part II-A) of the Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, but much higher qualifications as is apparent from a relevant extract of Appendix A (reproduced herein above). It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the qualifications depicted in Regulation 9 are only such qualifications, which would demonstrate proficiency in Hindi, and accordingly to ensure, that persons appointed as Head of the Institution acquire proficiency in Hindi, under the mandate of Regulation 9, they had to acquire one or the other prescribed qualification or equivalent thereto. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that High School Examination, with compulsory Hindi as one of the subjects, should not be treated as equivalent, insofar as the Visharad Examination with Hindi Literature is concerned, but should be viewed for the purpose of ensuring proficiency in the field of Hindi, of the level of the High School Examination. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, we are satisfied, that Regulation 9 (extracted herein above) should not be read to infer, that the different qualifications (depicted therein) are equivalent to one or the other. The aforesaid Regulation should be read to mean, that the qualifications (depicted therein) are qualifications, which demonstrate proficiency in the field of Hindi by those, who possess the same. This aspect of the matter is also sought to be demonstrated by inviting the Court’s attention to Regulation 9, which pertains only to the issue of confirmation. It is submitted, that to 5 ensure that the concerned employees have proficiency in Hindi upto the level of the High School Examination, the aforesaid qualifications have been prescribed. The acquisition of the aforesaid qualifications is a precondition for confirmation. Having examined the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are satisfied, that the same should be accepted as a true and correct import of Regulation 9, aforesaid. Thus viewed, it is imperative for us to conclude, that the inference sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of Regulation 9, contained in Chapter III (Part II-A) of the Regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is misplaced and the different qualifications (depicted therein) should not be treated as equivalent to one or the other, but should only be the basis of inferring, that those, who possess the said qualifications, had proficiency in Hindi, of the level of the High School Examination. 7. In view of the conclusion drawn by us herein above, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the qualification of Madhyama (Visharad), issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, is a qualification equivalent to High School Examination of the U.P. Board. Having drawn the aforesaid conclusion, it is not possible for us to accept, that the appellant possesses qualifications, which would entitle him to be promoted to the post of Clerk. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this Special Appeal and the same is accordingly hereby dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 07.07.2010 07.07.2010 G