LPA No.117 of 2005 :: 1 :: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 117 of 2005 Date of Decision: 20.11.2008 Madhu Bala Sharma and others ..Appellants versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondents ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This appeal arises out of an order dated 23.02.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby, Civil Writ Petitions No. 12699 of 1995 and 11132 of 2000 filed by the appellants have been dismissed. The only question that fell for determination before the learned Single Judge was whether the petitioners/appellants herein were entitled to remain in government service on the basis of the degrees which they claimed to have acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Bhagat Sharma and others V. State of Haryana and others, 1997(4) RSJ (Pb&Hr) 134, the learned Single Judge held that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag had neither been established under an Act of the Parliament or of the State Legislature nor were the said institutions LPA No.117 of 2005 :: 2 :: recognised by Kurukshetra University or Maharishi Dayanand University. The so-called examination centres being run in the State of Haryana were also held by the Court to be bogus and the examinations conducted at the said centres a total farce. The degrees/diplomas/certificates etc. awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad or Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag on the basis of the said examinations were accordingly declared to be fraudulent and bogus. The learned Single Judge also noted the directions issued by the Division Bench in Ram Bhagat Sharma's case (supra), by which the Government of Haryana was directed to to take steps for terminating the services of all such teachers as had secured employment on the basis of degrees/diplomas/certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag. The learned Single Judge held that the issues relating to the validity of the degrees/certificates relied upon by the petitioners/appellants herein having been authoritatively decided against the petitioners, there was no question of their continuing in service. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we see no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Single Judge. In Ram Bhagat Sharma's case (supra), the primary question that fell for consideration was whether the qualifications acquired by the petitioners in the said case from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad or Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag could be recognised for the purposes of entry of candidates in government service as teachers. Answering the question in the negative, the Court observed :- “The above narration shows that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, and/or Hindi Sahitya LPA No.117 of 2005 :: 3 :: Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, have neither been established under an Act of the Parliament or of the State Legislature nor have they been recognised by Kurukshetra University or Maharshi Dayanand University. The so-called examination centres being run in the State of Haryana appear to be bogus. As per the committee, they are being run in single room or in residences and the students are charged between Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 6,000/-. These centres are not qualified for coaching Shiksha Vishard students. They receive question papers etc. from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, but thereafter the centres are run independently and full sureties are given to the candidates to get through the examination by securing good marks. It can thus be said that the examinations conducted at these centers are totally farce and the degrees/diplomas/certificates etc. awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, and/or Hindi Shitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, on the basis of such examinations cannot but be treated as bogus. On the basis of such degrees etc., the petitioners or any other candidate cannot claim eligibility for the purpose of appointment of Hindi Teacher.” (emphasis supplied) What is important is that the Court went a step further and in the interest of the students community issued directions to the Government to prevent future recruitment of persons possessing qualifications awarded LPA No.117 of 2005 :: 4 :: by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad or Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag, Allahabad and to take appropriate measures to dispense with the services of unqualified teachers. The Court specifically directed the Government of Haryana to take steps for termination of the services of all such teachers as had secured employment on the basis of degrees/diplomas/certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag, Allahabad. This is evident from the following passage appearing in the judgment delivered by the Court:- “With a view to protect the interest of the students community, we direct the Government of Haryana to take steps to prevent future recruitment of persons possessing qualifications awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, and at the same time take appropriate measures to dispense with the services of unqualified teachers. For this purpose, the Government of Haryana is directed to issue written instructions to all concerned that in future no appointment be given to the persons possessing qualifications by the institutions referred to here-in-above. We also direct the Goverment of Haryana to take steps for terminating the services of all such teachers who have secured employment on the basis of degrees/diplomas/certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and/or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad. However, those who have completed LPA No.117 of 2005 :: 5 :: three years service should be given an opportunity to acquire the requisite qualification within a stipulated time. In case they fail to acquire such qualification, then appropriate order be passed to dispense with the services of such persons.” (emphasis supplied) Sitting in Division Bench, we are bound by the decision rendered by a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction in Ram Bhagat Sharma's case (supra). In fairness to the counsel for the appellants, we must mention that even he did not make any attempt to question the correctness of the view taken in Ram Bhagat Sharma's case. All that he submitted was that the Court had in that case granted a concession to those who had completed three years in government service which benefit could also be directed to be extended to the petitioners herein in which event the appellants could continue in service even when the degrees/diplomas/certificates on the basis of which they had earlier secured employment were bogus or fraudulent. Mr. Sangwan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants drew our attention to the direction issued by the Division Bench in Ram Bhagat Sharma's case whereunder the candidates who had completed three years service were to be given an opportunity to acquire the requisite qualification within a stipulated period. He submitted that while the said benefit was extended to other candidates similarly situate, the same was unfairly denied to the appellants. A similar argument was advanced before the learned Single Judge also who had repelled the same holding that the benefit of continuing service on the basis of bogus degrees/diplomas and certificates was available only to such of the candidates as had completed three years service LPA No.117 of 2005 :: 6 :: on the date of the judgment in Ram Bhagat Sharma's case supra. It is not in dispute that the said decision was delivered by this Court on 16.05.1997. The appellants having been appointed only on 17.01.1997, 20.01.1997 and 12.02.1997, respectively, had less than four months service to their credit as on the date of the decision in Ram Bhagat Sharma's case. They did not, therefore, qualify for the grant of the benefit admissible under the exception carried out by the Court. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, correct in holding so. It is noteworthy that the non-termination of the services of the petitioners/appellants herein between May, 1997 when the order in Ram Bhagat Sharma's case was delivered and 01.09.2000 was on account of the pendency of the present writ petitions and an administrative decision taken by the authorities that wherever petitions filed by the teachers were pending, the authorities would wait for the disposal of the same before actually sending the candidates out of service. Merely because, the petitioners- appellants herein had filed writ petitions in this Court and had on that basis continued to remain in service, did not mean that the benefit of exception drawn in Ram Bhagat Sharma's case would be admissible to them. What is significant is that on the date of the judgment of Ram Bhagat Sharma's case i.e. 16.5.1997, the appellants herein were not eligible for the benefit of exception drawn by this Court. Such being the position, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified and does not warrant any interference from this Court. Mr. Sangwan, lastly argued that some other candidates including one Zile Singh had been allowed to continue on the basis of the exception made by the learned Single Judge on account of the qualification subsequently acquired by him. He urged that the continuance of Zile Singh LPA No.117 of 2005 :: 7 :: while removing the petitioners-appellants herein from service tantamount to a hostile treatment against the petitioners-appellants herein which is legally impermissible. The petitioners could, therefore, be allowed to continue in service on the analogy of Zile Singh and others. We regret our inability to accept that argument made in despair. We say so for more than one reasons. Firstly, because the writ petition does not lay any factual foundation for the argument urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. There is no averment in the petition that Zile Singh or any other person not qualified to hold an appointment or continuance in service was appointed or allowed to continue. The petitioners-appellants herein ought to have made appropriate averments in the writ petition if they intended to urge an argument on the basis of any such factual aspect. Secondly, because, even if there is any abbreviation on the part of the State in the matter allowing people not otherwise qualified to continue, despite the direction issued by this Court, the same would not justify the commission of yet another error in the form of a direction to reinstate those who admittedly did not have a valid and recognized degree from a recognized institution on the date they entered government service. Two wrongs cannot make a right. There is no merit in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE 20.11.2008 'ravinder'