-t^..s!\5^iS":S^'S^S -!:f^^^^S^SSS c' r^ c^.^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WMT PETITION N0. i^S IOF 2001. Smt. P. Anasuya Naidu C/o Shri. P.K.R.Naidu Quarter No. B 7 / 74 Lafarge India Limited, Sonadih Cement Plant, Sonadih, Village: Baloda Bazar, Post: Raseda, The. and Distt.: Raipur (Chhattisgarh). .PETITIONER Il?ii"ss«i '^^J^5 VERSUS 1. Union oflndia, Through : The Secretary, Ministry ofHuman Resources Development Govt. oflndia, NEW DELHI. '}.. The Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, 2/19, Sant Vihar, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, NEW DELHI. ^u^. \^^£^ l---".' .A.'i-'-'1 The Regional Director, ^D.A.V.PublicSchool, ['tIUDCO Sector, pehind 32 Bunglaws, IBHILAI. /Dvst. Durg. (C.G.). The Principal, Tata D.A.V. Public School, Sonadih, Post: Raseda , . Tehsil : Raipur (C.G.). f^-^'^*"^^ '¥^*<T"3^...t9-^' -^ '" ....RESPONDENTS. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 /227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. R.F,?^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPUR Wtit Petition No. 12S1 of 2001 In fhe niatter of an application under Ardcles 226 aad 227 of the Constitution of India. Siat. P. Anasuya Naidu Uuion of India & othcrs For petitioner For respondents Petitioner Versus Respondents Shri P. S. Koshy, Adv. Shri Parikaj Shrivastava on behalf of Shri A.S.Gaharwar, Sr.Staadiag Counsel (CcntraQ (for respondents No.l &2). Shri Saajay K.Agrawal, (For respondents No.3 & 4) mss^t PRESENT: Date of Order 04-09-2002 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICB P.C.NAIK The petitioner had appUed for aad was selected as a pre- primaiy teacher for which the required quaUfication was B.A, / B.Sc. B.Ed. preferably in nurseiy trauung. 2. Admittedly, fhe petitioner had not obtained the Bachelor of Education degree but had obtaiaed a certificate of Shiksha Visharad iu fhe year 1989 from fhe Hiadi Sahitya Samiaelaii, AUahabad, which was said to be recogiiized. She was selected 1:K fi'$8i!iia»:i aad was issued an appointment order aad accordingly she joined sometime in July 2000. However, vide letter dated 03/08/2001, fhe petitioner was inforraed ftiat as she had not subinitted her professional qualification certi&cate of B.Ed. recognized by University Grauts Conunission [U.G.C.] or Montessori Diploma recogruzed by Govt. of ludia / State Govemiiient, her services wffl not be required w.e.f. 01-08-2001 and the period intervening was to be treated as one-inonth's notice. Accordingly, her services were dispeused with aud her appoiiittnent was revoked. Aggrieved with the action of revocation of ber appointaient, the petitioner approached fhis Court for relief. 3. That fhe petitioner does not possess the B.Ed. quaU&cation nor a diploma recognized by University Grants Cominission or a Montessori Diploma recognized by fhe OoverDiaent of India / State Govemiaent is not disputed. However, reUance is placed on a letter dt. 23-5-1988 of the Central Board of Secondaiy Bducation, in short the CBSE, fhat as per the handbook for Pcrsonal OfBccrs, Grovt. of India, Hindi Sahitya Sammclan Prayag, AUahabad is recogiiizcd aad as such, a person possessing a B.Ed. degree froni Hiadi Sahitya Sanuiielan Prayag, AUababad, is to be treated as a trauied teacher. Aiuiexure P-5 to the writ petition is a copy of the adverdseiuent issued by Hindi Sahilya Sanunelan Prayag, AUahabad, ^hich ia fact is aii infonnation regardiug fhe examination conducted by it. Wifh regard to the Shiksha Visarad, it is iadicated fhat it is a one-year course and the eligibiUty for fhe course is Madhaynuk or Graduate or equivalent »- t*^'3;B!!2gS '•ss degree thereto. If furtlier iadicates fbat it is recogtiized by Govenunent of Orissa as equivatent to BTC and a teained teacher for fhe CBSE. However, there is nothiug on record to in.dicate that the examiuations conducted by flie Hiudi Sahilya Sam.xaelan, AUahabad arc recogruzed by the State of Chhatdsgarh. In reply, attention of the Court is iavited to the extracts of fhe miautes of the meetiiig of fhe AfRliation Coiiunittee of CBSE held ou 15th September, 1995, where fhe question of considering equivalence of Siksha Visharad Degree as equivalent to B.Ed. Degree of other recognized Universities was taken up for consideration. The agenda aud fhe resolution read thus: <"itemNo,4i To consider equivalence of Shiksha Visharad Degree issued by Hiudi Sahilya Sanunelan, Praya^, AUahabad, Uttar Pradesh as equivalent to B.Ed. Degree ofother recognized Uiuversities. Resolved that Shtksba Visharad degree is not being treated as equivalent to B.ED. ofofher recogiiized uiiiversiti.es and the letter No.CBSE/AFF/3325/88/3006 dated 23.5.1988 be treated as caaceUed." 4. The Court's attention was also itivited to a letter dated 20th ATigust, 2001 offhe Association oflndian Universities, New Delbi, whereby on a queiy raised, the Principal of fhe Tata DAV PubUc School, Raipur ^pas infonned thus: "Hindi Sabilya Saminelaa, Piayas, AUahabad is one of the Voluntary institutions SET UP FOR PROMOTION OF HINDI LANGUAGE; its examiaations/certi&cates arc not (NOT) equated wifh fhe secondaiy ^ sta^e/desree examJQations. As per Govt. of India (Ministiy of Hiunan Resource Developinent) Press Notification dated 5th May, 1988 the recognition of its exaias. is VALID/RESTRICTED TO THE SUBJECT OF HINDI ONLY". Thus, fhe letter dated 23-05-1988 on which reliaace is placed by the petitioner having been wifhdrawn, the veiy fotuidation of which her case rests, disappears. Thus, the contention that, haviug obtaiaed the degree of Shiksha Visharad QX)EO. the Hindi Salutya Sanuaelan, Prayag, AUahabad, she should be treated to be a traiaed teacher, caoiiot be accepted. 5. It was fhen contended that as fhe petitioner had adinittedly obtamed the degrce of Shiksha Visharad, the Court should issue a direction for treatmg it to be equivalent to B.Ed. Degree. Such a direction caruiot obviously be issued ia view of the fact fhat to treat or not to treat a particular degree or certificate of a body as equivalent to that of anotber, is a inatter to be decided by the Academic Bodies and not by Courts of law as ffaat question, the Cotirt feels, is puicly wifbia the jurisdiction of fhc Acadciiiic Bodies. A inore or lcss a sinular question had recenfly coiue up before the Apex Court ia tbe case of State of Raiasthan Vs_Late 200Z Arun./A.I.R. S.C.W. 2966. In that case the provisional admission of the respondent to tbe General Niirsing aad Mid- wifeiy and Staff Nurse Course was canceUed on the ground fhat she did not possess fhe requisite quati&cation which was first year of three years decree course (TDC) or 10 + 2. The respondeat had, however, obtauied a Madhyaiaa Certificate froin -.->i£.^j ' "•"-•F.isy the Hindi Sahilya Sanunelan, Prayag. The writ petition filed before the Rajasfhan. High Court was disposed of wifh a directiou to flie Nursiag Council to consider the inatter sympafheticaUy by takiag iato consideration the equivaleuce of course. AUowing the appeal of fhe State of Rajasttian, the Court observed thus: "9. The poiute iuvolved ia the case are two fold : one relating to piescription of nuiiimum. educational quaUfication for adnussion to fhe couise and fhe ofher relating to recognition of fhe Madhyama Certificate issued by fhe Hiadi Sahitya Saminelau, AUahabad as equivalent to or higher fhan + 2 or lat year of TDC for the piirpose of admission. Both fh.ese points relate to inatters ta the reahn of policy decision to be taken by the State Govemmeut or fhe authority vested wifh power iinder any statute. It is not for Courts to determiae whefher a particular educational qualification possessed by a caadidate should or should not be recognized as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in fhe case. That is not to say that such inatters are not justiciable. In au appropriate case fhe Court can examiae whefher the policy decision or the administrative order dealing wifh fhe niatter is based on a fair, rational aad reasonable ground; whefher fhe decision has been taken on consideration of relevaat aspects of the inatter; whefher exercise of fhe power is obtaiaed with malaficte intention; whefher the decision serves the purpose of giving proper tramiug to fhe caudidates adinitted or it is based on irrelevaat and irrational considerations or inteuded to benefit an individual or a group ofcaudidates." After inaktag a reference to its earlier judgiuents ia DeUii Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of Health, DeUu Adnm. Services and others, {(1997) 11 SCC 687} aad Dr. Ravinder Nafh v. State of H.P. aad others, {1993 Supp (2) SCC 639}, the Court in Para 12 observed ffaus: "FTOIU the ratio of the decision noted above it is clear that the prescribed el^ibUity quali&cation for adinission to a course or for recruitinent to or proinotion iu service are inattera to be considered by the appropriate authorily. It is not for Courts to decide whefher a particular .__S 3a. .. '^ educational quali&cation should or should not be accepted as equivalent to fhe qualification. prescribed by fhe aufhonty." e-lfS .,.,.--s'?^^ 1-S-S •^'^9^ 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shaU however be no order as to costs. Sd/- p.C.Naik Judge