IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8627 of 2010. Date of decision: 13.4.2011. Manav Bharti University … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P & Others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. _______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG. For the respondent No.4: Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Balram Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioner-University has prayed for the grant of following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may very kindly be allowed and a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the notification date 27th October, 2008 (Annexure P9) and the order dated 20.11.2010 (Annexure P16) or writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of students passing out from the petitioner University having diploma or degrees in Veterinary Pharmacy, Veterinary Live Stock Development Assistant or in Medical Laboratory Technology or Medical radiology/technology or Diploma for the purposes of giving employment in the State at par with similar kind of Diplomas or degrees given by other institutions or Universities and also to recognize and register such diplomas and degrees to enable the students to apply for government employment and also restrain the state from not recognizing such degrees and diplomas given by the Petitioner University for the purposes of employment or such other writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the petitioner University and against the Respondents. Costs of the petition be also allowed to the petitioner against the respondents” 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. : 2 : 2. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner- University states that he does not press the prayer for quashing the notification dated 27th October, 2008 Annexure P-9 and restricts his prayer only with regard to the challenge to Annexure P-16. 3. The admitted facts are that the petitioner-University has been created by the State Legislature vide Act No. 22 of 2009 known as Manav Bharti University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2009. 4. The petitioner-University had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 5701 of 2010 with a prayer that the State may be directed to recognize the diploma of veterinary pharmacist awarded by the University, for all intents and purposes, including grant of employment under the H.P. Government. 5. A Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated September 14, 2010 had disposed of Writ Petition No. 5701 of 2010 in the following terms:- “The petitioner may file appropriate representation incorporating all the grounds taken in the writ petition before the first respondent within a period of two weeks from today. The first respondent/ competent authority shall consider the matter adverting to the submissions made in the representation and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgement alongwith the representation.” Thereafter the petitioner-University filed a representation and now the Secretary, (Animal Husbandry) : 3 : to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has passed an order rejecting the representation of the petitioner- University. Relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- “x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Education qualification has been mentioned as Matric for 2 years Diploma in Veterinary Pharmacy & 2 years Diploma in Veterinary Livestock Development Assistant, by the Manav Bharti University, Kumarhatti, Distt. Solan, HP in the advertisement, whereas as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed for recruitment of Veterinary Pharmacists in Animal Husbandry Department, the education qualification has been prescribed as 10+2. In private sector one institute namely “Milch Livestock Improvement Society, Solan” has been granted permission to impart training of Veterinary Pharmacists, wherein, in 2 years diploma course including one year practical training on livestock is mandatory, whereas there is no mention of any practical training in the training process of Manav Bharti University. The Syllabus for running Veterinary Pharmacist Training school in private Sector at Solan is approved by the Agriculture University, Palampur but there is no mention about such syllabus by the said University. The Animal Husbandry Department has not issued any notification on the subject, on dated 27.8.2008, however, Health Department has decided that diplomas in Medical Lab Technology & Diploma in Medical Radiology courses will not be started in the State, in private sector, vide their notification dated 27.10.2008, for which undersigned is not competent to withdraw the same, thus the petitioner should file representation to appropriate authority. The undersigned, after careful consideration, has come to the conclusion that plea of the petitioner to consider the candidates possessing diploma in Veterinary/Pharmacy or diploma in Veterinary Science and livestock assistant from Manav Bharti University, for appointment as Veterinary Pharmacists in the Animal Husbandry Department is not acceptable and hence rejected for the above reasons.” 6. The first objection of the State is, that the minimum educational qualification prescribed by the University for the 2 years Veterinary Pharmacist Course is matriculation, : 4 : whereas as per the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of the State Government, the minimum educational qualification is prescribed as 10+2. The petitioner-University has filed an affidavit stating that no student with less than 10+2 qualification has been admitted in the course of diploma in veterinary pharmacist. 7. I have gone through the prospectus of the University, Annexure P-17 and find that for the diploma in veterinary pharmacist, the University is running two separate courses; one is a three years course where the minimum educational qualification is Matric; and the other is the two years course where the minimum educational qualification is 10+2. As far as the first course is concerned, the Government may be justified in not accepting the course for purposes of employment. It is for the employer to decide what are the minimum educational qualification it accepts. The State may employ only those persons who have obtained requisite educational qualification prescribed by the State i.e. 10+2 for veterinary pharmacist. However, if persons choose to attend the first course, the State cannot be compelled to recognize that course for purposes of employment. 8. I find that the Secretary (Animal Husbandry) has totally misread the syllabus of the University. As per the : 5 : syllabus, as far as the two years diploma is concerned, only persons having minimum educational qualification of 10+2 were eligible to be admitted. 9. The Secretary (Animal Husbandry) has also totally misdirected himself with regard to comparing the University with a private sector institute, namely “Milch Livestock Improvement Society, Solan”. How can a University created under a statute be compared with a private society? It is the State which has by an Act of the State Legislature created the University. It has the power to regulate the working of the university also, but once it has recognized the University it cannot turn around and say that some courses will be recognized and some will not be recognized. If all the essential attributes viz fulfillment of necessary educational qualification etc. are present the State cannot refuse to accept the validity of the degrees or diplomas awarded by the university. The State cannot follow a policy of pick and choose. I am constrained to observe that the Secretary (Animal Husbandry) did not even understand the concept of two separate universities when he observed that the syllabus of the petitioner-University should have been approved by the Agriculture University, Palampur. Both the Universities have independent identities. Both the universities are creatures of Statute and : 6 : each university is independent and autonomous and not subject to the other. Nothing has been pointed out to me to show that there is any provision in the Act or the rules which requires that the syllabus framed by the Manav Bharti University should be approved by the Palampur Agriculture University. 10. No doubt, Section 37 of the Act under which university has been created provides that the university shall be bound to comply with all rules and regulations, norms etc. of the regulating bodies. The said rule reads as follows:- “37. University to follow rules, regulations, norms etc. of the regulating bodies.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the University shall be bound to comply with all the rules, regulations, norms, etc. of the regulating bodies and provide all such facilities and assistance to such bodies as are required by them to discharge their duties and carry out their functions” This rule, however, does not require that the syllabus of the university should be approved and when it talks of rules and regulations of regulating bodies it is in the context of bodies like the Bar Council of India, Medical Council of India, Para Medical Council, Veterinary Council etc. The Veterinary Council of India has already issued a letter dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure P-13) stating that approval of the Veterinary Council of India is not required to run the diploma course in question. : 7 : 11. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22.11.2010, (Annexure P-16) is quashed and set aside. The two years veterinary pharmacist course of the petitioner shall be treated to be a legal and valid course for all intents and purposes including employment. It is, however, clarified that the petitioner- University if it chooses to run the three years courses with minimum educational qualification of Matriculation, then the State shall be at liberty not to offer employment to persons who undergo the said course. Petition is disposed of in the abovesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 13th April, 2011 (Krn Guleria)