1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 738 of 2004 SMT.SHAMSHAD BANO & ORS. V/S MOHAMMED FARUK & ORS. Mr. ASHOK CHOUDHARY for Mr. RN UPADHYAY, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. NM LODHA, AAG, assisted by Mr.SHYAM TOSHNIWAL & Mr.ASHOK PARIHAR, for the respondent Date of Order : 15.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.8.2004, whereby the writ petition was allowed, relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No.522/99 dated 4.7.2003 “Jalaudin Silawat Vs. State and Ors.”, wherein it was held that Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is not a University in the eye of law, therefore, the degree granted by this institution cannot be considered to have any legal sanction, and therefore, no appointment can be made by the State Government on the strength of the degree, which has been issued by the so called University. Accordingly, the State Government was directed not to make appointment of such teachers, who possess qualification from the said so called University, which is not established under an act of Parliament, or an act of State Legislature, or University 2 declared as deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It was also directed that after exclusion of the name of the candidates possessing the qualification of Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, if any one of the petitioner get any advantage, the State will accord the same. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant, that as is clear from the reply filed on behalf of the State, and various documents annexed therewith that the qualification awarded by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, was duly recognised, and it is in the year 1993, that it has been derecognised, while the appellant had acquired the qualification after 1965 and before 1993, therefore, that qualification could not be invalidated. Then the other submission made is that according to the Rules, the qualification prescribed in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, does not contemplate any such qualification in a particular subject, as eligibility condition, rather the requirement is only graduation with two subjects taught in schools, alongwith the diploma or degree in education, and since the appellant possesses those qualifications, the appellant's candidature is required to be considered, dehors the qualification acquired by him from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3 respondent-State submits, that now the controversy has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Firdos Tarannum reported in 2006(1) RDD 467, wherein all previous judgments of this Court, in Miss Altaf Bano Vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.258/2004, and Tayyab Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Review Petition No.22/2004 etc. have been considered, and it has been held, that Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, is an institution, which is allegedly parting Urdu Education, but it is not shown, that it has any sanction of law, which had authorised this institution to function as an institution teaching Urdu, and issuing certificates, and degrees. The requirement of certificate or degree, being a valid qualification for appointment is, that an institution issuing it should have legal sanction behind it. It may be either under the orders of the Central Government, State Government, or the University Grants Commission. However, none of these three authorities have issued any sanction in favour of the Jamiya Urdu, Aligarh. Thus, it has been found that the qualification conferred by this institution has no recognition. It was further considered, that the best case of the writ petitioner's therein was, that the qualification was recognised by the State Government to be equivalent, as shown in the letter dated 3.2.1965, but then it was found, that the Division Bench has not given any credence to this Notification, because the original Notification had not been placed either before this 4 Division Bench, or before that Division Bench deciding Jalaudin's case. Then it was also found, that the qualifications have undergone a sea change. Then distinguishing the case of Tayyab Hussain and Altaf Bano, it was held that Urdu qualification issued by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is not a qualification awarded by institution, which has a legal sanction behind it, therefore, the same is not available for the purpose of employment in the State of Rajasthan. In our view, the controversy stands at rest by this judgment in Firdos Tarannum's case, so far as the validity of the qualification possessed by the present appellant is concerned. Suffice it to say that doubts have been entertain by the Division Bench in Firdos Tarannum's case, about the genuineness of the Notification/Order, said to have been issued in 1965, therefore, we are not inclined to say anything, about the entitlement of the appellant to claim appointment on the ground of his having acquired qualification after 1965 and before 1991. So far as the contention, about Urdu qualification being not the requirement of the Rules is concerned, that is not the controversy before us, as the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement are not under challenge before us, and if the appellant feels, that he is eligible to be appointed on the post advertised, even by excluding 5 the qualification possessed by him, having been obtained by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, he is free to have his remedies out. Thus, we do not find any force in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed with the aforesaid liberty and clarification. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/