IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 276 OF 2009 (SS) Nathi Singh Rana ………………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jagdish Bisht, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Bindesh Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 10th August, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner making following prayers: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus of commanding the respondents to consider and grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher after his successful completion of Special B.T.C. Training course in the light of the judgment dated 8.3.2006 passed by the Hon’ble Court. II. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. III. Award the cost of the petition.” The case of the petitioner is that he is a post graduate in History from Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna 2 Garhwal University of the year, 1992. Subsequently he did a course known as “Shiksha Visharad”, which is conducted by a Society known as “Hindi Sahitya Sammelan”, which is situated in Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh. According to the petitioner, the certificate of “Shiksha Visharad”, which he has obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has to be treated as equivalent to B.Ed. and consequently, he has to be given admission in the Special B.T.C. Training Course. The procedures as it stands in the State of Uttarakhand is that a person, who has obtained a B.Ed. qualification and all things remaining equal, is entitled to undergo a Special B.T.C. Training Course which makes him eligible for appointment as a Primary School Teacher in the State of Uttarakhand. This provision of a Special B.T.C. course was made applicable to cut short the normal period of a B.T.C. course for special category of persons, who already have a teaching qualification known as B.Ed. It is this benefit, which the petitioner is claiming by virtue of his having obtained a certificate known as “Shiksha Visharad”. It is also true that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 677 of 2004 (SS), in which on 31.7.2004, following order was passed by the learned Single Judge: “Heard Sri I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner who is having the qualification of “Shiksha Visharad” from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad equivalent to B.Ed., by means of this writ petition has prayed 3 that his candidature may be considered for Special B.T.C. Training. Keeping in view of the facts of the case, it is provided that the respondents shall consider the candidature of the petitioner for Special B.T.C. Training, in case the degree awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is recognized by the Government further if the degree found to be equivalent to the B.Ed. Degree. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.” Consequently thereafter although the petitioner underwent the Special B.T.C. Training, he was not given the training certificate or appointment as a Primary School Teacher and consequently the petitioner filed another Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 330 of 2006 (SS), which was again disposed of on 8th March, 2006 by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to grant the petitioner a Certificate of Special B.T.C. Training and also to grant provisional appointment to the petitioner. Further since the appointment has not been given to the petitioner, he has filed present writ petition, which is now before this Court. It is indeed a fact that the petitioner has the benefit of two orders of this Court, but in none of the two orders a finding has been given by the Courts by which the Certificate such as “Shiksha Visharad” can be said to be equivalent to that of B.Ed. The law in fact is just the opposite. 4 A Division Bench of this Court in Shailendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in 2007 (1) U.D., 155 after considering the entire facts and the law on the subject has observed that it is not for the Courts to grant equivalance to a degree or a certificate and this matter pertains to entirely in the jurisdiction of the Authority or the Government, which grants jobs on such qualifications. The Apex Court in Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Pratictioners Vs. Director of Health, Delhi Admn. Services and others and Swaroop Singh Vs. Director of Health Services and others reported in (1997) 11 SCC 687 has asserted this aspect and stated that it is not for the Court to grant equivalence to a decree. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court, referred above, had an opportunity to examine precisely the certificates and diplomas granted by this Institute known as “Hindi Sahitya Sammelan” and has given a finding that “Shiksha Visharad” certificate granted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is not equivalent to B.Ed. It is this Division Bench judgment, and in fact earlier Supreme Court’s judgment, which go against the petitioner on this core issue. As per the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, “Shiksha Visharad” certificate granted to the petitioner is not equivalent to that of B.Ed., hence the petitioner will not be held to be eligible for grant of Special B.T.C. or appointment as a teacher in a Primary School. Consequently, no benefit can be given to the petitioner. It has also been contended by Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that in paragraph 13 of the Division Bench Judgement i.e. in the case of Shailendra Singh and others (supra), this Court has observed that since the certificates or diplomas 5 granted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan have not been recognized by National Counsel for Teachers Education, which is a body constituted under National Council For Teacher Education Act, 1993, it will be presumed that the quality of education, which is being imparted by this institute is not upto the mark and it is of sub-standard. On this learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that since the observation has come from this Court in the Division Bench judgement, it was absolutely necessary that before passing such an order, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as it has been observed by the Supreme Court in the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Appeal No. 1453 of 2004). Relevant paragraph 8 of the supra case judgment reads as follows: “8. We find considerable force in the contentions of the appellants. The writ petitioners had not given the correct address of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and consequently, the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was not served and did not have any opportunity to appear and place the correct facts before the High Court. There was also no material before the High Court. There was also no material before the High Court to brand the institution as fake. In the circumstances, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is justified having a legitimate grievance about the institution and its certificates being branded as fake. They should have an opportunity to put forth the case before the High Court.” 6 No benefit in any case will arise in favour of the petitioner due to this as the observations made by the Division Bench are only in the nature of “Obiter dictum” and do not lay down any ratio, the ratio which has been laid down in the case is regarding the equivalence granted, on which reference has already been made above. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court has no other option, but to dismiss the writ petition of the petitioner. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 10.8.2009 Rathour