IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 46 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 1, 2008 RAM CHANDER ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. The plaintiff has filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal. The appellant-plaintiff brought a suit with the contention that he was initially appointed as Hindi Teacher in the Education Department, Haryana, on 17.5.1965, on regular basis. While serving as such, the plaintiff passed the Uttar Madhyama Examination (equivalent to Intermediate) from Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), in the year 1969. In view of the letter issued by the respondent- defendants in the year 1987, the plaintiff was entitled to the higher scale of pay from the date of acquiring higher education. When the benefit was not RSA 46 of 2007 2 granted, the plaintiff and the other similarly situated persons, had approached this Court by way of filing CWP 6986 of 1997. The writ petition was allowed on 29.9.1997. In tune with the judgment, the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, gave sanction for grant of higher pay-scale to the petitioners in the writ petition, including the plaintiff. The arrears were, however, restricted to 3 years and 2 months. The said pay fixation was confirmed by other officers. The plaintiff superannuated on 31.5.1998. On 18.10.2002, a show-cause notice was issued to the plaintiff from the Office of District Education Officer, Jhajjar, to the effect that the higher pay scale given on the basis of qualification/certificate issued by the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), in the year 1969, was required to be withdrawn as the University had been declared bogus/fake. The plaintiff submitted his reply with the contention that in the year 1969 when the examination was taken by him, the University was duly recognized. Parity was also claimed with others who had been appointed in the Education department on the basis of similar degrees. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the University Grants Commission, which is the pioneer body in the matter, had declared Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), fake and bogus and, therefore, the scale was given on account of an inadvertent mistake. The suit was decreed on the ground that the action was taken by the defendants after 4-1/2 years of retirement of the plaintiff. The RSA 46 of 2007 3 order of withdrawal of the benefit of increased salary is illegal as the same had been granted in view of the order passed by the High Court. The defendants carried first appeal. The appeal was allowed while noticing that the excess payment allowed to Shanti Devi, with whom parity had been claimed by the plaintiff, had already been recovered. Shanti Devi had filed COCP 1126 of 2002, however, her claim that the recovery was effected in contravention of the High Court order, was rejected. In paras 12 and 13, the issue has been considered by the first appellate Court. It has been noticed that the High Court, while considering CWP 13469 of 1998 (Kanchan Lata v. State of Punjab and others), had issued directions to the Government of Haryana to flash the names and particulars of bogus Universities and further to register criminal cases against the centres which were functioning in the State of Haryana on behalf of the Institutions which had been declared bogus/fake by the University Grants Commission. This had been done because, prima facie, the distribution of degrees/diplomas and certificates by such Institutions amounted to cheating the candidates. The High Court had further observed that it was necessary to curb the menace of bogus/fake Institutions. The bogus/fake Universities were, accordingly, identified. The Institution from where the plaintiff had taken the degree was found to be fake. Faced with these facts, all that the plaintiff prayed was that at the time when the writ petition bearing No. CWP 6986 of 1997, decided on 29.9.1997, was filed by the plaintiff and others, the University was not RSA 46 of 2007 4 regarded as fake. I have considered the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the University, at the time when the plaintiff passed out in the year 1969, was not fake. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, admitted the fact that the plaintiff took the examination at Rohtak in Haryana from a centre of the University at Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh). Learned counsel has further tried to develop a case to the effect that the plaintiff had passed B.A. examination on the basis of the pre-requisite degree from Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh). It needs to be noticed that it is for the first time before this Court that this contention has been raised and, therefore, I deem it appropriate to ignore the contention. It would suffice to say that the plaintiff has not been able to produce any evidence to show that the Uttar Madhyama Examination taken by him from Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh), was from a genuine University, which was recognized by the University Grants Commission. This being the core issued to be determined under issue No.1 framed by the trial Court and the onus being on the plaintiff, order dated 8.1.2003 for withdrawal of the benefit of increased salary, cannot be faulted with. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that Shanti Devi, who was similarly situated, had been given the benefit and, therefore, no recovery could be effected from the plaintiff, is baseless as it RSA 46 of 2007 5 has been noticed by the first appellate Court that the benefit had been withdrawn from said Shanti Devi. In respect of such Institutions, which are carrying on distance education, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma and others v. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University and others, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 35, wherein the following has been held in paras 19 and 20:- “19. The submission of the learned counsel that for the purpose of running a distance education course, extra- territorial activities must be carried out may not be entirely correct. It is one thing to say that the University takes recourse to the correspondence courses for conferring degrees or diplomas but it would be another thing to say that study centres would be permitted to operate which requires close supervision of the University. In a study centre, teachers are appointed, practical classes are held and all other amenities which are required to be provided for running a full-fledged institution or college are provided. Such an establishment, in our opinion, although named as a study centre, and despite the fact that the course of study and other study materials are supplied by the University cannot be permitted to be established beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the University. Nainital is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University. In fact it is not situated in the State of U.P. and, thus, beyond the provisions of the Act. 20. The submission of the learned counsel that the UGC Regulations 1985 provides for study centre of this nature cannot be countenanced. The UGC Regulations being a subordinate legislation must be read with the principal Act. The subordinate legislation will be ultra vires if it contravenes the provisions of the principal Act (See Vasu Dev Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 12 SCC 753). A statutory authority, it is well known, must act within the four- corners of the statute. A fortiori it has to operate within the boundaries of the territories within which it is to operate under the statute. Such territorial jurisdiction of the University must be maintained as otherwise a chaos would be created. If distance education of such a nature is to be encouraged, the only course would be to suitably amend the provisions of the Act.” RSA 46 of 2007 6 When the facts of the present case are considered in the light of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is evident that in the present case even the University Grants Commission has declared the University at Varanasi as bogus. It is, therefore, clear that the order of recovery of the amount dated 8.1.2003 has been passed by the defendants taking into account the fact that Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) was bogus. The plaintiff has not been able to establish a case to the contrary. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to point out any material that has been ignored or any evidence that has been mis-read. In these circumstances, no illegality can be traced in the judgment rendered by the first appellate Court. The Regular Second Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. April 1, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE