पीजीटी संस्कृत भर्ती के सम्बन्ध में "आचार्य"
योग्यता को अमान्य करने बारे दिया गया हाईकोर्ट
का फैसला पढ़े--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19263 of 2012(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 20, 2014
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE
GEORGE MASIH
Present: Ms. Anu Kapur Chatrath, Advocate
Mr. Sansar Kundu, Advocate,
Mr. P.S. Rohilla, Advocate,
Mr. A.K. Kansal, Advocate,
Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate,
Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate,
Mr. S.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Mr. R.P. Verma, Advocate and
Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State.
Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent No.4 (in CWP No.10345 of 2013)
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for respondent No.4 (in CWP No.10380 of 2013)
Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate and Mr. Amarjit
Singh Virk, Advocate
for Kurukshetra University.
Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate
for respondents No.3 and 4 (In CWP No.19263 of
2012)
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH , J. (ORAL)
By this order, I propose to decide CWP Nos.19263
of 2012, 14488, 28783, 6603, 7692, 5633, 15874,
10345, 10309 and 10380 of 2013
where the petitioners are praying for issuance of a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
Haryana School Teachers Selection Board to treat
the Acharya degree equal to M.A. (Sanskrit) as
per the letter dated 10.05.1975. Petitioners, in
pursuance to the advertisement issued by the
Haryana School Teachers Selection Board, applied
for the post of Post-Graduate Teachers
(hereinafter referred to as 'PGT Teachers),
Sanskrit.Some of them apprehend that their
candidature would be rejected at the time of
interview on the ground that they do not possess
M.A. Degree in Sankrit which is the qualification
prescribed in the advertisement while others are
those whose candidatures have been rejected on
this ground.
Petitioners in CWP Nos.19263 of 2012, 14488 and
28783 of 2013 have passed their Acharya degree
from Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra (for short 'KUK') whereas petitioners
in CWP Nos.6603, 7692,5633, 15874, 10345,
10309 and 10380 of 2013 have passed their
Acharya degree from Sampurnanand Sanskrit
University, Varansi (for short 'Sampurnanand
University'). Some of the petitioners have been
issued the interview letters but being apprehensive
that their candidature would be rejected, have
approached this Court while others, after the
rejection of candidatures at the time of interview
on the ground that they do not possess the
prescribed qualification of M.A. in Sanskrit, have
approached this Court praying for declaring the
Acharya degree possessed by the petitioners equal
to M.A. in Sanskrit, thus holding them eligible for
consideration for appointment to the post of PGT
Sanskrit.
It is the contention of the counsel for the
petitioners who have
passed their Acharya from KUK that the Shastri
degree obtained by the petitioners have been
treated to be equivalent to B.A. in Sanskrit and,
therefore, the Acharya degree obtained by the
petitioners from the KUK has to be treated equal
to M.A. in Sanskrit. In this regard, reliance has
been placed upon the judgment passed by this
Court in CWP No. 6686 of 1996,titled as 'Ravinder
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana', decided on
24.01.1996, where Acharya degree passed from
the KUK has been held to be equivalent to M.A. in
Sanskrit on the basis of the Government of India
letter dated
23.01.1964 as also the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Rampalit Vyakaran
Acharya & others Vs. Punjab University &
another, 1976 (3) SCC 2. It has, therefore, been
prayed that the
respondents be directed to consider the petitioners
eligible for appointment to the post of PGT
Sanskrit.
Counselfor the petitioners in cases where the
petitioners have passed their Acharya from the
Sampurnanand University assert that the said
University has come into existence under the U.P.
State Universities Act, 1973 which is also
recognized by the UGC (University Grant
Commission) as a State University. Petitioners
having obtained Acharya degree from the State
University merely because M.A. is not mentioned
in the said degree, would not disentitle the
petitioners from being treated as eligible for
consideration for appointment to the PGT Sanskrit.
They have placed reliance upon the letter dated
21.11.1990 issued by the Ministry of Personnel,
PG & Pensions (Department of Personnel &
Training, New Delhi, where recognition of the
examination conducted by the Sampurnanand
University is treated as equivalent to M.A. degree.
According to the petitioners, Maharishi Dayanand
University, Rohtak (for brevity 'MDU Rohtak') has
prepared a recognition/equivalence list in April,
2011 where the Acharya degree of the said
University has been treated to be
equivalent to that of M.A. degree. Acharya degree
of Sampurnanand
University has been treated to be equivalent to
that of Acharya degree of MDU Rohtak. For this,
reliance has also been placed on the 'Important
Notes' in the said list, according to which the
Post-graduate degree of all the statutory
universities in India including open and private
universities, deemed universities established under
the Act of the State/Central Government which are
approved by the UGC, have been recognized as
equivalent to respective courses of MDU, Rohtak.
Entry No.55 of the said
list has been relied upon to contend that Acharya
of the Sampurnanand University is equal to that of
MDU, Rohtak. It is, therefore, submitted that
Acharya having been treated as a Post-graduate
degree would be equal to M.A. in Sanskrit. Prayer
has thus been made for declaring the petitioners
eligible for consideration for appointment to the
post of PGT Sanskrit.
On the other hand, counsel for the State submits
that with the
coming into force the Haryana State Education
School Cadre (Group-B) Rule 2012 (for short 'the
2012 Rules'), educational qualification has been
specified for the post of PGT Sanskrit as M.A.
Sanskrit with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from
recognized University. In the said Rules, nowhere
the word 'equivalent' has been used and specific
qualification has been prescribed. Thus, the
Acharya degree which is possessed by the
petitioners cannot be said to be the required
qualification for the post. It is prerogative of the
State to determine which type of qualification
should be prescribed
for a particular post and cadre and the State is
justified in insisting upon the said qualification as
has been provided under the statutory rules. It has
further been argued that nowhere in the
recognition/equivalence list issued in April, 2011
by the MDU, Rohtak has it been mentioned that
Acharya degree of MDU, Rohtak would be equal to
M.A. Sanskrit. What has been stated at entry
No.55 is that the Acharya degree of
Sampurnanand University is equivalent to Acharya
degree of MDU, Rohtak which cannot be said to
be M.A. in Sanskrit. An objection has been raised
that MDU, Rohtak has not been impleaded as a
party respondent in the writ petition and, therefore,
the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
In cases where the petitioners have passed their
Acharya from
KUK, the said university has been impleaded as
party respondent. Counsel for the said respondent
submits that initially in the year 1975, the
Academic Council resolved that the examination of
M.A. (Sanskrit) passed from Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra, is equal to Acharya of
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi, provided
that the candidates pass the subject of English of
B.A. and it was also decided that Acharya
examination from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan,
New Delhi is equal to Acharya examination of KUK
and not equivalent to M.A. course. This letter was
conveyed on 30.08.1993 which was duly approved
by the Academic Council of the University on
08.10.1993. Even the list of equivalence of
examinations/degrees/diplomas as corrected upto
2.08.2011 issued by the KUK, Acharya degree from
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi, has been
treated to be equal to that of the Acharya of KUK.
He contends that
there is no decision declaring Acharya of
Kurukshetra University equal to that of M.A.
Sanskrit.
Counsel for the State has submitted that the
decision of the
Government of India on which reliance has been
placed by the counsel for the petitioners in the
cases where petitioners passed their Acharya from
KUK, dated 23.01.1964 as also the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramphalit Vyakaran Acharya's case (supra) would
not apply to the case in hand as the new
statutory rules have come into force whereas the
specific qualification has been prescribed without
any equivalence clause. On this ground also the
judgment passed by the Court in Ravinder
Kumar's case (supra ) would not be applicable.
I have heard the submissions made by the
counsel for the
parties and with their assistance have gone
through the record of the cases. The qualifications
prescribed in the advertisement and the 2012
Rules are identical for appointment to the post of
PGT Sanskrit. The same read as follows:-
“M.A. Sanskrit with at least 50% marks and B.Ed.
from recognized University."
There is no equivalence clause mentioned therein
and the qualifications are clear and specific i.e.
M.A. Sanskrit with at least 50%
marks. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Som Dutt Vs. State of Haryana & another, 1983
(3) SLR 141 wherein it has been held that it is the
prerogative of the employer to provide for the
qualifications for appointment to the post and it
can insist upon the qualifications so prescribed
under the statutory rules. If no equivalence clause
has been provided under the Rules and the
qualifications are clear and specific, the
equivalence or otherwise of the qualification
possessed by a candidate cannot be taken into
account. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
action of the respondents in insisting upon the
statutory qualification prescribed in
the Rules applicable to the post in question
cannot be insisted upon by the respondents.
Since, Acharya is not a prescribed qualification
under the statutory rules nor is there any
equivalence clause, the claim of the petitioners
cannot be accepted.
That apart, although the petitioners in cases
where they have
passed their Acharya from Sampurnanand
University, which is a State
University and recognized by the UGC, but the
qualifications possessed by the petitioners are not
the same as has been provided under the
statutory rules. Even the recognition/equivalence
list of the MDU or the KUK do not, in any of them,
recognize or declare it to be equivalent to M.A.
Sanskrit except that the Acharya possessed by the
petitioners is equal to that of Acharya of the
concerned University but that would not entitle the
petitioners to be declared as possessing
qualifications of M.A. in Sanskrit.
There is nothing on the record to suggest that
M.A. in Sanskrit of MDU or KUK is accepted as
equal to that of Acharya of these very universities,
rather the stand of KUK in the reply filed by them
is that M.A. in Sanskrit of KUK is not equal to
that of Acharya of the same University.
As regards the claim of the petitioners that this
Court in its
judgment in Ravinder Kumar's case (supra) has
held that Acharya degree is equal to that of M.A.
Sanskrit also cannot be accepted in the light of
the fact that the statutory rules governing the
service i.e. the 2012 Rules have come into
existence which is subsequent to the judgment
passed by this Court.
The ground taken by the respondents in Ravinder
Kumar's case (supra) where the petitioner had
successfully competed for the post and even
selected was that the Acharya degree possessed
by the petitioner was not equivalent to M.A. It is
not a position in the present case as it is not
reflected therein whether the equivalent
qualification was permissible or not. Similar was
the position in Ramphalit Vyakaran Acharya's case
(supra) where again it appears that the equivalent
qualification was acceptable and, therefore, the
degree of Acharya was treated as equivalent to
that of M.A.
Reliance upon the Central Government letter dated
21.11.1990
issued by the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions
(Department of
Personnel & Training, New Delhi, to contend that
the Acharya degree is equivalent to the M.A.
degree, cannot be pressed into service to the
benefit of the petitioners as it is the right, privilege
and prerogative of the employer to accept a
particular qualification as equivalent or not. In any
case, in the present case, there is no question of
treating an equivalent qualification when there is
no such discretion provided for under the statutory
rules. The qualification under the statutory rules
being clear and specific i.e. M.A. Sanskrit with at
least 50% marks, the Court cannot import such a
condition/qualification which would make the
candidate possessing an
equivalent degree eligible for appointment when
the statutory rules do not permit so. In any case,
the letter dated 21.11.1990 issued by the
Department of the Central Government which is
not ipso facto applicable. There is no decision of
the State of Haryana adopting the said letter.
In view of the above, finding no merit in these writ
petitions, the same stand dismissed.
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
JUDGE
January 20, 2014
योग्यता को अमान्य करने बारे दिया गया हाईकोर्ट
का फैसला पढ़े--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19263 of 2012(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 20, 2014
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE
GEORGE MASIH
Present: Ms. Anu Kapur Chatrath, Advocate
Mr. Sansar Kundu, Advocate,
Mr. P.S. Rohilla, Advocate,
Mr. A.K. Kansal, Advocate,
Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate,
Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate,
Mr. S.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Mr. R.P. Verma, Advocate and
Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State.
Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate
for respondent No.4 (in CWP No.10345 of 2013)
Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate
for respondent No.4 (in CWP No.10380 of 2013)
Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate and Mr. Amarjit
Singh Virk, Advocate
for Kurukshetra University.
Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate
for respondents No.3 and 4 (In CWP No.19263 of
2012)
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH , J. (ORAL)
By this order, I propose to decide CWP Nos.19263
of 2012, 14488, 28783, 6603, 7692, 5633, 15874,
10345, 10309 and 10380 of 2013
where the petitioners are praying for issuance of a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
Haryana School Teachers Selection Board to treat
the Acharya degree equal to M.A. (Sanskrit) as
per the letter dated 10.05.1975. Petitioners, in
pursuance to the advertisement issued by the
Haryana School Teachers Selection Board, applied
for the post of Post-Graduate Teachers
(hereinafter referred to as 'PGT Teachers),
Sanskrit.Some of them apprehend that their
candidature would be rejected at the time of
interview on the ground that they do not possess
M.A. Degree in Sankrit which is the qualification
prescribed in the advertisement while others are
those whose candidatures have been rejected on
this ground.
Petitioners in CWP Nos.19263 of 2012, 14488 and
28783 of 2013 have passed their Acharya degree
from Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra (for short 'KUK') whereas petitioners
in CWP Nos.6603, 7692,5633, 15874, 10345,
10309 and 10380 of 2013 have passed their
Acharya degree from Sampurnanand Sanskrit
University, Varansi (for short 'Sampurnanand
University'). Some of the petitioners have been
issued the interview letters but being apprehensive
that their candidature would be rejected, have
approached this Court while others, after the
rejection of candidatures at the time of interview
on the ground that they do not possess the
prescribed qualification of M.A. in Sanskrit, have
approached this Court praying for declaring the
Acharya degree possessed by the petitioners equal
to M.A. in Sanskrit, thus holding them eligible for
consideration for appointment to the post of PGT
Sanskrit.
It is the contention of the counsel for the
petitioners who have
passed their Acharya from KUK that the Shastri
degree obtained by the petitioners have been
treated to be equivalent to B.A. in Sanskrit and,
therefore, the Acharya degree obtained by the
petitioners from the KUK has to be treated equal
to M.A. in Sanskrit. In this regard, reliance has
been placed upon the judgment passed by this
Court in CWP No. 6686 of 1996,titled as 'Ravinder
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana', decided on
24.01.1996, where Acharya degree passed from
the KUK has been held to be equivalent to M.A. in
Sanskrit on the basis of the Government of India
letter dated
23.01.1964 as also the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Rampalit Vyakaran
Acharya & others Vs. Punjab University &
another, 1976 (3) SCC 2. It has, therefore, been
prayed that the
respondents be directed to consider the petitioners
eligible for appointment to the post of PGT
Sanskrit.
Counselfor the petitioners in cases where the
petitioners have passed their Acharya from the
Sampurnanand University assert that the said
University has come into existence under the U.P.
State Universities Act, 1973 which is also
recognized by the UGC (University Grant
Commission) as a State University. Petitioners
having obtained Acharya degree from the State
University merely because M.A. is not mentioned
in the said degree, would not disentitle the
petitioners from being treated as eligible for
consideration for appointment to the PGT Sanskrit.
They have placed reliance upon the letter dated
21.11.1990 issued by the Ministry of Personnel,
PG & Pensions (Department of Personnel &
Training, New Delhi, where recognition of the
examination conducted by the Sampurnanand
University is treated as equivalent to M.A. degree.
According to the petitioners, Maharishi Dayanand
University, Rohtak (for brevity 'MDU Rohtak') has
prepared a recognition/equivalence list in April,
2011 where the Acharya degree of the said
University has been treated to be
equivalent to that of M.A. degree. Acharya degree
of Sampurnanand
University has been treated to be equivalent to
that of Acharya degree of MDU Rohtak. For this,
reliance has also been placed on the 'Important
Notes' in the said list, according to which the
Post-graduate degree of all the statutory
universities in India including open and private
universities, deemed universities established under
the Act of the State/Central Government which are
approved by the UGC, have been recognized as
equivalent to respective courses of MDU, Rohtak.
Entry No.55 of the said
list has been relied upon to contend that Acharya
of the Sampurnanand University is equal to that of
MDU, Rohtak. It is, therefore, submitted that
Acharya having been treated as a Post-graduate
degree would be equal to M.A. in Sanskrit. Prayer
has thus been made for declaring the petitioners
eligible for consideration for appointment to the
post of PGT Sanskrit.
On the other hand, counsel for the State submits
that with the
coming into force the Haryana State Education
School Cadre (Group-B) Rule 2012 (for short 'the
2012 Rules'), educational qualification has been
specified for the post of PGT Sanskrit as M.A.
Sanskrit with at least 50% marks and B.Ed. from
recognized University. In the said Rules, nowhere
the word 'equivalent' has been used and specific
qualification has been prescribed. Thus, the
Acharya degree which is possessed by the
petitioners cannot be said to be the required
qualification for the post. It is prerogative of the
State to determine which type of qualification
should be prescribed
for a particular post and cadre and the State is
justified in insisting upon the said qualification as
has been provided under the statutory rules. It has
further been argued that nowhere in the
recognition/equivalence list issued in April, 2011
by the MDU, Rohtak has it been mentioned that
Acharya degree of MDU, Rohtak would be equal to
M.A. Sanskrit. What has been stated at entry
No.55 is that the Acharya degree of
Sampurnanand University is equivalent to Acharya
degree of MDU, Rohtak which cannot be said to
be M.A. in Sanskrit. An objection has been raised
that MDU, Rohtak has not been impleaded as a
party respondent in the writ petition and, therefore,
the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
In cases where the petitioners have passed their
Acharya from
KUK, the said university has been impleaded as
party respondent. Counsel for the said respondent
submits that initially in the year 1975, the
Academic Council resolved that the examination of
M.A. (Sanskrit) passed from Kurukshetra
University, Kurukshetra, is equal to Acharya of
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi, provided
that the candidates pass the subject of English of
B.A. and it was also decided that Acharya
examination from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan,
New Delhi is equal to Acharya examination of KUK
and not equivalent to M.A. course. This letter was
conveyed on 30.08.1993 which was duly approved
by the Academic Council of the University on
08.10.1993. Even the list of equivalence of
examinations/degrees/diplomas as corrected upto
2.08.2011 issued by the KUK, Acharya degree from
Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi, has been
treated to be equal to that of the Acharya of KUK.
He contends that
there is no decision declaring Acharya of
Kurukshetra University equal to that of M.A.
Sanskrit.
Counsel for the State has submitted that the
decision of the
Government of India on which reliance has been
placed by the counsel for the petitioners in the
cases where petitioners passed their Acharya from
KUK, dated 23.01.1964 as also the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramphalit Vyakaran Acharya's case (supra) would
not apply to the case in hand as the new
statutory rules have come into force whereas the
specific qualification has been prescribed without
any equivalence clause. On this ground also the
judgment passed by the Court in Ravinder
Kumar's case (supra ) would not be applicable.
I have heard the submissions made by the
counsel for the
parties and with their assistance have gone
through the record of the cases. The qualifications
prescribed in the advertisement and the 2012
Rules are identical for appointment to the post of
PGT Sanskrit. The same read as follows:-
“M.A. Sanskrit with at least 50% marks and B.Ed.
from recognized University."
There is no equivalence clause mentioned therein
and the qualifications are clear and specific i.e.
M.A. Sanskrit with at least 50%
marks. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in
Som Dutt Vs. State of Haryana & another, 1983
(3) SLR 141 wherein it has been held that it is the
prerogative of the employer to provide for the
qualifications for appointment to the post and it
can insist upon the qualifications so prescribed
under the statutory rules. If no equivalence clause
has been provided under the Rules and the
qualifications are clear and specific, the
equivalence or otherwise of the qualification
possessed by a candidate cannot be taken into
account. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
action of the respondents in insisting upon the
statutory qualification prescribed in
the Rules applicable to the post in question
cannot be insisted upon by the respondents.
Since, Acharya is not a prescribed qualification
under the statutory rules nor is there any
equivalence clause, the claim of the petitioners
cannot be accepted.
That apart, although the petitioners in cases
where they have
passed their Acharya from Sampurnanand
University, which is a State
University and recognized by the UGC, but the
qualifications possessed by the petitioners are not
the same as has been provided under the
statutory rules. Even the recognition/equivalence
list of the MDU or the KUK do not, in any of them,
recognize or declare it to be equivalent to M.A.
Sanskrit except that the Acharya possessed by the
petitioners is equal to that of Acharya of the
concerned University but that would not entitle the
petitioners to be declared as possessing
qualifications of M.A. in Sanskrit.
There is nothing on the record to suggest that
M.A. in Sanskrit of MDU or KUK is accepted as
equal to that of Acharya of these very universities,
rather the stand of KUK in the reply filed by them
is that M.A. in Sanskrit of KUK is not equal to
that of Acharya of the same University.
As regards the claim of the petitioners that this
Court in its
judgment in Ravinder Kumar's case (supra) has
held that Acharya degree is equal to that of M.A.
Sanskrit also cannot be accepted in the light of
the fact that the statutory rules governing the
service i.e. the 2012 Rules have come into
existence which is subsequent to the judgment
passed by this Court.
The ground taken by the respondents in Ravinder
Kumar's case (supra) where the petitioner had
successfully competed for the post and even
selected was that the Acharya degree possessed
by the petitioner was not equivalent to M.A. It is
not a position in the present case as it is not
reflected therein whether the equivalent
qualification was permissible or not. Similar was
the position in Ramphalit Vyakaran Acharya's case
(supra) where again it appears that the equivalent
qualification was acceptable and, therefore, the
degree of Acharya was treated as equivalent to
that of M.A.
Reliance upon the Central Government letter dated
21.11.1990
issued by the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions
(Department of
Personnel & Training, New Delhi, to contend that
the Acharya degree is equivalent to the M.A.
degree, cannot be pressed into service to the
benefit of the petitioners as it is the right, privilege
and prerogative of the employer to accept a
particular qualification as equivalent or not. In any
case, in the present case, there is no question of
treating an equivalent qualification when there is
no such discretion provided for under the statutory
rules. The qualification under the statutory rules
being clear and specific i.e. M.A. Sanskrit with at
least 50% marks, the Court cannot import such a
condition/qualification which would make the
candidate possessing an
equivalent degree eligible for appointment when
the statutory rules do not permit so. In any case,
the letter dated 21.11.1990 issued by the
Department of the Central Government which is
not ipso facto applicable. There is no decision of
the State of Haryana adopting the said letter.
In view of the above, finding no merit in these writ
petitions, the same stand dismissed.
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
JUDGE
January 20, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment