Posted: 22 Apr 2013 06:39 AM PDT
CWP No.9925 of 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.9925 of 2005
Date of Decision: 9.03.2010
Hawa Singh &Ors. ......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors. ….Respondents
Coram:- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma,
Present: Mr. G.K. Chatrath Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Vikas Chatrath & Ms. Alka Chatrath,Advocates,
for the petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Ghangas, Additional AG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
---
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
Digest?
---
VINOD K. SHARMA, J .
This judgment shall dispose of:
1. CWP No.9925 of 2006, Hawa Singh &Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
2. CWP No.11351 of 2005, Jai Bhagwan &Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.CWP No.9925 of 2005 2
3. CWP No.9986 of 2005, Hoshiar Singh &Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
4. CWP No.15666 of 2006, Padam Kumar &Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
5. CWP No.16649 of 2007, Ranbir Singh &Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
6. CWP No.18144 of 2006, Krishan Kumar &Ors. Vs.State of Haryana & Ors.
7. CWP No.5330 of 2007, Anand Parkash & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
8. CWP No.6148 of 2007, Satbir Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
9.CWP No.1519 of 2009, Diwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
10. CWP No.9428 of 2006, Joginder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
11. CWP No.13348 of 2009, Ravi Bhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
12. CWP. Os.440 of 2007, Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
13.CWP No.409 of 2007, Balbir Singh & Ors. Vs.State of Haryana & Ors.
14.CWP No.598 of 2007, Rajpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
15.CWP No.637 of 2007, Dilbagh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
16.CWP No.761 of 2007, Rajinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
17.CWP No.828 of 2007, Satish Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
18.CWP No.4169 of 2007, Ram Kumar & Anr.& Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
19.CWP No.15403 of 2007,Balwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
20.CWP No.2337 of 2005, Ram Kumar & Ors. & Ors. Vs.State of Haryana & Ors.
21.CWP No.15371 of 2006, Karamvir & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
22.CWP No.16055 of 2006, Baljit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
In CWP Nos. 9925, 11351 and 9986 of 2005, 15666 of 2006,
16649 of 2002, 18144 of 2006, 5330 and 6148 of 2007, 9428 of 2006 and
13348 of 2009, the petitioners have challenged their termination.CWP No.9925 of 2005 3
In CWP Nos.2337 of 2005 and 1537, 16055 and 15371 of
2006, the petitioners who have been selected for appointment have not been
given appointment letter, therefore, the petitioners seek writ of mandamus
seeking direction to the respondents to allow them to join duty in pursuance
to their selection.
In CWP Nos.440, 409,598, 637, 761, 828, 4169 and 15403 of
2007 the petitioners well permitted to be interviewed but their result of
interview has not been declared.
The controversy involved in these writ petitions is as to
whether the “Unit Education Instructor Course” undertaken by the
petitioners from the Army Educational Corps Training College and Center,
Panchmarhi (hereinafter referred as Training College) can be treated to be
equivalent to J.B.T., so as to hold the petitioners eligible for appointment as
JBT teacher in the State of Haryana.
For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from CWP
No.9925 of 2005. The petitioners in the writ petition were appointed as
Junior Basic Training teachers, on the recommendation of Haryana Staff
Selection Commission, but their services were terminated vide order dated
2.6.2005, which reads as under:-
“The order passed by the Director, Primary Education, Haryana
issued vide No.16/27-01 Estt-II (I) dated 15.6.2001 on the
basis of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2988/2001- Prem Singh Vs.
Haryana State, and the directions issued to all the DistrictCWP No.9925 of 2005 4
Primary Education Officers vide order No.16/27-2001 Estt-II
(I) dated 13.8.2001 and keeping in view the instructions issued
vide order No.20/11-2004 Estt.II(4) dated 3.3.2005, those Exservicemen, who have been appointed on the posts of JBT
Teachers and who are possessing the Unit Education Instructor
Training Certificates which is of 3 months duration, is not
equivalent to 2-years JBT/D.Ed course of Haryana State. The
JBT Teachers with the following description working under
this office also come within this purview:-
Sr. No. Name and Father's
Name
Roll No. Eligibility.
1
Sh. Pardeep Kumar
s/o Shri Ami Lal,
Vill. Dadot
(Mahendergarh)
presently working in
Govt. Primary
School, Dadot 3889
Matric, U.E.I.
Diploma and
Graduation
Certificate from
Military.
2
Shri Suraj Pal s/o
Sh. Narain Singh
Vill. Pota,
(Mahendergarh)
presently working in
Govt. Primary
School, Kheri
Talwana. 6717
B.A.-I, U.E.I.
Diploma and
Graduation
Certificate from
Military
3
Shri Hoshiar Singh
s/o Sh. Banwari Lal
Village Ahmedawas,
PO Bisalwas, Teh.
Loharu (Bhiwani)
Presently working in
GPS Dhani Jajma. 11464
10+2 (open) UEI
Diploma and
Graduation
Certificate from
Military.
While affording opportunity of hearing to the aforementioned
JBT Teachers, they were issued notice vide office orderCWP No.9925 of 2005 5
No.District/JBT-05/05/4110, 4116 and 4126 dated 15.4.2005 to
produce the proof in this regard and explain the position. In
pursuance to this notice, all the JBT Teachers while submitting
their reply personally, vide their letter dated 2.5.2005, only
produced the certificates of the above said qualification, but no
such proof was produced to the effect of
equivalence/recognition of Unit Education Instructor with 2
years diploma of JBT/D.Ed from Haryana State. In these
circumstances the aforementioned JBT Teachers are not eligible
to continue in Govt. Job. I have examined the facts thoroughly
from which it is clear that these teachers do not have anything
in their defence. Therefore, keeping in view the decisions of the
Hon'ble High Court, I hereby pass the order to terminate the
services of the aforementioned teachers from the post of JBT
Teachers with immediate effectDated 24.5.2005 Sd/- (Vikas Gupta) IAS
Addl. Deputy Commissionercum-Chief Executive Officer,
Zila Parishad, Narnaul.”
The petitioners in these writ petitions joined the defence forces,
after completing their 10+2 from Haryana School Education Board. During
the course of their employment with the army, they were deputed to
“Instructor Training Course”, conducted by the Training College. All the
petitioners successfully completed their course and were issued necessaryCWP No.9925 of 2005 6
certificates. Certificate issued to one of the petitioners reads as under:-
“Serial No.XII/13 In lieu of IAFX-1952
ARMY EDUCATION CORPS TRAINING COLLEGE AND
CENTRE
INSIGNIA
Number 287838 Rank RFN Name Rajinder Parsad
Unit: Raj. Rif. C/o 56 APO has attended the Unit Education
Instructor's Course. Serial No.UEI-103 held from 07 Sep.,
87 to 12 Dec., 87 at this Training College and Centre and
has obtained grading 'AX' vide SAO 4/S/78.
Special Remarks:
Sd/- Sd/-
Officer Incharge Course Lt.Col.
Panchmarhi, Dated 28 Dec. 87 Instructor Class A
AEC Training College &
Centre for Commandant.”
In order to provide opportunities to the discharged/retired army
officials, Central as well as State Governments have been framing rules and
issuing instructions from time to time for their absorption in Civil
Services, further in order to make them eligible to compete for the posts,
the courses undertaken by the defence officials, during their service are
given equivalence, for appointment to the post in civil services. Equation of
the post is guided by the following principles:-
“i) Job contents of trades in the Army.
ii) Nature, type and length of training received by Army
personnel.CWP No.9925 of 2005 7
iii) Education and technical attainment of Army personnel.
iv) Occupational suitability of Army tradesmen for particular
civil occupation and employability in civilian trades.
v) Aspirations of army personnel in view of their rank and
position in the army.”
The Director General of Employment and Training, Ministry of
Labour, Government of India prepared a directory of Equation of service
Trades with Civil Trades. The Directory has been prepared to identify
various trades, in the Armed forces, holder of which is eligible to be
appointed after demobilization. The list has been prepared, with an object to
help the ex-servicemen to apply for different posts on the basis of service
rendered in the Armed Forces. Govt. Of India has been preparing directory
since 1945. The Govt. has been including various trades in the directory.
The Directory is aimed to help the Employment Exchanges in the country.
The directory includes most of the trades, but is not exhaustive list, because
with the change of time, new occupations and new trades are introduced in
the defence services, so it is revised from time to time for civil equivalence
of the army trades.
The latest directory was issued in 1986. Under the said
Directory, Education Instructors' course has been equated with School
Teacher Trade which reads as under:-CWP No.9925 of 2005 8
Trade/Group/Branch/
Occupational Note
Qualificatio
ns
NCD
Code
No.
Civil Trade
Equivalent.
Instructor AEC (AEC)
Instructs and origanises
classes for Army Ist
Class Certificate of
Education, Army 2
nd
Class English
Certificate and Hindi in
Army 3
rd
Class
Certificate of
Education. Is qualified
in methods of
instruction, Teachers
Mathematics, Science,
History, Geography,
Citizenship, Hindi,
English and map
reading to soldiers.
Recruits and
transfers
from other
arms/services
:Education .
Army Special
Class
Certificate or
Matriculation
152.10
153.10
193.60
Middle School
Teacher Primary
School Teacher
P.T. Instructor
Central Government has further, framed the rules known as ExServicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules,
1979. Under these Rules, it has been provided that an ex-servicemen who
has put in not less than 15 years of service in the armed forces of the Union,
can be considered eligible for appointment to the post, for which essential
qualification prescribed is graduation. The petitioners, therefore, claimed
that their qualification is equivalent to graduation. Rule 6 and 6-A of the
rules reads as under:-
“6. Special Provision regarding education qualification:
(1) For appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group 'D'
posts, every Ex-servicemen who has put in not less than three
years' service in the Armed Forces of the Union shall be
exempt from the minimum education qualification, if any,CWP No.9925 of 2005 9
prescribed in respect of such posts.
(2) For appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group 'C'
posts, the Appointing Authority may, at its discretion, relax the
minimum education qualification, where such qualification
prescribed is a pass in the Middle School Examination or any
lower examination, in favour of Ex-servicemen who have put
in at least three years' service in the Armed Forces of the Union
and who are otherwise considered fit and suitable for
appointment to such posts, in view of their experience and
other qualifications.
(3) For appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group 'C'
posts, to be filled partly by direct recruitment and partly by
promotion or transfer, where the minimum education or
technical qualification prescribed for appointment by direct
recruitment is higher than that prescribed for promotees or
transferees, an Ex-Serviceman shall be deemed to satisfy the
prescribed educational or technical qualification, if he,-
(i) satisfies the education or technical qualification
prescribed for direct recruitment to the post from which
promotion or transfer to the post in question is allowed;
and
(ii) has identical experience of work in a similar discipline
and for the same number of years in the Armed Forces of
the Union, as prescribed for promotees or transferees.CWP No.9925 of 2005 10
(4) For appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group 'C'
posts, a matriculate Ex-serviceman (which term includes an exserviceman, who has obtained the Indian Army Special
Certificate of Education or the corresponding certificate in the
Navy or Air Force), who has put in not less than 15 years of
service in the Armed Forces of the Union may be considered
eligible for appointment to the posts for which the essential
educational qualification prescribed is graduation and where,
(a) work experience of technical or professional nature is
not essential; or
(b) through non-technical professional work experience is
prescribed as essential, yet the Appointing Authority is
satisfied that the ex-serviceman is expected to perform
the duties of the post by undergoing on the job training
for a short duration.
(5) For appointment to any reserved vacancy in Group 'C'
and Group 'D' posts, where the prescribed minimum education
qualification is matriculation, the appointing Authority may, at
his discretion relax the minimum educational qualification in
favour of an ex-serviceman who has passed the Indian Army
Class-I Examination or equivalent examination in the Navy or
the Air Force and who has put in at least 15 years of service in
the Armed Forces of the Union and other qualifications.
Explanation- For the purposes of this rule, in computing theCWP No.9925 of 2005 11
period of three years' service, there shall be added any period of
service which an ex-serviceman has rendered while serving in a
corresponding post or posts in a civil department, or a Public
Sector Undertaking or an autonomous organization, whether
under the Central Government or any State Government, or in a
Nationalized Bank to the period of service rendered in the
Armed Forces of the Union.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S ORDERS
(1) Relaxation of educational qualifications for entry into
service in sub-rule (4) and (5) also applies for promotion. - It is
clarified that the relaxation of education qualification granted
to Ex-Servicemen for entry into services envisaged in sub- rules
(4) and (5) of Rule 6 above, shall also apply for the purpose of
promotion to the higher grade.
6-A Lower Standard for Selection
In the case of direct recruitment, if sufficient number of
candidates belonging to the ex-servicemen are not available on
the basis of general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved
for them, candidates belonging to the category of exservicemen may be selected under a relaxed standard of
selection to make up the deficiency in the reserved quota
subject to the condition that such relaxation will not affect the
level of performance by such candidates.”
As already mentioned above the petitioners in CWP No.9925CWP No.9925 of 2005 12
of 2005 Hawa Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others and in
other connected cases were treated, to be qualified by the Haryana
Subordinate Service Selection Board, for appointment as JBT Teachers and
were appointed in the Primary Schools, in pursuance to their selection.
A notification dated 10.8.2005 was issued by the Haryana
Government, vide which functional control of primary schools which was
transferred to Zila Parishad/Municipalities, was rescinded and the schools
were taken over by the State Government. In the notification while taking
over the schools, it was provided as under:-
“1. All actions taken by the respective Zila Parishad and
Municipalities till the issue of this notification, as per provision
of the notification dated 30. March 2001 will be valid for all
intents and purpose.
2. Immovable/Moveable assests and liabilities vested in the Zila
Parishad/Municipalities are re-vested back with Education
Department. Any additional assets or liabilities created while
Government Primary Schools were under the functional control
of the Zila Parishad/Municipalities will also vest in the
Education Department with immediate effect.
3. The services of JBT teachers of Education Department which
were placed at the disposal of the Zila Parishads/municipalities
will be taken back in Education Department and orders of
declaring this cadre as a diminishing cadre is rescinded.
4. All the JBT teachers recruited by the Department andCWP No.9925 of 2005 13
Panchayats Department/Zila Parishads, will be merged in the
cadre of JBT teachers of the Education Department, subject to
the following terms and conditions, and on such JBT teachers
giving an affidavit to the extent that such terms and conditions
are acceptable to them. The terms and conditions on which the
JBT teachers will be merged in the Education Department are
as follows:-
(i) Those Primary school teachers who are 10+2 and not
Graduate (which is the present prescribed qualification)
should complete graduation within a period of 5 years. If
they fail to do so their services would be liable to be
dispensed with thereafter.
(ii) They should pass a test to be conducted by the Education
Department. If they fail to do so their services would be
liable to be dispensed with thereafter.
(iii) The Police verification and Medical check up would be
got done as required for new appointments to
Government service.
(iv) The genuineness of the certificate of education
qualification would be got verified from the concerned
University/Board of Education.
(v) Such teachers working in the districts would be absorbed
in the Government Schools in the respective district, as
JBT Teachers are borne on the district cadre. WhileCWP No.9925 of 2005 14
doing so their present inter-se seniority would be
protected.
(vi) After such teachers fulfill condition (ii), (iii) and (iv)
above they will be treated as new entrants in the
Education Department from the date of issuance of
notification and placed in the pay scale as applicable to
the teachers recruited by the Government and governed
by the Primary Education (Group-C) District Cadre
Service Rules, 1994.”
It would be clear from the impugned order, that the petitioners
were not found eligible, to hold the post, therefore, the order was passed to
terminate their services.
The State of Haryana issued instructions on 15.9.1988
regarding giving of recognition to Military Qualification (Military Trades)
as equivalent to the civil trades, as enshrined in the booklet for the
purpose of recruitment to civil posts. The instructions issued read as
under:-
“ I am directed to invite yours attention, on the subject
noted above, and to say that the matter of treating military
trades as equivalent to civil trades, for the purpose of
appointment in civil posts, was under consideration of the
Haryana Govt. for some time, and after consideration the Govt
has decided that the trades of all ex-servicemen in differentCWP No.9925 of 2005 15
forces would be considered as equivalent of civil jobs as
mentioned in the booklet for the purposes of appointment in
civil posts.
CC: a) Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. Of
Haryana, Revenue Deptt. Chandigarh.
b) All the Administrative Secretaries, Govt, of
Haryana, Chandigarh.
Sd/- Under Secretary, Education
For Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. Of Haryana, Education
Deptt.”
On 18.3.1975 State of Haryana issued instructions regarding
recognition of qualifications for appointment. Instructions issued on
18.3.1975 read as under:-
“Subject: Regarding recognition to various qualifications for
appointment.
Sir,
It is informed by inviting your attention on the subject
noted above that the Government had been considering to
change in the present policy of recognizing various
qualifications. Now the Government has taken following
decisions:CWP No.9925 of 2005 16
i) The degree and diplomas etc recognized by the
Government of India, shall be recognized by the Government
of Haryana.
ii) The degrees and diplomas etc issued by the
recognized Universities and High/Higher Secondary Board
established by the State shall be recognized ipso-facto.
iii) Besides it, if any reference has been received from
some other State Government regarding rest of
degrees/diplomas, that shall be inspected and these
diploma/degrees etc. shall be recognized only on reciprocal
basis.
iv) Besides it, requests for granting recognition are
being made from some such institutions which do not fall in
any of the three categories, and these institutions are mainly
being run in the subject of music and art etc, and some have
already been recognized. No general policy can be made
regarding degrees/diplomas given by these institutions. If there
is any such request, it can be considered on the merits.
In the above decisions, Universities shall mean such
recognized Universities which:-
1. Have been incorporated by the law in any State of India.
2. In the case of certificate, diplomas and degrees conferred
as a result of examination held before 15
th
August, 1947,CWP No.9925 of 2005 17
Punjab, Sind or Dacca Universities.
3. Any other University which is declared by the
Government to be recognized.
But if the State Government de-recognizes or derecognized, any degree of any University, that degree shall not
be deemed to be recognized until the Government does not take
an independent decision about it.
If any department of other State awards such
certificates/diploma, on the basis of any kind of examination,
which makes one eligible for appointments, and it requests for
giving recognition to that certificate/diploma for the purpose of
appointment shall compare the period, eligibility and syllabus
etc. of such degree of other State with the degree used by our
State. Thereafter, if it comes to a conclusion that there is no
objection in granting recognition, on reciprocal basis to the
degree of other State equivalent to such degree, it may make
due recommendations to the Education Department so that
necessary action may be taken on it.”
The case of the petitioners is that course undertaken by the
petitioners at Training College, has been declared equivalent to JBT
certificate by the Madhya Pradesh Government. The letter issued by the
State of Madhya Pradesh in this regard reads as under:CWP No.9925 of 2005 18
“No.F 52/25/2000/C-3/38
To
The Principal,
UEC Training College and Centre,
Pachmarhi (MP)
Sub: Regarding recognition of UEI course equivalent to JBT
Certificate.
Keeping in view the decision taken by the General Body
in its meeting dated 29.5.2000, the UEI course conducted by the
AEC Training College, Pachmarhi is declared equivalent to the
JJBT certificate.
(As per Orders)
Sd/-
Officer on Special Duty,
Higher Education Department”
The Adjutant General Branch of the Army addressed a letter to
the Secretary Rajya Sainik Board Panchkula, conveying that the course
undertaken by the petitioners has been declared equivalent to JBT teacher
and has been so recognized by Barkatullah University.
The letter issued by the Adjutant General Branch reads as
under.
“Telephone: 23012662 Adjutant General Brach.
CW-5, Room No. 404,
Sena Bhawan, A Wing
Army Headquarters
DHQ PO New Delhi-II
20 April 2004
B/47004/EQT/12/CW-5CWP No.9925 of 2005 19
Secretary,
Rajya Sainik Board,
Sainik Bhawan, Sector 12,
Panchkula (Haryana),
Equation of Service Trade with Civil Trades
1. Reference your letter No. 31/4/2003-4D-II dated 10 Mar
2004.
2. Diploma in teaching is awarded by AEC Training College
and Centre, Panchmarhi which is an autonomous college of
Barkatullah University, which is a Member of the Association
of Indian universities (AIU) has automatic reciprocal
recognition from other universities.
3. A copy of Department of Higher Education, Govt. Of
Madhya Pradesh letter No. F/52/25/2000/C-3/38 dated 4/7/2000
is also enclosed herewith.
(P. Rana)
Col.
Dir. CW-5
Encl: (One)
For Adjutant General”
The matter regarding recognition as JBT Teacher was further
conveyed by the ACE Training College and Centre, Panchmarhi. Letter
issued by the Registrar reads as under:
“ACE TRAINING COLLEGE AND CENTRE,
PANCHMARHI (MP)
(An Autonomous College of Barkatulla VishwavidyalayaBhopal)CWP No.9925 of 2005 20
Major VK Sharma
STD) 07578
Telephone (Mil) 252206, 25228
252245, 252246 (S E A L )
Extn- 210/221
(Civ)- 252948(0) Panchmarhi (MP)-461881
20 NOV, 2004
21071/UEI/109/CI
No. 1085831K
Ex LD (TS)
Ramesh Kumar
S/o Shri Chander Bhan
Vill/P.O. Mehan,
Distt. Rohtak (Haryana)
RECONGNITION OF UNIT EDUCATION COURSE CERTIFICATE
1. Reference to your application dated 19 Nov. 2004.
2. It is intimated that ACE Training College and Centre, Panchamarhi
is an Autonomous College affiliated to Barkatullah University,
Bhopal. The Unit Education Instructor Course is equivalent to
Junior Basic Teaching (JBT) Teacher in Civil & the same is
recognized by MP State Govt.
Sd/- (V.K. Sharma)
Major,
Registrar,
For Commandant
Mr. G.K Chatrath, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of petitioners by referring to the letters referred to above, and also with
reference to instructions of the State Government vehemently contended
that the course undertaken by the petitioners is to be treated equivalent to
JBT Teachers, therefore, the impugned order of termination of the
petitioners cannot be sustained, as the petitioners were wrongly held to be
not eligible, to hold the post.
In support of this contention reliance was placed on theCWP No.9925 of 2005 21
Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar and
others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2007 (1) SCT 612, wherein this
Court laid down as under:-
“4. According to the instructions issued by the respondentstate on 18.3.1975 (Annexure P.6) all those degrees and
diplomas which have been awarded by the recognized
Universities and by the Boards established by the State
Government for High/Higher Secondary, were ipso facto
recognized. It has further been provided that those degrees
and diplomas which are recognized by the Government of
India are deemed to be recognized by the Government of
Haryana. The afore-mentioned instructions have been
reiterated again by another set of instructions issued on
2.11.1999 by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to
Government Haryana, Education Department. Those
instructions have been placed on record in a connected writ
petition namely CWP No. 12187 of 2006 as Annexure P.18.
Even otherwise we find that once the University Grant
Commission has accepted the qualification which is
recognized as a deemed University then it would not be
within the competence of respondent state to refuse
recognition of such qualification. This question has
repeatedly been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
numerous Judgments. In the case of University of Delhi v.CWP No.9925 of 2005 22
Raj Singh, 1995(1) SCT1 (SC): AIR 1995 SC 336 certain
qualifications for appointment of Lecturer were laid down by
the University Grants Commission (Qualifications required
of a person for appointment to the teaching Staff of a
University and Institutions affiliated to it), Regulations,
1991. The University of Delhi refused to accept those
regulations as binding by arguing that various provisions of
Delhi University Act, 1922 grant them autonomy. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 3 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956 along with
Sections 12A(2) and Section 26(1)(c) came to the conclusion
that the regulations were binding on the University. The
conflict which was sought to be brought before Hon'ble the
Supreme Court by arguing that the Delhi University Act has
granted complete autonomy to them has been resolved by
referring to entry 66 in List 1 of Seventh Schedule.
6. On the basis of principle as well as precedent mentioned
above, it must be concluded that a diploma certificate issued
by a deemed university like Rajasthan Vidya Peeth has to be
held as valid because the University Grant Commission vide
its notification dated 19.8.2003 has conferred upon
Rajasthan Vidya Peeth, Udaipur, the status of deemed
University under Section 3 of the 1956 Act. Once it is so,
then the respondent-State or any of its agencies cannot beCWP No.9925 of 2005 23
permitted to de-recognize such degree or diploma, because
such an action on their part would be repugnant to the
provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. We
are further of the view that the argument of the learned State
counsel that only those certificate courses are accepted by
the respondent-state which are from an institution approved
by the Haryana Government cannot be accepted as it would
amount to keeping out of eligible candidates merely because
they have obtained their qualifications from a University or
an Institution out side the State of Haryana. However, such
a course would not be available to the respondent-State
because other institutions located in the country have been
conferring the similar type of diploma certificates which are
in no way inferior to the one approved by the respondentstate. As per their own instructions dated 18.3.1975 all those
degrees and diplomas which have been awarded by the
recognized universities and by the Boards established by the
State Government for high/higher secondary were ipso facto
recognized. The instruction further provided that those
degrees and diplomas which are recognized by the
Government of India are deemed to be recognized by the
respondent-state. There is nothing contrary in the
instructions issued on 2.11.1999 and therefore, the diploma
certificate issued by the Rajasthan Vidya Peeth must beCWP No.9925 of 2005 24
recognized as a requisite qualification fulfilling the
requirement of multipurpose health workers training course
as postulated by the advertisement dated 7.5.2006.
7. In view of the above, order dated 16.7.2006 (Annexure P-
3) issued by respondent No. 3 is herby quashed. The
multipurpose health workers training course of 18 months
conferred upon the petitioner by Janardan Rai Nagar
Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur, a deemed university
(Annexure P-2) is declared to be valid diploma. As the
Petitioner No. 4 has secured more marks than the last
selected candidate, the respondents are directed to appoint
him on the post of multipurpose health worker (Male) in
general category with effect from the date other persons in
his category has been appointed. The petitioners shall be
entitled to all consequential benefits except arrears of pay.
The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period
of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
Reliance in support was also placed on the judgment of this
court in the case of Hari Kishan Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (1) SCT 224.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners raised an additional
plea, that even if for the sake of arguments it is taken that the petitioners
did not fulfill the qualification, in that event also, services of the petitioners
could not be terminated as under Rule 6-A as the essential qualifications inCWP No.9925 of 2005 25
case of ex-servicemen could be relaxed. The petitioners having been
selected and appointed, therefore, would be deemed to have been appointed
by relaxing of qualification. There was, thus, no justification, whatsoever, to
terminate the services of the petitioners.
In support of this contention learned senior counsel for the
petitioners referred to Rule 6-A reproduced above.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance
on the judgment of this court in CWP No.12420 of 2003 titled Union
Territory, Chandigarh Vs. Daljit Singh Duhan & Ors. decided on
12.08.2003, wherein the order passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh, was upheld wherein the qualification of the
petitioners was held to be equivalent to JBT. The order passed by the
Division Bench of this court reads as under:-
“ Prayer made by the applicants in Original Application
No.1038/CH/2002 with regard to treating the diploma in
teaching granted by ACC Training College & Centre
Panchmarhi (M)) equivalent to the Diploma/Certificate in
Basic Teacher Training or JBT Certificate/Diploma has been
accepted by Learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide
impugned judgment rendered by the said Tribunal on 5.3.2003.
It is against this judgment the present petition has been filed.
Equivalent of the two courses, referred to above had
been ordered on the basis of circular issued by the ministry of
Labour Government of India (D.G.E.&T.), in 1985 on theCWP No.9925 of 2005 26
subject of equation of trades of the Indian Armed Forces with
the civil occupation to facilitate registration of Ex-Servicemen
for the purpose of employment as also on the basis of
judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Lajja Ram Bhardwaj
Vs. M.C.Delhi CWP No.6650 of 2001, decided on 12.2.2002.
No. occasion at all arises to interfere with the findings recorded
by learned Central Administrative Tribunal equating the two
courses as referred to above.
No merits.
Dismissed.”
Civil Appeal No.556 of 2007 against the judgment of Division
Bench of this court referred to above was disposed of.
Mr.A.S.Ghangas, learned Additional Advocate General,
Haryana, on the other hand, referred to the Division Bench judgment of this
court in the case of Azad Singh & two others Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors. CWP No.8882 of 1997, wherein this court held that the persons
holding qualifications held by the petitioners could not be considered
eligible for the recruitment as JBT Teacher. The operative part of the
judgment of the Division Bench reads as under:-
“ We have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions
and have carefully perused the record of the case as well as the
Photostat copies of the documents produced by Shri Jaswant
Singh. We have also gone through the Director of Equation ofCWP No.9925 of 2005 27
Service Applicants for employment issued by the Directorate
General of Employment & Training Ministry of Labour,
Government of India.
ii) (E.Q.) The Candidate should have passed JBT (2 years
course)/Diploma in Education (2 years course)/Condensed
Course from Haryana Education Department.
OR
JBT (2 years course) from Jamia Millia University New
Delhi,
Examination of Diploma (2 years course) and whose result is
yet to be declared by the Education. Department/University,
can also apply for the post of JBT Teacher.
However, their selection will be subject to the result of
B.Ed (2 years course) Examination.”
The Certificate issued in favour of the petitioners in lieu of their
having attended the Unit Education Instructor Course is also extracted
below for reference purpose.
“ARMY EDUCATION CORPS TRAINING COLLEGE &
CENTRE
No. 3155849 Rank L/NK Name AZAD SINGH
Unit 5 Jat Regiment C/o 56 APO
attended UNIT EDUCATION INSTRUCTORS COURSE
Serial No. 61 from 17 Sep 73 to 22 December 73 at this
Training College and Centre and is grade by (vide SAOCWP No.9925 of 2005 28
39/S/69). He is fit to teach up to and for Army
Third Class certificate of Education.
(see reverse)
Any special remarks: Nil Sd/- Colonel
Sd/- LT. Col. Attested
Chief Instructor Sd/-
Panchmarhl Dhull N.K
Lecturer HES-II
Govt. College Jind
Assessment
(In accordance with SAO 39/S/69 amended vide AO 440/72)
Grading Marks in Tests Knowledge Symbols
..................... ................... .............................
Minimum in each test Aggregate Knowledge Instruct
..............................
Distingui75%shed 30 to 100% Distinguished (Outstanding
and fit to be an Instructor
Above Average 60 %
50 to 79%
A X
Higher Average 50% 60 to 69% B Y
Average 35 % 46 to 59% C Z
Failed Upto 39%
Annexure P-6 is the letter by which rejection of the candidature
of the petitioners has been conveyed to them on the ground that
they do not possess JBT Diploma from a recognized
institutions. Circular dated 18.3.1975 lays down that the
degrees, Diploma etc. recognized by the Government of India
shall be treated as recognized by the Government of Haryana.
Perusal the memo dated 06.02.1995 (Annexure P-7 to CWPCWP No.9925 of 2005 29
8882 of 1997) and Annexure P-9 show that the candidates
having certificate of Instructor issued by Army Educational
Corps have been treated equivalent to JBT of Haryana, and a
person having Army Certificate Class-II is eligible for
appointment as Teacher upto 7
th
Class. However, none of these
documents shows that the Unit Education Instructors Course
passed by the petitioners has been recognized as equivalent to
Diploma in JBT. In the absence of such recognition, it is not
possible to accept the argument of Shri Arora that the decision
of the Board to reject the candidature of the petitioners is
arbitrary or unjust. The decision taken by the Government of
Haryana regarding the recognition of the Military Trades as
contained in the letter dated 15
th
December, 1988 shows that
the Government of Haryana has recognized the Military Trades
as equal to Civil Trades as indicated in the book-let issued by
the Director of Employment Entry No. 45 of this book-let
which relates to instructors read as under:-
Sr.
No.
Trade/Group/Branch
occupational Note
Qualification NCO
Code
No.
Civil Trade
Equivalent
Remarks
1 2 3 4 5 6
XX XX XX XX XX XXCWP No.9925 of 2005 30
Sr.
No.
Trade/Group/Branch
occupational Note
Qualification NCO
Code
No.
Civil Trade
Equivalent
Remarks
45
Instructor AEC (AEC);
Instructor and organized Classes
for Army 1
st
class Certificate of
Educational, Army 2
nd
Class
English Certificate and Hindi in
Army 3
rd
class certificate of
Education. Is qualified in
methods of instruction, Teaches
mathematics Science, History,
Geography, Citizen-ship, Hindi,
English and map reading to
Soldiers.
Recruits and
transfers from
others
arms/services
Education
Army Special
Class
Certificate or
Matriculation
152.10
153.10
193.60
Middle
School
Teacher
Primary
School
Teacher
P.T
Instructor
From the above extracted portion of book-let it is not possible
to infer that the Unit Education Instructors course has been
recognized by the Government of Haryana for the purpose of
appointment as Teachers.
A Look at the certificate issued in favour of petitionerAzad Singh shows that he had undergone training for a short
period of three months. At present the duration of this course
was one year. Thus, there cannot be any justification to treat
the training course undergone by the petitioners as equivalent
to JBT Diploma. In any case, it is not the function of the court
to declare a particular qualification as recognized even though
the employer has not taken such decision. This issue has been
considered in Director, AIIMS & others V.Dr. Nikhil
Tandon & others: (1996) 7 SCC 741. While accepting the
appeal filed by the employer on the issue of recognition ofCWP No.9925 of 2005 31
qualifications, the Supreme Court observed:-
“The two years” training at the Cambridge University
undergone by the respondent while working for his Ph.D
cannot be treated as a qualification or qualification recognized
as equivalent thereto. It is not mere equivalence that is enough.
It must also be recognized as equivalent Recognized evidently
means recognized by the institute or at least by the Medical
council of India. Admittedly, neither has recognized the said
research work/training for two years in the Cambridge
University as equivalent to DM.”
The Ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
afore mentioned case is directly attracted in the instant case.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
petitioners are not entitled to be considered for recruitment as
JBT Teachers and the decision of the respondent-Board has not
suffer from any error of law.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.”
Learned counsel for the State also placed reliance on the
judgment of this court in the case of Sawarn Singh & Anr. Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors. CWP No.16231 of 2008, wherein the writ petition filed
by the candidates holding qualification similar to the petitioners was not
considered eligible for appointment, was ordered to be dismissed in view of
the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Azad Singh & twoCWP No.9925 of 2005 32
others Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra).
The question raised in the writ petitions is required to be
interpreted by taking into consideration, the fact that the rules for
appointment of ex-servicemen in civil services is a beneficial piece of
legislation, which is required to be interpreted liberally in favour of the exservicemen so as to advance the object of the Rules and Instructions issued,
from time to time.
On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
It may be noticed here that subsequent developments regarding
recognition of qualification of petitioners as equivalent to JBT by
Barkattullah University were not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Single
Judge and it was on account of this that the Hon'ble Single Judge was
pleased to hold that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this court,
there was no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking
equivalence to JBT course.
It may be noticed that Madhya Pradesh Government has
recognized the course undertaken by the petitioners, to be equivalent to
JBT and in pursuance thereto the Adjurant General Branch of Army had
addressed a letter to the Secretary Rajya Sainik Board, Panchkula,
conveying that University of Barkatullah, Bhopal had recognized the Unit
course certificate as equivalent to Junior Basic Teaching (JBT) in civil
services. If this fact of recognition with Madhya Pradesh Government and
University of Barkatullah, Bhopal is taken and read with the DivisionCWP No.9925 of 2005 33
Bench judgment of this court in the case of Manoj Kumar and others
Vs. State of Haryana and others (supra), no other conclusion than the
one, that the course of the petitioners was to be treated to equivalent to
JBT can be arrived at.
The writ petitions filed by the petitioners, also deserves to be
allowed on additional ground also that is under Rule 6-A of the ExServicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules,
1979, there is provision for relaxing the standard of selection to make up the
deficiency in the reserved quota subject to the condition that such relaxation
was not to affect the level of performance on such candidates.
It is not the case of the respondents, that in pursuance to the
selection there was any defect in performance in the duties of the petitioners
when they served in Schools when it was under the control of Zila
Parishad/Municipalities. Therefore, their selection could very well be
protected under Rule 6-A of Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central
Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979.
Consequently, CWP Nos. 9925, 11351 and 9986 of
2005,15666, 16649, 18144 of 2006, 5330 and 6148 of 2007, 9428 of 2006
and 13348 of 2009, are allowed. The impugned order of termination of
services of the petitioners is set aside. The petitioners in these writ
petitions shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits.
For the reasons recorded, CWP Nos.2337 of 2005 and 1537,
16055 and 15371 of 2006, are allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued
directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioners inCWP No.9925 of 2005 34
these writ petitions in pursuance to their selection as JBT Teacher.
For the reasons recorded CWP Nos.440, 409,598, 637,761,
828,4169 and 15403 of 2007, are allowed and a writ or mandamus is issued
directing the respondents to declare the result of interview of the
petitioners for the posts reserved for ex service man by treating them as
qualified for the posts.
No costs.
(Vinod K.Sharma)
9.03.2010 Judge
