Dismissed

Vipin Kumar and 12 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2018WRIA/12183/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses writ petitions filed by candidates seeking appointment as Police Constables. The Court held that certificates from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad do not qualify as equivalent to 10th and 12th standards because the Society is not a legally recognized Board under the State of U.P. laws.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed as petitioners do not possess requisite educational qualification.

Vipin Kumar and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12183 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

And

¶5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12193 of 2018

¶6

Petitioner :- Sumit Kumar And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

And

¶8

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12365 of 2018

¶9

Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶10

And

¶11

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12371 of 2018

¶12

Petitioner :- Satendra Singh And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶13

And

¶14

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12838 of 2018

¶15

Petitioner :- Ronak And 13 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶16

And

¶17

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12990 of 2018

¶18

Petitioner :- Brajendra Kumar And 10 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶19

And

¶20

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13318 of 2018

¶21

Petitioner :- Krashanpal And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others

¶22

¶23

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And

¶24

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14137 of 2018

¶25

Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And

¶26

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14137 of 2018

¶27

Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶28

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶29

Petitioners, in this bunch of petitions, have prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection process undertaken for appointment to the post of Police Constable and Constable in PAC (male), for which advertisement has been issued on 29.12.2015. A total number of 28916 posts have been advertised for the purpose. According to the petitioners, they have applied for appointment to the post and are eligible in terms of the advertisement for appointment but the respondents have illegally prevented them from participation in the recruitment process.

¶30

As per clause 3.2 of the advertisement, educational qualification to be possessed by the applicant is passing of 10^th and 12^th grade examination from a legally established board in India, which is duly recognised or which is equivalent thereto.

¶31

While entertaining the writ petition, time was allowed to the learned Standing Counsel. On the basis of the instructions received, it is contended that the petitioners did not possess requisite educational qualification for appointment to the post in

¶32

¶33

question, inasmuch as petitioners' claim to have passed Prathma and Madhyama (visharad) conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which is not a Board, legally established nor the degrees/ certificates awarded by it is recognised by the State. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 18463 of 2014 ( Smt. Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 13.3.2014.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon an order passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 7523 of 2010 as well as the notification issued by the Government of India on 21.11.2006. The judmgent of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 11.7.2013 is reproduced:-

¶35

“1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-Sh. Yudhvir Singh seeks quashing of the letter dated 28.8.2010 issued by the respondent no.1 denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that Prathma Pariksha certificate of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad obtained by the petitioner is not equivalent to matriculation from a High School.

¶36

Parties in the present petition had an earlier round of litigation and the petitioner succeeded in that litigation being W.P.(C) 125/2010. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 17.3.2010 allowed the writ petition and held as not maintainable the defence of the respondent no.1 that compassionate appointment has to be considered not as per Rules when the employee dies in harness but the rules which are applicable at the time when the compassionate appointment is sought. This judgment has become final and respondent no.1 was to consider compassionate appointment subject to the petitioner having obtained a matriculation certificate in the extended time given by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the circular of the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 26.7.2001, as per which, the Central Government has recognized the Prathama Examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad as equivalent to matriculation. This circular dated 26.7.2001 which was applicable for three years was thereafter continued for three years plus three years vide circulars of Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 14.5.2004 and 21.11.2006. The circulars dated 26.7.2001 and 21.11.2006 read as under:- Circular dated 26.7.2001 “ New Delhi, the 26th July 2001.

¶38

NOTIFICATION(63)No. F.24-4/2001-TS.III. On the recommendation of the High Level Committee for recognition of Educational Qualifications, the Government of India have decided to recognized the Prathama Examination being conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad for the purpose of employment under the central Government for the post for which the desired

¶39

¶40

qualification is a pass in matriculation. The recognition is provisional for a period of 3 years after which the committee will review the recognition granted.”

¶41

Circular dated 21.11.2006 “New Delhi, the 21th November 2006.

¶42

NOTIFICATION No. F.24-4/2001-TS.III. In continuation of this Department’s Notification of even number dated 14.05.2004, the Government of India, on the recommendations of high level Committee in its meeting held on 16.10.2006, has decided to extend the provisional recognition granted to the Prathama Examination being conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, Allahabad for the purpose of employment under the central Government for the post for which the desired qualification is a pass in matriculation for a further period of 3 years from 27.10.2007 to 26.10.2010, after which the Committee will review the recognition granted.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Ravi Mathur) Joint Secretary to the Government of India To The Manager Government of India Press Faridabad No.F.24-4/2001-TSIII New Delhi, the 21st November,2006 Copy forwarded for information to:

¶45

1.All State Governments and Union Territories (Education Department).

¶46

All Regional Offices of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education).

¶47

All Directors of Technical Education.

¶48

Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi.

¶49

Staff Selection Commission, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

¶50

All State Public Service Commission.

¶51

Association of Indian Universities, AIU House, 16, Kotla Marg, New Delhi-2.

¶52

DPIO (Ministry of Human Resource Development)Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶53

All Ministries and Departments of Government of India.

¶54

Chairman, AICTE, IP Estate, New Delhi. 11. Chairman, University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.

¶55

Chairman, Central Board of Secondary Education, 2 Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi.

¶56

Pradhanmantri, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Sammelen Marg, Allahabad 211003.

¶57

Guard file.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(Ravi Mathur) Joint Secretary to the Government of India”

¶60

In para-37 of the writ petition, petitioner has made a specific averment that this circular of the Ministry of Human Resource Development is binding on the respondent no.1 and in reply to this all that respondent on.1 states is that this is a matter of record. Therefore, the respondent no.1 does not dispute that the circulars issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 26.7.2001 and 21.11.2006 are binding on the respondent no.1. I may note that in fact as per the endorsements made in the circular dated 21.11.2006, the said circular has been marked to various bodies including the UPSC, Staff Selection Commission, Chairman; AICTE,

¶61

¶62

Chairman; UGC and Chairman of Central Board of Secondary Education thereby showing the acceptance of the Central Government for the purpose of giving employment of the certificate issued pursuant to the Prathama Examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and that the same will be treated as equivalent to matriculation for the purpose of employment. Whether or not as per law the Prathama Examination of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is or is not equal to a matriculation is not the issue and the issue is that for the purpose of employment this Prathama Examination certificate is theoretically taken as equivalent to matriculation.

¶63

In view of the above, since the petitioner has complied with requirements within the time prescribed by the respondent no.1 and has obtained

¶64

the Prathama Examination certificate conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, petitioner therefore has the necessary qualification for being granted compassionate appointment. I may note that the compassionate appointment in this case is not of an extremely technical post or of a very high post, and the appointment is only to the post of a peon for which the requirement is only of matriculation qualification.

¶65

6.In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and respondent no.1 is directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as a peon within a period of four weeks from today. Parties are left to bear their own costs.”

¶66

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶67

The issue as to whether Prathma and Madhyama certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, is a valid certificate of Class-X^th and XII^th , on the basis of which petitioners could claim to be eligible for appointment to the post of Constable, is therefore, the moot question that requires consideration in the present bunch of writ petitions.

¶68

Clause 3.2 of the advertisement, which prescribes educational qualification for appointment to the post in question reads as under:-

¶69

“3.2शौिककअहरताः-

¶70

भारतमेिविधदारासथािपतबोडरदारा 10 वीएवं 12 वीककाउतीणरया ”

¶71

सरकारदारामानयतापापउसकेसमककअहरताहोनीचािहए।

¶72

The nature and constitution of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, has already been examined by the Apex Court in the

¶73

¶74

case of Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in J.T. 2010 (6) SC 306. In para-43 of the judgment, the Apex Court has been pleased to hold as under:-

¶75

"43. At the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention here that in view of the above, we have reached to the following inescapable conclusions:

¶76

(I) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/Deemed University nor an Educational Board.

¶77

(II) It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. (III) It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda or any other branch of medical field.

¶78

(IV) No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is affiliated to any University/Board.

¶79

(V) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt had ever been made by the Society to get recognition as required under Section 14 of the Act, 1970 and further did not seek modification of entry No.105 in II Schedule to the Act,1970.

¶80

(VI) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has come elementary/basic education or has attended classes in Ayurveda in any recognized college.

¶81

(VII) After commencement of Act,1970, a person not possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice.

¶82

(VIII) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough making him eligible to practice.

¶83

(IX ) The right to practice under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution.

¶84

(X) Restriction on practice without possessing the requisite

¶85

¶86

qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III, & IV to the Act, 1970 is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act."

¶87

The judgment of the Apex Court has been followed by this Court in Manish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2010 (9) ADJ 762, Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2012 (1) ADJ 346 and the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 18463 of 2014 ( Smt. Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others). It has consistently been held that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is not a legally recognised Board nor has been granted any recognition by the State Government.

¶88

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Yudhvir Singh (supra) as well as the notification referred therein. The entire judgment has been reproduced above and it is apparent that the judment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Pradesh (supra) has not been brought to the notice of Delhi High Court. Although reference has been made to a notification dated 21.11.2006, but neither the status/ constitution of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has been examined nor has it been taken note of that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not imparting instructions in any subject nor it is affiliated to any University or Board.

¶89

11.For the purposes of present recruitment, the qualification of 10^th and 12^th standard would require recognition by the State Government. Section 7B of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 otherwise prohibits conferment of unauthorised diplomas and certificates in the State and is reproduced below:-

¶90

“7B. Prohibition of Unauthorised Conferment of

¶91

Diplomas and Certificates . - No person shall confer, grant or issue or hold himself out entitled to confer, grant or issue any diploma or certificate or other document stating or implying that the holder, grantee or recipient has pursued a course of study, in any institution or privately, and has

¶92

¶93

passed the High School or Intermediate Examination or any examination described in a manner reasonably calculated to cause it to be believed to be the High School or Intermediate Examination.”

¶94

In view of the fact that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is merely a society and is not a legally established Board, which otherwise has not been granted recognition by the State of U.P. The petitioners cannot claim to be eligible for the post. Their claim is otherwise hit by the prohibition contained in section 7B of the Act of 1921. The petitioners on the basis of Prathama and Madhyama certificates, cannot claim to be possessing 10^th and 12^th certificates, as being equivalent to High School and Intermediate. The judgment of learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court since fails to take note of the authoritative pronouncement of Apex court on the subject, as such it cannot be relied upon to grant relief to the petitioners.

¶95

Since petitioners do not possess requisite educational qualification required for appointment to the post in question, as such, the action of the respondent authorities in denying consideration to petitioners claim, does not require any interference by this Court.

¶96

Writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

¶97

Order Date :- 12.7.2018 n.u.

Vipin Kumar and 12 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar and 12 Others v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvati Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shyam Deo Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Vivek Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sumit Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others