Dismissed

Saurabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2019WRIA/737/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that a petitioner holding an 'O' Level Certificate from a degree college, not accredited or recognized by NIELIT, is not entitled to participate in the recruitment for Assistant Accountant post. The impugned notification requiring NIELIT/University certificates was upheld based on prior precedent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed, confirming the petitioner's ineligibility for the selection process.

Saurabh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 737 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Saurabh Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha

¶5

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the Commission.

¶7

The issue raised in this petition stands concluded against the petitioner in light of the decision rendered by this Court in Deepak Pathak Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others, Writ-A No. 27965 of 2018. The order passed therein reads thus:

¶8

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha who appears for the Commission and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶9

The petitioner, who had sought to participate in a recruitment exercise initiated by the respondents for the post of Assistant Accountant, has called in question a notification issued by the Commission on 27 August 2018. The notification principally provides that an applicant must hold an 'O' level certificate issued either by NIELIT or by a University.

¶10

Undisputedly the petitioner has been granted a certificate by R.S.S. Degree College and it is on the strength of this certificate that the petitioner claims that he is entitled to participate in the selection process. The Court however notes that the certificate which is relied upon has neither been issued by NIELIT nor by a University. Learned counsel is also unable to establish that the Degree College had been duly accredited or granted the requisite recognition by NIELIT to either administer this course or to issue the 'O' level certificate.

¶11

Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha learned counsel for the Commission has additionally placed reliance and drawn the attention of the Court to the communication of the Vice Chancellor of the C.S.J.M. University Kanpur dated 27 July 2018 to contend that R.S.S. Degree College was never conferred any authority in law by the University to issue any such certificate in the relevant academic year.

¶12

This Court dealing with the authority of an institution to issue

¶13

¶14

the 'CCC' and the 'O' level certificate had in great detail considered the legal position in Prashant Kumar Jaiswal And 12 Others Vs. State of U.P. And Others 2018 (2) ADJ 633 and held:-

¶15

"The above discussion would establish that there is in place a codified regulatory regime for conferring recognition to certificates, accreditation to institutes working in the field of vocational education. The Qualifications Register recognises the CCC as a valid pan-India qualification granted only by NIELIT or its accredited or recognised centres. It would be therefore wholly incorrect to assume or accept the suggestion of the respondents that the field of computer literacy and the grant of certificates and diplomas in respect thereof is unregulated or that in view thereof any and every certificate could be accepted.

¶16

The dilation on this aspect was required to underline and highlight that there does exist a codified policy dealing with and regulating the grant of degrees/diplomas/certificates of learning and vocational qualification. NIELIT Guidelines evidence a stated and well articulated procedure for establishment, recognition and accreditation of centres of learning and education in computer concepts. It would therefore be incorrect to accept the broad and unsubstantiated contention advanced by the respondents that there is no regulation of computer education at all or that any and every certificate issued by an organisation or entity would suffice. Acceptance of such a submission would clearly be regressive of the existing policy measures adopted by the Union Government to standardise the level of instruction and grant of certificates in vocational education.

¶17

Although Sri Mishra contended that a CCC certificate can be granted by any organisation, this was not backed by any material or evidence. In fact and to the contrary it appears on the basis of the material placed before this Court that a CCC certificate is granted only by NIELIT or centres recognised or accredited to it."

¶18

In view of the above, the Court finds no error in the stipulation as framed by the Commission.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has additionally submitted that the impugned notification amounts to amending the original stipulations which were carried in the advertisement. Referring to the original advertisement it is contended that the same had provided for a candidate to hold a 'O' level certificate from any institution. Reliance was essentially placed on the following clause as it appeared in the advertisement:

¶20

¶21

"1. भारत मे िव ि धधि द्वारा स्थािपित िव ि धश्विधद्यालय से कॉमसर मे स्नातक की उपिािधि अथविधा सरकार द्वारा मान्यता प्राप िव ि धश्विधद्यालय अथविधा संस्थान से एकाउंटेसी मे स्नातकोत्तर िडिप्लोमा।

¶22

2. सरकार द्वारा मान्यता प्राप िकसी संस्थान से कंप्यूटर संचालन मे 'ओ' लेविधल िडिप्लोमा। "

¶23

This Court finds itself unable to sustain this contention since in its considered view the impugned notification is principally clarificatory in nature. The mere mention of the 'O' level certificate being issued by any institution cannot possibly be read to mean an institution which is neither recognised nor accredited by NIELIT which is the essential requirement in law.

¶24

Consequently, the Court finds no merit in the challenge raised. Writ petition is dismissed.”

¶25

In the facts of the present case it is evident that the petitioner holds an “O” Level Certificate issued by the D.A.V. College, Civil Lines, Kanpur. This certificate has neither been issued by the NIELIT nor by a university established by law as was clarified by the Commission in its notification dated 27 August 2018.

¶26

Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed.

¶27

Order Date :- 18.1.2019 Arun K. Singh

¶28

(Yashwant Varma, J.)

Saurabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheikh Subhan and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Sonam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sharmila Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ketoki Ranjan Nath Vs Union of India and Another

Hemlata Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Dhayani Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others