Adeep Singh vs State and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—By the medium of the writ petition on hand, the petitioner has sought writ of mandamus commanding the official

respondents to appoint the petitioner as Rehbar-e-Taleem teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further made a prayer to quash the order

dated 28.04.2011, which has not been made part of the record. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the Court cannot display indulgence in

absence of the order sought to be quashed, when the same has not been placed on record by the petitioner. It is the cardinal principle of law that

while seeking writ of certiorari the document/order that is sought by the petitioner to be quashed should be placed before the Court. In the instant

case, the same is wanting. Therefore, the writ of certiorari in the circumstances cannot be issued. Apart from the above, precisely, the case of the

petitioner is that being meritorious, he was figuring as per the first panel at serial No. 1. It is contended that thereafter the panel was changed and

the name of respondent No. 6 was recommended.

Respondents have filed the reply and have resisted averments made in the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 5 in their reply have specifically

averred that the certificate obtained by the petitioner from Board of Senior Secondary Education Delhi, is a fake one. It is also averred in the reply

that the petitioner was asked to produce the proof of genuineness of the certificate and was also required to provide the information as to whether

the certificate has been obtained by him from campus or outside the campus, which he failed to respond.

From a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the advertisement notice was issued for engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers in the newly

upgraded Primary Schools to the level of Middle Schools under SSA against the target for the year 2010-11, in District Udhampur, in various

Schools detailed in the advertisement itself. The writ petition at hand is in respect of engagement of RET in Zone Ramnagar, Middle School

Nimbla. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner and respondent No. 6 applied for the post in question.

Respondent No. 6 has also filed a detailed reply in which it is specifically pleaded that the diploma obtained by the petitioner, is not recognized

by the Jammu & Kashmir State Board of School Education and is fake one. Moreso, it is also averred in the reply, that the certificate, of which a

mention is made in the writ petition, has been obtained through distance mode.

I have already dealt with a case titled Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat & others v. State of J&K and others at Srinagar in SWP No. 854/2010 on

12.06.2012, wherein the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi, have clarified the position

regarding the recognition of degrees through distance mode and their acceptance for the purpose of employment/engagement. It is profitable to

extract paragraph 8 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

It is further stated that the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi, have clarified the position

regarding the recognition of academic qualifications acquired through distance mode and their acceptance for the purpose of employment in

Central/State Government services, the relevant paragraph whereof is reproduced as under:

(a) It is upto the concerned academic Institution/University to recognize the qualification including certificate, diploma, degree etc. for the purpose

of academic pursuit i.e. continuing education for acquiring another academic qualification, with it. As regards, recognition of academic qualifications

for the purpose of employment, it is the prerogative of concerned employer to take a view on the recognition of the degree, diploma etc.

This Court in a bunch of writ petitions, the leading case being OWP No. 674/2010 (Reported in 2012 Lab IC (NOC) 414 (J&K) titled

Khurshid Ahmad Sheikh & others v. State of J&K and others decided on 06.06.2012. incidentally, of which I am the author, has held as under:

(8) In their objections, all the respondents in one voice have specifically averred that the Universities from where the petitioners in all the writ

petitions have obtained degrees, are not recognized for offering off-campus courses i.e. distance mode of education.

(9) The stand of the Government of J&K is that degrees obtained through distance mode are not recognized by it. It is averred that the Standing

Committee of Academic Counsel, a statutory body of University of Jammu has resolved it, therefore, is binding.

(10) The University of Kashmir, in its objections, submits that research degrees viz. M. Phil/Ph.D degrees awarded by universities through distance

mode be not entertained/accepted to be valid as the same requires the services of a full-fledged guide at the back of the student pursuing such

course. In support of such contention, the University of Kashmir has placed reliance on a decision taken by its Committee dated 10th April, 2008.

The University goes on to say that since the decision has not been challenged, therefore, the petitions merit to be dismissed on that count also. It is

further contended that University of Kashmir does not give equivalence to the certificates pursued for research programmes, issued by any

university through distance mode, with its corresponding degrees. The reason for not granting equivalence to such certificates is that research

programme has to be imparted in the University campus itself and requires extensive practical work and guidance from guide appointed by the

concerned university for supervision during such research, therefore, it can in no circumstances be imparted though distance mode.

(11) The stand of the UGC and DEC is no different.

In another case, bearing SWP No. 187/2006 of identical nature, titled Bilal Ahmad Najar and others v. State of J&K and others, decided on

27.02.2009, this Court has also held as under:

On consideration of the matter I could not find any ground for admission of the present petition. The petitioner has obtained a degree in distance

education which admittedly is not a recognized degree by the University of Kashmir or by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir as such the

degree obtained by the petitioner cannot be treated as a valid degree insofar as employment in the State is concerned.

It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the degree obtained by the petitioner is through distance education mode it is not in

fact so as the petitioner has attended regular classes at the Kawa Institute of Management. This in my view will not help the petitioner. Admittedly

the degree under the distance education programme by the said Institute or the said University has not till date been recognized either by the

University of Kashmir or by the Government, so the petitioner cannot take benefit of the same.

Learned counsel has further referred to the said (sic) taken by the University of Kashmir wherein the University authorities have stated that the

degree is not recognized by the University for academic purpose and that it is for the State Government to consider it for employment purpose.

The State Government has admittedly not recognized the degree for the purpose of employment as such the petitioner cannot claim any weightage

on the basis of such degree.

In these circumstances this petition is dismissed.

Similarly in another case Abdul Qayoom and others v. State of J&K and Ors. reported in 2012 (3) JKJ 263 [HC], this Court specifically has

held that examination passed from Board of Senior Secondary Examination, New Delhi, by distance mode is not recognized by the State Board of

School Education, therefore, the petitioner is ineligible to compete in selection or engagement of Rehbar-e-Taleem and disentitled to question the

merit panel. It will be useful to reproduce paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgment, which read as under:

The Senior Secondary Examination passed by the petitioner from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi as a student from the

National Public School Khanna (Ludhiana), by distance mode and not as a regular student, would not amount to petitioner's possessing the

qualification of 10+2 as prescribed by the State-respondents, for, the Senior Secondary Examination passed by the petitioner is not shown

recognized by the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the purposes of employment in the State. Even otherwise, the Senior Secondary Examination

passed by the petitioner from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, cannot be equated with the qualification of 10+2 recognized in the

State, for, the instructions imparted by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, are Non-formal self-employment education only, and do

not give any guarantee, for further educational use or job, as is indicated in the Brochure issued by the Board of Higher Education, Delhi.

Another circumstance that supports the respondents' plea petitioner's ineligibility is that the examination cleared by the petitioner from the Board

of the Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, is not stated recognised by the State Board of School Education as completion course for 10+2

programme of the State Board of School Education.

In the aforementioned backdrop and in the totality of circumstances, this writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, merits dismissal. I do so

accordingly. Dismissed along with all connected CMPs. Interim direction shall stand vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.