Arvind Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

S.K. Gangele, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 30.05.2009, Annexure P-1.

There was a post of Panchayat Karmi vacant in Gram Panchayat, Sirmiti, district Morena. Gram Panchayat failed to appoint the Panchayat Karmi. The Collector vide order dated 10.01.2008 directed the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Morena, to appoint a Panchayat Karmi at Gram Panchayat, Sirmiti. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Morena selected Respondent No. 3, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, to the post of Panchayat Karmi and appointed him on the aforesaid post. One Kumari Priyanka Chandela challenged the order of appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Panchayat Karmi before the Commissioner by way of filing an appeal. The Commissioner remanded the matter back to the Collector with a direction to record a finding that whether the qualification of Prathama examination of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent to Class 10 examination or not ? The Collector vide impugned order held that the qualification of Prathma obtained by Respondent No. 3 from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent to Class - 10 and on the basis of aforesaid qualification the appointment of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Panchayat Karmi is as per law.

It is an admitted fact that Respondent No. 3 has been held meritorious on the basis of his qualification of Prathma, which has been obtained by him from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and the Authority has held that it is equivalent to matriculation examination.

The State Government issued circular in regard to appointment of Panchayat Karmi. As per the aforesaid circular, the necessary qualification for a candidate is to have passed High School or 10th Class examination under the 10 + 2 system. The Respondent No. 3 has passed Prathma examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. The General Administration Department vide circular dated 18th September 1973, copy of which has been filed as Annexure R-3, informed all the departments that examination of Prathma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is recognised up to the level of S.L.C. and that too for Hindi level only. It has been specially stated in the circular that the aforesaid qualification is restricted to Hindi level only. It is clear from the aforesaid notification that the examination of Prathma of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad has not been equated with the examination of Class 10 under 10 + 2 system. Apart from this, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 2221, has quoted the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Uma Kant Tiwari and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , wherein the Allahabad High Court has held that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, is a fake institution. Subsequently, the Hon''ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court passed in the case of Umakant Tiwari (supra) and remanded the matter back to the Allahabad High Court and after remand the Allahabad High Court again held the same and dismissed the writ petition. Relevant observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) are as under:

In Uma Kant Tiwari and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has considered the issue at length and came to the conclusion that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad / Prayag were only registered societies and not educational institutions. The said societies had no business to impart education in medical sciences. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was a fake institution whereas Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was recognised only from 1931 to 1967.

In Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1999) AWC 1783: (1999 All L.J. 1756), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a degree / certificate / diploma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag acquired after 1967 was not recognised and those who obtained the same subsequent to 1967 were not entitled to practice medicines.

In Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1999) AWC 1783: (1999 All L.J. 1756), a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered the matter at length along with statutory provisions of the Act, 1970 and came to the conclusion that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad had never been empowered to issue such certificates / degrees. However, certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag were recognised during the period of 1931 to 1967. Thus, any such certificate subsequent thereto could not entitle a person to practice medicine.

In Virender Lal Vaishya v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 (2) Mah. L.J. 64: (2003 Lab I.C. 2820), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was not a recognised University / Board and thus could not award degree, diploma or certificate.

In Charan Singh and Others etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , the Allahabad High Court considered the issue of validity of certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag and came to the conclusion that the said institution had absolutely no authority to confer any degree or diploma of "Vaidya Visharad" and "Ayurved-Ratna" after 1967 and any person who has acquired such certificate after 1967 was not entitled to practice at all.

The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Umakant Tiwari (2003 All LJ 2579) (supra) was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to the High Court to decide afresh in Civil Appeal No. 1453/2004 vide judgment and order dated 25th May, 2007, for the reason that matter had initially been decided by the High Court in 2003 without giving opportunity of hearing to Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad / Prayad.

After remand, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad / Prayag were given notices and were directed to file the counter affidavits. The Court, after hearing all the parties concerned, including Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2009, dismissed the writ petition.

From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not a recognized institution. Apart from this, the certificate of Prathma issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad could not be said to be equivalent to Class - 10 under 10 + 2 system, which is a necessary qualification for the purpose of appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi.

Consequently, the petition of the Petitioner is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.05.2009, Annexure P-1, passed by the Collector is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Morena, to appoint a Panchayat Karmi as per the merits list of the candidates excluding Respondent No. 3. Necessary orders in this regard be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.