Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—Seeking issuance of writ of certiorari, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 20.8.1996 (Annexure P-7) vide which charge-sheet was issued and order dated 10.10.1996 (Annexure P-9) whereby the Enquiry Officer for holding the departmental enquiry was appointed. Having joined respondent No. 3 as a Clerk on 31.12.1984, the petitioner passed diploma course of Sanitary Inspector on 14.8.1992 and was promoted as Sanitary Inspector. Later on, on complaint made by his colleagues to the effect that certificate of the petitioner regarding Diploma Course of Sanitary Inspectors was bogus, after preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charges against the petitioner. Vide order of 10.12.1996 issuing notice of motion, further proceedings in the enquiry were ordered to be stayed by this Court which interim order was allowed to continue till further orders in subsequent orders passed by this Court. Though the respondents appeared, giving liberty to move for expeditious hearing of the case to them, the petition was admitted vide subsequent order of 18.2.1998. Finding no ground to vacate the interim order passed earlier, directions were issued to post the main case for hearing within six months.

Claim of the respondents right from the very start is that proceedings launched against the petitioner are only at initial stage and thus, there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner. Explaining the entire matter, it has been averred that the institute from which the petitioner had allegedly passed the diploma course was neither a University nor even a Deemed University and the University Grants Commission, New Delhi in their communication of 3.3.1997 (Annexure R-1) had clarified that it was a fake institution functioning in violation of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. In short, it was claimed that in view of the fact that alleged diploma had been obtained by the petitioner from a bogus university, he was not entitled to any relief and thus has no right to cling to the post got by him by manipulation and dubious means. Dismissal of the petition was sought.

Hearing has been provided to counsel for the parties while going through the paper book.

Claim of the petitioner is that having passed diploma course of Sanitary Inspector and having been found suitable, he was promoted to such post and merely because such institute from which he had got diploma in Sanitary Inspector had not been recognized by the University Grants Commission, is not a circumstance to question his promotion. It is claimed that he had not obtained it by manipulation and questionable means. Contention of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the diploma on the basis of which promotion was taken by the petitioner is bogus one and thus having no sanctity did not entitle the petitioner for promotion of Sanitary Inspector and thus his promotion to the post of Sanitary Inspector is vitiated and becomes bad in law.

When the rival claims of the parties are examined in the interface of facts and circumstances of the case and once a degree or diploma obtained by an individual is found to be only a camouflage or a contrivance, the same having been issued by an institute or university or deemed university which has no genuine existence, such diploma or degree is nothing but a waste paper. Merely because the petitioner has acquired sufficient practical experience cannot be taken to be a substitute for diploma or degree which is obtained after completing the course for a specified period and after getting through in the examinations-theory and practical which are held after duration of the course period.

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact of acquiring diploma from an unapproved university, the petitioner was found to be suitable for the post and was consequently promoted and thus he cannot be made to suffer merely because the institute from which he obtained the diploma turns out to be unrecognised by the University Grants Commission. Support has been sought from decision rendered on 29.1.1996 of this Court in CWP No. 5810 of 1993 in Dalbir Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another. In the cited decision, the institute from where the petitioners had obtained requisite educational qualification was de-recognized by the State Government after July 4, 1989. Some petitions were preferred by aggrieved persons wherein the court had passed interim directions on 2.3.1994 whereby respondents had been directed to interview the said petitioners alongwith other candidates. In pursuance of these directions, claim of the petitioners was considered. Some of the petitioners who were found suitable were, in fact, selected and even appointed. Those who were not found suitable were rejected. In short, claim of the petitioners in the cited case was duly considered. Without going into the question of validity of qualifications acquired by the petitioners in the said case, having been rendered infructuous, the petition was disposed of.

The cited verdict does not help the petitioner. In the case in hand, no recognition had ever been accorded to diploma course of Sanitary Inspectors from Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (U.P.). Rather, the University Grants Commission, New Delhi explaining the entire matter had given clarification that the institute from where diploma had been obtained by the petitioner was neither a university nor even deemed university and rather was a fake institution functioning in violation of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Merely because the petitioner continuing on the post of Sanitary Inspector has got further boost or even promotion in the status ladder is not the circumstance which validates the diploma obtained by the petitioner from a bogus institute. In any case, the matter is pending with the Enquiry Officer in a departmental enquiry initiated by the respondents where plea of the stake holders is to be evaluated on material and evidence to be produced by them. There is no merit in continuance of stay granted to the petitioner qua continuance of further proceedings in the enquiry.

Counsel for the respondent-State has placed reliance on Balwinder Singh Versus The Nawanshahr Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Nawanshahr 1995 (3) S.C.T. 272. In this authority, status of Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (U.P.) was in question. This institute was awarding degrees validity of which was under the scanner. In this authority, it was decided that since the University Grants Commission had treated it to be a fake institution and the degrees awarded by it are not recognised by the University Grants Commission or any other agency for any purpose, persons awarded degrees by such fake and bogus institutions are not entitled to be retained in service only because they were selected. It was rather held that those already selected on the basis of such degrees awarded by such fake and bogus institution had no right to continue in service.

Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, the writ petition being without any merit, is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the enquiry would be completed within three months positively. The Enquiry Officer would not be influenced in conducting the enquiry by any observations made in this order.