Vinod Kumar vs State of Rajasthan and Others

N.K. Jain, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the termination order dt. 21.3.94 (Anx.3) and the petitioner may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The petitioner prays that a direction may be issued in terms of Moinuddin''s case.

The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition as alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner obtained a degree of Shiksha Shastri from the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidhyalaya in the year 1987. It is alleged that he applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III advertised by the Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu vide Advertisement No. 1/89 and on being selected by the District Establishment Committee for the said post. He was appointed on probation for a period of two years vide order dt. 1.5.89 (Anx. 1) and he joined duty on 2.8.89 (Anx.2). It is also alleged that the recognition of Shiksha Shashtri granted by the Varanasi Sanskrit Vishvavidhyalaya was withdrawn by the Government of Rajasthan vide order dt. 30.10.92 and consequent thereto order dt. 1.10.93 the Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu directed to terminate the services of the candidates, after giving them one month''s notice, who possessed such degree. Thereafter a notice was given to the petitioner and the petitioner replied the same. After considering the reply, the petitioner was terminated from service, vide order dt. 21.3.94 (Anx.3) w.e.f. 23.2.94. The petitioner has further alleged that he was pressed to seek resignation but that is irrelevant as the same was not accepted. The petitioner has alleged that the Government vide orders Anx.4 and 5 directed to impart training to those teachers who were given substantive appointment and were in service, and preferred the writ petition.

This writ petition has been filed on 30.3.94. Vide order dt. 1.4.94, Mr. Bishnoi was directed to accept notice. In pursuance of the notice, reply has been filed stating that it is not a case of derecognition of degree from the retrospective effect as alleged by the petitioner but in the present case the petitioner has obtained appointment on the basis of forged documents as no such institution in the name of Varanashey Sanskrit Vishvavidhyalaya Varanashey was in existence in the year 1989 when the petitioner said to obtained a Shiksha Shastri Degree. It is stated that according to the orders, of this Hon''ble Court the State Government took cognizance and has conducted enquiry and in the enquiry it has been found that the said Institution is not in existence from the year 1974. The non- petitioners have denied that the recognition of the said Shiksha Shastri degree was withdrawn by the Government vide order dt. 30.10.92. It is also stated that the petitioner has resigned due to the reason that the fraud committed by the petitioner while obtaining the appointment on the basis of forged documents, has been open out. It has been further stated that the petitioner''s case is not covered by the orders Anx. 4 and 5, as the State Government is bound or there is no obligation on the State to provide training to those persons, who have obtained appointment fraudulently. It has been stated that the petitioner''s case cannot be said to be similar to the Moinuddin''s case and the relief granted in Monuddin''s case cannot be granted to the petitioner. It has prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed with cost.

As agreed by the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

Mr. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the derecognition made vide order dt. 30.10.92 could not be made effective retrospective as the petitioner obtained the degree of Shiksha Shastri in the year 1987. He has submitted that this case is squarely covered by the decision of Moinuddin''s case and it may be decided in terms of that decision.

Mr. Bishnoi, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners has contended that the conduct of the petitioner is highly diplorable as he got appointment on the basis of forged degree, and he has been rightly terminated from service. He has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for the directions, which has been issued by this Court in Moinuddin''s case. He has further submitted that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in S.B. C.W. Pet. No. 379/91 decided on 4.2.92, Mahesh Chandra v. State (WLR 1992 Raj. 454), Shanker Lal v. State (S.B.C.W. Pet. No. 387/91), Kamlesh Kumar Kulhari v. State (S.B.C.W. Pet. No. 388/94) decided on 17.2.92.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at Bar.

In Varanasy Sanskrit University Varanashi Siksha Shastri Sangh v. State (S.B.C.W. Pet. No. 379/91) decided on 4.2.92, the learned Single Judge after considering the material and the document dt. 30.10.90 of the University Grant Commission has held that Varanashi Sanskrit Vishvavidhyalaya, Varanasi is not recognised and as such no appointment can be given on the basis of this degree awarded by the institution which is unrecognised.

In Smt. Chandra Kanta v. Vikas Adhikari, P.S. Annopgarh (S.B.C.W. Pet No. 2933/93), decided on 30.9.1993, the incumbents obtained appointment on the basis of degrees of B.Ed. from Oudh University. This Court has held that they are not entitled to remain in service as the petitioners neither appeared in the examination nor on rolls and obtained B.Ed. degree which was found to be forged.

In Shanker Lal v. State (S.B.C.W. Pet. No. 387/94) decided on 17.2.94. the petitioner obtained degrees from B.Ed. Examination from Mathili University (Mathili Vishwa Vidyapith), Darbhanga. The learned Single Judge has held that, in my opinion, persons who have secured employment on the basis of the degrees which are forged and which cannot, by any stretch of imagination be treated as recognised, cannot claim indulgence of getting relief Under Article 226. The learned Single Judge while considering the Moinuddin''s case (supra) has held that in my considered view, neither the decision in Ram Khilari''s case nor the decision rendered in Moinuddin''s case is of any help to the petitioners. Here is a case where a person has secured employment on the basis of a forged/unrecognised degree by misrepresentation that the degree was awarded by a University.

In Mahesh Chand v. State (supra) the incumbents got appointment on the basis of certificate of Shiksha Shastri, from Varanasy Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya but his services were terminated. The learned Single Judge after considering the Notification dt. 11.12.1974 and the fact of enquiry conducted on the direction of Jaipur Bench and further looking to the fact that it has not been recognised by the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, it has been held that it is apparent that the so-called degrees obtained by the incumbents from the Varanasy Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya have not been recognised and the incumbents are not entitled to be treated to possess a duly recognised degree of B.Ed. from a University established by law. As such the degree of Shiksha Shastri obtained from the Varanasy Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya cannot be treated to be equivalent to B.Ed. and the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment on the basis of that degree.

The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that since the derecognition order has been passed on 30.10.92, it could not be made effective on the petitioner who obtained the degree of Shiksha Shastri in, the year 1987. It is no doubt true that the derecognition order has been passed on 30.10.92 but on enquiry which was initiated in pursuance of the direction of this Court given in S.B.C.W. Pet. No. 3709/989, it has been found that no institution in the name of Varanashey Sanskrit Vishvavidhyalaya Varanashey is in existence after the year 1974. So, it is clear that at the time when the petitioner obtained the alleged degree of Shiksha Shastri from Varanasey Sanskrit Vishvavidhyalaya in the year 1987, the said institution was not in existence and in view of this, the appointment obtained by the petitioner cannot be maintained and the contention of Mr. Bishnoi that the petitioner got appointment by playing fraud with the respondents as the degree on the basis of which the petitioner has got appointment is fake one, has some substance. Furthermore the University Grant Commission vide its circular dt. 28.6.1991 (Anx.R/3) has advised the Vice-Chancellor and Registrars of all Universities, Secretaries, etc. to caution the students not to take admission into fake and self styled Universities and institutions functioning in different parts of the country in violation of the UGC Act, 1956 and in this circular the name of Varanasey Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) is shown at Serial No. 4. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to continue in service and the respondents have rightly terminated the services of the petitioner. Reference may also be made to a decision of this Court rendered in Mohan Swaroop v. State wherein while vacating the ad-interim order on the application Under Article 226(3), similar view has been expressed. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order Anx.3 dt. 21.3.94 terminating the services of the petitioner.

It has been next contended in alternative that in case the degree of Shiksha Shastri obtained by the petitioner does not make him entitle to continue in service as a trained teacher, direction may be issued in terms of the decision of Moinuddin''s case (supra) to continue in service for three years and the incumbents shall get the proper training within the said period and they shall be entitled for leave for the period for which they have to attend the training and other correspondence. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Sukh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, their lordships of the Supreme Court has held as under:

We cannot, at any rate, direct the Government to put back the petitioners into service till they are trained... No doubt the High Court in Tamboli case has directed the State Government to get the untrained teachers trained in phased programme to enable them to improve their prospects for employment. But that does not, however, mean that it is obligatory for the Government to continue the untrained teachers till they are properly trained.

In view of the above, the decision rendered in Moinuddin''s case (supra) is not applicable even for a untrained teacher and, therefore, no such direction can be issued looking to the conduct of the petitioner in the given case as he has obtained employment on the basis of forged degree and this court cannot issue writs, which may directly or indirectly encourage or perpetuate fraud. Moreso, this Court in Shankerlal v. State (supra) wherein also the learned Single Judge was considering a matter of forged degree and it has been held after considering the Moinuddin''s case that Moinuddin''s case is not of any help. Reference may also be made to recent decision rendered in Shakur Mohd. v. State (S.B.C.W. Pet. No. 679/94) decided on 1.4.1994.

No other point has been pressed before me.

In view of what I have discussed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner Under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the writ petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.