Smt. Hansa Devi & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, A.C.J. The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General The petitioners have obtained diplomas from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth Prayag, Uttar Pradesh. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that they are in possession of the requisite essential qualification and despite that they have not been considered by the respondents for appointment to the post of Language Teachers. The case of the respondent-State, in nutshell, is that the petitioners are not in possession of the essential qualification prescribed under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post in question. The 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 essential qualification for the post of Language Teacher is diploma in Language Teacher from the recognized institution or J.B.T. with the qualification of Prabhakar.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioners have not substantiated in any manner that Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth Prayag, Uttar Pradesh is a recognized institution. The diplomas/certificates/degrees can only be granted by the institutions which are set up by the Central or the State Act and affiliated with the University Grants Commission. Their Lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar versus U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 153 have held as under: (cid:147) The qualifications for holding a post have been laid down under a statute, any appointment in violation thereof would be a nullity. It is a matter of some concern that appointments are being offered by the authorities of the State without verifying the fact as to whether the degree(s) possessed by the candidate(s) are valid or not.

It was an ad hoc appointment. Why despite the same, he was allowed to obtain degree from another university is not known. If essential educational qualification recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be regularized, particularly, when the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be (See Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, ((2006) 4 SCC 1) National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. v. Somvir Singh, ((2006) 5 SCC 493) and Post Master General, Kolkataand Ors. v. Tutu Das (Dutta), ((2007)5 SCC 317)). 3 Various institutions have sprung up in different parts of India representing that their degrees are recognized. However, even no such representation appears to have been made to the appellant by the said institution.

The directory of institutions for higher education merely gives details of the institutions. No statement was made therein that it was a recognised university. Maithil Vishwa Vidyapeeth Sankat Mochan Dham was a name given to an institution. It was not a University. It is said to have been founded in the year

1962. Admittedly, it is a privately managed institution. Although it offered a large number of courses like Madhyama, Visarad, Shastri, Acharya, Vidyabhaskar, Vidyaratna, Vidyavaridhi, Vidyavachaspati, Mahamahopadhyaya, the number of teachers therein were nine only. What sort of education was imparted therein is not known. How an institution could be run with a teacher strength of nine can very well be imagined. It is not in dispute that the said institution was not recognized by any University. A degree is recognized only if it is granted by a University constituted in terms of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 or under any State Or Parliamentary Act. No University can be established by a private management without any statutory backing. The management of the school, when it came to learn that the appellant did not possess a degree of B.Ed, from a recognised University, should have terminated his services forthwith. It did not do so for reasons best known to it. It has not been shown to us that the management of the school had any authority to allow the appellant to obtain the requisite degree from any other University during the tenure of his services. Even the Commission in its counter affidavit, although otherwise supports the case of the appellant, did not say so. (cid:148) The Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth Prayag, Uttar Pradesh is a voluntary organization and the same has neither been established by or 4 under any Central Act or State Act. The University/Board can only be constituted by a statutory backing. Accordingly, the decision of the State Government not to offer appointment to the petitioners since their diplomas are not from the recognized institute is upheld. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice.

21.10. 2009 *Awasthi* (Rajiv Sharma), Judge.