Shiv Raj Singh v. State of Rajasthan & anr

claimed, both the writ petitions have been heard together and decided by this common order. Grievance of the petitioners is not only against passing of the order dated 30.6.2011 at Annexure-7 but for disregarding qualification of Diploma in Medical Radiographic Technology obtained by the petitioners from Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology. 2 It is stated that respondents issued an advertisement for filling up post of Assistant Radiographer. Accordingly, petitioners made application for their selection and respondents allowed petitioners to appear in the examination but they were shocked to receive order dated 30.6.2011 holding them to be not in possession of the requisite qualification. Referring to the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 it is submitted that to be eligible for the post of Radiographer, one is required to possess diploma in the aforesaid course which is possessed by the petitioners.

There is no requirement that the institution should be recognised by the State Government. In the aforesaid background, action of the respondents to disregard qualification obtained by the petitioners becomes illegal. This is more so when the Institute of Medical Science & Technology was affiliated to the Rajasthan Janardan Rai Nagar University, Udaipur, a deemed university. As per section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short “the UGC Act”), a deemed university is having authority to confer degree. In the aforesaid background also, impugned order deserves to be set aside. The institute from where petitioners obtained qualification was otherwise recognised by the UGC and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Department of Education, Government of India. Hence, respondents had no authority to 3 disregard qualification obtained by the petitioners from the recognised institution.

Prayer is accordingly made to set aside impugned order with a direction to the respondents to consider candidature of the petitioners for the post of Radiographer and if they fall in the merit, then to confer appointment with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that qualification of Radiographer possessed by the petitioners is not from any recognised institute. Referring to document at annexure R/2, it is submitted that the course of the nature required for the post of Radiographer is provided by the Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur. Petitioners have not obtained required qualification from the said Board. Respondents even conducted enquiry to find out as to whether qualification obtained by the petitioners can be held to be recognised and it is after detailed enquiry that order was passed. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

Learned counsel for petitioners made reference of Annexure-1 and submitted that petitioners are in possession of the 4 requisite qualification and, for the aforesaid purpose, reference of the Schedule appended to Rules of 1965 has been given. The certificates obtained by the petitioners are from an institute which is said to be run by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1958. It is alleged to be recognised by the UGC and the MHRD, Department of Education, Government of India, however, I find that no document issued by the UGC or MHRD, Department of Education, Government of India to that effect has been filed. The same is the position for JRN University, Udaipur In absence of any document to show its affiliation with the university mere averment made in the writ petition cannot suffice the purpose. This is more so when even if an institute is affiliated to a deemed university, degrees are offered by the deemed university and not by the institution.

In the present matter, the document enclosed with the writ petition has not been issued by the university but by the institution registered under the Societies Registration Act. Even for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the institution is having affiliation with the JRN University, Udaipur, the question arises as to whether the type of course offered and certificate granted is governed by the definition of 'degree' as provided under section 22(3) of the UGC Act. Section 3 talks about deemed university, however, section 22 makes a reference as to who can confer degrees. As per section 22 of the UGC Act, all degrees can be offered by the institution mentioned therein. As per 5 sub-section (3) of section 22 'degree' means whatever is notified in the gazette after approval of the Government. Learned counsel for petitioners has failed to show that type of the course undertaken by the petitioners was ever notified so as to be considered to be a 'degree' within meaning of sub section (3) of section 22 of the UGC Act.

In the aforesaid background, even if it is assumed that the institution was affiliated with the deemed university, the course undertaken by the petitioners does not fall within the definition of 'degree' under the Act of 1956 and to be conferred by a deemed university. The first argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners thus cannot be accepted. The further question is as to whether recognition to the institution was given by the UGC or MHRD, Education Department, Government of India. No document issued by the UGC or the MHRD, Department of Education, Government of India has been filed to show the aforesaid other than the reference of the same in the document issued by the institution. In the aforesaid background, the qualification obtained by the petitioners cannot be given cognizance because every institution is not authorised to issue degree, that too by ignoring provisions of UGC Act.

A similar controversy came up before this court in regard 6 to qualification conferred by Zamia Urdu, Aligarh. Therein, considering earlier two judgments of the Division Bench, judgment in the case of “State of Rajasthan & ors versus Firdaus Tarnnum” reported iin 2006(1) RDD 467 has been given. It is held that if the institution is not recognised or affiliated to a university or recognised by the means provides under the Rules, any qualification offered by it cannot be held to be recognised. The issue involved in the present matter is entirely covered by the ratio propounded in the aforesaid judgment. In the aforesaid background, unless it is shown that the institution from where petitioners have obtained qualification are recognised by the means provides under the provisions of law, cognizance of the course cannot be given. This is more so when the person appointed on the post of Assistant Radiographer has to deal with the patients.