Allahabad High Court · 2025

A count er affidavit is filed by Mr. Leeladhar Vyas, Addit ional Direct or, Secondary Educat ion, Kum aon st at ing t hat pet it ioner was appoint ed as Assist ant Teacher - L.T. Grade ( Hindi) on t he st rengt h of B.Ed. Degree obt ained from Bhart iya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow ( U.P.) ; t he said inst it ut ion is not recognized by Universit y Grant s Com m ission, t herefore, B.Ed. Degree possessed by pet it ioner is not valid for appoint m ent as Teacher. The order dat ed 06.10.2015 passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Pet it ion No. 56637/ 15 is enclosed as Annexure No. 2 t o t he count er affidavit , in t he said order, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held t hat Bhart iya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow ( U.P.) is not recognized by Universit y Grant s Com m ission, t herefore, it s degrees recognisable. I t furt her alleged t he count er affidavit t hat since pet it ioner secured appoint m ent as Teacher by playing fraud, t herefore, his services were right ly t erm inat ed.

6. Annexure- 4 t o t he count er affidavit is a com m unicat ion received by respondent no. 3 from Universit y Grant s Com m ission, wherein it is m ent ioned t hat nam e of Bhart iya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow ( U.P.) is not included in t he list of Universit ies recognized by Universit y Grant s Com m ission. 3

7. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner relies upon a j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol & anot her vs. S.D. Halegkar & ot hers, report ed in ( 1993) 3 SCC 591, for cont ending t hat t here was no suppression of fact by t he pet it ioner and he produced B.Ed. Degree obt ained from Bhart iya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow ( U.P.) wit h his applicat ion for appoint m ent as Assist ant Teacher ( L.T. Grade) and t he aut horit ies, aft er exam ining t he qualificat ions possessed by pet it ioner, offered appoint m ent t o him t herefore, t he issue of validit y of B.Ed. Degree cannot be raked up aft er such long period of t im e

8. Learned St at e Counsel, however, subm it s t hat t he aforesaid j udgm ent relied by learned counsel for t he pet it ioner was dist inguished in t he case of Pram od Kum ar vs. U.P. Secondary Educat ion Services Com m ission & ot hers, report ed as ( 2008) 7 SCC 153. He has relied upon para 16 t o 23 of t he said j udgm ent , which are ext ract ed below: - “ 1 6 . The qualificat ions for holding a post have been laid down under a st at ut e. Any appoint m ent violat ion t hereof would be a nullit y. 1 7 . I t is a m at t er of som e concern t hat appoint m ent s are being offered by t he aut horit ies of t he St at e t he wit hout verifying degree( s) possessed by t he candidat e( s) are valid or not . I t was an ad hoc appoint m ent . Why despit e t he sam e, he was allowed t o obt ain degree from anot her universit y is not known. t o whet her fact as t he 1 8 . I f recruit m ent t o a post is not sat isfied, ordinarily t he t he essent ial educat ional qualificat ion 4 sam e cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be rat ified. An appoint m ent which is cont rary t o t he st at ut e/ st at ut ory r ules would be void in law. An illegalit y cannot be regularised, par t icularly, when t he st at ut e in no unm ist akable t erm says so. Only an irregularit y Karnat aka v. Um adevi ( 3) [ ( 2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC ( L&S) 753] , Nat ional Fert ilizers Lt d. v. Som vir Singh [ ( 2006) 5 SCC 493 : 2006 SCC ( L&S) 1152] and Post Mast er General, Kolkat a v. Tut u Das ( Dut t a) [ ( 2007) 5 SCC 317 : ( 2007) 2 SCC ( L&S) 179] .] [ See Secy., St at e be. 1 9 . Various inst it ut ions have sprung up in different part s of I ndia represent ing t hat t heir degrees are recognised. However, even no such represent at ion appears t o have been m ade t o t he appellant by t he Higher Educat ion m erely gives det ails of t he inst it ut ions. No st at em ent was m ade t herein t hat it was a recognised universit y. inst it ut ion. The Direct ory of I nst it ut ions 2 0 . Mait hili Vishw a Vidyapeet h, Sankat Mochan Dham was a nam e given t o an inst it ut ion. I t was not a universit y . I t is said t o have been founded in t he year 1962. Adm it t edly, it is a privat ely m anaged inst it ut ion. Alt hough it offered a large num ber of courses like Madhy am a, Visarad, Shast ri, Acharya, Vidyabhaskar, Vidyavaridhi, Vidyarat na, Vidyavachaspat i, Maham ahopadhyaya, t he num ber of t eachers t herein were nine only. What sort of educat ion was im part ed t herein is not known. How an inst it ut ion could be run wit h a t eacher st rengt h of nine can very well be im agined. 2 1 . I t is not in disput e t hat t he said inst it ut ion was recognised by any universit y. A degree is grant ed by a universit y recognised only const it ut ed t he Universit y Grant s Com m ission Act , 1956 or under any St at e or parliam ent ary Act . No universit y can be est ablished by a privat e m anagem ent wit hout any st at ut ory backing. t erm s of from a 2 2 . The m anagem ent of t he school, w hen it cam e t o learn t hat t he appellant did not possess a degree of recognised universit y , should have BEd t erm inat ed his services fort hwit h. I t did not do so for reasons best known t o it . I t has not been shown t o us t hat t he m anagem ent of t he school had any t he aut horit y t he appellant t o obt ain t o allow 5 requisit e degree from any ot her universit y during t he t enure of his services. Even t he Com m ission in it s count er- affidavit , alt hough ot herwise support s t he case of t he appellant , did not say so. 2 3 . Our at t ent ion has been drawn t o a decision of t he Punj ab and Haryana High Court in Ram Bhagat Sharm a v. St at e of Haryana [ ( 1997) 4 RSJ 134 ( P&H) ] wherein it w as direct ed: t o dispense wit h “ Wit h a view t o prot ect t he int erest of t he st udent s com m unit y, we direct t he Governm ent of Haryana t o t ake st eps t o prevent fut ure recruit m ent of persons possessing qualificat ions awarded by Hindi Sahit ya Sam m elan, Allahabad, and/ or Hindi Sahit ya Sam m elan, Prayag, Allahabad, and at t he sam e t im e t ake appropriat e m easures t he services of t he unqualified t eachers. For t his purpose, t he Governm ent of Haryana is direct ed t o issue writ t en inst ruct ions t o all concerned t hat in fut ure no appoint m ent be given t o t he persons possessing qualificat ions t o t he Governm ent of hereinabove. We also direct Haryana t o t ake st eps for t erm inat ing t he services of all such t eachers who have secured em ploym ent on t he basis of degrees/ diplom as/ cert ificat es issued by Hindi Sahit ya Sam m elan, Allahabad and/ or Hindi Sahit ya Sam m elan, Prayag, Allahabad. However, t hree years service t hose who have com plet ed t he t o acquire should be given an opport unit y requisit e qualificat ion wit hin a st ipulat ed t im e. I n case t hey fail t o acquire such qualificat ion, t hen appropriat e order be passed t o dispense wit h t he services of such persons.” inst it ut ions referred t he We, wit h respect , do not subscribe t o t he said view. I n any event , it is not a case where, t his Court is t o prot ect t he int erest of t he st udent s. The quest ion herein is as t o whet her t he services of t he appellant can be said t o have been illegally t erm inat ed or not .”

9. The j udgm ent rendered in t he case of Dr. M.S. Mudhol ( supra) is dist inguishable on fact s. I n t hat case, t he Rules required Mast er ’s Degree wit h 2 nd Division m arks for appoint m ent as Principal. The person, who was appoint ed had Mast er ’s Degree wit h 3 rd Division m arks. Hon’ble Suprem e Court refused t o 6 int erfere wit h his appoint m ent as Principal by issuing a writ of quo warrant o by holding t hat post of Principal in a privat e school, t hough aided, is not of such sensit ive public im port ance t hat t he Court should find it self im pelled t o int erfere wit h t he appoint m ent by writ of quo warrant o, even assum ing t hat such a writ is m aint ainable.

10. I n t he present case, B.Ed. Degree, possessed by pet it ioner, from an I nst it ut ion which is not recognized by Universit y Grant s Com m ission. Only a recognized Universit y or Deem ed t o be University can award a Degree, including B.Ed. Degree. I n t he absence recognit ion by Universit y Grant s Com m ission, Bhart iya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow ( U.P.) had no aut horit y t o award B.Ed. Degree t o anyone. As a corollary t o t his, t he degree possessed by pet it ioner is a nullit y, t herefore it shall be deem ed t hat pet it ioner lacks t he essent ial qualificat ion i.e. B.Ed., t herefore, he is not qualified for appoint m ent .

11. Learned Single Judge of t his Court in WPSS No. 254 of 2023 considered issue of appoint m ent as Teacher, based on fake educat ional cert ificat es and held t hat a person, who secured appoint m ent under t he St at e by playing fraud, cannot claim prot ect ion of Art icle 311 of t he Const it ut ion. 7

12. I n t he case of M/ s I ndian Oil Corporat ion Lt d. vs. Raj endra D. Harm alkar, report ed as ( 2022) 17 SCC 361, Hon’ble Suprem e Court considered t he scope of int erference by Court s in t he m at t er of disciplinary proceedings. Para 19 t o 22, which are relevant t o t he present case, are ext ract ed below: - “ 1 9 . I n Om Kum ar [ Om Kum ar v. Union of I ndia, ( 2001) 2 SCC 386 : 2001 SCC ( L&S) 1039] , t his Court , aft er considering t he Wednesbury principles and t he doct rine of proport ionalit y, has observed and held t hat t he quest ion of t he quant um of punishm ent in disciplinary m at t ers is prim arily for t he disciplinary aut horit y t o order and t he j ur isdict ion of t he High Court s under Art icle 226 of t he Const it ut ion or of t he Adm inist rat ive Tribunals is lim it ed and is confined t o t he applicabilit y of one or ot her of t he well- known principles principles” . I n Wednesbury Case [ Associat ed Provincial Pict ure Houses Lt d. v. Wednesbury Corpn., ( 1948) 1 KB 223 ( CA) ] , it was said t hat when a st at ut e gave discret ion t o an adm inist rat or t o t ake a decision, t he scope of j udicial review would rem ain lim it ed. Lord Greene furt her said t hat int erference was not perm issible unless one or t he ot her of t he following condit ions was sat isfied, nam ely, t he order was cont rary t o law, or relevant fact ors were not considered, or irrelevant fact ors were considered, or t he decision was one which no reasonable person could have t aken. “ Wednesbur y 2 0 . I n B.C. Chat ur vedi v. Union of I ndia [ B.C. Chat urvedi v. Union of I ndia, ( 1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC ( L&S) 80] , in para 18, t his Court observed and held as under : ( SCC p. 762) t hat “ 18. A review of t he above legal posit ion would t he disciplinary aut horit y, and on est ablish appeal t he appellat e aut horit y, being fact - finding aut horit ies have exclusive power t o consider t he evidence wit h a view t o m aint ain discipline. They are invest ed wit h t he discret ion t o im pose appropriat e punishm ent keeping in view t he m agnit ude or gravit y of t he m isconduct . The High Court / Tribunal, while review, cannot exercising norm ally subst it ut e it s own conclusion on penalt y and im pose som e ot her penalt y. I f t he punishm ent im posed by t he disciplinary aut horit y or t he appellat e t he power of j udicial 8 t he conscience of it would appropriat ely m ould aut horit y shocks t he High Court / Tribunal, t he t he disciplinary/ appellat e relief, eit her direct ing aut horit y t o reconsider t he penalt y im posed, or t o short en t he lit igat ion, it m ay it self, in except ional and im pose appropriat e punishm ent w it h rare cases, cogent reasons in support t hereof.” 2 1 . I n Lucknow Kshet riya Gram in Bank v. Raj endra Singh [ Lucknow Kshet riya Gram in Bank v. Raj endra Singh, ( 2013) 12 SCC 372 : ( 2013) 3 SCC ( L&S) 159] , in para 19, it was observed and held as under : ( SCC p. 382) “ 19. The principles discussed above can be sum m ed up and sum m arised as follow s:

19.1. When charge( s) of m isconduct is proved in an enquiry t o be im posed in a part icular case is essent ially t he dom ain of t he depart m ent al aut horit ies. t he quant um of punishm ent

19.2. The court s cannot assum e t he funct ion of disciplinary/ depart m ent al aut horit ies and t o decide t he quant um of punishm ent and nat ure of penalt y t o be awarded, as t his funct ion is exclusively wit hin t he j urisdict ion of t he com pet ent aut horit y. review j udicial

19.3. Lim it ed t o t he im posed by int erfere wit h disciplinary aut horit y, only in cases where such penalt y is found t o be shocking t o t he conscience of t he court . t he punishm ent is available

19.4. Even in such a case when t he punishm ent is t he set aside as shockingly disproport ionat e nat ure of charges fram ed against t he delinquent em ployee, t he appropriat e course of act ion is t o rem it t he m at t er back t o t he disciplinary aut horit y or t o pass t he appellat e aut horit y wit h direct ion appropriat e order of penalt y. The court by it self cannot m andat e as t o what should be t he penalt y in such a case. t o

19.5. The only except ion t o t he principle st at ed in para 19.4 above, would be in t hose cases where t he co- delinquent is aw arded lesser punishm ent by t he disciplinary aut horit y even when t he charges of m isconduct were ident ical or t he co- delinquent was foist ed wit h m ore serious charges. This would be on t he doct r ine of equalit y when it is found t hat t he em ployee concerned and t he co- delinquent are equally placed. How ever, t here has t o be a com plet e parit y bet ween t he t wo, not only in respect of nat ure 9 of charge but subsequent conduct as well aft er t he service of charge- sheet in t he t wo cases. I f t he co- delinquent accept s t he charges, indicat ing rem orse wit h unqualified apology, lesser punishm ent t o him would be j ust ifiable.” 2 2 . I n t he present case, t he original writ pet it ioner was dism issed t he disciplinary from service by aut horit y for producing t he fabricat ed/ fake/ forged SSLC. Producing t he false/ fake cert ificat e is a grave m isconduct . The quest ion is one of a t rust . How can an em ployee who has produced a fake and forged m arksheet / cert ificat e, t hat t oo, at t he init ial st age of appoint m ent be t rust ed by t he em ployer? Whet her such a cert ificat e w as m at erial or not and/ or had any bearing on t he em ploym ent or not is im m at erial. The quest ion is not of having an int ent ion or m ens rea. The quest ion is producing t he fake/ forged cert ificat e. Therefore, in our view, t he disciplinary aut horit y was j ust ified in im posing t he punishm ent of dism issal from service.”

13. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner was asked t o produce any docum ent t o show t hat Bhart iya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow ( U.P.) is recognized by Universit y Grant s Com m ission. Learned counsel referred t o t he Prospect us of Bhart iya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow ( U.P.) , which only reveals t hat inst ruct ions are im part ed under Open Universit y Syst em .

14. There is not hing in t he Prospect us t o indicat e t hat Bhart iya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow ( U.P.) recognized by Universit y Grant s Com m ission. Whet her B.Ed. Degree can be awarded t hrough Dist ance Educat ion Mode, t hat t oo, aft er enforcem ent of Nat ional Council for Teachers Educat ion Act , 1993 is anot her aspect , which goes t o t he root of t he m at t er. There is not hing t o show t hat Nat ional Council for Teachers Educat ion has recognized Bhart iya Shiksha Parishad, 10 Lucknow ( U.P.) for conduct ing B.Ed. Course.

15. Thus, t his Court do not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he t erm inat ion order passed by Addit ional Direct or, as affirm ed by Direct or of School Educat ion.

16. Learned counsel t he pet it ioner t hen subm it t ed t hat since pet it ioner was appoint ed as Class- I V em ployee under t he St at e in t he year 1985 and he served in t hat capacit y upt o 2006, t herefore, he m ay be perm it t ed t o m ake represent at ion t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y for pension and ot her ret iral benefit s adm issible for t he services rendered against Class- I V post .

17. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat pet it ioner m akes a represent at ion, t hen his claim shall be exam ined, as per law.

18. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion is disposed of wit h libert y t o pet it ioner t o m ake represent at ion, regarding pension and ot her ret iral dues adm issible for services rendered against Class- I V post , t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y. I f pet it ioner m akes such represent at ion wit hin t hree weeks from t oday, decision t hereupon shall be t aken by t he Com pet ent Aut horit y, wit hin t hree m ont hs t hereaft er. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) Dt : 12.09.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a13 1bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D 653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 11