Allahabad High Court

Harivansh Lal Srivastava And ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 28 August, 2014

Bench: Sudhir Agarwal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44293 of 2004
 

 
Petitioner :- Harivansh Lal Srivastava And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Padia,Anand Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. The order dated 16.4.2014 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Recall Application, writ petition is restored to its original number. As requested by learned counsels for parties, I proceed to decide this matter finally at this stage.

2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to send them for Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2004. They claim to have passed B.Ed. Examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and that having not been found recognized by University Grants Commission, their candidature for Special B.T.C. Training Course, 2004 has been rejected. Learned counsel for petitioners could not dispute this fact that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, wherefrom petitioners passed B.Ed. Examination, is not an institution, recognized by University Grants Commission. That being so, I do not find that petitioners are entitled for relief, as sought for. The reasons are as under.

3. Under the Constitution of India, Entry 66 List-1 Schedule-VII vests Parliament with exclusive authority to legislate in respect to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. The state legislature also has legislative power with respect to Universities under Entry 32, List II, Schedule-VII. But obviously, the said power so far as the standards of higher education is concerned, has to sub-serve the power of Parliament. The Central Legislature has enacted the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Act, 1956). The aforesaid Act has been enacted to make provision for the coordination and the determination of standards in universities and for that purpose to establish a University Grants Commission. The term "University" has been defined under Section 2(f) and in respect to certain other institutions for higher studies other than universities, provisions have been made under Section 3 for declaring such institutions as "Deemed University" for the purposes of Act, 1956. The aforesaid provisions are quoted hereinbelow:

"2(f) "University" means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognised by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act."

"3. Application of Act to institutions for higher studies other than Universities.- The Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University with the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 2."

4. Section 22 of Act,1956 prohibits any authority of conferment or grant of a degree by any other institution except a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 or an institution especially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. It also states that no person or authority other than those mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Sub-section (2) shall confer or grant any degrees. Section 22 of Act, 1956 reads as under:

"22. Right to confer degrees.- (1) The right of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised only by a "University" established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act or Parliament to confer or grant degrees.

(2) Save as provided in Sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree.

(3) For the purposes of this section, "degree" means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette."

5. The conferment or grant of degree is a matter of great importance, as has been held by the Apex Court in Prof. Yashpal and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2026 wherein it has been held as under:

"A degree conferred by a university is a proof of the fact that a person has studied a course of a particular higher level and has successfully passed the examination certifying his proficiency in the said subject of study to such level. In the case of a doctorate degree, it certifies that the holder of the degree has attained a high level of knowledge and study in the subject concerned by doing some original research work. A university degree confers a kind of status upon a person like a graduate or a postgraduate. Those who have done research work and have obtained a PhD. DLitt or DSc degree become entitled to write the word "Doctor" before their names and command certain amount of respect in society as educated and knowledgeable persons. That apart, the principal advantage of holding a university degree is in the matter of employment, where a minimum qualification like a graduate, postgraduate or a professional degree from a recognised institute is prescribed. Even for those who do not want to take up a job and want to remain in a private profession like a doctor or lawyer, registration with the Medical Council or the Bar Council is necessary for which purpose a degree in medicine or law, as the case may be, from an institution recognised by the said bodies is essential. An academic degree is, therefore, of great significance and value for the holder thereof and goes a long way in shaping his future. The interest of society also requires that the holder of an academic degree must possess the requisite proficiency and expertise in the subject, which the degree certifies.

Mere conferment of degree is not enough. What is necessary is that the degree should be recognised. It is for this purpose that the right to confer degree has been given under Section 22 of the UGC Act only to a university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act or an institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 or an institution specifically empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. Sub-section(3) of this section provides that "degree" means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette. The value and importance of such degrees which are recognised by the Government was pointed out by a Constitution Bench in S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC 662."

6. It is admitted that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a "University" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act, 1956 nor a "Deemed University" under Section 3 of the said Act nor an institution especially conferred power to grant or confer degree by an Act of Parliament. Therefore, the degree, obtained by the petitioners from the said institution, is wholly illegal and unauthorised, having no value in the eyes of law to confer any benefit upon them for any purpose whatsoever.

7. What I have said above is also fortified from a Division Bench judgment of this Court (in which I was also a Member) in Smt. Sunita Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. and others 2006 (5) AWC 4231.

8. In view of above, I do not find that petitioners are entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petition.

9. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.

Dt. 28.08.2014

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44293 of 2004

Petitioner :- Harivansh Lal Srivastava And Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Padia,Anand Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. This is an application seeking recall of my order dated 16.4.2014, whereby writ petition was dismissed on merits, though in absence of learned counsel for petitioner.

2. Cause shown for non appearance is sufficient.

3. Order dated 16.4.2014 is hereby recalled.

4. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.

Dt. 28.08.2014

(C.M. Recall App. 211745/14)