Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Zaheer vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 31 October, 2014
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57821 of 2014
Petitioner :- Mohammad Zaheer
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- K.S. Kushwaha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.K. Chaudhary
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the BSA and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has applied for consideration for appointment of Assistant Teacher (Urdu). In the online form submitted by him, he disclosed his marks as obtained in Graduation (BA) from Dr. Bheem Rao Ambedkar University, Agra.
The petitioner claims to be possessing the qualification of Adeeb-e-Kamil, which is said to be equivalent to graduation degree. This qualification is said to have been acquired by him in the year 1994. Subsequently, he also acquired the qualification of Moallim-e-Urdu in 1995 from Zamia Urdu, Aligarh. It is stated to be equivalent to BTC course. His candidature has been rejected on the ground that he could not have acquired the qualification of Moallim-e-Urdu in 1995 i.e. prior to acquiring the graduation degree in the year 2001.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had acquired the qualification of Adeeb-e-Kamil in 1994. Therefore, he was eligible for acquiring the qualification of Moallim-e-Urdu in the year 1995 and as both Adeeb-e-Kamil and BA are equivalent and either of them could have been mentioned in the online application form and therefore, he only mentioned BA degree and marks obtained therein. Therefore, rejection of his candidature is not sustainable. As he produced the document of Adeeb-e-Kamil at the time of counseling. Therefore, there was no question for rejection of his candidature for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) by the impugned order dated 5.3.2014. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two judgments of this court dated 13.5.2014 passed in Writ-A No. 26380 of2014 and dated 6.2.2014 passed in Writ-A No. 7266 of 2014.
Learned counsel for the BSA as well as learned standing counsel vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the institution from which the petitioner is said to have obtained the qualification of Adeeb-e-Kamil and Moallim-e-Urdu is an unrecognized institution. The counsel relied upon the order passed by this Court on 10.9.2014 in Writ-A No. 25278 of 2014 wherein after considering the affidavit of Registrar, Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, which stated that the institution has neither been established nor regulated either under any Act or Central Govt or Provincial Governments and does not receive any grant-in-aid or fund form Central Government or State Government rather the institution is self funded, independent minority institution, protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and awards aforesaid proficiency certificates of (i) Adeeb; (ii) Adeeb Mahir (iii) Adeeb-e-Kamil and (iv) Moallim; to the candidates who qualify the said proficiency examination, this court directed the District Magistrate, Aligarh to make inquiry about the relevant facts mentioned in the order of the court dated 10.9.2014.
It is stated that enquiry of the District Magistrate, Aligarh is still in progress and the matter is now fixed for 19.1.2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, invited attention of the court to para-5 of the G.O. dated 17.8.2013, which mentions that those who have acquired qualification of Adeeb-e-Kamil through Jamia Urdu, Aligarh prior to 11.8.1997 shall be treated as having acquired graduate degree and shall be considered accordingly.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be appropriate to first of all ascertain as to whether degrees acquired by the petitioner i.e. Adeeb-e-Kamil and Moallim-e-Urdu are valid degrees as per law or not. Any benefit in the matter can only be given thereafter. If the degrees are found to be valid then, of course, there is no ground for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and consequential benefit will ensue. If it is found otherwise, then there would be no reason to grant any relief to him.
Put up this case as fresh on 10.1.2015 alongwith Writ-A No. 25278 of 2014 before the appropriate Court. In the meantime, the respondents shall file counter affidavit.
Order Date :- 31.10.2014
SKS
