Indu Devi vs Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 813 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32456 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Indu Devi
 
Respondent :- Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari Kushinagar & Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

1. Heard Sri Hare Ram Tripathi, holding brief of Sri Keshav Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Khare, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. On 21.5.2018 this Court passed the following order:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

By the impugned order the approval granted to the petitioner for his appointment as Assistant Teacher in Ambedkar Prathmik Vidyalaya, Phisawa Bazar, Kushinagar, was cancelled on the ground that the Educational qualification of the petitioner is "Visharad" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, which has not been recognised by the State Government to be equivalent to intermediate. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the degree of "Visharad" is a recgonised degree and that it has been recognised by the State Government to be equivalent to intermediate.

The petitioner has filed a withdrawal application no.3/2018 dated 26.4.2018, but learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not want to press this withdrawal application. He prays that the matter may be taken up on 23.5.2018, to enable him to argue further.

As prayed, put up on 23.5.2018."

.

3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an Order No.899(3)79-6-2014, dated 4.8.2014 was passed by the Secretary Shiksha Anubhag-6, Lucknow, permitting for Special B.T.C. Course to Head Masters like untrained Assistant Teachers. Therefore, the petitioner can not be said to be not having minimum prescribed qualification.

4. Learned standing counsel submits that the degree of Shiksha Visharad allegedly obtained by the petitioner from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education and, therefore it does not confer any right upon the petitioner to be considered for appointment on the post of a teacher. In support of his submission he relied upon a judgment of this Court in Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2004(2) UPLBEC 1716 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Pradesh Vs. Sardarshahar and another Vs. Union of India and others 2010(3)ESC 353 (SC).

5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was established in the year 1910. It was registered as a Society in the year 1914 under the Societies Registration Act, 1862, with the object of promotion and popularisation of Hindi and its literature in the country and abroad. It was declared as an institution of national importance and incorporated it into a statutory corporation by enacting the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1962 Act"). As per provision of Section 6 of the Act, 1962, the functions of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, are as under:

(a) to promote the spread of Hindi language and to develop it and secure its enrichment in the manner indicated in Article 351 of the Constitution ;

(b) to work for the promotion, development and advancement of Hindi literature in India and foreign countries and to print and publish such literature ;

(c) to work for the promotion, development and advancement of Devnagari script and to print and publish literature of other Indian languages in Devnagari script ;

(d) to arrange for the holding of examinations through the medium of Hindi language and to confer degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions ;

(e) to establish and maintain schools, colleges and other institutions for instruction in Hindi language and Hindi literature and also to affiliate schools, colleges and other institutions for its examinations ;

(f) to affiliate institutions having for their object the promotion of Hindi language and Hindi literature ;

(g) to award honorary degrees and other academic distinctions to persons who may have rendered distinguished service to the cause of Hindi ;

(h) to institute and award prizes (Paritoshiks) to distinguished scholars in Hindi ;

(i) to promote and encourage research in Hindi language and Hindi literature ;

(j) to co-operate with other institutions having objects similar to those of the Sammelan, in such manner as may be conducive to their common objects ;

(k) to receive gifts, grants, donations or benefactions from the Government and to receive bequests, donations or transfers of movable and immovable properties from testators, donors or transferors, as the case may be ;

(l) to deal with any property belonging to or vested in the Sammelan in such manner as the Sammelan may deem fit for advancing the objects of the Sammelan ;

(m) with the approval of the Central Government, to borrow on the security of the property of the Sammelan money for the purposes of the Sammelan ;

(n) to perform such other functions as may be deemed necessary by the Sammelan for advancing the cause of Hindi language and Hindi literature or as may be necessary, incidental or conducive to the performance of all or any of the above functions.

7. The Government of India, in order to maintain the standards and planned growth of teacher training institutions in the country; constituted the National Council for Teacher Education, an expert body, in the year 1973. The main purpose was to advise the Central and the State Governments on all matters pertaining to teacher education. Its status and role was purely advisory and, therefore, had very little impact. To provide statutory powers to National Council for Teacher Education and empower it to make qualitative improvement in the system of teacher education by phasing out sub-standard institutions and courses for teacher education, to grant recognitions to institutions for teacher education and permission to recognise institutions for new course or training in teacher education, the Parliament enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "The N.C.T.E. Act") which came into force on 1st July, 1995. Section 14 of the N.C.T.E. Act provides for recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education. It reads as follows :

"14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education.-(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations :

Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee.

(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall : -

(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations ; or

(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing :

Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation.

(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government.

(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).

(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4) ; -

(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted ; or

(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused."

8. Section 15 of the N.C.T.E. Act provides for the requirement of obtaining permission for a new course or training by recognised institution. It reads as follows :

"15, Permission for a new course or training by recognised institution.-

(1) Where any recognised institution intends to start any new course or training in teacher education, it may make an application to seek permission therefor to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations.

(2) The fees to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of an application from an institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the recognised institution such other particulars as may be considered necessary, the Regional Committee shall : -

(a) if it is satisfied that such recognised institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper conduct of the new course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations ; or

(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing permission to such institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing :

Provided that before passing an order refusing permission under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the institution concerned for making a written representation.

(4) Every order granting or refusing permission to a recognised institution for a new course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3), shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such recognised institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority, the State Government and the Central Government."

9. Section 16 of the N.C.T.E. Act puts a prohibition on the examining body from holding examinations and granting affiliation of unrecognised courses and institutions. It reads as follows :

"16. Affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the council.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day,-

(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution ; or

(b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution,

unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15."

10. Section 17 of the N.C.T.E. Act deals with the contravention of the provisions of the Act and consequences thereof. It reads as follows :

"17. Contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof.- (1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing :

Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution :

Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order.

(2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under sub-section (1), -

(a) shall be communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the University or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation ; and

(b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information:

(3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order.

(4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school/college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government."

11. The provisions of the N.C.T.E. Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Upendra Rai v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2000 (2) UPLBEC 1340, wherein it has been held, as under :

"3. .....So far as National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 is concerned, it was enacted as stated supra, to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to accomplishing planned and coordinated development for teachers education system throughout the country and regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teachers education system......"

This Court had further held :

"4. The "teacher education" as defined in Section 2(1) of the Central Act means programmes of education, research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education. Section 12 of the Central Act enumerates the functions of the National Council for Teacher Education as established under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. The functions enumerated in Section 12 inter alia include : (a) laying down guidelines in respect of minimum qualification for a person employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions ; (b) laying down norms the Fundamental Rules any specified category of courses or training in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum ; and (c) formulation of schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes. Section 14 of the Act enjoins upon every institution offering or intending to offer course or training in teacher education to make an application to the Regional Committee for grant of recognition. Section 15 requires prior permission of the Regional Committee as a condition precedent to starting any new course or training in teacher education by any recognised institution and according to Section 16 which has an overriding effect as the expressions 'notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force' suggest no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day, grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution or hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 of permission for a course or training under Section 15. Section 17 provides for withdrawal of recognition in the event of contravention of the provisions of the Act. Clause (4) of Section 17 visualizes that if an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition or where an institution offering course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government or "any State Government". This necessarily implies that qualification in teacher education obtained from an institution duly recognised under the provisions of the Act, would be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of appointment in Schools and Colleges or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any other State Government. Regard being had to the purpose and object sought to be achieved by the Act as also the provisions thereunder as discussed above, we are persuaded to the view that the person having obtained the qualification in teacher education from a recognised institution would be qualified for being considered in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government."

12. In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Shri Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers' College, (2002) 8 SCC 228, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of the N.C.T.E. Act held, as under:

"11. ................N.C.T.E. is an expert body created under the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and Parliament has imposed upon such expert body the duty to maintain the standards of education, particularly, in relation to teachers' education. Education is the backbone of every democracy and any deterioration in the standard of teaching in the B.Ed. course would ultimately produce sub-standard prospective teachers who would be teaching in schools and colleges throughout the country and on whose efficiency the future of the country depends. Inasmuch as the teacher himself has received a sub-standard education it is difficult to expect from him a higher standard of teaching to the students of the schools or other institutions."

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others. v. Lata Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642, has held that after the deletion of Madhyama certificate from the recognised qualification by the notification dated 28th June, 1985, the person who has obtained the Madhyama certificate from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, in the year 1984, is not entitled for admission in General Nursing and Mid-wifery and Staff Nurse course in Rajasthan under the relevant rules.

14. In Shailendra Kumar Singh's case (supra), this Court considered the question of employment of Assistant Teachers on the basis of "Visharad" degree of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, and held, as under (paras 21,22,23,24, 25, 29 and 30):

21. It is not in dispute that all the institutions from which these petitioners have done their Shiksha Visharad course, have not been recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education under the provisions of the N.C.T.E. Act, which came into force on 1st July, 1995. Under Section 16 of the Act, it has been provided that no examining body shall, on or after the appointed date (1st July, 1995), hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution unless the institution had obtained recognition from the Regional Committee under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15. Under Section 17(4) of the Act, it has been provided that where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed date, fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, or any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government. Thus, after the coming into force of the Act, the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad could not have held examination for a course or training conducted by any recognised institution unless the institution has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee for the course or training offered by it and if the institution has given training, such training cannot be treated a valid qualification for the purposes of employment in the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school/college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.

22. It may be mentioned here that before the National Council for Teacher Education, in the appeal filed by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 27th February, 2001, has held that the provisions of the Act do not envisage the grant of recognition to any examining body for conducting the examination and award of degree/diploma. It only requires recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education of the institution running teachers' training courses. Before the Appellate Authority, the representative of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan stated that it does not conduct any teachers' training courses. It only conducts examination at various centres in the country.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that various State Governments have been treating the degree of Shiksha Visharad conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as a valid degree for appointment in Basic Schools. Be that as it may, after the coming into force of the Act from 1st July, 1995, in view of the specific prohibition contained in Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, neither the examination held by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan can be recognised nor the training course of Shiksha Visharad offered by an unregistered institution can be recognised. Thus, till such time the institutions running Shiksha Visharad course are recognised by the Regional Committee, the qualification acquired by each of the petitioners cannot be said to be a valid qualification for the purpose of giving appointment in the Basic Schools run by the State Government or the Basic Shiksha Parishad.

24. Thus, a degree of Shiksha Visharad which each of the petitioners has obtained from the institution not recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education, cannot confer any right to be considered for appointment on the post of a teacher.

25. The plea that the Government of U. P. had given appointment to persons who have done Shiksha Visharad from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, therefore, these petitioners should also be treated similarly is misconceived. It is well settled that the mere fact hat the authority has passed a particular order in a case of another person, similarly situated, can never be the ground for issuing appointment in favour of the petitioners on the plea of discrimination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Jagjit Singh and Anr., (1995) 1 SCC 745, has held as follows :

"8. We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed an illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law--indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law--but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioners' case is similar to the other person's case. But then why examine another person's case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the Court and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the Court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken in another person's case, which other person is not before the Court nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course, barring exceptional situations, would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedent, as understood in the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of orders passed by the authorities in exercise of theirs quasi-judicial powers, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a proper case arises)."

29. Before parting with the case, in order to safeguard the career of the students and to prevent them from being misled by unrecognised degrees, the Court feels it proper to issue directions to the State Government and the National Council for Teacher Education to ensure that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad which is a body constituted under the provisions of the 1962 Act, does not hold any examinations of a course of teacher training and/or grant affiliation to any institution which has not been recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education.

30. The Court further finds that the provisions of the N.C.T.E. Act are not sufficient to deal with unscrupulous persons who run institutions/colleges offering unrecognised course or training in teacher education by playing with the career of innocent youths and ruining their life. Except under Section 17 of the N.C.T.E. Act, which deals with the contravention of the provisions of the N.C.T.E. Act and consequences thereof by only providing that the unrecognised course or training in teacher education shall not be treated as a valid qualification for the purposes of employment under the Central/State Government, or in any educational institution aided by the Central/State Government, there is no provision in the N.C.T.E. Act which may provide any deterrent for such an unscrupulous person. In fact, they go scot free leaving the innocent persons high and dry. Time has come for the Government of India to provide for more stringent provisions in the N.C.T.E. Act for dealing with such unscrupulous persons. The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi for taking appropriate steps.

15. In Umakant Tiwari and Ors. Vs. State of U. P. and Ors. (2003) 4 AWC 3016, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has considered the issue at length and came to the conclusion that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad/Prayag were only registered societies and not educational institutions. The said societies had no business to impart education in medical sciences. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was a fake institution whereas Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was recognised only from 1931 to 1967. This judgement was set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter was remanded. On remand this court again dismissed the writ petition.

16. In Rajasthan Pradesh Vs. Sardarshahar (supra) (para 28 to 34) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in the judgement after remand, in Umakant Tiwari (supra) the Allahabad High court has recorded the following findings of fact:-

"Shri Jeevan Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has fairly stated that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan does not grant affiliation to any institution for imparting education in medical courses. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan in fact only conducts written examination for the purposes of awarding the said degrees. Any person, who is successful in the written examination so held by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is awarded the degree, irrespective of the fact as to whether he was enrolled as a regular student in any institution or not.

No application was ever made by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad/Prayag to get its medical qualifications i.e. Vaidya Visharad and Ayurved Ratna recognised and included in the Second Schedule. They have not represented in exercise of powers under Section 14 (2) of Act, 1970 before the Central Government for inclusion of the said qualifications in the Second Schedule at any point of time in respect of degrees/certificates granted subsequent to 1967. This has led a very peculiar situation. By not getting their medical qualifications approved/recognised under Second Schedule of Act, 1970, the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has successfully evaded any inspection/any direction of the Central council of India qua medical qualification granted by it for years together and therefore on one hand not only it did not represent the Government for inclusion of medical qualification even after publication of schedule as early as in the year 1971 till date i. e. nearly 38 years, it has also successfully evaded inspection by the Government/Central Council, for issuance of directions for maintenance of standard of education, curriculum etc. At the same time it alleges that its qualification be treated to be valid by the Central Council of Indian Medicine for the purpose of permitting practice of medicine. Despite being aware of the total prohibition qua grant of medical qualification as per the Act of Parliament namely, Act no.48 of 1970 and despite there being a provision to get its medical qualifications recognised and included in the second Schedule, no effort has been made by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan for the purpose. . . . Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has fairly stated that it does not affiliate or recognise any institution and it exercises absolutely no control on the teaching in the subject of medicine qua degrees of Vaidya Visharad and Ayurved Ratna, nor it is necessary for a candidate to appear in the examination conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan to have been admitted as a regular student in any institution imparting education in the field of medicine. The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan holds written examination only for awarding the degree. In the opinion of the Court such grant of degree without any practical teaching, cannot be approved of and it is for this reason that the Central Government has come out with Central Act laying down the norms in detail for education being imparted in the field of medicine. "

17. In Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of U. P. and Ors. (1999) AWC 1783, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a degree/certificate/diploma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, prayag acquired after 1967 was not recognised and those who obtained the same subsequent to 1967 were not entitled to practice medicines.

18. In Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of U. P. and Ors. (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1063, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High court considered the matter at length alongwith statutory provisions of the Act, 1970 and came to the conclusion that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad had never been empowered to issue such certificates/degrees. However, certificates issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag were recognised during the period of 1931 to 1967. Thus, any such certificate subsequent thereto could not entitle a person to practice medicine.

19. In Virender Lal Vaishya Vs. Union of India and Ors.2003 (2)Mah. LJ 64, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was not a recognised university/Board and thus could not award degree, diploma or certificate.

20. In Charan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U. P. and Ors. AIR 2004 All.373, this Court considered the issue of validity of certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag and came to the conclusion that the said institution had absolutely no authority to confer any degree or diploma of "Vaidya Visharad" and "Ayurved-Ratna" after 1967 and any person who has acquired such certificate after 1967 was not entitled to practice at all.

21. In Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Umakant Tiwari (supra) was set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1453/2004 vide judgment and order dated 25th May, 2007, and the matter was remanded to the High Court to decide afresh for the reason that matter had initially been decided by the High Court in 2003 without giving opportunity of hearing to Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad/Prayag.

22. After remand, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad/Prayag were given notices and were directed to file the counter affidavits. The court, after hearing all the parties concerned, including Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2009, dismissed the writ petition.

23. In Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"43. At the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention here that in view of the above, we have reached to the following inescapable conclusions :-

(I) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/Deemed university nor an Educational Board.

(II) It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration act.

(III) It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda or any other branch of medical field.

(IV) No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is affiliated to any University/board.

(V) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt had ever been made by the Society to get recognition as required under section 14 of the Act, 1970 and further did not seek modification of entry No.105 in II Schedule to the Act, 1970.

(VI) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has some elementary/basic education or has attended classes in ayurveda in any recognised college.

(VII) After commencement of Act, 1970, a person not possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice.

(VIII) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough making him eligible to practice.

(IX) The right to practice under Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution.

(X) Restriction on practice without possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV to the Act, 1970 is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act.

(Emphasis supplied by me)

24. In Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 153, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that recognised degree can only be awarded by University constituted/established under the provisions of University Grants Commission Act or Rule or any State Act or Parliament Act. No University can be established by a private management without any statutory backing. Similar reasons apply to Hindi Sahitya Sammelan also, as it is only a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act. The competence to grant medical degree under any provisions of law is therefore, wanting.

25. The above discussion leads to inescapable conclusions that "Hindi Sahitya Sammelan" is merely a society registered under the Society Registration Act. It is neither a University nor a deemed University nor an Educational Board. It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject. No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is affiliated to any University/Board.

26. After the N.C.T.E. Act came into force on 1.7.1995, all institutions which want to start any course in or training in teacher education, have to apply and get recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education. Even a recognised institution which intends to start a new course or training in teacher education has to get recognition for the course. Even the institutions which were offering a course or training in teachers education before the commencement of the N.C.T.E. Act, has to apply for recognition of such course or training within six months from the appointed day, i.e., 1.7.1995. Thus, if a course or training in teachers' education was conducted/run by an institution which is/was not recognised then the act of holding examination of such course of training or issuing certificates is wholly without authority of law and invalid. Any qualification/training acquired from an unrecognised institution shall, therefore, be not a valid qualification/training for the purposes of employment under the Central and the State Governments or in any school, college or other educational institutions aided by the Central Government or State Government. The recognition of a course or training in teacher education imparted by an institution after the coming into force of the N.C.T.E. Act is sine qua non for being eligible for employment under the Central/State Governments or any school, colleges or other educational institutions aided by the Central/State Governments.

27. The office memorandum dated 4.8.2014, relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, is in entirely different context. That apart, such an order does not confer any right upon the petitioner to claim employment on the basis of a certificate of Visharad obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which is not recognised and is not a valid certificate in the eye of law. Legal position in this regard is absolutely clear from various judicial pronouncements as aforementioned. Apart from the fact that the alleged certificate of Visharad is not recognised by law and is not a valid educational certificate for obtaining an employment as Assistant Teacher, it is also relevant to note that no material has been brought on record by the petitioner to demonstrate that the Shiksha Visharad certificate is recognised by the State Government to be equivalent to intermediate.

28. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 23.5.2018/vkg