Himachal Pradesh High Court
Monica Sharma vs Unknown on 13 September, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
.
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4814 OF 2020
Between:-
MONICA SHARMA, AGE 26 YEARS,
D/O VISHESHVAR PRASAD,
VILLAGE DASANGU, P.O. DINGER
KINNER, TEHSIL PACHCHAD,
DISTRICT SIRMOUR - 173 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SH. SAMEER THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH SECRETARY (HEALTH)
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA-
171 002, H.P.
2. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE,
KASUMPTI, SHIMLA--9, H.P.
THROUGH THE DIRECTOR HEALTH
SERVICES.
3. H.P. PARAMEDICAL COUNCIL,
IGMC, SHIMLA-1 THROUGH ITS
REGISTRAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE
GENERAL WITH SH. RAJINDER
DOGRA, SENIOR ADDITIONAL
ADVOCATE GENERAL, SH. VINOD
THAKUR, SH. SHIV PAL
MANHANS, SH. HEMANSHU
MISRA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL AND SH. BHUPINDER
THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:54 :::CIS
2
GENERAL, FOR RESPNDENTS NO.
1 AND 2.
SH. DALEEP SHARMA, ADVOCATE,
FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3).
.
RESERVED ON: 08.09.2021 REPORTABLE
This Petition coming on for Admission after Notice on this day,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the
following:-
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:
(i) That the respondent council may kindly be directed to
produce the letter whereby the candidature of the petitioner
for registration with the council was rejected alongwith all
the other relevant records.
(ii) That the action of the respondent council in rejecting the
candidature of the petitioner for registration may kindly be
set aside as illegal and arbitrary.
(iii) That the respondent council may kindly be directed to
issue the registration certificate in favour of the petitioner by
considering her qualifications as duly acquired from
recognized board of school education & university.
2. It is averred by the petitioner that she has acquired +2
in Science from a school in Rajgarh, Sirmour though affiliated to
Board of School Education, New Delhi. Thereafter, in the year,
2011, the petitioner registered as student with H. P. University for
further studies and in the year, 2016 has qualified B.Sc Medical Lab
Technician from NIMS Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. In the year, 2018 the petitioner got registered as a
Medical Lab Technician with the Para Medical Council of Punjab and,
thereafter in the year, 2020 petitioner submitted her documents for
registration with the H.P. Para Medical Council as a Medical Lab
Technician, but the same was refused, thereby, dis-entitling her
.
from participating in the counselling for 161 posts of Medical Lab
Technician held on 02.11.2020 in the Department of Health and
Family Welfare.
4. The action of the respondents has been assailed
primarily on the ground that since the petitioner was duly qualified
and possessing +2 certificate from a recognized Board of Higher
Secondary Education, New Delhi and B.Sc Medical Lab Technician
from a recognised university, she could not have been denied
participation in the counselling for 161 posts of Medical Lab
Technician.
5. Respondents have contested the petition by filing reply
wherein it has been averred that the Himachal Pradesh Para
Medical Council was established in the State of Himachal Pradesh
as per Act, 2003 ( for short 'Act'). The Council has been established
to regulate the practice by Para Medical practitioner of the
institution and the only purpose of Para Medical Council is to
register the recognized Para Medical qualification, a degree,
diploma or certificate in any Para Medical qualifications, granted by
any university established by law or any other institutions
recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh in this behalf. The Act
has been passed to ensure that no Para Medical Institute is run
within the territorial limit of State Government without permission
which would secure and protect interest of students, who were to
study or obtain training from the institute.
6. Thereafter, the provisions of Section 38 of the Act have
.
been quoted and reads as under:-
38.(1) No person shall be registered on the State Register as
Para-Registration, medical practitioner unless he possesses a
recognized qualification and renewal has not paid such fee,
as may be prescribed and different fee many and State be
prescribed for different qualifications but it shall not exceed
one thousand rupees and the registration shall be valid for a
period of three years.
(2) The Council shall cause to be maintained a State Register
of para-medical practitioners in such form, as may be
prescribed, by regulations.
(3) The Register shall be deemed to be public document
within the 1 meaning of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(4) Every registered paramedical practitioner registered
under sub-section (1) shall renew his registration after every
three years on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
7. It is further averred that eligible candidates are
registered as para medical practitioner as required under sub
section 1 of Section 38 of the Act and authorized to practice after
they are found to have fulfilled the requirements of the Act as well
as the different notifications issued by the State Government from
time to time. As regards the instant case, it is averred that the
petitioner has done +2 examination from the Board of Higher
Education, Delhi, and at the time of submission of the documents
she was asked to brought the recognition certificate with respect to
the education qualification. Since the petitioner has done +2 from
Board of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi, therefore,
respondents sent a letter dated 07.09.2020, to the Secretary
Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education regarding the
verification of the Board.
.
8. On 03.10.2020, respondents received a response
wherein it was informed that any examination conducted by the
Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, is not considered valid
for admission to higher education as it is not equivalent to any
examination conducted by the H.P. Board of School Education. In
9.
r to
view of this clarification, the name of the petitioner was not
registered.
It is also averred that apart from the opinion gathered
from the internet the name of the Board from which the petitioner
had done +2 examination has not been reflected/mentioned as per
the list of recognized board in India.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the material placed on record.
10. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that even though the Board of Higher Secondary
Education, Delhi may be fake and fraudulent but the petitioner
cannot be made to suffer for the same and rather the State of
Himachal Pradesh should conduct a special examination to save the
future of the affected students like the petitioner.
11. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on the
learned Single Judge Judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya in
WP(C) No. 188 of 2016, titled as Kalpataru Academy & ors.
vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors. and the judgment of the learned
Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ
No. 225 of 2020, titled as Pratap Singh vs. State of
.
Rajasthan & Ors.
12. We are not inclined to agree much less concede to the
contentions raised by the petitioner, reason being that an identical
issue regarding the validity of the certificate issued by the Board of
Higher Secondary Education, Delhi (fake organisation) came up
before the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC
No. 18812 of 2012, Pankaj Kumar vs. The Union of India and
Ors and CWJC No. 26 of 2018, titled as Vivek Kumar vs. The
Union of India and Ors., wherein it was observed as under:-
"The core issue is that the so called certificate akin to
matriculation obtained by this petitioner from the Board
of Higher Secondary Education, New Delhi (a fake
organization) can form the basis for begetting
employment in the Postal Department. Since this is not
an educational institution but a fraudulent organization
selling fake certificates, therefore, if this fact is not
disputed and the educational qualification of the
present petitioner is not a matter of argument then any
employment obtained by him on the basis of the said
certificate cannot beget him the benefit of continuance
in service. The Court will advise the petitioner to
acquire knowledge instead of buying knowledge from
such institutions.
No interference is warranted with the order of the Tribunal.
Writ is dismissed."
13. These matters were thereafter carried to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4171 of 2019
and analogous cases, which were disposed of by order dated
.
27.09.2019 in the following terms: -
"Notice was issued in the matter so that the concerned
authorities could put on record the circumstances in which
communication dated 26.4.2013 was issued and explain the
status with regard to "Board of Higher Secondary Education".
Affidavits have thereafter been filed on behalf of the
concerned authorities which indicates that the concerned
"Board of Higher Secondary Education" is not recognized at
all; and that the documents appended to the SLPs were not
the correct copies of the originals. Nor were those documents
existing on the concerned files.
We had therefore, called upon Union of India to publish an
advertisement in the newspapers and put in the public
domain that the concerned Board was not recognized at all
and to warn the entire student community. The
advertisement to that effect has been issued and affidavits of
compliance have also been filed.
In the circumstances, nothing further need be done in the
matter. The special leave petitions are disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of."
14. The advertisement as referred in the aforesaid order is
available on the public domain and reads as under:-
The Ministry of Human Resource and Development wishes to
inform the general public that it has come to the notice of
Ministry of HRD that one entity operating in the name of
"Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi" is claiming to
be a recognised Board of Education by this Ministry vide
letter No. 1812/2009/SKT-1 dated 29/06/2009 and D.O. letter
No. 3-5/2013/Sch.3 dated the 26th April, 2013. On scrutiny of
the relevant records of this Ministry, it has been found that no
such letters have ever been issued by this Ministry in favour
of so called Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. Both
these letters are, therefore, completely forged and
.
fabricated. Further, it is abundantly clarified that No letters,
whatsoever, have ever been issued by this Ministry
recognising the said entity i.e. Board of Higher Secondary
Education, Delhi. The said entity i.e. Board of Higher
Secondary Education, Delhi stands dissolved w.e.f.
01.07.1962 vide Directorate of Education Delhi
Administration Resolution's No. F.32(10)/62-Edn. dated
30.06.1962. Therefore, if any other document(s) is/are
produced by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi
in relation to its recognition, then the same may be deemed
to be fake and the veracity of the documents may first be got
confirmed from the concerned organisation/Ministry. The
General Public, all students, their parents and all other
stakeholders are, therefore, advised to take note of the above
facts and act accordingly.
15. Once the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi,
is found to be a fake and fraudulent organisation selling
certificates, therefore, the students who have obtained certificates
from such Board cannot be shown any indulgence save and except
in extreme exceptional cases, which is not the fact situation
obtaining in the instant case.
16. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District
Sirmaur where is no dearth of schools or even opportunities to
appear in +2 examination as a private candidate from a recognised
Board/Institute. Why would then the petitioner still opt to appear
for examination which is not affiliated to the H.P. Board of School
Education or any other recognised institute and appeared in the
Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi?
17. The answer does not require any rocket science or
.
solomon wisdom. As repeatedly held by the Courts in India, this
Board i.e. Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi is a fake and
fraudulent organisation selling fake degrees. The certificates and
degrees have to be acquired through lawful process and cannot be
made a 'purchasable commodity'.
18.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in
this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending
applications, if any. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Satyen Vaidya)
th
13 September, 2021 Judge
(sanjeev)
