Jharkhand High Court
Raju Kumar Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:11465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.2156 of 2021
------
Raju Kumar Saw, son of Daulat Saw, resident of Village Gadi
Shrirampur, P.O. Gadi Shrirampur, P.S. Giridih, District Giridih,
Jharkhand - 815302. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at HEC High School,
JSCA Stadium Road, Sector-3, Dhurwa, Jagganathpur, Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. Director, Primary Education Department, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
4. Director, Secondary Education Department, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
5. Director, Higher Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand,
having its office at 3rd Floor, Yojana Bhawan, Nepal House,
Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. Deputy Director, Regional Education, North Chotanagpur
Division, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at P.O., P.S.
& District Hazaribagh.
7. District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. &
District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Advocate
------
08/ 09.04.2025
Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and
learned counsel representing the respondents.
2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that
the petitioner should not have been terminated from the post of
Assistant Teacher as his higher educational qualification is from
Vinoba Bhave University. Further, her submission is that Vinoba
Bhave University has admitted this petitioner for higher educational
courses and since Vinoba Bhave University has recognized the
educational qualification of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the
2025:JHHC:11465
petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. She further
submits that Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi (BHSE) is
recognized by the State of Uttar Pradesh that being so the
petitioner's initial qualification cannot be held to be invalid. As per
the counsel, since the higher degree which the petitioner has
obtained is by a recognized University, validity of the initial degrees
could not be a ground to terminate the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel representing the respondent - State
submits that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, is not
a recognized Board of Education by the Ministry nor any degree
granted by it has any legal sanctity. The letters which have been
relied upon have not been issued by the Ministry and are forged.
Admittedly, the entity i.e. the Board of Higher Secondary Education,
Delhi , stood dissolved w.e.f. 01.07.1962 by the Directorate of Delhi
Administration's Resolution No.F-32/10/62 Edn dated 30.06.1962.
Any documents relating to the recognition of the same is fake. She
produces a copy of the Communication dated 26th July, 2019 in
support of her submission. She also submits that when the initial
degree of secondary education of the petitioner is unrecognized, the
subsequent degrees cannot hold good. She also relied upon several
paragraphs of the counter affidavit.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner applied pursuant to an
Advertisement published by the State of Jharkhand for filling up the
post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner was selected and was being
appointed as Assistant Teacher in M.S. Chanho School at Bishungarh
Block. The said appointment is of 20.02.2016. On 09.07.2016, the
appointment of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that the
2025:JHHC:11465
Secondary School Certificate of the petitioner and the Senior
Secondary School Certificate of the petitioner which are of the year
2001 and 2003 respectively, are from the Board of Higher Secondary
Education, Delhi . This Board is not recognized and is not also the
member of Council of School Education in India. Since the initial
secondary and higher secondary degree of the petitioner are bad,
even though he had obtained higher qualification from recognized
University, he was terminated due to lack of valid educational
qualification.
5. From the Counter Affidavit and the documents, I find that
the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, is not a recognized
Board. When the Board is not recognized, any certificates or degree
issued by the Board is invalid. Since the secondary and higher
secondary degrees were issued by the unrecognized Board, it can
easily be held that the petitioner does not possess a valid secondary
and higher secondary qualification. The fact that the petitioner
obtained higher education from the University of Jharkhand which is
recognized is not disputed.
6. Now the question which falls for consideration is whether
the conferment of a subsequent higher degrees on the basis of
secondary and higher secondary degrees which is not valid, can
validate the degrees.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Raman Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Diary No(s) 3959/2021, relying upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Annamalai University Vs.
Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism
2025:JHHC:11465
Department reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590, has held that the Post
Graduate degree obtained from an Open University but without
undergoing basic degree course is not acceptable.
7. The aforesaid two judgments were relied upon by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.463 of 2022 (Roshan
Ram Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) (decided on 11.05.2023).
8. In this case, admittedly the basic educational qualification
of the petitioner i.e. matriculation and higher secondary are not from
a valid recognized Board. When the basic qualification is invalid, any
qualification obtained thereafter based on those invalid qualification,
cannot validate the invalid qualification. Subsequent degrees also
can be said to be invalid.
9. The respondent Authorities have correctly terminated the
petitioner for want of valid educational qualification. I find no
illegality in the same.
10. However, before parting, since the respondents have
taken some work from the petitioner for few months, it will be open
to the respondents to pay the remuneration to the petitioner for the
service which they have taken from him.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Prashant.Cp-2
AFR
