Aruna Chandra Kumar Patle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 6650 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Aruna Chandra Kumar Patle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 March, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                            1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2024
                                              WRIT PETITION No. 2837 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           ARUNA CHANDRA KUMAR PATLE W/O SHRI CHANDRA
                           KUMAR PATLE, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           TEACHER R/O VILLAGE KATANGJHARI, TAHSIL
                           LALBARRA, DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.) (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI ASEEM TRIVEDI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 THE    PRINCIPAL    SECRETARY SCHOOL
                                 EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN
                                 BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    COMMISSIONER PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS BHOPAL
                                 DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    THE JOINT DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
                                 JABALPUR DIVISION JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           4.    THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER JABALPUR
                                 DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

This petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Joint Director Public Instructions, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur

whereby petitioner's candidature for appointment to the post of Madhyamik Shikshak has been rejected only on the ground that as per the information received from the District Education Officer, District Jabalpur on 14.01.2022,

petitioner Aruna Chandra Kumar Patle produced her B.A. 6 th Semester Mark- sheet from Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur which was issued in June, 2014. She had passed said course as a regular student of Government S.S.P. Arts, Commerce, Science and Law College, Waraseoni.

It is further mentioned that petitioner Aruna Chandra Kumar Patle obtained diploma in education (two years course) and passed second year of that exam in August, 2015 from the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal.

She has been shown as a regular student in Diploma in Education Course at Takshshila College, Jhirniya, Parwaliya Road, Bhopal.

Taking this fact into consideration that two regular courses could not have been attended by the petitioner as a regular student, order of appointment has been cancelled.

Petitioner's contention is that there is no such bar on pursuing a degree and a diploma course. He places reliance on Annexure P-10, which is a communication dated 28.12.2012, made by the University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi wherein the agenda was to consider the case for a student enrolled in a degree programme under regular board may be allowed to pursue a maximum of one additional degree programme simultaneously under open/distance mode from the same or a different university. However, two degree programmes under regular mode may not be allowed simultaneously as it may create logistic, administrative and academic problems. In this very agenda, it is mentioned that a student pursuing a degree

programme under regular mode may be allowed to pursue a maximum of one

certificate/diploma/advance diploma/PG diploma programme simultaneously either in regular or open and distance mode in the same university or from other institutions.

Shri Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court in he case of Sudeep Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh passed in W.A. No.262/2018 decided on 10.07.2018 submits that Hon'ble Division Bench has held that "there is no merit in the contention of counsel for the appellant i.e. the respondent No.5 was not entitled to 30 marks for possessing B.Com Degree. He could not point out any rule or any provision of law which prohibits from passing of B.Com and Diploma simultaneously. The Collector and the Commissioner have recorded specific finding that the respondent No.5 had submitted his B.Com mark-sheet and thereafter, his name was included in the tentative merit list and after expiration of statutory period as prescribed under Clause 8(12) of the advertisement, the said list had attained finality and there could not have been any change in the final select list. Those findings have been affirmed by the learned Single Judge."

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge in case of Praveen Chauhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in W.P. No.6450/2016 decided on 07.04.2016, wherein it is held that obtaining one

degree and one computer diploma in one session is not prohibited or is not contrary to any enabling/statutory provision, therefore, Coordinate Bench held that no interference is warranted.

Reliance is also placed on the document, Annexure RR-3, filed along with the rejoinder, to point out that under the Right to Information Act,

petitioner had sought information and he was informed that UGC only regulates degree courses. It was informed that diploma courses are not regulated by the UGC whereas a university after obtaining proper approval from the Governing Council and of the Executive Council may render diploma/certificate courses.

Shri Trivedi also places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 521, where issue was that petitioner had appeared in two Class- X exams of the same year which according to the respondents had dis-entitled him from intermediate examination but since no regulation was brought on record, said challenge to not participated in the intermediate exam was negativated and U.P. Board was directed to permit the petitioner to allow him to participate in the intermediate examination.

Shri Manas Mani Verma, learned Government Advocate, in his turn, submits that mark-sheet of the petitioner for B.A. and Diploma in Education Courses is filed as Annexure R-3 and R-4 respectively. Annexure R-3 reveals that petitioner Aruna Bhagat D/o Bhojilal Bhagat was a regular student of Government S.S.P. Arts, Commerce, Science and Law College, Waraseoni. This mark-sheet is for the exam which was conducted in June, 2014. Similarly mark-sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh for diploma in education two years course was issued in July, 2014 where petitioner is shown as a regular student of Takshshila Mahavidyalaya, Bhopal.

Thus, it is submitted that a student could not have attended classes as a regular student at two different places namely at Waraseoni and at Bhopal simultaneously and this exposes the faults of one of the certificate as a regular student and that has made the petitioner ineligible for appointment as Madhyamik Shikshak.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gong through the record, petitioner has raised a issue that there is no bar on simultaneously pursuing a degree and a diploma course. With the help of agenda which was floated by the UGC, as contained in Annexure P-10, he has tried to demonstrate that there was no bar. On the contrary in the agenda itself, UGC contemplated permitting students for undertaking a diploma or a degree course simultaneously. Similarly placing reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Division Bench in and a Coordinate Bench, as contained in Annexure P-12 and P-13, it is sought to be made that there is no prohibition on pursuing two courses simultaneously. That being true for the time being, but facts of the case are different. It is true that there is no material brought on record by the State to show that there was prohibition in pursuing a degree and diploma course simultaneously but how a person can pursue two regular courses from two regular institutions simultaneously is the issue which is to be decided because that goes into the root of the controversy.

In the present case, admittedly, petitioner was pursuing her graduation degree as a regular student from Government S.S.P. Arts, Commerce, Science and Law College, Waraseoni during the same period she was pursuing her diploma in education as a regular student from Takshshila Mahavidyalaya, Jhirniya, Parwaliya Road, Bhopal. She could not have been enrolled as a regular student at two places simultaneously, which shows that she has committed fraud on the system by getting herself registered as a regular student simultaneously and that too at the distance of more than 500 kms. She could not have physically be present in both the colleges at a distance of 500 kms and, therefore, diploma or degree as the case may be one of them where

petitioner was not present personally and was being given benefit of fictitious attendance cannot be counted to be a valid diploma and, therefore, when examined from this perspective neither of the judgments relied on by the petitioner or the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court will help the petitioner, therefore, when tested impugned order having been passed after taking into consideration impossibility of pursuing two courses, one degree and one diploma both as a regular student at two different places which are at least at a distance of 500 kms, does not call for interference.

Petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE MTK