Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilraj Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 December, 2022
CWP No.4905 of 2020(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.4905 of 2020(O&M)
Reserved on: 16.12.2022
Date of Decision: 22.12.2022
Dilraj Singh ...Petitioner
Vs
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Ms. Ekakshra Mahajan Mandhar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.
-.-
JAISHREE THAKUR J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge order dated
17.09.2019 passed by respondent No.4-Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar
(Rural) whereby appointment of the petitioner as Sub Inspector has been
cancelled and the employment of the petitioner stands terminated.
2. In brief, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub
Inspector as a special case vide appointment letter dated 20.12.2017. The police
verification of the petitioner was done and certificates qua his qualification of
10th and 12th were found correct. However, the petitioner failed to submit his
graduation degree with respondents, even though detailed mark-sheets of all
three years had been supplied. On account of not submitting his graduation
degree, appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled, which order is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that there was
no concealment of fact on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner had
completed his graduation from Karnataka State Open University and had
supplied his detailed mark-sheets to the respondents at the time when his
1 of 4
documents were being scrutinized. The Karnataka State Open University was a
recognized University at the time when the petitioner took admission therein i.e.
in the year 2011-2012 and completed his graduation from there. However,
University Grants Commission, New Delhi de-recognized the University w.e.f.
2013-2014 and that is why the degree was not issued as no convocation was held.
It was further argued that the University has since been recognized. She would
rely upon the judgment as rendered in Suresh Pal and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others (1987) 2 SCC 445 to argue that if the course is recognized
when a candidate joins, subsequent de-recognition would not become a cause for
denying the benefit of appointment. Further reliance has been placed upon
judgment rendered in Suman Lata and others Vs. State of Haryana 2007 SCC
OnLine P&H 1716 wherein the issue that came up for consideration was whether
appointment can be offered, if the Diploma Certificate of Arts and Crafts issued
by the Kurukshetra University is not recognized. Petitioners therein had
submitted that they had secured two years Diploma in Arts and Crafts from
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra but the same was not recognized. The writ
petitions were disposed of by taking note of the fact that subsequently the
Diploma in Arts and Crafts conducted by the Kurukshetra University was
recognized and therefore, the petitioners were held eligible to be considered for
appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts Teachers on the strength of the
diplomas issued by the Kurukshetra University.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State would
argue that the petitioner herein had been offered appointment and in terms of the
appointment letter, he was to produce his graduation degree from the Karnataka
State Open University, which degree was never produced. Consequently, the
respondent-State had no option but to terminate his service.
2 of 4
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have
gone through the pleadings of the case.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner herein had been offered appointment as a
special case, as would be evident from appointment order dated 22.12.2017
(Annexure P-2). A reading of the said order would reflect that the appointment
letter was issued on the condition that if anything is found adverse in
medical/CID/Police verification and educational qualification, he will be
terminated. The said appointment order also notes that letter had been sent to the
Registrar, Karnataka State Open University, Mukthagangotri, Mysore for
verification of B.A. degree. The detailed mark-sheets of the petitioners are
available on record as Annexure P-3 to P-5 for the examinations conducted for
B.A. 1st year in April/May 2012, for 2nd year in April/May 2013 and for 3rd year
in April, 2014. As per the information made available to the respondent-State, at
the time of admission of the petitioner, Karnataka State Open University was
recognized by UGC. It is only on account of the fact that the petitioner has not
been able to produce his degree, his service stood terminated.
7. The petitioner had sought admission in Karnataka Open State University
when the said University was recognized and therefore, the petitioner could not
be made to suffer on account of de-recognition of the University in the year
2014. It is admitted position that he completed his B.A. degree course and
submitted relevant documents, which were found to be in order. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the petitioner herein obtained appointment on fraudulent
grounds. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the said University has already
been recognized by UGC and therefore, the ratio of the judgment as rendered by
this Court in Suman Lata's case (supra) would be applicable. It is worthwhile to
note that in the said judgment a Full Bench judgment rendered in Neelam Kumari
Vs. State of Punjab, 1993(1) RSJ 327 has been referred wherein it was observed
3 of 4
that when the petitioner completed the course and applied for job and such
certificates were recognized by the State of Punjab and if subsequently the State
of Punjab decided to de-recognize such certificates, same would be prospectively
and will not apply retrospectively. Even in the case of Sandhya Singh v.
Punjabi University, Patiala 2001 (2) RSJ 240, the question before the Division
Bench of this High Court was whether the cancellation of admission of the
petitioner, who had done her 10+2 examination from the Bihar Intermediate
Education Council, which was derecognised, was justified? On the strength of
her examination, she got admission in 5 years LL.B. course, however, the
University cancelled her admission on de-recognition of said Council and it was
held that de-recognition relating to bar of eligibility clause can be given effect
prospectively. The eligibility of candidate is to be determined on last date of
submission of application and since at the time when petitioner joined the course,
Board was recognised, the cancellation of admission of petitioner was not
sustainable in law. Applying said ratio to the present case, where the petitioner
had taken admission in the Karnataka State Open University when the same was
recognized and undertook 2nd year examination in the month of April/May 2013
when it came to be de-recognised subsequently, he cannot be faulted if the
Karnataka State Open University was subsequently derecognised. As a matter of
fact, now Karnataka State Open University has been given recognition.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant writ petition
stands allowed and the impugned order dated 17.09.2019 is set aside. The
petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
JUDGE
December 22, 2022
Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
