Rajasthan High Court

Mohammad Yakub vs State Of Raj And Ors on 21 April, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9489/2009

Rafiq Khan S/o Shri Tar Khan, Village And Post Maiarana Dongar,
Distt. Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary To The
       Government, Department Of Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.     The Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner
       rajasthan
3.     The District Education Officer, Secondary Education,
       Sawaimadhopur Raj.
                                                                    ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16652/2010 Mohammad Yakub S/o Shri Habibur Rehman, House No. 151, Adarshila Ke Samne, Dadabari, Kota.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Joint Director (Training) Secondary Education, Bikaner rajasthan

3. District Education Officer, Secondary, Kota.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16989/2010 Abdul Wahid S/o Shri Ahmed Khan, Jama Masjid, Nainwa District, Bundi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education (Secondary), Government, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Joint Director (Training) Secondary Education, Bikaner rajasthan

(2 of 7) [CW-9489/2009]

3. District Education Officer Secondary, Bundi.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17024/2010 Shabbir Ali son of Shri Mohammad Azim, aged about 51 years, resident of Hiran Bazar, Patan Pol, Kota.

----Petitioner Versus

1. District Education Officer (Secondary), Kota.

2. Commissioner, Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Education, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. Head Master, Govt. Secondary School, Patanpol, Kota.

5. Joint Director (Training), Secondary, Education, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma.

Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

21/04/2022

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue raised in

these writ petitions is identical to S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.1466/2011 (Smt. Shehzad Begum Vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 28.03.2022 and prayed that

similar relief be granted to the petitioners also.

In the case of Smt. Shehzad Begum (supra), a Co-

ordinate Bench of this court observed as under:-

"Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the order dated 22.11.2010 (Annex.5) may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

(3 of 7) [CW-9489/2009]

Any other appropriate order or direction may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner passed her Moallim-e- Urdu from Jamia Urdu Aligarh on 28.06.1991 and the same was equivalent to the degree of B.Ed. and on the basis of the said degree, she was given appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-II on 29.12.1989 and she continued in service for about 21 years. Counsel further submits that in the meantime, the Joint Director Secondary Education directed the Deputy Director Secondary Education to terminate the services of those candidates who got the degree of Moallim-e-Urdu from Jamia Urdu Aligarh. Against the said order dated 22.11.2010, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition and this Court passed an interim order on 04.02.2011 and she was allowed to remain continue in service on the post she was holding. Counsel further submits that the similar controversy with regard to the other certificates of Adeeb-E-Mahir came before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Miss. Firdos Tarannum and Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 534/2005) took a decision that any order passed by the authorities cannot be given reprospective effect. Counsel further submits that the respondents are trying to take the benefit of an order passed on 24.04.1993 whereby the Director Primary and Secondary Education took a decision that qualification of Moallime-Urdu cannot be considered equivalent to B.Ed. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has already acquired the said qualification prior to passing of the aforesaid order dated 24.04.1993, hence, the order cannot be applied with its retrospective effect. Lastly, counsel argued that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 04.02.2011, the petitioner has remained continued on the post of Teacher Grade-II and after attaining the age of superannuation she retired on 31.08.2021, so the petition be allowed and the appropriate orders be passed to the respondents to release the retiral dues of the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised

(4 of 7) [CW-9489/2009]

by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in terms of the guidelines dated 03.02.1965 of the State of Rajasthan, the qualification of the petitioner was considered equivalent to B.Ed., however, later an order in respect of equal qualification was issued on 24.04.1993 by the Director Primary and Secondary Education whereby a decision was taken by the Government that the qualification of Moallim-e-Urdu cannot be considered equivalent to B.Ed., hence, the qualification acquired by the petitioner does not fall within the requisite qualification and eligibility to hold the post of Teacher Grade- II.

Heard.

Considered the arguments raised by the counsel for both the parties.

The controversy involved in this petition has already been set at rest by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 534/2005 in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Miss. Firdos Tarannum and Anr. By observing thus:- "Before closing we must deal with three documents submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General. First such document is a communication 23.11.1991 issued by the State of Rajasthan which provides that the Central Government has in its communication dated 04.07.1952 provided that the courses offered by the university or institution established by the Central or State Government or which have been recognized by theUniversity Grants Commission would be recognized and therefore degrees and diplomas granted by such institutions would not have to be separately recognized. The second document is a communication dated 24.04.1993 issued by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, State of Rajasthan in which after referring to the above noted communication dated 23.11.1991 it has been stated that the Jamia Urdu Aligarh is not an institution established by the university or the board and the course of Mohalim-E-Urdu will not be considered equivalent to B.Ed degree. In our opinion, these communications would not change the complexion so far as Government order dated 03.02.1965 is concerned. In the said order specifically the Government has decided to recognize

(5 of 7) [CW-9489/2009]

specific named courses offered by the institution and also provided their equivalence. The communication dated 23.11.1991 merely records the stand of the Central Government that in relation to the institutions established by the Central or the State Government or recognized by the UGC, there would be no need to separately recognize the courses offered by them. This does not mean that no other courses of these institutions can be recognized by the State Government. The communication dated 24.04.1993 is primary a reiteration of the stand adopted by the State Government in the communication dated 23.11.1991 and it further specifically de- recognizes a particular course offered by the Jamia Urdu Aligarh namely the course of Mohalim-E-Urdu, which shall not be considered equivalent to B.Ed. Reference has also been made to the office order dated 05.07.2011 issued by the secondary education board in which it is recorded that the question of recognizing the course offered by the Jamia Urdu Aligarh have been considered in the board meeting dated 19.05.2011. The institution was also given opportunity of hearing. Decision of this Court in the case of Firdos Tarannum (the present case in which at that time the Division Bench judgment held field) was also examined. The Government communication dated 24.04.1993 was also taken into consideration. Eventually, it was decided not to recognize the courses offered by the said institution and the earlier recognization was withdrawn. Even this development can have no impact in the present proceedings. The de-recognization from the secondary school board to the courses offered by the said institution came about in the year 2011. The same can have no adverse impact on the students who already pursued the courses and obtained certificates of completion of the courses earlier. These certificates were first recognized and considered equivalent to the relevant qualifications by the State Government since the year 1965 which continued without any further change thereafter except for the said two clarifications issued in the year 1991 and 1993. The secondary school board also had granted specific recognition to these courses in the year2002, it was recalled

(6 of 7) [CW-9489/2009]

only in the year 2011 which can have only prospective effect."

While deciding the aforesaid matter in the case of Miss. Firdos Tarannum (supra), the Division Bench was cautious of the fact that any order passed by the authorities cannot be given retrospective effect. Here in the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has acquired the qualification of Moallim-eUrdu on 28.06.1991 and at the relevant time this qualification was treated as equivalent to B.Ed. by respondents and on the basis of that equivalence she was given appointment om the post of Teacher Grade II. This Court is conscious of this fact that any order cannot be given retrospective effect to stretch the benefit which has already been given to any candidate. This Court is also conscious about the fact that immediately after passing of the order dated 22.11.2010, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner and allowed her to continue on the post she was holding and during pendency of this writ petition after attaining the age of superannuation, she has retired on 30.08.2021.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed and the impugned order dated 22.11.2010 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. The respondents are directed to release all retiral benefits and consequential benefits to the petitioner forthwith without any delay within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Stay application as well as pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has not

disputed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners.

In view of the above submissions made, these writ petitions

filed by the petitioners are disposed of in light of and with similar

directions as given in the case of Smt. Shehzad Begum (supra).

The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the

(7 of 7) [CW-9489/2009]

respondents are directed to release all retiral benefits and give

consequential benefits to the petitioners within a period two

months from receiving the certified copy of this order.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J