CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16231 OF 2008 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 20, 2009
Sawarn Singh and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16231 of
2008 (Sawarn Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and
others), and 20161 of 2008 (Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana
and others). The issue raised in both the writ petitions is common
and is concerning the recognition of a qualification acquired by
person while serving in the Army. The facts are being taken from Civil
Writ Petition No.16231 of 2008.
Petitioner No.1 joined the Army service after passing
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16231 OF 2008 :{ 2 }:
matriculation examination, whereas petitioner No.2 was graduate
when he joined the service. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 passed
Intermediate Examination from the Board of High School and
Intermediate Education (U.P.) and passed Bachelor of Commerce
from Bundelkhand University in 1995. He has also completed one
year degree course of Bachelor of Physical Education from
Amarawati University. In November, 2004, he has passed Certificate
in Teaching from Army Education Cops Training College & Centre
Panchmarhi (M.P.). As per the petitioners, this certificate is equated
with J.B.T.Course. Similarly, petitioner No.2 has also passed this
Certificate in Teaching from AEC Training College & Centre,
Panchmarhi on 28.2.2006. After discharge from Army, both the
petitioners applied for post of J.B.T.Teacher in the State of Haryana.
The petitioners were called for interview. They, however, were not
selected on the ground that the petitioners did not possess the
requisite valid qualification. Claiming that the teaching training
certificate has been equated with J.B.T., the petitioners have filed
this writ petition seeking their appointment after consideration and
selection.
In the reply filed by the Commission, it is pointed out that
the petitioners have done three months course at Army Education
Corps Training College and Centre and the Primary Education
Department of Haryana has not recognised this course equivalent to
two years D.Ed.Course of Haryana State. The petitioners have
accordingly been held ineligible for appointment. Similar is the stand
taken by the State.
The counsel for the petitioners has made detailed
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16231 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:
submissions and would vehemently argue that the degree/certificate
possessed by the petitioners have already been equated with the
J.B.T. and hence the action of the respondents in not considering the
petitioners as eligible is not justified. Mr.Rathee, on the other hand,
would draw my attention to order passed in CWP 8882 of 1997,
decided on 8.7.1997, copy of which is annexed with the reply as
Annexure R-2. In view of the detailed discussion concerning the
similar certificates, the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioners would not need any elaborate discussion. This issue has
been duly considered by Division Bench of this court in CWP
No.8882 of 1997 titled as Azad Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana
& others and it has been held that the petitioners possessing similar
certificates are not entitled to be considered for recruitment as J.B.T.
Teachers. The decision of the Board in this regard was found to be
not suffering from any error of law. The relevant observations of the
Court are as under:-
“A look at the certificate issued in favour of petitioner-
Azad Singh shows that he had undergone training for a
short period of three months. At present the duration of
the JBT Diploma Course is two years. Earlier the duration
of this course was one year. Thus, there cannot be any
justification to treat the training course undergone by the
petitioners as equivalent to JBT Diploma. In any case, it is
not the function of the court to declare a particular
qualification as recognized even though the employer has
not taken such a decision. This issue has been
considered in Director, AIIMS & others V. Dr.Nikhil
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16231 OF 2008 :{ 4 }:
Tandon & others: (1996) 7 SCC 741. While accepting the
appeal filed by the employer on the issue of recognition of
qualification, the Supreme Court observed:-
“The two years training at the Cambridge University
undergone by the respondent while working for his
Ph.D.cannot be treated as a qualification
recognized as equivalent to DM. Schedule 1 to the
AIIMS Recruitment Rules speaks of DM
qualification or a qualification recognized as
equivalent thereto. It is not mere equivalence that is
enough. It must also be recognized as equivalent.
Recognized evide3ntly means recognized by the
Institute or at least by the Medical Council of India.
Admittedly, neither has recognized the said
research work/training for two years in the
Cambridge University as equivalent to DM.”
The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
afore mentioned case is directly attracted in the instant
case.”
In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this
court in identical situation which is supported by the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case for interference in the writ petitions
is made out.
The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
October 20, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE