JUDGMENT
V.S. Kokje, Actg. C.J.
1. On 6.1.1989 when this case was fixed for hearing before the Division Bench, it was referred to a Larger Bench formulating the following point of reference-
If a candidate sought admission in the year 1985 in two years Diploma of basic training course with the Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parisad, Sripaipur, Patna (Bihar), when the said course had not been recognized by the State Government as equivalent to BSTC examination in Rajasthan and when some of the candidates who have been admitted in 1985 in the said Institution had either completed two years training course or virtually completed the same, despite the fact that the order, dated 24th July, 1987 has been withdrawn vide order, dated 13th October, 1987, can it be said that the State Government is estopped from de-recognizing it and as such the candidates, who have sought admission in the two years course and have secured the certificate as aforesaid, are entitled to be considered for Government service as P. T.I. grade III in various schools in Rajasthan?
2. While referring the matter, the Division Bench also requested Hon’ble Chief Justice to refer not only the aforesaid question but also the entire case itself for decision on merits. This is how the matter has come up for hearing before the Full Bench. When the matter was listed for hearing before the Full Bench on 13.8.1998, it was pointed out that the reply was not filed on behalf of the respondents and it was undertaken on behalf of the respondents to file the reply during the course of that day. The case was fixed for 24.8.1998. Ultimately, it came before us on 14.9.1998. Along with the reply filed by the respondents, a report of the C.B.I. was filed, according to which the Institution from which qualification in question was obtained was non- existent and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, therefore, raised the point that when the qualification itself was from non-existent Institution, the question of its recognition or de-recognition would not arise.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had received the copy of the reply only recently and the copy of the C.B.I. report has not been furnished to him. He, therefore, contended that a document, copy of which was not supplied to the petitioner, cannot be referred to or relied upon. He contended that if the court permits the use of that document by the respondent copy should be made available to the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
4. We were of the view that the main question referred to us presumes that the Institution existed and the qualification was validly obtained by the petitioner and the case has to be decided on merit also and, therefore, it would be proper to hear the arguments on the point referred as also on the merit of the case on the assumption that the qualification acquired was validly acquired from an existing Institution. If we come to the conclusion that the petition deserves to be allowed on the decision on point referred or the decision on merits, then the question as to whether the Institution existed or not and whether the qualification was obtained validly or not, may be gone into after hearing the parties on that point. We, therefore, proceed to decide the point referred and the case on merits.
5. According to the petitioner he took admission in Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad Sripalpur Patna (Bihar) in the year 1985 for obtaining two years Diploma in Basic Training Course. The petitioner completed the course successfully in the year 1987. The marksheet annexed to the petition was issued on 3rd August, 1987 and was for the basic education training examination 2nd year.
6. On 24.7.1987, the Government of Rajasthan granted recognition to two years B.T.C. examination of Bihar Pradesh Shiksha Parishad Sripalpur, Patna as equivalent to B.S.T.C. training given in Rajasthan State from 1985-86 session. On 13.10.1987 the Government of Rajasthan revoked recognition granted vide order dated 24.7.1987 with retrospective effect from 24.7.1987 itself. Aggrieved by this decision the petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to treat the qualification of the petitioner to be equivalent to B.S.T.C. in the State of Rajasthan and for considering him for employment at par with those who have B.S.T.C. training. It was also prayed that benefit of direction issued in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 841/1988 decided on 7.9.1988 be also extended to the petitioner and the retrospective effect given to the notification revoking earlier recognition of qualification be quashed.
7. In reply the respondents have given more stress on the fact that on investigations by the C.B.I. the Institution itself was found to be fake. The allegations of the petitioner were generally denied.
8. At the hearing on the point referred as well as on merit of the case, Shri Jagdeep Dhankar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once a qualification was recognized it cannot be de-recognized to the detriment of the persons who have acquired that qualification. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the qualification becomes de- recognized with effect from the date on which it was so de- recognized. Qualifications obtained up to the date of derecognition will have to be taken as valid qualification for equivalence with B.S.T.C. course. It was further contended relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana that when the recognition was given while the petitioner was already in the course, it will have to be taken as recognized even if it was de-recognized in respect of other candidates who were not prosecuting the course on the date of recognition. It was further contended that for the purpose of applicability of Notification revoking the recognition once granted, the relevant date could only be the date on which the qualification was obtained and not any other date. It was contended that as the recognition was granted on 24.7.1987 and was revoked vide Notification dated 13.10.1987 and the petitioner having obtained the qualification before 13.10.1987, the Notification dated 13.10.1987 could not cancel the recognition of equivalence of the course passed by the petitioner.
9. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are wholly unacceptable. Suresh Pal’s case (supra) can have no application to the case of the petitioner because in that case the date on which the petitioners took admissions in the course the qualification was recognized. It was therefore, observed by the Supreme Court that since at the time when the petitioner joined the course it was recognized and it was on the basis of this recognition that the petitioner joined the course, it would be unjust to tell the petitioners that though at the time of their joining the course it was recognized, yet they cannot be given benefit of such recognition and the certificates obtained by them would be futile because during the pendency of case it was de-recognized by the State. The whole case proceeded on the basis that the petitioners in that case had altered their position irretrievably because of the recognition of the course granted by the State Government by taking admission to that course on that assumption. In this case, when the petitioner joined the course there was no such expectation at all because he had joined the course when it was not recognized. He is trying to take advantage of the fortuitous event of recognition granted to the course on the eve of petitioner’s passing out the course. There is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s case would also be covered by Suresh Pal’s case (supra) because it could be said that the petitioner continued in the course and did not leave it after it was recognized because of the recognition granted to the course. Such a contention has to be rejected outright. There is no question of promissory estoppel nor there is question of legitimate expectation involved in the petitioner’s case.
10. So far as the petitioner’s contention that since he acquired the qualification when it was recognized before it was de-recognized is concerned, such recognition could not have been revoked by a subsequent order, also deserves to be rejected. In a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Shankerlal Verma v. The Rajasthan State Electricity Board (F.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5031/1989) and other 13 connected matters, decided on 11th September, 1998, this Court has held that in the matter of derecognition of the qualifications the relevant date of reference is the date of revocation of recognition or de-recognition and the date on which the eligibility of a candidate for employment is to be decided. Thus, if on the basis of recognition of a qualification on a particular date, employment has been given to a candidate, that employment could not be taken away on the ground that subsequently the qualification was de-recognized. From the date of revocation of recognition of a qualification any employment will be decided on the eligibility on the basis of qualifications recognized on the date of deciding eligibility. Thus, if his eligibility for employment is to be decided after 13.10.1987, there is no doubt that the petitioner would not be eligible on 13.10.1987 onwards because the qualification cannot be taken to be a recognized qualification, It is not the case of the petitioner that he had been employed on the basis of qualification, the validity of which was to be decided prior to 13.10.1987 or he was a candidate particular selection which had to take place on the basis of a cut off date prior to 13.10.1987. A discussion about the recognition or the de-recognition of the qualification in the petitoner’s case is therefore, futile, meaningless and mere academic exercise. There is no doubt that on 13.10.1987 the qualifications held by the petitioner would cease to be recognized and cannot be taken as equivalent to B.S.T.C. course in Rajasthan.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the point referred has to be answered against the petitioner- and on merits also the petitioner would have no case, there is therefore, no necessity to go into further question as to whether the qualification was obtained by the petitioner by fraudulent means or whether the Institution from which the qualification was obtained was non-existent.
12. The petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
