ORDER
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. This order would dispose of W.P. Nos. 7147 and 8515 of 2007. Reference to Annexures is taken from W.P. No. 7147/2007 unless mentioned otherwise. Petitioners in both the writ petitions passed the High School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P. Thereafter, they passed the examination of Uttar Madhyama in Sanskrit conducted by Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Mumbai. Marksheet of petitioner No. 1 (W.P. No. 7147/07) is Annexure P-2.
2. An advertisement was published on 23-8-2006 in the daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar inviting thereby application for D.Ed, course of the year 2006-2007. Pursuant thereto, applications were submitted by the petitioners for seeking admission in D.Ed. Petitioners submitted applications for seeking permission to appear in the examination of D.Ed. Course which has been turned down by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhopal vide Annexure P-l on the ground that the petitioners did not possess the requisite minimum qualification of Higher Secondary conducted by the Board. It has been further mentioned that the examination of Uttar Madhyama conducted by the Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan Mumbai is not equivalent to the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination and the same is not so recognized by the Board.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been preferred on the grounds:
(i) Examination of Uttar Madhyama conducted by the Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan Mumbai is equivalent to the Higher Secondary School Certificate examination. Accordingly, the petitioners were qualified for appearing in the examination of D.Ed, and could not have been prevented from appearing in the said Examination.
(ii)’ Government of M.P. has issued circular dated 15th of December, 1966 whereby the examination of Uttar Madhyama in Sanskrit has been recognized by the State Government as equivalent to Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. The Circular being binding on the Board of Secondary Education, petitioners were and are entitled to appear in the examination of D.Ed. Course, (iii) Above mentioned Circular dated 15-12-1966 has already been adopted by various universities including Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa, as revealed in Annexure P-4.
(iv) Petitioners have been treated in hostile discrimination. One Ku. Vandana Gautam having same certificate of Madhyma Course from Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan Mumbai was permitted to appear in D.Ed. Course in the year 2002-03 by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P.
(v) Under Section 27 of the M.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965, the State Government is empowered to make rules. The Circular contained in Annexure P-3 would have statutory effect and would be binding on the Board of Secondary Education.
4. Shri Harmed Ruprah, Shri G.P. Singh, G.A. and Shri Abhishek Arjariya, learned Counsel for respective respondents contended that the Board has not recognized the examination of Uttar Madhyama as equivalent to Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination and the petitioners have rightly been disqualified from appearing in the examination of D.Ed. Course. Shri Dilip Pandey, learned Counsel for petitioners placed reliance on Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Ors. , to contend that in the absence of rules governing the situation, an executive order may be issued to fill up the gap. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled to appear in the examination of D.Ed. Course since they have already passed examination of Uttar Madhyama, which is equivalent to Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination.
5. After considering the rival contentions, I am of the considered opinion that the petitions have no substance for the reasons to follow:
(i) Admittedly, the candidate having passed the Higher Secondary Examination (10 + 2) or equivalent examination is entitled to appear in the D.Ed. Course.
(ii) Board of Secondary Education has issued an eligibility/ affiliation/equivalency Booklet No. 216, which contains Clause 5 as follows:
5. According to the decision of the Curriculum Committee, dated 24-4-02 and vide Circular No. 157-158/Academic/02, dated 20-8-02 the syllabi of High School and Higher Secondary Examinations, Urdu Medium of the State Madarsa Board, Bhopal being similar to the State Open School these examinations are declared equivalent to the High School and Higher Secondary Examinations respectively of the Board of Secondary Education M.P., Bhopal.
MAHARASHTRA
(1) SSC Examination (Std. X) of Maharashtra State Divisional Board, Pune, Nagpur, Aurangabad, Mumbai, Kolhapur, Amravati, Nasik and Latur provided that the candidate has passed the Examination with English as a subject.
(2) The Secondary School Certificate Examination of the Vidarbha Board of Secondary Education, Nagpur.
(3) SSC Examination of the Board of Secondary School Certificate Examination Bombay (Poona), provided that the candidate has passed the Examination with English as a subject.
(4) Matriculation Examination of University of Bombay.
6. It is obvious from the aforesaid that the Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P. has not been equated with Uttar Madhyama Examination conducted by Bhartiya Vidhya Bhawan, Mumbai. Annexure P-3 has been issued by the State Government, for the limited purpose of employment to the posts of teachers in Sanskrit in Universities, Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools and Colleges. Specific language employed in Annexure P-3 is as follows:
The State Government have decided to recognize the Sanskrit Examinations conducted by the organization as are shown in Columns I and II of the Annexure and to their being equated with examinations conducted in the general educational set up for purposes of employment to the post of teachers in Sanskrit in Universities Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools and Colleges.
It has also been decided that the traditional Sanskrit Scholars and teachers so employed in Universities, Schools and Colleges be treated at par with other teachers possessing equivalent qualifications of the general educational set up and he allowed the same status and pay scales.
7. It is crystal clear in view of the aforesaid language that the said circular was not issued firstly for equating the examination of Higher Secondary with Uttar Madhyama for the purpose of students appearing in the various courses conducted by the Board of Secondary Education. Secondly, no material has been placed by the petitioners on record to demonstrate that this circular has ever been adopted by the Board of Secondary Education. Thirdly and lastly, no provision could have been shown which may be invoked by the petitioner to claim that the examination of Uttar Madhyama has been ever equated during the relevant period with the examination of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board for allowing admission to various academic courses.
8. As regards rule making power of the State Government, it is not shown to have been exercised by the State Government. No such rules are placed before me to show that the examination of Higher Secondary was equated with Uttar Madhyama examination by framing necessary rules. As regards, circular contained in Annexure P-3 it is already held to be for limited purpose which cannot be invoked by the petitioners to claim admission on its basis. As regards law laid down in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar (supra), it may be seen that the circular marked as Annexure P-3 was merely issued for the purpose of employment. It was never meant to fill up the gap in the matter of admission by the Board for D.Ed. Course. In this view of the matter, reliance on the aforesaid decision is also out of place.
9. Petitioners although have pleaded about hostile discrimination, they have not chosen to place any material on record to show that the Uttar Madhyama Course was treated as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Examination. Mere averments in the writ petition though supported by an affidavit will not provide any assistance to the petitioners because firstly, the same has not been duly substantiated and secondly there cannot be negative equality. Since the petitioners have failed to establish their rights in the light of legal provisions, no benefit can be claimed on this ground. In the result, there is no force in the writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed, however, without order as to costs.