DEVENDER BHASKAR & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. on 24 November 2021

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Division Benchof the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging theorder dated 22.02.2007 passed in CWP No. 20630 of 2006 in SumanLata and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

3. The appellants herein were impleaded as respondents beforethe High Court as the outcome of the result of the said writ petition waslikely to affect their service career. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein,namely, The State of Haryana, Director, School Education, Haryanaand Haryana Staff Selection Commission were arrayed as respondentnos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition. Most of the private respondents in thisappeal were writ petitioners before the High Court and some of therespondents herein are interveners. For the sake of convenience, theparties are referred to in their respective ranking before the High Court.

4. The dispute draws its genesis from the advertisement No.6/2006, dated 20.07.2006 (Annexure-P8) which was issued by the HaryanaState Staff Selection Commission (for short, ‘Commission’) invitingapplications to fill up 816 posts of Arts and Crafts teachers in the Stateof Haryana. The eligibility criteria for the same amongst others was asunder:

“(i) Matric from Haryana School Education Board or an equivalentqualification recognized by the Haryana School Education Board.

(ii) Two year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conductedby the Haryana Industrial Training Department or anequivalent qualification recognized by the HaryanaEducation Department.

(iii) Knowledge of Hindi upto Matric Standard.”

(emphasis added)

5. The case of the petitioners is that they passed their matriculationwith the subject of Arts and Crafts/Drawing or they have passed the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asubject of Arts and Crafts/Drawing in their matriculation as additionalsubject. All the petitioners passed their two-year diploma in Art andCraft from the Kurukshetra University. The petitioners, on the basis oftheir qualifications, applied for the aforesaid post to the Commission.Their applications were not entertained by the Commission for the reasonthat they had passed their two-year diploma in Art and Craft fromBKurukshetra University which is not recognized as equivalent qualificationby the Haryana Education Department, which led to the filing of the writpetitions in the High Court.

6. On 12.12.2006, the Director of School Education Haryana,Chandigarh, addressed a letter to all the District Education Officers/CDistrict Elementary Education Officers in which it was informed thatdiploma in Art and Craft conducted by the Director, Industrial Trainingand Vocational Education, Haryana, is the only recognized course in theState of Haryana. This letter further stated that the diploma/certificatesin Art and Craft from the Kurukshetra University are not recognized forDthe purpose of appointment for Arts and Crafts Teacher in the State ofHaryana. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of this letterin the writ petitions before the High Court.

7. Respondents no.1 to 3 filed objections opposing the writ petition.It was contended that the diploma in Art and Craft is given by the IndustrialETraining and Vocational Education Department, Haryana, to the studentswho attend regular class room teaching. Most of the subjects are practicalsubjects and their studies cannot be possible through distance education.The diploma granted by the Kurukshetra University in Art and Craftthrough distance education is not a teacher training course. Therefore, itcannot be equated with the diploma given through regular class roomFstudies. Moreover, the said diploma is only for the purpose of self-employment and the same is not recognized for the purpose of teachertraining course by the Education Department as well as by theDepartment of Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana.

8. The private respondents in the writ petitions have also takenGsimilar contentions and sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. TheHigh Court, on consideration of the contentions of the learned counselfor the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record, allowedthe writ petitions. The High Court held that the petitioners have a legalright to be considered for the post of Arts and Crafts teachers with theHstrength of the diploma secured by them from the Kurukshetra University.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants herein (private respondentsin the writ petitions) submitted that the diploma in Art and Craft grantedby the Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the diploma in Art andCraft given by the Industrial Training and Vocational EducationDepartment, Haryana. It is not recognised by the Haryana EducationDepartment. The diploma in Art and Craft by the Industrial Training andVocational Education Department, Haryana, is given to the students whoattend regular class room teaching. Most of the subjects are practicalsubjects and their studies cannot be possible through distance education.The diploma in Art and Craft granted by the said University is only forenhancing academic qualification. In this connection, learned counselhas drawn our attention to Annexures R-1 to R-3 enclosed along withthe counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. It is argued that thequestion is not whether diploma in Art and Craft by the KurukshetraUniversity through distance education is invalid or illegal. Rather, thequestion is whether the said diploma by the Kurukshetra University is an‘equivalent qualification’ to the diploma in Art and Craft examinationconducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department. It was alsocontended that ‘equivalence’ is a technical matter and this Court cannotdirect the authorities to recognize it as equivalent when the expert’sview is otherwise.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Haryana hassupported the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for theappellants/private respondents in the writ petition.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondents herein would submit that the Kurukshetra University wasincorporated under the provisions of the Kurukshetra University Act,1986 and that all the qualifications awarded through distance educationby this University stand automatically recognized for the purpose ofemployment to the posts and services under the Central Government.The Government of Haryana has repeatedly confirmed the two-yeardiploma in Art and Craft course offered by the Kurukshetra University.In this connection, they have relied on the communications issued by theState Government and its Instrumentalities dated 02.11.1999, 27.05.2005and 30.05.2005. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

12. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learnedcounsels of the parties made at the Bar and perused the materials placedon record.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A13. As noticed above, the advertisement dated 20.07.2006 wasissued by the Commission inviting applications for filling up of 816 postsof Arts and Crafts teachers in the State of Haryana. One of the importanteligibility criteria was a two-year diploma in Art and Craft Examinationconducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalentqualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department. TheBwrit petitioners are holders of two-year diploma in Art and Craft fromthe Kurukshetra University. Therefore, the question for consideration iswhether the diploma in Art and Craft by Kurukshetra University throughdistance education is recognized by the Haryana Education Departmentas an equivalent qualification to the diploma in Art and Craft ExaminationCconducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department.

14. The materials on record clearly suggest that the Art and CraftCourse is a highly practical oriented course and the appointee teachershave to train the students in Art and Craft which is a practical subject.The diploma in Art and Craft is given by the Industrial Training andDVocational Education Department, Haryana, to the students who attendregular class room teaching. Most of the subjects are practical subjectsand their study is not possible through distance education. The KurukshetraUniversity grants the diploma in Art and Craft through distance education.This diploma cannot be equated with the diploma given through regularclass room studies. In fact, in a meeting convened by the FinancialECommissioner and Principal Secretary, Industrial Training and VocationalEducation Department on 27.11.2003, it was decided to ask theKurukshetra University to discontinue the said course from the nextacademic sessions i.e. 2004-2005 as it was running through distanceeducation and the same was not in the best interest of the students. TheFKurukshetra University has issued a caution notice in various leadingnewspapers in which it was made clear that some institutions who hadgiven misleading advertisement for Kurukshetra University course ofArt and Craft as a teacher training course. It was also clarified that thediploma in Art and Craft from the Kurukshetra University does notguarantee any specific job. The Minutes of the Meeting held onG27.11.2003 under the Chairmanship of Financial Commissioner andPrincipal Secretary to the Government of Haryana makes this positionvery clear which is as under:

“Minutes of the meeting held on 27.11.2003 at 11 AM under thechairmanship of Financial Commissioner and Principal SecretaryH

to Govt. Haryana, Industrial Training & Vocational EducationDepartment regarding Art & Craft course started by KurukshetraUniversity, Kurukshetra from the session 2003-2004.

Present

1. Sh. Dhanpat Singh, IAS

Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana.

2. Sh. Rajbir Singh, IAS

Director, Industrial Training & Vocational Education, Haryana.

3. Sh. L.C. Gupta

Director, Correspondence courses,

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra

_________

1. Director Industrial Training informed that KurukshetraUniversity, Kurukshetra has started a 2 Year Art & CraftCourse through distance education from this year 2003-2004. The University did not take the permission from eitherthe Education Department or Industrial Training &Vocational Education Department.

2. Mr. L.C. Gupta pointed out that the University can startcorrespondence courses at their own level and there wasno need to seek the permission from Govt. of Haryana/Education Department. He further told that the public wasinformed that the course being conducted by them wouldnot guarantee a job.

3. A two year Art & Craft Teachers Training Course is alreadybeing run by the Department of Industrial Training &Vocational Education, Haryana. By starting a course of asimilar nature, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra hasstepped into the domain of the Industrial Training &Vocational Education Department. It has further created aconfusion in the mind of general public as both the abovecourses are similar and it may cause unrest in the youthwho has taken admission in this course as it is not recognized.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

514SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A

B

C

4. The Art & Craft Teachers Training Course being conductedby IT & VE Department is a recognized Vocational Coursewhereas the course of Art & Craft started by KurukshetraUniversity, Kurukshetra is a course conducted throughdistance education and hence both these courses cannotbe equated.

It was decided that Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetramay be requested through the Education Department, Haryanato discontinue this course from the next Academic Session 2004-2005.”

15. The caution notice by the Kurukshetra University is as under:

“DIRECTORATE OF CORRESPONDENCE COURSESKURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA

D

E

G

H

CAUTION NOTICE

Some Institutions/Organisations have givenadvertisements in various newspapers/media and have invitedComputer/Management/other Centres to get affiliation/franchisesof Kurukshetra University for running different courses of theDirectorate of Correspondence Courses. It is clarified that allthese advertisements are illegal and in violation of Clause-4 of theterms and conditions of the Agreement for Service Providers whichclearly states that “in no case the Second Party (Service Provider)shall be allowed to authorize any other agency/centre, other thanthe study centres run by it, to enroll students to any course of thisUniversity and any violation will lead to cancellation of thisarrangement without any notice and no refund of any fee andsecurity will be allowed”. Therefore, the persons entering intoany such illegal arrangements will be doing so at their own riskand responsibility.

Some institutions/parties have also given misleadingadvertisements for the Kurukshetra University Course of Diplomain Art & Craft as a teachers training course. It is also clarifiedthat all DCC courses including Diploma in Art & Craft areKurukshetra University approved courses and do not guaranteeany specific job. Hence, the University will in no way be responsible for any such misleading advertisements. In case ofany doubt and for further clarifications if any, please contact atphone 01744-238518.

DIRECTOR”

16. The Director and Under Secretary to the Government ofHaryana in his letter dated 24.11.2003 to the Higher EducationCommissioner, had clearly stated that the diploma course in Art andCraft by the Kurukshetra University has not been given recognition bythe Education Department. This letter is as under:

“From

The Director,

Industrial Training & Vocational Education Department, Haryana To

1. Sh. Dhanpat Singh,

Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana

Higher Education Department.

2. Director Correspondence Course

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.

Memo No.T-3/Art & Craft/Complaint/26586

Dated 24.11.2003

Subject : Regarding Art & Craft Professional Diplomathrough Correspondence from Kurukshetra University —————

The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra has started twoyears Art & Craft Professional Diploma Course throughCorrespondence Course. This Diploma Course has not been givenrecognition by Education Department and Industrial Training &Vocational Education Department, Haryana.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2. The Finance Commissioner and Secretary to Government ofHaryana Industrial Training & Vocational Education Departmenthas called a meeting on 27.11.2003 at 11 A.M. in Room No.335,IIIrd Floor, New Secretariate Sector-17, Chandigarh to considerthe matter of recognition course being run through correspondencecourse by Kurukshetra University. You are requested to kindlyBattend this meeting.

Sd/-

Director & Under Secretary to Govt. of HaryanaIndustrial Training & Vocational Education Department,CHaryana”

17. The following table manifests that both the courses are notequivalent courses.

D

E

F

G

18. It is also relevant to state here that Kurukshetra Universityitself has clarified that the diploma in Art and Craft started by it throughcorrespondence is not meant for appointment to the post of Arts andHCrafts Teachers. In fact, Kurukshetra University has never claimed that

the aforementioned diploma is valid for appointment of Arts and CraftsTeachers. The Registrar of Kurukshetra University in a public noticedated 27.09.2004 has clarified that this degree is meant for enabling thestudents to become self-employed. None of the documents produced bythe petitioners would indicate that the diploma in Art and Craft awardedby the Kurukshetra University is equivalent to the two-year diploma inArt and Craft Examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial TrainingDepartment. In its letter dated 24.12.2004, at Exhibit P-4, the KurukshetraUniversity has clearly stated that the University does not guarantee anyspecific job for any of the courses including the diploma in Art and Craft.

19. The documents, Exhibit P-2 to P-4, do not claim that the coursein question has been recognized as equivalent to two-year Diploma inArt and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial TrainingDepartment or an equivalent qualification recognized by the HaryanaEducation Department.

20. We have already noticed that one of the eligibility criteria forappointment to the post of Arts and Crafts teacher as per theadvertisement dated 20.07.2006 is a “two-year Diploma in Art and Craftexamination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Departmentor an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana EducationDepartment.” It was made clear by the Industrial Training and VocationalEducational Department, Haryana, that diploma in Art and Craft Courseby the Kurukshetra University is conducted through distance educationand that this course cannot be equated with two-year diploma in Art andCraft Course awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department.Recognition of the said Course by the State of Haryana, as held by theHigh Court, is entirely different from its equivalence. When the expertsin the Education Department have held the diploma in Art and Craft bythe Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the two-year diploma inArt and Craft awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department,we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in equalizingthem.

21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India &Ors[1], it was held that the question regarding equivalence of educationalqualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment andevaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof such qualifications. It was further held that where the decision of theGovernment is based on the recommendation of an expert body, thenthe Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical insightsnecessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightlydisturb the decision of the Government unless it is based on extraneousor irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational andBperverse or manifestly wrong.

22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradeshand Others,[2 ]this Court held that it is not for the court to consider therelevance of qualification prescribed for various posts.

C23. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun,[3 ]this Court heldthat the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course orfor recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be consideredby the appropriate authority. It was held thus:

“13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear thatDthe prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course orfor recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to beconsidered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts todecide whether a particular educational qualification should orshould not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribedby the authority.”E

24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal& Anr.,[4] this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academicmatter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academicbody of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specificorder or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether aFdistance education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English)of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material hadbeen produced before it to show that the distance education course hadbeen recognized as such.

25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz AhmadG& Ors.[5], it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribequalifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration 2 (1990) 1 SCC 2883 (2002) 6 SCC 2524 (2009) 1 SCC 610H5 (2019) 2 SCC 404

the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge ofduties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading upto the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neitherexpand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide theequivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other givenqualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, asrecruiting authority, to determine.

A

B

26. Having regard to the above, in our view, the High Court haserred in holding that the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by theKurukshetra University is equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art andCraft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial TrainingDepartment or diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director, IndustrialTraining and Vocational Education, Haryana.

C

27. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed.Consequently, the Judgment and Order of the High Court in C.W.P.No.20630 of 2006 and connected matters, impugned herein, are set asideDand the writ petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shallstand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H