MOHD. ABDUL HADI Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Recognition without reward certainly should not be the mode of punishment which a University could possibly award to its Scholars. This case, however, tells the sad story of failure of justice to be meted out to one of the lecturers of the Osmania University who worked with it for nearly thirty years with a fairly high academic qualifications but in a low rank and with a low pay. The petitioner passed the 'Fazil'examination of the U.P. Government in Arabic literature in the year 1937 when he was in his twenties and then joined as a junior lecturer in the Osmania University in the same year. For want of recognition on the part of the Osmania University that standard of Fazil examination was then equivalent to M. A. in English, the petitioner could on either be appointed nor promoted to a senior lecturer almost till the last year of his service with the University.

(2.) This Fazil Examination which the petitioner passed was conducted by the Government of United Provinces (the present U.P.). It is generally recognised all over India as the highest examination in Arabic Language and is treated as equivalent to Master of Arts Degree in English. But, the Osmania University did not make its own assessment of the Fazil Examination. Instead, the Osmania University started quite early corresponding with the Government of the United Provinces about the standard of Fazil Examination. A Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education of United Provinces Government replied in the year 1948 saying that Fazil is equivalent to M.A. Subsequently, the Registrar of Arabic and Persian Examination of U. P. Government, wrote to the same effect to the Principal. Nizam College, Hyderabad, where the petitioner was then working as a Junior lecturer as well as to the Osmania University. This almost unending correspondence went on a very leisurely pace for thirty long years till the Syndicate of Osmania University one day recognised (on 29-3-76) that the examination of Fazil passed by the petitioner was equivalent to Master of Arts. It was only then the petitioner was designated on a promotion as a senior lecturer in the pay scale of Rs. 400-850 with effect from that day. Till then, the petitioner with years of teaching experience and academic excellence had been working merely as a junior lecturer. After the recognition the promotion. But, the petitioner could work in his promotional post as a senior lecturer barely for a year and half before he retired on reaching the age of superannuation.

(3.) The Osmania University, constituted for purposes of preservation and promotion of knowledge is certainly not without independent means of ascertaining the excellence and proficiency of an Arabic scholar. If it had judged for itself the merit and excellence of the petitioner in Arabic without waiting for the advice of the U.P. Government it could have easily accorded the recognition to the Fazil examination in the year 1937 itself. But, unfortunately it followed the methods more appropriate to a bereaucratic action. It does not want to take for itself the entire responsibility involved in recognising the Fazil. Therefore, it went on corresponding with the U.P. Government. In this, it hardly noticed the anomalous situation into which it had led itself by depending upon the Civil servants of the U.P. Government in evaluating the academic excellence of its scholars. The merit of a scholar can be judged only by another scholar. A diamond alone can cut another diamond. Instead of following the method of independent ascertainment of the value of eminence of a scholar which is open to it, the University went on corresponding with the officials of U.P. Government about the standard of the Fazil Examination. If this is the correct method and measure of Judging the merit of scholars, geniuses like J.B.S, Haldane, who never had a Formal Degree in Science, would not have occupied prestigious Chairs of Science in premier Universities of England. It seems to me that this dependence by the Universities even in academic matters on governmental decisions is not in the best traditions of a University and certainly not worthy of the scholastic standards. We should shed our underdeveloped notions that a University is another seat of power. We should recognised a University for what it is intended to be a seat of learning. As such, it is not necessary for a University in academic matters to receive and rely upon governmental decisions. The management methods appropriate to a University are wholly different from those of a Government. So are its objectives. In a plural society of liberal persuasion, autonomy of University, freedom of religion and preservation of family life are all ends cherished and desired in themselves. These liberal values are gravely endangered by the University following in the foot-steps of Governmental decisions in academic matters.