AMINUDDIN KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case set out by petitioner is that after possessing qualification of Secondary School examination, he obtained further qualification of 10+2. The petitioner thereafter obtained qualification of graduation followed by qualification of MA. The petitioner is also in possession of Degree of Moallim -E Urdu from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. Looking to the qualification aforesaid, the petitioner was engaged as Urdu Shiksha Shastri in Lok Jumbish Project. The petitioner had also undertaken training of BSTC which is equivalent to B.Ed. The respondents issued an advertisement for the post of Prabodhak where the petitioner also made application. The petitioner was selected and given appointment looking to his merit position and his first posting was in Government Upper Primary School, Fatehpur. The appointment was in satisfaction of the required qualification for the post in question and petitioner did not conceal any fact. He was thereafter confirmed in service vide order dated 10.1.2011. The petitioner was served with the notice dated 18.12.2012 in regard to the qualification obtained from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. The petitioner was thereafter dismissed from service vide order dated 8.1.2013. It is in reference to the Division Bench judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Firdos Tarannum, reported in : 2006 (1) RLW 827 : (2006 Lab IC 1222). Learned counsel submits that having confirmed in service pursuant to the recruitment, service could not have been terminated without any inquiry under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. It is moreso when appointment was made after proper scrutiny of the qualification thus impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is apart from the fact that issue regarding qualification granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh has been referred to the Larger Bench by single Bench. It is in view of conflicting judgments of two Division Bench. In the background aforesaid, dismissal from service due to qualification of Moallim -E -Urdu deserves to be set aside. The qualification of Moallim -E -Urdu is equivalent to the qualification of BSTC/B.Ed. and otherwise petitioner obtained teachers training in Urdu as would be clear from Annexure -6 i.e. mark -sheet of Moallim -E Urdu.

(2.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. It is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner that for appointment on the post of Teacher, one is required to possess training certificate of education which may be BSTC/B.Ed. depending on the post of Teacher Gr. III. If it is for Primary Teacher, required qualification is BSTC, whereas for other category of Teacher Gr. II, B.Ed. The petitioner was not in possession of the qualification of BSTC/B.Ed at the time of appointment but was of Moallim -E Urdu. The qualification aforesaid was taken to be equivalent qualification to the training in education - -thus petitioner was given appointment. It was in ignorance of the fact that Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is not an institution having authority to grant degree under the provisions of law. The issue aforesaid was elaborately discussed by Division Bench in the case of Firdaus Tarannum ( : 2006 Lab IC 1222) (supra). The relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference:

(3.) PERUSAL of paras quoted above reveals that qualification obtained from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is not considered to be valid. The case of Firdaus Tarannum ( : 2006 Lab IC 1222) (supra) was decided after discussing the earlier two judgments of Division Bench. In view of the above, question would be as to whether matter needs to be referred to the Larger Bench. In my opinion, when subsequent judgment is after considering earlier two judgments then cannot be referred to the Larger Bench. It cannot be said to be a case of conflicting view. In any case, the issue aforesaid can be looked into even on merit as to whether Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is authorized to grant degree. It is for the reason that no educational institution can provide degrees unless possess required authority under law. For illustration, a University cannot grant degree unless possess required authority as per Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (in short "the Act"). Section 22 of the Act is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: