Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Tripathi for the respondents.
Benefit granted to petitioner on account of his alleged qualification in Hindi apparently has been withdrawn on the ground that certificate obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is not recognized by any University or Board. Aggrieved by this action petitioner is before this Court.
Issue, as to whether certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is valid or not, has already been decided by Division Bench of this Court in Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another; 2012(1)ADJ 346. The Division Bench has been pleased to observe as under in para 12:-
"12. The question whether the Madhyama examination conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad is equivalent to Intermediate Examination conducted by the U.P. Secondary Education Board, Allahabad is no longer res integra. This Court has time and again considered this question and consistently returned the findings that the Madhyama (Visharad) examination of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not equivalent to the Intermediate Examination conducted by the U.P. Secondary Education Board, Allahabad. The judgments of this Court considering the question are as follows:-
(1) In Sarojani Pandey (Smt.) v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1129 learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon Government Order dated 28th October, 1998, wherein it was clearly stated that examinations of Prathama and Madhyama conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad are not equivalent to the High School and Intermediate examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. Allahabad. The Court found that this is the latest order will prevail over the Government Order dated 22nd August, 1998 issued by the Joint Secretary U.P. Government addressed to Director of Education, Allahabad as well as order dated 26th July, 2001, of the Government of India.
(2) In Kunwar Herash Saran Saxena v. State of U.P. & Anr., Writ Petition No.8579 of 1992 decided on 6.12.2005 (MANU/UP/1890/2005) learned Single Judge of this Court observed in paras 3 and 6 as follows:-
"3. The controversy in the facts and circumstances of the present case is confined to the issue as to whether the certificate of Madhyma Visharad obtained by the petitioner from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan satisfies the minimum academic qualifications prescribed for appointment on the post of Junior Clerk. As provided for under the Adhinasth Karyalaya Lipik Vargiya Karmcharivarg (Seedhi Bharti) Niyamavali, 1985 or not. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has been established under the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 and Section 22 of the University Grants Commission recognises a right in the said Hindi Sahitya Sammelan to award degrees. As a matter of fact University Grants Commission has notified certain degrees awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan vide notification dated 21.8.2003. However, on record there are various government orders issued by the Central Government recognising the certificate for the purposes of appointment in government service, reference (Notification dated 26.7.2001 Annexure-3 to Rejoinder Affidavit and Notification dated 16.9.1990 Annexure-5 to Rejoinder Affidavit). However, it may be noticed that Government of India had appended a note which reads as follows :
The recognition recorded above is not to be treated equivalent to the full fledged certificate/degree for which it has been equated (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition).
6. The petitioner has not been able to bring on record any document for establishing that the certificate possessed by the petitioner from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was ever recognised as equivalent to intermediate examination by the Governor of the State. All the documents brought on record by the petitioner issued by the Central Government or any of the authority are of no consequence for determination of the issue concerned."
(3) In Pradeep Kumar son of Mukandi Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors., MANU/UP/0348/2008 this Court once again decided the issue on 23.1.2008 and held as follows:-
"8. Learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on judgment of this Court reported in (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1716; Shailendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. The question which was considered in the above case, was as to whether degree of Shiksha Visharad given by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is equivalent to be treated as B.Ed, degree. This Court after considering the provisions of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 came to the conclusion that degree of Shiksha Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan being not recognised by National Council for Teacher Education, cannot be held to be equivalent to B.Ed.
9. The petitioner has not brought any material on record to establish that degree of Madhyama (Visharad) of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has been treated to be equivalent to Intermediate by the State of U.P. It is not disputed that for sending a candidate for B.T.C. Correspondence Course training minimum eligibility is Intermediate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing produced a booklet issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad containing various letters issued by the State of UP., Government of India and several institutions regarding degrees issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. Reliance has been placed by Counsel for the petitioner on a press note dated 18^th February, 1970 issued by the Government of India along with which a list of organisations conducting different examinations have been issued.
10. A perusal of the above press note relied by Counsel for the petitioner, itself indicates that examination from Hindi organisations is recognised for standard of Hindi prescribed in the equivalent examination. The last paragraph of the press note issued by the Government of India, as quoted above, clearly clarifies that the recognition of this examination is in regard to standard of Hindi prescribed in the equivalent Hindi examination and it is not to be treated as equivalent to full fledged certificate of degree of examination. A copy of the Government order issued by the State of UP. dated 5^th December, 1989 has also been relied by Counsel for the petitioner, which was issued in reference to letter dated 12^th August, 1988 of the Government of India regarding examinations conducted by Hindi organisations. The Government order dated 5^th December, 1989 clearly clarifies that degree of Madhyama (Visharad) issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is equivalent only for standard of Hindi up to that examination and not equivalent to degree or certificate. In this context it is also relevant to refer to provisions of Regulations framed under the UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. For the Intermediate examination, which is conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, UP. several degrees from different organisation and Universities throughout the country have been mentioned in Chapter-XIV of the regulations and none of the degrees or certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag has been treated to be equivalent to High School so as to make such candidates eligible to take admission in the Intermediate examination whereas the Purva Madhyamik Examination of Sampurnanand Viswavidyalaya, Varanasi and the examination of Visharad from Kashi Vidya Peeth, Varanasi have been mentioned as equivalent to High School. The B.T.C. Correspondence Course training is imparted to untrained teachers so as to make them eligible for entitlement of trained grades of teachers. The qualification of Intermediate required is for purposes of appointment and the petitioner was required to fulfil the Intermediate qualification for purposes of appointment or imparting B.T.C. Correspondence Course training for becoming entitled to trained grade of Assistant Teacher. Thus the qualification required for appointment of Assistant Teacher is full fledged certificate of Intermediate and the degree of Madhyama (Visharad) issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan cannot be treated to be equivalent to Intermediate examination.
11. The petitioner, thus, has failed to substantiate that degree of Madhyama (Visharad) granted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan to the petitioner in the year 1990 is equivalent to Intermediate Examination. One more fact which is relevant to be noticed, is that petitioner himself appeared in the Intermediate examination conducted by U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and has passed the same in the year 1997. Had his degree of Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan equivalent to Intermediate, there was no occasion for the petitioner to pass Intermediate examination of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad in the year 1997."
In the aforesaid case learned Single Judge after going through all the relevant Government Orders clearly held that the Madhyama (Visharad) examination is equivalent only for standard of Hindi upto that examination and is not equivalent to any degree or certificate.
(4) In Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ Petition No.45866 of 2007 learned Single Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 29.9.2010 considered all the Government Orders and the judgments in this regard and reiterated that the Prathama certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is not equivalent to High School certificate issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. He quoted the letter of the Secretary of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad reporting that the Prathama, Madhyama or any other examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was not equivalent to High School/ Intermediate examination at any time in the past or in the present. The Government Orders produced to support the equivalence were found to be false. In the past the examination conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan were taken to be equivalent to Class-VIII for appearing in the High School examination of the U.P. Secondary Education Board, but now since it is compulsory for all the students appearing in the High School examination either from any institution or on private basis, to pass Class IX examination, the equivalence of the examinations conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan are not recognised. Learned Single Judge observed that Chapter XIV of the Regulation framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 mentions as many as 71 certificates recognised by the U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad as equivalent to the High School examination for the purposes of appearing in the Intermediate Examination. There is no mention of the Prathama certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan in this list. Para 981 of Chapter 136 of Manual of Government Orders (Revised Edition 1981) also does not mention the equivalence given to Prathma or Madhyama examination to the High School and Intermediate examination conducted by the Secondary Education Board U.P. Learned Single Judge distinguished the judgment in Som Pal Singh v. Regional Joint Director of Education (referred as above) on the ground that it was based upon concession given by learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factum of Government Order dated 22.8.1998. The Government Order was thereafter superseded by another Government Order dated 28.10.1998. The factum of supercession has been mentioned in Sarojani Pandey (Supra); Shailendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1716. Learned Single Judge also noticed that in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642 it was noticed by the Supreme Court that the educational certificates of Madhyama issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has been deleted from the recognised qualification vide notification dated 28.6.1985.
(5) In Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Another v. Union of India & Ors., JT 2010 (6) SC 306 it was held by the Supreme Court in respect of examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as follows:-
"43. At the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention here that in view of the above, we have reached to the following inescapable conclusions:
( I ) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/Deemed University nor an Educational Board.
( II) It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act.
( III) It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda or any other branch of medical field.
( IV) No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is affiliated to any University/Board.
( V) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt had ever been made by the Society to get recognition as required under Section 14 of the Act, 1970 and further did not seek modification of entry No.105 in II Schedule to the Act,1970.
( VI) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has come elementary/basic education or has attended classes in Ayurveda in any recognized college.
(VII) After commencement of Act,1970, a person not possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice.
(VIII) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough making him eligible to practice.
( IX ) The right to practice under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19 (6) of the Constitution.
( X ) Restriction on practice without possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III, & IV to the Act, 1970 is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act."
In view of the authoritative pronouncement already made the qualification obtained by petitioner cannot be accepted as a valid qualification. Denial of such benefit, therefore, merits no interference.
Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.1.2021 Anil