Back
2012 Supreme(J&K) 255
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Khursheed Ahmad Sheikh & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. -Resopndent
OWP No. 674 of 2010 c/w OWP Nos. 888 of 2010, SWP Nos. 53 of 2011,1466 of 2010, 737 of 2011,238 of 2011, 680 of 2011,2332 of 2011,2219 of 2011,979 of 2011,1432 of 2010,1481 of 2011, 739 of 2011, 726 of 2011, 894 of 2011, 756 of 2011,837 of 2011, 823 of 2011, 2275 of 2011
Decided On : 06-06-2012
M/s R.A. Jan, Mr. M. Ajaz, Mr. H. Furrhi, Mr. Zahoor A. Shah, Mr. S. R. Khawar, Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Mr. Mudasir Bin Hassan, Mr. Mir Javed, Mr. Mir Shafaqat Hussain, Mr. Javed Hamid, Advocates for the Petitioners.
M/s A. M. Magray, Sr. AAG, Mr. J. A. Kawoosa AAG, Mr. S. A. Naik AAG, Mr. Mir Suhail, GA, Mr. S. A. Makroo ASG, Mr. Shabir Ahmad Khan, GA, Mr. B. A. Bashir, Mr. Tassaduq H. Khawaja, Mr. Mufti Mehraj-ud-Din, Mr. G. A. Lone, Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Dar, Mr. Qazi Ayaz, Advocates for the Respon#31;dents.
The judgment established the principle that degrees issued by unauthorized institutions in violation of UGC Act and other applicable laws are not valid for employment purposes.
Headnote:
PRIST - Higher Education Controversy - UGC Act, 1956; IGNOU Act, 1985; National Council for Teacher Education - The court discussed the validity of degrees obtained from PRIST University and its recognition under various acts and regulations. The judgment highlighted the importance of recognized degrees and the consequences of obtaining degrees from unauthorized institutions. The court dismissed all writ petitions and directed the Chief Secretary to investigate the unauthorized centers and take appropriate action.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought consideration for their degrees obtained from PRIST University for various teaching positions. The respondents denied weightage to these degrees, citing lack of recognition under UGC Act, 1956; IGNOU Act, 1985; and National Council for Teacher Education regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the degrees obtained from PRIST University were not recognized under the relevant acts and regulations. It dismissed all writ petitions and directed the Chief Secretary to investigate the unauthorized centers and take appropriate action.
Issues: The validity of degrees obtained from PRIST University and their recognition under UGC Act, 1956; IGNOU Act, 1985; and National Council for Teacher Education regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of recognized degrees and the consequences of obtaining degrees from unauthorized institutions. It held that degrees issued by unauthorized institutions in violation of UGC Act and other applicable laws are not valid for employment purposes.
Final Decision: All writ petitions were dismissed, and the Chief Secretary was directed to investigate the unauthorized centers and take appropriate action.
OWP No. 674/2010 c/w 888/2010,1432/2011, & 1481/2011
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have averred that they have on their credit the Post Graduate Degrees obtained from Ponnaiyah Ramajayan Institute of Science & Technology, University, Tamil Nadu, Thanjavur, hereinafter for short as PRIST and the same has not been considered by the respondents while making selection for the posts of Rehbar-e-Taleem for different Primary and Middle Schools of District Budgam.
3. The petitioners allege discrimination on the part of respondents to the effect that while making selection, the degrees obtained from PRIST have not been given any weight-age resulting in petitioners' exit from the consideration zone. That the University is recognized by respondent No. 5 and is competent to undertake Post Graduate Courses and thereafter issue certificates to successful candidates.
4. It is further averred that petitioners' merit has been turned into demerit by the inaction of respondents; therefore, they are aggrieved of the same and seek appropriate directions.
OWP No. 53/2011 c/w 1466/2010,737/2011,238/2011,680/2011, & 2332/2010
5. In these writ petitions, the petitioners again seek weight-age to their aca#31;demic qualification obtained through PRIST, but have in addition sought writ.of certiorari to the effect that notification No. 47063-66 dated 05.01.2011- Annexure D, by virtue of which the selection was notified and respondent No. 5 and 6 were shown selected, be quashed. In OWP No. 2332/2010 it is also prayed that respon#31;dents be prohibited not to make any appointment in pursuance to impugned selection.
OWP No. 2219/2011 c/w 979/2011,
6. The petitioners in these petitions have to their credit, B.A, M.A. & B.Ed from Kashmir University and M.Ed, from PRIST University; have been interviewed for the post of Teacher in District Cadre Pulwama. They apprehend that despite being interviewed, they, like others, may not receive the due consideration to their M.Ed degrees obtained from PRIST University, therefore, seek a direction to this effect in the name of respondents.
OWP No. 739/2011, c/w 726/2011,894/2011,756/2011, 837/2011, & 823/2011
7. Petitioners in this writ petition seek a direction in the name of respondents to the effect that they be interviewed and their higher qualification of M.Ed, obtained from PRIST be given due weight-age.
SWP No. 2275/2011
8. The petitioners in this writ petition are nine in number, out of which one stands deleted. The petitioners 1 to 7 seek due consideration and weight-age to their higher qualification of M.Ed, obtained through PRIST in an open category for the post of Teacher in District Shopian, while as petitioner No. 8 seeks the same relief but in reserved category, being the Resident of Backward Area. The petitioners seek quashment of the selection list dated 3.10.2011 also.
9. Respondents have filed their reply/objections to all the writ petitions. The stand of the respondents in all the writ petitions is quite similar.
10. Primarily, this court has to see as to whether the degrees obtained and in possession of the petitioners are valid in the eyes of law? When this question is answered, the next would be, as to how far the respondents are justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on the ground of their having acquired the higher academic qualification through Universities other than Jammu University/Kashmir University, Moulana Azad National Urdu University, for short as MANUU, Department of Electronics and Accreditation Computer Courses, for short as DOEACC, or Indira Gandhi National Open University, for short as IGNOU?
11. Before the controversy is dwelled upon, it is thought appropriate to recount the events the way it reached to this court.
12. Petitioners' in response to various advertisement notices, issued by th
