Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3815
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Azahar Ali - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 25278 of 2014, Writ A Nos. 14570 of 2024, 14851 of 2014, 15447 of 2024, 17490 of 2014,17728 of 2014, 17730 of 2014, 17732 of 2014, 21700 of 2018, 23263 of 2018, 36109 of 2017, 57821 of 2014 and 8641 of 2022
Decided On : 17-05-2025
For the Petitioner:Sri K.S. Kushwaha, Advocate
For the Respondent:B.P.S. Kachhawah, I.R. Singh, K.Shahi, Pradeep Upadhyay, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocates
Educational qualifications are invalid for public recruitment when certificates demonstrate the completion of mandatory course durations in impossibly short timeframes or indicate simultaneous course completion, and where credentials lack direct verification and authentication from the parent awarding institution.
Headnote:(A) Educational Qualifications - Recruitment to teaching positions - Validity of academic certificates - Where certificates indicate the completion of multiple one-year courses within a single academic year or completion of course requirements in a period substantially shorter than the mandated duration, such credentials lack inherent credibility and are indicative of irregularity. (Paras 12, 14, 25, 37)
(B) Evidentiary Value of Certificates - Requirement of verification - Educational documents purportedly issued by affiliated centres, which are not directly verified or authenticated by the principal awarding institution, do not constitute sufficient proof of eligibility for public employment. (Paras 41, 45, 49)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought appointments as teachers by relying on educational credentials obtained from an institution. The hiring authorities challenged these qualifications, alleging that the degrees were obtained without regular classes and that the petitioners had completed mandatory one-year courses within a few months, or had completed multiple degrees within the same academic duration. The petitioners contested these claims, relying on previous judicial pronouncements regarding cut-off dates for recruitment eligibility.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the documentation provided by the petitioners explicitly showed that they had completed multiple individual one-year courses within extremely short timeframes (less than six months). The court concluded that such academic timelines are physically and logically impossible for legitimate study, rendering the certificates invalid. Furthermore, it was determined that certificates not verified by the parent awarding institution cannot be accepted as valid proof of qualification.
Issues: The main issues were the feasibility of completing professional course requirements within abbreviated timeframes and the burden of proof regarding the authenticity and verification of academic certificates in public recruitment.
Ratio Decidendi: Educational qualifications obtained through credentials that reflect completion of mandated study durations in a fraction of the prescribed time, or that lack direct verification from the parent awarding authority, are insufficient and ineligible for the purpose of recruitment in public services.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background involving jamia urdu, aligarh degree controversies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. contentions regarding degree validity and institutional recognition. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. concurrent completion of degree courses is considered fraudulent and ineligible. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 52 , 53 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 4. lack of verification from parent institution voids degree claims. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 5. failure to meet the requisite merit-based cut-off marks. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 6. formal order dismissing all pending writ petitions. (Para 62) |
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. In this bunch of writ petitions, S/Sri K.S. Kushwaha, Indresh Dubey, Navin Kumar Sharma, Awadh Narain Rai, A.C. Tiwari, Ms. Bushra Maryam, Mohd. Yaseen, Mahesh Sharma, A.K. Shukla, Advocates for all petitioners, S/Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi, C.S.C. along with A.K. Nagvanshi and A.C. Srivastava, Additional C.S.C. and Ms. Shruti Malviya, Brief Holder for State and S/Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, K. Shahi, Vipin Bihari, Shivendra Singh Bhadauria, learned advocates for Basic Shiksha Parishad have appeared.
2. Writ petitioners in all writ petitions of present bunch have claimed that they have obtained Adib-E-Kamil from an Institute namely Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
3. All writ petitioners have declared that they had passed Intermediate Exam from U.P. Board and thereafter they took admission in Adib-E-Kamil, a 1 year course (at relevant time) in Jamia Urdu, Aligarh and after one year, they have passed also.
4. All writ petitioners have appeared in U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test - 2013 conducted by Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. and have cleared also.
5. All writ petitioners have participated in a recruitment process initiated in pursuance of Government Order dated 17.08.2013 for appointment of Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language) in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic Education Board. The educational qualifications prescribed for appointment are mentioned hereinafter :-
6. All petitioners have claimed that they were included in merit list prepared on basis of quality marks and have participated in counselling. Some petitioners were granted appointment and joined. Some were granted appointment but schools were not allotted and others were waiting for appointment letters.
7. At this stage, a controversy/dispute arose that petitioners have passed their respective Intermediate Exam and Adib-E- Kamil degree in same year or have passed a 1 year course of Adib-E-Kamil in a period of less than one year. Composite inquiry was conducted and adverse orders were passed against petitioners, whereby their appointments were cancelled or they were not granted appointment and, therefore, they are before this Court.
8. Learned Advocates of all writ petitioners have argued that :-
(a) Any doubt on the institution namely Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, that it was not a recognized institute or it was only a name sake institute, where there was no teacher or class room was baseless as an issue in regard to validity of a degree. Moallim-E–Urdu from same Institute (Jamia Urdu, Aligarh) was considered by this Court (Single as well as Division Bench) in Sartaj Ahmed and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. along with other writ petitions : 2018: AHC: 14798, wherein a judgment passed by a Division Bench in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 315 of 2015 (C/M Sri Nageshwar Prasad Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs. Nandji Yadav and others) was also considered and it was held that those who had taken admission in the Moallim-E-Urdu from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh on or before 11.08.1997, were entitled to be consideration for appointment on the posts of Assistant Teacher, in Urdu in primary institutions run by Department of Basic Education, U.P. in pursuance of a G.O. dated 05.01.2016, there
