NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2703 of 2013 • Smt.Rajshri Rathore W/o Shri Om Prakash Rathore, Aged About

31 Years R/o Village Sapiya Mahaveer Gali, P.S. Dabhra, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Nagriya Nikay Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Municipal OfÏcer Municipal Council Kharsiya, Dist Raigarh Chhattisgarh

4. Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad Uttar Pradesh, Through Director Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Bharat Bhawan Matiyari Chinhat Faizabad Road, Lucknow, 227150 Uttar Pradesh

5. State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary Department Of Education Mantralaya, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh ---- Respondent ………………………………………………………………………………

For Petitioner Mr. BL Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.3 Mr.Sudeep Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer …………………………………………………………………………………..

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

27/3/2024

1. This petition has been filed challenging the letter dated

13.8.2013 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was directed to submit the relevant documents for verification of her Degree Certificate in MA (Sanskrti) issued by Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh .

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.3 issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit). The petitioner applied for the said post and got selected and she was placed in the list of eligible candidates at Sl. No.1, which is filed as Annexure P/3 under the OBC category. However, thereafter, respondent No.3, by the impugned letter, directed the petitioner to produce the relevant documents with regard to recognition of the subject Institute as in the Website, the same is shown as a fake University.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the other recruitees, who had obtained the Certificates from Bharatiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh and had been issued appointment order(s) in different Schools/Departments and the document in this regard is filed as Annexure P/5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is discriminatory in nature. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that a similar nature of issue travelled up to the Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Hem Prabha, which was decided by the judgment dated 11.4.2023 passed in in Civil Appeal No.6617/2009 and the said judgment was recently referred in the matter of Sushma Kumari Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and other matters (CWP No.4597/2022 and other connected matters, decided on 27.7.2023), in which, the Supreme Court has categorically observed that Bharitya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh is not recognised by the UGC and further, the UGC has taken a specific stand by filing an afÏdavit stating therein that Bharatiya Shiksha Parishad Uttar Pradesh had not been recognized by the UGC either before or after 1994; it was not competent to award any degree as per mandate of Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956; and any degree awarded by the said Institute is not valid for higher education/employment purposes and the said stand was accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was further observed that the respondent authorities had not committed any illegality in terminating the services of the petitioner therein as the Bharitya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh is not recognized by the UGC.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Hem Prabha (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that since the Bhartiya Shiksha