M.N. Bhandari, J. - (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: "4. The State Government ignored to file reply in the writ petition. The matter was disposed of by the learned single Judge at the admission stage. The learned single Judge noticed that a Division Bench of this Court, in the matter of DB Civil Special Appeal No. 258/2004 Miss. Altaf Bano v. State of Rajasthan has considered the qualifications of the similarly situated persons as valid. On the basis of the letter of the State Government dated 3.2.1965 qualifications of the petitioner, were considered, to be valid, and therefore, directed the State Government to consider the case of the incumbent as he was possessed of the qualification required by the Education Department. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Miss. Altaf Bano's case (supra), the learned single Judge was of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The learned single Judge also noticed a decision of this Court in the matter of Tayyab Hussain v. State of Rajasthan, DB Civil Review Petition No. 22/2002, wherein a Division Bench of this Court, considering the review petition, came to the conclusion that for the appointment of Teacher Grade III, the qualifications of Urdu as granted by Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh as Adib Mahir and Adib Kamil are sufficient qualifications. While holding so, the Division Bench held: "We may also notice that it was not the case of the respondents at any time that recruitment for the post of Teacher Gr. III, Adib Mahir/Adib Kamil are not recognized qualification for the purpose of recruitment. 5. The appellant State of Rajasthan, assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge, contended that since the writ petition was decided at the admission stage, therefore, no reply could be filed and the case of the State Government was not placed before the learned single Judge in the right perspective. The learned Additional Advocate General has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151, C.P.C., along with two orders of State Government contending that the qualifications possessed by the petitioner are the qualifications acquired from Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh. Such qualifications have been held to be not recognized vide State Government order dated 24.04.1993. - - (* * *) 6. The learned counsel appearing for the State Government further urged that State of Rajasthan has issued a letter on 23.11.1991 in which it has been specified inter alia: - - (* * *) 7. The learned counsel contended that in view of the orders of the State of Rajasthan, any qualification which is not acquired from an Institution which is established under the orders of the Central Government, State Government or by the sanction of the University Grants Commission, such qualifications would not be valid qualifications for the purposes of employment. Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not an institution as established by and under the orders of the Central Government, State Government or University Grants Commission. Therefore, for the purposes of employment these qualifications cannot be considered to be one which is valid. 9. The Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh being an institution not established by either of these authoritative institutions, the degree cannot be recognized. This aspect was made more clear by the orders of the State Government dated 24.4.1993 which has been produced by the State Government which recites that Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not an institution established by the sanction of law, therefore, the Degree or certificate granted by this institution is of no consequence for the purpose of employment. 17. Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is an Institution which is allegedly parting Urdu Education. The respondent -petitioners have not shown us any sanction of law which had authorized this Institution to function as an Institution teaching Urdu and issuing Certificates and Degrees. The recognition of a Certificate or Degree being a valid qualification for an appointment is that the Institution issuing it should have legal sanction behind it. It may be either under the orders of the Central Government, State Government or the University Grants Commission. None of these three authorities have issued any sanction in favour of the Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh. Had it been there, the learned counsel for the petitioner -respondent would have placed it before the Court. 18. The best case of the petitioner -respondent before us is that the qualification was recognized by the State Government to be equivalent as shown in the letter dated 3rd February, 1965, quoted in the writ petition. Firstly, a Division Bench of this Court has not given credence to this Notification because the original Notification had not been placed either before us or before the Division Bench deciding the case of Jalaludin Silawat (supra). In any case, the qualification enumerated in that Notification are antiquated qualifications because now the qualification has undergone a sea change. It cannot be read to be equivalent to the present day qualifications. The State of Rajasthan had issued letters dated 24.4.1993 making it explicit that only those qualifications which are issued by the Institutions, which are the creation of law, can alone be recognized. Apart from this in this Notification dated 24.4.1993 it has been made clear that Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh is not an Institution established by law. Thus, the State of Rajasthan in its Notification dated 23.11.1991 had made it more than obvious that any qualification acquired by taking up examination held by Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh would not be a qualification which would be available for seeking to be appointed. 20. In the light of the matter, it is considered that the petitioner who has acquired Urdu qualifications issued by Zamiya Urdu, Aligarh, possesses a qualification which is not a qualification awarded by an Institution which had a legal sanction behind it, therefore, the same is not available for the purposes of employment in the State of Rajasthan."
(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: "22. Right to confer degrees. (1) The right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. (2) Save as provided in sub -section (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree. (3) For the purposes of this Section, "degree" means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette.";