there are at least two dozen decisions declaring that Prathma (claimed to be equivalent to High School), Madhyama (claimed to be equivalent to Intermediate) Sahihitya Ratna (claimed to be equivalent to B.A.) Shiksha Visharad ((claimed to be equivalent to B.Ed.) and Vaidya Visharad and Ayurved Ratna ( degrees relating to ayurvedic medicine ) certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan are invalid as these are not recognized by competent authorities and Government .
Here are some excerpts from the decisions:
Prathma/ Madhyama
---- clarification dated 20.8.2001 and 30.7.2002 issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad that the "Prathama Pariksha" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is not equivalent to High School .
------- "Prathama Pariksha" of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan cannot be said to be equivalent to High School in accordance with Chapter XIV of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as well as the clarifications issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad. No error has been committed by the District Magistrate in directing for fresh selection. The relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO. 56890 of 2008 Rajesh Kumar Verma Vs. State of
The petitioner claims that he was engaged as Gram Rozgar Sewak in 2008 on contract basis for a period of one year and on a complaint, the respondents are not allowing him to continue stating that he has not passed High school examination.
It is apparent that the petitioner, in fact had not passed the High School examination but claimed that he had passed Prathama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
In the entire record, there is nothing to show that Prathama has been recognized as equivalent to High School examination by the State of
Thus, the petitioner was not even eligible to be considered for engagement and therefore no mandate can be issued. In fact, even assuming that he was rightly engaged on contract basis, he cannot enforce the said contract in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India until and unless he can satisfy that the said contract is out come of a statutory rule, so at best he can claim damages from the respondents.
Sahitya Ratna
WRIT - A No. - 12514 of 2000 Raj Pal Singh v. D.D.E. Saharanpur & Others
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
in Chet Ram Gangwar Vs. State of U.P. and others 2009 (7) Additional District Judge 47, wherein paragraph 28 to 30, this court has held that for promotion of the post of Lecturer (Hindi) degree of Sahitya Ratna course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan cannot be treated as qualification to teach intermediate classes. For the reasons stated above, these facts of the case are covered by the aforesaid judgement --
Shiksha visharad
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15793 of 2007 Smt. Raj Kumari Chauhan v. State of U.P. and others Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J. decided on 23.03.2007
“Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, till date has not taken any recognition as is envisaged under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, as such Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag is not recognized institution within the meaning of section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, and as such, has no authority, whatsoever, to impart any instruction or offer course or training in the field of teachers education and hold any examination, accordingly.
Consequently, degree of "Shiksha Visharad" issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag is of no consequence and no credibility could be attached to the same. Thus, petitioner is ineligible candidate so as to appoint as teacher under three-language formula scheme, as she has obtained training qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, which is an unrecognized institution, as such no direction can be issued on her prayer.
Consequently, writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed. “
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.56687 of 2008 Ajeet Kumar Verma Versus State of
National Council for Teacher Education established under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 is competent to lay down norms and guidelines for achieving the planned and coordinated development of teachers' education and for regulating and maintaining proper norms and standards in the teachers' education and training. The validity of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 had been subject matter of challenge before Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kalra Teachers College (2002) 8 SCC 228 and the validity of the same has been upheld.
Sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (sic) provides that where an institution has offered a course or training in teacher education without there being any recognition, said teachers training is not to be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, College or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.
Petitioner has failed to substantiate before this Court that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, and the instructions like "Shiksha Visharad" imparted by it, have ever been recognised by National Council for Teachers' Education, as such no credibility could be attached to the said certificate and petitioner, who is equipped with un-recognized training qualification, qua him no relief could be accorded.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16630 of 2005 Smt. Mukesh Kumari Versus State of
Hon'ble
Claim of Shiksha Visharads cannot be accepted by any means. The Director, State Council Education Research and Training, U.P. at Lucknow shall see that no one with Shiksha Visharad degree has sneaked in and is getting training, and if any one has succeeded then immediate steps be undertaken for throwing the aforementioned incumbent out.
Judgment in the case of Shailendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2004(2) UPLBEC 1716 clearly holds that persons who had obtained the degree of Shiksha Visharad cannot be conferred with any right to be considered is entitled as Assistant Teachers in the Basic School run by Board or not.
See also, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.57304 of 2008 Surendra Singh Versus State of U.P. and others Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J. decided on 07/11/08 ;
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18683 of 2007 Km. Charanjeet Kaur Sahni and another Versus State of U.P. and others Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J. 10/04/07
Further see, WRIT - A No. - 36165 of 2007 Rakesh Kumar Singh And Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Others Dated: 8.8.2007;
WRIT - A No. - 52416 of 2007 Mangala Prasad Jaiswal Vs. State Of U.P. And Others dt 26/10/07 ; WRIT - A No. - 56826 of 2007 Smt. Shobha Devi Vs. State Of U.P. And Others 21/11/07 – All decided by Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan,J :
In all these his lordship Ashok Bhushan, J. held that the degree of Shiksha Visharad obtained by the petitioners from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, does not entitle them to be eligible for applying in the Special B.T.C. Training Course 2007.
Writ Petition No.3672 (MS) of 2008 Nand Kumar Maurya and others Versus State of
{In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel has relied on the judgment of Shyam Veer Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [2006 (62) ALR 98], paragraph 10. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: -
"The alleged degree of Shiksha Visharad obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Praying by the petitioner cannot be said to be a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment in the Basic Schools vide judgment in Shailendra Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. an d others. This Court has dealt with this issue and has held that the degree of Shiksha Visharad conferred on the petitioner by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Praying,
Learned Standing Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of State of Rajasthan vs. Lata Arun AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2642 and Shailendra Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others [2004 All.L.J. 1275]. In the aforementioned two cases also it has been held that the Degree of Shiksha Visharad is not a valid qualification.}
Medical degrees ( Vaidya /Vaidya Visharad/Aurvedic Ratna)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16106 of 2007 Dr. (Smt.) Aradhana Sharma & Anr. v. Union of
(See also, by same bench ---Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17494 of 2007 Kamlesh Haldar &Ors. v. Union of India & Others Date: 5.4.2007)
petitioners had obtained degree of Vaidya and Vaidya Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag and had also got themselves registered with Rajkiya Ayurvedic and Unani Chikitsa Parishad, Bihar. It is on the basis of the aforesaid that the petitioners claim that they are entitled to practice anywhere throughout
The primary question that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the certificates of Vaid Visharad examination and Aurvedic Ratna examination obtained from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
The Supreme Court in Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners Vs. Delhi Administration Director of Health Services & Ors., JT 1998 (4) SC 395 has held that the degrees of Ayurved Ratn and Vaid Visharad conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag are recognised only if they have been awarded up to 1967 and not thereafter. The Court further held :
"............Sub-Section(3) of Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Act, 1970, in our view, only envisages that where before the enactment of the said Indian Medicine Central Act, 1970 on the basis of requisite qualification which was then recognised, a person got himself registered as medical practitioner in the disciplines contemplated under the said Act or in the absence of any requirement or registration such person had been practicing for five years or intended to be registered and was also entitled to be registered, the right of such person to practice in the concerned discipline including the privileges of a registered medical practitioner stood protected even though such practitioner did not possess requisite qualification under the said Act of 1970. It may be indicated that such view of ours is reflected from the objects and reasons indicated for introducing sub-section (3) of Section 17 in the Act................
As it is not the case of any of the writ petitioners that had acquired the degree in between 1957 and 1970 or on the date of enforcement of provisions of Section 17(2) of the said Act and got themselves registered or acquired right to be registered, there is no question of getting the protection under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the said Act."
A Division Bench of this Court in Uma Kant Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2003 (4) AWC 3016 held that as the Degree of Vaidya Visharad and Auyrved Ratna given by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad after 1967 have not been recognised by the Central Council of Indian Medicine under the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, persons cannot claim the right of practice on the basis of these degrees.
A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Vijai Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1063 by holding that a degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan after 1967 was not recognised and hence those who obtained the same are not entitled to practice Indian medicine.
The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 came into force on 21st December, 1970. Section 17 of the Central Act provides (1) that subject to other provisions contained in the Act any qualification included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrollment on any State Register of Indian Medicine, and no person other than practitioner of India medicine, save as provided in Section 28, who possessed recognized medical qualification and is enrolled in the State Register or Central Register for Indian Medicine (a) shall hold office as Vaid, Siddha, Hakim or physician or any other office in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority, and shall practice Indian medicine in any State.-------
------
-------A combined reading of the Indian Medicine Act, 1939, U.P. Indian Medicine Institutions (Miscellaneous and Provisions) Act, 1982 and the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 shows that only those medical practitioners who hold qualification from the Institutions detailed in the Second Schedule of the Central Act, 1970 and from the Colleges given in the Schedule under U.P. Act of 1939, and U.P. Act, 1982 can be registered after 1970, with the Board of Indian Medicine U.P. and only these qualified persons are entitled to practice in Indian Medicine in the State of U.P.
In Dr. Mukhtiar Chand Vs. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC 579; Medical Council of India Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1996 SC 2073; Subhashis Bakshi and other Vs. West Bengal Medical Council (2003) 9 SCC 269, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to practice medicine of only those persons, who are qualified and are registered on the Indian Medical Register or on any State Medical Register. In Dr. Mehboob Alam Vs. State of
A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Vijai Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1063 by holding that a degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan after 1967 was not recognised and hence those who obtained the same are not entitled to practice Indian medicine.
Similar view was taken by a Division Bench headed by Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. (Now, elevated to Supreme Court) on 18.4.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20673 of 2006 Dr. Surendra Bahadur alias Dr. Surendra Bahadur Chaudhary Vs. The Union of
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें