SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.666 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the order as contained in letter no.112 dated 24.5.2008, so far as it relates to the petitioner, issued by the respondent no.5, by which, the services of the writ petitioner as Para Teacher has been terminated, has been quashed and set aside by allowing the writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are required to be enumerated which reads as under:-

3. It is the case that the writ petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Doot (Para Teacher) for imparting education to children in the upper Majdiha School and the petitioner joined on 27.02.2003 itself. The writ petitioner while discharging his duty, received honorarium time to time. But vide impugned letter no.112 dated 24.05.2008, issued by the Block Education Officer, Sarwan, Deoghar, the services of the writ petitioner as Para Teacher was terminated on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the educational qualification of intermediate or its equivalent.

4. It is the further case that the petitioner educational qualification is Parveshika which is equivalent to matriculation from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar in the year 2000 and the petitioner passed the aforesaid examination in 2nd Division and a certificate to that effect has been provided by the competent authority on 21.07.2001.

5. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has obtained his Visharad Degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag, Allahabad of the Session 2005-2006 and degree of Visharad along with mark-sheet of first part and second part have been issued by the competent authority.

6. The District Superintendent of Education Cum District Programme Officer, Deoghar issued letter no.1503 dated 01.11.2008 in reference to letter no.2251 dated 25.10.2008 by which, inter-alia stipulation was made and direction was given that those para teacher who have not increased their educational qualification to intermediate or equivalent should not be retained in service as Para Teacher.

7. The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi vide letter dated 28.08.2008 issued under the signature of Secretary has clearly stipulated that the degree of Madhyama obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad is equivalent to inter (Plus Two) examination.

8. The petitioner had obtained the degree of Madhyama Visharad on 31.12.2007 and the aforesaid degree is also equivalent to Intermediate, the termination of the services of the petitioner is illegal and against the guidelines of the department as contained in letter dated 01.11.2008.

9. The writ petitioner has also given representation dated 10.10.2012 to the District Superintendent of Education Cum District Programme Officer, Deoghar for payment of arrears of honorarium and for reinstatement in service as Para Teacher.

10. Thereafter, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent (DSE Cum District Programme Officer, Deoghar) and stated that the petitioner has not submitted intermediate qualification documents till June, 2008 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement on the post of Para Teacher.

11. It appears from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove based upon the pleading that the writ petitioner was appointed as para teacher but admittedly, at the time, when the appellant was not having with the intermediate pass certificate, however, in pursuance to the terms and conditions to obtain such degree of passing of intermediate examination is to be produced within three years from the date of such engagement. The writ petitioner had produced the certificate, but not of the intermediate, rather, its equivalent, that was issued from the Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag which commonly known as Madhyama Certificate.

12. The learned Single Judge, has accepted the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the Madhyama Certificate of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag since has been held to be equivalent of intermediate certificate by the Jharkhand Academic Council, hence, the very reason based upon the order of termination passed, has been quashed and set aside.

13. While quashing and set aside the order of termination, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the judgment passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sita Ram Manjhi Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., passed in L.P.A. No.117 of 2012. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.666 of 2013, the instant appeal has been filed.

14. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Jharkhand Education Project Council has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned judgment:-

(i) That the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag has been held to be fake institution by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. Vrs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 609 [LQ/SC/2010/589] .

(ii) Since, the institution itself has been held to be illegal, as such, the degree issued by such institution will also be considered to be fake and illegal.

(iii) The Madhayma Certificate has been accepted by the learned Single Judge, based upon its adoption by the Jharkhand Academic Council, but the Jharkhand Academic Council has accepted the Madhayma Certificate to be equivalent to the intermediate certificate up to the year 2010, if issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and not of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag.

(iv) The writ petitioner, admittedly was not having the intermediate passed certificate and as per the condition of producing the said certificate within the three years from the date of engagement, no such certificate was produced, which said to be valid one, therefore, the authority has taken decision to terminate.

(v) The further ground has been taken that the order of termination was passed on 24.05.2008 but the writ petition was filed on 30.01.2013. But without taking into consideration that for five years, the appellant was not before any court of law, even then, the direction for giving all consequential reliefs illegally admissible to him, has been passed that to without any explanation of approaching the Court after lapse of five years.

15. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated these aspects of the matter, hence, the instant appeal.

16. Per contra, Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge by agitating the following grounds:-

(i) The instant appeal is not maintainable, since, it has not been filed by the State of Jharkhand, rather, it has been filed on behalf of the functionaries of the Jharkhand Education Project Council (JEPC).

(ii) Madhayma Certificate has been held to be acceptable by the Jharkhand Academic Council and as such, it is not available for the Jharkhand Education Project Council to take the ground of certificate of Madhayma to be fake and not acceptable.

(iii) The reliance has been placed upon the order passed by the Coordinate Division of this Court in LPA No.117 of 2012, wherein, exactly, the similar issue has been decided.

17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that before entering into merit of the issue, to answer the issue of maintainability of the instant appeal as per the objection in this regard made on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.

18. Admittedly herein, the writ petition was filed by the litigant concerned, private respondent herein by impleading the following respondents as party to the said proceeding:-

(i) State of Jharkhand.

(ii) Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand.

(iii) Director, Primary Education, Human Resource Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand.

(iv) District Superintendent of Education, Cum District Programme Officer, Deoghar.

(v) Block Education Extension Officer, Deoghar.

19. Admittedly, the order of termination was passed by the respondent no.5, Block Education Extension Officer, Deoghar.

20. It is further admitted fact that the learned Single Judge has directed the respondent no.4, the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Deoghar to look into the matter and reinstate the petitioner by giving all consequential reliefs legally admissible to him.

21. Therefore, the direction passed by the learned Single Judge is not upon the State of Jharkhand or its functionaries, rather, it is upon the District Programme Officer, Deoghar who is the competent authority in the capacity of holding the post of District Superintendent of Education.

22. The District Programme Officer is not a post created by the State of Jharkhand, rather it is under the Scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan for the purpose of monitoring the entire work of Sarv Shiksha at the District level in the capacity of District Level Implementation authority.

23. The District Level Implementation Authority is to be headed by the District Collector/Magistrate/Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad. While, the Scheme also provides an officer to be there to over-see the implementation of the programme at the district level whose key function will be to over-see implementation of the programme, i.e., at the level of the District Education Extension Officer.

24. In the Block Level Structure, the same is to be headed by the Block Education Officer and the main role of these structures would be to provide academic supervision and on-site support to the field functionaries, capacity building, monitoring the actual implementation of various interventions at the grass root level by interacting with the field level officers and providing information to the District Project Office.

25. Thereafter, the Village/Ward Education Committee is to be constituted, for ready reference, the entire system for the better administration of the scheme is being referred as under:-

26. The basic object of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) is a comprehensive and integrated flagship programme of Government of India to attain Universal Elementary Education (UEE), covering the entire country in a mission mode. It has been launched in the year 2001-2002. The basic object also is to provide quality education to all children through active participation of community in a mission mode. With the enactment of the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, “free and compulsory quality education upto elementary level” has become a Fundamental Right, thus making it mandatory for the central and state Governments to provide for such education to each and every child.

27. The Jharkhand Education Project Council (in short ‘JEPC’) is an autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Council has been established for bringing the fundamental change in the elementary education system and directly influence the overall socio-cultural scenario established for the purpose of actively implementing the various projects/programmes like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/National Programme for education of girls at elementary level and Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidayalaya (KGBV).

28. Under the Scheme, it is to be run by way of allocation of fund in a particular share both by the Central and the State Government. The Central Government is to disburse the fund in favour of the State for the proper implementation of the Scheme with a condition that there will be a council at National Level as also the State Level.

29. At the State Level, the same will be the State Implementation Society having with the General Council to be headed by the Chief Minister/Education Minister, thereafter, there will be Executive Committee headed by the Chief Secretary/Development Commissioner/Education Secretary and then the State Project Office headed by the Mission Director/State Project Director assisted by Coordinators looking after various components of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). The aforesaid establishment for the purpose of smooth running of the scheme has been shown in the tabular charge as referred hereinabove.

30. The financial allocation is to be given to the State Implementation Society as per the scheme itself by the central government but the pre-condition is that the state government is to first create a society and then only the money is to be transferred in the name of the society.

31. The mission is to be headed by the Mission Director/State Project Director to look into the proper implementation of the entire scheme and the expenditure of the money as per the share to be given by the Centre and the State, therefore, there is financial autonomy to the society which runs under the grant of the Centre and the State to be allocated in the certain proportion, at the moment it is 60:40 to be allocated by the Centre and the State respectively.

32. The moment, the society has been created in order to look into the proper implementation of the entire scheme having its financial autonomy by way of allocation of fund both by the Centre and the State, then according to our considered view, will be said to be have autonomy so as to run without any interference of anybody.

33. It appears from the tabular chart that it is not under the control of the State Government, rather, there will be a General Council headed by the Chief Minister, the Executive Committee headed by the Chief Secretary or Development Commissioner or Education Secretary which itself suggests that there is no evasive control of the State Government, save and except, the monitoring part so that the scheme be implemented without any interruption and the fund be allocated smoothly by the Central Government depending upon its expenditure in the proper manner.

34. Further, the authority to appoint the para teachers is also vest upon the State Project Office who has got ultimate control upon the decision which is to be taken by the Block Education Extension Officer at the Block Level or the District Programme Officer at the District Level.

35. Since, there is no post like that of District Programme Officer, hence, the District Superintendent of Education is to exercise exofficio duty of the District Programme Officer under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.

36. Here, the reference is also required to be made by referring the order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court dated 14.06.2023, wherein, the learned counsel appearing for the State has sought for time to seek instruction regarding the stand of the State to assail the order impugned in the appeal.

37. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that since, the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Deoghar, has filed the instant appeal and they are the aggrieved parties, therefore, the statement made at Bar that the State of Jharkhand is not willing to file the appeal in absence of any direction to the State of Jharkhand.

38. After having discussed the factual aspect hereinabove and coming to the relief sought for by the writ petitioner which is against the order of termination which was passed by the Block Education Extension Officer, Sarwan, Deoghar, hence, we are of the view that if the State has chosen not to file the appeal that cannot be a reason to raise the issue of maintainability if the instant appeal has been filed by the District Programme Officer and Block Education Extension Officer.

39. Further, the District Programme Officer since is under the control of the State Project Office and hence, with the permission of the State Project Office, the litigation can be filed if any direction is being given by the Court of law for implementation by the functionaries who are under the control of the State Project Office.

40. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the objection regarding maintainability which has been raised, is not sustainable.

41. Accordingly, the appeal is held to be maintainable.

42. This Court, on consideration of the admitted fact has found that on the date of recruitment, the writ petitioner was not having intermediate passed certificate.

43. The appellant, in terms of the condition of producing the intermediate passed certificate within three years from the date of engagement, had produced the Madhyama certificate which has been claimed to be equivalent to the intermediate passed certificate issued by the Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag.

44. The acceptance of said certificate has been insisted upon, based upon the decision taken by the Jharkhand Academic Council, wherein, the Madhyama certificate, according to the writ petitioner has been treated to be equivalent to the intermediate passed certificate.

45. This Court, in order to appreciate this ground first, has considered the decision taken by the Jharkhand Academic Council, wherefrom, it is evident that the council has never recognized the equivalence of the Madhyama certificate which has been issued by the Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, rather, the equivalence has been given of the certificate issued by the Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, for ready reference, the relevant part of such decision taken by the Jharkhand Academic Council is being referred as under:-

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

46. Thus, we are of the view on the basis of the discussion that the Madhyama certificate issued by the Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, has not been recognized equivalent to the intermediate passed certificate.

47. Coming to the second ground that the Sahitya Sammelan Prayag is not fake, for which, our attention has been drawn towards the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti Sardarshahar (supra).

48. On consideration of judgment particularly the conclusion part, wherein, the certificate issued from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, has been held neither a university/deemed university nor an educational board, for ready reference, paragraphs-51 and 53 of the said judgment are being referred as under:-

“51. At the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention here that in view of the above, we have reached to the following inescapable conclusions:

(I) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a university/deemed university nor an educational board.

(II) It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

(III) It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as ayurveda or any other branch of medical field.

(IV) No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is affiliated to any university/board.

(V) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition from the statutory authority after 1967. No attempt had ever been made by the Society to get recognition as required under Section 14 of the 1970 Act and further did not seek modification of Entry 105 in Schedule II to the 1970 Act.

(VI) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has some elementary/basic education or has attended classes in ayurveda in any recognised college.

(VII) After commencement of the 1970 Act, a person not possessing the qualifications prescribed in Schedules II, III and IV to the 1970 Act is not entitled to practise.

(VIII) Mere inclusion of the name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough for making him eligible to practise.

(IX) The right to practise under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

(X) Restriction on practise without possessing the requisite qualifications prescribed in Schedules II, III and IV to the 1970 Act is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act.

53. In view of the above, the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21043 of 2008 is allowed and it is held that a person who acquired the certificate, degree or diploma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag after 1967 is not eligible to indulge in any kind of medical practice. All other civil appeals are dismissed. No costs.”

49. It is evident from paragraph-53, as referred hereinabove that a person who acquired the certificate, degree or diploma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag after 1967 is not eligible to indulge in any kind of medical practice. However, in the said judgment, the reference of the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court has been taken as under paragraphs-30 to 33, which deal regarding the validity of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad also.

50. Therefore, on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case also, the Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag has been held to be fake institution.

51. But the emphasis of the argument herein is that the Madhyama certificate issued from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, has been held to be equivalent by the Jharkhand Academic Council but that is not the correct fact as per the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs.

52. The third argument is that the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court has passed an order in LPA No.117 of 2012, as has been appended as Annexure-8 to the memo of appeal.

53. We have considered aforesaid judgment and found from the factual aspects involved therein that the Coordinate Division Bench while accepting the Madhyama certificate equivalent to the intermediate passed certificate which was issued from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as per the recognition of equivalence given by the Jharkhand Academic Council vide its letter dated 28.08.2010 clearly conveyed that the degree of Madhyma given by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent degree to the intermediate as well as (+2) course, for ready reference, the said part of the order is being referred as under:-

“Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant further submitted that even Jharkhand Academic Council vide its letter dated 28.08.2010 clearly conveyed that the degree of Madhyma given by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent degree to the Intermediate as well as (+2) course.”

54. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has passed the order by keeping the applicability of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.117 of 2012, but, we are not impressed with such argument since herein it is not the case of the appellant that the Madhyama certificate which is now being claimed to be equivalent to the intermediate passed certificate was issued from the Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, rather, it was issued from Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag.

55. But, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact and has accepted the validity of the said Madhyama certificate, even though, the same was issued from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, therefore, the very applicability of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.117 of 2012 in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not applicable, hence, the reliance as is being claimed on behalf of the writ petitioner upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.117 of 2012 is not at all applicable.

56. This Court, on the basis of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as referred hereinabove and coming to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.117 of 2012, but as per the discussion made hereinabove, on fact more particularly, the Madhyama certificate in the instant case, has been issued from the Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, is of the view that the certificate issued from Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag has not been held to be equivalent to the intermediate passed certificate, rather, in the said LPA No.117 of 2012, the Madhyama certificate was issued by the Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad.

57. This Court, therefore, is of the view that allowing the writ petition by interfering with the impugned order based upon the finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.117 of 2012, is an error committed while passing the order.

58. Accordingly, we are of the view that the impugned order needs to be interfere with.

59. In view thereof, the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.666 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside.

60. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed.

61. In consequence thereof, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.666 of 2013 is dismissed.

62. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.