# Basic Shiksha Adhikari v. Laxmi Shakya & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1646
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-24
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 9 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/basic-shiksha-adhikari-v-laxmi-shakya-ors-52011
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Assistant Teacher
Recruitment
Examination,
2018
-
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
-
Chapter
XII
Part
-
II-
B
(General
Regulation Regarding Exam) - Clause 17
(1), (2), (3), (4) & (5) - Regulation 5 -
Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic
Programmes
Simultaneously
-
New
Education Policy 2020 Guidelines - Allows
two academic programmes under certain
conditions - Programs must not overlap
and have different class times - One fulltime course on physical mode and the other
in open and distance learning or online
mode - No retrospective benefit can be
claimed for students who have already
pursued
two
academic
programmes
simultaneously - Prior to April 2022, no
person
could
pursue
two
full-time
academic programmes in physical modes
simultaneously. (Para - 34, 35)

(B) Service Law - The U.P. Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
-
prohibits
simultaneous examinations of High School
and Intermediate courses, either as regular
or private students - If a candidate appears
in two simultaneous exams, their results
are declared nullity - Only Examination
Board can declare a candidate's result
nullity - Higher education courses cannot
be
undertaken
simultaneously
-
employment cannot be terminated unless
certificates are forged, fabricated, or
declared nullity by the Examination Board.
(Para -37)

Petitioner's services were terminated - due to
his multiple certificates, including High School
and Intermediate, B.A, B.Sc., B.T.C., and
M.Sc., and his overlapping degrees - No
courses
declared
null
by
competent
Examination Board - Certificates verified as
genuine - Services cannot be terminated unless
declared null and void by Examination Body.
(Para - 4,38)

HELD:- Appellant/respondents are directed to
permit petitioner/respondent no.1 to discharge
her duties on the post on which petitioner was
appointed. Petitioner entitled for payment of
salary with continuity in service and all
consequential benefits.(Para - 41)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,997 of 49,612. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._

1646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which is required under Section 157 A of the
Act, 1950.

14. In view of the facts,
circumstances
and
discussion
made
hereinabove, the present petition is devoid
of merit hence, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1646
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 9 of 2024

Basic Shiksha Adhikari ...Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Shakya & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Manvendra Singh, Prabhakar Awasthi, Vijay
Kumar Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Siddharth Khare

(A) Service Law - Assistant Teacher
Recruitment
Examination,
2018
-
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
-
Chapter
XII
Part
-
II-
B
(General
Regulation Regarding Exam) - Clause 17
(1), (2), (3), (4) & (5) - Regulation 5 -
Guidelines for Pursuing Two Academic
Programmes
Simultaneously
-
New
Education Policy 2020 Guidelines - Allows
two academic programmes under certain
conditions - Programs must not overlap
and have different class times - One fulltime course on physical mode and the other
in open and distance learning or online
mode - No retrospective benefit can be
claimed for students who have already
pursued
two
academic
programmes
simultaneously - Prior to April 2022, no
person
could
pursue
two
full-time
academic programmes in physical modes
simultaneously. (Para - 34, 35)

(B) Service Law - The U.P. Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
-
prohibits
simultaneous examinations of High School
and Intermediate courses, either as regular
or private students - If a candidate appears
in two simultaneous exams, their results
are declared nullity - Only Examination
Board can declare a candidate's result
nullity - Higher education courses cannot
be
undertaken
simultaneously
-
employment cannot be terminated unless
certificates are forged, fabricated, or
declared nullity by the Examination Board.
(Para -37)

Petitioner's services were terminated - due to
his multiple certificates, including High School
and Intermediate, B.A, B.Sc., B.T.C., and
M.Sc., and his overlapping degrees - No
courses
declared
null
by
competent
Examination Board - Certificates verified as
genuine - Services cannot be terminated unless
declared null and void by Examination Body.
(Para - 4,38)

HELD:- Appellant/respondents are directed to
permit petitioner/respondent no.1 to discharge
her duties on the post on which petitioner was
appointed. Petitioner entitled for payment of
salary with continuity in service and all
consequential benefits.(Para - 41)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kuldeep Kumar Pathak Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
(2016) 3 SCC 521

2. Board of Basic Education & anr. Vs Arvind
Prakash Dwivedi & ors.., Special Appeal Defective
No. 898 of 2020

3. Laxmi Shanker Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
Writ-A No. 5394 of 2021

4. The Basic Eduction Board, U.P. Prayagraj &
anr. Vs Laxmi Shekhar Yadav, Special Appeal No.
37 of 2022
5 All. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. Laxmi Shakya & Ors.
1647
5. Shilpa Saroha Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ A No.
13888 of 2019

6. A. Dharmraj Vs The Educational Officer
Puddukkottai & ors. , (2022) 11 SCC 692

7. Rao Mohammad Arif Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,
Special Appeal No. 124 of 2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Manvendra Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.
Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State respondent,
Mr. Siddharth Khare, learned counsel
appearing for the contesting-respondent and
perused the record.

Order
on
Delay
Condonation
Application

2. Delay in filling the present appeal
has been explained to the satisfaction of the
Court. Learned counsel for the respondent
has no objection if the delay condonation
application is allowed. Accordingly delay in
filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The delay condonation application
stands allowed.

Order on Appeal

4. The instant special appeal has been
preferred against the judgement and order
dated 10.04.2023, passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ A No. 1111 of 2023
(Laxmi Shakya vs. State of U.P. and 3
Others) whereby the learned Single Judge
has allowed the writ petition and set-aside
the order dated 31.12.2022, passed by the
District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri,
whereby the services of the respondent
no.1/petitioner,
Laxmi
Shakya,
were
terminated on the ground that the petitioner
has obtained the certificate of High School
and Intermediate, twice and has also
obtained overlapping degrees of B.A, B.Sc.
and also the overlapping degree of B.T.C.
and M.Sc.

5. The brief facts of the case are that
the State Government has notified the
vacancies for recruitment on the post of
Assistant Teacher in the year, 2018, known
as
"Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination,
2018".
The
petitioner/respondent no.1 having possessed
the requisite qualifications, participated in
the examination and qualified the same. In
terms of the said qualifications, on passing
of the said examination the petitioner was
issued
an
appointment
letter
dated
05.09.2018. On the basis of the aforesaid
appointment letter dated 05.09.2018, she has
joined Prathmik Vidyalaya, Nagla Ahir
Block Kisni, District Mainpuri on the post of
Assistant Teacher on 07.09.2018 and was
discharging her duties. In the meantime, the
petitioner/respondent was married to one
Sandeep Kumar s/o Sughar Singh. When her
matrimonial relationship with Sandeep
Kumar became strained, Sughar Singh, the
father of Sandeep Kumar and father-in-law
of the petitioner/respondent no.1, made an
online complaint on Jansunwayi Portal
(IGRS) on 31.07.2021 alleging therein that
the petitioner has obtained the certificates
and passed the High School, Intermediate
examination twice on the overlapping years
and she has also obtained the overlapping
degrees of B.A./B.Sc. It is also alleged that
she had also completed the degree of M.Sc.
and
B.T.C.
simultaneously.
On
such
complaint being made the District Basic
Education Officer had issued a notice dated
13.08.2021 to the petitioner/respondent
no.1. Thereafter, another notice was issued
on 01.10.2021 by the District Basic
1648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Education Officer, Mainpuri and by the said
notice, payment of salary to the petitioner
was stopped. The petitioner/respondent has
submitted her reply to the aforesaid notice
dated 01.10.2021 on 18.10.2021.

6. Relying upon the judgement of
Kuldeep Kumar Pathak Vs. State of U.P. &
others (2016) 3 SCC 521 and the another
judgement of this Court in passed in Special
Appeal Defective No. 898 of 2020 (Board of
Basic Education and Another vs. Arvind
Prakash Dwivedi and 2 Others), the said
notice dated 01.10.2021 was challenged by
the petitioner/respondent in Writ A No.
18268 of 2021 (Laxmi Shakya Vs. State of
U.P. and 2 others). The said writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2021
directing the District Basic Education
Officer, Mainpuri to take a decision in the
matter most expeditiously and preferably
within a period of two weeks from the date
of production of a certified copy of the order.
Thereupon,
on
23.12.2021,
the
petitioner/respondent submitted a copy of
the order dated 17.12.2021 alongwith her
reply and claimed to set-aside the notice
dated 01.10.2021 and to restore her salary.
Pursuant to the aforesaid representation
dated 23.12.2021, the District Basic
Education Officer, Mainpuri, directed the
Block Education Officer to conduct an
inquiry with regard to the allegations
levelled
against
the
petitioner
and
thereafter on 29.01.2022, the District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Mainpuri,
withdrew the order of stoppage of
payment of salary after completion of the
inquiry by the Block Education Officer.
The petitioner/respondents also submitted
the reply dated 02.03.2022 before the
Block Development Officer wherein she
has categorically stated that she has
submitted the following documents for
appearing
in
the Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment Examination, 2018, which
are as under:-

िर्
सां०
परीक्षर कर
नरर्
वषम
अनुिर्रांक
श्रेणी
दशक्षण सांस्थर कर
नरर्
बोडम/
दवदव
कर नरर्
1
हरईस्कूि 2010

1558864 प्रथर्
ऋदषिूदर् इां०को०
सौररख कन्नौज
यू०पी०
बोडम
2
इण्टर
2012 1134721 प्रथर्
3
बी०एस०
सी०
2015 6055893 प्रथर्
गांगर
दसांह
र्हरदवद्यरिय
हुसैनपुर कन्नौज
छत्पदत
शरह जी
र्हररर
ज
दव०दव
०
करनपुर
4
बी०टी०
सी०

2017 1841035
1
प्रथर्
िेवरांशू
सर्रज
कल्यरण
सेवर
र्हरदवद्यरिय
र्हरिेव नगर सौररख
कन्नौज
परीक्षर
दनयरर्
क
प्ररदि
कररी
उत्तर
प्रिेश
5
टेट.
2017 1810402
656
उत्तीणम
-

7. The original copies of the above
documents were also produced by the
respondent/petitioner at the time of the
counselling which were duly verified by the
Department
and
having
found
the
documents genuine, she was selected and
appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher.
She has also stated with regard to the
strained relationship with her husband due
to which the instant complaint has been
lodged
by
the
father-in-law
of
the
respondent/petitioner.

8. In response to the clarification
sought for by the Block Education Officer
vide its letter dated 07.03.2022, the
petitioner/respondent has further submitted
her explanation on 10.3.2022 to the effect
that except the B.Sc. Examination, she has
no concern with any other documents nor
she has any knowledge about the same.
However, she has admitted that before
taking admission in B.T.C. course, she has
5 All. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. Laxmi Shakya & Ors.
1649
taken the admission in M.Sc. And after
taking the admission in B.T.C., she has not
attended the classes in M.Sc. course.
However,
she
has
appeared
in
the
examination of M.Sc. as well but she has not
utilized her M.Sc. Mark sheet or certificate
at any stage. She has also submitted
application for surrendering the mark sheet
and degree of M.Sc. before the University
concerned, which is under process.

9. The said Block Education Officer
has submitted an inquiry report dated
23.03.2022. After submission of the said
inquiry report, the District Basic Education
Officer,
Mainpuri,
vide
order
dated
11.04.2022, has further directed the Block
Education Officer, Mainpuri to conduct a
fresh inquiry with regard to the overlapping
degrees
obtained
by
the
petitioner/respondent in the year, 2014 B.A.
Part - I and B.Sc. Part-II, in the year, 2015
B.A. Part - II and B.Sc. Part-III, in the year,
2016 B.A. Part - III, M.Sc. Part-I and B.T.C.
Part- I and in the year, 2017 M.Sc. Part - II
and B.T.C. Part-II.

10. In pursuance of the aforesaid order
dated 11.04.2022, the Block Education
Officer again submitted his report on
06.05.2022 whereby the Block Education
Officer has informed that with regard to the
Educational qualification of Laxmi d/o Sri
Ashok Kumar, she has obtained the record
from Swargiya Mahadev Prasad Smarak
Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Husainpur Saurikh,
Kannauj and Ganga Singh Mahavidyalaya,
Sultanpur Saukhik, Kannauj and has found
as under:-

"1. मजसमें स्व० महादेव प्रसाद स्मारक ममहला
महामवद्यालय हुसैनपुर सौररख जनपद कन्नोज द्वारा शैमक्षक
अमभलेख प्रमामणत कर उलब्ध कराये गये है मजसमें आपके द्वारा
वर्ट 2011 में हाईस्कूल अनुिमांकः 1579885, पररणाम
उत्तीणट जमतमथ-15.07.1995 अंमकत की गयी है, और
इण्टरमीमडएट में वर्ट 2013 अनुिमांकः 1137929 पररणाम
प्रथम श्रेणी ओनसट तथा बी०ए० प्रथम वर्ट, मद्वतीय वर्ट तृतीय वर्ट
अनुिमाकः 6157728 पररणाम प्राप्तांक / पूणािंक: 677/900
प्रथम श्रेणी।

2 गंगा मसंह महामवद्यालय सुल्तानपुर, सौररख,
जनपद कन्नौज द्वारा शैमक्षक अमभलेख प्रमामणत उपलब्ध कराये गये
है मजसके आपके द्वारा हाईस्कूल परीक्षा-2010 अनुकनायकः
1558864 पररणान पास, इण्टरमीमडएट-2012 अनुिमांकः
1134721 पररणाम प्राप्तांक / पूणािंक 361/500 प्रथम श्रेणी,
बी०एस०सी० प्रथम वर्ट, मद्वतीय वर्ट तृतीय वर्ट-2015,
अनुिमांक-6055893, प्राप्तांक / पूणािंक 1197/1000
उत्तीणट श्रेणी प्रथम श्रेणी, एम०एस०सी० प्रथम, मद्वतीय, वर्ट
2017- अनुिमांकः 2033264, पररणाम- प्राप्तांक / पूणाटक335/1000 उत्तीणट श्रेणी प्रथम तथा उपमस्थमत मववरण प्राचायट
द्वारा उपलब्ध नही कराया गया है।"

11. On the basis of the aforesaid report
submitted by the Block Education Officer,
the report from the University and the
Secretary Education Board Allahabad, were
also obtained and in the meantime on
21.12.2022, a show cause notice was further
issued to the petitioner/respondent and in
response to the aforesaid show cause notice,
the petitioner respondent has submitted a
detailed reply wherein she has categorically
stated that she has passed the High School
vide Roll No. 1558864 in the year, 2010 and
her date of birth being 15.09.1995,
Intermediate Roll No. 1134721 in the year
2012, B.Sc. Roll No. 6055893 in the year
2015, B.T.C. Roll No. 18410351 in year,
2017 and TET Roll No. 1810402656 in the
year, 2017. She submits that in addition to
the aforesaid degree, she has also obtained
the degree of M.Sc. which was erroneously
taken in the same session alongwith B.T.C.
Realizing her mistake, she has already made
an application for surrender of the degree of
M.Sc. before the University concerned and
she has not used that M.Sc. Degree in any
1650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
selection process. She has reiterated with
regard to the strained relationship with her
husband and her in-laws and has submitted
the copies of the aforesaid degrees of High
School, Intermediate, B.Sc., B.T.C. and
T.E.T. However, she has stated that she has
no concern with the other marksheet and
certificate of High School, Intermediate and
the B.A. degree. As she has no connection
with the said documents therefore the same
were denied.

12. The said show cause notice dated
21.12.2022 also required the petitioner to
appear
before
the
District
Selection
Committee on 28.12.2022 for personal
hearing, failing which her services would be
terminated.
In
response
thereto
the
petitioner appeared before the District
Selection Committee on 28.12.2022 and
submitted her reply, as aforesaid. The
Selection Committee was not satisfied with
the reply submitted by the petitioner and on
the basis of the records found that the
petitioner has obtained appointment by
concealing the material fact for the High
School and Intermediate Certificate as well
as degree of Graduation and has also altered
her date of birth. Thereupon, the District
Selection Committee recommended her
termination from the date of her initial
appointment. Thereafter, vide order dated
31.12.2022, the services of the petitioner/
respondent no.1 were terminated by the
District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri,
holding that the petitioner/respondent has
passed the High School and Intermediate
examination twice and has obtained two
degrees of Graduation and has passed the
B.T.C. course alongwith the M.Sc. The said
order dated 31.12.2022 was challenged in
Writ A No. 1111 of 2023, which has been
allowed by the impugned order dated
10.04.2024, against which the present
Special Appeal has been filed.

13. Learned Single Judge relying upon
the
judgement
of
Kuldeep
Kumar
Pathak(supra) and Laxmi Shanker Yadav
vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others in Writ-A
No. 5394 of 2021 and the judgement dated
19.11.2022 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Special Appeal No. 37 of 2022
(the Basic Eduction Board, U.P. Prayagraj
and Another vs. Laxmi Shekhar Yadav) has
allowed the said writ petition, holding that
appellant/respondent could not place any
regulation for the statutory requirement to
demonstrate that obtaining two degrees
simultaneously is prohibited.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the Judgement of Kuldeep
Kumar Pathak (supra) is distinguishable as
the same was on different facts where the
appellant therein had got the second degree
in one subject in the same year which was
permissible under law but in the instant case
two degrees of two regular courses were
simultaneously obtained twice mentioning
different date of births, which is not
permissible.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant
has further relied upon of Regulation
regarding the examination issued under
Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The
Clause 17(4) and (5) reads as under:-

"Part-2 Chapter XII (General
Regulation Regarding Exam)

Clause-17(4) & (5)

(4) परीक्षाथी इस मवमनयम के अन्तगटत एक बार में
केवल एक ही परीक्षा (हाईस्कूल अथवा इण्टरमीमडएट) में प्रमवि हो
सकेंगे।

(5) हरईस्कूि तथर इण्टरर्ीदडएट की सम्पूणम परीक्षर
र्ें सदम्र्दित होने वरिे परीक्षरथी इस दवदनयर् के अन्तगमत परीक्षर र्ें
बैठने के परत् नहीं होगें।"
5 All. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. Laxmi Shakya & Ors.
1651

16. Relying upon the aforesaid
provisions, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that there is a clear bar to obtain
overlapping degrees of High School and
Intermediate in the same session. Likewise,
learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the petitioner/respondent has obtained
overlapping degrees of B.A. and B.Sc. as
well as the overlapping degrees of B.T.C.
and M.Sc. which are regular courses and
cannot be obtained in one session in view of
the U.G.C. Regulation. Clause 4 of the
Ordinance relating to examination creating
bar on students to obtain two degrees and
also containing guidelines issued by the
U.G.C., has been placed on record.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that as per report dated
06.05.2022,
submitted
by
the
Block
Education
Officer,
Kishni,
the
petitioner/respondent no.1 has obtained the
following degrees as per the record received
from Swargiya Mahadev Prasad Smarak
Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Husainpur Saurikh,
Kannauj, which reads as under:-

ि
र्
परीक्षर कर नरर् वषम
अनुिर्रांक श्रेणी
परीक्षर
सांस्थर कर
नरर्
जन्र्दतदथ
1 हरईस्कूि
परीक्षर प्रर्रण
पत्
2011
15798
85
परस
र्र०दश०प
०उ ०प्र०
15.07.19
95
2 इण्टरदर्दडएट
परीक्षर प्रर्रण
पत्
2013
11379
29
परस
तिैव

3 बी०ए०प्रथर्
रेगुिर अांकपत्
2014
41879
47
परस
सी०एस०
जे०एर्०
दव०दव०
करनपुर

4 बी०ए० दद्वतीय
रेगुिर अांकपत्
2015
21762
84
परस
तिैव

5 बी०ए० तृतीय
रेगुिर अांकपत्
2016
61577
28
प्रथर्
तिैव

18. The petitioner has obtained the
following degrees as per the record received
from
Ganga
Singh
Mahavidyalaya,
Sultanpur Saukhik, Kannauj, which reads as
under:-

ि
र्
परीक्षर कर
नरर्
वषम
अनुिर्रां
क
श्रेणी
परीक्षर
सांस्थर कर
नरर्
जन्र्दतदथ
1 हरईस्कूि
परीक्षर
प्रर्रण पत् व
अांकपत्
रेगुिर
2010

15588
64
परस
र्र०दश०
प०
उ०प्र०
15.09.1
995
2 इण्टरदर्दडए
ट
परीक्षर
प्रर्रण पत् व
अांकपत्
रेगुिर
2012

11347
21
परस

र्र०दश०
प०
उ०प्र०

3 बी०एस०सी
०
प्रथर् रेगुिर
अांकपत्
2013

07589
49
परस
सी०एस०
जे०एर्०
दव०दव०
करनपुर

4 बी०एस०सी
०
दद्वतीय
रेगुिर
अांकपत्
2014
20588
48

परस
तिैव

5 बी०एस०सी
०
तृतीय
रेगुिर
अांकपत्
2015
60558
93
परस
तिैव

6 एर्०एस०
सी० प्रथर्
रेगुिर
अांकपत्
2016
50333
15
परस
तिैव

7 एर्०एस०
सी० प्रथर्
रेगुिर
अांकपत्
2017

20332
64
परस
तिैव

19. Learned counsel for the appellant
therefore submits that it is categorically clear that
petitioner/respondent no1. has maintained two
parallel certificates of High School, Intermediate
and Graduation degrees mentioning different
date of births and has obtained the selection by
concealing one set of educational certificates.
With regard to the aforesaid submissions,
learned counsel for the appellant further relied
upon the report received from the U.P.
Secondary Education Board dated 07.10.2022,
which reads as under:-
1652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ि
र्
हर०/
इण्टर
वषम
अनु
िर्रां
क
नरर् र्रतर
कर
नरर्
दपतर
कर
नरर्
जन्र्
दतदथ
पू
णरां
क
प्ररप्तरां
क
श्रेणी अभ्यु
दक्त
0
1
H.
S.
20
10

15
58
86
4
La
xm
i
Sh
aky
a
Sh
ash
i
Ku
ma
ri
As
ho
k
Ku
ma
r
15.
09.
19
95
6
0
0
GR
A
DE
PA
SS
पुदित
0
2

Int. 20
12
11
34
72
1
La
xm
i
Sh
aky
a
Sh
ash
i
Ku
ma
ri
As
ho
k
Ku
ma
r
-

5
0
0
36
1
Ist पुदित
0
3

H.
S.
20
11
15
79
88
5
La
xm
i
Sh
ash
i
Pra
bha
As
ho
k
Ku
ma
r
15.
07.
19
95
6
0
0
GR
A
DE
PA
SS
पुदित
0
4

Int 20
13
11
37
92
9
La
xm
i
Sh
ash
i
Pra
bha
As
ho
k
Ku
ma
r
-
1
0
0
0
87
1
IstH
पुदित

20. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that as per Regulation 5 of
Chapter XII issued under the Intermediate
Education Act, 1921, 75 % attendance is
required. Similarly, as per the University
guidelines as available on the website of the
Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University,
Kanpur, as contained in General and
Miscellaneous Ordinances and Chapter
XXVIII-B, the minimum requirement for
appearing in any University Examination is
75 % attendance. Unless, that requirement is
fulfilled, the candidate cannot be permitted
to appear in the examination.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the judgement as were
pronounced by the Apex Court in Kuldeep
Kumar Pathak (supra) as well as in Laxmi
Shanker Yadav (Supra), were passed on the
basis that there is no regulatory framework
available prohibiting two simultaneous
degrees. However, as per the aforesaid
regulations issued under the Intermediate
Education Act as well as the Ordinance
available in the website of the University,
there is sufficient prohibition that no person
can simultaneously obtain two degrees of
regular courses as there is a requirement of
75 % attendance prior to appearing in the
examination.
Therefore,
the
aforesaid
judgement passed by the Apex Court in
Kuldeep Kumar Pathak (supra) and
Division Bench by this Court in Laxmi
Shanker Yadav (Supra), are not the good
law as the same were passed in ignorance of
the
aforesaid
regulatory
framework
available on record.

22. Per contra, learned counsel for the
petitioner/respondent no.1 submits that as
per the report of U.P. Secondary Education
Board, Allahabad dated 07.10.2022, the first
two items relate to the petitioner/respondent
no. 1 herein, which have been duly verified
by the Board. However, the other two items
with regard to the High School in the year,
2011 and Intermediate in the year 2013 did
not belong to the petitioner herein. They are
of some other persons and she has not
obtained the High School and Intermediate
Certificates as stated in item nos. 3 and 4 in
the report dated 07.10.2022 of the Board. It
has been further submitted that she is not
aware of the degrees of B.A. as has been
relied upon by the appellant to contend that
the petitioner has simultaneously obtained
these degrees of B.A. alongwith B.Sc. The
said degrees does not belong to the
petitioner Inasmuch as the said High School,
Intermediate and B.A. degrees were of one
Laxmi d/o Ashok Kumar and mother's name
is Shashi Prabha whereas in her case her
name is Laxmi Shakya and her mother's
name is Shashi Kumari and father's name is
Ashok Kumar. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot be connected with the aforesaid
5 All. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. Laxmi Shakya & Ors.
1653
certificates of High School and Intermediate
of 2011-13 as well as the B.A. Degrees of
2014, 2015 and 2016. The counsel for the
petitioner/respondent has placed reliance on
the reply of the petitioner wherein she has
categorically stated that though she has
taken admission in the M.Sc. Course, prior
to taking admission in the B.T.C. course and
after taking admission in B.T.C. course she
has not attended any of the classes of M.Sc.
Course. However, she has appeared in the
M.Sc. Examination and when she has
realized her mistake, she has already
surrendered her M.Sc. degree to the
University concerned and she has never
utilized the same in any selection process or
anywhere else for getting any benefit of the
said degrees. The documents which she has
submitted at the time of appearing in the
examination as well as her selection and at
the time of counselling, the same were duly
verified and after due verification she was
given appointment and none of the
authorities have ever found that the
documents submitted by the petitioner were
forged, fabricated and are not genuine.
Therefore, merely because due to a
matrimonial dispute, her father-in-law has
made a false complaint based on some
irrelevant documents, which have no
connection with the petitioner, hence her
services
cannot
be
terminated.
The
judgement passed by the learned Single
Judge is based on settled principles of law as
has been laid down in Kuldeep Kumar
Pathak (supra) and Laxmi Shanker Yadav
(Supra) by the Division Bench of this Court.
Therefore, no interference is called for
against the judgement and order dated
10.04.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge.

23. The first question which arose
before this Court is that whether a person
can be permitted to pursue two regular
courses of the High School and Intermediate
as well as at the Graduation and Post
Graduation level in one session. Before
considering this issue, it will be relevant to
note down the relevant portion of the
judgement of the Apex Court in Kuldeep
Kumar Pathak (supra) which reads as
under:-

"...............7. We are of the opinion
that both the submissions of the learned
Senior Counsel are valid in law and have to
prevail. The High Court has been influenced
by the argument of the respondents that
simultaneous
appearance
in
two
examinations by the appellant in the same
year was "contrary to the Regulations".
However, no such Regulation has been
mentioned either by the learned Single
Judge or the Division Bench. Curiously, no
such Regulation has been pointed out even
by the respondents. On our specific query
to the learned counsel for the respondents
to this effect, he expressed his inability to
show any such Regulation or any other
rule or provision contained in the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or
Supplementary
Regulations
of
1976
framed under the aforesaid Act or in any
other governing Regulations. Therefore,
the entire foundation of the impugned
judgment of the High Court is erroneous.

8. It is also pertinent to note that
the appellant's intermediate examination and
result thereof was not in question before the
U.P. Board. No illegality in the admission in
that class has been pointed out by the
respondents.
The
alleged
charge
of
simultaneously
appearing
in
two
examinations, one of the U.P. Board and
other of the Sanskrit Board, was with respect
to Class X and equivalent examination
which did not relate to admission in
intermediate course. The only provision for
cancelling the said admission is contained in
1654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Regulation 1 of Chapter VI-B. It details the
procedure
for
passing
the
order
of
punishment cancelling intermediate results
and, inter alia, prescribes that a committee
consisting of three different members is to
be constituted and entrusted with the
responsibility of looking into and disposing
of cases relating to unfair means and award
appropriate penalty as specified in the
Regulations itself. However, there is no
allegation of any unfair means adopted by
the appellant in the instant case and,
therefore,
that
Regulation
has
no
applicability. Even otherwise, no such
committee was constituted. Therefore,
having taken admission in intermediate on
the basis of past certificate issued by a
separate Board, which was recognised, and
not on the basis of the result of Class X of
the U.P. Board, the appellant derived no
advantage from his examination of the U.P.
Board
while
seeking
admission
in
intermediate course. Thus, from any angle
the matter is to be looked into, the impugned
orders dated 20-4-2011 and 10-5-2011
passed by the respondents are null and void,
apart from the fact that they are in violation
of the principles of natural justice................"

24. Relying upon the aforesaid
judgement of Kuldeep Kumar Pathak
(supra), Coordinate Bench of this Court has
also decided the Special Appeal Defective
No. 898 of 2020 (Board of Basic Education
and Another vs. Arvind Prakash Dwivedi
and 2 Others) on 21.10.2020, wherein this
Court has observed as under :-

"............It is not in dispute that at
the relevant time the respondent-petitioner
could have obtained two qualification
simultaneously and the respondent-petitioner
as such possessed requisite qualification to
hold the post of Assistant Teacher as well as
the further promotional post.............."

25. A similar view has taken by the
Division Bench of this Court in Special
Appeal 37 of 2022 (The Basic Education
Board, U.P. Prayagraj and Another vs.
Laxmi Shankar Yadav on 19.11.2022
wherein this Court has observed as under:-

"...............10. Having perused the
record and considered the rival submissions,
we may observe that no doubt it may appear
improbable as to how a person could obtain
two degrees simultaneously but that cannot
be taken as a ground to annul both the
degrees. There has to be an exercise to annul
either one or both the degrees on the basis
of
material
collected,
after
giving
opportunity of hearing to the holder of such
a degree. Such an exercise has to be on case
to case basis. Here, what is important is that
neither the B.A. degree obtained from
Awadh University, Faizabad, nor the Shastri
degree
obtained
from
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya,
has
been
cancelled. Importantly, the petitioner had
sought appointment by relying on the Shastri
degree and on the basis of the marks
obtained therein the petitioner was placed in
the select list and was ultimately selected
and appointed. At this stage, it be noticed
that the learned single Judge has returned a
specific finding that the opposite party
counsel could not place any regulation/
statutory enactment or even an order having
statutory flavour to demonstrate that
obtaining of two degrees simultaneously is
prohibited. The learned standing counsel
despite our request could not demonstrate
that the said finding is incorrect.The U.G.C.
clarificatory letter dated 15th January, 2016
on which the appellant has placed reliance
only deprecates obtaining of two degrees
simultaneously, but it does not mandate the
University to annul the degree so obtained.
In so far the clarificatory letter dated 4th
December, 2020 is concerned that also does
5 All. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. Laxmi Shakya & Ors.
1655
not mandate the authorities to cancel the
candidature of a candidate who has set up
such degrees but requires a case to case
examination. In the instant case, the
petitioner has set up Shastri degree obtained
from
Sampurnanand
Sanskrit
Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi for the purposes
of selection in the recruitment process
undertaken by the appellants. This degree
has admittedly not been cancelled. In our
view, therefore, unless the professed
qualification is annulled or is found in the
teeth of statutory regulation or order,
rendering the same ineffective or null, it
would not be permissible to overlook or
discard the same. "(Emphasis Supplied)

26. From the perusal of the judgements
as noted hereinabove, it is amply clear that
all those judgements were passed primarily
on the ground that learned counsel for the
parties could not bring on record any of the
regulations prohibiting a person from
obtaining
Degrees/Certificates
of
two
parallel, overlapping, simultaneous courses.
As per the Chapter XII of the Regulation
issued under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate
Education Act, 1921, Clause 19 -क,
specifically prohibits as under:-

"19-क. हाईस्कूल (कक्षा 9 एवं 10) तथा
इण्टरमीमडएट परीक्षा में अभ्यथी केवल एक ही माध्यम
(संस्थागत अथवा व्यमक्तगत) से आवेदनपत् भर कर परीक्षा में
समम्ममलत हो सकता है। शकसी भी दिा में अभ्यिी को एक
परीक्षािषय में एक से अशिक संस्िा / संस्िाओं से संस्िागि
अििा व्यशक्तगि अििा दोिों प्रकार से आिेदि-पत्र भरिे
अििा परीक्षा में सशम्मशलि होिे की अिुमशि िहीं होगी।
िथ्यों को शछपािा अपराि होगा। इस शिशियम के उललंघि
का दोषी पाये जािे िाले अभ्यशियों की अभ्यशियिा शिरस्ि
कर दी जायेगी ििा उिके शििरण यशद पररषदीय
अशभलेखों में अंशकि हो गये हैं, िो उन्हें शिलुप्त करा शदया
जायेगा अििा अभ्यिी के परीक्षा में, अशियशमि रूप से
सशम्मशलि होिे की दिा में परीक्षाफल शिरस्ि कर शदया
जायेगा, मजसका सम्पूणट उत्तरदामयत्व अभ्यथी का होगा।"
(Emphasis Supplied)

27. Similarly, Clause 5 of the Chapter
XII of the aforesaid Regulation mandates as
under:-

"5. (1) मान्यता प्राप्त संस्था, प्रत्येक शैमक्षक वर्ट में
कम से कम 220 कायट मदवसों में खुली रहेगी मजसमें परीक्षाओं तथा
पाठ्‌यानुवती कायट-कलाप के मदवस भी समम्ममलत हैं. प्रमतबन्ध यह है
मक "पत्ाचार मशक्षा सतत् अध्ययन सम्पकट योजना"] के अन्तगटत
पंजीकृत छात् के सम्बन्ध में कायट मदवसों की उपयुटक्त संख्या 75
कायय शदिस होगी ििा इसके साि सम्बशन्िि छात्र को पत्ाचार
मशक्षा संस्थान द्वारा प्रेमर्त पाठ्य सामग्री को मनधाटररत प्रमिया के
अनुसार अध्ययन करना होगा।"
(Emphasis Supplied)

28. From the plain reading of the
aforesaid provisions, by no stretch of
imagination it can be concluded that a
person can appear in High School and
Intermediate
Examination
twice
simultaneously. The only liberty granted
under Clause 17 (1) and (2) is that a person
who
has
passed
High
School
and
Intermediate Examination may appear in
one subject or maximum five subjects and
again can get a certificate of passing of the
said
subjects.
However,
no
separate
certificate
with
regard
to
the
same
examination shall be issued to such a person.
Clause 19-कwhich came into force with
effect from 28.07.2021 provides that no
person can appear in the same academic year
in the High School or Intermediate
examination from two different institutions
and concealment of such facts will be treated
as a violation of these rules and candidature
of such candidate shall be cancelled. If any
documents have been recorded in the
Board's Examination, the same shall be
deleted and if any candidate appears in
1656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
violation of such condition, his/her result
shall be cancelled and the candidates shall
be wholly responsible for the same. In view
of
the
aforesaid
statutory
regulatory
framework with regard to High School and
Intermediate examination no candidate can
appear simultaneously in two examinations
from two different institutions. If he/she
appears in such a manner, the result thereof
even if declared shall be cancelled. Clause
17 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Chapter XII
Part - II- B of the Regulations under the
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, reads as
under:-

"17. इन मवमनयमों की शतों के होते हुए भी
मनम्नमलमखत श्रेणी के परीक्षाथी भी व्यमक्तगत परीक्षा के रूप में प्रमवि
हो सकते हैं-

(1) कोई परीक्षाथी मजसने हाईस्कूल अथवा उसके
समकक्ष परीक्षा उत्तीणट की है, बाद की हाईस्कूल परीक्षा में एक अथवा
अमधकतम पांच मवर्यों में (कम्प्यूटर मवर्य छोड़कर) प्रमवि हो सकता
है और ऐसा परीक्षाथी यमद सफल हो जावे तो वह अमतररक्त मलए
उत्तीणट मवर्य अथवा मवर्यों में परीक्षा उत्तीणट होने का प्रमाण-पत् पाने
का अमधकारी होगा और उसे कोई श्रेणी नही दी जायेगी।

(2) कोई परीक्षाथी मजसने इण्टरमीमडएट अथवा
समकक्ष कोई परीक्षा उत्तीणट की है बाद की इण्टरमीमडएट परीक्षा में
एक अथवा अमधकतम चार मवर्यों (कम्प्यूटर वगट तथा व्यवसामयक
वगट के मवर्यों को छोड़कर) बैठ सकता है और वह परीक्षाथी यमद
सफल हो जाय तो उसके द्वारा उपहृत मकये गये मवर्य अथवा मवर्यों
में उत्तीणट होने का प्रमाण-पत् पाने का अमधकारी होगा और उसे कोई
श्रेणी नहीं दी जायेगी। प्रमतबंध यह है मक मवर्य अथवा मवर्यों का
चुनाव केवल एक वगट तक ही सीममत हो।

(3) इस मवमनयम के अन्तगटत समम्ममलत होने वाले
परीक्षाथी उन मवर्य अथवा मवर्यों का

चयन नहीं कर सकेंगे, जो उनके द्वारा पूवट की हाईस्कूल
तथा इण्टरमीमडएट परीक्षा में मजसमें वह उत्तीणट हुए थे, मलए गये थे
साथ ही परीक्षाथी आधुमनक भारतीय, मवदेशी तथा शास्त्री भार्ा समूहों
के प्रत्येक समूह में से केवल एक ही भार्ा का चयन कर सकेंगे।

(4) परीक्षाथी, इस मवमनयम के अन्तगटत एक बार में
केवल एक ही परीक्षा (हाईस्कूल अथवा इण्टरमीमडएट) में प्रमवि हो
सकेंगे।

(5) हाईस्कूल तथा इण्टरमीमडएट की संपूणट परीक्षा में
समम्ममलत होने वाले परीक्षाथी इस मवमनयम के अन्तगटत परीक्षा में
बैठने के पात् नहीं होंगे।"

29. With regard to the Higher
Education,
the
University
Grants
Commission (U.G.C.) in its regulation with
regard to the U.G.C. (Minimum Standards
of Instructions for the Grant of the First
Degree
through
Formal
Education)
Regulation, 2003, and UGC (Minimum
Standard of Instruction for the Grant of the
Master's Degree through Formal Education)
Regulation 2003 have categorically provide
that:-

"5.8 The minimum number of
letures, tutorials, seminars and practicals
which a student shall be required to attend
for eligibiility to appear at the examination
shall be prescribed by the University, which
ordinarily shall not be less than 75% of the
total number of lectures, tutorials, seminars,
practicals, and any other prescribed
requirement."

30. In view of the aforesaid
Regulations, 2003, no person could have
been
able
to
obtain
two
parallel
simultaneous degrees in the same session
from different institutions as he/she will be
lacking 75% attendance in either of the
courses as both cannot be attended by the
same person with 75% attendance, as
required under the guidelines.

31. On 15.01.2016, the U.G.C. has issued a
clarification on allowing the students to
pursue two degrees simultaneously, which
reads as under:

"शिश्वशिद्यालय अिुदाि आयोग
University Grants Commission
(मानव संसाधन मवकास मंत्ालय, भारत सरकार)
5 All. Basic Shiksha Adhikari Vs. Laxmi Shakya & Ors.
1657
(Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Govt. of India)
बहादुरशाह िफ़र मागट, नई मदल्ली-110002
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi110002
Ph: 011-23239337, 23236288,
Fax: 011-23238858, email:
jssandhu.ugc(@nic.in
15th January 2016
F. No.: 1-6/2007(CPP-II)
PUBLIC NOTICE

SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION ON
ALLOWING STUDENTS TO PURSUE
TWO DEGREES SIMULTANEOUSLY.

The Commission had sought the
comments of the Statutory Councils. The
responses, so far, received do not endorse
the idea of allowing the students to pursue
two degree simultaneously. Therefore, the
universities shall conduct their programmes
in accordance with the First Degree and
Master
Degree
Regulations,
2003
prescribed by the UGC and also follow the
norms and parameters prescribed by the
Statutory Council concerned, wherever
relevant.

(Jaspal S. Sandhu)

Secretary"

32. The aforesaid clarification was
considered by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in Writ A No. 13888 of 2019
(Shilpa Saroha vs. State of U.P. and 2
Others) and held that it is not possible for a
common human to remain present for two
courses at the same time or even score
minimum required attendance as a regular
student in both institutions simultaneously.
Therefore, it is nothing but a fraud.

33. Subsequently, in the month of
April, 2022, first time, the U.G.C. has issued
guidelines enabling students for pursuing
two academic programmes simultaneously,
which reads as under:-

"Guidelines for Pursuing Two
Academic Programmes
Simultaneously

Background

The National Education Policy
NEP 2020 states that pedagogy must evolve
to make education more experiential,
holistic,
integrated,
inquiry-driven,
discovery-oriented,
learner-
centred,
discussion-based, flexible, and, of course,
enjoyable. The policy envisions imaginative
and flexible curricular structures to enable
creative combinations of disciplines for
study, that would offer multiple entry and
exit
points,
thus,
removing
currently
prevalent rigid boundaries and creating new
possibilities for life-long learning and
centrally
involve
critical
and
interdisciplinary thinking.

With the rapid increase in demand
for higher education and limited availability
of seats in regular stream, several Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) have started a
number of programmes in Open and
Distance Learning (ODL.) mode to meet the
aspirations of students. It has also led to the
emergence of online education programmes
which a student can pursue within the
comforts of her/his home. The issue of
allowing the students to pursue two
academic programmes simultaneously has
been examined by the Commission keeping
in view the proposals envisaged in the
National Education Policy - NEP 2020
which emphasizes the need to facilitate
multiple pathways to learning involving
both formal and non-formal education
modes.

In view of above, UGC has framed
the following Guidelines.

Objectives

To allow the students to pursue
two academic programmes simultaneously
keeping in view the following objectives
envisaged in NEP 2020:
1658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES