# Urmila Devi v. State of U.P. and aother

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1275
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-11-11
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No.1731 of 2010
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani, Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/urmila-devi-v-state-of-u-p-and-aother-41976
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Compassionate
appointment-petitioner
being Madhyama from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan-offered appointment on post
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
of Junior clerk-under Dying in Harness
Rules-provided
she
produce
typing
certificate within 6 month-failed to do
so-in mean time during verification
found that she was not qualified-as
Madhyama is not equivalent to Intermediate-as Sahitya Sammellan a society
having no educational Institutions-no
statutory
power
to
award
such
certificate-Single Judge rightly declined
to interfere but directed appointment on
class 4th post-need no interference.

Held: Para 16

In the aforesaid circumstances, we fully
agree with the reasoning given by the
learned Single Judge in the judgment
cited as above and reiterate that the
Prathama and Madhyama (Visharad)
examination conducted by the Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan are not equivalent to
the
High
School
and
Intermediate
Examination conducted by the Board of
High School and Intermediate Education
U.P. The petitioner's qualification of
Madhyama
(Vishrad)
is
thus
not
equivalent to Intermediate Examination,
and thus the petitioner was not qualified
and eligible to be appointed as a clerk.
Case law discussed:
2006 (1) UPLBEC 719; Purshottam Das
Agrawal v. DIOS, Allahabad (Writ Petition
No.18772 of 1993) decided on 5.7.1999;
(2003) 2 UPLBEC 1129; MANU/UP/1890/2005;
MANU/UP/0348/2008; JT 2010 (6) SC 306

## Text

3 All] Urmila Devi V. State of U.P. and aother
1275
employees who have died on or after 1st
January, 1981. The regulations 101 to 107
were inserted in Chapter III on 30th July,
1992. Prior to 30th July, 1992 there was no
provision
in
the
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1992 or the regulations
framed thereunder with regard to giving of
appointment to dependent of deceased
employee
on
compassionate
ground.
However,
the
appointments
on
compassionate ground were being given to
dependent of deceased employees by virtue
of Government order which permitted
appointment on compassionate ground with
effect from 1st January, 1981. This is the
reason why the note has been made in
Regulation 103 of Chapter III that this
regulation and Regulations 104 to 107
would apply in relation to employees who
have died on or after 1.1.1981. Thus the
appointment on compassionate ground to
the employees who died on or after
1.1.1981 has been protected but the effect of
the note is not that any person who has
received compassionate appointment prior
to 2.2.1995 can claim appointment on
another post after the amendment in the
regulations."

18. In view of the aforesaid
observations of the Division Bench with
which we are in respectful agreement, the
submission advanced by learned counsel for
the appellant based upon the note to
Regulation 103 has no force.

19. The idea or the purpose for
providing
compassionate
appointment,
which is contrary to the general rule of
appointment, is to mitigate the hardship of
the dependents of the deceased employee
who died leaving behind his dependents in
penury. Such appointment is to be given
immediately within the shortest possible
time after the death of the deceased so that
his family may not be ruined. In the case in
hand, the appellant's father died in the
month of May, 1993, as noticed above, and
he was given compassionate appointment,
pursuant to which he joined in the month of
February, 1994 and, thus, the right to be
considered under Regulation 103 stands
exhausted. Regulation 103 does not confer
or give right to give second consideration
for giving appointment on the basis of
qualification as it would be against the basic
idea of giving compassionate appointment.

20. Thus, we do not find any error in
the order of the learned Single Judge. The
appeal, accordingly, fails and stands
dismissed.

21. However, the appellant would be
entitled to continue as Class III employee in
terms of the order of the learned Single
Judge.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Special Appeal No.1731 of 2010

Urmila Devi

...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri B.N. Singh
Sri Satyaveer Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Compassionate
appointment-petitioner
being Madhyama from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan-offered appointment on post
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
of Junior clerk-under Dying in Harness
Rules-provided
she
produce
typing
certificate within 6 month-failed to do
so-in mean time during verification
found that she was not qualified-as
Madhyama is not equivalent to Intermediate-as Sahitya Sammellan a society
having no educational Institutions-no
statutory
power
to
award
such
certificate-Single Judge rightly declined
to interfere but directed appointment on
class 4th post-need no interference.

Held: Para 16

In the aforesaid circumstances, we fully
agree with the reasoning given by the
learned Single Judge in the judgment
cited as above and reiterate that the
Prathama and Madhyama (Visharad)
examination conducted by the Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan are not equivalent to
the
High
School
and
Intermediate
Examination conducted by the Board of
High School and Intermediate Education
U.P. The petitioner's qualification of
Madhyama
(Vishrad)
is
thus
not
equivalent to Intermediate Examination,
and thus the petitioner was not qualified
and eligible to be appointed as a clerk.
Case law discussed:
2006 (1) UPLBEC 719; Purshottam Das
Agrawal v. DIOS, Allahabad (Writ Petition
No.18772 of 1993) decided on 5.7.1999;
(2003) 2 UPLBEC 1129; MANU/UP/1890/2005;
MANU/UP/0348/2008; JT 2010 (6) SC 306

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.)

1. We have heard Shri B.N. Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant. Shri J.K.
Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appears
for the State respondents.

2. This intra court special appeal is
directed against the short judgment of
learned Single Judge dated 23.9.2010 by
which he dismissed the writ petition filed
by the petitioner-appellant against the
order of the District Magistrate, Etah dated
25th September, 2008 cancelling the letter
of her appointment dated 16th December,
1996,
on
the
post
of
clerk
on
compassionate ground on the death of her
husband, who died in harness, serving as a
clerk in the Collectorate.

3. In the order dated 25th September,
2008 passed by the District Magistrate, he
has observed that the petitioner-appellant
was appointed on compassionate ground
with the condition that she will learn
typing
within
six
months
of
her
appointment dated 16th December, 1996.
She did not produce any certificate of
learning typing for a long period of time.
Later on it was found that she was not
eligible to be appointed as she did not have
essential educational qualifications to be
appointed on the post of Junior Clerk. She
had passed High School examination in
1981 and had declared that she had passed
Madhyama First Part (Visharad) and
Madhyama
Second
Part
(Visharad)
examination conducted by the Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, which is not
equivalent
to
the
Intermediate
Examination.

4. The District Magistrate got her
educational qualifications verified from the
Secondary Education Board, U.P. through
DIOS, Etah. The Secretary, Secondary
Education Board by his letter dated 10th
July, 2008 informed that the Prathama,
Madhyama and any other examination
conducted by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
Allahabad is not equivalent to the High
School or the Intermediate Examination
conducted by the Secondary Education
Board, U.P. The petitioner-appellant was
given a show cause notice by the District
Magistrate on 2nd August, 2008 to
establish that she holds educational
qualifications to be appointed as Junior
3 All] Urmila Devi V. State of U.P. and aother
1277
Clerk. In her reply dated 5th August, 2008
she requested for one month's time to reply
to the notice on which she was allowed a
week's time. On 13th August, 2008 she
requested to extend time for one more
week as her son was not keeping good
mental health and that he had put all the
documents
including
her
educational
certificates to fire. She finally submitted a
reply on 2nd August, 2008 stating that she
had passed High School examination in
1981; Madhyama Examination in Samvat
2052,
which
is
equivalent
to
the
Intermediate Examination, and annexed
the marksheets of the Second Part of
Visharad Examination of Samvat 2052.
She also filed copy of the judgment of the
High Court dated 10th July, 2008 in Writ
Petition No.585 of 2008, Ranveer Singh
Vs. State of U.P., which actually related to
the dismissal of service on the basis of
forged caste certificate.

5. The District Magistrate found that
the petitioner does not hold educational
qualifications of Intermediate conducted
by the U.P. Secondary Education Board,
Allahabad or any equivalent qualification
and thus her appointment was not in
accordance with law and was void.

6. Learned Single Judge held that the
petitioner was ineligible to be appointed as
the certificate produced by her was not
equivalent
to
the
Intermediate
Examination, upon verification by the
Board. He also found that the ineligibility
of the petitioner cannot be cured by virtue
of her long years of service as held by the
Apex Court in Mohd. Sartaz & Ors. v.
State of U.P. & Ors., 2006 (1) UPLBEC
719.

7. Learned Single Judge, thereafter,
considered the plea that since the petitioner
did not make any mis-representation, she
was
entitled
for
compassionate
appointment against a post commensurate
to her qualification. He directed that even
though
the
impugned
order
dated
25.9.2008 does not required interference,
she is entitled to a writ of mandamus
directing the District Magistrate to appoint
her against any Class-IV post or any post
equivalent and commensurate to her
qualification; she would also be entitled to
relaxation in age, if she has crossed the
upper age limit for such employment.

8. Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner-appellant
submits that the examination of Madhyama
First Part (Visharad) and Madhyama
Second
Part
(Vishrad)
of
which
marksheets
were
produced
by
the
petitioner-appellant, are equivalent to the
Intermediate Examination conducted by
the U.P. Secondary Education Board and
thus the District Magistrate was not correct
in cancelling her appointment letter. He
has relied upon the judgment of this Court
in Sompal Singh Vs. Regional Joint
Director of Education, Saharanpur Region,
Saharanpur & Ors., Writ Petition No.3036
of 2001 dated 25.1.2001 by learned Single
Judge of this Court in which it was held
relying upon Government Order dated
22.8.1998 that the State Government has
recognised the Prathama and Madhyama
Examination conducted by the Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan,
Allahabad
as
equivalent to the High School and
Intermediate Examination.

9. Learned Single Judge has relied
upon another judgment of this Court in
Purshottam
Das
Agrawal
v.
DIOS,
Allahabad (Writ Petition No.18772 of
1993) decided on 5.7.1999, in which it was
held that Sahitya Ratan degree obtained
1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is
equivalent to B.A. for Hindi and Sanskrit
and approved qualification for being
appointed as teacher for High School
subjects. Learned Judge had decided the
writ petition on a concession made by
learned
Standing
Counsel
that
the
Madhyama Examination conducted by the
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan
has
been
recognised as equivalent to Intermediate
Examination and allowed the writ petitions
with directions to the Joint Director of
Education to decide all the grounds
mentioned in the memo of appeal filed
before him and to verify the genuineness
of the certificates produced in respect of
Madhyama and Sahitya Ratna degree
obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
Prayag. He observed as follows:-

"The learned Standing Counsel had
accepted the fact that the state government
recognises the Prathama and Madhyama
examinations conducted by the Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan as equivalent to High
School and Intermediate Examinations and
did not dispute the government order dated
22.8.1998 (filed as Annexure-8 to the writ
petition)."

10. Shri B.N. Singh submits that the
petitioner was appointed on compassionate
ground on the basis of the same
certificates, which have now been held
equivalent to Intermediate Examination
and served for more than 10 years, and
thus it will extremely unjust and harsh to
cancel her appointment.

11. A counter affidavit of Shri J.K.
Jain, Addl. District Magistrate, Etah has
been filed on behalf of the State
respondents enclosing the letter of the
Secretary, Secondary Education Board
U.P. Allahabad dated 10.7.2008 written to
the DIOS, Etah in pursuance to his letter
dated 18th June, 2008 and informing that
the Prathama, Madhyama or any other
examination held by the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Allahabad are not equivalent to
the
High
School
and
Intermediate
Examination conducted by the Secondary
Education Board, U.P.

12. The question whether the
Madhyama examination conducted by the
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan
Prayag,
Allahabad is equivalent to Intermediate
Examination conducted by the U.P.
Secondary Education Board, Allahabad is
no longer res integra. This Court has time
and again considered this question and
consistently returned the findings that the
Madhyama (Visharad) examination of
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not
equivalent to the Intermediate Examination
conducted
by
the
U.P.
Secondary
Education
Board,
Allahabad.
The
judgments of this Court considering the
question are as follows:-

(1) In Sarojani Pandey (Smt.) v.
State of U.P. & Ors., (2003) 2 UPLBEC
1129 learned Single Judge of this Court
relied upon Government Order dated 28th
October, 1998, wherein it was clearly
stated that examinations of Prathama and
Madhyama conducted by the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Allahabad are not equivalent to
the
High
School
and
Intermediate
examination conducted by the Board of
High School and Intermediate Education
U.P. Allahabad. The Court found that this
is the latest order will prevail over the
Government Order dated 22nd August,
1998 issued by the Joint Secretary U.P.
Government addressed to Director of
Education, Allahabad as well as order
dated 26th July, 2001, of the Government
of India.
3 All] Urmila Devi V. State of U.P. and aother
1279

(2) In Kunwar Herash Saran
Saxena v. State of U.P. & Anr., Writ
Petition No.8579 of 1992 decided on
6.12.2005
(MANU/UP/1890/2005)
learned Single Judge of this Court
observed in paras 3 and 6 as follows:-

"3. The controversy in the facts and
circumstances of the present case is
confined to the issue as to whether the
certificate of Madhyma Visharad obtained
by the petitioner from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan satisfies the minimum academic
qualifications prescribed for appointment
on the post of Junior Clerk. As provided
for under the Adhinasth Karyalaya Lipik
Vargiya Karmcharivarg (Seedhi Bharti)
Niyamavali, 1985 or not. Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan has been established under the
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962 and
Section 22 of the University Grants
Commission recognises a right in the said
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan
to
award
degrees. As a matter of fact University
Grants Commission has notified certain
degrees
awarded
by
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan
vide
notification
dated
21.8.2003. However, on record there are
various government orders issued by the
Central
Government
recognising
the
certificate for the purposes of appointment
in
government
service,
reference
(Notification dated 26.7.2001 Annexure-3
to Rejoinder Affidavit and Notification
dated 16.9.1990 Annexure-5 to Rejoinder
Affidavit). However, it may be noticed that
Government of India had appended a note
which reads as follows :

The recognition recorded above is not
to be treated equivalent to the full fledged
certificate/degree for which it has been
equated (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition).

6. The petitioner has not been able to
bring on record any document for
establishing that the certificate possessed
by the petitioner from the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan
was
ever
recognised
as
equivalent to intermediate examination by
the Governor of the State. All the
documents brought on record by the
petitioner
issued
by
the
Central
Government or any of the authority are of
no consequence for determination of the
issue concerned."

(3) In Pradeep Kumar son of
Mukandi Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
MANU/UP/0348/2008 this Court once
again decided the issue on 23.1.2008 and
held as follows:-

"8.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
respondents has placed reliance on
judgment of this Court reported in (2004)
2 UPLBEC 1716; Shailendra Kumar Singh
v. State of U.P. and Ors. The question
which was considered in the above case,
was as to whether degree of Shiksha
Visharad
given
by
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan is equivalent to be treated as
B.Ed, degree. This Court after considering
the provisions of the National Council for
Teachers Education Act, 1993 came to the
conclusion
that
degree
of
Shiksha
Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan
being not recognised by National Council
for Teacher Education, cannot be held to
be equivalent to B.Ed.

9. The petitioner has not brought any
material on record to establish that degree
of Madhyama (Visharad) of Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan has been treated to be
equivalent to Intermediate by the State of
U.P. It is not disputed that for sending a
candidate for B.T.C. Correspondence
Course training minimum eligibility is
1280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Intermediate. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner at the time of hearing produced
a booklet issued by Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Allahabad containing various
letters issued by the State of UP.,
Government
of
India
and
several
institutions regarding degrees issued by
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. Reliance has
been placed by Counsel for the petitioner
on a press note dated 18^th February,
1970 issued by the Government of India
along with which a list of organisations
conducting different examinations have
been issued.

10. A perusal of the above press note
relied by Counsel for the petitioner, itself
indicates that examination from Hindi
organisations is recognised for standard of
Hindi
prescribed
in
the
equivalent
examination. The last paragraph of the
press note issued by the Government of
India, as quoted above, clearly clarifies
that the recognition of this examination is
in regard to standard of Hindi prescribed
in the equivalent Hindi examination and it
is not to be treated as equivalent to full
fledged
certificate
of
degree
of
examination. A copy of the Government
order issued by the State of UP. dated 5^th
December, 1989 has also been relied by
Counsel for the petitioner, which was
issued in reference to letter dated 12^th
August, 1988 of the Government of India
regarding examinations conducted by
Hindi organisations. The Government
order dated 5^th December, 1989 clearly
clarifies
that
degree
of
Madhyama
(Visharad)
issued
by
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan is equivalent only for standard
of Hindi up to that examination and not
equivalent to degree or certificate. In this
context it is also relevant to refer to
provisions of Regulations framed under the
UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. For
the Intermediate examination, which is
conducted
by
Madhyamik
Shiksha
Parishad, UP. several degrees from
different organisation and Universities
throughout
the
country
have
been
mentioned
in
Chapter-XIV
of
the
regulations and none of the degrees or
certificate
issued
by
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan, Prayag has been treated to be
equivalent to High School so as to make
such candidates eligible to take admission
in the Intermediate examination whereas
the Purva Madhyamik Examination of
Sampurnanand Viswavidyalaya, Varanasi
and the examination of Visharad from
Kashi Vidya Peeth, Varanasi have been
mentioned as equivalent to High School.
The
B.T.C.
Correspondence
Course
training is imparted to untrained teachers
so as to make them eligible for entitlement
of trained grades of teachers. The
qualification of Intermediate required is
for purposes of appointment and the
petitioner was required to fulfil the
Intermediate qualification for purposes of
appointment
or
imparting
B.T.C.
Correspondence
Course
training
for
becoming entitled to trained grade of
Assistant Teacher. Thus the qualification
required for appointment of Assistant
Teacher is full fledged certificate of
Intermediate and the degree of Madhyama
(Visharad)
issued
by
Hindi
Sahitya
Sammelan cannot be treated to be
equivalent to Intermediate examination.

11. The petitioner, thus, has failed to
substantiate that degree of Madhyama
(Visharad) granted by Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan to the petitioner in the year
1990
is
equivalent
to
Intermediate
Examination. One more fact which is
relevant to be noticed, is that petitioner
himself appeared in the Intermediate
examination
conducted
by
U.P.
3 All] Urmila Devi V. State of U.P. and aother
1281
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and has
passed the same in the year 1997. Had his
degree of Madhyama (Visharad) from
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan equivalent to
Intermediate, there was no occasion for
the
petitioner
to
pass
Intermediate
examination of U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad in the year 1997."

In the aforesaid case learned Single
Judge after going through all the relevant
Government Orders clearly held that the
Madhyama (Visharad) examination is
equivalent only for standard of Hindi upto
that examination and is not equivalent to
any degree or certificate.

(4) In Manish Kumar v. State of
U.P. & Ors., Writ Petition No.45866 of
2007 learned Single Judge of this Court
by
his
judgment
dated
29.9.2010
considered all the Government Orders and
the judgments in this regard and reiterated
that the Prathama certificate issued by the
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is not equivalent
to High School certificate issued by the
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad.
He quoted the letter of the Secretary of the
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad reporting
that the Prathama, Madhyama or any other
examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan was not equivalent to High
School/ Intermediate examination at any
time in the past or in the present. The
Government Orders produced to support
the equivalence were found to be false. In
the past the examination conducted by the
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan were taken to be
equivalent to Class-VIII for appearing in
the High School examination of the U.P.
Secondary Education Board, but now since
it is compulsory for all the students
appearing in the High School examination
either from any institution or on private
basis, to pass Class IX examination, the
equivalence of the examinations conducted
by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan are not
recognised. Learned Single Judge observed
that Chapter XIV of the Regulation framed
under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act,
1921 mentions as many as 71 certificates
recognised by the U.P. Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad as equivalent to the High
School examination for the purposes of
appearing in the Intermediate Examination.
There is no mention of the Prathama
certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan in this list. Para 981 of Chapter
136 of Manual of Government Orders
(Revised Edition 1981) also does not
mention the equivalence given to Prathma
or Madhyama examination to the High
School and Intermediate examination
conducted by the Secondary Education
Board
U.P.
Learned
Single
Judge
distinguished the judgment in Som Pal
Singh v. Regional Joint Director of
Education (referred as above) on the
ground that it was based upon concession
given by learned Standing Counsel, did not
dispute the factum of Government Order
dated 22.8.1998. The Government Order
was thereafter superseded by another
Government Order dated 28.10.1998. The
factum
of
supercession
has
been
mentioned in Sarojani Pandey (Supra);
Shailendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. &
Ors., (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1716. Learned
Single Judge also noticed that in State of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Lata Arun, AIR 2002
SC 2642 it was noticed by the Supreme
Court that the educational certificates of
Madhyama issued by Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan has been deleted from the
recognised qualification vide notification
dated 28.6.1985.

(5) In Rajasthan Pradesh V.S.
Sardarshahar & Another v. Union of
India & Ors., JT 2010 (6) SC 306 it was
1282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
held by the Supreme Court in respect of
examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan as follows:-

"43. 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.

( III) It is not an educational
institution imparting education in any
subject inasmuch as the 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 Act, 1970 and further did not seek
modification of entry No.105 in II Schedule
to the Act,1970.

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

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

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

( IX ) The right to practice 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 practice without
possessing
the
requisite
qualification
prescribed in Schedule II, III, & IV to the
Act, 1970 is not violative of Article 14 or
ultra vires to any of the provisions of the
State Act."

13.

The
equivalence
to
the
examinations can only be allowed by the
State Government after consulting experts
looking into various factors such as the
teaching facilities, syllabus and the other
such candidates. The Courts do not have
any authority to do the job of experts and
grant such equivalence.

14. In the State of U.P., High School
and
Intermediate
examination
are
conducted by statutory board namely the
U.P. High School and Intermediate Board,
Allahabad. Wherever the equivalence is
granted, the State Government has to
notify the same. Any Government Orders,
which may have been issued in the past by
way
of
clarification
regarding
the
qualifications in respect to Hindi or
Sanskrit language is concerned cannot be
treated as examination equivalent to the
examination conducted by the statutory
Board.
3 All] Shiv Badan Pandey and others V. State of U.P. and others
1283

15. There is another aspect to the
matter namely that if the qualification
conducted by private societies, in respect
of language are treated as equivalent to the
statutory boards, the candidates passing the
examination from the statutory board will
be seriously discriminated in appointments
in Government Service, which is regulated
by the statutory rules. The Court cannot
permit the equivalence to be considered so
casually.
In
Rajsthan
Pradesh
V.S.
Sardarshahar & Anr. (Supra) the Supreme
Court considered the legal status of Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan and found that it is
neither university/ deemed university nor
an educational board. It is society
registered under the Societies Registration
Act and is not an educational institutions
imparting education in any subject. There
is no school/ college imparting education
in any subject affiliated to it. It also does
not have any recognition from any
statutory authority, even in respect of
medical qualifications after 1967.

16. In the aforesaid circumstances,
we fully agree with the reasoning given by
the learned Single Judge in the judgment
cited as above and reiterate that the
Prathama
and
Madhyama
(Visharad)
examination conducted by the Hindi
Sahitya Sammelan are not equivalent to the
High
School
and
Intermediate
Examination conducted by the Board of
High School and Intermediate Education
U.P. The petitioner's qualification of
Madhyama (Vishrad) is thus not equivalent
to Intermediate Examination, and thus the
petitioner was not qualified and eligible to
be appointed as a clerk.

17. In our view learned Single Judge
did not commit any error in law in
allowing the writ petition only to the extent
that the District Magistrate may ensure that
the petitioner is appointed on any Class-IV
post.

18. The special appeal is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.11.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J.
THE HON'BLE D.K.UPADHYAYA, J.

Writ Petition No. 2636 (MB) of 2006

Shiv Badan Pandey and others

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226restoration of the shape of Pond-as
recorded
in
1356
Fasli
by
placing
reliance on Hinch Lal Tiwari case-prior to
dated of vesting plot in question was
recorded in Zimman-7-for cultivation of
Singhara-in 1359 fasli-by passes of time
land ceased to be Taalab-being used for
public purpose about 36 houses by Awas
and Vikash Parishad apart from schools
are situated-no right of any individual to
get removed all development and to
restore the shape of Taalab which had
lost
its
existence
and
utility-unless
pleaded of community pond raised and
accepted-no direction to restore the
shop of Pond can be given.

Held: Para 28 and 29

In the case of Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra),
their Lordships made an observation that
the land which has the character of a
pond but due to passage of time some
portion of it has dried up and rest of the
portion is covered with water, cannot be
allotted to anybody for construction of
house building or any allied purposes.

Of course, the land which requires
restoration of water reservoir for the