G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. These two writ petitions are directed against the order date, 18.1.94 issued by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Udaipurwati, district Jhunjhunu, where by the service of the petitioners have been terminated from the post of Teacher Gr.III. Both these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order because a common order is under challenge and writ petitions are founded on almost identical grounds.
2. Petitioner, Shankar Lal passed M.Com. examination from the University of Rajasthan. He was appointed as Teacher Gr.III for a period of 30 days by an order issued on 18.2.86 by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchyat Samiti Udaipurwati. Term of his appointment was extended by another 30 days. This was followed by temporary appointment of the petitioner for a period of six months which according to the petitioner, was accorded to him after due selection. Term of temporary appointment of the petitioner was also extended till the end of academic session of 1987-88 or till the availability of regularly selected persons. In the year 1989 the petitioner was selected for regular appointment as Teacher Gr.III by the District Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu. The Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu issued order dated 1.5.89 and directed the petitioner to appear in Panchyat Samiti, Udaipurwati on 10.5.89 for appointment on probation for a period of two years with a condition that the petitioner has have to serve at least for a period of five years. Vikas Adhikari, Panchyat Samiti, Udaipurwati issued order dated 1.3.1989 appointing the petitioner as Teacher Gr.III in pay scale of Rs. 880-1680/-. Petitioner was confirmed in the service by order dated, 1.9.92 of the Administrator-cum-Vikas Adhikari, Panchyat Samiti, Udaipurwati. After he has rendered service for over 4 years and six months the impugned order has been issued by the Vikas Adhikari terminating the service of the petitioner on the basis of letter dated, 4.11.93 written by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu.
3. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that once the petitioner has been appointed after regular selection it is not open to the respondents to terminate his service without giving him opportunity of hearing. Plea of the petitioner is that on the basis of order dated. 1.5.89 issued by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunti and order date-13.7.89 by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchyat Samiti, Udaipurwati, a substantive right has come to vest in him to serve as Teacher Gr.III. With this confirmation, this right has become perfect and the same cannot be taken away except after following the procedure established by law. Petitioner has submitted that before entering the service he has passed B.Ed. examination from Mathili University (Mathili Vishwa Vidyapith) Darbhanga. This degree of B.Ed. has been recognised by the Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs vide notification No. P. /4/52-CC aged, 20th September, 1952. He had produced all his documents before being appointed in service and by treating him to be eligible, the District Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu had selected him. He had not played any fraud with the respondents, therefore, he cannot be thrown out of job without any inquiry and without compliance of the principles of natural justice. No charge sheet has been served upon him alleging any fraud on his part and therefore, the impugned order should be declared as void.
4. In their reply, respondents have stated that the petitioner secured M. Com. qualification from University of Rajasthan. They have disputed the petitioner's claim that he has passed Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed, examination). According to the respondents, the petitioner has secured Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed. Examination) from Mathili University Bihar, which is not recognised as a University under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the degree issued by Mathili University, Bihar is not approved for the purpose of appointment in Government service. Reliance has been placed by the respondents on a Government. Circular No. F. (7) (4)/Shiksha-3/89, dated, 14.8.89 as well as the Circular dated, 26.6.91 issued by the University Grants Commission. Plea of the respondents is that Mathili University is a bogus educational institution and the degrees awarded by it are fraudulent. Respondents, have pleaded that the termination of the service of the petitioner has been ordered because he had been selected on the basis of a fraudulent degree issued by a University which has not been recognised. Respondents have pleaded that this Court will not invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction in favour of a person who had secured employment on the basis of a bogus degree. 5. In his writ petition Kamlesh Kumar Kulhari has come forward with the case that he passed B.A. examination from the University of Rajasthan and then secured Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed.) from Mathili University, Darbhanga, Bihar in the year 1986, He was appointed as Teacher Gr.III in pay scale of Rs. 880-1680/- after regular selection by the District Establishment Committee of Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu. He was appointed against a permanent post by an order dated 1.5.89. He has been confirmed by order dated, 1.9.92. He has complete more than 3 years of service and now by the impugned order dated 18.1.94 his service has been terminated. The grounds of challenge enumerated in this writ petition arc identical to the grounds enumerated in writ petition No. 387/94. Similarly the averments made in the reply to this writ petition are identical to those made in writ petition No. 387/94, it is therefore, not necessary to make a detailed reference to the contentions raised in this writ petition and the averments made in the reply filed by the respondents.
6. The first argument advanced by Shri Hanuman Choudhary learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the degree of Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed.) secured by the petitioner from Mathili University (Mathili Viswa Vidyapith) has been recognised by the Government of India as well as by the Government of Rajasthan and, therefore, the petitioner possesses valid qualifications on the basis of which he could be appointed as Teacher Gr.III. Shri Choudhary argued that in the face of the notifications issued by the Government on 20.9.52 as also circular issued by the Government of Rajasthan on 13.3.89, the degree awarded by Mathili University, Darbhanga stains recognised for the purpose of employment in the services of the Government of Rajasthan. He emphasized that even if the Government of Rajasthan has subsequently issued a Circular for derecognition of the degree awarded by the Maithili University such derecognition cannot operate to the detriment of the rights of the petitioners. Shri Chirania, learned Counsel for the respondents, argued that the degree awarded by the Maithili University was never recognised for the purpose of appointment in the service of the Government of Rajasthan and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any advantage of notification dated, 20.9.52 or circular No. F (7)/Edu.III/2 Dated, 23.3.89. A look at, the copies of the marksheets produced by the petitioner show' that the same have been issued by 'Maithili University', Darbhanga. In both the cases the examination center has been shown as RSS NOIDA. In these marksheets the institution has been described as 'Maithili Vishwa Vidyaptih'. Darbhanga in Hindi. Petitioner Kamlesh Kumar Kulhari has placed before the Court a photostat copy of the degree as Annexure-3 and this shows that the degree has been awarded by Mathili Vishwa Vidyapith in recognition of the petitioner having passed Shiksha Shastri examination. Notification dated, 20th September 1952 issued by the Government of India has been produced as Annexure-2 in writ petition No. 387/94. This document shows that it has been got printed by Maithili University (Maithili Vishwa Vidyapith). The relevant abstract of the notification of the Government of India is as follows:
Notification No. P.26/4/52 C.C.
Government of India
Minister of Home Affairs
New Delhi
The 20th September 1952
Sub: Recognition of the Examination.According to the Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India Notification No. F. 26/4/52 C.C. dated, 20.9.1952 issued in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission that in case of Degree/Dipoma awarded by Universities in India which are incorporated by one act of Central or Part A or Part B State Legislature in India, No formal orders recognising such Degree. Diploma need be issued by Government. Such degrees should be recognised automatically for the purpose of Employment.
Sd/-
Harish Chandra
Under Secretary to the Govt. Of India
7. At the top of the document, Maithili University 846004, 'recognition order', has been printed. At the bottom of this the following has been printed.
Maithili Vishwavidyapith (Maithili University) is running under 1960 Society Act, of the Govt. of India. Hence, under above notification Degree/Diploma awarded by the Maithili Vishwavidyapith (Maithili University) is automatically recognised for the purpose of employment.' PresidentMaithili VishwavidyapithDarbhanga 846004
8. Section-2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 defines the term 'University. According to this definition, University means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and includes any such institution as may in consultation with the University concerned, be recognised by the Commission in accordance with the Regulations made in this behalf under the Act. Section-3 says that the Central Government may on the advice of the Commission, declare by notification in the official gazette that any institution with higher education, other than a University shall be deemed to be a University for the purpose of this Act and on such a declaration being made all the provisions of the Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 2. Thus, unless it is shown that the Maithili University (Maithili Vishwavidyapith) is a body created under an Act or has been recognised by the University Grants Commission as a University or it is declared to be a deemed University under a notification issued by the Central Government on the advice of the Commission, it cannot claim itself to be a University. What the Maithili University has done by issuing Annexure-2 filed in writ petition No. 387/94 is to show itself to be a University and on that basis it has claimed that the degree awarded by it is sufficient for the purpose of employment. That document is, in my opinion, not at all sufficient to prove that it is a University as defined in Section 2(1). Maithili University (Maithili Vishwavidyapith) which is merely a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 cannot be equated with a University. Thus, the degrees allegedly awarded by it cannot be treated as sufficient to qualify the petitioners for appointment as Teacher Gr.III on the assumption that he possesses a degree of B.Ed.
9. Second argument of Shri Hanuman Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that even if the degrees possessed by the petitioners were not recognised one, after their substantive appointments as Teacher Gr.III the respondents could not have terminated their service without compliance of the principles of natural justice. In substance, the argument of Shri Choudhary is that a legal and substantive right had come to vest in favour of the petitioners to continue to serve as Teacher Gr.III on the basis of regular appointment given to them after due selection and after their confirmation in service and that this right of the petitioners could not have been infringed except in accordance with the procedure established by law, namely, after holding a departmental enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Shri Choudhary argued that the petitioners had not played any fraud in securing appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III and there can be no justification for disponsing with their service in an arbitrary manner without even calling upon them to submit their explanation. He submitted that after having served for a period of almost 8 years and 3 years respectively, the petitioners have been brought on road without even an opportunity to secure employment in future. He place reliance on the decision of this Court in Smt. Kamla v. State of Rajasthan 1989 (1) RLR 653 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7485/93. Ram Khilari Meena v. Stale of Rajasthan and Anr. decided on 10.11.93. Shri Chirania, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand, argued that the petitioners had been given appointment on the basis of forged degrees and therefore, this Court must not give any indulgence to the petitioners in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article, 226. He placed reliance on an order dated, 2.9.93 passed by this Court in Radhey Shyam and Ors. v. Panchyat Samiti, Kama and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1242/93.
10. Ordinarily, this Court would have issued a writ in favour of a person who is holding appointment on substantive basis and whose service is terminated without notice and without any inquiry, Rules of natural justice clearly warrant that no man should be condemned unheard. The principles of natural justice take within their fold all administrative actions and quari judicial actions. Alter the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Krainak v. Union of India : [1970]1SCR457 , Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India : [1978]2SCR621 and Olga Tellis v. Municipal Council, Bombay : AIR1986SC180 , applicability of rules of natural justice in administrative actions is no more in doubt. Even in cases of emergencies rules of natural justice are required to be followed by administrative authorities when they make order affecting the rights of citizens and individuals. However, it is also one of the settled principle that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts cannot be totally oblivious of the cases in which fraud is played by an individual for securing some benefit. The courts cannot issue writs, which may directly or indirectly encourage or perpetuate fraud. A greater care is required to be taken by the courts while dealing with the cases of Teachers who are appointed on the basis of forged degrees. Persons who are appointed as Teachers without requisite qualification causes immeasurable injuries to innocent children who are taught by them in the schools. Therefore, where the court finds that a person has secured appointment on the basis of a forged degree, writ jurisdiction will be exercised even though there may be a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
11. The facts which have come on record in these cases show that the petitioners have claimed themselves to be eligible on the basis of the degrees awarded to them by Maithili Vidyapilh (Maithili University). That institution misrepresented itself to be a University. Annexure-2 unmistakably shows that a* fraudulent representation was made by Maithili Vishwavidyapith, Darbhanga that it was a University and its degrees were sufficient for the purpose of employment in public service in terms of Notification dated, 20.9.52 issued by the Government of India. Mass forgeries in the award of degrees and appointment of persons possessing the forged degrees had forced the Government of Rajasthan to issue Circular No. FA(l00) Edu/Gr.II/87, dated, 13.9.88 and Circular No. F.8(4)/Edu-III/S9 dated, 14.8.89. The Government had issued clear instructions for punishment to those persons who were responsible for making appointment of persons possessing forged degrees and directions were given for taking penal action against those who secured employment on the basis of forged degrees. The Government had declared that Maithili Vishwavidyapith, Darbhanga is not a University and the degrees and diplomas awarded by it are not recognised. The Government had clearly indicated that such institutions had shown themselves to be Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act but they could not be treated as Universities. Even the University Grants Commission had to intervene and issue Circular dated, 26th June 1991 (Annex. R.I) saying that Maithili Vishwavidyapith (Maithili University) is not a recognised University.
12. The petitioners could not have been given appointment as Teachers on temporary or on regular basis on the basis of the degrees possessed by them. They had been successful in misleading the authorities of the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Jhunjhunu by producing document Annexure-2. In my opinion persons who have secured employment on the basis of the degrees which are forged and which cannot, by any stretch of imagination be treated us recognised, cannot claim indulgence of getting relief under Article 226. Even though they may have been confirmed in service and they may have served for some years, they are not entitled to relief from this Court under Article 226. Grant of relief to the petitioners would amount to perpetuation of the illegality which had been committed at the time of giving appointment to them. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Radhey Shyam's case (supra) has taken the same very view and has held that the Court will not issue writ in favour of such person. I do not find any justification whatsoever for taking a different view. The judgment of this Court in Smt. Kamla v. State of Rajasthan (supra) only relates to grant of regular pay to a Class-IV servant. That case has no relevance in the context of appointment given to a person on the basis of forged/unrecognised degrees. Order passed on 10th November, 1993 in Ram Khilari Meena's case also does to help the petitioners. That was a case in which the qualification possessed by the petitioner was not treated as recognised after 30th October, 1992. The Court held that the petitioner cannot claim a right on the basis of qualification of Craft Certificate. A reference has, of course been made to an earlier order dated, 20th August 1993 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7530/92, Moinuddin v. State where the Court had directed that an opportunity of training should be afforded to those who were treated as untrained. In my considered view, neither the decision in Ram Khilari's case nor the decision rendered in Moinuddin's case is of any help to the petitioners. Here is a case where a person has secured employment on the basis of a forged/unrecognised degree by mis-representation that the degree was awarded by a University. Thus, no relief can be given to the petitioners on the premise that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the rules of natural justice. Any compassionate approach in such type of matters would cause serious injury to the student community and particularly those who study in rural areas of the State.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are dismissed.