ORDER
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. This batch of cases may be disposed of by this common order.
2. Shorn of all the details, the question that falls for our consideration is as to whether a writ of Mandamus lies as prayed for by the appellants in W.A.No. 1682 of 2002 to declare the action of the Board of Intermediate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad represented by its Secretary in not issuing Equivalency/ Eligibility Certificate for the students who have studied Uchcha Madhyama and Uttara Madhyama Examination conducted by the appellant-Board of Adult Education and Training, Pankha Road, New Delhi (hereinafter called 'the appellant Board'). The next question that falls for our consideration is as to whether the Board of Intermediate Education at all issued any equivalency certificate recognizing the courses offered by the appellant-Board as equivalent to the intermediate course offered by it as claimed by the appellant Board.
3. The whole of the dispute appears to have arisen on account of the misleading name, which the 'appellant Board' had adopted for itself.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the appellant Board has been catering to the educational needs of the students through out the country and in a way helping the drop outs who could not complete the courses attending to the colleges regularly for one reason or the other. It is running two courses viz., Uchcha Madhyama and Uttara Madhyama. Uchcha Madhyama course is equivalent to Matriculation (SSC) and the eligibility certificate for the candidate passed through this course is sought for the Board of Intermediate Education (the appellant in W.A.No. 1784 of 2002). Likewise, the appellant Board is running 10 + 2 course i.e., Uttara Madhyama which is equivalent to intermediate and the candidates that passed this course seek for equivalency/eligibility certificate from the respondent Board for prosecuting their further education in Degree/Professional courses in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Reference is made to various proceedings alleged to have been issued by the Board of Intermediate Education as if it had accepted the certificates offered by the appellant Board equivalent to that of Matriculation (SSC) and Intermediate respectively.
5. It is contended that all of a sudden the Board of Intermediate Education had taken altogether a different stand and refused to issue equivalency/eligibility certificate as and when the students approached it. It is contended that the respondent Board without any justification whatsoever and in ignorance of its earlier proceedings issued a public notice duly notifying that Uttara Madhyama Course conducted by the appellant Board is not equivalent to that of the Intermediate Course offered by it. It is complained that no reasons are forthcoming as to why such a stand has been taken all of a sudden by the Board of Intermediate Education. Doctrine of legitimate expectation and principles of natural justice have been pressed into service.
6. The appellant has gone to the extent of stating in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the certificate issued by it is being recognized by various Universities and Boards in the country. The courses offered by it are of high standards. So many Universities in the country, in their wisdom have given equivalency/eligibility certificates but the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh without any reason or justification made an attempt to 'water down the importance, significance of these courses by now, sitting tight as and when the request is made on behalf of the students for issuance of equivalency/eligibility certificates'. It is under those circumstances, the appellants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and filed W.P.No.15506 of 2002 with the prayer as under:
'It is prayed that this court may please to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Board in not issuing equivalency/ eligibility certificate for the students who have studied Uchcha Madhyama and Uttara Madhyama examination conducted by the petitioners despite the equivalency certificate by the Respondent Board on 17-1-2002. In Rc. No. 620/105/ERTW-IV/2002 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and issue and consequential direction to the respondents to consider the case of such of the students who approach them for issuance of Equivalency/ Eligibility Certificates.'
7. The Secretary and Commissioner of Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad filed a detailed comprehensive counter-affidavit opposing the claim of the appellants. It is clearly explained that one Shreyas s/o Gopinath addressed a letter dated 2-11-2001 requesting to issue an Equivalency Certificate for his Uttara Madhyama Certificate alleged to have been obtained by him from the appellant-Board. It was received on 8-11-2001. On the same day 'one Mr. A.S. Ramachandra Murthy, Assistant Professor, who is one of the incharge officials for issuance of the certificates issued a certificate as requested.' This letter was not placed before the Evaluation Committee or before the 1st respondent Board. There is no resolution of the Board recognising the certificate issued to the said Shreyas by the appellant Board as equivalent to that of the Intermediate Certificate issued by the 1st respondent Board.
8. It is not necessary to notice the further details and as to the number of applications received by the Board of Intermediate Education in this regard. Suffice it to notice that the Board of Intermediate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh vide its letters dated 2-4-2002 and 3-4-2002 requested the Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi to inform about the nature of the appellant Board. In reply thereto, the Director of Education, School Branch, New Delhi by its communication dated 4-6-2002 informed the Board of Intermediate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh that the appellant-Board is not a recognized Board and that it is a fake Board'. The Director further informed that the Department of Education, Government of India had already issued a public notice in newspapers on 29-1-1999 clarifying the position that the Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi is not among the list of accredited Boards/Institutions in India and the certificates awarded by this Board are not recognized by the competent authority.
9. These are the facts and circumstances pleaded by the Board of Intermediate Education in its counter-affidavit to satisfy this Court that the writ as prayed for cannot be issued compelling the Board of Intermediate Education to recognize the certificates granted by the appellant Board and treat them as equivalent to that of intermediate course offered by the Board of Intermediate Education in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
10. It is the case of the respondent-Board of Intermediate Education that the certificates earlier granted to individual students on a couple of occasions cannot be treated as precedent and the Board cannot be compelled to perpetuate the illegality. It is also the case of the Board that one of the Officers in the Board had taken it upon himself and went on issuing such certificates without any authority of law.
11. The learned Single Judge after an elaborate consideration of the mater came to the conclusion that the appellant Board has no recognition whatsoever granted in its favour by any of the competent authorities of the Central and State Governments under the relevant enactments. The learned Judge also noticed that the Central Government went on issuing notification one after another duly informing the public in general and cautioning them that this so called Board of Adult Education and Training is not a genuine institution. The learned Judge accordingly found that stray certificates issued in some cases by the Board of Intermediate Education as well as by couple of Universities by themselves do not confer any right either on the students or on the appellant Board to claim equivalency as regards the courses offered by it particularly when the institution's legal existence is in doubt.
12. Having said so, the learned Judge dismissed W.P.No. 15506 of 2002 filed by the Board of Adult Education and Training against which W.A.No. 1682 of 2002 is preferred. The learned Judge also dismissed W.P.No. 15563 and 16007 of 2002 filed by City Educational society and KLR Educational Society respectively claiming to be the agencies/branches of the Board of Adult Education and Training (the appellant Board).
13. In this batch of cases, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, appearing on behalf of the appellants in W.A.No. 1682 of 2002 contends that the learned Judge committed an error in declaring the appellant-Board as a bogus Institution. The Observations so made by the Learned Judge are based upon the averments made by the Board of Intermediate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh in its counter-affidavit. The appellant Board could not have been condemned either by the Board of Intermediate or by this Court without providing any reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. It is also contended that the Uttara Madhyama course offered by the appellant Board in Humanities has been recognised by the Board of Intermediate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh as equivalent to that of the intermediate course of the Board of Intermediate Education. There is absolutely no reason not to extend the same benefit to the courses offered by the appellant Board in Science and other allied subjects.
14. Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board of Intermediate Education contends that the learned Judge having found the appellant Board to be a bogus one ought not to have directed the Board of Intermediate Education to consider the cases of individual students for grant of equivalency certificates issued by the appellant Board which were issued before the commencement of the present academic year. This portion of the judgment according to the learned senior Counsel is unsustainable.
15. We have elaborately heard the matter. In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the learned Judge that the appellant Board is not a genuine institution does not suffer from any legal infirmity. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Board of Intermediate Education, the question of infringement of principles of natural justice by the Board of Intermediate Education as such does not arise in the instant case. The fact remains that even as on to-day, the appellant Board did not make any application whatsoever to the Board of Intermediate Education requesting it to recognize the courses offered by it as equivalent to that of Intermediate Course offered by the Board of Intermediate Education. The appellant Board for the first time invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer, which we have already noticed. The Board of Intermediate Education while contending that the appellant Board is not entitled for the relief as prayed for furnished the requisite particulars in order to enable this court to arrive at a proper conclusion. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the question of infringement of any of the principles of natural justice as such does not arise.
16. Be that as it may, even as on today, the appellant Board has not made available any material before us to satisfy this court that it is a recognized institution as such by any of the competent authorities. In the absence of any such material, we do not find any difficulty whatsoever to confirm the view taken by the learned Single Judge at none of the authorities either of the Central Government or State Government have recognized the appellant-Board as an educational institution for whatever purpose. The appellant Board styling itself to be a Board cannot undertake to offer any course of education and ask for a Writ of Mandamus to treat the course offered by it as equivalent to that of the course offered by the Board of Intermediate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
17. The student community had been taken for a ride by the appellant Board. They were mislead and made to believe as if it had the permission to offer any courses of study as such.
18. However, certain admissions were made by the Intermediate Board of Education in its counter affidavit. It is now conceded that on 4-3-1996 the Evaluation Committee of the Board of Intermediate Education on the strength of an application filed by one Sardar Swaran Singh for treating his Uttar Madhyama Certificate as equivalent to that of the intermediate course passed the following resolution.
'Resolved that Uttara-Madhyama Examination of Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi taken by Mr. S. Sardar Swaran Singh is equivalent to the Intermediate Course of the Board of Intermediate Education with commerce group'
(emphasis is of ours)
19. This resolution of the committee was placed before the Board of Intermediate Education in its 41st meeting held on 30-3-1996 and in the said meeting the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee were approved. It is difficult to discern as to how the Board of Intermediate Education could have taken such a decision without examining as to the legal existence of the appellant Board and without verifying the nature of the courses offered by it for the purpose of its consideration as to whether the certificates issued by the said Board are to be treated as equivalent to that of Intermediate course. It is a serious lapse on the part of the Board of Intermediate Education and precisely the cause resulting in utter chaos and confusion. However, it is explained that thereafter neither the evaluation Committee nor the Board had taken any institutional decisions as such treating the courses offered by the appellant Board as equivalent to that of Intermediate Course of the Board of Intermediate Education.
20. We may have to however notice that even that resolution of the Evaluation Committee dated 4-3-1997 does not confer any enforceable right upon the appellant Board since the said resolution itself was confined to the fact that Uttara madhyama examination of the appellant Board taken by Sardar Swaran Singh as equivalent to that of the intermediate course of the Board of Intermediate Education. Therefore, the appellant Board cannot rely upon the decision of the Board of Intermediate Education in the case of Sardar Swaran Singh. The subsequent certificates granted by the Board of Intermediate Education also are individual in their nature given to the students by one particular officer in the Board without any authority of law.
21. It is brought to our notice about which there cannot be any dispute that the power to recognize any diploma or certificate granted by any other Board or Educational authority, whether within or outside the State, as equivalent to the certificate granted by the Board of Intermediate Education and any course of study undertaken by the candidates as sufficient for the purpose of admitting them for the intermediate examination is conferred upon the Board of Intermediate itself. No individual officer howsoever high he may be can take any decision equating or recognizing any diploma or certificate granted by the Board of Intermediate Education. Therefore, the so called certificates issued by an individual officer in the Board of Intermediate Education cannot bind the Board itself. It is very well settled and needs no restatement that there cannot be any estoppel against any statute. The power to recognize any certificate granted by any other Board or educational authority as equivalent to the certificate granted by any other Board or Educational authority whether within or outside the State is conferred upon the Board and not on an individual.
22. It is equally well settled that such erroneous decisions taken without any authority of law cannot be treated or characterized as precedent and this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot base its verdict upon such self serving orders passed by some Officers without any authority of law. Direction or order based upon such decisions may result in perpetuating the illegality and compelling the institution to act contrary to law. That any such directions from this Court would be destructive of rule of law.
23. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Board that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the appellant Board is a bogus institution would come in its way and prevent the Board for ever from making an application to the Board of intermediate Education in requesting it to treat the course offered by it as equivalent to the intermediate course. May be so, it is invited by the appellant Board itself. The Board of Intermediate, in order to take an appropriate decision in the matter, since repeated requests were coming from the students who have undergone the courses of study in the appellant Board for treating the certificates obtained by them as equivalent to that of intermediate course, made a detailed enquiry and accordingly addressed the Union of India to find out as to whether the said institution has at all been recognised for whatever purposes by any of the competent authorities. The Government of India promptly replied that no competent authority ever recognized the appellant Board as an educational institution. The Board of Intermediate Education in our considered opinion did not commit any error whatsoever as it is bound to make necessary enquiries and accordingly made such enquiries at the behest of the students and in the process found the institution not to be a genuine one. We have already observed that nothing is placed before us even as on today to show that the appellant Board was recognized by any of the competent authorities. It is not even the case of the appellant Board that they have been recognized as an educational institution by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its power under the provisions of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short 'the Education Act'). It is neither an institution established with the permission of the Government of Andhra Pradesh nor recognized as such. In such view of the matter, we do not find any error to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in holding that the appellant Board is not a genuine institution. However, we may hasten to clarify that the observations made by the learned Single Judge are confined only for the purpose of deciding the issue as to whether the Course offered by the appellant Board are equivalent to that of the Intermediate Course offered by the Board of Intermediate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Those observations shall have no bearing whatsoever for any other purposes.
24. It is not known as to how some of the Universities in the State of Andhra Pradesh by themselves have treated the course offered by the appellant Board as equivalent to that of Intermediate course offered by the Board of Intermediate Education. At any rate, it is unnecessary to go into further details in view of our observations made hereinabove that such sporadic decisions without any authority of law by themselves do not confer any enforceable right upon either the students or the appellant Board.
25. That the certificates issued in favour of the individual students were subsequently cancelled after putting them on due notice and the same were not challenged. The Board of Intermediate Education rightly realized the mischief done by one of its officers and accordingly cancelled those certificates.
26. The learned Single Judge having found the appellant Board is not in existence in law ought not to have directed the Board of Intermediate Education to consider the cases of such of those students who have obtained the certificates before the commencement of the present academic year. At any rate, even this part of the direction has become an academic one since the Board of Intermediate Education had already considered the cases of those students pursuant to the directions of this Court and rejected the same. The learned senior counsel made available a copy of the minutes of the 52nd Intermediate Board held on 27-12-2002. This decision is taken by the Board and not by any individual Officer. Thus, there is a clear and categorical decision by the Board that the courses offered by the appellant Board are not equivalent to that of the intermediate course offered by the Board of Intermediate.
27. It is fairly well settled that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the academic bodies to treat a particular course of study offered by a body equivalent to that of a course of study offered by a recognized University or Board. It is for the academic bodies to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. It is held that the decision on equivalence is a matter within the purview of the Expert Committee. This court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Expert Committee, which looks into such matters. No person having a particular degree or diploma or certificate granted by one State can claim that the same may be recognized as equivalent to another degree or diploma or certificate of another State. (See, for the proposition, K. K. Sifhora v. District Educational Officer, Kurnool, : 2001(2)ALD510 (D.B.). The Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, : [1986]2SCR912 ), in somewhat similar circumstances observed:
'it is for each university to decide the question of equivalence of examinations and it would not be right for the Supreme Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University because it is not a matter on which the Court possess any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or institution and the standard of examination. It is an academic questioning which the Court should not disturb the decision taken by the University.
28. The same principle is reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, : AIR2002SC2642 . It is observed that it is not for the Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority. It is also not for the Courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognised as equivalent to the prescribed qualification.
29. The appellant in this case precisely wants us to decide and pronounce that the courses offered by them are equivalent to the courses offered by the Board of Intermediate. Such a course is not permissible in law.
30. It is brought to our notice that some of the students who have already secured admissions into various courses on the strength of the certificates issued by the Board of Intermediate Education treating the course undergone by them as equivalent to that of the Intermediate course are likely to be asked to leave their course of study in view of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court. In our considered opinion such of those students who have secured such admissions in any course of study under the interim orders passed by this Court cannot claim any equity as such. Therefore, we do not propose to grant any relief to such of those students who have obtained admissions in various courses of study under the interim orders of this court.
31. No other point is urged.
32. In some of the writ petitions, the complaint is that the Universities having admitted the students into various courses of study are not allowing them to pursue their course of study in view of the judgment rendered by the learned Single judge of this court and on the strength of the information and communication sent by the Board of Intermediate Education. In some cases, students were prevented from appearing in the ensuing examinations. It is contended that the Universities/institutions having admitted the students on their own cannot be permitted to refuse permission to the students to sit for the examinations and continue their course of study. We are not impressed by the submission in view of the finding by the learned Single Judge and as well as by us that the Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi and alike institutions have no legal existence. No direction can be issued compelling the institutions/universities to permit those students who secured admission on the strength of so called equivalency certificates secured by them from the Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi and alike institutions to sit for the examinations and continue their course of study.
33. In W.P.No. 18288 of 2002, the respondents have not even granted such stray and sporadic certificates as have been granted by the Board of Intermediate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh treating the courses offered by the Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi as equivalent to that of courses of study offered by them. In such view of the matter, no relief of whatsoever nature can be granted to the petitioners.
34. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Appeal No. 1682 of 2002 preferred by the appellant-Board shall stand dismissed. W.A.No. 1784 of 2002 preferred by the Board of Intermediate Education is disposed of modifying that portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein directions have been issued to the Board of Intermediate to consider the cases of those students who have obtained certificates from the Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi before the commencement of the academic year. That portion of the order is set aside.
35. In the result, all the writ petitions shall stand dismissed. No costs.