In Absence Of Any Negative Report, Can't Declare Qualification Certificate Invalid Merely Because University Records Not Traceable: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court has held that merely because University records are not traceable, it cannot be presumed that the certificate is invalid, in the absence of any negative report. “In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that only on the ground that the records of Distance Education Centres of the University for the relevant period in Andhra Pradesh are not available with...
The Telangana High Court has held that merely because University records are not traceable, it cannot be presumed that the certificate is invalid, in the absence of any negative report.
“In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that only on the ground that the records of Distance Education Centres of the University for the relevant period in Andhra Pradesh are not available with the University for the year 2005, it cannot be presumed that the certificates given by the said University are not valid. There is no negative report given about the certificates of petitioner.”
Justice P. Madhavi Devi passed the order in a writ filed by the petitioner, seeking to set aside her termination from the post of contract lecturer in English, on the ground of illegible PG qualification as being illegal and arbitrary; consequently, consider her for regularisation.
It was contended by the petitioner that she was appointed as a contract lecturer for English in 2012 by the Regional Joint Director of Technical Education Hyderabad in SRRS Government Polytechnic, Sricilla, and continued on contract basis till a nominal termination was effected in 2013. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed again in 2014 and continued in service till 2022. Thereupon a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated for possessing an ineligible PG qualification
The petitioner submitted that she completed her PG from the Vinayaka Missions University (earlier known as Vinayaka Research Foundation), Ariyanoor, Salem, Tamil Nadu which is a University Grants Commission-recognized Open University in Distance Education mode in December 2005. The petitioner also stated that the University had established Study/Information Centres in accordance with the recommendations of the Distant Education Council and the Indira Gandhi National Open University as stipulated in the UGC Act.
To prove her claim, the petitioner submitted a certificate, certifying that the petitioner was a bona fide student who had completed the course under the Directorate of Distance Education. The University also certified that all other graduation documents provided by the petitioner were genuine. Additionally, the petitioner also filed a certificate to certify that the course taken by her was approved by the UGC/DEC bodies.
The respondents on the other hand contended that the State of Telangana by way of G.O in 2016 and the Government memo issued in 2022, directed The Commissioner of Technical Education for the State of Telangana to submit recommendations for the regularisation of contract lecturers working in the Government Polytechnics. In furtherance of this, the Commissioner formed an internal committee, and during the course of verification of candidates, the irregularity in the qualification of the petitioner became evident.
The government pleader further submitted that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, on account of the letter issued by the UGC in August 2005 clarifying that no study centre of any university was approved. The Government pleader further stated that the communication from IGNOU to the University informing it that all programs were approved by the DEC was issued in 2007 and hence could not be considered and furthermore, that the letter certifies that the University was not offering distant courses since 2005.
Lastly, the Government pleader submitted, that the Council to be extra diligent, addressed a letter to the University asking it to confirm the genuineness of the petitioner along with the study centres and the University replied saying that they had no records since the records were requested from almost 18 years ago. Owing to the said circumstances, the council terminated the contract of the petitioner.
The Bench noted that all the certificates provided by the petitioner were genuine, and also noted that the DEC had issued ex-post facto approval to the program issued by the University in 2005, by way of a letter in 2007.
“There is a reference to the ex-post facto approval given by the UGC for the distance education programmes conducted by Vinayaka Missions University till 2005. The certificate of the petitioner is in December 2005 and therefore, it has to be considered as approved by DEC.” The Court noted and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and consider her for regularisation of service.
W.P.No. 7739 of 2023
Counsel for petitioner: P SASIDHAR REDDY
Counsel for respondents: GP for Services 1