N.S. Vasan v. Food Corporation of India and Others (Writ Appeals Nos. 1074 of 2010 & 1357 of 2010)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/27TH SRAVANA, 1936** ## **WA.No. 1074 of 2010 ( )** **--------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-02-2010 IN O.P. NO.27979/2002.** **........** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------------------** **1. THE ZONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, MADRAS-6.** **2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM.** **3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA.** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **-----------------------------------------** **N.S. VASAN, S/O.NATESAN PANDIT, DUSTING OPERATOR, ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR, SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2014, ALONG WITH W.A. NO.1357 OF 2010, THE COURT ON 18/08/2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** **CR ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag. CJ & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.** ================================= W.A. Nos. 1074 & 1357 of 2010 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of August, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag. CJ** These two writ appeals have been filed against the same judgment dated 16.02.2010 arising out of O.P. No. 27979 of 2002. The O.P. No.27979 of 2002 was filed by N.S Vasan who is the respondent in W.A No. 1074 of 2010. (N.S Vasan, who filed the original petition will be hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner' and the Food Corporation of India will be hereinafter referred to as 'respondent'). 2. W.A. No. 1074 of 2010 has been filed by the respondent in the original petition i.e., Food Corporation of India, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which order, the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed, declaring that the petitioner would be deemed to have been promoted as Assistant Grade-III from the date from which his juniors were promoted with direction to re-fix the salary without arrears of monetary benefit. W.A. No. 1357 of 2010 has been filed by the W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -2- petitioner against that part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which it was held that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages. Both the writ appeals having been heard together, are being decided by this common judgment. 3. Brief facts giving rise to W.A. No. 1074 of 2010 are as follows: N.S Vasan, the petitioner was appointed as Watchman on daily wages basis in the Food Corporation of India in the ex-service man quota on 4.6.1976. The service of the petitioner was later regularized in the post of Watchman. Qualification prescribed for the next promotion post of Assistant Grade-III was degree. But 30% of the said post are set apart to be filled up by promotion from class IV category staff possessing matriculation. In the year 1993 petitioner claimed promotion to Assistant Grade-III post based on Ext.P2 matriculation certificate dated 25.3.1989 alleged to have been issued by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vshwavidyalaya, Varanasi. The Corporation doubted the genuineness of Ext.P2 Certificate and issued a memo to explain as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for having submitted false certificate. The Corporation after receipt of the Certificate dated 25.3.1989 had enquired the matter and it was revealed in the W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -3- enquiry that the certificate was a forged one. The petitioner submitted reply to the memo by letter dated 26.3.1994 claiming that Poorva Madhyama examination conducted by Varanaseya Sanskrit Vshwavidyalaya, Varanasi is recognized as equivalent to matriculation by the Central Government. He further stated that enquiries were conducted with some other Sanskrit Vidyalaya at Varanasi namely Sampoornanand Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya instead of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vshwavidyalaya and the administrative office of the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vshwavidyalaya is at Delhi. 4. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 5599/1997 which was disposed of by this Court on 1.4.1997 directing the Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner. The Corporation, after considering the materials submitted by the petitioner, rejected the representation vide letter dated 4.6.1997 holding that the petitioner is not eligible to be promoted as Assistant Grade-III on the strength of Ext.P2 certificate. 5. The petitioner again filed O.P No. 11521 of 1997 challenging the order by which the petitioner's promotion was declined. The said O.P was disposed of on 17.10.2001 with the observation that the petitioner has not been successful enough to W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -4- remove the suspicion centered around in Ext.P2 certificate. The Court further observed that it shall be open for the petitioner to make representation as and when he obtains the certificate with date. Being aggrieved of the judgment, the petitioner filed R.P. No. 26 of 2002, which was disposed of on 13.03.2002 observing that if the petitioner has got a certificate showing the date of acquisition of qualification, he can make a representation to the respondent concerned who shall dispose of the same within one month after hearing the petitioner. 6. The Corporation again passed an order dated 24.5.2002 holding that Ext.P2 certificate submitted by the petitioner cannot be treated as a valid certificate. Challenging the order dated 24.05.2002, O.P. No. 27979 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner which has been decided by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 16.02.2010, against which judgment both these appeals have been filed. 7. After considering Ext.P2 Certificate and other materials, learned Single Judge vide his judgment, has observed that, although certain discrepancies have not been properly explained but on evaluation of materials, the Certificate dated 25.03.1989 has to be accepted as valid certificate entitling the petitioner to W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -5- have given promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted. The O.P was allowed directing the respondents to refix petitioner's pay without arrears of monetary benefits. 8. We have heard Smt. S. Karthika learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and Sri. O. Ramachandran Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the Corporation, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge contended that the Corporation had materials to come to the conclusion that Ext.P2 certificate submitted by the petitioner was not a genuine certificate. The learned counsel in this context referred to the enquiries conducted by the Food Corporation of India through its Vigilance Cell as well as the letter dated 12.03.1994 received from the Assistant Secretary (Examination) of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University informing that Ext.P2 certificate which was sent for verification is a forged document. The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the time table of the examination submitted by the petitioner was doubted by the learned Single Judge himself which document was submitted by the petitioner for the first time in the O.P in the year 2010. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge could not in exercise of W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -6writ jurisdiction re-appraise the evidence to come to a different conclusion, whereas the corporation after considering the relevant materials held that Ext.P2 certificate submitted by the petitioner was not a genuine one. It is submitted that the petitioner could not by any relevant material prove the genuineness of Ext. P2 certificate. The undated letter which was produced by the petitioner from an Advocate of New Delhi and letter issued by the Calicut University were insufficient to prove the genuineness of Ext.P2 certificate. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had successfully proved the genuineness of Ext.P2 certificate and the learned Single Judge after considering all the relevant materials found that the certificate is a genuine one which needs no interference in these appeals. He submits that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation with another University of Varanasi namely Sampurnanand Sanskrit University was not relevant. He further submits that the Calicut University has informed that Poorva Madhyama examination conducted by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi is equivalent to matriculation and that the Calicut University has recognized W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -7- the certificate issued by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. It is submitted that earlier the Corporation had taken a stand that the certificate produced by the petitioner is an undated certificate, whereas now a stand is being taken that the certificate is forged and hence not genuine. It is stated that in the order dated 24.05.2002 Corporation has rejected the certificate only on the ground that the certificate was undated and there was discrepancy in the name of the petitioner, which was written as A.N Vasan in Hindi and N.S Vasan in English. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. The main issue in these appeals is as to whether Ext.P2 Certificate of Poorva Madyama issued by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi is a valid certificate on the basis of which the petitioner was entitled for promotion. The petitioner claims to have obtained the certificate from Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi, which according to the petitioner, was issued on 25.03.1989. It is relevant to note that the Corporation, after receipt of the certificate from the petitioner had conducted enquiries through regional office and through W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -8Vigilance Branch of Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The Certificate dated 25.3.1989 produced by the petitioner was got verified through the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office, Varanasi. Assistant Secretary (Examinations) of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University vide letter dated 12.03.1994 had informed the Assistant Manager, Vigilance Branch of Food Corporation of India, Varanasi that the certificate submitted by Sri. N.S Vasan is forged one and was not issued by the University. The said letter relied on by the Corporation was brought on record as Ext. R1(C) along with counter affidavit filed in the O.P. It is useful to reproduce the letter dated 12.3.1994 which is to the following effect: “INDUPATHI JHA Assistant Secretary, Sampoornanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi Dtd. 12.3.94 To The Asst. Manager (Vig), FCI, Varanasi. Sir, With reference to your letter dtd. 7.3.94 addressed to the Secretary, it is to inform that you have, in your letter, mentioned about enclosure of Photostat copy of the Certificate submitted by Shri V. Vasan, whereas the photocopy of the enclosed Certificate is of Shri A.N. Vasan. It is clear from the photocopy of the Certificate of Shri. A.N. Vasan that the Certificate is forged one and has not been W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -9- issued from this University. Business of fictitious Degree is being transacted in the name of the aforesaid Varanasaya University and in this connection communique has already been published by the Govt. of India and University Grants Commission many times. Kindly initiate action keeping in view of the above facts. Yours faithfully, sd/Indupathi Jha Assistant Secretary (Exam)” 12. Leaving the question as to whether the original certificate produced by the petitioner was undated which was subsequently produced along with a date part, the petitioner was asked by the Corporation to bring relevant material to prove the genuineness of the certificate. Petitioner could file only undated letter of one Advocate as Ext.P8 stating that N.S. Vasan has passed Poorva Madhyama of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi in 1988. The said letter is of one Advocate Dr. D.P. Tripathi describing him as Advocate of Supreme Court. 13. How can an Advocate verify that the petitioner has passed Poorva Madhyama examination from Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi is a question which remains unanswered. In this context the relevant portion of the reply of W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -10- the petitioner to a memo to show cause as to why disciplinary action was not taken is relevant to note which is extracted below: “Sub: Memo No. Estt/2(1)/93 dt. Nil. ********** With reference to the Memo cited, I submit that: 1) I had passed the PURV MADYAMA Examination conducted by the VARANASEY SANSKRIT VISHWAVIDYALAYA, P.B. No. 9424, Pin 110051 which is recognised as equal to MATRICULATION by the Central Government/State Governments. This Institution is an autonomous body. 2) It is learnt that the enquiries were conducted with some other Sanskrit Vidyalaya at Varanasi viz., Sampoornanand Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya in stead of Varanasey Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya. The Administrative office of the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya is at Delhi. 3) Therefore, an enquiry at Varanasey Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya, Post Box No. 9424, Pin 110051 will reveal/bring out the factual position. yours faithfully, **==> picture [66 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 14. In the petitioner's reply to the memo he admits that enquiries were conducted with some other Sanskrit University instead of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi. It is further mentioned that the Administrative Office of the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya is at Delhi and an enquiry at Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Post Box No. 9424 Pin 110051 would reveal the factual position. W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -11- 15. There is no explanation as to why the administrative office of the University at Varanasi is situated at Delhi and why there is no postal address for the University at Varanasi. In the letter dated 12.03.1994 of the Assistant Secretary (Exam) of Sampoornanand Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya, which has been produced by the Corporation, it was categorically stated that the certificate is forged one and has not been issued from that University and business of fictitious Degree is being transacted in the name of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya with regard to which communication has already been published and communicated by the Government of India and the University Grants Commission many times **.** It has also been categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the University Grants Commission, New Delhi has also informed that the said University is a fake University. 16. The petitioner in support of his claim has also relied on a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P No. 14357 of 1990 **Raj Bala v. State of Haryana & Others** . The Punjab and Haryana High Court was considering the question as to whether matriculation examination from Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi could be treated equivalent to the W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -12High School examination/Matric or not by authorities of the Haryana Health Department. Relying on an order of the Haryana Government dated 9.08.1974, it was held that Poorva Madhyama was recognized as equivalent to High School examination for the purpose of employment. In the said case there was no issue regarding genuineness of the certificate which was claimed by the petitioner nor the said question was gone into or answered. The said judgment cannot help the petitioner in the present case. In the letter issued by the Calicut University which has been relied on by the petitioner, it is only stated that Poorva Madhyama Examination of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi is equivalent to the matriculation. There is no issue of equivalence of examination in the present case. The Corporation has not rejected the certificate on the ground that it is not equivalent to matriculation. Rather the very genuineness and competence of the certificate has been questioned. The letter issued by the Calicut University also cannot be held to be as a relevant material to prove the genuineness of the certificate. 17. From the materials on record as noted above we are of the considered opinion that there was sufficient material on the record for the Corporation to have formed an opinion that Ext.P2 W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -13- certificate produced by the petitioner was not a genuine one. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit over a decision of an administrative authority as an appellate authority. Decision of an administrative authority can be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction only when the said decision is based on no material or is perverse. Sufficiency of the material cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The extent of judicial review of an administrative decision has been examined and explained by the Apex Court in several judgments. It is useful to refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in this context reported in **State of Maharashtra & Others v. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar** (2004) 6 SCC 584. The relevant portion of which as it appeared in paragraph '7' is extracted below: “The High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in judgment over the decision of the State Government like an appellate authority. Ordinarily, the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot enter into reappreciation of evidence and reverse the findings arrived at by the State Government unless they be perverse or be such as no reasonable man acting reasonably could have arrived at.” 18. We are thus of the clear view that the learned Single W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -14- Judge ought not to have proceeded with re-appraisal of the materials which were relied on by the Corporation for coming to the conclusion that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was not a genuine one. The decision of the Corporation was based on the relevant materials which decision could not have been interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 19. There is one more reason due to which the decision of the Corporation cannot be faulted. The petitioner in the O.P was claiming issuance of certificate by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi dated 25.3.1989. The said University is a State University of State of Uttar Pradesh which came into existence by a State enactment namely Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1956. Apart from Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya there were several other Universities functioning in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State Legislation amended and consolidated the law relating to certain Universities by an enactment namely the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (President's Act 10 of 1973), Section 1 of the Act is relevant which is extracted below: ## “ **1. Short title, commencement and application** :- - (1) This Act may be called the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -15- (2) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed in relation to different existing Universities and references to commencement of this Act in relation to an existing University shall be construed as the date on which this Act comes into force in relation thereto. (3) In its application to the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya (which after the coming into force of this Act in relation to that University shall be called the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya), the State Government may, from time to time by notification in the Gazette, make such exceptions or modifications not affecting the substance, in the provisions of this Act, as the circumstances may require. (4) (a) In its application to the Kashi Vidyapith after it is established as a University under sub-section (2) of section 4, the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, make such exceptions or modifications not affecting the substance, in the provisions of this Act, as the circumstances may require. (b)[***]” 20. Section 1 sub section (3) as quoted above specifically provided that the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya shall be called the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya after the Act came into force. The Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 was enforced in the State of Uttar Pradesh with effect from 16.12.1974. The existence of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi came to an end after enforcement of W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -16- the Act and was statutorily known as Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya. 21. The enactment under which Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya was constituted was repealed by Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973. Section 74 sub section (1) of the Act is relevant which is extracted below: “ **74. Repeal of certain enactments** :- (1) The following enactments are hereby repealed, with effect from the respective dates on which this Act is brought into force in relation to the existing University concerned, namely _ - (a) the Lucknow University Act, 1920; - (b) the Allahabad University Act, 1921; - (c) the Agra University Act, 1926; - (d) the Gorakhpur University Act, 1956; - (e) the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1956; and - (f) the Kanpur and Meerut Universities Act, 1965.” The above statutory provisions clearly indicate that existence of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya came to an end with effect from 16.12.1974 and the said University is known thereafter as Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya. When the very existence of the University of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya has come to an end after 16.12.1974, there was no occasion to issue any certificate or grant any degree by the W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -17said University. The letter dated 12.3.1994 issued by Assistant Secretary (Exam), Sampurnanand Sanskrit University which has been filed as Ext.R1(c) along with the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation, becomes very relevant. Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, which is the University continuing after 16.12.1974, had categorically stated that certificate of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya (Ext.P2) claimed by the petitioner is a forged document. Nothing more was required to be enquired after verification by letter dated 12.3.1994 of Ext.P2 certificate. 22. The Certificate obtained from the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya had been produced in different States by the candidates obtaining such certificates. The Rajasthan High Court, Gujarat High Court and some other High Courts had occasion to consider the validity of the said certificates. It is useful to refer to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court reported in **Dinesh** **v. State of Rajasthan** (AIR 1993 Raj. 187). The petitioner in that case alleged that he has passed Uttar Madhyama (Intermediate) Examination, 1990 from the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya. Applications were invited by the State Government for Radiographers Training Course and one of the eligibility condition was that, candidate should have passed first W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -18- year of the Three years Degree Course or 10 + 2 Science (Chemistry, Physics and Biology). The respondents pleaded in the writ petition that, there is no institution bearing the name of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya recognized by the State Government or Rajasthan University and the said University has neither been established by a Central or State Act and qualifications cannot be recognized. 23. After considering the rival submissions, the Rajasthan High Court laid down that the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya is a fake and bogus institution and no legal force can be accorded to the certificate filed. Following observations are made in paragraph '4' of the judgment. “.....I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival contentions. As per this Court's order dated 04.02.92 rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 379/91, it is no more res integra that after due enquiry, it has been held that the so called Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi is neither a University established by any Central or State Govt. Act nor a deemed University under S. 3 of the U.G.C. Act, 1956 and as such this self styled University is not at all empowered to award any degree/diploma in terms of the provisions contained in S. 22 of the said Act. As a matter of fact, after the renaming of Varanaseya ## W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -19- Sanskrit Vishwa-vidyalaya, Varanasi in the year 1974, there does not exist any legal and official University under the name and style of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varasansi. Therefore, the marksheets Annex. 1 issued by the so-called self styled Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, which is a fake and bogus Institution, have no legal force and these cannot be regarded/recognised either equivalent to First Year TDC or 10 + 2 Science (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) Examination by the State Government or by the Rajasthan/Jodhpur University. The marksheets Annex. 1, therefore, have been issued by a fake and bogus Institution and the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioners did not possess even the minimum educational qualifications required for the Radiographers Training course.” 24. An appeal was filed against the above judgment before a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court by the petitioner. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court by judgment dated 25.08.1994 in **Dinesh V. State of Rajasthan** LAWS(RAJ)1994-8-43/1994 TLRAJ 243 affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench held that Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya is not a recognized institution. Following observation was made in paragraph '4' of the said judgment. ## W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -20- “4. The legal position that Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya, Varanasi is a fake and bogus institution and this self styled University is not at all empowered to award any degree/diploma since it is neither a University established by any Central or State Act nor a deemed University, has not been controverted by Mr. Singhvi. The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is once the respondents gave the appellants admission and, thereafter, they successfully prosecuted study under the orders of this Court whether they were entitled to get the diploma/certificate of the Course or not. .....” 25. The Apex Court had also occasion to consider about the Degree obtained from the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya in the year 1989. The Apex Court in **Rajpal v. State of Haryana** ( _2001 (10) JT 519_ ) has noted that the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya is not a University established by law. It is useful to quote paragraph '1' of the said judgment. “1. The appellant before us was appointed as a canal patwari in the year 1995 and thereafter he sought for regular appointment by applying to the Service Selection Board. That application was rejected. He filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the action of the Board. ## W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -21- It was disclosed that the appellant had passed matriculation examination conducted by the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya in the year 1989. It was found later on that the said Vishwavidyalaya is not a university established by law in India nor it has been declared to be a deemed university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and he was found to possess certain qualifications which could not be taken note of and, therefore, the action of the Board was upheld by the High Court in considering his case. Hence, this appeal.” 26. When the very existence of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya had come to an end by the enactment of Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973, any certificate or degree issued thereafter in the name of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya was obviously fictitious and had to be discarded. 27. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that no fault can be found with the decision of the Corporation disbelieving Ext.P2 certificate dated 25.3.1989 produced by the petitioner, claimed as a certificate from the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya. The learned Single Judge committed error in setting aside the decision of the Corporation and directing for promotion of the petitioner from the date from which his juniors W.A. Nos.1074 &1357/2010 -22- were promoted. The judgment of the learned Single Judge thus is unsustainable and hence is set aside. In the result W.A No. 1074 of 2010 is allowed dismissing O.P. No. 27979 of 2002. W.A No. 1357 of 2010 is consequentially dismissed. **ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.** **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.** kp/-