Rahul Bharti, J
1. A battle for engagement as Rehbar-e-Taleem (“ReT” in short), a post bearing equivalence to „teacher” between the appellant- Sheeraza Akhter and the respondent no. 1-Nahida Shaheen, is so stake involving that it is literally a fight to finish having started in the year 2011. The duel had started when the respondent no. 1”s engagement was questioned by the appellant in her writ petition which led to disengagement of the respondent no. 1, after having served for more than one year then resulting in the purported engagement of the appellant which then came to be challenged by the respondent no.1 in her writ petition in which the learned Single Bench has come to upset the appellant”s engagement with a corresponding direction for restoration of the respondent no.1”s lost engagement. Now, the final battle round is in the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before us bearing pendency lasting more than seven years.
2. Vehement submissions from the contesting parties have been made to add further to the seriousness of the grubstake. Detailing of facts is, therefore, required to be at our end done before we come to examine the soundness of the impugned judgement on the challenge to it from the appellant”s end.
3. In an upgraded Government Primary School Ganiepora to status of Middle School in the Ward no. 5 of village Ganiepora, falling in Education Zone Dooru in District Anantnag, Kashmir, there were two posts of teachers on Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) pattern for which a selection process had come to take place by issuance of an advertisement notice no. ZEO/D/896-A/09 dated 02.03.2009 by the respondent no. 4-Zonal Education Officer, Dooru Shahabad.
4. Vide this advertisement, the applications were invited from the prospective candidates having 10+2 qualification and above with Math and Science background. The applicants were to be of the residents of revenue village/wards of Town Area bearing the location of four upgraded Primary Schools as mentioned in the said advertisement one of them being Primary School Ganiepora.
5. It is an admitted position of the fact that the engagement was meant for ReTs and that is why the requirement of an applicant to be resident/inhabitant of village concerned came to be prescribed.
6. Insofar as, the engagement of ReT is concerned, the same was sourced to a government set up scheme known as Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme brought into shape and operation vide a Government Order no. 396/Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 which at present has come to an end with effect from 2018.. The operational aspect of the scheme, which has a bearing on the matter in issue, shall be adverted to at the pertinent point of reference in this judgement.
7. To this advertisement, both the appellant and the respondent no. 1, being the residents of village Ganiepora and possessing the eligibility qualification, had responded by applying for engagement as ReT.
8. The respondent no. 1 is 10+2 with Science subjects and also a Science graduate. The respondent no. 1 claims to be Masters in Environmental Science (Disaster Mitigation Course) from the Sikkim Manipal University of Health, Medical & Technology Sciences in 2003.
9. The appellant is also 10+2 with Science subjects and also a Science graduate. The appellant claims to be a post-graduate as M. Sc. Zoology from the VMRF Deemed University Salem, Tamil Nadu.
10. The selection process resulted in recommendation of the respondent no. 1 for engagement as ReT as her merit position in the selection list was at serial number 3 whereas that of the appellant at serial number 6. Select list was forwarded by the respondent no. 4 – Zonal Education Officer (ZEO), Dooru to the Chief Education Officer (CEO), Anantnag.
11. Consequently, the respondent no. 1 came to join her engagement on 10.10.2011 in the Middle School Ganiepora, Ward no. 5, Dooru, Anantnag.
12. The appellant came to challenge the said engagement of the respondent no. 1 as ReT by filing a writ petition SWP no. 2266/2011 before the Single Bench of this Court claiming a better claim in terms of her academic profile as against the petitioner by reference to her post-graduation status as being M. Sc. Zoology.
13. This writ petition was disposed of without undertaking an adjudication of the matter on merits but with a course of direction to the Director School Education, Kashmir for obtaining clarification from the Kashmir University with respect to legal status of the said post-graduation degree M. Sc. Zoology of the appellant and thereupon to reassess the comparative merit to find the better merit bearing candidate out of the appellant and the respondent no.1.
14. The writ Court had disposed of the writ petition SWP no. 2266/2011 of the appellant vide a judgement dated 10.07.2012 bearing the direction as referred above and subjecting the respondent no. 1”s engagement to the clarification with respect to the appellant”s degree status to be so sought by the Director School Education, Kashmir from the University of Kashmir.
15. The learned Single Bench, in coming forward with disposal of the appellant”s writ SWP no. 2266/2011 vide its said judgement dated 10.07.2012, had proceeded to act upon an admitted fact that the assessment of the respective merit of the appellant and the respondent no. 1 was made by the selection authority by reckoning graduation level qualification and not beyond it.
16. Thus, by evaluation of 10+2 and graduation level comparative merit, the respondent no. 1 was found better in merit than the appellant and, was thus, selected and engaged. To this aspect of merit assessment, the appellant had no claim to say that she was better than the respondent no. 1 whereas, on the contrary, the appellant”s take was that it is by post-graduation qualification reference and reckoning that she would have an edge in merit to be selected and engaged.
17. The reason for the selection authority to restrict the evaluation of merit of the appellant and the respondent no. 1 by reference to their respective graduation level was occasioned by the fact that the Kashmir University had apprised the selection authority that the purported respective post-graduation degrees of the appellant and the respondent no. 1 were not being recognized by it (Kashmir University) because of mode of pursuit of such degree courses in Science stream.
18. Thus, to be on the prudence and safer side, the selection authority had chosen to exclude the post-graduation degrees of the appellant and the respondent no. 1 from the reckoning and had, thus, opted in falling back upon graduation level merit. It is important to bear in perspective that the Kashmir University”s input that it did not recognize the post-graduation degree of the appellant and also of the respondent no.1 was not questioned by the appellant in her writ petition SWP no. 2266/2011 as is discernible from the text and context of the learned Single Bench order dated 10.07.2012.
19. By a purported reference to acting upon the directions issued by the learned Single Bench in its said judgement dated 10.07.2012 and consequent purported clarification gathered with respect to status of the post-graduation degree of the appellant, the Director School Education, Kashmir came to pass an order no. 1070-DSEK of 2013 dated 10.04.2013 thereby withdrawing the selection/engagement of the respondent no. 1 as ReT and in place ordering the appellant to be selected and engaged as ReT Science in the Upper Primary School, Ganiepora.
20. Thus, after having put in more than one and half year of service reckoning from 10.10.2011, the respondent no. 1 felt aggrieved of her expulsion from the job and consequent entry of the appellant leading the respondent no. 1, in turn, to file a writ petition OWP no. 575/2013.
21. This writ petition was instituted on 16.04.2013 whereas on next date i.e. 17.04.2013 the Zonal Education Officer, ZEO, Dooru purportedly came to act upon the order of the Director School Education, Kashmir by passing an order no. ZEO/O/347-49/130 dated 17.04.2013 by repeating the very same operative part of the Director School Education, Kashmir”s Order no. 1070/DSER/2013 dated 10.04.2013.
22. In her writ petition OWP no. 575/2013, the respondent no. 1 assailed the Director Education Kashmir”s Order no. 1070/DSEK/2013 dated 10.04.2013 read with the feeding Communication dated 30.01.2013 of the Assistant Registrar, Academics of the Kashmir University to the Deputy Director (P&S), Directorate of School Education, Kashmir.
23. Thus, as the purported disengagement of the respondent no. 1 came up with hangover of the directions of the learned Single Bench in its judgement dated 10.07.2012 passed in the appellant”s writ petition SWP no. 2266/2011, so the examination of the impugned disengagement of the respondent no. 1 has to necessarily co-relate with the purport and scope of the directions so passed in the judgement dated 10.07.2012 to which we would be adverting to herein next.
24. The purported course of clarification seeking and sharing in furtherance to the directions given by the learned Single Bench in its judgement dated 10.07.2012, at the end of the Director School Education, Kashmir and the University of Kashmir which came to turn the tables against the respondent no. 1 from being engaged as ReT to get disengaged, needs to be taken note of as that became the sheet anchor of the appellant”s reply to the respondent no. 1”s writ petition and also forming the basis upon which the appellant is now seeking to maintain her challenge to the impugned Single Bench judgement.
25. As the appellant and the respondent no.1 had cited their post-graduation degrees in her credentials, so in that context the selection authority concerned, had, in its own discretion, solicited the expert indulgence of the Kashmir University which had come up with two inputs in the form of communications dated 01.02.2011 and 13. 08.2011 from the Assistant Registrar Academics, Kashmir University in which the learned Single Bench, while hearing the appellant”s writ petition SWP no. 2266/2011, had found some inconsistency and contradiction with respect to the appellant”s degree. So, before we proceed to refer to the clarification exercise so undertaken, we need to retrieve the text and context of the direction as given in its judgement dated 10.07.2012 in SWP no. 2266/2011 by the learned Single Bench.
26. In this regard, the relevant paragraphs of the judgement dated 10.07.2012 are reproduced herein as under:-
“The communication dated 1st February, 2011 of the Assistant Registrar Academic, Kashmir University and another communication dated 13th August 2011 of the same authority, instead of clearing the position has made it more doubtful. In the communication dated 1st February 2011, authority have stated that M. Sc. Zoology and Disaster Management Degrees through Universities viz. Vinayaka Missions University and Sikkim Manipal University have not been recognized as equivalent to the corresponding degrees of Kashmir University, whereas, in the 2nd communication, it is stated that these degree are not being recognized because of the mode of pursuit of such degrees in Science stream. The contradiction has thus cropped up in the stand taken by the University Authorities.
In order to meet out justice to the parties, it would be appropriate to direct respondent no. 2 to seek clarification from the authorities of Kashmir University and thereafter take final call in the matter. The selection and engagement of private respondent in the fact and circumstances of this case shall have to abide by further decision to be taken by respondent no. 2 after receiving clarification from the authorities of Kashmir University.”
27. A perusal of the documents on record of this case lead us to find that there are no such communications dated 01.02.2011 and 13. 08.2011. We don”t find for our perusal sake said two referred documents on record of the writ petition OWP no. 575/2013 and rather there are two communications of 2011 which are from the end of the University of Kashmir hinting likewise. One communication is no. F(Recognition-Equivalence)Acad/KU/11 dated 12.02.2011 from the Deputy Registrar Academics, Kashmir University to the Principal, Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, Verinag in response to a letter no. GHSSV/E/10/2011 dated 20.01.2011 pertaining to status of Vinayka Missions University, Tamil Nadu in which the Deputy Registrar Academic, Kashmir University is stating about the position that Vinayaka Missions University, Tamil Nadu is recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) but the degrees awarded through distance mode have not been recognized. The second communication no. F(Equiv-Recognition)Acad/KU/11 dated 23.04.2011 from the Assistant Registrar Academic, Kashmir University to the Deputy Director (P&S), Directorate of School Education, Kashmir is acknowledging the fact that Sikkim Manipal University of Health Medical & Technology Science and the Vinayaka Missions University, Tamil Nadu are acknowledged by the University Grants Commission (UGC) but the Kashmir University is not offering M. Sc. Course in Disaster Management.
28. In the judgement dated 10.07.2012 in the appellant”s writ petition SWP no. 2266/2011, the Single Bench has referred that the claim of the appellant is that she has been awarded post-graduation degree as a regular student and has not obtained the same through distance mode. In the face of this claim and assertion of the appellant, as a writ petitioner in the matter, the Single Bench was led to a thought process that if a candidate, as the appellant was, has a regular post-graduate degree earned from a recognized University in India then to exclude a given degree from being recognized by a selection authority is to delegitimize a legally recognized educational institution, and with that perspective the directions came to be given in the judgement. There is no other way to read and understand the intent and import of said judgement dated 10.07.2012 than what we have referred to.
29. Now, the situation obtaining at the time of issuance of advertisement in the present case was that the two Universities in the then State of Jammu & Kashmir, i.e. the University of Jammu and the University of Kashmir, were not recognizing the distance mode degrees in the Science subjects as per their respective decision being in accordance with DEC UGC Guidelines and a judgment of the Hon”ble\ Supreme Court of India. With respect to Deemed Universities” awarded campus mode degree/s issued prior to de-recognition, the matter was to be determined by the Jammu & Kashmir Universities respectively. This position is gatherable from Govt. of J&K Order O.M. no. HE/LEGAL/2010 dated 30.03.2010.
30. The moot point at all relevant points of time and even now was and is whether the Selection Body was wrong in evaluating merit by graduation level academic assessment of the appellant and the respondent no.1 to the exclusion of the purported post graduation status of the two. Second moot point was about the purported status of the M. Sc. Zoology degree of the appellant as to whether by regular or distance mode and how the appellant had introduced and identified the nature of her said M. Sc. Zoology degree.
31. At the time of selection process, the appellant had not come up with production of her M. Sc. Zoology degree because the appellant”s M. Sc. degree, now on record of the present case, is dated 07.07.2010 whereas the selection advertisement is dated 02.03.2009. Thus, what was possessed at the time of selection process by the appellant in support of her claim as being M. Sc. in Zoology was her marks certificates dated 26.04.2007 & 10.12.2007 of the VMRF Deemed University, Salem Tamil Nadu, India and a Certificate no. VMU/BON/054 dated 26.02.2008 of the Vinayaka Missions University Salem.
32. From said three documents what was fetchable for the selection authority with respect to the appellant”s academic credentials is that her marks certificate showed her to be a student of M. Sc. Zoology in VMRF Deemed University, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India in 2006-07 whereas from the Certificate no. VMU/BON/054 dated 26.02.2009 she was said to be a bonafide student of M. Sc. Zoology with Registration no. A533300026 having completed the course in July, 2007. This certification is on the letter head of Vinayaka Missions University and the issuing authority being Additional Controller of Examination. From very set of said two documents i.e. marks certificate on one hand and the certificate on the other hand, projection is that there is a VMRF Deemed University as per marks certificate and Vinayaka Missions University as per the certificate.
33. The appellant, from her end, had not lent any clarification about true nature of her M. Sc. Degree in Zoology and the actual status of the VMRF University and the Vinayaka Missions University, which was obviously not meant for the selection authority to figure out as to who”s who.
34. It is this aspect of the matter in which the selection authority had referred for final opinion of the University of Kashmir, which, in turn, had come up with a position that the degrees possessed by the appellant and the respondent no. 1 were not recognized as equivalent to corresponding degree of the Kashmir University and that position was right in every aspect being in alignment with the Govt. of J&K, Higher Education Department O.M no. HE/Legal/2010 dated 30. 03.2010, Circular no. F(Classification-Equi/Recog)Acad/KU/10 dated May 17, 2010 of the University of Kashmir.
35. The very fact that at the time of issuance of selection advertisement on 02.03.2009 the appellant was having only marks sheet and the certificate dated 26.02.2009 but was not having the degree issued cannot be disputed by the appellant because her post-graduation degree is dated 07.07.2010. It is from this degree so possessed by the appellant that it bears out that the Vinayaka Missions University claimed itself to be formerly a Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation (VMRF) Deemed University.
36. Now, with reference to the Vinayaka Missions University, it can be safely said from the record that it was in existence by its very said name i.e. Vinayaka Missions University in 2006 as is born out from the Indira Gandhi National Open University”s (IGNOU) letter no. DEC/VMRF/07/2557 dated 28.02.2007 addressed to the Registrar of Vinayaka Missions University in response to its letter no. VMRF/SEC/FDE/2006 dated 30.11.2006 regarding approval of programmes offered through distance mode by faculty of Distance Education, Vinayaka Missions University. If the Vinayaka Missions University was in existence in 2006, then what was the corresponding identity of the Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation (VMRF) Deemed University in 2006 when the appellant had availed admission for her M. Sc. Zoology is a puzzle in which the selection authority, which was supposed to make selection of ReT, was neither meant nor expertised to examine the same and as such was never under any demand of legal obligation to recognize said academic credentials of the appellant vis-à-vis Vinayaka Missions University or Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation (VMRF).
37. If the Vinayaka Mission University was formerly Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation (VMRF) Deemed University, as is mentioned in the appellant”s degree dated 07.07.2010, then the Vinayaka Missions University was there in 2006 as well by its own claim but then the marks sheets of the appellant issued in April – December, 2007 were still in the name of Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation (VMRF) Deemed University and the certification by the Vinayaka Missions University while there could not be two entities existing simultaneously if the Vinayaka Missions University was formerly the Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation (VMRF) Deemed University.
38. We are of the view that these aspects were missed out by the learned Single Bench while came to deal with SWP no. 575/2013 of the appellant which ended with a direction to the Director School Education, Kashmir to seek clarification from the Kashmir University authorities and then take a final call.
39. Now, in so far as Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation (VMRF) Deemed University, Salem”s status is concerned, we find that vide University Grants Commission”s (UGC”s) notification no F.9-19/93-U.3 dated 01.03.2001, Vinayaka Missions Research Foundation was declared to be a deemed university. This informative fact is gatherable from a communication dated 09.03.2012 from the Under Secretary, University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi to the appellant in response to her letter dated 09.03.2012. In this communication, the UGC is meaning to convey that a deemed to be University can run courses through its Ministry of MHRD & UGC approved campuses in regular mode in UGC approved subjects with prior approval of statutory bodies/councils wherever required and that the details about the UGC/MHRD approved campuses are available on the UGC Website. This communication confirmed a fact that Vinayaka Mission”s Research Foundation (VMRF) could award M. Sc. (Zoology) degree in regular mode in UGC/MHRD approved campuses of the deemed to be University.
40. Now, if the Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation (VMRF) Salem, in itself, was a deemed to be University with effect from 1. 03.2001, then when it came to be merged or renamed to be the Vinayaka Missions University is not at all fathomable more particularly when the Vinayaka Missions University on its own was also there in very much existence in 2006 when it was seeking from the Indira Gandhi National Open University(IGNOU) an approval for programmes to be offered through distance mode by the Faculty of Distance Education.
41. Thus, while the marks certificates of the appellant were of VMRF Deemed University but the certificate and the degree were issued by the Vinayaka Missions University, there is found nothing on record to figure out any correlation of the Vinayaka Mission Research Foundation (VMRF) deemed to be University and the Vinayaka Missions University both seemed to be existing simultaneously and that can be said from the fact that the appellant”s marks certificates are from VMRF while her certificate and the degree from Vinayaka Missions University.
42. If the appellant had undergone M. Sc. Zoology from VMRF, then from which MHRD/UGC approved campus she had undergone course study as M. Sc. Zoology regular student is not revealed to be known and in case if her M. Sc. Zoology degree is from the Vinayaka Missions University then said University had said course only through distance mode and therefore the fact as to whether the M. Sc. Zoology degree of the appellant a distance mode awarded degree was also not clarified by the appellant at requisite point of time.
43. We find the appellant herself adding to this maze as in one take, particularly in her writ petition SWP no. 2266/2011, claiming herself to M. Sc. Zoology as a regular student and not through distance mode, then in the present matter in her reply-cum-objections to the respondent no. 1”s writ petition SWP no. 575/2013 the appellant again claiming herself to be M. Sc. Zoology as a regular student but when it comes to the present case scenario in the memo of appeal filed by the appellant to assail the impugned judgement in the letters patent appeal there is a clear and categoric admission in para 2(b) which is reproduced herein next to self state its purport:-
“The appellant had obtained the M. Sc. Degree through distance education mode from VMRF University from its headquarter.”
44. When it has taxed not only the learned Single Bench but us also to decipher as to the actual status of the appellant”s M. Sc. Zoology degree either being a regular one or through distance mode, how come it could be expected from the selection authority concerned to have solved the puzzle for the matter of evaluation of merit of the appellant on the basis of her purported claim of post-graduate M. Sc. in Zoology to hold her having better merit than the merit of the respondent no.1 by post-graduation comparison. In this scenario, the selection authority was well within its right and discretion to refer to the graduation level comparative merit of the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 and carry out its administrative duty to select better merit placed respondent no. 1 to be ReT.
45. It is relevant to mention here that the selection authority which was meant to carry out the engagement of ReTs was not supposed to be bearing the mould of Public Service Commission, Service Selection Board or for that matter equivalent to said two selection bodies. The very object of Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT), introduced vide Govt. Order no. 396/Edu of 2000 dated 28.04.2000 was to operationalize effectively the schooling system at the grass root level of the then militancy hit State of J&K and in order to tap available educated youth of the very village and its vicinity having a Govt. School suffering lack of staff and support, the concept of availing services of Teaching Guides was conceived and created so that local community gets involved in running elementary level education in the government school established in the village.
46. Now to expect a selection body/authority of Zonal & District Level administrative officials of the Education Department to solve the puzzle of post-graduate degrees validations in connection with selection of a ReT is too much a task to be workable except at the cost of frustrating the very scheme of Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT). That is why in the present case, the selection authority concerned had resorted to common denominator of graduation level merit of the appellant and the respondent no. 1 which was not in any issue in terms of validity of graduation degree.
47. We are surprised that till filing of letters patent appeal, the appellant, right from her writ petition SWP no. 2266/2011 to submission of her reply-cum-objections to the respondent no. 1”s writ petition SWP no. 575/2013, always meant to insist her M. Sc. Zoology degree being a regular one without hinting any distance mode course bearing.
48. Be that as it may be, the question is that what the Director School Education, Kashmir was supposed to seek from and what the University of Kashmir authorities were supposed to clarify to the Director School Education, Kashmir in the backdrop of the appellant”s purported credentials of apparent confusion in the context of her claim of being M.Sc. Zoology.
49. The respondent no. 1 had pleaded in her writ that the appellant while on one hand claimed to have done her M. Sc. Zoology in July, 2007 from Vinayaka Missions University as a regular student and on the other hand the appellant had obtained the M. Sc. Zoology degree under Distance Mode Education which could not be a regular mode M. Sc. Degree.
50. The respondent no.1 had pleaded that even if the M. Sc. Degree (Zoology) of the appellant was held to be genuine but still that being obtained under Distance Mode and method, the same was not recognizable and was also having no equivalence status as per Kashmir University”s position in terms of its circular.
51. The appellant pleaded in her reply and claimed that she was awarded post-degree in M. Sc. Zoology as a regular student and that she has not attained it through distance mode but without disclosing how. The appellant submitted that VMRF, Salem, Tamil Nadu was authorized to award M. Sc. Zoology degrees in regular mode in UGC/MHRD approved campus but from which UGC/MHRD approved campus not divulged. This is what the Director School Education Kashmir and the Kashmir University were actually supposed to figure out but came up only with clerical level information to reverse the engagement of the respondent no. 1 and facilitate the entry of the appellant for the post.
52. The appellant had taken the liberty to misquote the Court directions in the order dated 10.07.2012 in her reply in para 7. The appellant has pleaded that she had pursued the course through Srinagar centre as reflected in Marks Certificate but how could that be when no such centre was set up in the then State of J&K.
53. There was no scope for any doubt and debate that at the time of selection process in 2009, the position of the State of J&K (now UT of J&K) was that the degrees, obtained through distance mode, appeared by the Distance Education Council and awarded from their headquarters by the UGC recognized Universities established by an Act of State Legislature were not recognized for the purpose of employment, the degrees awarded through distance mode by the Central Universities established under the Act of Parliament and having jurisdiction to extend their activities in the entire country also not recognized, the distance mode education awarded degrees from off campuses established by the State Universities beyond their territorial jurisdiction also not recognized. It is only vide Govt. Order no. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 that all above referred degrees came to be allowed to be recognized. Thus there was nothing wrong at the end of the selection authorities and also at the end of the Kashmir University in acting and taking a stand point that the distance mode education degrees were not recognizable. Now when in her memo of appeal, the appellant has herself come in claiming that her M. Sc. Zoology degree as a distance mode education course then it simply means that prior to the coming into picture of the Govt. Order no. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012 the very said degree of the appellant was not recognizable.
54. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case aforestated when we examine the judgement dated 31.08.2015 read with order dated 29.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge resulting in allowing the writ petition SWP no. 575/2013 of the respondent no. 1, now under challenge before us, we find ourselves fully convinced that the learned Single Judge has not erred, be it on facts or law, to approve the case of the respondent no. 1 and salvage her original selection and engagement as ReT. We are constrained to observe that the appellant is a person who got into case building by a state of facts which was not in sight, be it at the time of selection exercise which had resulted in selection of the respondent no. 1 or even at the time of filing of her writ petition SWP no. 2266/2011, but it is only after disposal of her writ petition as SWP no. 2266/2011 by virtue of order dated 10.07.2012 that the appellant started to confuse the facts to somehow get her M. Sc. Zoology degree reckoned to earn her an edge over the respondent no. 1 and that is the reason that an unwarranted confusion kept on intruding into the arena of the case which ultimately resulted in exposing the petitioner to a state of self contradiction starting from her alleged claim that she was M. Sc. Zoology through regular mode to claim that she had obtained M. Sc. Zoology degree through distance mode from VMRF Deemed University Salem from its headquarter.
55. In the light of this we find that the judgment of the learned Single Bench does not deserve any interference whatsoever and consequently the Letters Patent Appeal of the appellant warrants dismissal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
