Madras High Court
E. Tamilmani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 17 April, 2008
Author: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17-4-2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.37192 of 2007 M.P.Nos.2 of 2007 & 1 of 2008 1. E. Tamilmani 2. Dr.P.Viswanathan 3. R. Gunasekaran 4. Dr.K.Pazhanisamy ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maaligai, 4th Floor, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006. 3. The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai - 600 006. 4. National Council for Teacher Education, rep.by its Regional Director, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore - 560 031. 5. T. Ravichandran, 6. Kannika Parameswari 7. S. Akila ... Respondents (RR-4 to 7 impleaded as per order of the Court dated 5.2.2008 in MP No.2 of 2008) Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the list of cancellation of provisionally selected candidates dated 7.12.2007 published on 11.12.2007 and the revised list of provisionally selected candidates published on 11.12.2007 and quash the same insofar as inclusion of the petitioners in the cancellation list are concerned and exclusion of their names in the revised list of provisionally selected candidates published on 11.12.2007 is concerned, and consequently direct the second and third respondents to select and appoint the petitioners to the post of Lecturers for Government Arts & Science Colleges and Colleges of Education in accordance with the list of candidates provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Lecturers for Government Arts & Science colleges and Colleges of Education dated 19.11.2007. For Petitioners : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Uma For Respondents 1to3: Mr.G.Sankaran, Special Govt. Pleader For 4th Respondent : Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy For 5th Respondent : No appearance For Respondents 6&7 : Mr.R.N.Amarnath O R D E R
By consent of all parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the list of cancellation of provisionally selected candidates dated 7.12.2007 published on 11.12.2007 and the revised list of provisionally selected candidates published on 11.12.2007 and quash the same insofar as inclusion of the petitioners in the cancellation list are concerned and exclusion of their names in the revised list of provisionally selected candidates published on 11.12.2007 is concerned, and consequently direct the second and third respondents to select and appoint the petitioners to the post of Lecturers for Government Arts & Science Colleges and Colleges of Education in accordance with the list of candidates provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Lecturers for Government Arts & Science colleges and Colleges of Education dated 19.11.2007.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they are Post Graduate Degree Holders having more than 55% of marks in post graduate degree and also completed M.Phil/Ph.D. The second respondent, through advertisement No.4/06-07, issued in leading newspapers on 18.9.2006 notified vacancies for the post of Lecturers for Government Arts and Science Colleges and College of Education in 35 subjects. The number of vacancies notified was 1,000. According to the prospectus issued for the said selection, qualification prescribed under clause 5 are as follows:
a. All candidates other than SC/ST:
Candidates with I. Postgraduate degree in the subject with minimum 55% marks and II. A pass in the UGC/CSIR/JRF/NET Lectureship test or State Level Education Testing (SLET). OR Candidates with I. Postgraduate degree in the subject with minimum 55% marks and II. M.Phil or Ph.D degree or both, are eligible to apply. b. For SC/ST candidates: Candidates with III. Postgraduate degree in the subject with minimum 50% marks and IV. A pass in the UGC/CSIR/JRF/NET Lectureship test or State Level Educational Testing (SLET), OR Candidates with III. Postgraduate degree in the subject with minimum 50% marks and IV. M.Phil or Ph.D degree or both, are eligible to apply.
The scheme of selection was also notified under Clause 11. Petitioners submitted application in the prescribed forms before the last date and applied for the following posts: SlNo Name Roll Number Subject Qualification Teach
-ing Experi-ence
1.
E. Tamilmani F25120001 Education Maths M.Sc(Maths), M.Phil(Maths), M.Ed Education, PGDCA, (M.Phil Education - Result awaiting) 12 Years, 4 months
2. Dr.P.Viswanathan F26200002 Education Biological Science M.Sc.(Botany), M.Phil (Botany), Ph.D (Botany), M.Ed Education (M.Phil Education - Result Awaiting) 6 Years, 8 months
3. R.Gunasekaran F23220001 Tamil Education M.A. (Tamil), M.Ed(Education), M.Phil (Tamil), SLET(Tamil), Currently doing Ph.D (Tamil/Education) 7 Years
4. Dr.K.Pazhanisamy F26180002 Education Biological Science M.Sc Zoology), M.Phil(Zoology), Ph.D (Zoology), M.Ed.(Education).
4 Years According to the petitioners they are eligible to apply for the posts they have applied viz., Education (Maths), Education (Biological Science), Education (Tamil), since they satisfy the qualification prescribed in clause 5 of the prospectus stated above. Certificates of the petitioners were also verified. Marks were awarded for the experience qualification, etc., and they were provisionally selected as per the selection list published by the second respondent on 19.11.2007 under the following categories:
SlNo Name TE EQ BA Interview Total Communal Turn
1.
E. Tamilmani (Education Maths) 15 6 5 5 31 GT
2. Dr.P.Viswanathan (Education Biological Science) 14 9 5 5 33 BG
3. R. Gunasekaran (Education Tamil) 14 6 0 5 25 MG
4. Dr.K.Pazhanisamy (Education Biological Science) 7 9 0 4 20 SG However, on 11.12.2007 it was published in the website that the second respondent cancelled petitioners' provisional selection on 7.12.2007 along with 19 other persons on verification of their educational qualifications stating that the petitioners and other 19 candidates are not having the requisite qualifications. A revised list of provisionally selected candidates was published wherein candidates secured lesser marks than the petitioners are shown to be provisionally selected. According to the petitioners they were employed in private colleges and on the basis of their provisional selection they have intimated their respective private colleges that they are going to resign since they have been provisionally selected as Lecturers in the College of Education. Since the petitioners' provisional selection was cancelled by the second respondent, they have jointly filed the writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of selection and prayed for setting aside the cancellation order and for a direction to select and appoint the petitioners to the post of Lecturers for the Government College of Education in accordance with the list of candidates provisionally selected for appointment on 19.11.2007.
4. The main ground raised in the writ petition is that they are fully qualified to be appointed to the post of Lecturers in the College of Education as they satisfy clause 5 of the prospectus issued by the respondents viz., qualification and the petitioners having scored higher marks than the candidates now provisionally selected viz., respondents 5, 6, 7 and others, their selection cannot be cancelled and the same is violative of articles 14 and 16 of constitution of India and it is unreasonable. It is also the case of the petitioners that before cancelling the provisional selection no notice was issued to the petitioners and therefore principles of natural justice is violated.
5. The respondents 1 and 3 filed counter affidavit contending that as per G.O.Ms.No.111, 222 and 333 Higher Education, dated 24.3.1999, the minimum requirements for a Lecturer in the College of Education is that good academic record with 55% marks at the masters level, qualified in National Eligibility Test or accredited test. Relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of marks at the maters level for the SC/ST categories and a relaxation of 5% may be provided from 55% to 50% of marks to the Ph.D. degree holders, who have passed their masters degree prior to 19th September, 1991. The said qualifications prescribed were amended by the Government letter dated 15.9.2006 based on the letter received from the Joint Secretary, University Grants Commission dated 14.6.2006 by stating that NET or SLET or a accredited test shall remain, the compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturers for those with PG degree. However, the candidates having Ph.D degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET or SLET or accredited test for PG level and UG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil degree in the concerned subject are exempted from NET or SLET or accredited test for UG level teaching only. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that UGC regulation do not stipulate any qualification to the post of Lecturers in the College of Education as it comes under the administrative control of National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE), which is an autonomous body, formed by the Central Government under NCTE Act, 1993.
6. The qualification for the post of Lecturer in the College of Education as per the NCTE norms at the time of issuing notification was M.Ed/MA of education with 55% marks and B.Ed or masters degree in a school subject with minimum 50% marks and M.Ed/M.A. (Education) with 55% of marks and B.Ed. It is further stated that apart from the above qualification prescribed, the candidate shall have to qualify NET/SLET qualification or alternative qualification thereto as prescribed by the UGC from time to time, before the commencement of the academic session 2009-2010. It is further stated that there shall be relaxation in minimum percentage of marks for SC/ST/OBC and for other categories as per the rules of the Central/concerned state Government/UT Administration. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in respect of College of Education, the PG degree referred in the prospects denotes M.Ed degree only and not the other PG degree, which the candidates have acquired. When PG degree denotes M.Ed qualification alone for not passing SLET or NET, one should have passed M.Phil/Ph.D. in the subject of education alone and not in any other subject. Hence it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are not entitled to have exemption from possessing NET/SLET qualification and without noticing the said qualification petitioners were provisionally selected and on noticing the same and after due verification of petitioners qualification, they were found not eligible for selection and appointment as Lecturers in the College of Education.
7. The 4th respondent NCTE filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners having not possessed M.Phil/Ph.D. in education, they are bound to pass NET or SLET for being appointed as Lecturers in the College of Education.
8. The 6th respondent filed separate counter affidavit wherein also it is contended that the petitioners are not qualified for being selected and appointed as Lecturers in the College of education as they have not passed M.Phil/Ph.D. in Education and thereby they cannot be exempted from passing NET/SLET.
9. Respondents 5 to 7 have passed M.Phil qualification in education and they have been now selected by the second respondent after cancelling the petitioners' provisional selection and they underwent the training conducted for the newly recruited candidates from 26.12.2007 and because of the interim order passed in this writ petition, they are unable to join in their posts, which are already allotted by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.422 Higher Education department, dated 14.12.2007.
10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer in the College of Education cannot be treated as M.Phil/Ph.D in education since the notification issued by the second respondent contain the subjects viz., Education (Tamil), Education (English), Education (Maths), Education (Biological Science), Education (Physical Science), Education (History), Education (Geology), Education (Education), Education (Economics), Education (Economics), Education (Logic), Education (Computer Science) and Education (Home Science). The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the subject having been identified in education and particularly when applications are called for for the post of Education (Education), only a person must have M.Phil in Education or Ph.D. in Education and not in other special subjects and following the said categorisation of different subjects in education, the officials of the second respondent verified the qualification of the petitioners thrice and awarded marks and also made selection rightly based on their marks and the same is now cancelled without any reason on the technical interpretation that the petitioners are not having M.Phil in Education /Ph.D. in Education.
11. The learned counsel for the respective respondents reiterated their stand taken in the counter affidavits and submitted that the petitioners having not passed M.Phil/Ph.D. in education, which is the relevant subject for the colleges of education, they are bound to pass NET or SLET tests and they are not exempted from passing the said tests and therefore the cancellation of provisional selection of the petitioners are valid.
12. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
13. The point in issue is whether the petitioners are qualified for being appointed as Lecturers in the College of Education.
14. The petitioners are not having M.Phil in Education/Ph.D. in Education. The relevant subject as per Clause 5 in the prospectus for the colleges of education is whether education alone or other subjects viz., Maths, Biological Science, Tamil, English, etc, has to be ascertained for the real determination of the issue. Whether the petitioners are qualified for appointment as Lecturers in B.Ed Colleges alone is not the issue. The issue is, petitioner admittedly having not passed M.Phil/Ph.D in education whether they are exempted from passing NET/SLET as per the notification calling for applications.
15. The 4th respondent, which is the expert body viz., NCTE in the counter affidavit filed, has stated that the petitioners can be found to be qualified for the post of Lecturers in the College of Education, provided they passed eligibility test of NET/SLET and they having not passed the said eligibility test and they having not possessed of M.Phil/Ph.D in the subject of Education for claiming exemption, petitioners are not qualified as per the notification issued. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that in the notification issued inviting applications Education (Maths), Education (Tamil), Education (History), Education (Education), Education (Economics), Education (Computer Science), etc. having been called for, petitioners have to be treated as qualified for the Lecturer post for that subject in education cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the point in issue is whether the petitioners have a right to claim exemption from passing NET or SLET alone and not the eligibility to apply for the post.
16. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners are qualified for the post of Lecturers in the College of Education, provided they passed NET or SLET or they passed M.Phil/Ph.D in the subject of education. Admittedly the petitioners have not passed M.Phil/Ph.D in education and therefore they are not exempted from not having passed NET/SLET. Hence, cancellation of provisional selection given to the petitioners by the second respondent immediately is just and proper. Since the petitioners selection were only provisional, the cancellation made by the second respondent without any notice to the petitioners is also justified.
17. It is well settled in law that merely because a candidate is selected and placed in the selection list, he will not get any right to get appointment and the said issue is already well settled. The selection order intimating the selection of petitioners is only provisional and not final. A provisional selection can be withdrawn on valid grounds. The petitioners are found unqualified i.e., not entitled to get exemption from passing NET or SLET as they have not passed M.Phil/Ph.D in education. Petitioners having been found to be not qualified by the second respondent as well as NCTE, which are experts, their decision cannot be interfered under Article 226 of constitution of India.
In view of the above finding, I hold there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
vr To
1. The Secretary to Government,Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maaligai, 4th Floor, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai - 600 006.
4. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, 1st Floor, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore 560 031.