Madras High Court
B.Thandavamurthy vs The University Of Madras on 10 April, 2019
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :10.04.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.2929 of 2019
W.M.P.Nos.3194 & 3197 of 2019
B.Thandavamurthy ..Petitioner
vs
1. The University of Madras,
Rep. By its Registrar,
Chepauk,
Chennai-600 005.
2. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Teacher Training Campus,
Saidapet,
Chennai-600 015.
3. The Management of Agurchand Manmull Jain College,
Accredited by NAAC, (A.M.Jain College),
rep. By its Principal
Meenambakkam,
Chennai-600 114. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarifid Mandamus to call for the records
culminating in the orders of the first respondent dated 28.05.2018
made in A-II/JPR/A. Approval/A.M.Jain College/2018/095 and quash
the same and consequently direct the restoration of the qualification
approval granted to the petitioner on 03.05.2017 made in No.A-
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
II/JPR/A. Approval/A.M.Jain College/2017/132.
For Petitioner : Smt Thilagavathi,
Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Gopinath
For Respondents : M/s.Stalin Abhimannyu for R1.
Mr.V.Kadhirvelu,
Special Government Pleader
for R2 and R4.
ORDER
The order dated 28.05.2018 issued by the Registrar, University of Madras is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The impugned order states that the approval of qualification granted to Mr.B.Thandavamurthy to hold the post of Assistant Professor in Tamil (Management Post) in A.M.Jain College, Meenambakkam, is treated as cancelled, since his qualification is not under the pattern of 10+2+3+2/11+1+3+2, as per the qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Challenging the said letter, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner has completed his 10th standard during the year 1991-1992. Thereafter, on account of the indigent circumstances in the family, the petitioner could not http://www.judis.nic.in 3 pursue further studies. The petitioner was compelled to do domestic work in order to assist his parents. During the year 1996, the petitioner came to know about the offering of a “Preparatory Course” by the first respondent enabling him to continue his further education through the Distance Education Programme offered under the Open University System.
4. The Preparatory Course was designed with instructional materials printed on the basis of the syllabus prescribed for twelve years of schooling. For all the candidates who were admitted to the Preparatory Course, study materials were issued and personal contact classes were conducted. Entrance test was also conducted. After successful completion of Preparatory Course, admissions were granted to the Degree Course and the writ petitioner was admitted to the Under Graduate Course of B.Lit (Tamil). The writ petitioner had pursued his higher education Master's Degree in Tamil during the year 1999-2001 and completed his M.Phil (Tamil) in 2005. This apart, the writ petitioner had qualified with the Tamil Nadu State Eligibility Test (SET) for Lectureship held on 07.10.2012 in the subject Tamil. The writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor Shift-II under the third respondent College with effect from June, 2015. The writ http://www.judis.nic.in 4 petitioner was continuously working in the third respondent College from June, 2015 onwards. However, the first respondent/University had withdrawn the approval earlier granted in respect of the qualification possessed by the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by the first respondent/University, the third respondent College relieved the writ petitioner from service. The writ petitioner subsequently came to understand that his services were terminated on account of the fact that he had not completed his course of study in the 10, +2, +3 format and therefore, the University cancelled the approval, by way of the impugned order.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was admitted to the Under-
Graduate Course only after undergoing the preparatory course conducted by the University recognized for the purpose of grant of admission to Under-Graduate Degree. Thus, he is fully qualified and when the University itself is conducting such courses and granting admission, the same cannot be disputed. This apart, the Under-
Graduate Degree Regulations of the year 1985, facilitates the candidates to undergo the Under-Graduate Course after passing the preparatory course. The said Regulations were modified in the year http://www.judis.nic.in 5 2003 and during the interregnum period, the degree cannot be held invalid for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that he was appointed by the third respondent College, after verification of his qualifications, that he is fully qualified and completed his Under-
Graduate Course through Open University System by successfully passing preparatory course conducted by the University. This being the factum, there is no reason to relieve him from the services based on the impugned order passed by the first respondent/University in proceedings dated 28.05.2018.
6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents states by relying on the Government letter dated 21.02.2018, the writ petitioner is not qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and the Government has not recognized such open University Degree obtained by the candidate, after undergoing the preparatory Course. The preparatory Course conducted by the University, which is not treated as equivalent to the +2 Course, conducted by the State Government more specifically, the Director of Government examinations. Thus, the State Government has not granted any equivalence in respect of such http://www.judis.nic.in 6 preparatory Course conducted by the University and this apart, the writ petitioner had undergone the Degree Course through Open University System and such University Degrees are also considered as invalid for the purpose of securing appointment to the post of Assistant Professor.
7. Under these circumstances, the University of Madras also declined to accept the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and his approval was cancelled on the ground that the writ petitioner did not possess qualification in the regular pattern of 10+2+3+2/11+1+3+2, as per the norms prescribed by the University in its Regulations.
8. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has passed SSLC Course in the year 1991-1992, but the writ petitioner did not study +2 Course.
Contrarily he had undergone preparatory course conducted by the University and thereafter, got admission to the Under Graduate Course of B.Lit in Tamil through Distance Education Programme under the Open University System.
9. This being the factum, this Court is of the considered opinion http://www.judis.nic.in 7 that such degrees granted through open University System without undergoing Regular pattern cannot be approved for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor.
10. Admission procedure prescribed by the University Grants Commission in its regulations with 1985, reads as follows:
2.Admission:
2.1. No student shall be eligible for admission to a first degree programme in any of the faculties unless he/she has successfully passed the examination conducted by a Board/University at the +2 level of schooling(either through formal schooling for 12 years, or through open school system) or its equivalent.
2.2 The admission shall be made on merit on the basis of criteria notified by the University, keeping in view the guidelines/norms in this regard issued by the UGC and other statutory bodies concerned and taking into account the reservation policy issued by the government concerned from time to time.
2.3 Student enrollment shall be in accordance with the academic and physical facilities available keeping in mind the norms regarding the student-teacher ratio, the teaching-non-
teaching staff ratio, laboratory, library and such other facilities. The in-take capacity shall be determined at least six months in advance by the university/institution through its academic bodies in accordance with the guidelines/norms http://www.judis.nic.in 8 in this regard issued by the UGC and other statutory boides concerned so that the same could be suitably incorporated in the admission brochure for the information of all concerned.
2.4 Depending upon the academic and physical facilities available in the institutions, the university may allow an institution to admit a certain number of students directly to the second year of a first degree programme, if the student has either(a) successfully completed the first year of the same programme in another institution, or (b) already successfully completed a first degree programme and is desirous of and academically capable of pursuing another first degree programme in an allied subject.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 held as follows:
42.The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. The Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to open universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated.
The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very http://www.judis.nic.in 9 broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of UGC are all-pervasive in respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and clauses (a) and © of sub-section (2) thereof.
43.Indisputably, as has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Solicitor General that the open University Act was enacted to achieve a specific object. It opens new vistas for imparting education in a novel manner. Students do not have to attend classes regularly. They have wide options with regard to the choice of subjects but the same, in our opinion, would not mean that despite a parliamentary Act having been enacted to give effect to the constitutional mandate contained in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, activities and functions of the private universities and open universities would be wholly unregulated.
12. Even in the Government letter dated 21.02.2018 sent by the Secretary to the Government Higher Education department to the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Open University, it is stated as follows:
ghh;itapy; fhDk; j';fsJ foj';fspy; jkpH;ehL jpwe;jepiyg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpy; “jpwe;j epiy” fy;tp (Open Education Stream) Kiwapy; mog;gilf; fy;tpj; jFjp ,y;yhjth;fs; Maj;jg;gog;gpid(Bachelor Preparatory Programme) Koj;J rhd;wpjH;. Gl;lak;. ,sepiyg; gl;lk; bgWtij bghJg;gzpfspy; epadk; gjtp cah;t[ bgw m';fPfhpj;J chpa Miz btspapLkhW j';fshy; nfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ 2/Kiwrhh; fy;tpf;fhd 1985 Mk; Mz;ila gy;fiyf;fHf khdpaf; FG http://www.judis.nic.in 10 xG';Fkiw tpjpfspy; (University Grants Commission Regulations for formal education)Kjy; gl;lk; bgWtjw;fhd khzth;fSf;fhd nrh;f;if Fwpj;J fPH;f;fhk; xG';FKiw tpjpfs; eilKiwapy; cs;sd
2.Admission/Students:
(1) No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1st Degree Course in thse faculties unless he has succcessfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by a Board/University. The admission shall be made on merit on the basis of criteria notified by the institutions after taking into account the reservation order issued by the Government from time to time.
3.cah;ePjp kd;wj;jpy; jpU/ unkc vd;gth; bjhLj;j nky;KiwaPl;L tHf;F vz;/1221 2005 y; gj;jp 26 y; gpd;tUkhW jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ murhid (epiy) vz;/216 g/k/ep/rP/(Jiw). Ehs; 26.08.1997 y; murhy; btsplg;gl;l Mizapd;go jpwe;j epiy gy;fiyf;fHfk; K:yk; bgwg;gLk; gl;l';fs;. Kug[rhh; Kig;go(Regular System) bgw;w gl;l';fSf;F ,izahff; fUjg;gl;lhYk; Tl nit eilKiwapYs;s tpjpfs; xG';FKiwfSld; xj;jpirnthoUf;f ntz;Lk;/ gy;fiyf;fHf xG';Fkiw tpjpfs; go mg;gl;l';fs; Kiwahdjhf fUjg;glhjjhYk;. MuR. Jpwe;j epiyg; gy;fiyf;fHfk; K:yk; bgwg;gLk; gl;l';fs; kug[rhh; Kiwg;go (Regular System) bgw;w gl;l; ;';fSf;F ,izahff; fUj kdjhu fUjpajhf Vw;Wf;bfhs;s KoahJ/ 4/murhid epiy vz;-107 gzpahsh; kw;Wk; epht ; hfr; rPh;jpUj;jj;Jiw ehs;/18/08/2009 y; gs;sp ,Wjpj; njh;t[ (gj;jhk; tFg;g[) kw;Wk; gs;sp nky;epiyf; fy;tp njh;t[ (+2) Mfpaitfspy; njh;r;rp bgw;wgpd.; Jpwe;jepiyg; gy;fiyf;fHf;'fspd; tHpahfg; bgwg;gLk; gl;lak; gl;l';fs; kl;Lnk bghJg; gzpfspy; epakdk; gjtp cah;t[ bgw m';fPfhpj;J Mizfs; btspaplg;gl;lJ/ ,t;turhizapd;g muR gzpahsh; (gzp epge;jidfs;) rl;lk; 2016y; tpjp 25 y; chpa jpUj;j';fs; nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ/ http://www.judis.nic.in 11 5/murhiz (epiy) vz;-144/ gzpahsh;fs; kw;Wk; epUthfr; rPh;jpUj;jj;Jiw (vk;) Jiw ehs; 20/11/2017 y; khepyj;jpd; gy;ntW gy;fiyf;fHf';fspy; tH';fg;gl;L tUk; Kjy;epiy mog;gilf; fy;tp (Pref-foundation Course) kw;Wk; mog;gilf;fy;tp (Foundation Course) Mfpait Kiwna gj;jjhk; tFg;g[ (SSLC) kw;Wk; nky;epiyf; fy;tp (+2) Mfpatw;wpw;F ,izahdj ,y;iy vd Mizfs; btspaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 6/nkny gj;jp 2. 3. 4 kw;Wk; 5 y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s fhuz';fspd; mog;gilapy;. JkpH;ehL jpwe;j epiyg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpy; “jpwe;j epiy” fy;tp(Open Education Stream) Kiwapy; mog;gilf; fy;tpj; jFjp ,y;yhjth;fs; Maj;jg;gog;gpid (Bachelor Preparatory Programme) Koj;J rhd;wpjH;. Gl;lak;. ,sepiyg; gl;lk; bgWtij bghJg;gzpfspy; epakdk; gjtp cah;t[ bgw m';fPfhpj;J chpa Miz btspaplf;nfhUk; j';fsJ fUj;JUit Vw;f ,ayhJ vd bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/
13. In respect of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and other teaching faculty, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court also considered that the candidates who had undergone the regular course alone should be made eligible for appointment to the teaching faculty. The importance of the pattern of education for appointment of a regular employee is insisted upon by the Courts on many occasions.
14. Under these circumstances, the persons who had not undergone the Under-Graduate Course and Post-Graduate Course in a regular pattern of education is not eligible to be considered for appointment to the teaching posts. The teachers being recognized as skilled, persons who had undergone the education through the regular http://www.judis.nic.in 12 pattern of education alone must be considered for appointment.
15. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court considered the validity of the Open University Degrees, with reference to the appointment to the Teaching posts in W.P.No.1256 of 1999 dated 25.04.2002 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-
“9. Petitioners before the Tribunal are Secondary Grade Primary School Headmasters who have acquired M.A. Degree under the Open University System. They do not come under the three categories of teachers eligible to be promoted, but only under the cary of secondary grade teachers who are directed to be appointed. If no qualified teacher in the above three categories of teachers is available in the unit, the senior most among the persons working as secondary grade teacher, but qualified in B.Ed./Tamil Pandit is to be considered for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster. We are not here concerned with the other aspect of eligibility for promotion etc., since there were a number of litigations between the Secondary Grade Teachers B.Ed. Grade, Tamil Pandits and Middle School Headmasters, etc. The scope of controversy is limited to the consideration whether the open university degree is equivalent to the prescribed degree or a degree equivalent standard of B.A. or B.Ed. degree. The Government, in the impugned order, G.O. Ms. No.476 dated http://www.judis.nic.in 13 19.11.1997, have considered this question, conscious of the other Government Orders in G.O. Ms. No.216 dated
26.8.1997, wherein the M.A. Degree obtained from open university was considered equivalent to a degree for appointment in public service. However, insofar as the posts created under the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Service is concerned, they have considered the issue and decided that the teachers who obtained degree with the basic study and qualification only can teach the children effectively and in such a way to make the students understand the subject and persons who obtained M.A. Degree in open university without a basic degree cannot be appointed.
12. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in SANTRAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1910), while repelling the contention that in the absence of any statutory rule governing the promotions to selection grade posts, administrative instructions imposing restrictions not found in the rules already framed cannot be issued, has held that till statutory rules are framed in that behalf, the Government can issue administrative instructions regarding the principles to be followed. Their lordships held as follows :
"It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions. But, if the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can http://www.judis.nic.in 14 fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not nsistent with the rules already framed."
The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that while the Government rules did not impose any instructions in the rules already framed, the M.A. Degree cannot be denied as being equivalent to the Bachelor's Degree. But, in the circumstances of the case, it has to be stated that the rule is silent as to the eligibility of M.A. Degree from open university. The said degree was not thought of at the inception of the rule and therefore, it has to be held that there is a gap or an area requiring instructions to supplement the rules. In CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA VS. MOHANLAL MEHROTRA (A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2288), the Supreme Court held that administrative orders can be issued to supplement the statutory rules. In KRISHNA CHANDRA S AHU VS. STATE OF ORISSA (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 352), it was held that if the rules are silent on any subject or point in issue, the omissions can be filled up and the rules can be supplemented by executive instructions. In STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAMTARANI SAHU [1998 (8) S.C.C. 753], it was held by the Supreme Court that if the rules are silent, administrative instructions can be issued to supplement the rules. The rules cannot be treated to have been abrogated and they continue to govern the recruitment and conditions of service of teachers.
13. A Division Bench of this court in MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM VS. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL STUDIES, has held http://www.judis.nic.in 15 that the expression "to lay down standards of such education" occurring in Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act is capable of taking in every ingredient which will go to constitute the end or the ultimate level of education that is expected of a candidate who applies for enrollment as an advocate under the Act. The argument that "standards of such education" occurring in Section 7(1) of the Act refer only to the excellence of education aimed at and will not take in other matter, such as whether the course should be a regular one or may be a correspondence or as to how much attendance a candidate has put in, cannot be accepted. Their lordships also, while holding that the said restriction comes as a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public, held that the Constitution itself provides that any law, relating to the provisional qualification necessary for practising any profession or for carrying on any occupation, trade or business, will have to be followed and it cannot be said to be in any way derogatory to the right of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The prescription made by the Bar Council of India regarding attendance in a regular course in a college or the prescription regarding particular percentage of attendance in such lectures in law are saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution and they are relevant to the standards of legal education as a qualification. The courts are not concerned with the wisdom of the competent body, but are concerned only with the competency or the constitutionality. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Government is not empowered to supplement the statutory rule and clarify the qualification required for the post.
14. The M.A. Degree holders from open university acquire knowledge only in the relevant subjects in which the candidate appears for the graduate course and the course may be either through Tamil or English mediums. But, however, they do not have pciency of English as a language in the degree level. The M.A. Degree holders from open university who do not study English as a language in degree level cannot have the ability in that language and they could not even have studied the language to the high school level. Since no formal education is required and that these candidates write the concerned subjects directly, they do not have any level of language study and therefore, they cannot be compared with the B.T. Assistants or Tamil Pandits or B.Ed . Degree holders. Therefore, they cannot be treated as having qualification to teach Standards VI, VII and VIII.
15. The contention that the Tamil Pandits who are considered for promotion by transfer do not have the knowledge in English cannot hold water since in all cases where Tamil Pandits are appointed as Headmasters, B.T. Assistants are appointed to handle English Language specifically.
16. In JUTHIKA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2534), their lordships held that it is well http://www.judis.nic.in 17 settled that the question whether a provision is directory or mandatory depends upon the object and purpose and not merely on the use of any part or word or phrase and having regard to the object. It has to be seen whether the person possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed as Headmaster of a higher secondary school. As stated earlier, the requisite qualification as prescribed under Rule 13 of the General Rules refers only to a basic qualification. The argument that there is no exclusion of a Post Graduate Degree has to be considered in the context of the object and purpose of the requirement of a degree. In any event, the M. A. Degree is not the requisite qualification and while considering the equivalent of the said degree, the object and the purpose for which a degree has been insisted upon has to be looked into, and the Government, having taken into account the relevant factors, have decided not to consider the M.A. Degree obtained in an open university as equivalent to the Bachelor's Degree.
17. In RAMESH PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR (A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 327), their lordships held that as is well known, the process of rule making is a protracted and a complicated one, involving consultation with various authorities and containing manifold for ties. It cannot also be disputed that exigencies of administration, at times, require immediate creation of posts and any procrastination in that behalf will only prove detrimental to the efficient functioning of public departments. In such like situations, the authorities http://www.judis.nic.in 18 concerned will have the power to appoint or terminate administrative personnel under a general power of administration vested in them. It follows, therefore, that in the absence of rules, the qualifications for a post can validly be laid down in a self-saving executive order. Therefore, though the impugned Government Order has stated that the service rules have to be amended, it pre-supposes various procedural formalities to be completed. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, it cannot be stated that the Government has no authority to issue the instructions dealing with the subject and it cannot be stated that the said decision is unreasonable or arbitrary.
18. The contention of the counsel for the contesting respondents that the field is occupied by the existing service rules and that the Government Order is arbitrary, therefore, cannot be sustained. As stated earlier, the scheme of Open University S m is of a recent origin, i.e. of the year 1995 or so. In that context, and in the light of the various kinds of degrees and diplomas being conferred by different universities, it cannot be stated that the Government is not empowered to supplement the meaning to the degree or the equivalent of a degree. Considering the background and the context under which the Government has issued the order, we do not find anything unreasonable in excluding a direct M.A. Degree obtained from open university.
http://www.judis.nic.in 19
19. In A.K.E. SOCIETY VS. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 183), the Supreme Court observed that the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring about the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the 'engine' of the educational system. He is the principle instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with the needed potential to deliver the yeoman service expected of him. His qualities should be such to inspire and to motivate into action of the benefitor. An ill-trained or substandard teacher will be detrimental to the education system, if not a punishment to our children. The Government and the universities were commanded to see that sufficiently qualified teachers are appointed.
20. A candidate who had not attended formal education even a single day is permitted to acquire M.A. Degree and the same is requested to be treated as equivalent to a degree. Unlike other appointments, the qualification of a candidate has got a di nexus with the job of teaching. The Teachers are meant to teach children of impressionable age. In NAGESHWARAMMA VS. STATE OF A.P. (A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1188), their lordships held that we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True, they will be required to pass the examination, but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum http://www.judis.nic.in 20 period "in a properly organised and equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched". Even though their lordships were dealing with the Teachers Training Institute, formal education of a teacher cannot be over-emphasised. The qualification required for persons who handle the educational institutions should be necessarily higher than the qualification fixed for other jobs. The course of study and the qualification of a teacher are germane to the maintenance of efficiency and excellence in education. The State has got a duty to see that the efficiency and excellence of educational standards are maintained.
21. It is argued that many of the contesting respondents have already studied upto high school level and therefore, technically, they would have gone through the system of formal education. While considering the scope of the equivalence of a M.A. ee, theoretically it is not possible to contend that a person who has not even gone into the shades of a school even during rain or sunshine would be able to become a headmaster of a middle school in case of direct recruitment. Such a contingency would cause great havoc to the system of education. Therefore, whatever may be the purpose for which the open university provides for M.A. Degree, insofar as the appointment of teachers is concerned, we are of the considered view that such degrees cannot be equated with a degree, which is the minimum qualification required for the post. In our view, the http://www.judis.nic.in 21 Government Order is reasonable and has been exercised appropriately as a supplement to the service rules. The Tribunal, in our view, had erred in interfering with the Government Order.”
16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is made clear that the writ petitioner had not undergone +2 Course prior to admission to the Under-Graduate Course. This apart, the writ petitioner has completed his Under-Graduate Course of B.Lit in Tamil through Distance Education Programme offered under the Open University System.
17. This being the factum of the case, the impugned order of cancellation passed by the University is in accordance with the UGC regulations and also in accordance with the legal principles settled by the Apex Court as well as by this Court.
18. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.04.2019 ssb Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order http://www.judis.nic.in 22 To
1. The University of Madras, Rep. By its Registrar, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Teacher Training Campus, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
3. The Management of Agurchand Manmull Jain College, Accredited by NAAC, (A.M.Jain College), rep. By its Principal Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 114.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
ssb W.P.No.2929 of 2019 W.M.P.Nos.3194 &3197 of 2019 10.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in