Madras High Court
R.Kalaiyarasi vs The Chairman on 17 August, 2021
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Krishnan Ramasamy
WA No.31/2021
fIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.31 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.437 of 2021
R.Kalaiyarasi .. Appellant
Vs.
1. The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
EVK Sampath Maligai, 4th Floor,
DPI Complex, Chennai-06.
2. The Member and Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
EVK Sampath Maligai, 4th Floor,
DPI Complex, Chennai-06. .. Respondents
***
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 13.12.2019 passed in W.P.No.34567 of 2019.
***
For Appellant : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash,
State Government Counsel
JUDGMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
The appeal is filed by Writ petitioner, who had filed W.P.No.34567 of 2019, 1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WA No.31/2021 challenging the order dated 13.12.2019 passed therein.
2. The Writ petitioner had challenged the impugned order declaring her as ineligible for the appointment to the post of the P.G.Assistant in the year of 2018- 19, after the certificate verification. The disqualification was on the ground that she had studied two courses simultaneously, Post Graduation and B.Ed., at the same time, which is in violation of the notification dated 12.06.2019. In the said notification clause 4(4) prescribes the qualification with respect to age and education, which is as follows:
“candidate who obtained any of the required qualifications SSLC & HSC or its equivalent, UG Degree, PG Degree, B.Ed or its equivalent simultaneously are not eligible to apply for this recruitment."
3. Admittedly, in the present case, though the appellant had appeared for the written examination and cleared the same successfully, during the certificate verification, it was noticed that the appellant had done B.Ed., course simultaneously along with the P.G. Course, which is in violation of clause 4(4) as mentioned supra. Therefore, the respondent had found the ineligibility for appointment and rejected her candidature.
4. The Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WA No.31/2021 joined M.Sc.(Mathematics) during the year 2007 in Distance Education Program conducted by the Annamalai University. The above course is for two years from 2007 to 2009. After writing the first year papers, the appellant joined B.Ed., course in the year of 2008-2009 and passed the same successfully. Thereafter, the appellant wrote the second year examination along with arrear papers in M.Sc.(maths) and cleared the same in the year 2014-2015. The Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that during relevant year 2008-2009, the appellant had not pursued the P.G Degree and she studied only B.Ed., and therefore, it cannot be stated that the appellant pursued simultaneous degrees.
5. The said arguments cannot be accepted as without the completion of the course period, the appellant had taken up another degree. In fact, the appellant was permitted to write and complete the P.G. Degree only because she had completed the course period. Having studied the B.Ed degree course before completion of the PG Degree Course period, the same could be only deemed to be a simultaneous degree. In this regard, it would be appropriate to advert to the following paragraphs of the recent judgment of the Full Bench of this court in R.Chitra V. Member Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Teachers Recruitment Board and another, 2021 (2) LW 846 :
"28. So far as Educational Services in Tamil Nadu, there are number of statutory rules framed viz., Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Elementary Educational Subordinate Service; Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WA No.31/2021 Secondary Educational Service; Tamil Nadu Municipal Educational Service Rules; Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service (Municipal and Township Schools), etc. In all those rules, the Government has fixed qualifications for appointment to various posts. In all the statutory rules, in respect of educational qualifications, reference have also been made about recognized degree and a degree of equivalent standard, besides a diploma or degree in teacher education”. Admittedly, a simultaneous degree obtained in the same academic year has not been regarded as equivalent degree in any of the service rules. In such circumstances, unless and until, such degree obtained in the same academic year is prescribed as qualification in the relevant service rules, it is open to the authorities to refuse to recognize such degrees, in other words, unless and otherwise, statutory rules provides for it, a presumption of equivalence cannot be construed.
30. Now, coming to the issue under reference, the Division Bench in B.Jagadeeswari v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai [W.A.No.845 of 2013 dated 07.01.2014] has rightly held that unless the dual degrees obtained simultaneously in the same academic year is recognized, a candidate cannot seek for a direction to the appointing authority to select and appoint him/her to a particular post. Incidentally, the Division Bench has also held that unless a specific direction is issued by the UGC in the form of statutory notification, mere recommendation of the UGC approving the proposal to permit the students to pursue two degrees simultaneously in the same academic year have only a recommendatory value. As stated earlier, unless and until, the UGC recognizes such degree courses, there is no obligation on the part of the university or the employers/recruiting agencies to recognize such degree courses in the absence of any such rules in this regard. Thus, we are in agreement with the law laid down by the Division Bench in B.Jagadeeswari v. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai [W.A.No.845 of 2013 dated 07.01.2014]. For the reasons already discussed by us herein above, we are not in agreement with the judgment rendered by the latter Division Bench in the Secretary, School education department, Fort St. George, Chennai and 2 Others v. L.Kavitha [W.A.No.1098 of 2012 dated 24.06.2016] as it did not lay down the correct law."4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WA No.31/2021
6. From the above, it is clear that the prescription of the qualification for the post of P.G. Assistant is a matter of recruitment policy. The Teachers Recruitment Board is entitled to prescribe the qualification as a condition of eligibility. It is also settled principle that even equivalence of the qualification cannot be determined by the courts by exercising the judicial review. Similarly, the prescription of qualification by the Teachers Recruitment Board cannot be expanded by virtue of a judicial order. In such circumstances we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the writ court which had rightly upheld the order of the rejection of the candidate.
7. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
17.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gg
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA No.31/2021
To
1. The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
EVK Sampath Maligai, 4th Floor,
DPI Complex, Chennai-06.
2. The Member and Secretary,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
EVK Sampath Maligai, 4th Floor,
DPI Complex, Chennai-06.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WA No.31/2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
gg
W.A.No.31 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.437 of 2021
17.08.2021
7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/