Madras High Court
Dr.Tmt.Annie D.Ambrose @ J.Rukmani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 June, 2008
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.06.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.27580 of 2005 Dr.Tmt.Annie D.Ambrose @ J.Rukmani ... Petitioner vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Government, Education, Science and Technology Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9. 2. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, College Road, Madras-6. 3. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep. by Secretary, Madras-2. 4. The Principal, Govt. Arts.College for Women, Tirunelveli-8. 5. The University of Madras, rep. by its Registrar, Chennai-5. ...Respondents This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.1439 of 1995 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for the issuance of a Writ of Ceriorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.114, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 16.02.1995 and of the second respondent in R.C.No.12723/C2/95, dated 02.03.1995, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the services of the petitioner in the post of Senior Grade Lecturer as was done in respect of similarly placed persons with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner ... Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents 1, 2 & 4 ... Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, Government Advocate For 3rd Respondent ... Mr.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi For 5th Respondent ... Mr.Kandavadivelu ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.114, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 16.02.1995 and consequential order of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, second respondent, dated 02.03.1995, discharging her from service.
2. Facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:
The petitioner has passed B.Sc., Degree in Zoology from Madurai-Kamaraj University in the year 1974 and acquired M.Sc., Degree in Human Genetics and Anthropology from Andra Pradesh University in the year 1976. Thereafter, she did M.Phil in Zoology in Madras University in the year 1978 and also Ph.D., in Zoology in the Madurai-Kamaraj University in the year 1993. On 09.03.1981, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor of Zoology on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, in Government Arts College for Women, Namakkal. Admittedly, the petitioner was sponsored through Employment Exchange. In the year 1983, the petitioner was transferred to Tirunelveli Government Arts College for Women. The petitioner was awarded annual increments for her unblemished service, also granted career advancements and revised pay scales under the UGC's scheme. In the year 1988, the Government took up the issue of regularisation of about 616 Assistant Professors, who were working on temporary basis for a long time. After obtaining the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.1840, dated 16.12.1988, regularising the services of all the candidates. Based on the order, the second respondent granted career advancement to the petitioner, by proceedings dated 25.01.1990 and placed the petitioner in the senior grade to the post of Lecturer. While so, the Principal, Government Arts College for Women, Tirunelveli, fourth respondent received a communication, dated 23.11.1992, from the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Chennai, the second respondent, directing her to forward the mark sheets of the petitioner in M.Sc., Degree for relaxation of the rule, relating to educational qualification, since the petitioner had obtained Masters degree from the Andra Pradesh University. Even after the said letter, the petitioner was granted two increments. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was served with an order, dated 02.03.1995 passed by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Chennai, the second respondent, enclosing a copy of G.O.Ms.No.114, dated 16.02.1995, discharging her from Government Service. The order proceeds on the basis that the petitioner does not possess the qualification required for the post of Lecturer in Zoology as per the opinion of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The order has been passed nearly after 14 years of continuos services in Government College. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Original Application in O.A.No.1439 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has been subsequently transferred to this Court and renumbered as present Writ Petition.
3. The respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit have submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service as Assistant Professor of Zoology under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Temporary Assistant Professors appointed in Government Arts and Training colleges and Assistant Professors in non-law subjects in Government Law Colleges recruited through Employment Exchange and appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules, represented to the Government to regularise their temporary services, considering their long temporary service and experience. The Government examined their request sympathetically and passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.802, Education, dated 06.06.1986 and in G.O.Ms.No.1224, Education, dated 13.07.1988, to conduct a special recruitment test by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to all the temporary Assistant Professors, who held temporary appointments between 26.02.1979 and 12.11.1985 (both days inclusive), against the regular vacancies and who were in service on the crucial date, i.e., on 31.10.1985.
4. The respondents have further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in their letter dated 01.09.1988 informed the Government that conducting a special qualifying test just to regularise the temporary services of the Assistant Professors both in Arts and Training Colleges and the Assistant Professors in Non-law subjects in Government Law Colleges will be a time-consuming and futile exercise and that the services of the candidates who satisfy the conditions laid down in the Government Orders mentioned supra can be regularised straight away. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission accordingly given its concurrence under the latter part of the regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulation, 1954 for regularising the appointment of 621 Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Training Colleges including five Assistant Professors in law Colleges, subject to the condition of relaxation of relevant rules, wherever necessary and subject to their being physically found fit.
5. The respondents have further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, categorically informed the petitioner that concurrence for appointment of 16 Assistant Professors referred to in their letter was provisionally pending acceptance of their qualification by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. On the basis of the concurrence given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the proposals of the Director of Collegiate Education, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education, dated 16.12.1988 have ordered regularisation of the services of all the persons indicated in Annexure I to III of the Government Order in the category of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service recruited through Employment Exchange under 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and who were in service as on the crucial date. In Paragraph 4 of G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education, dated 16.12.1988, the Government have specifically directed that the orders regarding relaxation of relevant rules, like age and educational qualification, wherever necessary will be issued separately in respect of persons indicated in Annexure I to III of the Government Order and therefore, have requested the Director of Collegiate Education and the Director of Legal Studies to send proposals for relaxation of age and educational qualification, wherever necessary.
6. The respondents have further submitted that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.336, Education, dated 08.03.1990, modified the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education, dated 16.12.1988 and directed that the rule of reservation applied to the orders issued in the Government Order be cancelled and the seniority of Assistant Professors, whose temporary services were ordered to be regularised with the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under the latter part of Rule 16(b) of the said Regulations, 1954, be fixed with reference to the date of their temporary appointments in the said post without applying the rule of reservation for the appointment. The Government further directed that the date, 12.11.1985 be substituted for the date, 31.10.1985 mentioned in that Government Order. The respondents have further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had accorded its concurrence only provisionally for regularisation of 16 Assistant Professors mentioned in Annexure II to G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education, dated 16.12.1988. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in their letter dated 02.08.1989, had informed that only 14 temporary Assistant Professors referred to in Annexure II of the Government Order were qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Training Colleges and that the cases of remaining two candidates were still under correspondence with the Universities and that the Government would inform, as soon as a decision was taken in that matter.
7. The respondents further submitted that the petitioner was one of the above mentioned two persons, for whom the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had not given its concurrence. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had informed that one more Assistant Professor was also qualified to hold that post and as a result, the petitioner was the only candidate left out, in respect of whom, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission did not give its concurrence for regularisation. To the clarification sought for by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Registrar, University of Madras had sent a reply, enclosing the following resolution of the syndicate of the University of Madras, "Resolved to accept the view of the Chairman, Board of Studies in Zoology that the M.Sc. degree in Human Genetics and Physical Anthropology is not equivalent to the M.Sc. Degree in Zoology of this University."
8. The respondents have further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Public Service commission considered the above view offered by the Registrar, University of Madras and decided to accept it and thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in its letter No.1698/GD1/85, dated 23.11.1989 addressed to the Government, has stated that action may be taken to discharge the petitioner from Government service, since she did not possess the prescribed qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology). The views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission were communicated to the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai for proper action, by the Government in their letter, dated 05.12.1989. On receipt of the above letter from the Government, the then Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Chennai requested the Registrar, University of Madras in his letter dated 23.04.1993, to clarify in detail as to whether the petitioner was eligible to hold the post of Assistant Professor in Collegiate Educational Service or not. In response to the same, the Registrar of University of Madras, in his letter dated 02.12.1993, informed the Commissioner of Collegiate Education that M.Sc. decree in Human Genetics and Anthropology obtained from Andra Pradesh University is not equivalent to M.Sc. degree in Zoology of Madras University. The then Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Chennai in his letter dated 08.02.1994, informed the above position to the Government and in the light of the above clarification, the Government examined the matter in detail on the basis of the views expressed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and proposals of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, passed final orders in G.O.Ms.No.114, Education dated 16.02.1995, stating that earlier provisional regularisation ordered in G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education, dated 16.12.1988, regularising the services of 15 out of 16 Assistant Professors, mentioned in Annexure II of the Government Order, dated 16.12.1988, be regularised in the category of Assistant Professors, under Clause 7 of the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service from 16.12.1988. As regards the petitioner, the Government have directed that the petitioner be discharged from service with immediate effect.
9. It is further submitted that the Government have relaxed the age, wherever it is possible and since the petitioner did not possess the basic qualification to hold the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology in the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service, as per Madras University, who is the competent authority to decide upon the eligibility of academic qualifications, the petitioner could not be retained in service and therefore, the decision of the Government in discharging her from service cannot be said to be illegal and that no malafides can be attributed to the action of the respondents. In these circumstances, the respondents 1 to 3 have prayed for dismissed of the Writ Petition.
10. The fourth respondent, viz., the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has filed counter affidavit and submitted that the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.802, Education, dated 06.06.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.1224, Education, dated 13.07.1988, issued orders to conduct a special recruitment test by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to all the temporary Assistant Professors, who held temporary appointments between 26.02.1979 and 12.11.1985 (both the days inclusive) against the regular vacancies, who were in service on the crucial date, i.e., 31.10.1985. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in its letter No.1698/GD1/85, dated 01.09.1988, informed the Government that conducting a Special qualifying test just to regularise the temporary services of the Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Training colleges and Assistant Professors in non-law subjects in Government Law Colleges would be a time-consuming and futile exercise and that the services of those candidates, who satisfy the conditions laid down in the Government orders mentioned supra, could be regularised straightaway. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission gave its concurrence under the latter part of the regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954 for the regular appointment of 621 Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Training Colleges, including 5 Assistant Professors in Law Colleges subject to the conditions of relations of relevant rules, wherever necessary and subject to their being physically found fit.
11. The fourth respondent has further submitted that it was categorically informed that the concurrence for appointment of 16 Assistant Professors (including the petitioner) was only provisional, pending acceptance of their qualification by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Commission, after verifying the qualification of the candidates, gave its concurrence in respect of 15 persons, out of 16 and the petitioner possessed Masters Degree in Human Genetics and Physical Anthropology from Andhra Pradesh University and M.Phil (Zoology) from Madras University. The educational qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor of Zoology in Government Colleges is as follows:
"A first or second class Master's degree of a University in the State of Tamil Nadu or a degree of equivalent standard in the subject."
Therefore, the Registrar, University of Madras and Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Madras were addressed to state whether the qualifications possessed by the petitioner (M.Sc. degree in Human Genetics and Physical Anthropology from Andhra Pradesh University) could be considered as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology). On receipt of the said requisitions, the University of Madras has forwarded the resolution of their Syndicate that M.Sc.degree in Human Genetics and Physical Anthropology is not equivalent to M.Sc.degree in Zoology of Madras University. After considering the views of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Chennai and the Registrar, University of Madras, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, decided that the qualification possessed by the petitioner could not be considered as equivalent to the qualification required for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of Zoology. Therefore, the Government issued orders discharging the petitioner from service. Since the petitioner did not possess the required qualification for the post, the impugned order of discharge is valid in law. For the above said reasons, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the parties are as follows:
12. Mr.L.Chandra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed after 14 years of service and seven years of regularisation affects the rights of the petitioner with civil consequences and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. He further submitted that having granted annual increments for 14 years under Rule 10(bb) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and granted career advancement on the basis of U.G.C., norms, it is not open to the respondents to turn around and contend that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Professor, Zoology.
13. Inviting the attention of this Court to Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Government Order No.1840, Education, dated 16.12.1988, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government had already decided to grant relaxation of the relevant rules, like age and Educational qualifications, wherever necessary with regard to the persons indicated in Annexure I and III of the said Government Order and therefore, the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai was already directed to send necessary proposals for relaxation. In this context, he also brought to the notice of this Court that the then Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai had already certified that the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of Assistant Professor, Zoology, from the date of his appointment and pursuance of the same, the Director of Collegiate Education, in his letter dated 23.11.1989, had directed the Principal of the Government Arts College (Women), Thirunelveli, to send proposals for relaxing the educational qualifications of the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that once a decision has already been taken to relax the educational qualification of the petitioner, it is not open to the Government to fall back and say that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology).
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointing authority for the post is the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is only a recruiting Agency. When the appointing Authority had already opined that the petitioner was qualified to hold the said post, neither the recruiting agency nor the University of Madras is competent to consider the eligibility criteria for the purpose of appointment. Further, when the University of Madras has treated the qualification of the petitioner, viz., M.Sc., Degree in Human Genetics and Anthropology from Andra Pradesh University as eligible qualification for the purpose of acquiring higher education, the University cannot turn around and say that the said qualification is not equivalent for the purpose of employment. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the University cannot express two views, one for the purpose of employment and another for acquiring higher qualification.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that at the time of appointment, the petitioner had acquired M.Phil in Zoology and thereafter, she did her Ph.D in the year 1993 in the University of Madras. For nearly 26 years, the petitioner has been taking classes for U.G/P.G., students, ever since of her appointment in the year 1981. He further submitted that in the absence of any complaint from any one of the students, the opinion of the University of Madras that she is not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) is arbitrary and amounts to total non-application of mind.
16. On the contrary, Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4, referring to G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education, dated 16.12.1988, submitted that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, while considering the case of regularisation of 621 temporary Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Training Colleges, including 5 Assistant Professors in Law Colleges, granted its concurrence under the latter part of Regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulation, 1954, subject to the condition of relaxation of relevant rules wherever necessary and subject to physical fitness of the Assistant Professors referred to in the Government Order. She further submitted that the concurrence of appointment of 16 candidates referred to in Annexure II of the above said Government Order, whose names have been included in Annexure I and III, was only provisionally pending acceptance of their qualification by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. She further submitted that relaxation of the educational qualification was subject to the satisfaction of the eligibility criteria, as provided under the Tamil nadu Collegiate Educational Service Rules. She further submitted that granting of annual increments, career advancements and implementing the revised U.G.C., pay scales to Teachers in Government or Aided colleges will not clothe any statutory right to hold the post of Assistant Professor of Zoology.
17. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that the University is the competent authority to decide the question of Equivalence of a decree obtained from other Universities and since the University of Madras has resolved in their resolution that M.Sc.Degree in Human Genetics and Anthropology from Andra Pradesh University is not an equivalent to M.Sc. degree in Zoology in Madras University, the view taken by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the Government in discharging the petitioner from service, cannot be found fault with. She further submitted that initially, the then Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai has taken a view that the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology), but, in its subsequent letter, dated 23.04.1993, addressed to the Registrar, University of Madras, has sought for clarification in detail, as to the eligibility of the petitioner for holding the post of Assistant Professor in Tamil Nadu Educational Service. She further submitted that the Registrar of University of Madras, in his Letter dated 02.12.1993, has clarified that the qualification of the petitioner (M.Sc., Degree in Human Genetics and Anthropology from Andra Pradesh University) is not equivalent to the M.Sc. decree in Zoology of this University and the decision taken by the Department to discharge her services is not arbitrary and no mala fide can be attributed.
18. Mrs.Ehilarasi, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission submitted that in so far as Assistant Professors appointed in Government Arts and Training Colleges and Assistant Professors in Non-law subjects in Government Law Colleges, recruited through Employment Exchange, under Rule 10(A)(i) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service are concerned, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in its letter, dated 01.09.1988, informed the Government that the conduct of a special qualifying test to regularise the temporary service of the above said Assistant Professors, would be time consuming and futile exercise and the service of the candidates, satisfying the conditions laid down in the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.802, Education, dated 06.06.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.1224, Education, dated 13.07.1988 could be regularised straight away and gave its concurrence under the latter part of the regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulation, 1954, subject to the conditions of satisfying the recruitment rules. She further submitted that the concurrence of appointment of 16 Assistant Professors was only provisional, subject to the satisfying the educational qualification prescribed for the post and when the University of Madras, which is the examining body, informed the decision of the syndicate that M.Sc. Degree in Human Genetics and Physical Anthropology is not equivalent to M.Sc. Degree in Zoology of Madras University and after considering the views of the Commissioner of College Education, Chennai, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission decided that the petitioner who do not possess the required educational qualification for the post of Assistant Professor of Zoology is not entitled to regularisation and therefore, the impugned orders are in accordance with the provisions under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. As the recruiting agency, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is competent to offer his views to the Government, who is the appointing authority.
19. Referring to the resolution passed by the syndicate of Madras University, Mr.Kandavadivelu, learned counsel appearing for the Madras University, submitted that being an autonomous body, the University of Madras is competent to certify the equivalency of the decree/diploma obtained from other university/Institution/Service Commission and the Government are entitled to seek the views of the University as regards equivalence of qualification and therefore, the opinion of the syndicate consisting of expertise in the field of education is final. As regards permitting the petitioner to pursue higher studies in the field of Zoology, he further submitted that the qualifications required for appointment to a particular post is different from pursuing higher studies and therefore, merely because the petitioner is allowed to continue his higher studies, till she obtained Doctorate in the field of Zoology, that does not mean that the degree (M.Sc. Human Genetics and Anthropology) obtained from Andra University is equivalent to degree (M.Sc. Zoology), which is prescribed as suitable qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) in the colleges, within the control of Directorate of College Education, Chennai.
Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
20. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor of Zoology on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, in the Government Arts College for Women, Namakkal. In the year 1988, the Government took up the issue of regularisation of 621 Assistant Professors, who were working temporarily for a long time and sympathetically, passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education Department, dated 16.12.1988, absorbing the temporary Assistant Professors appointed in Government Arts and Training Colleges and Assistant Professors in Non-law subjects in the Government Law Colleges, recruited through Employment Exchange and the said Government Order reads as follows:
"The temporary Assistant Professors appointed in Government Arts and Training Colleges and Assistant Professors in Non-law subjects in Government Law Colleges recruited through Employment Exchange and appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules had represented to the Government for regularising their services considering their long temporary services and experiences. The Government examined their request and passed order since the G.O., first and second read above to conduct a special recruitment test by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to all the temporary Assistant Professors who held temporary appointments as mush as any day between 26.02.1979 and 31.10.1985 (both days inclusive) against the regular vacancies and who were in service on the crucial date, ie., 31.10.1985. In the letter 3rd read above, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was requested to consider the claims of Tmt.Alagammal and Tmt.Kannammal. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in its letter third cited has accorded its concurrence for the regular appointment of Tmt.D.Kannammal and Tmt.M.Alagammal in the post of Assistant Professors in Arts Colleges, subject to waiver of conditions laid down in the Government Order first cited and subsequently amended subject to their being physically fit and subject to the extension of this concession to similarly placed candidates, if any.
2. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has stated in its letter 4th read above that the conduct of a special qualifying test just to regularise the temporary services of the Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Training Colleges and the Assistant Professors teaching non-law subjects in the Government Law Colleges will be a time consuming and a futile exercise and that the services of candidates who satisfy the conditions laid down in the Government Order first and second cited can be regularised straight away. The Commission accordingly has given its concurrence under latter part of Regulations 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulation Act, 1954 for the regular appointment of 621 temporary Assistant Professors in Government Arts Colleges and Government Training Colleges of Education including 5 Assistant Professors in Law Colleges (Annexure I and III), subject to the conditions of relaxation of relevant rules wherever necessary and subject to their being found physically fit. The concurrence for the appointment of 16 candidates referred to in Annexure II in this order (whose names have been included in Annexure I and Annexure III) is provisional pending acceptance of their qualification by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
3. The Government have examined the proposal in consultation with the Director of Collegiate Education for regularising the services of temporary Assistant Professors working in Government Arts and Training Colleges and the Temporary Assistant Professors teaching Non-Law subjects in Government Law Colleges in the light of the concurrence accorded by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Government accordingly direct the regularisation of the service of all the persons indicated in Annexure I and III of this order of the category of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service recruited through Employment Exchange under General Rule 10(a)(i) and who were in temporary service as on the crucial date mentioned in G.Os.1 and 2 and the Government letter 3rd read above in the category of Assistant Professors under Clause 7 of the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service with effect from the date of issue of this order. They will be placed below the candidates already selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission while making their seniority, ie., there candidates will take their seniority below the last candidate selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the year.
4. Order regarding relaxation of relevant rules like age and educational qualification, wherever necessary will issue separately in regard to the persons indicated in Annexure I and III.
5. The Director of Collegiate Education is requested to obtain and verify the physical fitness certificates in respect of all the temporary Assistant Professors mentioned in Annexure I and III. He is also requested to end immediately necessary proposals to Government in consultation with the Director of Legal Studies and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for relaxation of age and educational qualification whenever necessary."
21. The reading of the above Government Order makes it clear that the post of Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Training Colleges and Assistant Professor in Non-Law subjects in the Government Law Colleges are under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the Commission is the recruiting Agency on behalf of the appointing authority. The qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) is as follows:
"First or Second Class Masters Degree of a University in the State of Tamil Nadu or a degree of equivalent standard in the subject."
22. When the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, third respondent was asked to conduct a Special Qualifying Test to regularise the temporary service of the above mentioned teachers, who are appointed temporarily on any date between 26.02.1979 and 31.10.1985 against the regular vacancies, the Commission thought it fit that it would be a time consuming and futile exercise to conduct a Special Qualifying Examination and therefore, the Commission has given its concurrence under the latter part of Regulation 16(b) for regularising 621 Assistant Professors appointed in the Government Law Colleges, subject to the condition of the relaxation of the relevant Rules, wherever necessary. While accepting the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.1840, Education Department, dated 16.12.1988, regularising the services of the persons indicated in Annexure I to III of the said order and in so far as 16 candidates, whose names are figured in Annexure-II, regularisation was provisionally pending acceptance of their qualification by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Therefore, it is evident that issue as to whether the petitioner has satisfied the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor in the Government Colleges was pending with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
23. Pleadings disclose that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in their letter dated 02.08.1989, had informed the Government that out of 16 Assistant Professors, only 14 temporary Assistant Professors, referred in Annexure II of the Government Order, were qualified as Assistant Professors in the Government Arts and Training Colleges and remaining two candidates were still under correspondence with the University and that the Government would be informed as soon as a decision was taken in the matter. Subsequently, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had informed the Government that in the case of the above two persons, one was qualified to hold the post of Assistant Professor and to ascertain whether the petitioner satisfied the educational qualification for the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology in Government Colleges, the Commission has sought for clarification from the Registrar, University of Madras.
24. Perusal of the files produced by the University of Madras reveals that the question of recognition of M.Sc. Degree in Human Genetics and Anthropology awarded by the Andra Pradesh University on par with M.Sc. Degree in Zoology of the Madras University, was referred to the Chairman, Board of Studies, Zoology for his remarks. In response, the Chairman was of the opinion that M.Sc. Degree (Human Genetics and Anthropology) of Andra Pradesh University cannot be considered as equivalent to M.Sc. Degree in Zoology of Madras University. Syndicate at its meeting held on 25.05.1989, has considered the letter dated 25.03.1988, from the Secretary of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission regarding the recognition of M.Sc. Degree in Human Genetics and Anthropology awarded by the Andra Pradesh University and whether, it can be considered as suitable qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) in Government Arts and Training Colleges. The Syndicate has resolved and accepted the views of the Chairman, Board of Studies that M.Sc. Decree in Human Genetics and Anthropology from the Andra Pradesh University is not equivalent to M.Sc. Degree of Zoology in Madras University.
25. On receipt of the clarification and after considering the views of the Directorate of Collegiate Education, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has decided that the qualification possessed by the petitioner cannot be considered as equivalent to the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) in the Government Arts and Training Colleges and therefore, opined that the petitioner is ineligible for regularisation of her temporary service and hence suggested that she may be discharged from service.
26. The Public Service Commission is a body created under the Constitution of India by the State/Central to meet the Constitutional requirements under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. As per Article 320 (3), the Union Public Service Commission or the State Public Service Commission, as the case may be, shall be consulted, (a) On all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil servies and for civil posts; and (b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers.
27. The State/Central Government can also seek the views of the Public Service Commission for such other matters as provided under Article 320 sub-Clause 3. The Appointments to the service in the State must be in consonance with the recruitment Rules, which prescribe the qualifications for the relevant post. When the Government have decided to regularise the temporary appointments of Assistant Professors appointed in Arts and Training Colleges and Assistant Professors in Non-Law subjects in Government Colleges recruited through the Employment Exchange under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, taking into consideration the long temporary service and the time to be consumed in conducting the special qualifying examination, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission who was supported to conduct the examination for them, gave its opinion to the Government to regularise the service of the above said teachers under latter part of Regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulation, 1954, subject to the satisfaction of the educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor of Zoology in Government Colleges.
28. As a recruiting agency, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is bound to verify the academic qualifications of the candidates when there is a regular appointment to a post falling within its purview. When there is a requirement of consultation with reference to Article 320 sub-Clause 3 on the principles to be followed in making regular appointment of professors, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission being the recruiting agency, is enjoined with a duty to offer its opinion on the suitability of the candidates for such appointment. If any temporary appointments are made by the appointing authorities under certain administrative exigencies for the posts within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and such appointments are to be regularised, without reference to the educational qualification by the appointing authorities themselves, without consultation of the commission, then the very purpose of including that post, under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission would be meaningless. Therefore, the Government or the appointing authorities cannot exercise their executive power to circumvent the requirements under the Statutory Rules. Therefore, the Public Service Commission cannot be ignored where appointments are required to be made as per the Statute through the Public Service Commission. Article 320 of the Constitution of India postulates that it is the duty of the Public Service Commission to conduct examination and see that the Government/Heads of the Department have recruited the candidates as per the requirements and one of the responsibility of the Public Service Commission is to ensure that selection is done properly to avoid arbitrariness. Therefore, the Public Service Commission, recruiting agency, is enjoined with a duty to verify whether the incumbent satisfies the educational qualification prescribed for the post and for that purpose, it has every right to seek the assistance of expert bodies, like, the University of Madras or any other expert body to offer its views on the question of the equivalence of the educational qualification prescribed for the post.
29. As regards reliance placed by the petitioner on the entry in the service register made by the then Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Chennai that the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of Assistant Professor of Zoology and Paragraph 4 of the Government Order in G.O.No.1840, Education, dated 16.12.1988, to the effect that the order of relaxation of the relevant rules like age, educational qualification, wherever necessary would be issued, it could be seen from the very same Government Order in G.O.No.1840, Education, dated 16.12.1988, that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had accorded its concurrence provisionally for the regularisation of 16 Assistant Professors mentioned in Annexure II. Though the then Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Chennai had endorsed that the petitioner was fully qualified to hold the post of Assistant Professor in the matter of recognition of the educational qualification and its equivalence, the University, comprising of experts in the field of education, which is an autonomous body alone is the competent authority to recommend and issue equivalency certificate.
30. As regards the academic mattes regarding equivalence of University degrees/programmes, it is now well settled that it is purely domain of the Board of experts appointed by the Universities to consider the question of equivalence or recognition of a particular degree, programme or course etc. It is for each university to consider the question of equivalence of an examination held by any other Board or University, which examination primarily constitutes the basis for eligibility to appoint to any post, under the Civil services of the State.
31. Some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this aspect are as follows:
(i) In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao reported in AIR 1965 SC 491, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 12 and 13, held as follows:
"12. In our opinion, in coming to the conclusion that appellant. No. 2 did not satisfy the first qualification, the High Court is plainly in error. The judgment shows that the learned judges concentrated on the question as to whether a candidated obtaining 50 per cent marks could be said to have secured a high Second Class Degree, and if the relevant question had to be determined solely by reference to this aspect of the matter, the conclusion of the High Court would have been beyond reproach. But what the High Court has failed to notice is the fact that the first qualification consists of two parts - the first part is : a high Second Class Master's Degree of an Indian University, and the second part is : its equivalent which is an equivalent qualification of a foreign University. The High Court does not appear to have considered the question as to whether it would be appropriate for the High Court to differ from the opinion of the Board when it was quite likely that the Board may have taken the view that the Degree of Master of Arts of the Durham University which appellant No. 2 had obtained, was equivalent to a high Second Class Master's Degree of an Indian University. This aspect of the questions (sic) purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally, hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the Board of experts was satisfied that appellant No.2 fulfilled the first qualification. If only the attention of the High Court had been drawn to the equivalent furnished in the first qualification, we have no doubt that it would not have held that the Board had acted capriciously in expressing the opinion that appellant No. 2 satisfied all the qualifications, including the first qualification. As we have already observed though the High Court felt some difficulty, about the two remaining qualifications, the High Court has not rested its decision on any definite finding that these qualification also had not been satisfied. On reading the first qualification, the position appears to be very simple; but unfortunately, since the equivalent qualification specified by cl : (a) was apparently not brought to the notice of the High Court, it has failed to take that aspect of the matter into account. On that aspect of the matter, it may follow that the Master's Degree of the Durham University secured by appellant No. 2, would satisfy the first qualification and even the second. Besides, it appears that appellant No. 2 has to his credit published works which by themselves would satisfy the second qualification. Therefore, there is no doubt that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that since appellant No. 2 could not be said to have secured a high Second Class Master Degree of on Indian University he did not satisfy the first qualification. It is plain that Master's Degree of the Durham University. which, appellant No. 2 has obtained, can be and must have been taken by the Board to be equivalent to a high Second Class Master's Degree of in Indian University, and that means the first' qualification is satisfied by appellant No. 2. That being so, we must hold that the High Court was in error in issuing a writ of quo warranto, quashing the appointment of appellant No. 2.
13. Before we part with these appeals, however, reference must be made to two other matters. In dealing with the case presented before it by the respondent, the High Court has criticised the report made by the Board and has observed that the circumstances disclosed by the report made it difficult for the High Court to treat the recommendations made by the expert with the respect that they generally deserve. We are unable to see the point of criticism of the High Court in such academic matters. Boards of Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them are challenged before courts, normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts. There is no allegation about malafides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. The criticism made by the High Court against the report made by the Board seems to suggest that the High Court thought that the Board was in the position of an executive authority, issuing an executive fiat, or was acting like a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for its decision. In dealing with complaints made by citizens is regard to appointments made by academic bodies, like the Universities, such an approach would not be reasonable or appropriate. In fact, in issuing the writ, the High Court has made certain observations which show that the High Court applied tests which would legitimately be applied in the case of writs of certiorari. In the judgment, it has been observed that the error in this case is undoubtedly a manifest error. That is a consideration which is more germane and relevant in a procedure for a writ of certiorari. What the High Court should have considered is whether the appointment made by the Chancellor had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court should have shown due regard to the opinion expressed by the Board and its recommendations on which the Chancellor has acted. In this connection, the High Court has failed to notice one significant fact that when the Board considered the claims of the respective applicants, it examined them very carefully and actually came to the conclusion that none of them deserved to be appointed a Professor. These recommendations made by the Board clearly show that they considered the relevant factors carefully and ultimately came to the conclusion that appellant No. 2 should be recommended for the post of Reader. Therefore, we are satisfied that the criticism made by the High Court against the Board and its deliberations is not justified."
(ii) In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University reported in 1986 Supp. SCC 740, the Supreme Court held that it is for each universities to decide the question of equivalence of the examination and it would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University relating to the academic question of equivalence because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The University is best fitted to decide whether any examination held by a University outside the State is equivalent to an examination held within the State having regard to the courses, the syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination.
(iii) The Supreme Court, while considering the scope and power of the Court to interfere with the decision of the Government or the Competent Authority in prescribing the minimum educational qualification for admission to a course and recognising certain educational qualification as equivalent or higher than the prescribed one, in the State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun reported in 2002 (6) SCC 252, at Paragraph 10, held as follows:
"10. The points involved in the case are twofold: one relating to prescription of minimum educational qualification for admission to the course and the other relating to recognition of the Madhyama Certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to or higher than +2 or 1st year of TDC for the purpose of admission. Both these points relate to matters in the realm of policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with power under any statute. It is not for courts to determine whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognized as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the case. That is not to say that such matters are not justiciable. In an appropriate case the court can examine whether the policy decision or the administrative order dealing with the matter is based on a fair, rational and reasonable ground; whether the decision has been taken on consideration of relevant aspects of the matter; whether exercise of the power is obtained with mala fide intention; whether the decision serves the purpose of giving proper training to the candidates admitted or it is based on irrelevant and irrational considerations or intended to benefit an individual or a group of candidates."
(iv) This Court in R.Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2005 Mad. 278, had an occasion to consider the non-recognition of M.S., degree awarded by BITS Pilani. The Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai, by his impugned order, informed the lecturers working in various colleges with B.E./B.Tech degrees and who pursued M.S. Degree awarded by BITS Pilani, with the permission from their respective colleges, as not equivalent to M.E., degree awarded by the Tamil Nadu Universities. While testing the correctness of the orders of the Director of Technical Education, Chennai and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case, this Court, at Paragraph 37, held as follows:
"The above judgment of the Honourable Apex Court is not only the law of the land but also squarely applies to the case in hand and needless to mention that the petitioners cannot compel the respondents particularly the respondents 1, 2, 5 and 7 with such impositions that they should recognise the degree conferred by the BITS, Pilani for any purpose much less for the purpose of appointment/promotions/higher studies for doing Ph.D., etc. It is relevant to mention that no University or 'Deemed University' or its graduates could compel for demand any other university to recognise the degrees of other universities. It aptly applies to the petitioners as well and therefore, no mention need be necessary that the petitioners have no case to offer. Hence the above writ petition becomes only liable to be dismissed."
(v) In Bihar Public Service Commission and others v. Kamini and others reported in 2007 (5) SCC 519, the Supreme Court considered a case, where, the candidate having B.Sc., Honors in Chemistry with Zoology and Botany was allowed to appear for the interview. Lateron, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she did not possess the qualification for the post, viz., B.Sc., Zoology. A learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, accepting the report of the Expert Committee, which stated that B.Sc. Honors in Chemistry with Zoology as ancillary subject is not equivalent to B.Sc., Degree in Zoology. The Division Bench of the Court reversed the decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court, following the Constitutional bench judgment in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491], at Paragraph 8 of the judgment, held that, "It is well settled that in the field of education, a Court of law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses requisite qualifications should better be left educational institutions. [vide University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, (1964) 4 SLR 576 : AIR 1965 SC 491] This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert Committee."
32. As seen from the Government Order in G.O.1840, Education, dated 16.12.1988, no specific promise has been held out by the Government to the effect that the age and the educational qualifications would be automatically relaxed in respect of teachers, who were sought to be absorbed in the Tamil Nadu College Educational Service. If the Government had already relaxed, then there is no necessity to direct the Director of Collegiate Education to send proposals for relaxation, which means that the issue was kept alive and the subsequent letter of regularising one candidate out of the remaining two itself is the proof.
33. The periodical payment of increments and hike in the salary on the basis of career advancement as per the UGC norms would not clothe the petitioner the right to continue in the post, for which, she does not possess the suitable educational qualification. The grant of such benefits depends upon the length of Government service in the said post and it does not amount to recognition or equivalence of the educational qualification required for the post. Further, the Director of the Collegiate Education, Chennai, second respondent, in his letter dated 23.04.1993, addressed to the Registrar of University of Madras, has also sought for clarification in detail as to the eligibility of the petitioner to hold the post of Assistant Professor in the Tamil Nadu College Educational Service, for which, the Registrar of University, Madras in his letter dated 02.12.1993 has clarified that the qualification of the petitioner, ie., M.Sc. Human Genetics and Anthropology is not equivalent to M.Sc decree in Zoology of Madras University. The entry made in the service register by the then Commissioner of College Education, Chennai, would not support the case of the petitioner, as the Constitutional machinery, viz., the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the recruiting agency to conduct examination for appointment to the services of the State and to offer its opinion in matters relating to method of recruitment and suitability of the candidate for such appointment, promotion, transfer, is the competent authority to offer his view and the State Government can take proper action on the basis of the opinion offered by the commission.
34. The qualification prescribed for pursuing higher studies in that discipline may not be suitable for employment to a post under the Services of the State or the Union. The Government which has framed the recruitment Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India can decide the suitability of the qualification to any particular post after getting the views of the University, which is the expert body in the field of education. If the University had permitted the petitioner to peruse higher studies in the field of Zoology, that would not bind the Government or the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to simply accept the said qualification as suitable for appointment or curtail their rights to ascertain whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to the one prescribed under the recruitment Rules. It is also to be noted that when regularisation of the temporary services of 621 Assistant Professors in Government Arts and Science Colleges, including 5 Assistant Professors, were sought to be made, it was the Commission, who gave its opinion to regularise them and that the regularization of 16 persons were only provisional, subject to satisfying the educational qualifications. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the Commission has no role to play in the matter of regular appointment of the petitioner, is not tenable.
35. In today's educational scenario, hybrid courses and specialised programmes are being offered by Universities with different syllabi, course pattern, duration etc. The system of education, pattern of study, syllabi for the courses, degrees, programmes, etc., are not uniform and one and the same across the country. Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates are awarded by various Universities established under the respective enactments and by the deemed Universities. Syndicate or the expert body of a University inter alia has the power to evaluate the certificates and recognise a course or programme awarded by the other universities. High Court exercising Writ jurisdiction cannot act as a Court of Appeal, sitting over the decision of an expert body like the syndicate of an University and substitute its views over the qualification and recognition of a course or programme for the purpose of the higher studies or appointment. The court can exercises its jurisdiction only in the case, where the University acts derogative of its statutory powers or in violation of principles of Natural Justice. If the educational authorities/university, after evaluation of the course/programme do not accept the same as equivalent course and of the standard prescribed for a similar or a corresponding course, the petitioner, who has been appointed with an ineligible qualification for the post of Assistant Professor, cannot insist that the appointing authority should consider the qualification of M.Sc. (Human Genetics and Anthropology) obtained from Andhra University as equivalent to M.Sc., Zoology and regularise her appointment.
36. There is nothing wrong in the recruitment Agency, seeking clarification from the examining body, viz., the University to ascertain whether a particular degree or diploma or course or programme conducted by another University is of the same standard, syllabus etc., and whether the said degree or diploma etc., is suitable or equivalent for the purpose of appointment to any post in the State of Tamil Nadu. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders.
37. Regarding the relief of regularisation prayed in this Writ Petition, the Supreme Court in A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies,(2004) 7 SCC 112, at paragraph No:39 of the judgment held as follows:
39. Regularisation, in our considered opinion, is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or any body or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It is also now well settled that an appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation. Paragraph 26 of the judgment, R.N.Najundappa Vs. T.Thimmaiah. reported in (1972) 1 Supreme Court 409, as extracted at paragraphs No.43 & 45 in Umaranis case reads as follows:-
If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution illegality cannot be regularised. Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules.
45.No regularisation is, thus, permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules. In a decision reported in M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Nanuram Yadav, (2007) 8 SCC 264, at paragraph 24, the Supreme Court summarised the law relating to regularization as hereunder:-
In the matter of public appointments, the following principles are to be followed:
(1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the rules/government circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment.
(3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation.
(4) Those who come by back door should go through that door.
(5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules.
(6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy.
(7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection.
(8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside. (Underlining by this Court) In the light of the principles of law relating to regularization, when the petitioner does not possess the educational qualification of M.Sc.Zoology, prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor of Zoology, this Court cannot issue any direction.
38. Having regard to the fact that the Directorate of Collegiate Education, Chennai has appointed the petitioner through Employment Exchange and considering the fact that the petitioner has served in various colleges without any blemish for over 26 years from the date of appointment, acquired a Doctorate degree in the filed of Zoology and that there was no complaint from any quarters about her capability to take classes, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate decision in the matter of continuing the petitioner in service. Equity has to be balanced, but at the same time, the Court is not a position to tilt its decision in favour of the petitioner, in view of the statutory rules governing appointment.
39. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
27.06.2008 Index: Yes skm/ssm S. MANIKUMAR, J.
skm To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Government, Education, Science and Technology Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9.
2. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, College Road, Madras-6.
3. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep. by Secretary, Madras-2.
4. The Principal, Govt. Arts.College for Women, Tirunelveli-8.
5. The University of Madras, rep. by its Registrar, Chennai-5.
W.P.No.27580 of 200527.06.2008