Madras High Court
Dr.P.Michael Sahaya Lucy Shanthi vs The Teachers Recruitment Board on 3 December, 2013
Author: M.M.Sundresh
Bench: M.M.Sundresh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.12.2013 CORAM.. THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.(MD)No.11913 of 2013 W.P.(MD)Nos.11914, 11989 and 13793 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1 and 2 of 2013 Dr.P.Michael Sahaya Lucy Shanthi .. Petitioner in W.P.[MD].No.11913 of 2013 Dr.M.Mahaboob Beevi .. Petitioner in W.P.[MD].No.11914 of 2013 Dr.M.Anusuya : Petitioner in W.P.[MD].No.11989 of 2013 C.Thilagavathi .. Petitioner in W.P.[MD].No.13531 of 2013 Dr.T.M.Selvakumari.. Petitioner in W.P.[MD].No.13793 of 2013 Vs. 1.The Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary [Higher Education Department], Fort.St.George, Chennai. 3.The Bharathidasan University, Represented by its Registrar, Palkalaiperur, Tiruchirappalli 620 025. .. Respondents in All Writ Petitions PRAYER IN W.P.(MD)No.11913 of 2013 Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the non-equivalence provided in G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 30.04.2013 with reference to Enrty No.35 of the Government's conclusive order in Page No.10 as ab-initio, void, illegal and unjust and consequently prohibiting the second respondent from implementing the above non- equivalence in the field of other avenues of employment where the M.Sc., Degree in Applied Physics [Computer Electronics] has to be treated as equivalence to M.Sc., Physics. PRAYER IN W.P.(MD)Nos.11914, 11989, 13531 and 13793 of 2013: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Declaration, declaring that the Entry No.35 of the Government's conclusive order in Page No.10 stating M.Sc., Degree in Applied Physics [Computer Electronics] as not equivalent to M.Sc., Physics in G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 30.04.2013, as ab- initio, void, and without any authority and directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioners for the post of teacher with M.Sc., Degree in Physics in the Government College in the State. !For Petitioners.. Mr.S.K.Mani ^For Respondents.. Mr.K.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan Additional Government Pleader For Respondent No.3.. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader :COMMON ORDER
****************** As the issues involved in all the five Writ Petitions are common with a challenge to the very same Government Order, they have been taken up together and dealt with by a Common Order.
2. Facts in brief:-
2.1. The second respondent, on the lines of the Government of India, made a decision to set up a committee to examine the requests of the Educational Institutions to recognize the courses offered by them for the purpose of appointment in public services. Accordingly, a committee was constituted, under the Chairmanship of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, as per the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.441, Personnel and Administrative Reforms [Per.R] Department, dated 20.02.1993. The following are the members of the Committee constituted:-
"1. The Vice-Chancellor of the Madras University.
2. The Vice-Chancellor of the Annamalai University,
3. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
4. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Education Department,
5. The Director of Collegiate Education, Madras,
6. The Director of Technical Education, Madras."
2.2. Thereafter, by a subsequent Government Order, passed in G.O.Ms.No.214, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.11.2006, the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, has been included as the Member Secretary to the Equivalence Committee.
2.3. The Equivalence Committee had its meeting, on 08.03.2013. In and by its 39th Equivalence Committee Meeting held, it was resolved that the courses, viz., M.Sc., Applied Physics [Computer Electronics] and M.Sc., Applied Physics [Instrumentation], offered by the Bharathidasan University, the third respondent herein, are not equivalent to the M.Sc., Physics Course. The recommendation of the Equivalence Committee was duly forwarded to the second respondent by the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The second respondent, on a consideration of the relevant materials, was pleased to accept the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee, by passing a Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.72, Higher Education [K2] Department, dated 30.04.2012, which is sought to be impugned in these Writ Petitions filed before this Court.
2.4. The petitioners herein are holding degrees in M.Sc., Applied Physics [Computer Electronics] and M.Sc., Applied Physics [Instrumentation] respectively, having completed the same with the third respondent university. As the above said degrees obtained by the petitioners from the third respondent University were not accepted as equivalent to the M.Sc., Physics Course, resulting in their deprivation of being considered for the Government posting, they have challenged the said Government Order in these Writ Petitions.
3. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:-
3.1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the said Government Order has been passed based on the recommendation of the Committee, which undertook the object of equating the degrees on the recommendations made by the School Education Department, and therefore, the same cannot be made applicable to the Collegiate Education. The second respondent does not have power or authority to pass the Government Order, as it is the University Grants Commission, which is the body constituted to decide the same.
Since the teachers are working in various private colleges with the qualification of M.Sc., Applied Physics [Computer Electronics] and M.Sc., Applied Physics [Instrumentation], the restriction imposed for the posts available in the public services is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The classification sought to be made has no intelligible differentia with the absence of no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. The first respondent has not taken into consideration of the relevant materials, as it was done in the same manner by the Equivalence Committee. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
(i). Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Vithal Rao, reported in 1973 (1) SCC
500.
(ii). Punjab Higher Qualified Teachers' Union Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1988 (2) SCC 407.
4. Submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 and 2:-
4.1. Per contra, Mr.K.Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, has submitted that the second respondent has accepted the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee, after satisfying with the relevant materials. The Equivalence Committee is consisting of men of eminence. As it is a body constituted for the purpose of evaluating the degrees obtained from various Universities, the same cannot be questioned as bad in the eye of law. The question is not between the private teachers and the Government Teachers, but one of evaluating the courses offered by various universities for the purpose of public employment. Therefore, these Writ Petitions will have to be dismissed.
5. Submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader for the third respondent:-
5.1. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent has submitted that in academic matters, the Court shall always be slow in interfering, as they cannot act as Appellate Authorities. Since the said decision has been made based on the assessment of the relevant materials, no interference is required by this Court.
6. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully.
7. The Equivalence Committee has been constituted by the Government with the specific object of evaluating the various educational qualifications possessed by the candidates as equivalent or not equivalent to the courses offered by the various Universities. This was thought it fit to be adopted, as the same is very much required, while defining the required qualification in a public service. Therefore, the said committee has been constituted through the Government Order, by eminent personalities, having sufficient experience in the field of education. In any case, it is not the case of the petitioners that they have not questioned the composition of the Equivalence Committee, nor it is their case that the said committee is not competent to undertake the exercise done by them. Until and unless perversity is shown, the Court of law shall not interfere with the wisdom of an expert body, constituted in accordance with law.
8. When an action or a procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide manner, then, the power of judicial review over the same would be rather circumspect. The records would reveal that a clear procedure has been demarcated for the purpose of undertaking the evaluation of the degrees obtained. The consideration of the relevant materials, based upon which a conclusion is arrived at, in an academic field, shall not be interfered with blindly.
9. The petitioners are unable to demonstrate before this Court any arbitrariness on the part of the said committee in arriving at its conclusion. Merely because the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision rendered by the committee, it cannot be a ground to challenge the same. When a decision is taken by an Expert Committee, on a consideration of the relevant materials, the consequences, which would fall from it, cannot be a ground to challenge the said decision. The committee has been constituted in order to maintain quality of education and uniformity in fixing the basic qualification for a candidate in public service. The said object cannot be said to be a wrong one.
10. Considering the scope of judicial review in academic matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanchit Bansal Vs. Joint Admission Board, reported in 2012 (1) SCC 157, has held in the following manner:-
24. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth1 it was observed thus: (SCC pp. 56 & 57, para 29) "29. . the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them."
25. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan2 this Court held: (SCC p. 732, paras 16 & 17) "16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.
17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off.
If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in."
(emphasis supplied)
26. This Court has also repeatedly held that the courts are not concerned with the practicality or wisdom of the policies but only illegality. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain3 this Court held: (SCC p. 746, para 16) "16. . Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review." (emphasis supplied)
27. Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialised courses, are all technical matters in academic field and the courts will not interfere in such processes. The courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the following: (i) violation of any enactment, statutory rules and regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious.
11. Similarly, the following passages of a recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Parshvanath Charitable Trust Vs. All India Council For Technical Education, reported in 2013 (3) SCC 385, are appended as under:-
25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the Central authorities such as AICTE have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act. In All India Council for Technical Education v.
Surinder Kumar Dhawan8, this Court, while stating the principles that the courts may not substitute their opinion in place of the opinion of the Council, held as under: (SCC pp. 732-33 & 736, paras 17-18 & 32) "17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha v. Allahabad University9 this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424-26, paras 11-17) '11. . Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. .
17. . While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.' (emphasis supplied)
18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth10 this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) '29. . the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.'
32. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like AICTE. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the court, a bridge course was permitted for four-year advance diploma-holders who had passed the entry-level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one-time measure was extended for several years and was also extended to post diploma- holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination instead of the required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education."
(emphasis in original)
26. Right from Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P.11 this Court has unequivocally held that the right to establish an educational institution does not carry within it the right to recognition or the right to affiliation. Grant of recognition or affiliation is neither a matter of course nor is it a formality. Admission to the privileges of a university is a power to be exercised with great care keeping in view the interest of the public at large and the nation. Recognition has to be as per statutorily prescribed conditions and their strict adherence by all concerned. These conditions of recognition and the duly notified directions controlling the admission process are to be construed and applied stricto sensu. They cannot be varied from case to case. Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference in this regard can be made to Rajan Purohit v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences12 at this stage, in addition to Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh.
12. Considering the legal principles, as narrated in the decision rendered supra, this Court is of the considered view that there is nothing arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the statute in passing the order impugned.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the decision has been rendered in the impugned order while dealing with the post of teachers in the School Education Department, and therefore, the same cannot be applied to the Higher Education Department. This Court is afraid that the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced, for the simple reason that by way of the order impugned, the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee on the evaluation of the courses undergone by the petitioners alone was done. Nevertheless, the said exercise has got no relevancy to the department. But, it merely deals with the evaluation of the courses undergone by the petitioners with M.Sc., Physics Course. The contention regarding the lack of power for the second respondent also deserves to be rejected. The petitioners have not demonstrated that the second respondent does not have the power or authority to pass the Government Order. It is not the qualification, that has been fixed by the Government Order, but an evaluation of the courses undergone by the petitioners. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, by making reliance upon the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges Regulation Act, 1976, that the jurisdiction is lying only with the University Grants Commission has got no basis both fact and law.
14. In the same manner, this Court is of the considered view that it is unnecessary to go into the issue between the private college teachers and the Government college teachers. By the impugned Government Order, a mere evaluation done by the competent authority was approved. Moreover, while dealing with the challenge to the impugned order, it is not necessary to go into the issue as to whether a private college teacher with a degree obtained in M.Sc., Applied Physics [Computer Electronics] and M.Sc., Applied Physics [Instrumentation], can function as M.Sc., Physics teacher or not.
15. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. There is no question of discriminating any group of persons in favour of others by the respondents 1 and
2. What has been done is an approval to an academic exercise. A perusal of the counter affidavit would show that the Equivalence Committee has taken into consideration all the relevant materials. This Court does not find anything in the impugned Government Order, which creates a clause within a clause, without any rational basis, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. First of all, there is no homogeneous class, and therefore, there is no question of further classification between the said class.
16. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed, as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
NB To
1.The Teachers Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary [Higher Education Department], Fort.St.George, Chennai.