Madras High Court
K.V.Pankajam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DELIVERED ON : 25.06.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.Nos.10605 to 10608 of 2013 K.V.Pankajam .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.10605 & 10606 of 2013 B.Sasireka .. Petitioner in W.P.Nos.10607 & 10608 of 2013 Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 3.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 4.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 5.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai 600 006. 6.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University, Lady Wilington College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 005. .. Respondents in all WPs Prayer : W.P.Nos.10605 & 10607 of 2013 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in relation to the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.24, Personnel & Administrative Reform Department dated 04.02.2001 and quash the same in so far as petitioners are concerned and issue a consequential directed to the respondents to treat the B.Sc. Degree of Bio-chemistry as equivalent to B.Sc. Degree in Chemistry as per G.O.Ms.No.254 Personnel and Administration Department, dated 22.10.1998 and appoint the petitioners as B.T. Assistant. Prayer : W.P.Nos.10606 & 10608 of 2013 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the fifth respondent in relation to the Notification issued in Advertisement No.04/2012 dated 07.03.2012 in relation to appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant for the year 2011-2012 and quash the same and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as B.T. Assistant to take Classes 6 to 8 as per the Notification of the NCTE dated 23.8.2010 and as per the G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 27.6.2003. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Saseetharan For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatramani Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mrs.M.E.Raniselvam Addl. Government Pleader for R1 to R5 : Mr.V.Venkatesan for R6 COMMON ORDER
The petitioners have filed writ petitions being W.P.Nos.10605 and 10607 of 2013 seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in G.O.Ms.No.24, Personnel & Administrative Reform Department dated 04.02.2001 and to quash the same in so far as petitioners are concerned and to direct the respondents to treat the B.Sc. Degree of Bio-chemistry as equivalent to B.Sc. Degree in Chemistry as per G.O.Ms.No.254 Personnel and Administration Department, dated 22.10.1998 and to appoint petitioners as B.T. Assistant.
2. W.P.Nos.10606 and 10608 of 2013 have been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the fifth respondent in relation to the Notification issued in Advertisement No.04/2012 dated 07.03.2012 qua appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant for the year 2011-2012 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as B.T. Assistant to take Classes 6 to 8 as per the Notification of the NCTE dated 23.08.2010 and as per G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 27.06.2003.
3. The common case of the petitioners is that they possessed Bachelor of Science degree in Bio-chemistry with B.Ed. degree and are entitled to be appointed to the post of B.T. Assistant in Science. The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is the competent authority to prescribe qualification for the post of teachers to teach students range age up to 14 years. By the notification dated 23.08.2010, the NCTE has prescribed qualifications for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as well as B.T. Assistant to teach Classes 1 to 5 and 6 to 8 respectively. For the post of B.T. Assistant to teach the standards from 5 to 8, one of the prescribed qualification was B.A./B.Sc. degree with at least 50% marks and pass in B.Ed. and also pass in Teachers Eligibility Test to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the guidelines framed by NCTE.
4. As per G.O.Ms.No.181, dated 15.11.2001, the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) is the Nodal Agency to conduct Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). The candidate who wish to become a teacher for classes 1 to 5 has to appear for Paper-I and the aspirant for teacher to take classes 5 to 8 has to appear for Paper-II. Since petitioners who are holders of B.Sc. and B.Ed. have selected Paper-II and appeared for the examination and passed the same. In its communication, the TRB stated that petitioners scored 90 marks in Paper-II and thus qualified for the post of teacher. The TRB has also called the petitioners for certificate verification for Paper-II scheduled to be held on 07.11.2012 and the petitioners have also appeared before the Committee for certificate verification and produced all certificates. However, the TRB, in its communication published in the website has stated that the petitioners were not selected and it is mentioned that the non-selection was Bio-chemistry degree.
5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the reason for non-selection of the petitioners for the post of teacher for classes 5 to 8 was petitioners studied Bio-chemistry and according to petitioners, the reason given by the TRB is illegal and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. According to petitioners, as candidates possessing three years degree in Science with B.Ed., they are eligible to be appointed to the post of B.T. Assistant to teach Classes 5 to 8 as per NCTE norms.
6. According to petitioners, the Government of Tamilnadu issued G.O.Ms.No.254, P & AR Department, dated 22.10.1998 treating Bachelor degree in Bio-chemistry as equivalent to B.Sc. degree in Chemistry. But contrary to that, the Government in its impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011 stated that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry) and therefore, the petitioners cannot be appointed. Without cancelling the earlier G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 22.10.1998, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011 is liable to be quashed and the respondents to treat B.Sc. (Biochemistry) as equivalent to B.Sc.(Chemistry) and to appoint the petitioners as B.T. Assistant. The petitioners have sought to quash the notification being Advertisement No.04/12, dated 07.03.2012 of the fifth respondent in relation to the appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant for the year 2011-2012.
7. Resisting the averments in the writ petitions, the second respondent filed counter stating that in G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 22.10.1998, orders were issued among other things that the B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) offered by the Bharathiyar University as equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry) for the purpose of appointment/promotion in public service. In these writ petitions, petitioners have obtained B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) degree in some other University and hence, G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 22.10.1998 will not apply to the case of the petitioners. The Equivalence Committee, in its meeting held on 10.08.2009 has resolved that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) offered by all the Universities in this State recognised by the U.G.C. is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry) for the purpose of appointment in public services.
8. According to the second respondent, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011 was passed based on the orders of this Court in W.A.No.1197 of 2010 and therefore, the petitioners have no right to question the same. The orders issued in Letter No.38561/M/2008-3 P & AR, dated 16.11.2009 and the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011 shall automatically supersede the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 22.10.1998. Hence, the petitioners cannot seek employment based on the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 22.10.1998.
9. The fifth respondent filed counter stating that based on the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1197 of 2010, dated 28.10.2010, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011 was issued directing that the degree of B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is not equivalent to the degree of B.Sc. (Chemistry) for the purpose of employment in public services. According to the fifth respondent, the impugned G.O., was prior to the date of notification dated 07.03.2012. It is stated that G.O.Ms.No.133, dated 04.06.2012 was issued to the effect that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry).
10. According to the fifth respondent, the latest G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 30.04.2013 was to the effect that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry). It is stated that the entire recruitment process pursuant to the Notification dated 07.03.2012 has attained finality. It is also stated that fresh notification for TET-2013 was published on 22.05.2013 and TET Paper I and II were conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 and subsequently, the provisional results of TET-2013 were released on 05.11.2013. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
11. I heard Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.K.Venkatramani, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.M.E.Raniselvam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.V.Venkatesan, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. Perused the materials available on record.
12. Reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same has been issued contrary to the facts and circumstances. He submitted that as early as in 1998 itself, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 22.10.1998, treated the B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) as equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry) for the purpose of appointment in public services and without cancelling the said G.O., the Government had issued impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011.
13. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent authorities have failed to see that in W.P.No.24953 of 2007, dated 29.04.2008, this Court has issued directions to the respondents therein, including the TRB, to appoint the petitioner therein as B.T. Assistant in Science on the ground that there was a Government letter which recognises that holders of B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) are entitled to be appointed as B.T. Assistant in Science. He argued that the impugned G.O. is a non-speaking order and it does not contain any reason for rejection of the equivalence of B.Sc. (Chemistry) to that of B.Sc. (Bio-Chemistry).
14. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Equivalence Committee has categorically stated that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry) offered by all Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of appointment in public services. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.24 was passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 22.10.1998 was not in force after the issuance of the impugned G.O.
15. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that the Equivalence Committee in its meeting held on 28.01.2011 decided that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is not equivalent with B.Sc. (Chemistry) and pursuant to the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee only, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24 was passed and the same cannot be questioned by the petitioners. He submitted that the entire recruitment process pursuant to the impugned notification was over and even TET-2013 was published and examination were conducted way back in August 2013 itself and the provisional list was also published on 05.11.2013.
16. The short question that arises for consideration is whether B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is to be treated as B.Sc. (Chemistry) for the purpose of appointment in public services.
17. Originally, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.254, P & AR Department, dated 22.10.1998 to the effect that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) offered by Bharathiyar University is equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry) for the purpose of appointment/promotion in public services. In G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 22.10.1998, it has been stated as under:
@Miz ghujpahh; gy;fiyf; fHfj;jhy; tH';fg;gLk; mwptpay; gl;l nkw;gog;g[fs;-gl;lg; gog;g[fis mnj gy;fiyf; fHfj;jhy; tH';fg;gLk; fPH;f;fz;l mwptpay; gl;l nkw;gog;g[fs;-gl;l gog;g[fSf;F ,izahff; fUjpg; bghJg; gzpfspy; ntiytha;g;g[ bgWk; nehf;fj;jpw;fhf m';fPfhuk; mspf;FkhW ghujpahh; gy;fiyf; fHfg; gjpthsh; nfl;Ls;shh;/ gl;lnkw;gog;g[-gl;lg;gog;gpd; bgah;
,izahdjhff; fUjg;gLk; gl;lnkw;gog;g[-gl;lg;gog;g[ jhtutpay; mwptpay; gl;l nkw;gog;g[ jhtutpay; gl;l nkw;gog;g[ tpy';fpd mwptpay; gl;l nkw;gog;g[ tpy';fpay; gl;l nkw;gog;g[ caphpd ntjpay; gl;lg; gog;g[ ntjpay; gl;l gog;g[ Ez;Qqaphpay; gl;lg;gog;t[ jhtutpay;-tpy';fpay; gl;lg;gog;g[ (emphasis supplied)
18. It appears that G.O.Ms.No.254 was issued based on the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee meeting held on 20.03.1998.
19. It appears that in the letter dated 16.07.2008, the Chairman, TRB has sought for clarification as to whether those who possess B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) can be appointed for the post of B.T. Assistant (Chemistry) and the said letter was referred to the Equivalence Committee. The Equivalence Committee in its meeting held on 10.08.2009 has resolved that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) offered by all the Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu recognised by the University Grants Commission is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry) for the purpose of appointment in public services. Accordingly, TRB issued orders on 16.11.2009.
20. Challenging the order of the Chairman, TRB dated 16.11.2009, one Easwaran, who was possessing a degree of B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) with B.Ed. had filed W.P.No.784 of 2010 before this Court. It appears that similarly placed persons were also filed W.P.No.2128 of 2010 before this Court seeking to quash the order of the TRB dated 16.11.2009 and consequently, to direct the respondents to treat B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) as equivalent to that of the degree in B.Sc. (Chemistry) in the light of G.O.Ms.No.254 dated 22.10.1998. After elaborate discussions, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed both the writ petitions. In paragraphs 10 to 14, the learned Single Judge observed as under:
10. It was due to this competing and conflicting claims, this Court by an order dated 21.01.2010 decided to call for an opinion from the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher education (TANSCHE) which is a body constituted under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1992. Under the said Act, TANSCHE is empowered to advise the Government on academic matters. In that order the direction in paragraph 6 , reads as follows:-
"6. In the light of the same, the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education is hereby directed to consider whether the candidates who are having Graduate degree in Bio-Chemistry obtained from all the Universities, which are recognised by the University Grants Commission, are eligible to teach Chemistry students in the various Government Arts and Science Colleges in the State coming under the Tamil Nadu College Education Services. In doing so, the State Council shall convene a meeting of the Heads of the Board of Studies of all Universities and also independently apply their mind and submit a report to this Court whether the candidates who are having Graduate degree in Bio-Chemistry are eligible to teach Chemistry in the various colleges run by the State Government. Such a report shall be sent to this Court on or before 05.02.2010. The State Government is directed to get Experts' opinion from all Universities concerned and also decide on the basis of the materials furnished if any by the TRB and then take a decision."
11. In the order it was mistakenly stated that the candidates who are having Graduate degree in Bio-Chemistry are eligible to teach Chemistry in the various colleges run by the State Government, that was a mistake found in the order. The opinion sought was whether the TRB should consider B.Sc.,Bio-Chemistry degree as equivalent to B.Sc.,Chemistry as required under the Rules for teaching in schools. Nonetheless the TANSCHE is competent to talk about such equivalence.
12. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education sent a letter dated 03.02.2010 addressed to the Registry enclosing its resolution passed by the full Council. Resolution No.1 which was adopted by the Council in its meeting held on 02.02.2010, reads as follows:-
Item No.1 To consider and decide on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, whether the B.Sc.Degree in Bio-Chemistry conferred by the University of Madras is an equivalent subject to B.Sc.Degree in Chemistry to teach Chemistry in Colleges of Tamil nadu.
Resolution:
As per the directions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education convened a meeting of Chairpersons of Board of Studies of Chemistry of all Universities in Tamil Nadu at 4.30 p.m on 1st February 2010 in the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education Hall.
After the deliberations, the Chairpersons of Board of Studies of Chemistry unanimously passed a resolution recommending that after perusing and comparing B.Sc.Chemistry and B.Sc.Bio-Chemistry syllabi it is observed that about 20-25% of chemistry is being included in B.Sc.Bio-Chemistry syllabus. Hence B.Sc.Bio-Chemistry is not considered equivalent to B.Sc.Chemistry.
In the light of the above opinion of subject experts, it was resolved that the B.Sc.Bio-Chemistry is not an equivalent subject to B.Sc.Chemistry to teach Chemistry in Colleges and this may be communicated to the Hon'ble Madras High Court."
13. A copy of the said opinion was also furnished to the learned counsel for both sides. Notwithstanding the report, the petitioners continue to contend that the earlier order of the Government still holds good and therefore, there is no embargo for the petitioners from being considered for the post of B.T.Assistant (Science) with their B.Sc.,Bio-chemistry.
14. This Court is of the opinion that such a contention is too sweeping and cannot be found acceptance by this Court. In a matter of this nature, the power of this Court is very narrow and the judicial review in academic matter cannot be decided on the basis of the contentions raised before this Court, but it should be based upon the materials produced before this Court.
21. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner in W.P.No.784 of 2010, preferred writ appeal being W.A.No.1197 of 2010. By an order dated 28.10.2010, a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:
When the matter came up for further consideration, learned Government Advocate submitted that the subject of Bio-Chemistry has been referred to the Government along with other 22 subjects for decision of the Equivalence Committee and sought eight weeks time. According to her, the matter would be referred by the Government to the Public Service Commission for constituting an Expert Committee to look into the issue.
In view of the same, we grant four weeks time to the Government to communicate the decision of the Committee.
22. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1197 of 2010, the matter has been placed before the Equivalence Committee and the Equivalence Committee in its meeting held on 28.01.2011 has reiterated its earlier views. It may be useful to extract the resolution of the Equivalence Committee dated 28.01.2011, which reads as under:
Resolution No.1 gy;fiyf; fHf khdpaf; FGtpdhy; m';fPfhpf;fg;gl;l ,k;khepyj;jpYs;s midj;Jg; gy;fiyf;fHf';fshy; tH';fg;gLk; ,sk; mwptpay; B.Sc., (Bio-Chemistry) caphpd ntjpapay; gl;lg;gog;gpid ,izahff; fUj. bghJg; gzpfspy; ntiy tha;g;gpw;fhf m';fPfhpf;fyhk;
Already considered and not recommended. The same view is reiterated.
23. Based on the above recommendation of the Equivalence Committee, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011 was passed stating that the degree of B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) awarded by all Universities in the State recognised by the University Grants Commission is not equivalent to the degree of B.Sc. (Chemistry) for the purpose of employment in public services.
24. Though no reference has been made regarding G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 22.10.1998 in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011, I am of the view that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011 shall automatically supersede the order passed in G.O.Ms.No.254, dated 22.10.1998.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that W.P.No.24953 of 2007 has been filed by one Easwaran seeking to quash the letter dated 05.04.2007 and to direct the District Employment Officer, Coimbatore to sponsor his name to fill up the post of Assistant Graduate Teacher (Science) as and when vacancy arose. In the said case, the petitioner Easwaran was possessing B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) with B.Ed. degree and he sought prayer to appoint him as Graduate Teacher in Science. Referring to the letter of the Government dated 06.06.2002 that persons with B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) and B.Ed. degree are entitled to be appointed as Graduate Teachers in Science, the learned Single Judge of this Court held as under:
3.The said direction or clarification issued by the Member Secretary cannot be relied upon by the second respondent, as the Government has issued orders as early as on 06.06.2002 stating that persons with B.Sc., (Bio-Chemistry) and B.Ed., Degree are entitled to be appointed as Graduate Teachers in Science. So long as the said order is not canncelled or modified by the Government, the Member Secretary or the second respondent has no jurisdiction to state that the petitioner is not qualified for the said post of B.T. Assistant (Science). Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to treat the petitioner as qualified and to sponsor the name of the petitioner to the Teachers Recruitment Board as and when further list is called for from the second respondent and the Teachers Recruitment Board is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) along with the other candidates. W.P. is disposed of with above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
26. As against the order passed in W.P.No.24953 of 2007, the Government had preferred writ appeal with delay condonation petition in M.P.No.1 of 2010 in WA SR.No.92675 of 2009. By an order dated 07.09.2011, the First Bench of this Court rejected the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently, dismissed the writ appeal.
27. There is no quarrel about the order passed in W.P.No.24953 of 2007 and the dismissal of the writ appeal at the SR stage by the First Bench of this Court. In W.P.No.24953 of 2007, the petitioner Easwaran, who was possessing B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) sought appointment as B.T. Assistant in Science. In W.P.No.24953 of 2007 and the appeal preferred therein, it is not an issue that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) be treated as B.Sc. (Chemistry). Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the order passed in W.P.No.24953 of 2007 and also dismissal of the writ appeal preferred by the Government.
28. On a perusal of the typed set of papers, I find that on 04.06.2012, the School Education Department, in consultation with the Equivalence Committee, had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.133, wherein also consideration of B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) to that of B.Sc. (Chemistry) was negatived. In the said G.O., the School Education Department has referred the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011. Thus, as per G.O.Ms.No.133, School Education Department, dated 04.06.2012, the degree of B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry).
29. It is to be noted that the Higher Education Department had issued G.O.Ms.No.72, dated 30.04.2013, wherein also it has been stated that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry). Thus, as per the Government Orders, supra, the issue was already referred twice to the Equivalence Committee and the Equivalence Committee, after due deliberation had passed a resolution that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry).
30. It is also to be noted that the petitioner cannot seek advantage of the order passed in W.A.No.1197 of 2010 since in the said order itself, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court directed the matter to be placed before the Expert Committee/Equivalence Committee. It is seen that pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and as per the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee only, the Government had issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011. Therefore, I am of the view that only after thorough examination of the syllabus of both the subjects, the expert academicians arrived at a conclusion that B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry).
31. It is settled that grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision, which is in the sole discretion of the authority concerned and the Court has nothing to do with such matters.
32. In Basic Education Board U.P. v. Upendra Rai and others, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 432, the Supreme Court held as under:
Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the authority concerned, and the court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the Government, and the court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence, it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it.
33. In the light of the above, treating B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) as equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry) is purely in the domain of the Equivalence Committee and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Only after due consideration and/or thorough examination, the Government had passed the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011 and there is no illegality in the impugned G.O. warranting interference of this Court.
34. Coming to quashing of the impugned notification dated 07.03.2012, the fifth respondent in his counter stated that the entire recruitment process pursuant to the notification dated 07.03.2012 has attained finality and the petitioners cannot seek quashing of the impugned notification.
35. In its counter, the fifth respondent also stated that fresh notification being TET-2013 was published on 22.05.2013 and TET Paper-I and II were conducted on 17.08.2013 and 18.08.2013 respectively and also provisional results were released on 05.11.2013. The said position is not disputed by the petitioners.
36. As stated supra, since the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011 was passed in accordance with the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee, there is no need to set aside the notification dated 07.03.2012 impugned in the writ petitions.
37. It is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.Nos.10606 and 10608 of 2013 seeking interim directions directing the respondents to keep one post of B.T. Assistant (Science) vacant pending disposal of the writ petitions. By an order dated 23.04.2013, the learned Single Judge observed as under:
The petitioners in these petitions have come up with conflicting prayers in the main writ petitions.
2.By one writ petition, each of these petitioners challenge a Government Order, which declares a degree in Bio-Chemistry as not equivalent to a degree in Chemistry. The purpose of the said prayer is to gain appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant, in pursuance of the very same recruitment notification issued on 7.3.2012.
3.But, the prayer made by the very same petitioners in the other writ petitions is to set aside the same notification dated 7.3.2012 on the ground that the recruitment cannot take place disciplinewise.
4.In other words, the petitioners want the recruitment not to go on, but at the same time want appointment by treating their qualification as equivalent. In the light of such conflicting prayers and also in the light of the fact that the recruitment has already taken place, there is absolutely no justification for grant of interim relief. Therefore, these petitions are dismissed.
38. As against the order in M.P.Nos.2 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.Nos.10606 and 10608 of 2013, the petitioners have not preferred any appeal. Thus, the order passed in the aforesaid miscellaneous petitions attain finality.
39. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that only based on the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 04.02.2011 was issued that the degree of B.Sc. (Bio-chemistry) awarded by all Universities in the State recognised by the University Grants Commission is not equivalent to the degree of B.Sc. (Chemistry) for the purpose of employment in public services. When the impugned G.O. is based on the Expert opinion/recommendation, the Court has nothing to do with such matters. Therefore, I find that there is no illegality in the orders impugned in these writ petitions warranting interference.
40. For the foregoing reasons, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
25.06.2018 vs Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order To
1. The Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3. The Joint Director (Vocational Education), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
4. The Joint Director (Higher Secondary), DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs Pre-delivery order made in W.P.Nos.10605 to 10608 of 2013 25.06.2018