Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P Bhagavath Singh vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 18 October, 2022
1 OA 379/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA NO.379/2016
Dated 18-10-22day, the 18th day of October Two Thousand Twenty Two
CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
&
HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
P.Bhagavathsingh,
S/o.Palanisamy,
No.112, Annai Theresa Nagar,
Sudhana Nagar Extension-II,
Nainarmandapam,
Puducherry 605 004. ...Applicant
By Advocate M/s Prakash Adiapadam
Vs.
1.Union of India,
The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat,
Gubert Avenue, Beach Road, Puducherry 605 001.
2.The Member Secretary,
Puducherry State Sports Council,
Indira Gandhi Sports Complex,
Dr.Ambedkar Salai, Uppalam, Pondicherry. ..Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R.Syed Mustafa
2 OA 379/2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following relief:
"To direct the 2nd respondent to issue appointment order and accommodate the applicant for the post of Coach for TaekWondo Discipline on consolidated basis at suitable place, forthwith, in-pursuant to the Selection Note vide No.99/PSSC/Coach/Recruit/2015-16/108 dated 20.10.2015 issued by the 2 nd respondent, with all monetary & non-monetary benefits w.e.f the date on which when the other selected candidates have been given appointment order and accommodated for their respective post."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant in nutshell are as under:
The applicant is a permanent resident of Puducherry and belongs of MBC community. He has completed his SSLC in April 1997. He appeared for the +2 public examination but due to illness he could not clear three theory papers which he has completed only in June 2011. In the mean time, after clearing the entrance test conducted by the Annamalai University he joined B.A.(Sociology) in the said University and obtained Bachelor Degree through Correspondence/Distance Education Mode in December 2008. Thereafter he has completed Diploma Course in Sports Coaching for (Taek Wondo) at Netaji Subash National Institute of Sports, Bangalore, recognized by Sports Authority of India in May 2010 and also completed Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga in December 2012, M.A.(Sociology) in May 2012, M.A.(Political Science) in December 2014 and B.A.History in May 2014. While so, on 05.01.2015, the 2nd respondent issued a notification inviting application from residents of UT of Puducherry for the post of Coach for various disciplines on consolidated basis wherein out of two vacancies notified for "Taek Wondo" discipline one 3 OA 379/2016 post is earmarked for Puducherry region. The prescribed education qualification mentioned in the notification is as follows:-
"Bachelor's Degree* of a recognized University with NSNIS(Nethaji Subash National Institute of Sports)Diploma in Coaching in the particular game/sports"
(or) "Bachelor's Degree* of a recognized University with Degree in Physical Education and NSNIS (Nethaji Subash National Institute of Sports) Diploma in Coaching in the particular game/sports * (10+2+3 pattern)."
Since the applicant is fully qualified for the post of Coach for "Taek Wondo"
discipline, the applicant had applied for the said post in proforma application along with all attested copies of the certificates mentioned in the prospectus accordingly. On 20.10.2015, the 2nd respondent issued a note informing that the applicant has been selected for the post of Coach (Taek Wondo) Discipline and directed him to attend the certificate verification on 27.10.2015 along with all original certificates. Accordingly on 27.10.2015 the applicant attended the certificate verification and produced all the original certificates before the concerned officer who after verification informed the applicant that the appointment order would be issued to him directly through post. But, thereafter the respondents accommodated all the selected candidates except the applicant and when the applicant approached the 2 nd respondent personally and enquired, he was informed orally that since he had completed +2 examination after completion of the BA degree in the year 2011, it is not in the pattern of 10+2+3. The contention of the applicant is that rejection of his case on the ground that he has not completed educational qualification in 10+2+3 pattern is highly illegal and unlawful as there is no Government Order GO or circular or Rule, empowering the respondents to reject the candidature of the applicant, as one GO Ms No.107 4 OA 379/2016 dated 18.08.2009 issued by the Government of Tamil nadu specifically stating that "Decree acquired through Open University prior to completion of Higher Secondary which is not valid one". The applicant has relied upon the Gazette publication dated 08.04.1995 issued by Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), Circulars dated 08.04.1995 & 14.10.2013 issued by University Grants Commission (UGC) and orders of this Tribunal in OA No.1585/2013 in L.Senthilnathan Vs. UOI dated 17.06.2015.
3. The respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed a detailed reply statement opposing the relief stating therein the recruitment rules are framed in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be permitted to be diluted. They submit that it has been ascertained from the records that the applicant had not undergone any entrance examination for joining the degree course and there is no proof provided by the applicant for having passed the entrance test conducted by the Annamalai University. He had only filled the response sheets containing questions and answers provided by the Annamalai University which cannot be compared to entrance examination conducted before admission to the degree course. The applicant has to establish through substantial documentary evidence that he had undergone proper entrance examination. Even otherwise also the applicant did not possess the qualification as prescribed in the notification published in the newspaper for the post of Coach, i.e., 10+2+3. and as such he was not selected for the post of Coach since he passed the Higher Secondary Course in 2011 after acquiring the Bachelor's degree which is not consonant with the requirement of the respondents. The respondents further submit that the case laws cited by the applicant are not relevant to the issue on hand since the facts and 5 OA 379/2016 circumstances in those cases are not similar to that of the present case and are not binding on the respondent. Unless and until the applicant establishes that he had undergone proper entrance examination prior to undergoing the degree course, he cannot claim any consideration. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
4. The respondents have also filed an additional reply statement wherein they have specifically stated that the Puducherry State Sports Council is a registered society. The services under a society cannot be termed as service under the Government. Hence this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
5. Learned counsel for the both sides have filed their respective written arguments. The respondents in their written arguments have submitted that after the decision of the Hon. Supreme court in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information & Tourism Department & Ors, Government of Tamilnadu, through its Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, issued a circular in GO MS No.107 dated 18.08.2009, recognizing those degrees obtained through Open University only after the person having passed SSLC (10 th Std) and Higher Secondary Examination (+2) alone for appointment/promotion in public service. The said GO 107 was assailed in WP No.18729/2010 in T.L.Muthukumar & Ors Vs. Registrar General, High court Madras & Anr wherein the issue pertains to 10+2+3 pattern and its applicability to High court service wherein the Hon. High court not only dismissed the claim of setting aside of the GO Ms.No.107 dated 18.08.2009 but also held further that the reverse pattern is impermissible though rule speaks only about a recognized degree thereby 6 OA 379/2016 accepting only 10+2+3 pattern and not otherwise.
6. In reply to this, the applicant has submitted that Article 162 of the Constitution of India clearly says that the executive powers of the States shall extend only to its own territory and with respect to those subjects over which it has legislative competence. And State shall have no executive power over the matter relating to Union Territories are concerned. Therefore GO Ms.No.107 dated 18.08.2009 issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (M), Government of Tamil Nadu is applicable only within territory of that particular State namely Tamil Nadu. Admittedly in the case in hand there is no such GO or Recruitment Rules are framed with regard to the present post namely Coach.
7. The respondents contend that the applicant has taken a very fragile and desperate ground of non-application of GO Ms.No.107 dated 18.08.2009 issued by the Govt of Tamil Nadu to UT of Puducherry. It is true and settled proposition that any Government order of other States will not have an automatic application and binding effect on the other Government but on what contingency/situation/issues where a Government order an be construed to be one of having a persuasive application in public interest and as well as on the basis of legality/legal issues involved is to be appreciated and considered. In so far as the present issue, the Government of UT of Puducherry do not have a Board of Examination or Directorate for examination to award certificates on its own and that neighbouring State conducting examination and awarding certificate, degrees etc, in so far as Puducherry & Karaikal region. When admittedly SSLC & HSC certificates are issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu then the consequential validity and eligibility of the same in so far as employment can be decided by the same 7 OA 379/2016 authority/Government and that same will have persuasive/binding application on this issue.
8. To reply to this, the applicant has contended that if the above argument of the respondents is accepted then the candidates who finished educational qualification in other two districts of Puducherry namely Mahe and Yanam the GOs issued by the Kerala and Andhra Pradesh have to be applied for the purpose of employment. Even in the present case the respondents have provided regional wise reservation for Puducherry, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam and nothing on the record to show that there is a similar GO issued by the Kerala and Andhra Pradesh Government like GO Ms 107 dated 18.08.2009 issued by the Tamil Nadu Government. This Tribunal in OA No.1585/2013 dated 17.06.2015 while allowing the OA specifically adverted to the objection raised by the respondents by placing reliance on GO Ms 107 dated 18.08.2009 issued by the Tamil Nadu Government and the said objection was overruled by this Tribunal that no such GO was issued by the Puducherry Government.
9. The respondents have further relied upon the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in P.U.Joshi and Others Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & ors., and the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High court in W.A.No.1496 to 1498 of 2015 dated 21.08.2018 in the matter of The Chairman, TRB & anr Vs. A.Valarmathi & Ors & in W.A.2168/2018 dated 10.12.2021 in the matter of The Joint Director of School Education & Ors Vs. J.Joseph Irudayaraj & anr., & in W.P.No.9794/2018 dated 16.03.2022 in S.Thiruvenkata Ratnam Vs. The Registrar, Annamalai University & anr.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the judgment of the 8 OA 379/2016 Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of P.U.Joshi supra relied upon by the respondents is not applicable to the present case because the proposition laid down in the said case that there is no right in any employee of the state to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered into service for all purpose and government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an exiting service whereas the question involved in the present case is whether Bachelor degree obtained by the applicant prior to passing of the +2 examination is a valid qualification for the purpose of employment and the applicant had not challenged any recruitment rules. Further all the Madras High court orders relied upon the respondents relate to the interpretation of GO No.107 dated 18.08.2009 issued by the Tamil Nadu Government and the said judgments are not applicable to the present case.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents have categorically informed that the educational qualification should be in the pattern of 10+2+3 and having participated in the recruitment process the applicant is estopped from challenging the eligibility criteria fixed in the notification.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant contended that nowhere in the said recruitment notification it is mentioned that the Bachelor Degree should be obtained after passing 10th Standard and 12th standard as specifically mentioned in the GO Ms.No.107 dated 18.08.2009 issued by the Tamil Nadu Government and it is simply mentioned as 10+2+3 pattern within the bracket. The Bachelor degree obtained by the applicant prior to passing of the +2 examination is a valid qualification for the purpose of employment. 9 OA 379/2016 If the applicant's candidature is rejected then the very purpose of implementing the system of Distance education itself would be defeated. This Tribunal in similar case in L.Senthilnathan Vs. UOI rep., by the Chief Secretary to Govt, Government of Puducherry in OA No.1585 of 2013 dated 17.06.2015 after following the Hon'ble Apex court in Chandrakala Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors [2012 (3) MLJ 717 SC] and analysing the UGC guidelines, various judgments and Government Orders including GO No.107 dated 18.08.2009 categorically held that the Bachelor degree obtained by the applicant prior to passing of the +2 examination is a valid qualification for the purpose of employment by overruling the objection of the respondents with regard to GO Ms.No.107 dated 18.08.2009 that no such GO was issued by the Puducherry Government on the subject.
13. Heard both sides and perused the OA along with relevant records.
14. To deal with the issue, it is necessary to extract the relevant portions of the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of L.Senthilnathan Vs. UOI rep., by the Chief Secretary to Govt, Government of Puducherry in OA No.1585 of 2013 dated 17.06.2015:
"The facts of the case are not in dispute. The question for consideration is whether the Bachelors degree obtained by the applicant prior to passing of the plus-two examination is a valid qualification for the purpose of employment. The records placed before us go to show that the applicant was admitted to the BBA degree course by the Institute of Distance Education, University of Madras after he had attended the preparatory course and passed the entrance test conducted by the Institute. Thus, the applicant's case clearly falls under clause 1 of Regulation 2 of UGC Regulations 1985. In the Annamalai University's case supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the post graduate degree obtained by the petitioner therein without having the basic Bachelors degree was invalid. This is precisely what is given in clause 2 of Regulation 2 of UGC Regulations 1985. The case of the applicant herein is distinguishable from the above case and the applicant's case is fully covered under clause 1 of Regulation 2 of UGC Regulations 1985. It is also a matter of record 10 OA 379/2016 that the applicant had attended regular schooling up to plus-two and he did not pass the plus-two examination in full as he failed in one subject, which he cleared much later after completing the Bachelors degree. In the case of P.Raman Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors dated 21.04.2014 in W.P.Nos.13054, 13055, 13742, 14150 and 14151 of 2010, the Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the batch of writ petitions had clearly held that Bachelors degree obtained by the petitioner who had passed the entrance test as prescribed under clause 1 of Regulation 2 of UGC Regulations 1985 is to be taken as a valid qualification for the purpose of employment. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
30. In view of Clause 1 of Regulation 2 of 1985 UGC Regulations, the relevant portion of which is highlighted above, I am of the view that these petitioners are entitled to be selected for the Group II posts and they should also be given appointment. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that this Court passed an interim order of status quo on 26.09.2011 in respect of thirty five vacancies lying as on that date in M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 and 1 of 2011 batch in W.P.Nos.14150, 14151, 13054 and 13055 of 2010.
31. I am not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the Government and the learned Senior Counsel for the TNPSC that as per G.O.Ms.No.107, the degree awarded in the non-formal/distance education mode to the candidates, who passed +2 examination alone, shall be considered as a valid one. I am of the considered view that the validity of a degree shall not be tested on the anvil of the Government Order, but the same shall be tested based on the relevant UGC Regulations. The relevant Regulation framed under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 is 1985 UGC Regulations and Clause 1 of Regulation 2 of 1985 UGC Regulations makes it clear that the Open Universities could admit students to the degree course in the non-
formal/distance education mode even if they did not pass +2 examination, but those students should have passed the entrance test for admission to the degree course. The aforesaid clause in Regulation 2 shall be read into G.O.Ms.No.107, P & AR Department, dated 18.08.2009. Therefore, I have no hesitation to reject the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel for the TNPSC.
32. Further, I am fortified in my view due to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in N.Ramesh V. Sibi Madan Gabriel, (2008) 3 MLJ 255 that has been confirmed by the Aped Court in Annamalai University case (cited supra). Paragraph 14.1 of Ramesh's case is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder:
14.1. In respect of student who had no previous academic record, as per Regulation-2, such person shall be eligible for admission to the first degree course through non-formal/distance education, if he has passed an entrance test conducted by the University. .....
33. However, in that case, the issue was relating to a person, who possessed post-graduate degree in Open University System without a basic degree. In any event, the aforesaid passage makes it clear that in the case of degree obtained through Open University System either one should have obtained it after passing +2 examination or one should have passed the entrance examination before being admitted into the degree course.
34. I am also fortified by the unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 12.07.2013 in The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, 11 OA 379/2016 Chennai V. S.Mathavan Pillai (W.A.No.1372 of 2013), wherein the petitioner passed SSLC (old system of 11 years) and thereafter he joined the two years foundation course conducted by the Madurai Kamaraj University through correspondence, which is equivalent to +2 course and after passing the same, he completed three years B.Com., Course through correspondence. The same was taken note of by the Division Bench in paragraphs 13 and 14. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.07.2013 in W.A.No.1372 of 2013 are extracted hereunder:
13. The writ petitioner passed Secondary School Leaving Certificate Course during March 1977 and thereafter, underwent Open University Foundation Course and successfully passed in the year 1984. As per G.O.Ms.No.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel R.) Department, dated 18.05.1985, the recognition of qualification in respect of the persons, who had undergone Pre-Foundation and Foundational Course of Madurai Kamaraj University was considered and the following order was issued:-
3. The Government, after careful consideration direct that the Pre-
Foundation Course of the Madurai Kamaraj University-Open University be recognised as equivalent to the 10 years S.S.L.C. of the Tamil Nadu Government for purpose of entry into Public Services in this State. The Government also direct that the two years Foundation Course of the Madurai Kamaraj University-Open University be recognised as equivalent to Higher Secondary (+2) course of the Tamil Nadu Government for purpose of entry into Public Services in this State.
14. The petitioner on the basis of the said qualification, was given regular promotion as Assistant Section Officer and subsequently, promoted to the post of Section Officer also.
35. Further, the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandrakala Trivedi V. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 3 MLJ 717 (SC) also makes it clear that a degree obtained by a candidate in non-formal /distance education mode without a pass in Senior Secondary School Certificate (i.e., without passing +2 examination) is valid one if the candidate underwent the preparatory course conducted by the University before being admitted into the degree course. The narration of facts of that case in paragraph 26.4 of this judgment makes it clear that the degree awarded in the non-formal/distance education mode without passing +2 examination is valid one, if such degree is obtained fulfilling the condition stipulated in Clause 1 of Regulation 2 of the 1985 UGC Regulations.
The same position has been upheld in Chadrakala Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors [(2012) 3 MLJ 717 SC] and in N.Ramesh vs. Sibi Madan Gabriel & 3 Ors [2008-1-L.W.924]. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of T.L.Muthukumar and Ors Vs. The Registrar General, High Court Madras in WP No.18729 of 2010 dated 10.02.2011 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
11.In the light of the above position, we find that the Bachelors degree obtained by the applicant through distance education mode is to be taken as a valid qualification for the purpose of employment and hence the impugned order No.A.34012/1/2012/DP&AR (Exam)PF/786 dated 03.04.2014 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. We are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the Bachelors degree obtained by the applicant as a valid qualification as per law for the purpose of employment and consider his appointment in accordance with his rank 12 OA 379/2016 in the select list for the post of UDC kept vacant as per the orders of this Tribunal dated 30.04.2014. The respondents should comply with the above direction within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, his employment will have only prospective effect from the date of his joining. The OA is allowed on above terms. No order as to costs."
15. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have raised the very same contentions in the said OA 1585/2013 as raised in the present OA and relied upon very same judgments therein as relied in the present OA except the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High court in W.A.No.1496 to 1498 of 2015 dated 21.08.2018 in the matter of The Chairman, TRB & anr Vs. A.Valarmathi & Ors & in W.A.2168/2018 dated 10.12.2021 in the matter of The Joint Director of School Education & Ors Vs. J.Joseph Irudayaraj & anr., & in W.P.No.9794/2018 dated 16.03.2022 in S.Thiruvenkata Ratnam Vs. The Registrar, Annamalai University & anr.
16. It is to be noted that this Tribunal has passed the above said order after dealing with all the contentions raised by both sides and after taking into consideration the judgments relied upon by both sides. A bare perusal of the above order goes to show that the case in hand is very similar to the above case and The applicant in the present OA also attended regular schooling till +1 and when he failed he appeared for the +2 examination privately and he did not pass the +2 examination in full. Thereafter after successfully undergoing the preparatory programme conducted by the Annamalai University he got admission for B.A.(Sociology) in the said University and obtained Bachelor Degree through Correspondence/Distance Education Mode in December 2008. Thereafter he has cleared the failed three papers in +2 examination in June 2011.
13 OA 379/2016
17. It is to be noted that the cases referred by the respondents, i.e., in W.A.No.1496 to 1498 of 2015 dated 21.08.2018 in the matter of The Chairman, TRB & anr Vs. A.Valarmathi & Ors & in W.A.2168/2018 dated 10.12.2021 in the matter of The Joint Director of School Education & Ors Vs. J.Joseph Irudayaraj & anr., & in W.P.No.9794/2018 dated 16.03.2022 in S.Thiruvenkata Ratnam Vs. The Registrar, Annamalai University & anr, pertains to the recruitment in the Tamil Nadu Government and since the Tamil Nadu Government has issued GO 107 dated 18.08.2009 specifically for this purpose, in the recruitment notification itself it is clearly quoted that the candidates should have passed a Bachelor's Degree from a recognized University under 10+2+3 pattern, whereas in the case in hand though in the notification they have just mentioned 10+2+3, the Puducherry Government has not issued any specific GO as issued by the Tamil Nadu Government. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of UGC Regulations, 1985 regarding the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of the first degree through non-formal /distance education.
"No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1 st degree course through nonformal/distance education unless he has successfully completed 12 years schooling through and examination conducted by a Board/University. In case there is no previous academic record, he shall be eligible for admission if he has passed an entrance test conducted by the University provided that he is not below the age of 21 years on July 1 of the year of admission."
Further the University Grants Commission in its letter dated 14.10.2013 has stated as under:
"Accordingly, the Degrees/Diplomas/Certificates awarded for programmes conducted by the ODL institutions, recognized by DEC (erstwhile) and UGC, in conformity with UGC Notification on specification of Degrees should be treated as equivalent to the 14 OA 379/2016 corresponding awards of the Degree/Diploma/ Certificate of the traditional Universities/institutions in the country."
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases, while dealing with the issue regarding recognition of the educational qualification acquired through Open/Distance Education Universities for public employment, has held that for upliftment of the persons belonging to the Backward Classes and to support them, the Constitution of India itself has taken cognizance by providing reservation to those classes in all walks of life. The aim and object behind the formation of Open & Distance Education University itself is to encourage the citizens of the country to get education, particularly those from the backward classes who could not continue their regular schooling due to various factors like financial distress, etc. The very purpose of the introducing the Open & Distance Education system will get defeated if the said degree obtained through such system is not accepted and the applicant in the present case belongs to Most Backward Class category.
19. Moreover, the said education is a recognized one therefore thee GO 107/2009 does not have same effect likewise. Hence in the absence of any specific GO issued by the Puducherry Government, the GO 107/2009 of Tamil Nadu Government will not have any automatic application as contended by the respondents in their written submission and the respondents cannot take the advantage of the said GO 107/2009 of Tamil Nadu Government under the guise that they are accepting other qualification of education board of Tamil Nadu as same is recognized one.
20. It is to be noted that the judgments relied upon by the respondents are 15 OA 379/2016 not applicable to the facts of this OA and that the order dated 17.06.2015 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1585 of 2013 is once accepted and implemented by the respondents the same attains finality in the absence of any specific GO to that effect. It is also to be noted that for the post of Coach for "Taek Wondo" the qualifications of sports expertise & fitness is required to be considered and for that the applicant is fit and eligible and entitled to.
21. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant in the present OA is similarly placed as the applicant in OA 1585/2013 and he is entitled for the same relief granted to the applicant in OA 1585/2013. In view of the above discussion, the OA is disposed of with the following direction:
In the light of the above position, we find that the Bachelors degree obtained by the applicant through distance education mode is to be taken as a valid qualification for the purpose of employment. We are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the Bachelors degree obtained by the applicant as a valid qualification as per law for the purpose of employment and consider his case for appointment for the post of Coach for TaekWondo Discipline on consolidated basis at suitable place, forthwith, in-pursuant to the Selection Note vide No.99/PSSC/Coach/Recruit/2015-16/108 dated 20.10.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent. The respondents should comply with the above direction within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, his employment will have only prospective effect from the date of his joining.
22. The OA is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) (T. Jacob) Member (J) 18.10.2022 Member (A) MT