Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Seelam Prasad vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 26 August, 2025
1 OA 302/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA.No.310/00302/2016
Dated the 26th day of August, Two Thousand Twenty-Five
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
Seelam Prasad,
No.1-10-016, Ramana Kodu,
Mettakur, Yanam 533 646 ...Applicant
By Advocate : M/s. M. Ravi
Vs
1. The Union of Puducherry rep by
Secretary to Government,
Education Department, Puducherry
2. The Director of School Education,
Puducherry
3. The Deputy Director (Administration)
Directorate of School Education,
Puducherry ...Respondents
By Advocate : Mr.R. Syed Mustafa
2 OA 302/2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member (J) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
"To call for records on the file of the 3rd respondent herein in proceedings No.8313/DSE/Est. II/D/2015, dated 17.08.2015 and No.1129/DSE/Estt. II/A/2015, dated 29.01.2015 and quash the same and to declare that non section of the applicant for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu), in pursuance of Notification for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu, Hindi & Arabic) No.10210/DSE/Estt. II/A/2013, dated 21.08.2013, as illegal and to issue consequential directions to the respondents herein to select and appoint the applicant as Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) in pursuance of said Notification and grant them all consequential benefits and pass such further or other orders as deem fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal and thus render justice".
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are:
In pursuance of notification No.1210/DSE/Estt-II/A/2013, dated 21.08.2013 for selection to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu, Hindi & Arabic), the Applicant applied for the same and he was found fully qualified and eligible for selection for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) but his selection was deferred only on account of seeking clarification as to whether the educational qualification of BA Telugu Literature is equivalent to Bachelor Degree with main subject as Telugu. Even though the respondents have ascertained that the BA Telugu Literature is equivalent to BA Telugu, they have not appointed the applicant to the vacant post available, but issued another 3 OA 302/2016 notification and are conducting the recruitment process for the said post. Hence a challenge is made to the non-selection of the applicant for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) in pursuance of the above notification dated 21.08.2013 and for the consequential relief. Hence the present OA.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondents have failed to consider that in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, the essential basic Degree qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Telugu) in the Government of Puducherry, Directorate of School Education, Group B (Non-Gazetted) posts of TGT Recruitment Rules, 2010 is a Bachelor's Degree with main subject in the respective language, and as such the applicant has acquired Bachelor's Degree in "Telugu Literature" as the main subject is in the respective language i.e., Telugu, and the applicant is fully qualified and eligible for the said post and the non-selection of the applicant as if BA (Telugu Literature) does not fall under the essential qualification is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the respondents ought to have taken into consideration that in the notification also, though it has been differently worded, what has 4 OA 302/2016 been prescribed as an essential qualification is a "Bachelor's Degree with main subject Telugu language" instead of "Bachelor's Degree with main subject in Telugu language". The omission of 'in' in the notification by the 2nd respondent that has led to the unwarranted confusion on the minds of the authorities ought not have been allowed to expose the fully qualified and eligible applicant to grave hardship, loss and mental agony.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that having sought clarification from their counterparts and the Government of Andhra Pradesh as to whether BA (Telugu Literature) and BA (Special Telugu) are equivalent to BA (Telugu) the respondents ought to have waited for the clarification and upon receipt of the clarification, ought to have acted upon. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent having admitted all the Degrees as equivalent, should have given appointment to the applicant, but made an impertinent stand that the Recruitment Rules have to be amended with the concurrence from UPSC. The said stand of the 2nd respondent reflects non application of mind to the Statutory Rule position.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the act of the respondents in not providing any reservation for the PH person in the notification dated 21.08.2013, wherein 60 marks 5 OA 302/2016 was fixed as Minimum qualifying mark in TET for PH person and in all of a sudden enhancing the minimum qualifying marks in TET for PH person from 60 to 75 in the notification dated 28.10.2015, with a clear knowledge that the applicants have secured only 66 marks exposes the arbitrariness and malice in law. Therefore, he prayed for the relief sought in the present OA.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently objected to the submissions of the applicant and relied on the reply statement filed by him. He further submitted that the contention of the applicant that as the qualification for the post was mentioned in the notification as "Bachelor's Degree in Telugu Language" and not specifically mentioned as "Bachelor's Degree in Telugu' the question of differentiating the Degree does not arise deserves no consideration. The qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for the post of TGT in Languages such as Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Hindi Sanskrit and Arabic is "Bachelor's Degree with main subject in the respective language". Accordingly, it has been mentioned as Bachelors Degree in Telugu language in the notification.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the contention of the applicant that the qualifying mark in TET for PH person was enhanced arbitrarily is not tenable. On scrutiny 6 OA 302/2016 of the application submitted by the applicant in response to the said notification, it is also seen the applicant has secured only 66 marks in APTET examination. The applicant belongs to PH category for which the minimum qualifying marks prescribed is 75 as per GO No.76, dated 18.03.2015. Hence the application submitted by the applicant in response to the notification dated 30.10.2015 for the post TGT is liable for rejection.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the case of UP Joshi Others Vs Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Others (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Questions relating to the constitutions, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres categories their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotion pertain to the field of Policy and with the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State..." He further stressed that it further held that "It is well open and within the competency of the state to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
7 OA 302/2016
10. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the pleadings, materials on record and citations cited by the respective parties.
11. Before going to the merits of the issue, we would like to extract the Notifications for the year 2013 & 2015 for the Recruitment to the Post of Trained Graduate Teacher.
12. As per the Notification No.10210/DSE/Estt-II/A/2013, dated 21.08.2013, the Government of Puducherry, Directorate of School Education called for Recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu, Hindi & Arabic). The number vacancies for each subject wise are extracted below:
S. Name of the Post Number of Vacancies No. 1 Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) 11 2 Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi) 4 3 Trained Graduate Teacher (Arabic) 1 13. As per the Recruitment Rules the following were the conditions: 8. Educational and other Essential: Qualifications required for I. Bachelors degree in the direct recruits respective subject/language from any recognized university as per the following provisions 8 OA 302/2016 (i).... (vi) Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Hindi Sanskrit and Arabic; Bachelor's degree with main subject in the respective language II. B.Ed., or B.T. of any recognized university III..... Note: Qualifications are relaxable at the discretion of the Union Public Service Commission, for reason to be recorded in writing, in case of candidates otherwise well qualified.
14. As per the Notification No.61015/DSE/Estt-II/A/2015, dated 28.10.2015, the Government of Puducherry, Directorate of School Education called for Recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the Yanam Region -2015 (Telugu & Hindi). The number vacancies for each subject wise are extracted below:
S. Name of the Post Number of Vacancies No. 1 Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) 14 2 Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi) 5
15. As per the Notification it was specifically mentioned the Eligibility conditions also:
5 (b) Essential Educational and Professional Qualifications:
(i) The name of the post and the educational qualifications essential 9 OA 302/2016 for the post is given below:
S. Name of the Post Essential No. 1 TGT (Telugu) Bachelor's Degree in Telugu 2 TGT (Hindi) Bachelor's Degree in Hindi
(Candidates who are in possession of Bachelor's Degree in different name in the above said subject should enclose a copy of the Equivalence Certificate Obtained from the Universities concerned that the Bachelor's Degree awarded to them is/are equivalent to the Degree(s) specified above in the relevant subject)
(iv) TET: The applicants should have obtained the minimum qualifying marks in the CTET/APTET as prescribed below:
S. Category Qualifying marks No. 1 General 60% (90 marks) 2 OBC/MBC/EBC/BCM 55% (82 marks) 3 Scheduled Caste 50% (75 marks) 4 Differently abled Persons 50% (75 marks)
16. With reference to equivalence, the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Shifana P.S Vs State of Kerala in Civil Appeal No.4468 of 2013, Order dated 06.08.2024, reported in 2024 INSC 580, held as follows and the relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below "Discussion and Conclusion: -
12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on record.
13. Indisputably, the qualifying criteria prescribed for the post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008 was a degree in B.Sc. (Chemistry). Admittedly, the appellant does not hold such a degree. It is the case of the appellant that B.Sc. (Polymer Chemistry) degree acquired by her is required to be treated as equivalent to a degree in B.Sc. (Chemistry). However, the said argument does not 10 OA 302/2016 hold water and is misconceived.
14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and Others v.
Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine.
15. In Unnikrishnan CV and Others v. Union of India and Others, a three Judge Bench of this Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Guru Nanak Dev University Vs Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another held that equivalence is a technical academic matter, it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by specific order or resolution, duly published.
16. The fervent plea advanced on behalf of the appellant that the University of Calicut had issued a certificate dated 10th October, 2011 verifying that B.Sc. (Polymer Chemistry) course of the said University is recognised as equivalent to its B.Sc. (Chemistry) course is also not tenable in light of the observations made by this Court in the case of Unnikrishnan CV (supra). In view of the settled principles of law flowing from the above precedents, we are of the firm view that the appellant herein was not qualified for the post advertised vide notification dated 30th April, 2008.
17. As a result, we find no justifiable reason so as to interfere with the judgment dated 16th October, 2012 rendered by the High Court.
18. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
17. Following the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Ankit Kumar Tiwari vs Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) 11983/2024, Order dated 27.02.2025, held that the documents of equivalence relied upon by the petitioner are of no relevance as it is for the employer/respondents to decide whether the Degree possessed by a 11 OA 302/2016 candidate can be said to be equivalent to the one required by the employer/respondents.
18. In the first notification published on 21.08.2013, for the post of TGT (Telugu), the educational qualification was prescribed as Bachelor's Degree with main subject in Telugu language but there was no provision in the said notification for production of equivalence certificate for the said degree. The applicant is in possession of a Bachelor's degree awarded by the Andhra University i.e., "Bachelor of Arts consisting of subjects, English, Telugu, Science & Technology, Social Sciences, Political Science, Public Administration &Telugu Literature, as major. After clarifications from the Universities, finally the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education clarified that the nomenclature of "Telugu", "Special Telugu" and "Telugu Literature" as mentioned in the mark memos/certificates of the said universities were equal to one another. However, since there was no provision in the 2013 notification for production of equivalence certificate, the applicant's case could not be considered under the 2013 notification.
19. In the second notification published on 28.10.2015 for the post of TGT (Telugu), the educational qualification was clearly prescribed as Bachelor's Degree in Telugu with a condition stipulated that "Candidates who are in possession of Bachelor's 12 OA 302/2016 Degree in different names in the above said subjects should enclose a copy of the equivalence certificate obtained from the Universities concerned that the Bachelor's Degree(s) awarded to them is/are equivalent to the Degree(s) specified above in the relevant subject".
20. There is a notable difference in the educational qualification prescribed in the two notifications. 2013 notification required Bachelor's Degree with main subject in Telugu language, i.e., studying a degree with other subjects in Telugu medium along with Telugu language, whereas 2015 notification required Bachelor's Degree in Telugu, i.e., studying a degree with only the subjects related to the language "Telugu". Hence, in our considered opinion, the applicant who had a degree of Bachelor of Arts with subjects, English, Telugu, Science & Technology, Social Sciences, Political Science, Public Administration & Telugu Literature, is not entitled to be considered under the 2015 notification which required a Bachelor's Degree in pure Telugu. Further, as per the 2015 notification, the applicant also does not possess the enhanced qualifying mark of 75 in the APTET examination.
21. In view of the above discussion, the applicant has not made out a case for himself. The OA is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13 OA 302/2016
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (M. Swaminathan) Member(A) Member(J) MT 26.08.2025