Madras High Court
M.Shahintaj vs R.Mariammal on 25 October, 2018
Author: M.M.Sundresh
Bench: M.M.Sundresh, N.Sathish Kumar
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.A.[MD]No.850 of 2017
and
C.M.P.[MD]Nos.5770 & 8533 of 2017
M.Shahintaj : Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Mariammal
2.The Registrar,
Gandhigram Rural Institute – Deemed University,
Gandhigram – 624 302,
Dindigul District.
3.The Programme Co-ordinator,
Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Gandhigram Rural Institute,
Gandhigram – 624 302,
Dindigul District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P.[MD]No.3728 of 2013
dated 25.04.2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Appellant : Mr.K.R.Laxman
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondent No.2 : Mrs.S.Srimathy
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent No.3 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
******************* [Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The appellant and the private respondent were working as Programme Assistants. Both were considered for the post of Subject Matter Specialist. For the aforesaid promotional post, one of the qualification is Master Degree. Both the appellant and the private respondent were considered by the Committee and they were subjected to interview. The appellant was found to be more meritorious and accordingly, he was promoted as Subject Matter Specialist. This was put into challenge by the private respondent, inter alia, alleging that the appellant did not have the qualification of obtaining a Master Degree from a recognised university.
2.The sum and substance of the case of the private respondent is that the Master Degree obtained by the appellant before the Greenwich University for a period of one year cannot be equated to the one which requires two years in India. Admittedly, the appellant http://www.judis.nic.in 3 obtained Master Degree in United Kingdom. The learned Single Judge, by placing reliance upon the brochure issued by an Association of Indian Universities, was pleased to allow the writ petition and hence, the present writ appeal.
3.The learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no non-compliance of the KVK guidelines. What the guideline say is the acquisition of a Master Degree, which has been complied with. Therefore, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research [hereinafter referred to as 'ICAR'], guidelines are duly complied with. ICAR is not the authority to recognise a degree obtained. That has been clarified through the public notice dated 05.09.2017, issued by ICAR. Reliance has been made on the following paragraphs:
“ICAR does not give approval for permission to open / start / close of college / institution / University to offer programmes in agricultural science in a particular State as the agriculture and agriculture education are State subjects (Entry 14 under List II).
However, it is required that all the institutions offering academic programmes in agricultural science to comply with the minimum requirements and academic regulations prescribed by ICAR to achieve uniformity and wider acceptability of the programmes throughout the country.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Accreditation is a self-regulation and peer review process to improve and sustain the quality and relevance of higher education. It is a recurring process and intends for improving marketability of students nationally and internationally. ICAR accreditation is a voluntary process and an institution / programme can be accredited by more than one agency.”
4.The learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent University is a deemed University. It is a member of the Association of Common Wealth Universities. The University of Greenwich, United Kingdom, is also a member. Therefore, a degree given by the aforesaid member will have to be recognized by another one by applying the principle of reciprocity. The learned Counsel has made reliance upon the stand taken by the University in this regard, which is as follows:
“iii) Further, it is pertinent to submit before this Honourable Court that this Institute (I.e.,) the Gandihgram Rural Institute – Deemed University is a member of the Association of Common Wealth Universities as seen from the Volume of 1 of “A Directory to the Universities of the Common Wealth and the Hand Book of their Association”. Also the University of GreenWick, United Kingdom is also a member of the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Association of Common Wealth Universities. It is the general principle that a degree awarded by the members of the Common Wealth Association is reciprocally recognized by the member Universities. Therefore, the M.Sc degree (consisting of two academic sessions) awarded by the GreenWich University, United Kingdom is recognized as a Post-Graduate degree and based on this, the third respondent was granted admission to Ph.D degree programme of this Institute. Hence the M.Sc degree consisting of two academic sessions was considered as a Post- Graduate degree by this Institute. This has been already informed to the petitioner in reply to her RTI request vide document No.3 in Point No.6 in Page No.8 of the additional documents filed by the petitioner.
iv) Further the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Universitys' academic bodies, syllabus etc., committees are different. For example, this University (GRI) is offering B.Sc and M.Sc degree (Home Science Extension Programme).
The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University has not recognized this degree for pursing higher studies and for the purpose of employment by Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. It has to be clarified that recognizing courses of other Foreign Universities is different from Tamil Nadu Agricultural University recognition courses and degrees of other Universities.” http://www.judis.nic.in 6
5.The learned Counsel for the private respondent would submit that what is important is the recognized University. The ICAR is the competent authority. Once it has fixed the prescribed qualification, even the appointing authority cannot dilute it. As the appellant obtained Post Graduation by undergoing studies for one year, he is not entitled in law to be considered for the promotional post. Reliance has been made in support of the aforesaid contentions on the following judgments:
(i) N.Ramesh Vs. Sibi Madan Gabriel, reported in (2008) 3 MLJ 255.
(ii) Dilip Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2005 (2) JCR 293 Jhr.
(iii) The order of the Kerala High Court in W.P. (C) No. 23529 of 2010 [Abdul Gafarkhan Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Bank].
6.We find force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Single Judge has made an error in relying upon the brochure of the Association of Indian Universities, which has got no legal basis. Even the ICAR has taken a clear stand that it is not an authority to go into the voracity of the degree given. The guidelines merely say about the requirement, which is a Master Degree. Admittedly, the appellant has obtained the degree. http://www.judis.nic.in 7
7.We find that the respondent University has also done the process of verification of the certificates of the appellant, even at the time of admitting him into the Ph.D., programme. The fact that Greenwich University was a member of the Common Wealth Association along with the respondent University, is not in dispute. The yardstick that could be applied to Indian University cannot be applied to Foreign University. What is relevant is the completion of Post Graduation and not the duration, while evaluating a foreign degree. There is nothing on record to show that the Post Graduation done by the appellant cannot be accepted in law. The Writ Petition itself has been filed on a wrong premise, based upon the duration of a course between the Post Graduation in India and the one conducted and granted in United Kingdom. We are concerned with the quality of the course as against the duration.
8.The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the private respondent are not applicable to the case on hand, in the light of the facts discussed above. We do not find any error in the order of promotion granted in favour of the appellant nor the recognition of the degree of the appellant is contrary to the guidelines of the ICAR. http://www.judis.nic.in 8
9.In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.[MD]No.3728 of 2013 dated 25.04.2017.
10.The Writ Appeal stands allowed, accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[M.M.S.,J.] & [N.S.K.,J.]
25.10.2018
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
MR
http://www.judis.nic.in
9
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.[MD]No.850 of 2017
25.10.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in