Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"A first or second class Master's degree of a University in the State of Tamil Nadu or a degree of equivalent standard in the subject."

Therefore, the Registrar, University of Madras and Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Madras were addressed to state whether the qualifications possessed by the petitioner (M.Sc. degree in Human Genetics and Physical Anthropology from Andhra Pradesh University) could be considered as equivalent to the qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology). On receipt of the said requisitions, the University of Madras has forwarded the resolution of their Syndicate that M.Sc.degree in Human Genetics and Physical Anthropology is not equivalent to M.Sc.degree in Zoology of Madras University. After considering the views of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Chennai and the Registrar, University of Madras, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, decided that the qualification possessed by the petitioner could not be considered as equivalent to the qualification required for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor of Zoology. Therefore, the Government issued orders discharging the petitioner from service. Since the petitioner did not possess the required qualification for the post, the impugned order of discharge is valid in law. For the above said reasons, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

19. Referring to the resolution passed by the syndicate of Madras University, Mr.Kandavadivelu, learned counsel appearing for the Madras University, submitted that being an autonomous body, the University of Madras is competent to certify the equivalency of the decree/diploma obtained from other university/Institution/Service Commission and the Government are entitled to seek the views of the University as regards equivalence of qualification and therefore, the opinion of the syndicate consisting of expertise in the field of education is final. As regards permitting the petitioner to pursue higher studies in the field of Zoology, he further submitted that the qualifications required for appointment to a particular post is different from pursuing higher studies and therefore, merely because the petitioner is allowed to continue his higher studies, till she obtained Doctorate in the field of Zoology, that does not mean that the degree (M.Sc. Human Genetics and Anthropology) obtained from Andra University is equivalent to degree (M.Sc. Zoology), which is prescribed as suitable qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) in the colleges, within the control of Directorate of College Education, Chennai.

31. Some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this aspect are as follows:

(i) In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao reported in AIR 1965 SC 491, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 12 and 13, held as follows:
"12. In our opinion, in coming to the conclusion that appellant. No. 2 did not satisfy the first qualification, the High Court is plainly in error. The judgment shows that the learned judges concentrated on the question as to whether a candidated obtaining 50 per cent marks could be said to have secured a high Second Class Degree, and if the relevant question had to be determined solely by reference to this aspect of the matter, the conclusion of the High Court would have been beyond reproach. But what the High Court has failed to notice is the fact that the first qualification consists of two parts - the first part is : a high Second Class Master's Degree of an Indian University, and the second part is : its equivalent which is an equivalent qualification of a foreign University. The High Court does not appear to have considered the question as to whether it would be appropriate for the High Court to differ from the opinion of the Board when it was quite likely that the Board may have taken the view that the Degree of Master of Arts of the Durham University which appellant No. 2 had obtained, was equivalent to a high Second Class Master's Degree of an Indian University. This aspect of the questions (sic) purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally, hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the Board of experts was satisfied that appellant No.2 fulfilled the first qualification. If only the attention of the High Court had been drawn to the equivalent furnished in the first qualification, we have no doubt that it would not have held that the Board had acted capriciously in expressing the opinion that appellant No. 2 satisfied all the qualifications, including the first qualification. As we have already observed though the High Court felt some difficulty, about the two remaining qualifications, the High Court has not rested its decision on any definite finding that these qualification also had not been satisfied. On reading the first qualification, the position appears to be very simple; but unfortunately, since the equivalent qualification specified by cl : (a) was apparently not brought to the notice of the High Court, it has failed to take that aspect of the matter into account. On that aspect of the matter, it may follow that the Master's Degree of the Durham University secured by appellant No. 2, would satisfy the first qualification and even the second. Besides, it appears that appellant No. 2 has to his credit published works which by themselves would satisfy the second qualification. Therefore, there is no doubt that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that since appellant No. 2 could not be said to have secured a high Second Class Master Degree of on Indian University he did not satisfy the first qualification. It is plain that Master's Degree of the Durham University. which, appellant No. 2 has obtained, can be and must have been taken by the Board to be equivalent to a high Second Class Master's Degree of in Indian University, and that means the first' qualification is satisfied by appellant No. 2. That being so, we must hold that the High Court was in error in issuing a writ of quo warranto, quashing the appointment of appellant No. 2.

(iii) The Supreme Court, while considering the scope and power of the Court to interfere with the decision of the Government or the Competent Authority in prescribing the minimum educational qualification for admission to a course and recognising certain educational qualification as equivalent or higher than the prescribed one, in the State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun reported in 2002 (6) SCC 252, at Paragraph 10, held as follows:

"10. The points involved in the case are twofold: one relating to prescription of minimum educational qualification for admission to the course and the other relating to recognition of the Madhyama Certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to or higher than +2 or 1st year of TDC for the purpose of admission. Both these points relate to matters in the realm of policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with power under any statute. It is not for courts to determine whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognized as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the case. That is not to say that such matters are not justiciable. In an appropriate case the court can examine whether the policy decision or the administrative order dealing with the matter is based on a fair, rational and reasonable ground; whether the decision has been taken on consideration of relevant aspects of the matter; whether exercise of the power is obtained with mala fide intention; whether the decision serves the purpose of giving proper training to the candidates admitted or it is based on irrelevant and irrational considerations or intended to benefit an individual or a group of candidates."