Allowed

T. Selva Mohan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC7 Apr 2011WP/5001/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a PhD Micro Biology candidate challenging his non-appointment as a Zoology Lecturer. Finding the authorities' inaction unjustified, the Court mandated treating Micro Biology PhD as equivalent to Zoology PhD and ordered appointment within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to treat Ph.D. Micro Biology as equivalent to Ph.D. Zoology and order appointment within four weeks.

T. Selva Mohan Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.04.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

¶5

W.P.No.5001 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶6

T.Selva Mohan

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Secretary to the Government
Collegiate Education Department
Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education
DPI Complex
College Road
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 6
3. The Chairman
The Teachers Recruitment Board
EVK Sampath Maligai
College Road
Chennai 600 006 .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in Zoology in the existing/future vacancy by treating his qualification in Ph.D.Micro Biology as equivalent to that of the Ph.D.Zoology by considering the representation dated 11.9.2009.

¶10

For Petitioner :: Mr.N.Manokaran

¶11

For Respondents :: Mr.A.Suresh, G.A (Edu) O R D E R

¶12

Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Suresh, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Lecturer in Zoology in the existing or future vacancy by treating his qualification obtained in Ph.D.Micro Biology as equivalent to that of Ph.D.Zoology by considering his representation dated 11.9.2009.

¶15

When the matter came up on 2.3.2011, this Court directed private notice to be issued. On such notice, the learned Government Advocate produces a written instruction from the Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board dated 23.3.2011. In that communication, the Member Secretary informed the learned Government Pleader that since the petitioner had obtained Ph.D in Micro Biology instead of Zoology, the Teachers Recruitment Board by letter dated 18.11.2009 had addressed the Director of Collegiate Education and sought for clarification regarding the equivalence of Ph.D obtained in the inter disciplinary subjects by some candidates including the petitioner. Thereafter, the letter reads as follows:

¶16

"But the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai 6 vide in her letter No.46739/D5/09 dated 18.8.2010 has furnished equivalence certificate on behalf of the 2 candidates only, namely Dr.P.Sekar and Dr.(Mrs.) R.Bhuvaneswari from the Registrar, University of Madras. Based on the equivalence certificate, the result of P.Sekar with Roll No.C07130051 was published. The Board could not publish the result of the writ petitioner in the absence of clarification from the Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai 6."

¶17

The learned Government Advocate also pointed out that the Director of Collegiate Education had already addressed a communication to the University of Madras on 16.12.2009 asking for their expert advice regarding the equivalence of the certificates obtained by various candidates.

¶18

In the present case, the admitted facts are as follows:

¶19

(a) The petitioner had applied for the post of College Lecturer under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Service for which selections were made by the 3^rd respondent Teachers Recruitment Board. In respect of the Government Arts and Science Colleges for the year 2008, 1195 posts were sought to be filled up by direct recruitment and accordingly 1083 posts were filled up. In respect of 5 candidates, since the degrees obtained by them were not directly referable to Zoology, their selection was withheld until getting further clarification on the said issue.

¶20

(b) In the letter dated 17.11.2009, the Teachers Recruitment Board mentioned the names of 5 candidates. However, in the present case, this Court is only concerned with one candidate by name P.Sekar, who obtained M.Phil in Life Science from Manonmaniam

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

Sundaranar University and he had also obtained Ph.D in Micro Biology from Periyar University. In respect of the said P.Sekar, it is now claimed that the equivalence certificate was obtained from the University and his result was published and he has also been appointed as a Lecturer in Zoology. But, in the case of the petitioner, who also has M.Sc. Zoology and Ph.D Micro Biology from Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University, equivalence certificates are yet to be obtained.

¶23

It is rather unfortunate that the communication sent on 17.11.2009 is yet to be acted upon by the parties concerned and more than one year and four months have elapsed since the date of said communication. The petitioner's challenge continues to remain uncertain and no expeditious steps have been taken by the parties in finding out the equivalence of Ph.D in Micro Biology obtained by the petitioner. It is also not rather clear as to why the Teachers Recruitment Board must address to the Director and the Director in turn only consult the University of Madras, when in the State of Tamil Nadu, there are several other Universities, which have also been established by the State. In fact in the earlier occasion, when such a controversy came between the Certificate issued by Bharathidan University and Madras University, this Court found that in the tug of war between the two different Universities, it is unlike one University will be competitive with reference to evaluating the Certificate of other University despite the fact that both Universities were constituted by the Act of State Legislature. Therefore, this Court felt that in such matters the respondents are not helpless as statutorily the State Government had established the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education vide Act 40 of 1992 and the said TANSCHE is statutorily mandated to render such advice to the State Government on all academic matters referred to it for its opinion. But, in the present case, this Court do not propose to send for such query to the Teachers Recruitment Board on the basis that since the respondents have found that Ph.D in Micro Biology obtained by Mr.P.Sekar from Periyar University shall be considered to be equivalent for the purpose of appointment as a Lecturer in Zoology in Government Arts and Science Colleges. It is unnecessary that there may be any other information in respect of Ph.D in Micro Biology given by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, which is a University established even before Periyar University. Considering the fact one year and four months have elapsed, the respondents have not attempted to secure any such clarification, this Court is constrained to allow the Writ Petition and to direct the respondents to treat the Ph.D Micro Biology from Manonmanian University obtained by the petitioner is eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Zoology for all purpose and grant an appointment order to the petitioner within a

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/Asst. Registrar

¶27

//true copy//

¶28

Sub Asst.Registrar
ajr
To
1. The Secretary to the Government
Collegiate Education Department
Chennai-9.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education
DPI Complex
College Road
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 6
3. The Chairman
The Teachers Recruitment Board
EVK Sampath Maligai
College Road
Chennai 600 006
1 cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate, Sr.No.24971
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.24939
W.P.No.5001 of 2011
RK {CO}
TP/19.4.2011.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T. Selva Mohan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Selva Mohan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kodanad Estate, Vs the Principal Secretary to the

A.Subramaniam Vs the Drugs Inspector

M/S.Sontex Rolled Bandage Vs the Managing Director

Srinivas Rajan Vs the Director of Matriculation

S.Kothandaraman Vs Union of India

T.Krishnarajulu, Vs the Branch Manager