Dismissed

Teachers Recruitment Board, v. S.Hema Malini

Madras HC17 Jun 2016WA(MD)/878/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that the High Court lacks competence to decide academic equivalence without an Equivalence Committee. It remitted the matter for committee recommendations and final government decision, noting no merit in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Period of three months granted to the Equivalence Committee to consider recommendations; appeal disposed of with no costs.

Teachers Recruitment Board, Vs S.Hema Malini — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.06.2016 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶4

Writ Appeal (MD) No.878 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.5249 of 2016

¶5

Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai 6 Rep by its Chairman ... Appellant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.S.Hema Malini

¶8

2.The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Palkalainagar, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶9

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21.01.2013 made in W.P.(MD).No.4967 of 2012 on the file of this Court.

¶10

Prayer in WP(MD)No.4967/2012:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned order dated 05.04.2012 passed by the 1st respondent in rejecting the petitioner s candidature for the appointment in the direct recruitment of Post Graduate Assistants through employment registration seniority for the year 2010-2011 and quash the same and also furhter direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner in the said post forthwith.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader.

¶12

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J)

¶15

This writ appeal is preferred by the Teachers Recruitment Board, the first respondent in W.P(MD)No.4967 of 2012. The first respondent was the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the notification taken out by the appellant for direct recruitment of Post Graduate Assistants for Government Higher Secondary Schools 2010-2011 through Employment Registration Seniority, the respondent/writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner, responded. But, however, her selection has not been finalised as the writ petitioner has secured the Post Graduate degree of M.S.c, in Applied Chemistry from Madurai Kamaraj

¶16

¶17

University whereas the eligibility qualification notified required the candidates to possess the post graduate degree in M.Sc (Chemistry). The question that fell for consideration is as to whether M.Sc.,(Applied Chemistry) Post Graduate degree awarded by the Madurai Kamaraj University is equivalent to the Post Graduate degree of M.Sc., (Chemistry) or not.

¶18

2.The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing for constituting an Equivalence Committee so as to examine as to whether the Post Graduate degree obtained by the petitioner, is equivalent to M.Sc., in Chemistry or not. The learned Judge has also ordered whether M.Sc., (Applied Chemistry) obtained from Avinashilingam University can be considered as equivalent to M.Sc.,(Chemistry) or not also.

¶19

3.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader has brought to our notice that the State Government has already constituted an Equivalence Committee comprising of academics as per the orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.441, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 20.12.1993.

¶20

4.In fact, the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, in University of Mysore v. C.D.Govinda Rao reported in 1965 AIR 491, in paragraph 12, has clearly brought out that the High Court does not have necessary competence to deal with matters of equivalence, particularly, when the opinion of high ranking academic bodies, such as, Universities or for that matter, that of the Equivalence Committee constituted by the State Government are rendered. Therefore, the State Government has very rightly constituted the Equivalence Committee, through their aforementioned orders, comprising of academics.

¶21

5.In that view of the matter, only an Equivalence Committee comprising of the academics can possibly compare the course and curriculum content and then arrive at an opinion with regard to the equivalence of such qualifications. It would only be appropriate that such recommendations of the Committee should be considered by the State Government and their final decision shall be announced thereon so that all such candidates whose degree qualification/post graduate degree qualifications are treated as equivalent to the qualifications declared as eligible, can also be considered for recruitment.

¶22

6.We are therefore of the opinion that there is not much merit in this writ appeal. We grant a period of three months for the Committee of Equivalence to consider and make its recommendations and it is for the State Government to take appropriate final decision thereon. In the event, the final decision of the State Government is to treat the M.Sc., (Applied Chemistry) post graduate degree obtained by the writ petitioner from Madurai Kamaraj University as equivalent to M.Sc., (Chemistry) post graduate degree qualification, then the appellant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ will take appropriate action of considering the candidature of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with her merit ranking and other eligibility criteria.

¶23

¶24

7.The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.5249 of 2016 is closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

To The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai 6 Copy to:The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-2 +One cc to Mr.S.Palanivelayutham, Advocate, SR.No.31153 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.31333 sms RL/5C/3P/KBM/12/7/2016 Writ Appeal (MD) No.878 of 2016 and C.M.P(MD)No.5249 of 2016 17/06/2016

¶27

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

Teachers Recruitment Board, v. S.Hema Malini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teachers Recruitment Board, v. S.Hema Malini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Samiyathal, F/75 Vs R.Balumani

Seethalakshmi Ammal, Vs Amaladoss Stephen

Mrs.Thenmozhi, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

The New India Assurance Vs Maragathavalli

S.Shanmugam, S/O.Subramania Vs the Commissioner

Madurai Central Market Vs the Assistant Engineer