Allowed

S.Ramesh v. The Union of India

Madras HC5 Jul 2017WP/17059/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Teachers Recruitment Board notification, the High Court held that once a State Government adopts AICTE educational qualifications, it is estopped from issuing a recruitment notification with contrary mandatory standards. The notification was quashed, directing fresh notification aligned with adopted AICTE regulations.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned recruitment notification dated 16.06.2017; directed respondents to issue a fresh notification within two weeks incorporating AICTE prescribed qualifications.

S.Ramesh Vs The Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 05.07.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.17059 of 2017 and

¶6

W.M.P.Nos. 18517 to 18520 of 2017

¶7

S.Ramesh .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Union of India

¶10

Rep.by its Secretary,

¶11

Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education, 5, Sham Nath Marg,

¶12

Prem Kunj,

¶13

New Delhi – 110054.

¶14

The Director,

¶15

All India Council for Technical Education,

¶16

Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant Kunj,

¶17

New Delhi – 110067.

¶18

The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat,

¶19

Fort St. George,

¶20

Chennai – 600 009.

¶21

The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4^th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road,

¶22

4^th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,

¶23

Chennai – 600 006. .. Respondents

¶24

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus and to call for the entire records connected with the impugned notification issued by the 4^th respondent in Advertisement No.04/2017 dated 16.06.2017 and quash the same in so far the educational qualification criteria concern, consequently direct the 4^th respondent to issue fresh notification by modifying educational qualification criteria as per the Regulation of the 2^nd respondent (AICTE) dated 22.01.2010.

¶25

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

¶26

For Petitioner : M/s.Greetha Senthilkumar

¶27

For Respondents : Mrs.N.K.Nithila Vani

¶28

Central Government Counsel for R1 Mr.S.Gunasekaran for R3

¶29

Mr.K.Venkataramani

¶30

Additional Advocate General - VII Assisted by Mr.K.Dhanajayan Special Government Pleader for R4

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The factual matrix required to be considered in this writ petition is, a notification issued by the 4^th respondent, Teachers Recruitment Board on 16.06.2017, inviting applications from eligible candidates up to 11.59 pm on 07.07.2017, for direct recruitment of Lecturers (Engineering / Non Engineering) in Government Polytechnic Colleges for the year 2017-18. The name of the post is notified as Lecturers (Engineering / Non Engineering) in Government Polytechnic Colleges and the scale of pay is Rs.15,600–39,900/- + AGP Rs.5,400/-. The notified posts are coming under the provisions of Tamilnadu Educational Service and the post code is 17PT. Number of vacancies notified are 1058. The date of notification is 16.06.2017, the commencement of submission of application through online mode is 17.06.2017. Last date for submission of application through online mode is 07.07.2017. The date of written examination is scheduled to be held on 13.08.2017. The notification prescribes both the vertical and horizontal reservations which include Women Reservation, Reservation for Persons Studied in Tamil Medium (PSTM), and thirdly, Reservation for Persons with Disability. Clause 4 of the notification stipulates qualifications which reads as under :

¶33

“ 4. Qualifications:

¶34

a) Age Limit: Candidates should not be over 57 years as on 1-7.2017

¶35

as the age of superannuation is 58 years.

¶36

b) Educational Qualifications:

¶37

Candidates should possess the following qualification on the date of notification:

¶38

Lecturer in Engineering subjects: A first class Bachelor's degree in the branch of Engineering relating to the post concerned.

¶39

Lecturer in non-Engineering subjects: A first class Master's degree in the appropriate branch of study

¶40

● Candidates should possess the requisite

¶41

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

¶42

qualification in relevant subject awarded by an University or Institutions recognized by University Grants Commission. ● As per the G.O.No.242 Higher Edn. (P1) Dept., dated 18.12.2012 for engineering subjects, the candidates should qualify 10+2+4 / 10+3+3 pattern for engineering subject and 10+2+3+2 / 10+3+3+2 / 11+2+3+2 pattern for non-engineering subject.

¶43

The candidates should apply only for the vacancies notified and subject specified. The candidates applying for the posts mentioned in Annexure-I should have passed Tamil Language as Part 1 or Part II up to SSLC or PUC/Higher Secondary Course levels. If not, he/she should pass Tamil Language Test conducted by the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission within two years from the date of his/her appointment.

¶44

The candidates not having prescribed qualifications, as on the last date of submission of filled-in online application, shall not be eligible to apply for the examination. The candidates should satisfy themselves about their eligibility before applying. It is to be noted that if a candidate is allowed to appear for the examination it does not imply that the eligibility of the candidate is verified. The eligibility shall be verified by the Board only at the time of Certificate Verification”.

¶45

The writ petitioner has challenged this notification solely on the ground that the Educational Qualifications prescribed in the notification impugned in this writ petition are contrary to the Educational Qualifications issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (herein after called as "The AICTE"). To substantiate this, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the notification is to be scraped on the ground that it violates the mandatory requirement for minimum standard of Educational Qualification prescribed by the AICTE. In order to compare the Educational Qualification, learned Senior Counsel made this Court to look into the Educational Qualification prescribed by the AICTE.

¶46

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

¶47

Post Qualifications
Lecturer/Workshop Superintendent
Engineering / Technology Bachelor's degree in
Engineering /
Technology in the
relevant branch with
First Class or
equivalent.
If the candidate has a
Master's degree in
Engineering /
Technology, first class
or equivalent is
required at Bachelors
or Masters level.

¶48

The AICTE issued the Pay Scales, Service conditions and qualifications for the Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations, 2010. The Regulations were issued under sub-section (1) of Section 23 read with Section 10(i) and (v) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (52 of 1987). Regulation 1 reads as follows:

¶49

“1. Short Title, Application and Commencement: 1.1 These Regulations may be called the All India Council for Technical Education (Pay Scales, Service Conditions and qualifications For The Teachers And Other Academic Staff In Technical Institutions (diploma)) Regulations, 2010. 1.2 They shall apply to technical institutions conducting technical education and such other courses / Programs and areas as notified by the Council from time to time.

¶50

1.3 They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette''.

¶51

The minimum qualifications and experience for appointment of teaching posts, Lecturers in Diploma Level Technical Institutions, is prescribed as:

¶52

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

¶53

¶54

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute with regard to the Bachelor's Degree qualification with first class. But, the issue is, whether a candidate, who is in possession of Masters Degree, will not be considered as per the notification published by the fourth respondent.

¶55

In order to draw the difference, an example was cited that if any candidate possessing second class Bachelor's Degree in Engineering and in possession of first class Master's Degree from the very same application will be rejected at threshold in the recruitment process. Since the AICTE Regulation prescribes a person holding first class in Master's Degree also can be considered for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Diploma level Institution. That apart, the very object of prescribing first class in Master's Degree by AICTE is to maintain higher standard regarding the qualification for Lecturers in technical institutions. It is always preferable that the qualification for teaching line to be of academic excellence. Academic excellence should be the main criteria, more specifically, for the teaching post in technical institutions. There cannot be any compromise on academic qualifications for the post of Lecturer, either in technical or other institutions.

¶56

In this regard, this Court would like to go into the intent of the legislation. The AICTE Act 1987 (Act No.52 of 1987) was enacted with an object as extracted below :

¶57

“An act to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education with a view to the proper planning and co-ordinated development of the technical education system throughout

¶58

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

¶59

the country, the promotion of qualitative improvements of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system and for matters connected therewith.” Section 2 (g) defines “Technical education, means programmes of education, research and training in engineering technology, architecture, town planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts and such other programme or areas as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare;” Section 2 (h) defines “Technical institution means an institution, not being a University, which offers courses or programmes of technical education, and shall include such other institutions as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Council, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare as technical institutions;”

¶60

Section 3 is regarding the Establishment of the Council and chapter 3 Section 10 provides Functions of the Council. The Acts are narrated as under:-

¶61

“Functions of the Council : (1) It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring coordinated and integrated development of technical education and maintenance of standards and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may,(a) Undertake survey in the various fields of technical education, collect data on all related matters and make forecast of the needed growth and development in technical education; (b) co-ordinate the development of technical education in the country at all levels; (c) allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Council such grant on such terms and conditions as it may think fit to,(i) technical institutions, and

¶62

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

¶63

(ii)Universities imparting technical education in co-ordination with the Commission;

¶64

(d) promote innovations, research and development in established and new technologies, generation, adoption and adaptation of new technologies to meet developmental requirements are for overall improvement of education processes;

¶65

(e) formulate schemes for promoting technical education for women, handicapped and weaker sections of the society;

¶66

(f) promote an effective link between technical education system and other relevant systems including research and development organizations, industry and the community;

¶67

(g) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems for technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education, incorporating norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability; (h) formulate schemes for the initial and in service training of teachers and identify institutions or centres and set up new centres for offering staff development programmes including continuing education of teachers;

¶68

(i) lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment and examinations;

¶69

(j) fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees;

¶70

(k) grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned;

¶71

(l) advise the Central Government in respect of grant of charter to any professional body or institution in the field of technical education conferring powers, rights and privileges on it for the promotion of such profession in its field including conduct of examination and awarding of membership certificates;

¶72

(m) lay down norms for granting autonomy to technical institutions;

¶73

(n) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of technical

¶74

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

¶75

education;

¶76

(o) provide guidelines for admission of students to technical institutions and Universities imparting technical education;

¶77

(p) inspect or cause to inspect any technical institution;

¶78

(q) withhold or discontinue grants in respect of courses, programmes to such technical institutions which fail to comply with the directions given by the Council within the stipulated period of time and take such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council;

¶79

(r) take steps to strengthen the existing organizations and to set up new organizations to ensure effective discharge of the Council's responsibilities and to create position of professional, technical and supporting staff based on requirements;

¶80

(s) declare technical institutions at various levels and types offering courses in technical education fit to receive grants;

¶81

(t) advice the Commission for declaring any institution imparting technical education as deemed University;

¶82

(u) set up a National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation of technical institutions or programmes on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it and to make recommendation to it, or to the Council, or to the Commission or to other bodies, regarding recognition or de-recognition of the institution or the programme;

¶83

(v) perform such functions as may be prescribed.”

¶84

Pursuant to the AICTE Act, the regulations were issued by the AICTE. The regulation specifically prescribes that Bachelor's Degree in Engineering / Technology, in the relevant branch with first class or equivalent. If the candidate has a Master's Degree in Engineering / Technology, first class or equivalent is required at Bachelor's or Masters level. Therefore, it is clear that a person who is in possession of second class in Bachelor Degree in Engineering and secured first class in Masters Degree in Engineering is eligible to be appointed as Lecturers in Diploma Level Technical Institutions. Thus, this Court is of the view that the candidates, who are possessing Bachelor's Degree in second class and secured first

¶85

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

¶86

class in Master's Degree are prevented from applying for recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Government Polytechnics in this State. Accordingly, the standard of education prescribed by the AICTE is diluted. Even in other terms, the candidates possessing Master's Degree in engineering in first class are deprived of participating in the recruitment process, which is against the AICTE regulations as well as the very sprit and the object sought to be achieved through the Act itself. At the outset, a section of potential candidates, who secured second class in Bachelor's Degree and secured first class in Masters Degree are totally deprived.

¶87

The learned Additional Advocate General - VII on behalf of the respondents, strenuously opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by stating that the subject of education is in Concurrent List and State has got every power to prescribe qualifications for recruitment and such a power cannot be taken away by the Central Act. Secondly, the rules were already issued in G.O.Ms.No.597 Higher Education Department on 01.12.1997 for the post of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges and the State is bound to go by its own rules and not required to follow the AICTE rules as it is.

¶88

The learned Additional Advocate General - VII further stated that the regulations and the prescription of minimum qualification by the AICTE is only directory and not mandatory. It is for the State to adopt or to exclude the minimum standard of Educational Qualification prescribed by the AICTE and the decision taken in this regard will become final and binding on the candidates, who aspire to submit their application for the post of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges.

¶89

Supporting the above contentions, cited a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Association of Private Colleges Vs All India Counsil for Technical Education reported in (2013) 8 Sec 271 wherein it was reiterated as under,

¶90

''All these vitally important aspects go to show that AICTE created under the Act is not intended to be an authority either superior to or supervise and control the universities and thereby superimpose itself upon such universities merely for the reason that it is imparting teaching in technical education or programmes in any of its departments or units.''

¶91

He further cited the Judgement of Bharathidasan University and another Vs All India Council for Technical Educaiton and others, and thus reiterated hereunder :-

¶92

“50. In Bharathidasan University case, the question which fell for consideration is referred to in the first paragraph of the

¶93

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

¶94

judgment upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned Senion Counsel for the respondent Mr.Rakesh Dwivedi to substantiate his submission that the ration laid down in Bharathidasan University case is in relation to the question raised regarding the university created under the Bharathidasan Universities Act to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the university itself for conduction technical courses of its choice and selection. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the said case has no application to the fact situation of these educational institutions/colleges which are run by the appellants herein though they are affiliated to their respective universities......... 51.......... 51.1. The relevant paragraphs of Bharathidasan University case2 read as under: (SCC PP.683-86, PARAS 8-10) ''8. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on either side. When the legislative intent finds specific mention and expression in the provisions of the Act itself, the same cannot be whittled down or curtailed and rendered nugatory by giving undue importance to the so-called object underlying the Act or the purpose of creation of a body to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the Act, particularly when the AICTE Act does not contain any evidence of an intention to belittle and destroy the authority or autonomy of other statutory bodies, having their own assigned roles to perform. Merely activated by some assumed objects or desirabilites, the courts cannot adorn the mantle of the legislature. It is hard to ignore the legislative intent to give definite meaning to words employed in the Act and adopt an interpretation which would tend to do violence to the express language as well as the plain meaning and patent aim and object underlying the various other provisions of the Act. Even in endeavouring to maintain the object and spirit of the law to achieve the goal fixed by the legislature, the courts must go by the guidance of the words used and not on certain preconceived

¶95

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

¶96

notions of ideological structure and scheme underlying the law. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the AICTE Act, it is specifically stated the AICTE was orginally set up by a government resolution as a national expert body to advise the Central and State Governments for ensuring the coordinated development of technical education in accordance with approved standards was playing an effective role, but, '[h]owever, in recent years, a large number of private engineering colleges and polytechnics have come up in complete disregard of the guidelines, laid down by the AICTE' and taking into account the serious deficiencies of even rudimentary infrastructure necessary for imparting proper education and training and the need to maintain educational standards and curtail the growing erosion of standards statutory authority was meant to be conferred upon AICTE to play its role more effectively by enacting the AICTE Act.

¶97

..........“

¶98

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, a Judgment rendered by the the Supreme Court of India in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs All India Council for Technical Education & Ors, wherein it was held as under:

¶99

“27.The consistent view of this Court has been that where both Parliament and State Legislature have the power to legislate, the Central Act shall take precedence in the matters which are covered by such legislation and the State enactments shall pave way for such legislations to the extent they are in conflict or repugnant. As per the established canons of law, primacy of the Central Act is undisputable which necessarily implies primacy of AICTE in the field of technical education. Statutes like the present one as well as the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 etc. fall within the ambit of this canon of law. The AICTE is the authority constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining operational standards and judging the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting

¶100

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

¶101

professional education. It shall take precedence over the opinion of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned department of the State and the affiliating university have a role to play, but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. The State can frame its policies, but such policy again has to be in conformity with the direction issued by the Central body. Though there is no such apparent conflict in the present case, yet it needs to be clarified that grant of approval by the State and affiliation by the University for increased intake of seats or commencement of new college should not be repugnant to the conditions of approval/recommendation granted by the AICTE. These authorities have to work in tandem as all of them have the common object to ensure maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and proper infrastructure for betterment of technical educational system.

¶102

It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the central authorities such as the AICTE have to force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by the court unless the powers vested in such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner impermissible under the Regulations and the AICTE Act.”

¶103

To narrow down the scope of this writ petition, this Court is of the view that the issue in this writ petition is, whether the qualifications prescribed by the AICTE ought to be followed or the qualification prescribed as in the impugned notification is to be followed.

¶104

In order to crystallize the issues for better appreciation and settlement of the dispute on hand, this Court is curious to see the State Government Order issued in G.O.(Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 25.05.2010. The respondent State Government issued this order pursuant to the AICTE notification in the Gazette of India, extraordinary notification dated 05.03.2010. In other words, the State

¶105

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

¶106

Government has adopted the qualification issued by the AICTE, under the Act and Regulations and adopted the same by issuing G.O.(Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 25.05.2010. The Government Order reads as follows:-

¶107

“The Government revised the Scales of Pay, allowances etc to the teachers and equivalent cadres in Government / Government Aided Colleges governed by University Grants Commission in the Government Order first read above. Subsequently the Government in the Government Order fourth read above revised the scales of pay and allowances to the teachers working in Technical Universities and Government and Government Aided Engineering Colleges based on the recommendation of the All India Council for Technical Education. The All India Council for Technical Education has issued the notification in the reference second and third read above for revising the Scales of Pay, allowances etc to the teachers of Polytechnic Colleges governed by All India Council for Technical Education. The Government have carefully examined the above notification and pass the following Orders:-”

¶108

The Government Order further provides with the Pay scales, Pay structure, Pay fixation formula, Increment etc., Clause (N), Sub-clause 4 states that “The Faculty norms given in the Appendix V shall be followed with effect from the date of issue of the order.”

¶109

Let us now look into the contents in Appendix -V. Appendix - V provides faculty norms and minimum qualifications and experience for appointment of teaching posts in Diploma Level Technical Institutions. The norms starts with the post of Lecturer / Workshop Superintendent, which is extracted hereunder:-

¶110

Post Qualifications Lecturer/Workshop Superintendent

¶111

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

¶112

Post	Qualification	s
Engineering / Technology	Bachelor's degre Engineering	e in /
	Technology in relevant branch	the with
	First Class equivalent.	or
	If the candidate	has a
	Master's degree	in
	Engineering	/
	Technology, first	class
	or equivalent required at Bac or Masters level.	is helors

¶113

The question now posed is that when the State Government accepted the minimum standard of educational qualifications fixed by the AICTE and issued an order in G.O. (Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 25.05.2010, whether it is correct on the part of the respondents to issue the impugned notification in violation of not only the AICTE regulations but also their own Government Order issued in the Government Order cited supra, adopting the educational qualifications issued in the AICTE Regulations. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the AICTE, which is the National level council, prescribed educational qualifications so as to maintain the standards and after accepting and adopting the same, the State Government cannot follow different rules for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges.

¶114

Though the learned Additional Advocate General – VII, advanced arguments with regard to the powers of the State, the question need not be decided in this case because this Court is of the view that the power of the State is independent, since the subject is in the Concurrent List. But the question is that such an independent power of the State in the particular subject, can be exercised contrary to the Central Act. In other words, whether the policy of the State can be repugnant to that of the Central Act and Regulations. May that it be, the question does not arise in the present factual circumstances in view of the fact that the respondent State itself adopted the minimum standard of educational qualifications prescribed by AICTE. Therefore, this Court need not consider the contentions raised by the learned Additional Advocate General- VII more specifically in this writ petition.

¶115

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

¶116

The learned Additional Advocate General - VII submitted that the respondents are willing to consider the writ petitioner before this Court. This Court is unable to accept such proposal mooted out by the learned Additional Advocate General. In view of the fact that the matter relating to the challenge of recruitment notification affecting large number of candidates in general, this Court has to consider the State wide implecations and repercussions and it is the mission of the Constitutional Court to visualize the plight and agony of the candidates, who are not before this Court. The rights of all the citizens concerned are to be taken care of, while deciding such kind of matters, having State wide repercussions. This Court is duty bound to consider the plight of the poor candidates, who will not be in a position to approach this Court, on each and every occasion. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that, the plight of all the candidates has to be considered irrespective of the fact whether all the candidates are party to this writ proceedings, or not, more specifically when the very notification is under challenge and it is necessary to take care of the interest of all aggrieved persons.

¶117

When such being the legal principles to be adopted by the Constitutional Court, this Court is of the view that the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General that the respondents are ready to consider the writ petitioner, deserves to be rejected at the outset.

¶118

It is the further contention on behalf of the petitioner that the last date for application is fixed as 07.07.2017, and as such the urgency of deciding this matter was expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Though the learned Additional Advocate General – VII pleaded that it is suffice to pass an interim order in all these matters. This Court is not inclined to do so. In view of the fact the interest of large number of candidates are involved in this notification, which is impugned in this writ petition, the right of all the candidates as a whole is to be taken care of by this Court. If this exercise is not done, it will create an anomaly in the recruitment process and granting of interim order at this stage will pave way to multiplicity of litigations and large number of candidates will approach this Court seeking relief one way or other. This apart, keeping this writ petition pending for an unspecified period by this Court will create mental agony to the aspiring candidates seeking appointment to the post of Lecturer. Age is a vital factor for appointment of candidates and as the age runs, the scope of getting appointment will be reduced. Such being the view taken by this Court, the question of considering and passing of an interim order,

¶119

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

¶120

does not arise all and the issue being brought down in a narrow compus to this Court, it would be proper to decide the issue and pass final orders in this writ petition.

¶121

More so, the pleadings were completed and the party in the writ petition is present and submitted his arguments and the learned Additional Advocate General also submitted his valuable points on behalf of the Government. Now, the core point to be decided is that whether the notification impugned in this writ petition dated 16.06.2017 is to be proceeded with or not. The factum of this case, that it is not only the case of violation of the standard of qualification prescribed by the AICTE, but it is the case where the State Government has accepted and adopted the regulations issued by the AICTE. After accepting the educational qualifications fixed by the AICTE, the State Government has no option except to follow the same in strict adherence. In other words, the State Government is estopped from prescribing different educational qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturers in Diploma level Government Polytechnic, other than that of the educational qualification prescribed by the AICTE in its regulations. Such being the view of this Court, the notification deserves to be cancelled and a fresh exercise ought to have been undertaken by notifying the qualifications as prescribed by AICTE and as accepted by the State Government vide its G.O.(Ms) No.111, Higher Education (C2) Department, dated 25.05.2010. Accodingly, this Court is inclined to consider the merits in the writ petition and the notification issued by the respondents on 16.06.2017 is quashed and the respondents are directed to issue a fresh notification incorporating the educational qualifications prescribed under the Pay Scales, Service Conditions and qualifications for the Teaches and other academic staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma) Regulations 2010, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The candidates applied pursuant to the notification dated 16.06.2017 need not submit their applications once again and the application already received shall be considered.

¶122

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.s are closed.

¶123

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶124

jer/at

¶125

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

¶126

To
1. The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of Higher Education,
5, Sham Nath Marg,
Prem Kunj,
New Delhi – 110054.
2. The Director,
All India Council for Technical Education,
Nelson Mandela Marg Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110067.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Department of Higher Education,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
4. The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4 th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
+1cc to Mr.N.K.Nithila vani,Advocate sr.46762
+1cc to Greetha Senthilkumar,Advocate sr.47031
+1cc to Government Pleader sr.48133
W.P.No.17059 of 2017 and
W.M.P.Nos. 18517 to 18520 2017
ss(9/8/2017)

¶127

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

S.Ramesh v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramesh v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Chitra, W/o.Sivakumar, Vs The Director General of Police

N.Baskaran, Vs Secretary

S.Kayalvizhi, Vs The Director of Social Welfare

Mr. R.Gandhi Vs The Superintendent of Police

S. Yakub Khan, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by

E.Selvaraj, S/o.Eswaran, Vs The Registrar of Cooperative