Dismissed

I.Tharani v. The Teacher Recruitment Board

Madras HC23 Oct 2017WP/19028/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the rejection of the petitioner's eligibility for a teaching post. The Court held that the petitioner's degree obtained through an open university system, pursued in a non-regular pattern, was invalid under UGC regulations, making her ineligible for the recruitment process.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

I.Tharani Vs The Teacher Recruitment Board — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.10.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P. No.19028 of 2014 and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶6

I.Tharani .... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1.The Teacher Recruitment Board, rep.by its Chairman, E.V.K.Sampath Building, 4^th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai.

¶8

2.The Director of School Education, E.V.K. Sampath Building, 4^th Floor, College Road, Chennai-600 006. .... Respondents

¶9

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to result of the respondents of Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test Supplementary 2012 (Graduate Assistance) Department of School Education published on 05.12.2012 so as for the petitioner is concerned and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to select the petitioner for the post of Teacher.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Prasanna For Respondents : Mr.K.Thangapandi, GA

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The relief sought for in this writ petition to call for the records in relation to the result issued by the respondents in Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test Supplementary 2012 (Graduate Assistance) Department of School Education published on 05.12.2012 so as far the petitioner is concerned and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to select the petitioner for the post of Teacher and however, the results of the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test Supplementary 2012 (Graduate Assistance) was deferred in respect of the writ petitioner on the ground that the writ petitioner has passed an higher secondary course in later date after completing the decree course on 31.10.2007.

¶13

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

¶14

The facts regarding the acquiring of the educational qualification of the writ petitioner are enumerated in Paragraph No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition reads as follows:

¶15

“I further submits that in the year 2006, i joined Bachelor of Literature (English/Tamil) in Tamil Nadu Open University and finished the same in the year, June 2009 and obtained 72.56% of marks. Thereafter when I planned to study B.Ed., Degree course. I was not admitted to the course as I did not complete my 12^th standard, further I was advised to complete my 12^th standard. Hence I joined 12^th standard privately and completed my 12^th standard in the year March 2010 (Accountancy, Commerce, Economic Group) obtaining 58.58% of marks. After finishing my 12^th standard, I joined B.Ed., Degree course in Dr.M.G.R. College, Ramanathapuram District as a regular student and completed the B.Ed., Course in the year May 2011 and obtained 78.9% of marks. The said Dr.M.G.R. College is recognized institution of the Government of Tamil Nadu, which I am carrying on the said business was allotted to. 4. I further submit that in the year 2012, I appeared for the Teacher Eligibility Test (TNTET) Supplementary examination on 14.10.2012 for B.T.Assistant Post and in that examination I obtained 60% (90/150) and I was qualified for the same. Thereafter, on 06.11.2012, I was called for, certificate verification, which was conducted in Ammal Higher Secondary School, Ramanathapuram and I obtained 74 marks, and I was qualified in the TNTET supplementary examination 2012”

¶16

On perusal of the entire affidavit, it is clear that the writ petitioner had completed the degree of B.Lit., through Tamil Nadu Open University in June 2009 and thereafter, completed the higher secondary course in March 2010. The writ petitioner has not possessed the educational qualification in accordance with the pattern prescribed by the University Grants Commission. When the candidate has not studied the course in accordance with the regular pattern prescribed by the University Grants Commission as per the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act and its regulation, they cannot be considered as eligible for appointment to the post of Graduate Assistance or to any other teaching post.

¶17

In this regard, the validity of the degree is considered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Annamalai University V. Secretary to Government reported in 2009 4 SCC 590:

¶18

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

¶19

40.“The UGC Act was enacted by parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India whereas the Open University Act was enacted by parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III thereof. The question of repugnant to the provisions of the said two Acts, therefore, does not arise. It is true that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Open University Act shows that the formal system of education had not been able to provide an effective means to equalise educational opportunities. The system is rigid inter alia in respect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of subjects are also inflexible.

¶20

41.Was the alternative system envisaged under the open University Act in substitution of the formal system, is the question. In our opinion, in the matter of ensuring the standard of education, it is not. The distinction between a formal system and an informal system is in the mode and manner in which education in imparted. The UGC Act was enacted for effectuating coordintion and determination of standards in universities. The purport and object for which it was enacted must be given full effect.

¶21

42.The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all universities whether conventional or open. Its power are very broad. The Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of subsection (1) of Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to open universities as also to form conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose requred to be regulated. The power of UGC under Section 26(1) (f) and 26 (1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of UGC are all-pervasive in respect of the matters specified in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and Clauses (a) and © of sub-section (2) thereof.

¶22

43.Indisputably, as has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned

¶23

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

¶24

Solicitor General that the Open University Act was enacted to achieve a specific object. It opens new vistas for imparting education in a novel manner. Students do not have to attend classes regularly. They have wide options with regard to the choice of subjects but the same, in our opinion, would not mean that despite a parlimentary Act having been enacted to give effect to the constitutional mandate contained in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, activities and functions of the private universities and open universities would be wholly unregulated.

¶25

44.It has not been denied or disputed before us that in the matter of laying down qualification of the teachers, running of the University and the matters provided for under the UGC Act (sic the Regulations) are applicable and binding on all concerned. The Regulations framed, as noticed herein before, clearly aimed at the open universities. When the Regulations are part of the statute, it is difficult to comprehend as to how the same which operate in a different filed would be ultra vires the parlimentary Act. IGNOU has not made any regulation; it has not made any ordinance. It is guided by the Regulations framed by UGC. The validity of the provisions of the Regulations has not been questioned either by IGNOU or by the appellant University. From a letter dated 05.05.2004 issued by Mr.H.P.Dikshit, who was not only the Vice-Chancellor but also the Chairman of DEC of IGNOU it is evident that the appellant University has violated the mandatory provisions of the Regulations.

¶26

45.The amplitude of the provisions of the UGC Act visa-vis the universities constituted under the State Universities Acts which would include within its purview a University made by parliament also is now no longer res integra.

¶27

46.In Prem Chand Jain V.R.K.Chhabra this Court held: (SCC PP.308-09, para 8) “8. ....The legal position is well settled that the entries incorporated in the lists covered by Schedule VII are not powers of legislation but 'fields' of legislation. (Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia V. Union of India SCR at p.489). In State of Bihar V.Kameshwar Singh this Court has indicated that such entries are mere legislative head and are of an enabling character. This Court has clearly ruled that the language of the

¶28

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

¶29

entries should be given the widest scope of amplitude. (Nacinchandra Mafatlal V. CIT SCR at P.836). Each general word has been asked to be extended to all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly and reasonably be comprehended [See State of Madras V.Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. SCR at p.391].

¶30

In University of Delhi V. Raj Singh this Court held:

¶31

.....By reason of entry 66. Parliament was invested with the power to legislate on "coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or reach and scientific and technical institutions." Item 25 of List Ill conferred power upon Parliament and the State legislatures to enact legislation with respect to "vocational and technical training on labour". A six-Judge bench of this Court observed that the validity of State legislation on the subjects of University education and education in technical and scientific institutions falling outside entry 64 of List I as it then read (that is to say, institutions for scientific or technical education other than those financed by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared by Parliament by law to be institutions of national importance) had to be judged having regard to whether it impinged on the field reserved for the Union under entry 66. In other words, the validity of the State legislation depended upon whether it prejudicially affected the coordination and determination of standards. It did not depend upon the actual existence of union legislation in respect of coordination and determination of standards which had, in any event, paramount importance by virtue of the first part of Article 254(1).

¶32

In State of T.N. V. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute, this Court laid down the law in the following terms:

¶33

What emerges from the above discussion is as follows: [i] The expression "coordination" used in Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would

¶34

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

¶35

make "coordination" either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. [ii] To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void and inoperative.

¶36

[iii] If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless the State legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part of clause [2] of Article 254, the State leg- islation being repugnant to the Central legislation, the same would be inoperative.

¶37

[iv] Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case.

¶38

[v] When there are more applicants than the available situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or the Central authority to short- list the applicants. When the State authority does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List or make a law which is repugnant to the Central law.

¶39

[vil However, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities derecognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although_ it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the central authority, the State authorities act illegally.

¶40

In State of A.P. V. K.Prurushotham Reddy this Court held:

¶41

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

¶42

"19. The conflict in legislative competence of the Parliament and the State Legislatures having regard to Article 246 of the Constitution of India must be viewed in the light of the decisions of this Court which in no uncertain terms state that each Entry has to be interpreted in a broad manner. Both the parliamentary legislation as also the State legislation must be considered in such a manner so as to uphold both of them and only in a case where it is found that both cannot co-exist, the State Act may be declared ultra vires. Clause I of Article 246 of the Constitution of India does not provide for the competence of the Parliament or the State Legislatures as is ordinarily understood but merely provide for the respective legislative fields. Furthermore, the Courts should proceed to construe a statute with a view to uphold its constitutionality."

¶43

It was observed: (Purushotham Reddy case)

¶44

20.Entry 66 of List I provides for coordination and determination of standards inter alia for higher education. Entry 25 of List III deals with broader subject, namely, education. On a conjoint reading of both the entries there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that although the State has a wide legislative field to cover, the same is subject to entry 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. Once, thus, it is found that any State Legislation does not entrench upon the legislative field set apart by Entry 66, List I of the VII Schedule of the Constitution of India, the State Act cannot be invalidated.

¶45

The UGC Act, thus, having been enacted by Parliament in terms of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India would prevail over the Open University Act.

¶46

The provisions of the UGC Act are not in conflict with the provisions of the Open University Act. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that the UGC Act shall prevail over the Open University Act. It has, however, been argued that the Open University Act is a later Act. But we have noticed herein before that the nodal Ministry knew of the provisions of both the Acts. The Regulations were framed almost at the same time after passing of the open university Act. The Regulations were framed at a later point of timel. Indisputably, the

¶47

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

¶48

Regulations embrace within its fold the matters covered under the Open University Act also.

¶49

Submission of Mr.K.Parasaran that in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Open University Act a non obstante clause has been created and, thus, would prevail over the earlier Act cannot also be accepted. Apart from the fact that in this case repugnancy of the two Acts is not in question (in fact cannot be in questionhaving (sic not) been enacted by parliament and a State in terms of the provisions of the Concurrent List) the non obstante clause contained in the Open University Act will be attracted provided the statutes operate in the same field. The UGC Act, as noticed herein before, operated in different field. It was enacted so as to make provisions for the coordination and determination of standards in universities and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission. Its directions being binding on IGNOU, subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Open University Act would not make the legal position otherwise.”

¶50

In view of the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the matter of acquisition of educational qualification through open university system, contrary to the University Grants Commission regularisation, the qualification acquired by the writ petitioner on hand is not valid for the purpose of appointing the writ petitioner to the post of Graduate Assistance or to any other teaching post. Thus an order of rejection passed by the respondents in this regard is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity. Thus, the grounds raised in this writ petition deserves no further consideration.

¶51

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶52

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy//

¶53

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶54

¶55

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

¶56

¶57

1.The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, E.V.K.Sampath Building, 4^th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai.

¶58

2.The Director of School Education, E.V.K. Sampath Building, 4^th Floor, College Road, Chennai-600 006. W.P.No. 19028 of 2014

¶59

DK(CO) TR(06/12/2017)

¶60

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

I.Tharani v. The Teacher Recruitment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.Tharani v. The Teacher Recruitment Board

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

M.Vignesh Vs the Chairman

N.D.Palani, Vs the Deputy Registrar of Coop.

A.Thiruganasambandam Vs Tamilnadu Generation and

P.Rajkumar Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

P.Sivakumar Vs The District Manager

R.Vajjravelu Vs The District Collector