Appeal against a judgment dismissing claims for declaration of equivalence for a teaching appointment. Bench held factual findings of qualification assessment by an Expert Committee were unrebutted and appeal lacked merit.
The appeal was rejected for lack of merit; the C.M.P. was closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.No.225 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.06.2020
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A.No.225 of 2020
K.Elumalai .. Appellant
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
P & AR Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
___________ Page 1 of 13_
W.A.No.225 of 2020
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7184 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Sankaran
JUDGMENT
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
We have heard Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel for the
appellant at length.
2. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that in a matter related to grant of equivalence, the respondent State has not undertaken any valid exercise to consider the equivalence of the qualification possessed by the appellant and, therefore, the decision of the fourth respondent/University that he does not possess the requisite qualification for teaching the course for which he was engaged is erroneous. Learned counsel contends that the learned Single
Page 2 of 13
W.A.No.225 of 2020
Judge has not correctly appreciated this issue, for which he has raised his submissions.
Engineering (EEE) is the Undergraduate qualification required and so far as the Madras Institute of Technology (Anna University, Chennai) is concerned, it is the Department of Electronics Engineering that runs B.E. (Full Time) and (Part Time) courses of Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE), for which subject the appellant was appointed on a contractual basis and he has been continuing as such on the strength of qualifications possessed by him, the first letter of appointment issued was on 23.9.2013. It is urged that this appointment came after Expert Committee has scrutinized the eligibility conditions in the year 2013 itself. Another Expert Committee was set up, which met on 15.5.2017, and the said Committee made certain recommendations for the qualification status of the Teaching
Fellows, referring to the notification of the All India Council for
Page 3 of 13
W.A.No.225 of 2020
Technical Education (AICTE) dated 24.8.2017 as well.
B.E. (EEE) Degree, as possessed by the appellant, for
___________ Page 4 of 13_
W.A.No.225 of 2020
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) in the light of the representation moved by the appellant on 6.5.2017. The learned Single Judge instead of calling upon the concerned authority to assess the said qualification, has himself recorded a finding that Electrical and Electronics Engineering (EEE) is not the relevant or appropriate Undergraduate Degree for the discipline of Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE), which is a separate department altogether. The learned Single Judge has recorded that separate Undergraduate Degree qualification is required for the said department as per the brochure and hence, the claim of the appellant is unacceptable.
the absence of any such consideration by the competent authority, the learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the
matter to the concerned Committee for such assessment and any
___________ Page 5 of 13_
W.A.No.225 of 2020
conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge himself was not desirable. According to the learned counsel, this decision was taken by the learned Single Judge solely relying on the averments contained in the counter affidavit, which were not sufficient in themselves, as nothing was disclosed about an application of mind, more particularly in the light of the contention that in the University of Mumbai the said qualifications
have been considered equivalent keeping in view the provisions made in this regard by the AICTE. Consequently, the appellant in spite of having been appointed and worked in the same capacity with the same qualification is now found to be unfit on the strength of a 2017 decision taken, which in effect is not an appropriate stand, and as a matter of fact is not even a conclusive decision.
writ petition nowhere lays any such foundation that any exercise
___________ Page 6 of 13_
W.A.No.225 of 2020
by the competent authority was not undertaken to ascertain the equivalence of the qualifications. To the contrary, support is sought to be drawn from the notification and circular of the University of Mumbai dated 10.2.2012 and the information received under the Right to Information Act from AICTE that such qualifications as possessed by the appellant are accepted for being appointed as a faculty in the Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) Department. The petition has been filed only for a mandamus to declare the B.E. (EEE) Degree along with the Post Graduate Degree of M.Tech qualification as possessed by the appellant to be an eligible qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE) in the light of his representation dated 6.5.2017.
constituted, considered the relevant technical qualification data
___________ Page 7 of 13_
W.A.No.225 of 2020
and the norms of the AICTE, and then submitted a status report accordingly making recommendations along with the qualification status of the Teaching Fellows. The entire contention in paragraph (7) of the counter affidavit has nowhere been factually disputed by a rejoinder affidavit or a challenge raised to the status report submitted by the Committee on 15.5.2017.
a factual averment about the status report being submitted, as contained in paragraph (7), either ought to have been challenged
or rebutted by an appropriate affidavit, and should not have been left unattended or only subjected to oral arguments. In our
opinion, unless the factual foundation laid in the counter affidavit
Page 8 of 13
W.A.No.225 of 2020
was either rebutted or had been contradicted in some form in the writ petition itself, the Court cannot presume the rebuttal on the strength of an oral argument to the effect that no exercise had been undertaken to ascertain the status of the qualification possessed by the appellant. As a matter of fact, the said stand taken in the counter affidavit is categorical and hence, we do not find any substantial challenge having been raised, which is now
sought to be made through oral arguments.
appellant does not take away the impact of the factual assertion made with regard to the status of the qualifications ascertained by the respondents and the exercise undertaken by them. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there
was no such exercise undertaken at all cannot be accepted in the light of the said facts, which were brought forth in the counter affidavit and which remain unrebutted.
Page 9 of 13
W.A.No.225 of 2020
that he does not dispute this position that in a matter of
___________ Page 10 of 13_
W.A.No.225 of 2020
contractual appointment, after the expiry of the previous contract, if subsequently other qualifications or the correct qualification has been indicated, the fresh contract can be reviewed and offer of appointment can only be made if such qualifications are fulfilled, but in the instant case the qualifications are available with the appellant and, therefore, the mandamus sought for was justified.
The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. However, in case any declaration of equivalence is granted by the
competent authority in future on any approach by the appellant
___________ Page 11 of 13_
W.A.No.225 of 2020
or otherwise, that may have an effect on any such claim, then it will be open to the appellant to seek employment if offered to him. Consequently, C.M.P.No.3532 of 2020 is closed. The judgment has been pronounced in the presence of Mr.M.Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the fourth respondent/ Anna University.
(A.P.S., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.) 04.06.2020 Index : Yes/No sasi To
___________ Page 12 of 13_
W.A.No.225 of 2020
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.225 of 2020
04.06.2020
___________ Page 13 of 13_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge was correct in concluding that no exercise for equivalence assessment of the appellant's qualification was undertaken when a 2017 status report existed?
Whether the appellant's contractual appointment can be regularized based on qualifications valid at the time of appointment if later norms disqualify him?
K. Elumalai
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, P & AR Department
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
The Registrar, Anna University
A.P. Sahi
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
