Assistant Professor's qualification obtained through open/distance education without 10+2+3 pattern was denied approval by University of Madras; writ appeal against dismissal of his challenge was dismissed.
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.2429 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 04.04.2024
DELIVERED ON: 24.04.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
and CMP.Nos.15968, 15969 of 2019 CMP.No.9175 / 2020 & 11248 of 2022
B.Thandavamurthy
... Appellant
Vs.
Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
4.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents
1
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
Prayer:
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 10.04.2019 made in W.P.No.2929 of 2019.
For Appellant : Ms.G.Thilakavathi, Senior Counsel for M/s.R.Gophinath
For Respondents : M/s.V.Sudha for R1 Mr.D.Ravichandran, Special Govt. Pleader for R2 and R4
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
The appellant is the writ petitioner and aggrieved by the order of the
Writ Court dated 10.04.2019 made in W.P.No.2929 of 2019, in and by
which the challenge made by the writ petitioner against the order of cancellation of approval of qualification granted to the appellant/writ petitioner to hold the post of Assistant Professor in Tamil in the third respondent College on the ground that the qualification acquired by him is not under 10+2+3+2/11+1+3+2 pattern, came to be dismissed, has filed the instant writ appeal.
and thereafter, during the year 1996, he undergone the preparatory exam
2
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
conducted by the first respondent University, so as to enable him to continue his further education through Distance Education Programme and after successful completion of preparatory exams, he got admission in B.Lit (Tamil) and thereafter pursued Masters Degree in Tamil during 1999-2001 and completed his M.Phil (Tamil) in 2005. The appellant had also completed Tamil Nadu State Eligibility Test (SET) for Lectureship in Tamil. Thereafter, he joined as Assistant Professor under the third respondent College with effect from June 2015. While that being so, the first respondent University had withdrawn the approval earlier granted in respect of the qualification possessed by the appellant by passing the impugned order dated 28.05.2018, on the ground that he had not completed the course of study in 10+2+3 pattern. In pursuant to the order of the first respondent University, the third respondent College relieved the petitioner from service. The order of the first respondent cancelling the approval of qualification obtained by the appellant was challenged in the writ petition. The Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition, against which the appellant has filed the instant writ appeal.
3
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
appellant got admitted to Under Graduate course only after undergoing the preparatory course conducted by the first respondent University recognized for the purpose of grant of admission to Under Graduate Degree and thus he is fully qualified and when the University itself is conducting such courses and granting admission, the same cannot be disputed. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further contended that as per the provisions of the University Grants Commission Regulations, Indira Gandhi Open University Act was enacted by the Government of India recognizing the Distance Education Mode for the degree granted by the concerned University and when the said degree is a valid degree under the UGC Regulations, the impugned order of the first respondent, vide proceedings dated 28.05.2018, rejecting the approval of qualification obtained by the appellant, is per se unsustainable and prays for allowing of this writ appeal.
vehemently objected to the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel
4
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
for the appellant by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University v.Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 590] and further drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.107, P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009, which states that the degree obtained through Open University Scheme will be acceptable for Government appointments, provided the candidate has done 10th standard followed by 12th Standard (+2) before obtaining the Under Graduate Degree and the said yardstick has been followed by the Universities and colleges for appointing Assistant Professors who had undergone studies in 10+2+3 pattern and whereas in the present case on hand, the third respondent College had appointed the appellant inadvertently and therefore, the contention of the appellant that they had undergone the preparatory course conducted by the first University for getting admission to Under Graduate Course is unacceptable. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the issue on hand has already been decided in the case of V.Kanimozhi v. The Director
of School Education, Chennai and Others [2014 WLR 449 = 2014 (3) MLJ 696] and therefore, the appellant cannot contend before this Court that
5
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
the first respondent has acted in contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 18.08.2009. The learned counsel for
the first respondent University, on instructions, has informed this Court that the qualifications prescribed as per the UGC regulations has to be uniformly followed by the Colleges affiliated by the Universities and the same cannot be deviated and therefore, prays for dismissal of this writ appeal.
6
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
wherein it was held as under:
"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 is imparted. The UGC Act was enacted for effectuating coordination and determination of standards in universities. The purport and object for which it was enacted must be given full effect.
7
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
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."
has also communicated through a letter dated 21.02.2018 to the Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Open University, wherein it is stated as follows:
"ghh;itapy; fhDk; j';fsJ foj';fspy; jkpH;ehL jpwe;j;epiyg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpy; “jpwe;j epiy”fy;tp (Open Education Stream) Kiwapy; mog;gilf;fy;tpj; jFjp ,y;yhjth;fs; Maj;jg;gog;gpid (Bachelor Preparatory Programme) Koj;J rhd;wpjH;. Kl;lak;. ,sepiyg; gl;lk; bgWtij bghJg;gzpfspy; epadk; gjtp cah;t[ bgw m';fPfhpj;J chpa Miz btspapLkhW j';fshy ; nfl;Lf;bfhs;s;ggl;lJ/
2/ Kiwrhh; fy;tpf;fhd 1985Mk; Mz;ila (University
Grants Commission Regulations for formal education) Kjy; gll; k; bgWtjw;fhd khzth;fSf;fhd nrh;f;if Fwpj;J fPH;f;fhk; xG';FKiw tpjpfs; eilKiwapy; cs;sd/
(1) No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1 st Degree Course in these faculties unless he has succcessfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by a Board/University. The admission shall be made on merit on the basis of criteria notified by the institutions after taking into account the reservation order issued by the Government from time to time.
3/ cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jpU/unkc;& vd;gth; bjhLj;j nky;KiwaPl;L tHf;F vz;/1221 2005y; gj;jp 26y; gpd;tUkhW
8
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
jPh;g;g[ tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
murhiz(epiy) vz;/216 g/k/ep/rP/(Jiw).; ehs; 26/08/1997y; murhy; btspaplg;gl;l Mizapd;go jpwe;j epiy gy;fiyf;fHfk; K:yk; bgwg;gLk ; gl;l';fs; . kug[rhh; Kiwg;go (Regular Stream) bgw;w gl;l';fSf;F ,izahff; fUjg;gl;lhYk; Tl mit eilKiwapYs;s tpjpfs; xG';FKiwfSld; xj;jpirnthoUf;f ntz;Lk/; gy;fiyf;fHf xG';Fkiw tpjpfs; go mg;gl ; l';fs; Kiwahdjhf fUjg;glhjjhYk;. MuR. jpwe;j epiyg; gy;fiyf;fHfk; K:yk; bgwg;gLk; gl;l';fs; kug[rhh; Kiwg;go (Regular Stream) bgw;w gl;l';fSf;F ,izahff; fUj kdjhu fUjpahf Vw;Wf;bfhs;s KoahJ/
4/ murhid epiy vz;-107 gzpahsh; kw;Wk; eph;thfr; rPh;jpUj;jj;Jiw ehs/;18/08/2009y; gs;sp ,Wjpj; njh;t[ (gj;jhk; tFg;g[) kw;Wk; gs;sp nky;epiyf; fy;tp njh;t[ (+2) Mfpaitfspy; njh;r;rp bgw;wgpd;. jpwe;jepiyg; gy;fiyf;fHf;'fspd; tHpahfg; bgwg;gLk; gl;lak; gll';fs; ; kl;Lnk bghJg; gzpfspy; epakdk; gjtp cah;t[ bgw m';fPfhpj;J Mizfs; btspaplg;gl;lJ/ ,t;turhizapd;go muR gzpahsh; (gzp epge;jidfs;) rl;lk; 2016y; tpjp 25y; chpa jpUj;j';fs; nkw;bfhssg;gl;lJ/
5/murhiz (epiy) vz;-144/ gzpahsh;fs; kw;Wk; epUthfr; rPh;jpUj;jj;Jiw (vk;) Jiw ehs; 20/11/2017y; khepyj;jpd; gynt;W gy;fiyf;fHf';fspy; tH';fg;gl;L tUk; Kjy;epiy mog;gilf; fy;tp (Pre-foundation Course) kw;Wk; mog;gilf;fy;tp (Foundation Course) Mfpait Kiwna gj;jjhk; tFg;g[ (SSLC) kw;Wk; nky;epiyf; fy;tp (+2) Mfpatw;wpw;F ,izahdJ ,y;iy vd Mizfs; btspaplg;gl;Ls;sJ/
9
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
6/ nkny gj;jp 2. 3. 4 kw;Wk; 5 y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;s fhuz';fspd; mog;gilapy;. JkpH;ehL jpwe;jepiyg; gy;fiyf;fHfj;jpy; “jpwe;j epiy”fy;tp (Open Education Stream) Kiwapy; mog;gilf; fy;tpj; jFjp ,y;yhjth;fs; Maj;jg;gogg;gpid (Bachelor Preparatory Programme) Koj;J rhd;wpjH;. gl;lak;. ,sepiyg; gl;lk; bgWtij bghJg;gzpfspy; epakdk; gjtp cah;t[ bgw m';fPfhpj;J chpa Miz btspaplf;nfhUk; j';fsJ fUj;JUit Vw;f ,ayhJ vd bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ "
School Education, Chennai and Others [2014 WLR 449 = 2014 (3) MLJ
696], has elaborately discussed the issue on hand and the relevant paras are extracted hereunder:
"6. For the sake of convenience, let me first consider the Division Bench judgment of this Court in T.L.Muthukumar Vs. The Registrar General, Madras High Court (cited supra). That was a case where G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.08.2009 referred to above was challenged. While upholding the said G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 18.08.2009, in paragraphs 18 and 19, the Division Bench held as follows:
“ 18. As discussed above, the rule framed by the High Court inter alia clearly lays down the qualification for the purpose of promotion from Categories 7, 8 and 9 to Category 6. It is clearly mentioned that for the purpose of promotion, a person must possess and hold the B.A./B.Sc./B.Com or other
10
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
Bachelor's degree of the Madras University or of a recognized University. The rule does not recognize B.A. or B.B.A. degree from an Open University obtained by a candidate without having the basic +2 qualification. The condition contained in the High Court Service Rules, therefore, cannot in any way be superseded by other law not applicable to the employees of the High Court.
19. Admittedly, the petitioners', although, obtained the first degree by correspondence course without having the basic +2 qualification. Such degree having not been recognized under the Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners' cannot claim promotion on that basis.”
7. A perusal of the above judgment, more particularly paragraphs 18 and 19 would go to show that while upholding G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 18.08.2009, this Court has taken the view that the degrees obtained from an Open University scheme from Annamalai University cannot be accepted for the purpose of appointment in the Madras High Court because as per the Madras High Court Service Rules, it is clearly stated that for the purpose of promotion, a person must possess and hold B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. or other Bachelor's degree of the Madras University or of a recognised University and the Rule does not recognise B.A. or B.B.A. Degrees from an Open University obtained by a candidate without having the basic +2 qualification. The Division Bench has however held that the conditions contained in the Madras High Court Service Rules cannot be in any way superseded by other law not applicable to the employees of the Madras High Court."
11
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
12
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
13
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
the Writ Court and finds no merit in this writ appeal.
supra, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
(D.K.K.J.) (K.B. J.) 24.04.2024
Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Jvm
To
1.The Registrar, The University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
2.The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Teacher Training Campus, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015.
3.The Principal,
The Management of Agurchand Manmull Jain College, Accredited by NAAC, (A.M.Jain College), Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 114.
4.The Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Higher Education Department,
14
W.A.No.2429 of 2019
Secretariat Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Jvm
Judgment in W.A.No.2429 of 2019
24.04.2024
15
1 issue framed by the court
Is the appellant entitled to continue as Assistant Professor without completing 10+2+3/11+1+3 pattern as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.107?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and OthersRelied on¶12
[(2009) 4 SCC 590] · Who else cites this
V.Kanimozhi v. The Director of School Education, Chennai and OthersRelied on¶12
[2014 WLR 449 = 2014 (3) MLJ 696]
T.L.Muthukumar v. The Registrar General, Madras High CourtReferred¶9
T.L.Muthukumar Vs. The Registrar General, Madras High Court
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B.Thandavamurthy
The University of Madras
The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education
The Management of Agurchand Manmull Jain College (A.M.Jain College)
The State of Tamil Nadu
D.Krishnakumar
K.Kumaresh Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
