W.P.No.16518 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.16518 of 2016
K.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Registrar,
Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of
the Respondent University Syndicate resolution No.45 dated 16.10.2015
and the Office Memorandum from the Respondent University dated
28.12.2015 insofar as relating to the petitioner is concerned and quash the
same and consequently direct the Respondent to Appoint the petitioner
herein in Public Service & re-instate the petitioner as Special Officer, DDE,
Kumbakonam Study Centre in the Respondent University with all benefits
following the Hon'ble Apex Court order made in Chandrakala Trivedi Vs.
State of Rajasthan (Dated : January 12 2012) reported as 2012 3 MLJ 717
SC.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jagannath
For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan
Standing Counsel
[For Annamalai University]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 12
W.P.No.16518 of 2016
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the Respondent University Syndicate resolution No.45 dated 16.10.2015 and the Office Memorandum from the Respondent University dated 28.12.2015 insofar as relating to the petitioner is concerned and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent to Appoint the petitioner herein in Public Service & re-instate the petitioner as Special Officer, DDE, Kumbakonam Study Centre in the Respondent University with all benefits following the Hon'ble Apex Court order made in Chandrakala Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan (Dated : January 12 2012) reported as 2012 3 MLJ 717 SC.
2. The petitioner states that he completed his 10th standard examination in the year 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner completed Under Graduate of BBA degree in the year 2003 and subsequently, passed MBA in the year 2010 through open university system. The petitioner was appointed by the erstwhile management of the Annamalai University and was working as Special Officer in the Department of Distance Education at Kumbakonam. On verification of the educational qualifications of the writ petitioner, the authorities found that the petitioner acquired degree through https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 12 W.P.No.16518 of 2016 open university system, which was held invalid by the Honourable Supreme Court of India and the said judgment was implemented by the Government of Tamil Nadu and also by all Universities. The judgment was delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Annamalai University itself. Thus, the Annamalai University is also bound by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India.
3. The Annamalai University was taken over by the Government and the Government verified the educational qualifications of the employees, who were recruited by the erstwhile management of the Annamalai University. At the time of verification, the Government Authorities found that the petitioner was not possessing the valid degree and thereafter, the petitioner is not eligible to continue in the post of Special Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner was posted as Lab Attender and in the said capacity, he is now in service. The Annamalai University passed an order of rejection, stating that the petitioner obtained degree through open university system after appearing in the entrance test and therefore, the case cannot be considered to restore him in the post of Special Officer. However, the petitioner is continuing in the post of Lab Attender. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 12 W.P.No.16518 of 2016
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent made a submission that the writ petitioner was found not qualified for appointment to the post of Special Officer, since the petitioner acquired the degree of BBA and MBA through open university system in the Annamalai University itself. The Honourable Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment in the case of Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and Others reported in [2009 (4) SCC 590], holding that the open university degrees granted by the Annamalai University are invalid and the said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court was implemented by the Government and accordingly, degrees awarded through open university system are held not valid for the purpose of securing public appointments. Therefore, the petitioner was posted as Lab Attender. The case of the writ petitioner was considered and he was appointed in the suitable post. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim any relief to retain him in the post of Special Officer as he was not possessing the valid degree for public employment.
5. When the Honourable Supreme Court has rendered a judgment in Annamalai University (cited supra), holding that the open university degree awarded by the Annamalai University is invalid and the petitioner herein also acquired the degree of BBA and MBA through open university https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 12 W.P.No.16518 of 2016 system of Annamalai University, there is no reason relied on any other judgments for the purpose of considering the case of the writ petitioner. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is directly binding on Annamalai University and therefore, the degree obtained by the petitioner through the open university system from Annamalai University is null and void and cannot be considered for the purpose of public appointments. However, the case of the writ petitioner was considered by the competent authorities and he was retained in the post of Lab Attender. Thus, the right of the writ petitioner to hold the post of Lab Attender alone is to be protected and he is not entitled for any other appointment to any post for which the degree is prescribed as a qualification.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandrakala Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others dated 12.01.2012, in Civil Appeal No.400 of 2012. The said judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India considered the facts and circumstances. However, the principles are not settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said case. With reference to the judgments, if the principles are not settled and the judgments became precedent and sub silentio, then the same cannot be followed as a precedent. In the said case, the Honourable Supreme Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 12 W.P.No.16518 of 2016 merely considered the facts and circumstances as well as the pattern of education in the State of Rajasthan and granted the relief and therefore, it is of no avail to the writ petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further referred the judgment of Learned Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 16.03.2022 in W.P.(MD).No.9794 of 2018. However, in the said judgment, the Court has not considered the principles settled by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Annamalai University (cited supra). When the case of Annamalai university has not been referred with reference to the open university degree granted by the very same Annamalai University, then the said judgment cannot be considered as precedent as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court with reference to the open university degree in Annamalai university has not been considered by the Court in the said judgment passed in W.P.(MD).No.9794 of 2018.
8. In this context, it is relevant to consider that the principles to be followed in the matter of binding force of judicial precedents. The legal principles settled by the Honourable Supreme Court and the relevant Statutes, if not followed in a judgment, the said judgment cannot be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 12 W.P.No.16518 of 2016 followed as a precedent. If there is an inconsistency between earlier decision of the Court, then also the said judgment cannot be followed in a mechanical manner. Erroneous decisions or omission of statutory provisions are also the grounds on which the orders need not be followed as a precedent.
9. That apart, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the case of Director of Sericulture Department Vs. K.Kumar reported in [2015 (4) CTC 241], considered the binding nature of the orders, relying on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court, which reads as under:
34. It is true that consistency helps the parties to a litigation to know where they stand. But, when it is brought to the notice of the Court that on most of the earlier occasions, several similarly placed employees obtained orders at the stage of admission, on the ground that the issue is already covered by a decision of this Court and that it was only in this manner that several employees got a benefit that was not legitimately due to them, the Court cannot shut its eyes and choose to prefer maintenance of discipline rather than upholding public interest.
35. As a matter of fact, the greatness of the Court lies only in its courage and ability to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis correct its mistakes. Justice is more precious than Page 7 of 12 W.P.No.16518 of 2016 discipline. This was the principle that the Supreme Court highlighted in A.R.Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak [AIR 1988 SC 1531]. It was observed in the said decision that "in rectifying an error, no personal inhibitions should debar the Court because no person should suffer by reason of any mistake of the Court." The Supreme Court focused on the elementary rule of justice that no party should suffer due to the mistake of the Court. Therefore, this Court should not feel shackled either by the rules of procedure or by the principles of propriety, when it is so glaring that a gross injustice has been done to the State (1) by writ petitions getting allowed at the stage of admission and (2) by getting those orders implemented under threat of contempt. This is especially so when the earliest decision that was followed in all other cases, did not decide the scale of pay to be granted for Selection and Special Grades. Hence, the second contention of the writ petitioners is also liable to be rejected.
40. In this case, we have gone through the Government Orders many times, to find out what scale of pay the drivers are entitled to, in the Selection and Special Grades. We are unable to find, however lenient our approach is, that the writ petitioners could legitimately lay a claim for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis a Selection Grade scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 and Special Grade scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000. Page 8 of 12 W.P.No.16518 of 2016 Therefore, what they have claimed and got in most of the previous decisions of this Court is not what they are lawfully entitled to. Once this is clear, it would follow as a natural consequence that the writ petitioners herein want only that illegality to be perpetrated. An illegality will not undergo a metamorphosis and become legal, merely because it received the seal of approval of a Court of law. Therefore, the third contention is also liable to be rejected.
41. In Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal [(2010) (2) SCC 422], the Supreme Court, relying upon its previous decisions in various cases including the one in State of Bihar v.
Upendra Narayan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 69], held that Article 14 is a positive concept and that it cannot be enforced in a negative manner. The Court further held that if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. Interestingly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Kartick Chandra Mondal was subsequent to the decision in Maharaj Krishan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Bhatt and the decision in Maharaj Krishan Bhatt is also referred to in Kartick Chandra Mondal. Page 9 of 12 W.P.No.16518 of 2016
10. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed in a similar case cannot be considered as a precedent as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Annamalai University (cited supra) with reference to the validity of the open university degrees awarded by the Annamalai University had not been considered by the Courts. Thus, the said judgement is of no avail to the writ petitioner.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner did not possess the valid degree of BBA and MBA as per the UGC Regulations and further, the degree obtained through open university system from Annamalai University has already been declared as invalid by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the cases cited supra and for all these reasons, the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition cannot be considered. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
06.09.2022 Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order : Yes To https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The Registrar, Page 10 of 12 W.P.No.16518 of 2016 Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 12 W.P.No.16518 of 2016 S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni W.P.No.16518 of 2016 06.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 12