Madras High Court
The Chairman vs R.Babu on 29 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 29.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
The Chairman,
Teacher Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Building,
College Road,
Chennai - 6. : Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Babu
2.The Director,
Directorate of Distance Education,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai - 625 021.
3.The Controller of Examinations,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai - 625 021. : Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the
order dated 09.01.2020, made in W.P.(MD)No.15503 of 2014.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Muthumalai for R.1
Mr.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s.Issac Chambers for RR.2 & 3
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.PUGALENDHI, J.)
This writ appeal is directed as against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.15503 of 2014, dated 09.01.2020. The said writ
petition was filed by the first respondent / writ petitioner as against the order
passed by the appellant rejecting the writ petitioner for the post of B.T. Assistant
(History) on the ground that he has acquired the required qualification of B.A.,
(History) Degree in one year duration and therefore, he is not eligible for
appointment.
2. The appellant / Teachers Recruitment Board conducted Teachers
Eligibility Test (TET) on 18.08.2013 and based on the scores obtained, the writ
petitioner was called for recruitment to the post of B.T. Assistant (History).
During the certificate verification, it is found that the writ petitioner obtained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
B.A., (History) Degree in one year duration and therefore, the appellant rejected
the writ petitioner's candidature. Aggrieved over the same, the writ petition was
filed. The learned Single Judge, by referring to the orders of this Court in
N.Chitra v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, in W.P.(MD)No.19764 of 2014,
dated 08.05.2017, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the appellant to
consider the B.A., (History) Degree issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University
as valid and to appoint the petitioner in the post of B.T. Assistant (History).
3. Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that the writ petitioner joined B.Sc., (Mathematics) three
years course, studied for two years and thereafter, applied for change of course
from B.Sc., (Mathematics) to B.A., (History) and completed all the papers
pertaining to B.A., (History) in the third year, ie., one year and obtained the
B.A., (History) Degree certificate in the year 1995. Based on the U.G. Degree,
he pursued B.Ed., Course in Bharathiyar University and also obtained B.Ed.,
Degree and thereafter, applied for the post of B.T. Assistant. He further
submitted that a B.T. Assistant (History) Teacher is expected to teach the subject
(History) for the students. Therefore, the necessary qualification for the said
post is a Degree in the subject. The writ petitioner has obtained the B.A.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
(History) Degree in one year, instead of three years. Therefore, he is not eligible
for consideration as per the decision of this Court in R.Thirunavukkarasau v.
State of Tamil Nadu and Others, reported in (2012) 5 CTC 129, which was
confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.529 of 2013, etc.,
batch, dated 05.02.2014, in Pramakumari and Others v. R.Karthikeyan and
Others.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent / writ
petitioner submitted that the writ petition was allowed based on the earlier order
passed by this Court in N.Chitra's case (supra). He further submitted that B.A.,
(History) Degree certificate was issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University and
based on this UG Degree, the writ petitioner applied for B.Ed., course in
Bharathiyar University, where also the writ petitioner's qualification was
considered and accepted by the Bharathiyar University for studying B.Ed.,
course. The appellant is not competent to say that the B.A., (History) Degree
offered by a recognized University is not a valid one.
5. This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions
made and also to the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
6. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The writ petitioner initially
joined B.Sc., (Mathematics) course and having studied for two years, opted for
change of course and studied B.A., (History) in the third year. He cleared all the
papers pertaining to B.A., (History) in one year, ie., the third year and obtained
the Degree certificate from Madurai Kamaraj University. Based on the B.A.,
(History) Degree, he also studied B.Ed., Course and obtained B.Ed., Degree
from the Bharathiyar University.
7. In the decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the appellant in R.Thirunavukkarasau's case (supra), a learned Single Judge
of this Court has discussed the dual degree issued by the University and held as
follows:
"15. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing for
the contesting respondents revolves around the provisions of the
University Grants Commission Act, the Regulations issued
thereunder, the definition of a degree under these Regulations and the
power of the State vis-a-vis the prescription contained in
the University Grants Commission Act and the Regulations.
... ... ...
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
20. Insofar as the non formal/distance education in the same
faculties are concerned, the Regulations issued by UGC are known as
the University Grants Commission (The Minimum Standards of
Instructions for the Grant of the First Degree through Non-Formal/
Distance Education in the Faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts,
Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences) Regulations, 1985.
Regulation 2 of these Regulations are exactly identical to Regulation
2 of the Regulations relating to formal education except that there are
two changes. The changes are--
(i) Regulation 2(1) of the Regulations relating to formal
education makes it compulsory for a student to successfully
complete 12 years of schooling, for admission to the first degree
course through formal education. But Regulation 2(1) of the
Regulations relating to non-formal/distance education permits
those who are not below the age of 21 years to seek admission to
the first degree course through non-formal education, even if
there is no previous academic record, provided they had passed
an entrance test.
(ii) Another change in Regulation 2 of the Regulations relating
to non-formal education is that no student enrolment is
prescribed with reference to the number of teachers and physical
facilities, as in the case of Regulation 2(2) of the Regulations
relating to formal education.
21. What is important to note is that the provisions contained
in Clause (3) of Regulation 2 of the Regulations relating to formal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
education are repeated in Regulation 2(2) of Regulations relating to
non-formal education along with the two provisos contained therein.
22. Therefore, it is clear that no student will be eligible for the
award of the first degree unless he has successfully completed a 3
year course. Moreover, no student will be eligible, by virtue of the
first proviso of Regulation 2(3) or Regulation 2(2) relating to formal
or non-formal education as the case may be, for admission to a
Master's Degree unless such a person has successfully pursued the
first degree course of a 3 years duration.
23. A careful reading of the Scheme of both these Regulations,
one relating to formal education and another relating to non-formal
education makes it clear that the emphasis is on "a course of a
duration of 3 years", for the award of a first degree. The contesting
respondents in these cases admittedly have secured their first degree,
after undergoing a course of a duration of 3 years. It is only the
additional degrees or the dual degrees that they have obtained after
the completion of the first degree, that were of a duration of one year
or even less. Therefore, the simple contention of the contesting
respondents is that the restriction contained in Regulation 2(3) or
Regulation 2(2) of the formal or non-formal education Regulations,
as the case may be, that a degree course should be of a duration of 3
years, would not apply to the additional degrees obtained by them, as
the contesting respondents have already obtained their first degree
after undergoing a course of a duration of 3 years.
... ... ...
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
25. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for one of the contesting respondents contended that the expression
"first degree" appearing in Regulation 2(3) cannot be read as "the
first degree in a subject". According to the learned Senior Counsel,
such a reading of the expression "first degree" would amount to
reading something in the Regulation that the Regulating Body itself
omitted to include consciously. Therefore, he contended that I cannot
add the words "in a subject" to the words "first degree" appearing in
Regulation 2(3).
... ... ...
28. Most of the contesting respondents have acquired a dual
degree in a different subject, through non-formal/distance education.
While the Regulations of U.G.C. relating to formal education contain
several prescriptions such as the number of working days in an
academic year, the Time Table containing not less than 40 clock
hours per week etc., the Regulations relating to non-formal education
contain a detailed programme of study under Regulation 3.
Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations relating to non-formal education,
stipulate that every lesson should constitute approximately one week's
reading and that there should be at least 25 lessons in each main
subject of study. Regulation 3(3) of the non-formal education
Regulations mandate a contact programme to be organised for 8 to
10 days, in different places. The classes are required to be arranged
on Sundays and other holidays at the Headquarters. Regulation 3(5)
of the non-formal education Regulations prescribe that every student
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
should do at least 5 home assignments in each subject. Similarly,
Regulation 4 of the non-formal education Regulations contains the
prescription regarding the manner in which the examinations are to
be conducted. A careful reading of Regulations 3 and 4 of the
Regulations relating to non-formal education would show that they
are all designed only with respect to degrees of a duration of 3 years
and not degrees of a duration of one year. In 1985, when these
Regulations were issued, the University Grants Commission could
never even have contemplated that such a fraud could be perpetrated
upon these Regulations. Therefore, the entire scheme of both these
Regulations (formal and non-formal) contain prescriptions which
cover only degrees of a duration of 3 years. Hence to say that a
second degree though obtained in a different subject, would not come
within the meaning of the expression "first degree" would only
pervert the stream of education. It must be remembered that the
petitioners and the contesting respondents are teachers aspiring to
get promotion to the post of B.T. Assistants so as to teach students in
middle schools. Therefore, such an interpretation to the U.G.C.
Regulations, coming as it does from teachers, is very unfortunate.
... ... ....
82. It must be noted that the recruitment of teachers in schools,
is being made by the Government, merely on the basis of seniority of
registration in the Employment Exchanges, in the past few years. This
itself has struck at the root of quality, in the matter of selection. If one
year degrees are also recognised as equivalent to 3 year degrees, that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
would sound the death knell for the schools run by Government.
Therefore, the stand taken by the Department in their communication
dated 19.7.2012, not to recognise dual degrees, is a correct and
appreciable step. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed
and the official respondents are directed not to recognise, both for
appointment as well as for promotion, the dual degrees obtained by
candidates after undergoing a Course of a duration of one year, as
equivalent to a degree obtained after undergoing a Course of a
duration of 3 years. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
8. The aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld by a
Division Bench of this Court in Pramakumari's case (supra), as follows:
"42. The learned Judge in the impugned judgment, on a
threadbare analysis of the factual aspects and legal position, has
come to the conclusion that the writ petitioners seek to agitate totally
a different subject on the basis of a degree obtained after undergoing
a course of one year duration and can be compared with the regular
undergraduate degree of three years duration and therefore, directed
the official respondents not to recognize the candidature of such
persons both for appointment as well as for promotion. The Teachers
Recruitment Board (TRB) has taken into consideration the said
aspect and rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioners that they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
are ineligble for TET on the ground that the claim made by them on
the basis of the degree of one year duration is invalid. ....
43. This Court, on a thorough consideration and appreciation
of the entire materials placed before it, is of the considered view that
there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the
learned Judge and finds no infirmity in the impugned common order
dated 14.08.2012 made in W.P.Nos.19631/2011 etc., batch reported in
2012 (5) CTC 129.
44. In the light of the reasons assigned above, all the writ
appeals are dismissed confirming the common order dated
14.08.2012 made in W.P.Nos.19631/2011 etc."
9. In view of the settled position of law, we are of the view that the writ
petitioner is not entitled for appointment, based on a Degree which has been
obtained in one year. Insofar as the decision relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in N.Chitra's case (supra) is
concerned, the petitioner therein has joined a course of B.Sc., (Information
Technology), discontinued after first year and rejoined the course of B.A.,
(Tamil). There the petitioner had studied the subject Tamil even while she was
undergoing the course of B.Sc., (Information Technology). She had undergone
Tamil subject for three years, whereas, in the present case, the writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
studied a different subject of Mathematics in the first two years and thereafter,
studied the subject History. Therefore, it cannot be equated with the case on
hand and the relief cannot be granted to the petitioner herein.
10. In any case, in view of the decision of the Division Bench in
Pramakumari's case (supra), we are inclined to interfere with the impugned
order. Accordingly, the order dated 09.01.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.15503 of 2014
stands set aside and the order impugned in the writ petition stands confirmed.
11. In fine, this writ appeal stands allowed. Consequently, the writ
petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
[N.K.K.,J.] [B.P.,J.]
29.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
To
1.The Director,
Directorate of Distance Education,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai - 625 021.
2.The Controller of Examinations,
Madurai Kamaraj University,
Madurai - 625 021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
and
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2020
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
