Madras High Court
Dr.M.Dhanabalan vs The Madurai Kamaraj University on 29 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1011 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1011 of 2018
Dr.M.Dhanabalan ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Madurai Kamaraj University,
Represented by the Registrar,
Madurai.
2.University Grants Commission,
Represented by its Chairman,
New Delhi.
3.K.Uma ... Respondent/Respondent
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4171 of 2010, dated 25.11.2014.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Karthick
for M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Ragathees
for Issac Chamber
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
Respondent No.3 : Mr.R.R.Kannan
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.1011 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
Heard Mr.G.Karthick, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.
Ragatheesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent,
Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent
and Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel for the third respondent.
2.The appellant is the Writ Petitioner, who prayed for a Writ of
Certiorari, to quash the appointment order issued to the third respondent for the
post of Assistant Professor (Commerce) in the Department of Commerce in the
first respondent University. Though several grounds were raised in the Writ
Petition, the appellant challenged her appointment mainly on two grounds
stating that the third respondent possessed B.Sc., (Physics), which is not
equivalent to B.Com./B.Com. (Computer Application)/ B.Com. (e Commerce).
Secondly, M.Com. Degree was obtained by her through Correspondence
Course. Therefore, the same cannot be taken in to consideration.
3.So far as M.Com. Degree is concerned, the learned Single Bench
took note of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent University
that the M.Com. Degree obtained by the third respondent through the distance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1011 of 2018
education after completing 10+2+3 is equivalent to M.Com. regular decree and
as far as Master of Finance and Control (MFC) obtained by her is concerned,
the same was held to be equivalent to M.Com. (Finance) Degree as per the
meeting held in the Board of Studies in Finance Control, and Bank Management
(UG/PG) on 02.12.2004 and the nomenclature M.F.C. has been changed as
M.Com. (Finance) with effect from the academic year 2005-2006. Furthermore,
the learned Writ Court took note of the contention of the respondent University
that the said decision taken by the Board of Studies has been approved by the
Academic Council and the Senate at the meetings held on 11.03.2005 &
30.03.2005. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
equivalence of qualification cannot be decided by the University by the
approval of their Academic Counsel or Senate, the Court did not accept the said
submission made by the appellant. Thus, ultimately, it was held that the third
respondent possessed the requisite qualifications. The Writ Petitioner is on
appeal as against the said order.
4.So far as the observation made by the learned Writ Court with
regard to the equivalence of qualification, we need to point out that the
University cannot by itself hold that the degree offered by any other University
is equivalent to the degree offered by them. It is for the equivalence Committee,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1011 of 2018
which has been formed by the State Government concerned, consisting of the
experts have to take a decision in the matter. Therefore, either the affiliated
University or College, who offers various courses, for appointing teachers and
professors cannot decide about the equivalence of the degree by themselves and
the same has to be decided by the Equivalence Committee constituted by the
State Government. Therefore, on the date, when the Writ Petition was
dismissed, the learned Single Bench did not take note of the correct position of
law. Further, by the approval of the Academic Counsel and the Senate, the
University cannot take a decision that the course of study offered by them is
equivalent to the course offered by some other University either as full time or
through distance education mode. Therefore, the appellant is found successful
on the said point.
5.However, during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the Government
issued G.O.Ms.No.268, Higher Education Department, dated 29.11.2019, which
has declared that the MFC and M.Com. (Finance) degrees to be equivalent.
Then, obviously, the benefits of such Government Order shall enure to the
candidate, who possessed the degree. Though the appellant has convinced the
Court on the above said technical issue, the result of the Writ Petition is not
modified or interfered on account of the decision taken in G.O.Ms.No.268,
Higher Education Department, dated 29.11.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1011 of 2018
6.Thus, for the above reasons, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No [T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
Internet :Yes/No 29.06.2021
sj
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1011 of 2018
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
W.A.(MD)No.1011 of 2018
29.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
