Madras High Court
R.Srinivasan vs The Director Of Elementary ... on 16 August, 2022
WP No.37899 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16-08-2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.37899 of 2015
And
MP No.1 of 2015
And
WMP No.32535 of 2016
R.Srinivasan .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
2.The District Elementary Education Officer,
Dharmapuri District.
3.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,
Nallampalli,
Dharmapuri District.
4.R.Saravanan
(R-4 impleaded vide order of Court dated
12.06.2018 made in WMP No.28063 of 2016
in WP No.37899 of 2015)
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
5.The Registrar,
Periyar University,
Salem.
(R-5 suo motu impleaded vide order of
Court dated 19.07.2018 in
WP No.37899 of 2015) .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the third
respondent vide Na.Ka.No.543/A1/2015, dated 23.11.2015 and quash the
same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to join as B.T.
Assistant (Science), notionally, with all consequential benefits, on the basis
of the order passed by the second respondent vide order in Na.Ka.No.1441/
A4/2014 dated 18.06.2014, in Nallampalli Union.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents-1 to 3 : Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai,
Government Advocate.
For Respondent-4 : Mr.D.Baskar
For Respondent-5 : Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexi
ORDER
The order passed by the third respondent dated 23.11.2015, not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
permitting the writ petitioner to join as B.T. Assistant (Science), is under
challenge in the present writ petition. Further direction is sought for the
settlement of all consequential benefits pursuant to the promotion granted to
the writ petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as
Secondary Grade Teacher on 23.03.2005 based on his Employment
Exchange seniority. He was posted at Panchayat Union Primary School,
Thirumalvadi, Pallakodu Union. The petitioner states that he studied B.Lit.
(Tamil) through Correspondence Course at Annamalai University and
passed the said Course in May 2007. Thereafter, he joined First Year B.Sc.,
(Botany) through Correspondence Course at Periyar University, Salem
during the academic year 2008-2009. The petitioner has not appeared for the
practical test conducted for B.Sc., (Botany) Course in November 2009 and
the same was conducted in May 2010. The petitioner further states that he
joined in B.Ed. Course in Indira Gandhi Open University during the
academic year 2010-2011 and passed the said B.Ed., Course in December
2011. He rejoined Second Year B.Sc., Course during the academic year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
2011-2012 and paid the penalty amount and completed the B.Sc. Course in
July 2013. The said educational qualifications were recorded by the third
respondent in his Service Records.
3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that his name was
included in the panel for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant as on
01.01.2014 and he was promoted to the said post by the District Elementary
Education Officer in proceedings dated 18.06.2014. However, the Assistant
Elementary Education Officer passed the impugned order in proceedings
dated 23.11.2015, not permitting the petitioner to join in the promotional
post of B.T. Assistant (Science) on the ground that the petitioner has
completed B.Sc., (Botany) Course and B.Ed., Course during the same
academic year. Thus the double degree obtained during the same academic
year, cannot be considered as a valid degree for the purpose of promotion
under the Rules.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
degree possessed by the petitioner cannot fall under the definition of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
'Double Degree' as he studied B.Sc., First Year Course and discontinued the
same and thereafter completed B.Ed., Course and rejoined in B.Sc.,
(Botany) Course. Thus it is to be treated as different degree for all purposes
and the promotion granted is in order. The petitioner must be permitted to
join duty and continued in the said post.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.Dharmaraj vs. The
Chief Educational Officer, Pudukkottai and Others [In Civil Appeal
No.1301 of 2022 judgment pronounced on 18.02.2022].
6. Relying on the said judgment, granting the relief in favour of
the employee, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in the
present case also the degree of B.Sc., (Botany) and B.Ed., Degree Courses
acquired by the writ petitioner is to be validated for the purpose of grant of
promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science).
7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
the respondents-1 to 3 objected the contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioner by stating that the petitioner is not qualified for promotion to the
post of B.T. Assistant (Science). The petitioner secured admission for B.Sc.,
(Botany) Course during the academic year 2008-2009 and therefore, the
Three Years Course of B.Sc., (Botany) must be completed within the
academic years i.e., 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 (three years).
However, the petitioner during the said academic year, passed B.Ed., Course
in the academic year 2010-2011. Therefore, the petitioner has altogether
completed Three Years Course of B.Sc., (Botany) and Two Years Course of
B.Ed., Degree during the academic years 2008-2009 to 2010-2011. When
the petitioner acquired two different degrees during the same academic year,
the Authorities Competent arrived a conclusion that the petitioner has not
undergone the regular pattern of education as contemplated under the UGC
Regulations and therefore, the promotion order issued by the District
Elementary Education Officer, cannot be acted upon.
8. The details of the educational qualification of B.Sc.,
(Botany) and B.Ed., degree obtained by the writ petitioner are as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
Sl. Course Subject Duration of the years Years of University
No. passing Name
1. B.Sc. Botany 2008-2009 to 2010- I year passing Periyar
2011 (3 Years Course) (November University,
2009) Salem
2. B.Ed. 2010-2011 (Two Course Indira
Years Course) completed in Gandhi
December, National
2011 Open
University
3. B.Sc. Botany 2008-2009 to 2010- II Year Periyar
2011 (3 Years Course) Passing University,
(November, Salem
2012)
4. B.Sc. Botany 2008-2009 to 2010- III Year Periyar
2011 (3 Years Course) Passing (July University
2013)
9. It is clearly seen that the B.Sc., Degree Course consists of
three years i.e., 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. But the petitioner
has doing the B.Ed., Course in the same academic year 2010-2011 (I Year –
01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010 and II Year – 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011). Hence,
the petitioner has studied two different degrees, simultaneously in the same
academic year 2010-2011. Therefore, the petitioner has studied two
different degree simultaneously in the same academic year i.., 2010-2011.
Thus, the degree of B.Sc. (Science) and B.Ed. Course possessed by the
petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the post of B.T.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
Assistant (Science).
10. The respondents 1 to 3 have stated that the petitioner has
obtained prior permission for admission to B.Sc., Degree Three Years
Course (2008-2009 to 2010-2011 from the Assistant Elementary Education
Officer, Nallampalli vide proceedings dated 02.01.2009. The petitioner has
hide the abovesaid permission and applied for B.Ed., Two Years Course
(01.01.2010 to 31.12.2011) permission to the Assistant Elementary
Education Officer, Nallampalli and the same was granted to the petitioner
vide proceedings dated 03.10.2010. It is contended by respondents 1 to 3
that the petitioner hide the fact to the Department and obtained two
permission for B.Sc., and B.Ed., Courses in the same academic year. It was
done intentionally for his own benefit and therefore, the said B.Sc.,
(Botany) and B.Ed., qualifications could not be considered for promotion to
the cadre of B.T. Assistant (Science).
11. The University Grants Commission issued a public notice
in F.No.1-6/2007 (CPP-II) dated 15.01.2016 stating that 'The Commission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
has sought the comments of the Statutory Councils. The responses so far
received do not endorse the idea of allowing the students to pursue the two
degrees simultaneously. Therefore, the Universities shall conduct their
programmes in accordance with the First Degree and Master Degree
Regulations-2003 prescribed by the UGC and also follow the norms and
parameters prescribed by the Statutory Council concerned, wherever
relevant'. With reference to the above, a person cannot pursue two Degree
Courses at a time.
12. The learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of
the respondents 1 to 3, relied on the judgment of Madurai Bench of this
Court passed in WP (MD) No.13488 of 2014 dated 09.07.2019 in the case
of Meenakumari vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and the relevant paragraphs
15 and 16 of the said judgment read as under:-
“15. Assessment of suitability is also the
criteria to be followed while undertaking the
process of selection. While considering the
suitability of a candidate, the manner in which the
degrees are obtained by such candidates are also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
to be scrutinized. The candidates, who had
undergone the regular classes will be the better
persons to handle the classes in schools and
colleges. Thus, the candidates, who studied in
regular courses in accordance with the pattern of
education prescribed by the University Grants
Commission alone must be the eligible candidates
with reference to the rules for appointment to the
teaching post in schools and colleges. This being
the principles to be followed this Court is of the
considered opinion that the writ petitioner
admittedly had secured admission for two courses
in the same academic year namely B.Ed., course
as well as M.Sc.,(Geography) course. The
admission was secured during the academic year
2008-2009 more specifically, in June 2008. This
being the factum, it is made clear that the writ
petitioner has secured simultaneous degree which
is not a valid qualification for the purpose of
securing appointment to the post of Graduate
Assistant.
16. Under these circumstances, this Court
has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that
the decision taken by the respondents are in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
consonance with the legal principles settled and
accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits
and dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
According to the University Grants Commission instructions and the
judgment of Madurai Bench of this Court, a person cannot pursue two
Degree Courses simultaneously. Accordingly, the writ petitioner's Third
Year B.Sc., (Botany) and B.Ed., Degree, which were studied simultaneously
in the academic year 2010-2011 could not be considered as valid for giving
promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science).
13. Considering the contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of A.Dharmaraj, cited supra, has no direct application with reference to the
facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the said case, the Supreme
Court has made a finding that “in the present case, it cannot be said that the
appellant obtained the degree of B.A. (English) and M.A. (Tamil) during the
same academic year. The appellant pursued his B.A. (English) during
January, 2012 to December, 2014. He pursued his M.A. (Tamil), which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
a Two Year Distance Education Course between the academic years 2013-
2014 to 2014-2015. Therefore, as such Rule 14 is not applicable to the facts
of the case on hand".
14. Perusal of the above facts in respect of the case before the
Supreme Court, it is clear that the appellant therein, had not acquired two
different degrees during the same academic year. Thus, the facts are
incomparable and the reliance placed by the petitioner is of no avail to
consider the relief in the present writ petition.
15. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner secured admission
for B.Sc., (Botany) Course during the academic year 2008-2009 and
pursued the Three Years Course. During the said academic year, he passed
B.A. Degree also in 2010-2011. Thus, it is made clear that during the three
years academic course for B.Sc., (Botany) degree, the petitioner secured two
years B.Ed., degree also. Ultimately, the Five Years Course for acquiring
the two different degrees are undergone within a period of three academic
years and therefore, for all purposes, it is to be construed that the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
acquired two degrees are in three academic years, which is impermissible as
per the Regulations issued by the University Grants Commission.
16. Teaching is a noble profession. Under the Right to
Information Act, it is reiterated that free education to children is a
Fundamental Right enunciated under the Constitution. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in many judgments have reiterated that the standard
of education is to be maintained in all Educational Institutions in a uniform
manner. While dealing with the issues on right of appointment by the
Management of Minority Institutions, the Supreme Court in unequivocal
terms held that there cannot be any compromise in the matter of
maintenance of uniform standards in imparting education and therefore, the
State is expected to be consistent in the matter of prescription of educational
qualifications and the mode of degrees secured by the candidates, who all
are participating in the process of selection for appointment to the post of
Teachers in Education Department.
17. The Teacher has to take classes and teaching is an art and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
the candidates, who acquired the degrees through Open University System
and in Correspondence System and have not even attended the class rooms,
were considered as qualified for teaching profession and the said policy is to
be revisited by the Government. The candidates who have undergone the
Regular Courses in Educational Institutions, no doubt would be in a better
position to impart education as they would have gained the class room
experience by attending the schools and colleges. However, it is painful to
record that thousands of Teachers are appointed despite the fact that they
have undergone the Degree Courses through Open University or
Correspondence Courses and such Courses are conducted by the
Universities without following the required standards as contemplated to
undergo the Regular Courses through institutions. Therefore, those degrees
obtained through Correspondence Courses may be considered as a valid
degree for appointments in other Government Departments and other
Institutions, but not for appointment to the post of Teacher.
18. As far as the Educational Institutions are concerned,
verification of such degrees are of paramount importance, as the educational
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
qualifications directly have implications with reference to imparting
education to the children. Therefore, the candidates, who have studied
Regular Courses through Institutions and by attending regular classes, must
be considered for appointment to the teaching posts. The candidates, who
have studied in Correspondence Courses, may be considered for
appointment to Non-Teaching posts and in other Departments. A distinction
in this regard is essential, as the teaching, being linked with the
qualifications and the subjects studied by the Teacher, the Government has
to draw a distinction between the validity of the degrees obtained through
Correspondence Courses and through regular mode of education by
attending the classes in the institutions.
19. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the petitioner
studied B.Sc., (Botany) during the academic years 2008-2009 to 2010-2011.
Within the said academic years, he studied two years B.Ed., Course and
passed the B.Ed., Course in the year 2011. Therefore, he acquired two
different degrees of B.Sc., (Botany) and B.Ed., Course during the very same
academic year and thus the degree possessed by the petitioner, cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
construed as a valid degree for the purpose of grant of promotion to the post
of B.T. Assistant (Science), as the requisite qualification prescribed for
promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) is B.Sc., (Botany) and
B.Ed., Course.
20. The promotion order has been passed pursuant to the panel
prepared by the District Elementary Education Officer. The Assistant
Elementary Education Officer, who has granted permission to the petitioner,
verified the qualifications and found that the petitioner did not possess the
requisite educational qualifications and accordingly passed an order and
informed the same to the District Elementary Education Officer. At that
point of time, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition and
therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 have not passed any further suitable orders,
cancelling the promotion, as there was an interim stay granted in the present
writ petition.
21. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent made a
submission that on account of the interim stay granted in the present writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
petition, the promotion opportunity of the fourth respondent also has been
denied for the post of B.T. Assistant (Science). However, such promotions
are to be considered based on the seniority and by preparing the panel of
persons, who all are eligible for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant
(Science). Thus, no further consideration is required in respect of promotion
to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) as far as the fourth respondent is
concerned.
22. In view of the fact that the petitioner could not establish
that he possessed the requisite educational qualifications of B.Sc., (Botany)
and B.Ed and the degrees of B.Sc., (Botany) and B.Ed., obtained by the writ
petitioner during the same academic year, is in violation of the UGC
Regulations and cannot be construed as a valid degree for the purpose of
grant of promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science). Thus, the order
impugned cannot be construed as infirm and in fact pursuant to the orders
passed by the Assistant Elementary Education Officer, the second
respondent has to cancel the promotion order as the petitioner did not
possess the requisite qualifications of B.Sc., (Botany) and B.Ed., as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
Rules.
23. Thus the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
16-08-2022
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
To
1.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 6.
2.The District Elementary Education Officer,
Dharmapuri District.
3.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer,
Nallampalli,
Dharmapuri District.
4.The Registrar,
Periyar University,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No.37899 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
WP 37899 of 2015
16-08-2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
