Madras High Court
Dr.E.Sarala vs The Director Of Collegiate ... on 27 October, 2022
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
and
W.M.P.Nos.16866 & 16877 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.17710 of 2022
Dr.E.Sarala ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai – 6.
2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai Region, Chennai – 15.
3.The Registrar,
Madras University,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
4.The Principal & Secretary,
Ethiraj College for Women (Autonomous)
No.70, Ethiraj Salai,
Egmore, Chennai – 8. ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd
respondent order vide No.A-II/JPR/A.P/Approval/Ethiraj College/2018/676,
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
dated 07.03.2018 and the consequential order of 4th respondent dated
06.06.2018 and quash the same, consequently direct the 3 rd respondent to
approve the petitioners qualification and also approve the appointment of the
petitioner and pay the salary and other benefits with effect from 08.03.2017.
(Prayer amended vide order dated 28.07.2022 made in
W.M.P.No.17708/2022 in W.P.No.14278/2018)
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathishkumar
For R1 & R2 : Mr.D.Ravichander
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.A.S.Vijayaragavan
For R4 : Mr.P.Wilson
For M/s.A.S.Kailasam and Associates
ORDER
The amended relief sought for in the present writ petition is to call for
the records of the 3rd respondent order vide No.A-
II/JPR/A.P/Approval/Ethiraj College/2018/676 dated 07.03.2018 and the
consequential order of 4th respondent dated 06.06.2018 and quash the same,
consequently direct the 3rd respondent to approve the petitioners qualification
and also approve the appointment of the petitioner and pay the salary and
other benefits with effect from 08.03.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
2. The petitioner states that she passed 10th Standard in the year 1994.
12th Standard during 1996 and thereafter, completed three years Diploma in
Electrical and Electronic Engineering during April 1999 at Government
Institute namely Department of Technical Education, Central Polytechnic,
Tharamani. After completing three years Diploma course, the petitioner
joined M.A (History) and completed her course tat Annamalai University in
May 2002. Subsequently, the petitioner passed M.Phil., (History) in April
2005 at Madurai Kamarajar University. Thereafter, the petitioner joined
B.A. (History) and completed the said degree course. Finally, the petitioner
has obtained Ph.D., from Dravidian University on 01.03.2016 and
accordingly, she states that she is fully eligible and qualified for appointment
to the post of Assistant Professor in Government and Aided Institutions as
per the UGC norms. The petitioner states that she was appointed as an
Assistant Professor at Agurchand Manmull Jain College as a Management
staff in the Department of Tourism Travel and Management and worked
between 10.06.2016 to 08.03.2017.
3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that her appointment was
not approved by the Director of Collegiate Education / 1 st respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
therefore, she is unable to get the salary and other service benefits. The
petitioner is now working as Assistant Professor in the 4th respondent
College and subsequently, ousted from service on 06.06.2018.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the
three years Diploma course in Electrical and Electronic Engineering is equal
to degree in Arts. Thus, the petitioner studied in the regular pattern of
10+2+3 and accordingly, her appointment is to be approved by the
competent authorities of the Collegiate Education.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
respondents objected the said contentions by stating that the petitioner is not
qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. First of all, the
three years diploma course in Electrical and Electronic Engineering is not
equivalent to a degree course in Arts as approved by the University
examination. It is further contended that the petitioner studied M.A. degree
in History through open University from Annamalai University and the said
degree was already declared as invalid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Annamalai University's case itself. Thus, the petitioner did not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
possessed the requisite qualification as per the UGC Regulations and
therefore, not entitled for approval of her appointment in the 4 th respondent
college.
6. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter statement in this regard,
which reads as under:
“5.......the 4th respondent college is a Government
Aided Autonomous College governed by the provisions of
Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act, 1976. The
Secretary of the College is the competent authority to make
appointments and also to take action on the files relating to
the establishment of the staff working in the college. It is
submitted that the 4th respondent has powers to make
appointments. The 4th respondent has rightly advertised the
vacancies in the college. It is also submitted that the
petitioner has applied for the post and got selected. However,
the qualification approval which has to be confirmed by the
3rd respondent University has not been accorded, stating that
she has not studied her education as per the UGC guidelines
and also as per the pattern on 10+2+3+2/11+1+3+2. Hence
her appointment was cancelled by the 4th respondent herein,
the Secretary of the College.
6......When the 3rd respondent University gives
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
qualification approval, the 4th respondent would send a
proposal to the 2nd respondent herein the Joint Director of
Collegiate Education to approve the appointment for the
disbursement of grant in aid salary to the petitioner. It is
submitted that in the present case, the petitioner's
appointment i.e., the qualification was not approved by the 3rd
respondent University. Hence, the proposal for approval of
appointment has not been received by the 2nd respondent
herein from 4th respondent. Only when the proposal is
received by the 2nd respondent Joint Director of Collegiate
Education, the proposal will be examined as per the rules in
force and as per the UGC norms. During the examination of
the proposal, the 2nd respondent would scrutinize the
qualification obtained by the petitioner and whether rule of
reservation has been scrupulously followed and other related
aspects. In this present case, the proposal for approval of
appointment of the petitioner ha snot been received from the
4th respondent. Hence, at this juncture, the 2nd respondent and
the 1st respondent have no role to play in the approval of the
appointment of the petitioner.
7.....The petitioner has completed 3 years Diploma in
Electronic and Electrical Engineering and subsequently, she
has obtained other qualifications. However, she had not
obtained her degree qualification before obtaining her PG.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
She has completed her UG qualification only in the year 2012
where as she has obtained her M.A. History during the year
2002. It is further submitted that she has completed her UG
degree in reverse. This is the reason why the 3rd respondent
has not approved her qualification as she has not completed
her study in the pattern of 10+2+3+2. It is also submitted
that G.O.242 stipulates about the equivalence of the courses
to distance, Open University, ITI and lateral entry The G.O is
silent on whether qualification of Degree being obtained after
completion of PG in the same stream can be equivalent to the
courses. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner quotes
various Judgments and government orders passed by other
states to sustain her case. It is submitted that these
government orders are not relevant to the case of the
petitioner as the same in silent of the chronology of
qualifications obtained.”
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that Engineering courses
are falling under the pattern approved by the AICTE. Arts and Science
courses are falling under the UGC Regulations and degrees recognised by
the UGC alone is to be considered as the qualification for the purpose of
appointment to the post of Assistant Professors. Any degree, which is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
approved by the UGC cannot be considered as a valid degree for the purpose
of public appointments. Thus, the Engineering qualifications, whether it is
three years course or four years course cannot be compared with the degrees
awarded in Arts and Science and further, the medical qualifications are also
entirely different. Arts and Science degrees are recognised under the UGC
Regulations. The Engineering degrees are approved by the AICTE and the
Medical degrees are approved by the Medical Council of India.
8. Therefore, three years diploma in Engineering course cannot be
equated with three years Arts degree namely B.A., B.Sc., and B.Com etc., so
also, four years Engineering degree cannot be equated with other degrees
awarded under the subjects of Arts and Science. Each one is independent,
distinct and different. Thus, comparison of Engineering degrees with Arts
and Science degrees are impermissible and therefore, the appointments to
the post of Assistant Professors are to be made strictly in accordance with
the UGC Regulations, more specifically, in Arts and Science colleges.
9. Section 16 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations)
Act, 1976, contemplates that “No person who does not possess the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
qualifications specified under Section 15 shall, on or after the date of
commencement of this Act, be appointed as teacher or other employee in any
private college. Therefore, the qualification prescribed under Section 15 is to
be scrupulously followed. Section 15(1) stipulates that “the University may
make regulations, statutes or ordinances specifying the qualifications
required for the appointment of teachers employed in any private college.”,
which is governed by the UGC Regulations. Thus, the degrees awarded by
the Institutions and Universities only if recognised by the UGC, then alone,
the said qualification will be considered as valid qualification for the purpose
of appointment to the post of Assistant Professors.
10. In the present case, the petitioner has not studied in the regular
pattern of education. She had not acquired the qualifications of degree
through regular pattern and more so, she has completed M.A. degree in
History through Open University scheme. Thus, in any angle, the petitioner
is not qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor as per the
Regulations in force and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as
such sought for in the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.10.2022
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
kak
To
1.The Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai – 6.
2.The Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai Region, Chennai – 15.
3.The Registrar,
Madras University,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
4.The Principal & Secretary,
Ethiraj College for Women (Autonomous)
No.70, Ethiraj Salai,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
W.P.No.14278 of 2018
27.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
