Madras High Court

K.Saravanan vs The Registrar on 6 September, 2022

                                                                                    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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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