Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs S.Bhaskar on 1 February, 2023
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA
KURUP
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
2.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),
DPI Complex, College Road,
Chennai – 6. ...Appellants
Vs.
S.Bhaskar ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 11.12.2017 made in W.P.No.11517 of 2012.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Nanmaran,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.R.S.Anandan
for Ms.K.Gayathri
*****
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The Director of School Education is on appeal aggrieved by the
order of the writ Court setting aside the proceedings dated 12.04.2012, in
and by which, the promotion granted to the respondent as Tamil Pandit on
12.03.2012 was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner was not
qualified.
2) The respondent who was working as a Junior Assistant in the
Census Department, on retrenchment, was appointed as Junior Assistant in
the education departmenton 01.03.2004 and his services were regularized on
10.11.2009. The respondent has passed his SSLC (X Standard) in 1980 and
thereafter appeared for his Higher Secondary (XII Standard) Examination
conducted in April 1982. He was not successful, having failed in
Mathematics. However, the respondent completed B.Lit., from Alagappa
University in 2007 and also completed M.A. Tamil in 2011. Thereafter, he
appeared again in the Supplementary Examination conducted in September
2010 and cleared the Mathematics paper also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
3) The Department offered for promotion of clerical staff as
teachers provided they had the prescribed qualification and 2% reservation
was made for such promotions. The respondent applied for such promotion
and he was promoted on 12.03.2012. Subsequently, the Department
realized that the promotion of the respondent was not in consonance with
the relevant Rules, since G.O.No.107 dated 18.08.2009 which governs the
issue specifically provides that only persons who had obtained degrees in
Open University system after having passed in the Higher Secondary
Examination would be considered to be holding a valid graduation degree to
enable them to seek employment in the State's services. The said
Government Order reads as follows:-
4. After considering the recommendations
of the Equivalence Committee, the Government has
decided to accept the same and ordered that the
Diploma/ Degree/ Post Graduate degree awarded
by Open Universities after passing Secondary
School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) and Higher
Secondary Course (HSC) is only eligible for
appointment/ promotion in Government services.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
4) Since it was found that the promotion given to the respondent
was in violation of the Government Order, the Department recalled the order
of promotion on 12.04.2012. It is this order which is subject matter of
challenge before the writ Court.
5) The writ Court had allowed the writ petition relying upon the
judgment in J.Joseph Irudayaraj Vs. Joint Director of School Education,
Chennai. Though the writ Court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government
reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590, it was sought to be distinguished on the
ground that it related to the Post Graduate degree obtained though Open
University system without obtaining Under Graduate degree.
6) The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that
the issue involved is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board Vs. A.Valarmathi
and others in W.A.Nos.1496 to 1498 of 2015 dated 21.08.2018 to which
one of us (Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subramanian) was a party. In the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
judgment the Division Bench had considered the issue relating to eligibility
fixed by the Teachers Recruitment Board. As per the Rules, the qualification
for secondary grade teacher is a graduate in any of the subjects with B.Ed.,
or B.Lit.,. Such graduation must have been obtained after completion of 12
years of regular school education and having secured a pass in Higher
Secondary School Examination.
7) Various attempts have been made by persons to secure
employment as teachers by obtaining degrees in different shortcut methods.
All these methods were dealt with by this Court in R.Thirunavukkarasu
and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2012 (5) CTC 129,
wherein, the shortcut methods were culled out and it was held that these
degrees obtained through shortcut methods will not be valid for securing
public employment.
8) Hon'ble Mr. Justice.V.Ramasubramanian, who authored the
judgment had held that no student will be eligible for first degree, unless he
had completed 3 years course. The students cannot seek admission to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
Masters course in any discipline unless he had successfully pursued the first
degree of 3 years course. Wherever a degree course of a duration of less
than 3 years was in existence at the time when the 1985 Regulations were
promulgated, these institutions can award degrees of a duration of 2 years,
only as a transitory measure. However, these persons will be eligible for
admission to a Master's Course only if they undergo a one year bridge
course. The learned Judge also went into the Statutory Rules and concluded
that the qualification for BT Assistant cannot be diluted by the Court in
order to accommodate the persons who are not otherwise qualified.
9) The same learned Judge in S.Jagadeeswari Vs. The
Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Borad, Chennai and another in
W.P.No.30299 of 2012 held that simultaneous acquisition of degrees or
acquisition of lower qualification after higher qualification (Reverse degrees)
cannot be recognized as proper qualification for appointment as BT
Assistant. The judgment in S.Jagadeeswari cited supra was affirmed in
WA.No.845 of 2013 by a Division Bench of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
10) Yet another Division Bench of this Court in Chairman, TRB
and another Vs. Kanimozhi had held that unless a candidate had obtained a
Bachelor's degree by going though the regular education in 10+2+3 System
he or she will not be qualified for appointment as a Secondary Grade
Teacher. The impact of University Grants Commission Regulations which
recognize these degrees issued by the Open Universities was also considered
by the Division Bench. After referring to all the above details, the Division
Bench in The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board Vs. A.Valarmathi
and others cited supra had observed as follows:-
19. We had extracted the qualifications of the
respondents. The qualifications can be tabulated as
follows:
Name Case No. Qualification
X XII (HSC) Bachelors B.Ed.,
Degree
Valarmathy W.A.No.1496/2015 1992 Failed in one 1996 2010
subject. (Cleared
Mathematics paper
in 2002)
Pushpalath W.A.No.1497/2015 2002 Passed HSC in 2009 2012
a 2011
Devasena W.A.No.1498/2015 1994 Failed in 2011 2013
Mathematics
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
20. From the qualifications extracted above
it could be seen that none of the respondents have
satisfied the requirement of the educational
qualifications prescribed under the advertisement
dated 22.05.2013. The advertisement very clearly
states that the respondents should have obtained a
bachelors degree from a recognized University under
10+2+3 pattern along with a bachelors degree in
Education. While the respondent in W.A.No.1498 of
2015 has not even attempted to complete Higher
secondary the respondents in W.A.Nos.1496, 1497 of
2015 have completed higher secondary course after
having obtained their bachelors degree.
21. Such a reverse qualification has been
held to be invalid in R.Tirunavukkarasu case as well
as in Kanimozhi case cited supra. We are in
agreement with the views of the Division Bench as well
as the learned Single Judge in R.Tirunavukkarasu
case. We must also point out that the learned Single
Judge in the orders impugned in these appeals had
only followed the judgment of Justice
Hariparandhaman in W.P.No.13054 of 2010 batch
case. The said judgment has been considered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
Division Bench in Kanimozhi case and has been
specifically overruled.
11) Mr.R.S.Anandan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would vehemently contend that the amendment to the Rules was
effected only in 2014 and therefore, though it is made retrospective, it cannot
take away the vested right that had accrued to the respondent.
12) We are unable to accept the said submission. The G.O.No.107
was introduced in the year 2009 itself. The respondent was promoted on
12.03.2012. But, the promotion was withdrawn within a month on
12.04.2012. Therefore, we do not think that any right would accrue to the
respondent. The amendment introduced in the year 2014 is made
specifically retrospective from the year 2009, that is from the date of
issuance of G.O.No.107 dated 18.08.2009. Therefore, unless the respondent
is able to demonstrate that he had requisite qualification viz., a pass in X
Standard after undergoing 10 years of regular schooling and a pass in XII
Standard after undergoing 2 years of regular schooling and a graduate
degree after completing 3 years of course study coupled with B.Ed., or
B.Lit., is alone be entitled to employment as a teacher.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
13) Admittedly, the respondent has not passed in XII Standard
before he had completed his degree. In fact, the respondent has completed
XII Standard only on 09.11.2010 by appearing in supplementary
examination after having obtained the graduate and the B.Lit., degree. It is
this practice of reverse qualification which was deprecated by this Court in
R.Thirunavukkarasu and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, cited
supra, which was also affirmed by the Division Bench.
14) Hence, we are unable to sustain the order of the writ Court,
the order of the writ Court is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
The writ appeal is allowed. No costs.
(R.S.M., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
01.02.2023
dsa
Index :Yes
Internet :Yes
Neutral Citation :Yes
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
To
1.The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
2.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),
DPI Complex, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
dsa
W.A.No.1628 of 2018
01.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
