Madras High Court
M.D.Ramya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 November, 2023
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.P.No.30781 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.30781 of 2023
and
W.M.P Nos.30445, 30445 and 30449 of 2023
M.D.Ramya ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education K2 Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.University of Madras,
Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
3.Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, DPI Campus,
College Road, Chennai 600 006. ..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.244 Higher Education (K2) Department
dated 07.11.2022 insofar as relates to Item No.29 stating that B.Sc
Science [Mathematics, physics, Computer Science) awarded by Sri
Venkateswara University is not equivalent to B.Sc., Physics for purpose
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30781 of 2023
of employment in public Services and to quash the same as illegal and
unsustainable in law, insofar as petitioner is concerned and for a
consequential direction to treat the petitioner as eligible for employment
in public services of the state holding that B.Sc., (MPC) acquired by her
is equivalent to B.Sc., Physics.
For Petitioner : Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan
Additional Government Pleader for R1
Mr.A.Shabnam Banu
for R2
Mr.C.Kathiravan
Standing counsel for R3
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up
for final disposal.
2. It is settled proposition of law that when an expert committee
renders its views with regard to evaluation and the equivalence between
to degrees, this Court, exercising its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, will not venture to re-appraise such an expert
committee's decision. In the case of Anand Yadav and others vs. State of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2021) 12 SCC 390, this ratio was
held in the following manner:-
“34. We may notice that it is not as if a
person with an M.Ed. degree is eligible for all the
posts which were advertised for Science, Arts and
others. Their eligibility has been found only for the
post of Assistant Professor (Education), which is
directly relatable to the subject to be taught. We do
not think the fact that both M.Ed. and M.A.
(Education) degree-holders have to take a common
test for the purposes of NET is conclusive, but it is
one of the factors to be considered, and once the
expert body being the NCTE, inter alia, has taken
that aspect into consideration apart from other
factors to opine equivalence for the purpose of
appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in
Education, it would not be appropriate to take a
contra view.
35. We say so in view of the fact that matters
of education must be left to educationists, of course
subject to being governed by the relevant statutes
and regulations. It is not the function of this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to sit as an expert body over the decision of the
experts, especially when the experts are all eminent
people as apparent from the names as set out. This
aspect has received judicial imprimatur even
earlier and it is not that we are saying something
new. We may refer to the pronouncement in Zahoor
Ahmad Rather & Ors.10 in this behalf which has
dealt with the dual aspects: (a) it is for the
employer to consider what functionality of
qualification and content of course of studies would
lead to the acquisition of an eligible qualification;
and (b) such matters must be left to educationists.
.....
37. We may note that, sometimes, without
looking into the real ratio decidendi, a judgment is
followed as a precedent. This is what appears to
have happened in the impugned order. There are
even some other supra supra supra judgments of
the High Courts, which in turn were then sought to
be relied upon to canvas a proposition that there is
a widespread acceptance of M.Ed. not being
equivalent to M.A. (Education). That they are two
different degrees is obvious; this is even recognised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the NCTE while emphasising the subtle
distinction between the two degrees as one being a
master’s degree but not a professional degree,
while the other being a professional degree. If the
two degrees are identical, there is no question of
equivalence. The issue of equivalence only arises
when there are two different degrees and what is to
be decided whether for certain purposes they can
be treated as equivalent. This is exactly what has
happened as a result of the respective expert
committees set up by respondent Nos. 2 & 5. The
employer, i.e., respondent No. 2, had accepted the
recommendation of the expert committee. The UGC
has also taken a stand that insofar as the two
degrees are concerned, both are post graduate
degrees, and the equivalence authority being
respondent No.5 has also opined on the basis of an
expert committee, that the two can be treated as
equivalent for the post of Assistant Professor in
Education. Thus, it is neither for the contesting
party, i.e., respondent No.3, nor for this Court to sit
as a court of appeal over the decision of the
experts.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. In the instant case, the petitioner possess the degree of B.Sc.,
with Maths, Physics and Computer Science as majors, awarded by Sri
Ventakeswara University. The decision of the equivalence committee,
through the impugned G.O.(Ms) No.244, High Education (K2)
Department, dated 07.11.2022, is that the petitioner's degree in B.Sc.,
(Maths, Physics and Computer Science) is not equivalent to B.Sc.,
Physics, for the purpose of employment in public service.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a faint attempt,
seeking to declare that the decision of the equivalence committee would
apply only prospectively to the candidates, who possess similar
qualification to a triple major in B.Sc., and not to the petitioner, since her
under graduation with triple majors has been recognized to be equivalent
to the corresponding B.Sc., degree of the University of Madras.
5. The submission, on the fact of it, is misconceived. The very
purpose for which the equivalence committee was constituted is to assess
the equivalence of the degree of B.Sc., (Mathematics, Physics, Computer
Science) awarded by Sri Venkateswara University with B.Sc., (Physics),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for the purpose of employment in public services. When the
recommendations of the equivalence committee was to the effect that the
petitioner's degree is not equivalent and the same having been accepted by
the Government in G.O.(Ms) No.244, Higher Education Department,
dated 07.11.2022, the petitioner's qualification of B.Sc., (Mathematics,
Physics and Computer Science) awarded by Sri Venkateswara University,
cannot be construed to be equivalent to B.Sc., (Physics) for any pubic
employment at all and she will be disentitled to apply for any public
employment, in which B.Sc., (Physics) is notified to be an essential
qualification, which the candidate should possess.
6. Thus, in view of the expert committee's recommendations, the
claim for retrospective operation of G.O.(Ms) No.244, dated 07.11.2022,
to candidates who acquired qualifications after the Government Order, is
not legally sustainable. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.11.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rka/hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH,J.
rka/hvk
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Higher Education K2 Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The University of Madras,
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
3.Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, DPI Campus,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
