Madras High Court
J.Gopikrishna vs The Teachers Recruitment Board on 30 November, 2023
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.A.No.99 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.99 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.1353 of 2020
J.Gopikrishna ... Appellant
-Vs-
The Teachers Recruitment Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside
the order dated 13.11.2019 made in W.P.No.31879 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
for Mrs.V.Srimathi
For Respondent : Mr.R.Neelakandan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel for TRB
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/16
W.A.No.99 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This writ appeal has been directed against the order passed by the writ
Court dated 13.11.2019 made in W.P.No.31879 of 2019.
2. The appellant was the writ petitioner. The Teachers Recruitment Board
issued a Notification No.12 of 2019 dated 28.08.2019 and 04.10.2019 inviting
application for direct recruitment, from eligible candidates, for the post of
Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service for
Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education for the year
2018-19.
3. The appellant / writ petitioner also made an application which was
rejected at the threshold by the respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board,
therefore, he had approached this Court by filing a writ of mandamus seeking a
direction to the Teachers Recruitment Board to accept the application of the
appellant / petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The said writ petition having been considered was dismissed by the
learned Judge through the impugned order.
5. The reason for rejection of the application, according to the respondent
/ Teachers Recruitment Board is that, the appellant / writ petitioner completed
SSLC in 1996, thereafter without taking +2 examination, he directly taken UG
degree in the year 2002, thereafter PG degree, i.e., M.A in the year 2007 and
M.Phil degree in the year 2008 and he also cleared the National Eligibility Test
examination in the year 2009, thereafter, he has completed +2 examination only
in the year 2019 through private studies.
6. With these qualifications, since he approached the Teachers
Recruitment Board by making his application to be considered for the said post
of Assistant Professor and the same since has been rejected for the reason that,
as per Clause-6(v) of the Notification, candidates who have obtained a Bachelor
Degree from a recognized University, under 10+2+3 pattern alone shall be
considered for selection, since the appellant / petitioner secured UG degree
without having +2 examination passed and after several years in the year 2019
only by private studies he passed +2 examination, therefore it is a reverse
pattern not in the pattern of 10+2+3 but in the pattern of 10+3+2 which is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
against G.O.(Ms)No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,
dated 18.08.2009, G.O.(Ms)No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(M) Department, dated 18.08.2010 and G.O.(Ms)No.242, Higher Education
(B1) Department, dated 18.12.2012.
7. In this context, it is to be noted that in Clause-6(v) of the notification,
the following effect has been made clear, which reads thus:
“6(v). It is informed that candidate who have obtained
a Bachelor's degree from a recognised University, under
10+2+3 pattern alone shall be considered for selection as
per G.O.Ms.No.107, P&AR Department, dated 18.08.2009,
G.O.Ms.No.116, P&AR (M) Dept., dated 18.08.2010 and as
prescribed in G.O.(Ms)No.242, Higher Education (B1)
Department, dated 18.12.2012. No other order / pattern will
be accepted.”
8. However, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the appellant has argued that, the qualification prescribed by the respondent /
Teachers Recruitment Board has been fulfilled by the appellant. In fact he is
having the over-qualification and a person who has secured UG degree, PG
degree, M.Phil degree, passed in National Eligibility Test and also subsequently
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was awarded Ph.d degree, that is the maximum eligible qualification, can be
acquired for the purpose of being a teaching faculty in the collegiate educational
system.
9. When that being so, all these qualifications acquired by the appellant
cannot be nullified by a prescription that has been made either by the State
Government or by the Recruiting Agency stating that the qualification should
have been acquired one by one as per the pattern they fixed not otherwise, it
does not have a reasonable nexus between the classification and the object
sought to be achieved.
10. However, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board has submitted that,
the issue raised in this appeal is no more res-integra as the issue has been
considered many times by various Division Benches of this Court, where a
consistent view has been taken by which the pattern prescribed as 10+2+3
alone is the pattern to be adopted or followed by any candidate who seeks for a
job in Government Organizations and that was the prescription which was made
under the relevant Government Order, namely, G.O.(Ms)No.107, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. The learned Additional Advocate General would also submit that
insofar as the validity of G.O.(Ms)No.107, fixing the pattern of 10+2+3 is
concerned, it has already been testified before this Court in the matter of
T.L.Muthukumar and others Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of
Madras and another in W.P.No.18729 of 2010, where, a Division Bench of
this Court had upheld the validity of G.O.(Ms).No.107 and had rejected the plea
made therein by a job seeker or the employee who sought for promotion.
12. The learned Additional Advocate General has also relied upon few
more Division Bench judgments on the similar line (i) 2014-2-L.W.1005 in the
matter of J.Joseph Irudayaraj Vs. Joint Director of School Education and
others (ii) W.A.No.805 of 2014 dated 06.08.2014 in the matter of The
Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board and another Vs. V.Kanimozhi and
(iii) W.A.No.40 of 2021 dated 28.04.2022 in the matter of M.Pushpa Vs. The
Director of School Education and others. By relying upon these judgments,
the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that, the issue raised in
this writ appeal, as has been stated earlier, is no more res-integra as it has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
concluded by more than four or five judgments and the issue cannot be
canvassed once again before this Court as if a new issue and nothing can be
deviated from the consistent view already been taken by this Court in those
judgments, he contended.
13. We have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before
this Court.
14. Insofar as the qualification that has been acquired by the appellant is
concerned, absolutely there has been no quarrel that he has acquired these
qualifications, i.e., 10th Standard, 12th Standard, UG degree, PG degree, M.phil
degree and Ph.d degree as well as National Eligibility Test. However, while
acquiring these qualifications whether the appellant has proceeded in the path or
pattern that has been envisaged in the relevant Government Orders which have
been issued by the State Government under the executive power under Article
162 of the Constitution of India is the question.
15. G.O.(Ms)No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms
Department, dated 18.08.2009 had made it clear that, the UG degree if it is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
qualification to hold any post or to get an appointment or to get a promotion in
any of the State service, such a qualification must be on the basis of 10+2+3
pattern, that means after passing 10 th Standard, he must take +2 examination to
be passed, thereafter only UG degree he can secure.
16. The validity of the said G.O.(Ms)No.107 has been upheld in the said
judgment of T.L.Muthukumar's case, which we have quoted herein above.
17. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, after completing 10th Standard,
for whatever reason he did not pursue his +2, however, after few years, he
directly pursued the UG degree and was able to secure the UG degree in the
year 2002, thereafter secured M.A degree in the year 2007 and acquired the
qualification of M.Phil in the year 2008 and passed the National Eligibility Test
in the year 2009 and thereafter Ph.d degree. After acquiring all these
qualifications, for long years, the appellant has thought of getting
+2 examination passed, therefore by way of private studies, he had written +2
examination successfully in the year 2019 only.
18. Therefore, according to the respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board,
the pattern adopted by the appellant is 10 th Standard, UG degree, PG degree,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.Phil degree, Ph.d degree and thereafter, +2.
19. If at all the importance of the +2 or the pattern of 10+2+3 is not
required or not to be recognized, the very appellant himself would not have
pursued +2 examination and got through the same after several years in the year
2019. In fact, the legal position pursuant to G.O.(Ms)No.107 having been taken
note of and it might have triggered the mind of the appellant to make him to
qualify with +2 examination also even though well before that he acquired all
other qualifications including Ph.d degree.
20. Therefore, acquiring the qualification of +2 is a must, however that
qualification of +2 must be secured prior to the joining of UG degree, i.e., the
pattern called 10th Standard, 12th Standard and UG, otherwise called as 10+2+3.
21. Therefore, even though the appellant has acquired the qualification of
+2 after several years, i.e., after acquiring all other qualifications including UG
degree, ie., UG, PG and M.Phil, which are the essential qualifications to hold
the post of Assistant Professors, such acquiring of the qualification of +2 is
nothing but a reverse pattern. That kind of reverse pattern has never been
recognized by the Court of law by virtue of series of judgments which we have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
quoted herein above.
22. In our latest judgment by our Bench in the matter of S.Rajkumar vs
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government and
another in W.A.No.2317 of 2012 dated 22.11.2023, a similar issue when came
up for consideration, we have held that, insofar as whatever the qualification
acquired by anyone including UG or PG degree awarded by the University and
recognized by the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act by the
University Grants Commission, definitely such kind of degree must be a valid
degree in the eye of law.
23. However insofar as the qualification that has been prescribed by the
employer under the Service Rules or under the Notification, such kind of
qualification prescribed by the employer must have been fulfilled, otherwise the
job seeker is not entitled to seek for the job.
24. Therefore, there is a clear distinction between acquiring the
qualification as well as fitting the qualification for the purpose of seeking a
particular employment under the particular employer. This distinction has been
considered by us in the said Rajkumar's case, where we have held the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
following:
"23. Here, no such exercise has been done and no such
attempt has been made by the subsequent Division Bench in
M.Rathinavel's case. More over, in the Division Bench
judgment in M.Rathinavel's case, it has been held that the
degree awarded by Madras University means any equivalent
degree awarded by any other university can also be
construed as an equivalent qualification, and held that the
University from which the petitioner M.Rathinavel obtained
the degree is also a recognized university and therefore the
degree awarded by that University is also a recognized
degree.
24. We have absolutely no quarrel on this proposition
with regard to the recognized degree. Recognized degree
means valid degree. However, the degree obtained from
Open University without following 10+2+3 system, whether to
be accepted as qualification for the purpose of appointment
and promotion in the public employment insofar as the State
of Tamil Nadu is concerned, was the question which arose in
the wake of G.O.Ms.No.107 which has been upheld by the
Division Bench in T.L.Muthukumar's case.
25. No doubt, there was an U.G.degree obtained by the
said M.Rathinavel (petitioner in W.P(MD) No.11111 of 2016)
from Open University, without following the system of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10+2+3. That degree may be a valid degree, but that cannot
be taken as qualification for the purpose of appointment and
promotion in the public employment in Tamil Nadu including
High Court Service. This has been already clarified and
made clear by the earlier Division Bench judgment in
T.L.Muthukumar's case on 10.02.2011 on the very same
High Court Service Rules framed under Article 229 of the
Constitution. When that being so, when a different view
wanted to be taken by another Division Bench, they must have
considered the earlier judgment and if at all the earlier
judgment is not agreeable with the subsequent Division
Bench, the subsequent Division Bench should have referred
the matter to the Full Bench. Otherwise, the issue should have
been declared as per incuriam."
25. All other Division Bench judgments quoted herein above also have
taken the similar view, in fact consistently, and therefore, there could be no
deviation on the legal position.
26. Hence, the attempt made by Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior
counsel appearing for the appellant is only a vain attempt for succeeding this
case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
27. Though the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has
made a fervent plea before this Court that the very higher qualification including
Ph.d degree acquired by the appellant shall be taken into account and mere
deviation of pattern that has been prescribed under the Government Order
cannot take away the qualification acquired by a person from recognized
Universities of the State or Country is concerned, no doubt, those qualifications
acquired by the appellant are the valid qualifications, may be for any other
purpose, but, as far as the purpose of getting a job pursuant to the Notification
issued by the respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board is concerned, it is not a
valid qualification within the meaning of the prescription that has been made by
the employer, here it is a State Government. Therefore, ultimately, we may have
sympathy on the appellant, but the law does not permit to give any relief to the
appellant.
28. Before parting with the case, we feel that it is a vexed issue, where
Universities are established by the law made by the State Legislature as well as
parliament and Exclusively Open Universities are established by legislation.
Those open Universities are intended to impart education for those who did not
have the regular pattern of 10+2+3 system. In those Universities also, degrees
are offered to various eligible candidates and degrees are also awarded by such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Universities.
29. If these kind of qualifications are awarded by the State Universities
created by the Act of Parliament or Act of State Legislature become a
qualification which would not be accepted by the employer especially the State
authorities for employment in their respective domain, then certainly it would be
a pathetic situation insofar as those candidates are concerned. Therefore, the
stake-holders of both Central and State authorities can have a re-look in this
matter in the larger interest of the Society. Unless and until such an exercise is
undertaken by the concerned authorities / stake-holders, what is the law that is
prevailing alone shall be taken into account by this Court. Therefore, in view of
the said legal position, we are not inclined to accept the plea raised by the
appellant, therefore, it is liable to be rejected, accordingly, it is rejected. Hence,
the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
30.11.2023
NCC : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
vji
To
The Chairman,
The Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
vji
and
30.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
