Madras High Court
The Teacher Recruitment Board vs M.Senbagam ... 1St on 3 January, 2024
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar, R.Vijayakumar
W.A.(MD) No.2196 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD) No.2196 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.17643 of 2023
The Teacher Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Chairman,
EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Compound,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Appellant/1st Respondent
-vs-
1.M.Senbagam ... 1st Respondent/Writ Petitioner
2.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District.
4.The Registrar,
Periyar University,
Salem.
____________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.2196 of 2023
5.The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University,
Chennai. ... Respondents 2 to 5/Respondents 2 to 5
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order,
dated 16.09.2022, passed in W.P.(MD) No.17633 of 2017, on the file of this
Court.
For Appellant : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Panneerselvam for R1
Mr.D.Sadiq Raja
Additional Government Pleader for R2, R3 & R5
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]
Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order dated 16.09.2022, passed
in W.P.(MD) No.17633 of 2017, by the Writ Court.
2. According to the appellant, the first respondent has passed 10th
Standard in March 2007, 12th Standard in March, 2009, B.Sc., (Maths) (Academic
Year) in April 2012, B.Ed., (Academic Year) in May, 2013 and M.Sc., (Maths) in
December, 2014. Hence, the first respondent has undergone the B.Ed., degree
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
course and M.Sc., degree course simultaneously. Therefore, she is not entitled to
seek for a direction to select and appoint her as B.T. Assistant (Mathematics).
3. In support of his contentions, the learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant relied on the following decisions:-
(i) Order dated 12.11.2014, passed in W.P. No.26275 of 2014 in the
matter of K.Govindaraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, wherein this
Court held as follows:-
“12. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
in the case of S.Jagadeeswari vs. The Chairman in W.A.No.845
of 2013, dated 07.01.2014, considered the validity of G.O.Ms.No.
361, dated 31.12.1999 and confirmed the order made in W.P.No.
30299 of 2012, wherein, it was held that the stand taken by the
respondent not to accept the candidature of persons, who had
undergone two different degrees simultaneously is perfectly in
order.
13. Hence, for all the above reasons, no relief can be
granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the Writ Petition fails
and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.”
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ii) Order dated 04.02.2019 made in W.P.No.503 of 2018 in the
matter of R.Mekala v. The Director of School Education, wherein this Court
held as follows:-
“6. This Court is of an undoubted opinion that
teaching faculty ought to be appointed only from and amongst the
candidates, who had undergone the regular educational courses. It
is not sufficient if a candidate has completed his/her degree, and
they must establish that they had undergone the degree course
through by attending regular classes and not through Open
University or through Correspondence courses. Teaching is a
noble profession and taking classes is an art in the class room. The
students undergoing the education must be in a position to
appreciate the teaching skills of the teacher and the teachers have
to impart the education by utilizing their experiences and skills in
teaching. Thus, this Court has to made it clear that the candidates
who secured degrees only through regular courses alone would be
eligible to seek appointment for teaching faculties in Schools,
Colleges and Universities.
7. This being the principles laid down in number of
judgments, this Court is of an opinion that the writ petitioner who
secured dual degree by undergoing two degrees during the same
academic years would not be eligible for securing appointment,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
more specifically to the post of BT Assistant (Geography) in the
Tamil Nadu Educational Service. Thus, the writ petitioner has not
established any acceptable legal ground for the purpose of
considering the relief as such sought for in the present petition and
the writ petitioner stands dismissed as devoid of merits. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
(iii) Order dated 07.01.2014 made in W.A.No.845 of 2013 in the
matter of B. Jagadeeswari v. Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai,
wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:-
“Unless the dual degrees obtained simultaneously in
the same academic year is recognized, a candidate cannot seek for
a direction to the appointing authority to select and appoint
him/her to a particular post. Incidentally, the Division Bench has
also held that unless a specific direction is issued by the UGC in
the form of statutory notification, mere recommendation of the
UGC approving the proposal to permit the students to pursue two
decrees simultaneously in the same academic year have only a
recommendatory value. As stated earlier, unless and until, the
UGC recognizes such degree course, there is no obligation in the
part of the university or employers/recruiting agencies to
recognize such degree courses in the absence of any such rules in
this regard.”
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant would submit that
unless the dual degrees obtained simultaneously in the same academic year is
recognized, a candidate cannot seek for a direction to the appointing authority to
select and appoint him/her to a particular post. He would further submit that
unless and until, the UGC recognizes such degree course, there is no obligation in
the part of the university or employers/recruiting agencies to recognize such
degree courses in the absence of any such rules in this regard.
5. We are not in disagreement with the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant nor the decision of the Division Bench of this Court.
6. Coming to the facts of the case, the Transfer Certificate issued by
the Rasi College of Education would clearly disclose that the first respondent has
applied for B.Ed., on 22.08.2012 and she has completed the course and left the
course on 19.05.2013 and the transfer certificate issued by Periyar Institute of
Distance Education (PRIDE), Periyar University shows that the first respondent
has joined the M.Sc., course on 02.08.2013 and the duration of the course is two
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
years and she appeared for the examination in December, 2014 for the second
year examination.
7. Therefore, according to the appellant, the first respondent has not
completed the two years duration course of M.Sc. (Mathematics) in the
University and she completed M.Sc., degree in one year and four months and the
first respondent should have joined the course in the month of January, 2013 as
the academic year would have commenced from January, 2013. Therefore, there
is overlapping of B.Ed., and M.Sc degree courses. Hence, in the light of the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Jagadeeswari's case, the first
respondent has undergone simultaneously two courses in the aforesaid period and
therefore, the first respondent is not eligible for consideration for appointment to
the post of B.T. Assistant (Mathematics).
8. The transfer certificate issued by the Periyar Institute of Distance
Education (PRIDE), Periyar University would disclose that the first respondent
joined the course on 02.08.2013. Regarding the question, whether the said
admission can be entertained by the University on 02.08.2013, we are not going
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
into this at this stage. We are concerned only with the question whether the first
respondent had undergone the aforesaid courses simultaneously. The first
respondent herein had joined M.Sc., course on 02.08.2013 and therefore, as
rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the first respondent has not undergone
the B.Ed., and M.Sc. courses simultaneously. The appellant has not placed any
other direct materials before this Court in support of his contention. In the
absence of any direct materials, we are inclined to rely on the aforesaid transfer
certificate issued by the Periyar Institute of Distance Education (PRIDE), Periyar
University to hold that the contentions of the appellant are liable to be rejected.
9. However, we make it clear that on the perusal of the records
submitted by the first respondent herein, which clearly shows that she completed
only two years M.Sc., (Mathematics) degree, but she has completed the course in
one year four months, which according to the appellant, the first respondent
herein is not eligible on the aforesaid ground, however, there is no order, by
which the appellant has cancelled the selection of the first respondent on the
aforesaid ground and hence, we are not inclined to go into that contention of the
appellant.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. In the light of the above, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
03.01.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
SJ
To
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Theni District.
3.The Registrar,
Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University,
Chennai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
SJ
03.01.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
