Madras High Court
The Tamil University vs V. Kalpana on 27 September, 2024
Author: A.D. Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D. Jagadish Chandira
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 22.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.09.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD). Nos. 877 to 879 of 2018
and C.M.P.(MD). Nos.5519 to 5521 of 2018
W.A.(MD). No.877 of 2018
The Tamil University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur. ... Appellant / Respondent
-vs-
V. Kalpana ... Respondent/ Petitioner
W.A.(MD). No.878 of 2018
The Tamil University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur. ... Appellant / Respondent
-vs-
Dr. G. Rajendran ... Respondent/ Petitioner
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
W.A.(MD). No.879 of 2018
The Tamil University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Tamil University,
Thanjavur. ... Appellant / Respondent
-vs-
V. Gurusamy ... Respondent/ Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeals filed as against the common order dated 05.02.2018
passed in W.P.(MD). Nos. 21879 to 21881 of 2017.
For Appellant :: Mr. S.K. Sachin Rahul
For Respondents :: Mr. K. Sathya Singh
*****
JUDGMENT
(made by K.Rajasekar,J.,)
This is a batch of intra Court writ appeals filed by the Tamil University,
Thanjavur challenging the common order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD). Nos. 21879 to 21881 of 2017, whereby
the recruitment Notification dated 11.11.2017 issued relating to the post of
Assistant Professor (Folklore) by the Tamil University was quashed.
2. The facts leading to filing of these appeals, in brief, are as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
follows: The writ petitions in W.P.(MD). Nos. 21879 to 21881 of 2017 were
filed by the candidates, who have applied to the post of Assistant Professor
(Folklore) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2017 made by the
appellant Tamil University, Thanjavur (Item No.6 of the Notification). The
writ petitioners (respondents herein), who are Master's Degree holders of
Folklore, have challenged the qualification prescribed for the appointment to
the post of Assistant Professor (Folklore). The University Grants Commission
(UGC hereafter) had already issued a regulation prescribing minimum
qualification for appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff and other
measures for the maintenance of Standards in Higher education in
Universities and Colleges in the year 2010. This regulation has been relied by
the writ petitioners and according to them, the required educational
qualification prescribed under the University Regulation for the post of
Assistant Professor (4.4.2.1) is "good academic record with at least 55% of
marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is
followed) at the Master's Degree level, in the relevant subject or an
equivalent degree from an Indian/ Foreign University". Since the recruitment
is taking place for the post of Assistant Professor (Folklore), only the person,
who attained Master's degree in Folklore are qualified to be appointed or to
participate in the selection process to the said post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
3. The Tamil University, in its Notification dated 11.11.2017 in
item No.6, prescribed that a person, who is applying for the post of Assistant
Professor (Folklore), shall have a Master's Degree in Folklore or a Master's
Degree in Tamil. According to the writ petitioners, the Master's Degree
obtained in Tamil is not a qualification for the post of Assistant Professor
(Folklore), whereas in the said Notification, the qualification for the said post
is mentioned as a Master's Degree with not less than 55% of mark in Folklore
or in Tamil.
4. A Division Bench of this Court, in order dated 05.12.2006 in
W.P.(MD).No.2306 of 2006, wherein similar Notification issued by Madurai
Kamaraj University was challenged, has held that the inclusion of Master's
Degree in Tamil was bad in law and it was not in conformity with the UGC
Regulations and set aside the Notification. Subsequently, when a similar
issue arose in W.P.(MD).No.3064 of 2007, a learned Single Judge, by order
dated 28.02.2012, dismissed the writ petition as infructuous on the admission
made by the Respondent therein viz., Tamil University to the effect that they
had stopped the selection process consequent to the order passed by the
Division Bench in W.P.(MD).No.2306 of 2006. Now, the very same
qualification has been prescribed in this Notification and the writ petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
have been filed challenging the Notification on the very same ground.
5. On behalf of the University, it is stated that the Regulations have
been modified by the UGC and the earlier Notification was set aside based on
the old UGC Regulation 2000, but as per the new Regulation 2010, the
Notification issued and the qualification mentioned therein does not suffer
from any infirmity and the same is valid.
6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submission made
on both sides, has held that the Regulations of the UGC have been adopted by
the Tamil University in the present recruitment. The earlier selection process
was scrapped as per the Order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.2306 of
2006 dated 05.12.2006 and the very same qualification prescribed in the
earlier proceedings has been prescribed in this Notification also. Accordingly,
the present Notification is an infraction of the statutory regulation, hence the
same is liable to be quashed.
7. Aggrieved over the above common order of the learned Single
Judge, these appeals have been filed by the appellant Tamil University.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ Tamil
University would submit that, it is true that earlier Division Bench of this
Court in W.P.(MD).No.2306 of 2006 dated 05.12.2006 has held that Master's
Degree in Tamil as one of the qualification prescribed to the post of Assistant
Professor (Folklore) was not in accordance with the Clause 1.3.3 of the
annexure to the UGC Regulation 2000, however, this Regulation has been
amended by the subsequent UGC Regulation 2010 and the equivalent
qualification for the post of Assistant Professor is Master's Degree level in
the relevant discipline in the Indian University or equivalent subject from
Indian or Foreign University. The Syndicate of the Tamil University has
already approved that Master's Degree in Tamil is equivalent to the Master's
Degree in Folklore and the persons, who obtained Master's Degree in the
above two subjects are eligible to be appointed to the post of Assistant
Professor (Folklore). This fact has not been properly placed before the
learned Single Judge and the Notification was also not property appreciated
by the learned Single Judge.
9. He further submitted that the Notification mentioned herein is
issued in full compliance of the qualification prescribed under UGC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
Regulation 2010 and there is no infraction of UGC Regulation. He also relied
on Clause 4.4.2.1 of the Regulation 2010 and Clause 1.3.3 of the earlier UGC
Regulation 2000 and drawn our attention with regard to the difference with
the above two clauses to substantiate his contention that the qualification
prescribed in the earlier regulation is now changed and now a person, who is
holding an equivalent degree from an Indian University, is also permitted to
be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Folklore).
Submissions on behalf of the respondents:
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents (writ
petitioners) submits that the Master's Degree in Tamil is not an equivalent
degree to that of Master's Degree in Folklore. Earlier, a Division Bench of
this Court, in its judgment, has categorically analysed this issue and has held
that the subjects comprised in M.A. (Folklore) degree not exclusively relate to
the Tamil language and it is an inter-disciplinary subject of folk, literature,
drama, culture, arts, etc., which cannot be related with the Master's Degree in
Tamil. Therefore, the Master's Degree in Tamil is not an equivalent degree
and a person who holds Master's Degree in Tamil is not eligible to be
appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Folklore). He further submitted
that the very same Notification was re-issued, since earlier Notification was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
scrapped, considering the same, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed
the Notification and prays to confirm the same.
11. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and
perused the records.
Discussions and conclusions:
12. A careful perusal of the earlier Order of this Court in W.P.
(MD).No.2306 of 2006 dated 05.12.2006 shows that, it is based on the
qualification prescribed for the selection to the post of Assistant Professor
(Folklore), in Clause 1.3.3 in the UGC Regulation 2000, which reads as
follows:
"Clause 1.3.3 of the Annexure to the UGC Regulations,
2000 relating to the minimum qualifications for the post of
Lecturer reads as under:-
"1.3.3 Lecturer: Good academic record with at least
55% of the marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point
scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the
Master's degree level, in the relevant subject from an
Indian University, or, and equivalent degree from a
foreign university.
Besides fulfilling the above qualifications,
candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET)
for Lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test
accredited by UGC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
Note: NET shall remain the compulsory requirement
for appointment as Lecturer even for candidates having
Ph.D degree. However, the candidate who have completed
M.Phil., degree or have submitted Ph.D., thesis in the
concerned subject up to 31st December, 1993, are exempted
from appearing in the NET examination.""
13. In the UGC Regulation 2010, the Clause 4.4.2.1 deals with
qualification for the above post and reads as follows:
1. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR:
i. Good academic record with at least 55% marks (or
an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever
grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree
level, in the relevant subject or an equivalent degree
from an Indian/ Foreign University.
ii. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications,
candidates must have cleared the National Eligibility
Test (NET) for lecturers conducted by the UGC,
CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the sub-
clauses (i) and (ii) to this Clause 4.4.2.1, candidates,
who are, or have been awarded Ph.D Degree in
accordance with the University Grants Commission
(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of
Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted
from the recruitment of the minimum eligibility
condition of NET/ SLET/ SET for recruitment and
appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent
positions in Universities/ Colleges/ Institutions.
iii. NET/ SLET/ SET shall also not be required for such
Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/
SLET/ SET is not conducted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
OR
i. A traditional and a professional artist with highly
commendable professional achievement in the concerned
subject, who should have:
(a) Studied under noted/ reputed traditional masters and
has thorough knowledge to explain the subject
concerned;
(b) A high grade artist of AIR/TV; and
(c) Ability to explain the logical reasoning of the subject
concerned and adequate knowledge to teach theory
with illustrations in that discipline."
14. In the UGC Regulation 2010, the qualification prescribed is
Master's Degree level in relevant subject or an equivalent degree from an
Indian/ Foreign University. The equivalent degree from an "Indian
University" has been incorporated in the UGC Regulation 2010. This
equivalent degree from an Indian University was not prescribed in the
previous Regulation 2000, thereby in the earlier case in W.P.(MD).No.2306 of
2006, prescription of Master Degree in Tamil as a qualification to the post of
Assistant Professor (Folklore) was held to be bad and not in accordance with
the University Regulations prior to Regulation 2000.
15. The present Notification under challenge which incorporates a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
Master's Degree in Tamil as qualification to participate in recruitment process
for the post of Assistant Professor (Folklore), is based on a Resolution passed
by the Syndicate of the University. The grievances raised by the writ
petitioners is that the Master's Degree in Tamil is not an equivalent degree for
Folklore and the same was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in
the earlier Order in W.P.(MD).No.2306 of 2006. A careful perusal of
Paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the order of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.2306 of
2006, shows that the Division Bench has made a fair attempt to compare the
subjects between the M.A. (Folklore) and M.A. (Tamil) and based on the
objects for introduction of Master Degree in Folklore has construed that M.A.
(Folklore) is an inter-disciplinary programme among folk, literature, arts,
culture, etc., in fact none of the M.A.(Folklore) relates to the subjects in
Master Degree in Tamil language.
16. Now, it is submitted by the appellant University that an Expert
Committee was constituted by the University, which, after considering the
subjects being taught in the M.A.(Tamil), had arrived its opinion that the folk,
literature, drama, etc., are part of the Tamil literature and the Professors, who
are teaching the folk, literature, drama, etc., are the persons, who have studied
Tamil Literature. It has also made a comparative study of various subjects
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
and it has approved that the persons, who have studied Tamil literature are
qualified to be appointed under various posts of Assistant Professor,
Associate Professor and Professor. Based on this Expert Committee Report
dated 16.10.2017, the Syndicate has passed a Resolution that the Master's
Degree in Tamil as a qualification prescribed equivalent to the qualification
for the post of Assistant Professor (Folklore) and the same was approved by
the University. A perusal of the Expert Committee Report as well as the
resolution passed by the Syndicate, shows that in Agenda No.3, the persons,
who have studied epigraphy, translation, literature, lexicography,
anthropogeography, etc., are given degree in the name of Doctorate in Tamil
and also given Master's Degree in Tamil. Further, a perusal of the
comparative chart of subjects taught in the M.A. (Tamil) and Folk shows that
they are almost 90% similar and this was also taken note by the University.
17. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the University of
Mysore and Ors. and vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Ors. [AIR 1965 SC 491] has
already held that in the matters of academic standards, courts should not
normally interfere or interpret the rules and such matters should be left to the
experts in the field and observed in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 as follows:
13. In our opinion, in coming to the conclusion that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
appellant No. 2 did not satisfy the first qualification, the High
Court is plainly in error. The judgment shows that the learned
Judges concentrated on the question as to whether a candidate
obtaining 50 per cent marks could be said to have secured a high
Second Class Degree, and if the relevant question had to be
determined solely by reference to this aspect of the matter, the
conclusion of the High Court would have been beyond reproach.
But what the High Court has failed to notice is the fact that the
first qualification consists of two parts - the first part is : a high
Second Class Master's Degree of an Indian University, and the
second part is : its equivalent which is an equivalent qualification
of a foreign University. The High Court does not appear to have
considered the question as to whether it would be appropriate for
the High Court to differ from the opinion of the Board when it was
quite likely that the Board may have taken the view that the Degree
of Master of Arts of the Durham University which appellant No. 2
had obtained, was equivalent to a high Second Class Master's
Degree of an Indian University. This aspect of the question
pertains purely to an academic matter and Courts would naturally
hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears
that the Board of experts was satisfied that appellant No. 2 fulfilled
the first qualification. If only the attention of the High court had
been drawn to the equivalent furnished in the first qualification, we
have no doubt that it would not have held that the Board had acted
capriciously in expressing the opinion that appellant No. 2
satisfied all the qualifications including the first qualification. As
we have already observed though the High Court felt some
difficulty about the two remaining qualifications, the High Court
has not rested its decision on any definite finding that these
qualifications also had not been satisfied. On reading the first
qualification, the position appears to be very simple; but
unfortunately, since the equivalent qualification specified by
clause (a) was apparently not brought to the notice of the High
Court, it has failed to take that aspect of the matter into account.
On that aspect of the matter, it may follow that the Master's
Degree of the Durham University secured by appellant No. 2,
would satisfy the first qualification and even the second. Besides, it
appears that appellant No. 2 has to his credit published works
which by themselves would satisfy the second qualification.
Therefore, there is no doubt that the High Court was in error in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
coming to the conclusion that since appellant No. 2 could not be
said to have secured a high Second Class Master's Degree of an
Indian University, he did not satisfy the first qualification. It is
plain that Master's Degree of the Durham University which
appellant No. 2 has obtained, can be and must have been taken by
the Board to be equivalent to a high Second Class Master's Degree
of an Indian University, and that means the first qualification is
satisfied by appellant No. 2. That being so, we must hold that the
High Court was in error in issuing a writ of quo warranto,
quashing the appointment of appellant No. 2.
14. Before we part with these appeals, however, reference
must be made to two other matters. In dealing with the case
presented before it by the respondent, the High Court has
criticised the report made by the Board and has observed that the
circumstances disclosed by the report made it difficult for the High
Court to treat the recommendations made by the experts with the
respect that they generally deserve. We are unable to see the point
of criticism of the High Court in such academic matters. Boards of
Appointments are nominated by the Universities and when
recommendations made by them and the appointments following
on them, are challenged before courts, normally the court should
be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts.
There is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who
constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally
be wise and safe for the court to leave the decisions of academic
matter to experts who are more familiar with the problems they
face that the courts generally can be.
18. The above observation was reiterated by the Apex Court in
Medical Council of India vs. Sarang and Ors. [(2001) 8 SCC 427]. The
Hon'ble Apex Court, in Manish Sharma vs. Director, Department of
Medical Education and Research [2017 (4) SCC 577], while considering a
dispute regarding the equivalence between two years Postgraduate Diploma
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
and Postgraduate Degree in Anaesthesiology, has observed that the question
whether the prescribed qualification is equivalent to a particular stream or not
can be considered only by the Competent Authority in terms of the applicable
rules and observed that the Competent Authority shall take a decision.
19. Recently, in Shifana P.S. vs. The State of Kerala and Others
[2024 INSC 580], the Apex Court, while considering the role of the Courts in
assessing equivalent degrees has held in paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15 as
follows:
"13. Indisputably, the qualifying criteria prescribed for the
post advertised vide Notification dated 30th April, 2008 was a
degree in B.Sc(Chemistry). Admittedly, the appellant does not hold
such a degree. It is the case of the appellant that B.Sc(Polymer
Chemistry) degree acquired by her is required to be treated as
equivalent to a degree in B.Sc(Chemistry). However, the said
argument does not hold water and is misconceived.
14. This Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and
Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others [(2019) 2 SCC 404]
held that judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the
prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the
prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification.
Therefore, the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter that
can be determined in the exercise of the power of judicial review.
Whether a particular qualification should or should not be
regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting
authority, to determine. (emphasis supplied)
15. In Unnikrishnan CV and Others v. Union of India and
Others [2023 SCC OnLine SC 343], a three Judge Bench of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
Court, while relying upon the earlier judgment in the case of Guru
Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another
[(2009) 1 SCC 610] held that equivalence is a technical academic
matter, it cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the
academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be
by specific order or resolution, duly published."
20. Originally, in UGC Regulation 2000, the Master's Degree
obtained from Folklore or an equivalent to the folklore degree obtained from a
Foreign university was considered to be a qualification for appointment to the
post of Assistant Professor (Folklore). The equivalent degree from an
Indian University has been included in the UGC Regulations only in the year
2010 and based on this regulation, the university constituted an Expert
Committee and the Expert Committee considered the subjects taught in both
streams and also considering the expertise of the Professors, who are teaching
those students, has taken a decision that the Master's Degree in Tamil is
equivalent to Master's Degree in Folklore.
21. As observed by the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, if
there is no allegation about the malafides against the experts, the equivalence
of qualification is not a matter that can be determined in the exercise of power
of judicial review. This Court finds no infraction, more particularly, the
Notification impugned is not issued in violation of 4.4.2.1 of UGC Regulation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
2010. Since there was no violation of any regulation, the Notification
prescribing the equivalent Master's Degree obtained in Tamil as a
qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Folklore) is
valid. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Notification issued by the
University is valid and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners do not
have any merit and the Order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set
aside and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
22. In the result, these writ appeals are allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. No costs.
[A.D.J.C., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
27.09.2024
(½)
Internet:Yes
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No
stn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) Nos.877 to 879 of 2018
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.,
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.,
stn
W.A.(MD).Nos. 877 to 879 of 2018
27.09.2024
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
