IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.12810 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 K.Sankar ...Petitioner Vs. 1.Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. By its Chairman, Chennai -6. 2.Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai 6. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner along with other persons to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry on the basis of the merit. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Selvaraju,Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Mani For Respondents: Mrs.E.Renganayaki, G.A.(Edn) O R D E R
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to consider and appoint him with other persons to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry on the basis of merit and pass appropriate orders.
3. When the matter came up on 10.07.2009, this Court directed notice to be issued to the learned Government Advocate and that the respondents were directed to keep one post of Lecturer in Chemistry vacant, provided, if there was any vacancy as on that date.
4. It is stated by the petitioner that he had passed B.Sc.Chemistry in the year 1991, M.Sc. (Industrial Chemistry) in 1993, M.Phil (Chemistry) in 1996 and had also done Ph.D in Chemistry Botany (Interdisciplinary) during the year 2003. He had joined as Lecturer (Chemistry) in a private College viz., Sri Pushpam College, Poondi on 21.07.1993 and worked up to 21.06.2005. Thereafter, he joined as Senior Lecturer (Chemistry) in another private college at Nagapattinam and worked up to 09.06.2006. Thereafter, he had joined in an Engineering College as an Assistant Professor of Chemistry, and has been working from 12.06.2006.
5. Whileso, the first respondent had called for applications to fill up various posts including the post of Lecturer in Chemistry to be appointed in various Government Arts and Science Colleges in Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education Service. The petitioner had sent his application with supporting testimonials. The petitioner was directed to appear for his Certificate verification on 06.03.2009. Thereafter, he was called for an interview. He had also participated in the interview on 10.06.2009. When the result was published, his name did not find a place in the select list. Thereafter, he came to know through the internet that since his PG degree was in M.Sc Industrial Chemistry and the same was not considered equivalent to M.Sc chemistry, therefore, he was not selected. The petitioner also came to know that for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry, 151 persons have been provisionally selected. Therefore, he has come forward to file the present writ petition.
6. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the first respondent, a communication dated 20.01.2010 was sent to the Special Government Pleader. In that communication, it was stated that the petitioner had attended the certificate verification on 06.03.2009 and the interview on 10.06.2009. During the certificate verification, the Teacher’s Recruitment Board (TRB) had wrongly noted his subject as Chemistry at the Post Graduate level instead of Industrial Chemistry. It was due to this mistake, he was called for the interview as being eligible by the Certificate Verification Board. Only at the time of the interview, it was found that he was in possession of M.Sc Degree in Industrial Chemistry. It was clearly mentioned in the notification No.4/0809 issued by the TRB that candidates with Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject alone were eligible to apply. The Director of Collegiate Education based on the equivalence certificate issued by the Registrar of Madras University and opined that the degree of M.Sc.(Industrial Chemistry) is not equivalent to M.Sc (Chemistry). It was based upon this material, the TRB had considered his candidature as ineligible for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry.
7. In support of the written instruction, a copy of the official communication dated 16.09.2008 sent to the Director of Collegiate Education was also produced. In that it was stated that the M.Sc.,Industrial Chemistry for which examinations are conducted by Bharathidhasan University and Alagappa University are not eligible for holding Lecturer post.
8. On the contrary, Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner produced an equivalent certificate given by the Madras University dated 28.08.2009 with reference No.C & R III/ Eli/Recogn/ Equi/M.Sc/2009 in respect of one K.Elangovan. It is necessary to reproduce the said letter, which is as follows:-
“He is, by direction, informed that as per the remarks offered by the Chairman, Board of Studies in Chemistry (PG) and Prof & Head, Department of Inorganic Chemistry of this University that those who have qualified M.Sc.,degree in Industrial Chemistry may be eligible to teach B.Sc., Chemistry course, pending decision in the matter of equivalency of M.Sc., Industrial Chemistry to Chemistry by the Board of Studies in Chemistry (PG) and Syndicate.”
9. He also submitted that a similar letter dated 08.12.1997 given by the University of Madras to the Principal of C.AbdulHakeem College, Melvisharam, approving the appointment of one Mr.A.Mohamed Hussain in the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. The said candidate had also done M.Sc.,(Industrial Chemistry). The Madras University had certified the qualification.
10. Though the two letters produced were relating to two specific individuals, it was not based upon any universal decision. However, it must be noted that under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, any teacher appointed in a private college must have the qualification prescribed by the University. Therefore, whenever any teacher is appointed in a private college, as a matter of routine, the concerned University’s approval is sought for the qualification possessed by a Teacher to be appointed. Therefore, when the University of Madras gave its approval in respect of two candidates belonging to two different colleges, the University exercises a statutory function and it cannot be stated as an isolated case.
11. The learned counsel also produced a certificate given by Bharathidasan University addressed to the petitioner’s college, which is as follows:
“I am, by direction, to inform you that the candidates possessing M.Sc.,Pharmaceutical Chemistry or M.Sc.,Industrial Chemistry degrees with minimum grade/class as prescribed by the university, are also eligible for appointment as Assistant Professors and Professors to teach general Chemistry in the affiliated colleges of this University.”
Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the Director of Collegiate Education seeking approval only from the Madras University and that University repudiating its stand with reference to its own earlier certificate and without reference to any materials cannot be accepted. The petitioner should not be made to suffer due to the turf war between the two Universities and that some way out must be found out.
12. It was due to this competing and conflicting claims, this Court by an order dated 21.01.2010 decided to call for an opinion from the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher education (TANSCHE) which is a body constituted under Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1992. Under the said Act, TANSCHE is empowered to advise the Government on academic matters. In that order the direction in paragraphs 6 and 7, reads as follows:-
“6. In the light of the conflicting materials, without going into the merits of those allegations, this Court, not being empowered to decide the equivalence in the academic matters, the only option available to this Court is to get an Experts opinion from the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education constituted under Act 40 of 1992. Under the Said Act, the TANSCHE is empowered to coordinate and determine any standards in institution for higher education and also to advise the Government on such matters.
7.In the light of the same, the Tami Nadu State Council for Higher Education is hereby directed to consider whether the candidates who are having Postgraduate degree in Industrial Chemistry obtained from the Bharathidasan University are eligible to teach Chemistry students in the various Government Arts and Science Colleges in the State coming under the Tamil Nadu College Education Services. In doing so, the State Council shall convene a meeting of the Heads of the Board of Studies of these two Universities and also to independently apply their mind and submit a report to this Court whether the candidates who are having Postgraduate degree in Industrial Chemistry are eligible to teach Chemistry in the various colleges run by the State Government. Such a report shall be sent to this Court on or before 05.02.2010.”
13. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education sent a letter dated 03.02.2010 addressed to the Registry enclosing its resolution taken by the full Council. Resolution No.2 which was adopted by the Council in its meeting held on 01.02.2010, reads as follows:-
“After the deliberations, the Chairpersons of Board of Studies of Chemistry unanimously passed a resolution recommending that after perusing and comparing the syllabus of M.Sc.Industrial Chemistry offered by Alagappa Univesity, Karaikudi and M.Sc Chemistry it is observed that 70-75% of Chemistry subject being included in M.Sc.Industrial Chemistry of Algappa University. Hence M.Sc.Industrial Chemistry offered by Alagappa University is considered equivalent to M.Sc.Chemistry (70-75%).
Further after perusing and comparing the syllabus of M.Sc.Industrial Chemistry offered by Bharathidasan University, Triuchirappalli and M.Sc.Chemistry it is observed that about 60-65% of Chemistry subject being included in M.Sc.Industrial Chemistry of Bharathidasan University. Hence M.Sc.Industrial Chemistry offered by Bharathidasan University is considered equivalent to M.Sc.Chemistry (60-65%).
In the light of the above opinion of subject experts,it was resolved that the M.Sc.Industrial Chemistry is an equivalent subject to M.Sc. Chemistry to teach Chemistry in Colleges and this may be communicated to the Hon’ble Madras High Court.”
Since the opinion given by a statutory body is in favour of the equivalence of the two degrees, the case of the petitioner must succeed.
14. The learned Government Advocate stated that by that opinion alone, the petitioner cannot be granted the appointment to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. This Court is not inclined to pass any positive direction to appoint the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in Chemistry. The present exercise was undertaken by this Court only because the Court lacked power to adjudicate on an academic matter. Yet at the same time, the respondent must apply their mind before deciding equivalence or rejecting the equivalence of any two degrees. Since there were rival stand between the two universities, the only course open to this Court was to call for an opinion from a statutorily appointed body. By this exercise, all that the petitioner had achieved was that the Industrial Chemistry for which he has a Post Graduate degree must be considered to be equivalent to M.Sc Chemistry so as to be eligible to teach Chemsitry in colleges as a Lecturer under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education service.
15. In the light of the above, the first respondent is directed to interview the petitioner and thereafter, publish his results in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of this court. This exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
svki
To
1.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
Chennai -6.
2.Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai 6