Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4966 (MAD)

S. Shanmugam v. Director of School Education

2012-12-18

R.SUDHAKAR

body2012
Judgment This writ petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion to the post of P.G. Assistant (Chemistry) drawn as on 1.1.2011 for the year 2011-2012 and published on 22.6.2011, in the appropriate place and promote the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. Heard Mr. C. Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner passed B.Sc. (Chemistry) in April 1992 and M. Sc. (Industrial Chemistry) in April, 1995. He also obtained B. Ed. Decree in January, 1995. In July, 2004 petitioner joined the school service as Junior Grade B.T. Assistant after recruitment through the Teachers Recruitment Board on consolidated pay. He was regularised in June, 2006. For promotion to the post of Post Graduate Assistant, a panel was drawn for the year 2008-09 and the petitioner name was placed in Serial No.196. Since his turn did not reach, he was not promoted as P.G. Assistant. Similarly, for the year 2009-2010 petitioner name was included in the panel, but was not appointed as he did not come within the reach for the promotion. However, for the year 2010-2011 a panel was prepared on 1st January 2011 and the name of the petitioner was recommended along with service particulars and sent to the second respondent Chief Educational Officer. The second respondent forwarded the same to the first respondent Director of School Education. The first respondent returned the proposal on the ground that the petitioner possessed M. Sc. (Industrial Chemistry) and did not qualify in M. Sc. (Chemistry). This appears to be only reason why the petitioner was not considered for the promotion as P.G. Assistant. 4. Similar issue arose in W.P.No.12810 of 2009 (K. Sankar vs. -Teachers Recruitment Board and another) and in that case, the very same issue was considered and the court took opinion of the Tamil Nadu State Council Board for Higher Education and based on the recommendation, the following order was passed on 8.2.2010:- "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. 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 University, Karaikudi and M. Sc. Chemistry it is observed that 70-75% of Chemistry subject being included in M. Sc. Industrial Chemistry of Alagappa 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, Tiruchirappalli 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. 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. c. Chemistry so as to be eligible to teach Chemistry 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." 5. The facts in the present case is identical to one decided by this Court earlier as above. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that no appeal has been filed against that order dated 8.2.2010. 6. This writ petition is ordered in terms of the order dated 8.2.2010 passed in W.P.No.12810 of 2009 as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.