Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3327 (MAD)

K. Vaijayanthi v. Teacher's Recruitment Board

2014-09-15

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The writ petitioner challenges the order passed by the 1strespondent in RC.No.1851/86/2011 dated 3.9.2013 and seeks to quash the same. The petitioner further seeks for a direction to the 1strespondent to issue appointment order to her in the post of Lecturer in Physics with all attendant and consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner, who is a post-graduate in M.Sc., Industrial Electronics with M.Phil applied for the post of Lecturer in Physics and she was called for certificate verification by the first respondent and thereafter, she was called for an interview by the first respondent, which was held on 09.06.2009. However, no appointment order was issued by the first respondent to the petitioner. The non-selection of the petitioner is on the sole ground that she could not be considered for the post of Lecturer in Physics in view of the reason that there is no equivalence Government order stating that M.Sc., Industrial Electronics is equal to M.Sc., Physics. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of G.O.Ms.No.133 School Education (M2) Department dated 04.06.2012, wherein, it is stated that in the 33rdEquivalence Committee Meeting held on 27.03.2012, the Committee recommended as follows:- S.no. Name of the Subject To be considered as equivalent to Equivalent/Not Equivalent 07 B.S., (Industrial Electronics) Bharathidhasan University B.Sc., Physics B.Sc., Industrial Electronics and B.Ed., in Physics are eligible to teach physics in School level 4. On a perusal of the above G.O., in G.O.Ms.No.133, School Education (M2) Department, it is clear that the Equivalence Committee's recommendation is only in respect of B.Sc., (Industrial Electronics) recommending to be equivalent to that of B.Sc., Physics and the same is eligible to teach physics in School Level. However, in the case on hand, the petitioner has applied for the post of Lecturer-Physics and hence, the said G.O., cannot be of any assistance to her. 5. Further, I am of the considered view that the equivalence has to be decided only by the Equivalence Committee and this Court cannot decide on equivalence. Further, selection is over and all the selected candidates were appointed. Unless the concerned expert body declares that M.Sc., Industrial Electronics is equivalent to M.Sc., Electronics or M.Sc., Physics, which is the prescribed educational qualification for the post of Lecturer – Physics, the petitioner cannot claim appointment to the post of Lecturer-Physics. 6. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Unless the concerned expert body declares that M.Sc., Industrial Electronics is equivalent to M.Sc., Electronics or M.Sc., Physics, which is the prescribed educational qualification for the post of Lecturer – Physics, the petitioner cannot claim appointment to the post of Lecturer-Physics. 6. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, while dismissing the writ petition, I hereby issue direction to the first respondent to seek report from the Equivalence Committee as to whether M.Sc., Industrial Electronics is equal to M.Sc., (Electronics) or M.Sc., (Physics), within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the Equivalence Committee is directed to give its report thereon within a period of 12 weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.