Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1861 (MAD)

S. Annamalai v. Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai

2022-06-30

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent issued in Letter No.46993/M2/2013 P&AR Department dated 06.12.2013 and quash the same and consequently directing the 1st respondent to select and appoint the petitioner to the post for which he is eligible under the Combined Subordinate Services-I or under Charitable and Religious Endowment Subordinate Services under Group-VII B services.) 1. The order of rejection dated 06.12.2013 rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner for selection under the Combined Subordinate Services-I or under Charitable and Religious Endowment Subordinate Services under Group-VII B services is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that he passed S.S.L.C. during the year 1991 and subsequently passed typewriting higher grade both in English and Tamil. Thereafter, the writ petitioner passed B.Lit [Tamil] in the year 2010 through Open University and after completing the degree of B.Lit, the petitioner completed +2 examination privately in the year 2011. 3. The petitioner participated in the process of selection pursuant to the recruitment notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [TNPSC] fro Combined Subordinate Services Examination for the year 2011-2013 and also for Group-VII B services for the post of Executive Officer Grade-III under the Tamil Nadu Charitable and Religious Endowment Subordinate Service 2009-2011. The petitioner was successful in the written examination, thus he was called for certificate verification. During verification of the certificates, the authorities found that the petitioner possessed the degree from Open University and as per the Government Order, Open University degrees are invalid and therefore the petitioner is not eligible for appointment into Government services. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Open University held that the Open University degrees are invalid and the degrees obtained during the regular pattern of education 10+2+3 which is recognized by the University Grants Commission [UGC] under the UGC Regulations alone are to be considered as valid degree for the purpose of public appointment. The Government implemented the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and accordingly issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 18.08.2009 stating that the candidates who possess the recognized degree under the UGC Regulations alone are eligible for appointment in Government services. The Government implemented the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and accordingly issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 18.08.2009 stating that the candidates who possess the recognized degree under the UGC Regulations alone are eligible for appointment in Government services. Thus the candidates who have undergone the regular pattern of education in a recognized University/Institution alone are eligible to secure public employments. 5. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner after completing his S.S.L.C. directly secured appointment for the degree course, namely, B.Lit and completed the same. After completing the degree course in the year 2010, he appeared as a private candidate and cleared +2 course. Thus, the degree obtained from the Open University became an invalid degree which cannot be considered for the purpose of providing public employments. When the Open University degree acquired by the petitioner is invalid, then the decision of the authorities in rejecting the candidature cannot be found fault with and in fact in consonance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was implemented by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the petitioner has not established any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.