High Court · 2025
Case Details
Cited in this judgment
WP No. 20092 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25-06-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANWP No. 20092 of 2025ANDWMP Nos.22657 & 22659 of 2025M.BaranirajPetitioner(s)Vs1.The ChairmanTamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, Chennai-600 003.2.The SecretaryTamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, Chennai-600 0033.The Controller of ExaminationsTamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, Chennai-600 0034.The Principal SecretaryTANSIDCO, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Page No.1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.5.The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,Chennai – 600 009.6.The Member Secretary,Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, Lady Willingdon College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.[R5 & R6 suo-motu impleaded as respondent by order dated 25.06.2025 inWP No.20092/2025]Respondent(s)PRAYERto issue a writ, or any other order or orders more particularly in the nature of writ thereby quash the mail order dated 01.06.2025 sent on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 by issuing a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records relating to the application of the petitioner in registration number 1901002259 for the post of Assistant Manager in the 4th respondent's office (Post Code 3349) and to permit to submit the original certificates for physical certificate verification counselling, consequently to consider the name of the petitioner for the post applied.For Petitioner(s):Mr.G.BaskarFor Respondent(s):Ms.G.Hema, Standing Counsel Page No.2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025For R1 to R3 Mr.C.Jayaprakash Govt.Advocate For R5 & R6 ORDERThe instant writ petition has been filed on the ground that, despite being allowed to participate in the Combined Technical Service Examination and securing 267.00 marks, with third rank overall, the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the physical certificate verification counselling, without assigning any reason.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the respondents dispute the petitioner's qualification namely a Master of Business Administration (MBA) in Marketing and Human Resources Management as not being equivalent to an MBA in Marketing, it is pertinent to note that the respondents had initially permitted the petitioner to apply for the post via an email dated 23.08.2024, stating that he was eligible. It is only through a counter statement that they claim the petitioner's degree is not equivalent. It is the Page No.3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025further submission of the petitioner that having obtained a degree in both Marketing and Human Resources Management, which encompasses the required specialization in Marketing, the respondent's contention that it is not equivalent is against the spirit of the degree.3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission would strongly object the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that it is the primordial duty of the petitioner to submit an equivalence certificate, when the degree obtained by the candidate does not match the notified qualification. 4. It is the further submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the qualification prescribed in the notification is not determined by the Commission, and the qualification indicated in the notification is as per the user Department's requirement. Therefore, the Commission's role is limited. 5. The learned Standing counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Page No.4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025Supreme Court of India in the case of Shifana P.S. vs. State of Kerala and Others1, wherein the Apex Court has held that the candidate cannot argue because of the similarity of the nomenclature of the degree so as to justify that their degree is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the notification.6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both sides.7. Admittedly, the petitioner secured 267.00 marks and ranked third overall. The sole issue now is whether the petitioner's qualification in the MBA (Marketing and Human Resources Management) is equivalent to the MBA (Marketing). As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, it is the petitioner's duty to submit an equivalence certificate to establish that his qualification meets the prescribed requirements. 8. In the case on hand, this Court is of the prima facie view that the 1. (2024) 8 SCC 309Page No.5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025petitioner's qualification in MBA (Marketing and Human Resources Management) appears to be equivalent to MBA in Marketing. However, determining equivalence is a matter for the Expert Committee to decide, and this Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Committee. Apart from that as per Shifana's case (cited supra), nomenclature will not be a decisive factor to consider equivalence. 9. Here we cant overlook the fact that the petitioner stood third in the overall raking. For public employment, we need best talent. The authority cannot lose such talent due to issues of equivalence on the date of notification, as in the recent years, the academician on research and effective deliberation provided multidisciplinary degree. However, the user department, without updating their rule by incorporating all new degrees, has been following outdated old degree, which are more than a decade old. 10. In such view of the matter, taking into consideration of the rank obtained by the petitioner and considering the principles of equity, this Court Page No.6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025deems it appropriate to suo-motu implead the Equivalence Committee and the Principal Secretary. Therefore, the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 and the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, Lady Willingdon College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005 are suo-motu impleaded as respondents 5 and 6. Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 5 and 6. This is to consider equivalence, as this issue is not the existence of the required qualification on the date of notification, but rather the proof of the same. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Another2, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:“7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding 2. (2005) 9 SCC 779Page No.7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.”11. Hence, this Court directs Equivalence Committee to consider the petitioner's request for determining the equivalence between his MBA (Marketing and Human Resources Management) degree obtained from Bharatiyar University, and the prescribed MBA degree in Marketing, within a period of three months, following receipt of the request from the petitioner. The Page No.8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025petitioner is directed to submit his request to the Equivalence Committee within one week from today.12. Notwithstanding the above, the 1st respondent is directed to proceed with the selection process, considering the petitioner as a prospective candidate as he secured third rank in overall ranking. However, the petitioner's result shall be withheld and may be released subject to the outcome of the Equivalence Committee's report. This Court is of the considered opinion that this approach would balance the need for fairness in the selection process and merit with the requirement of adhering to the prescribed qualifications.13. In result, this Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.25-06-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoJeniPage No.9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025To1.The ChairmanTamilnadu Public Service Commission, Tnpsc Road, Chennai-600 0032.The SecretaryTamilnadu Public Service Commission, Tnpsc Road, Chennai-600 0033.The Controller Of ExaminationsTamilnadu Public Service Commission, Tnpsc Road, Chennai-600 0034.The Principal SecretaryTansidco, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.5.The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,Chennai – 600 009.6.The Member Secretary,Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, Lady Willingdon College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.Page No.10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025C.KUMARAPPAN J.JeniWP No. 20092 of 202525-06-2025Page No.11 of 11
WP No. 20092 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 25-06-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANWP No. 20092 of 2025ANDWMP Nos.22657 & 22659 of 2025M.BaranirajPetitioner(s)Vs1.The ChairmanTamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, Chennai-600 003.2.The SecretaryTamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, Chennai-600 0033.The Controller of ExaminationsTamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, Chennai-600 0034.The Principal SecretaryTANSIDCO, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Page No.1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.5.The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,Chennai – 600 009.6.The Member Secretary,Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, Lady Willingdon College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.[R5 & R6 suo-motu impleaded as respondent by order dated 25.06.2025 inWP No.20092/2025]Respondent(s)PRAYERto issue a writ, or any other order or orders more particularly in the nature of writ thereby quash the mail order dated 01.06.2025 sent on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 by issuing a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records relating to the application of the petitioner in registration number 1901002259 for the post of Assistant Manager in the 4th respondent's office (Post Code 3349) and to permit to submit the original certificates for physical certificate verification counselling, consequently to consider the name of the petitioner for the post applied.For Petitioner(s):Mr.G.BaskarFor Respondent(s):Ms.G.Hema, Standing Counsel Page No.2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025For R1 to R3 Mr.C.Jayaprakash Govt.Advocate For R5 & R6 ORDERThe instant writ petition has been filed on the ground that, despite being allowed to participate in the Combined Technical Service Examination and securing 267.00 marks, with third rank overall, the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the physical certificate verification counselling, without assigning any reason.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the respondents dispute the petitioner's qualification namely a Master of Business Administration (MBA) in Marketing and Human Resources Management as not being equivalent to an MBA in Marketing, it is pertinent to note that the respondents had initially permitted the petitioner to apply for the post via an email dated 23.08.2024, stating that he was eligible. It is only through a counter statement that they claim the petitioner's degree is not equivalent. It is the Page No.3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025further submission of the petitioner that having obtained a degree in both Marketing and Human Resources Management, which encompasses the required specialization in Marketing, the respondent's contention that it is not equivalent is against the spirit of the degree.3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission would strongly object the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that it is the primordial duty of the petitioner to submit an equivalence certificate, when the degree obtained by the candidate does not match the notified qualification. 4. It is the further submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the qualification prescribed in the notification is not determined by the Commission, and the qualification indicated in the notification is as per the user Department's requirement. Therefore, the Commission's role is limited. 5. The learned Standing counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Page No.4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025Supreme Court of India in the case of Shifana P.S. vs. State of Kerala and Others1, wherein the Apex Court has held that the candidate cannot argue because of the similarity of the nomenclature of the degree so as to justify that their degree is equivalent to the qualification prescribed in the notification.6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both sides.7. Admittedly, the petitioner secured 267.00 marks and ranked third overall. The sole issue now is whether the petitioner's qualification in the MBA (Marketing and Human Resources Management) is equivalent to the MBA (Marketing). As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, it is the petitioner's duty to submit an equivalence certificate to establish that his qualification meets the prescribed requirements. 8. In the case on hand, this Court is of the prima facie view that the 1. (2024) 8 SCC 309Page No.5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025petitioner's qualification in MBA (Marketing and Human Resources Management) appears to be equivalent to MBA in Marketing. However, determining equivalence is a matter for the Expert Committee to decide, and this Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Committee. Apart from that as per Shifana's case (cited supra), nomenclature will not be a decisive factor to consider equivalence. 9. Here we cant overlook the fact that the petitioner stood third in the overall raking. For public employment, we need best talent. The authority cannot lose such talent due to issues of equivalence on the date of notification, as in the recent years, the academician on research and effective deliberation provided multidisciplinary degree. However, the user department, without updating their rule by incorporating all new degrees, has been following outdated old degree, which are more than a decade old. 10. In such view of the matter, taking into consideration of the rank obtained by the petitioner and considering the principles of equity, this Court Page No.6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025deems it appropriate to suo-motu implead the Equivalence Committee and the Principal Secretary. Therefore, the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 and the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, Lady Willingdon College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005 are suo-motu impleaded as respondents 5 and 6. Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 5 and 6. This is to consider equivalence, as this issue is not the existence of the required qualification on the date of notification, but rather the proof of the same. In this regard, it is useful to refer to the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Another2, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:“7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding 2. (2005) 9 SCC 779Page No.7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage, etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.”11. Hence, this Court directs Equivalence Committee to consider the petitioner's request for determining the equivalence between his MBA (Marketing and Human Resources Management) degree obtained from Bharatiyar University, and the prescribed MBA degree in Marketing, within a period of three months, following receipt of the request from the petitioner. The Page No.8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025petitioner is directed to submit his request to the Equivalence Committee within one week from today.12. Notwithstanding the above, the 1st respondent is directed to proceed with the selection process, considering the petitioner as a prospective candidate as he secured third rank in overall ranking. However, the petitioner's result shall be withheld and may be released subject to the outcome of the Equivalence Committee's report. This Court is of the considered opinion that this approach would balance the need for fairness in the selection process and merit with the requirement of adhering to the prescribed qualifications.13. In result, this Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.25-06-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoJeniPage No.9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025To1.The ChairmanTamilnadu Public Service Commission, Tnpsc Road, Chennai-600 0032.The SecretaryTamilnadu Public Service Commission, Tnpsc Road, Chennai-600 0033.The Controller Of ExaminationsTamilnadu Public Service Commission, Tnpsc Road, Chennai-600 0034.The Principal SecretaryTansidco, Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.5.The Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat,Chennai – 600 009.6.The Member Secretary,Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, Lady Willingdon College Campus, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai – 600 005.Page No.10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 20092 of 2025C.KUMARAPPAN J.JeniWP No. 20092 of 202525-06-2025Page No.11 of 11