M.Aruna v. Teachers' Recruitment Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 28..11..2007Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRUW.P. No.12850 of 2006andW.P.M.P. No. 14444 of 2006M.Aruna.. Petitioner vs.Teachers' Recruitment Board Rep. by its Member Secretary E.V.K. Sampath MaligaiVI FloorDPI CompoundCollege RoadChennai – 6.. RespondentPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for issue of writ of Mandamus directing the respondent torevise the selection list dated 12.4.2006 and appoint the petitioneras a lecturer in any one of the Government Engineering Colleges orGovernment Polytechnic and appoint the petitioner to the said postwith retrospective effect and provide the backwages and promotion,if any.For Petitioner : Mr. R.KaruppanFor Respondent: Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, GAORDERI have heard the arguments of Mr. R. Karuppan, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, learnedGovernment Advocate, representing the respondent and have perusedthe records.2.The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community andshe has joined the Engineering College and got a degree in B.E.Mechanical Engineering with II Class and M.E. in IndustrialEngineering in the year 1999 with a First Class. In the presentwrit petition, she has sought for a writ of Mandamus directing therespondent to revise the selection list and appoint her as a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Lecturer in any one of the Government Engineering Colleges orGovernment Polytechnics with retrospective effect and all otherbackwages. When the petitioner saw the advertisement made by therespondent calling for applications for the post of Lecturer inGovernment Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics for the year 2005-2006 vide Notification, she had also applied for the same. Thesaid advertisement relates to different subjects includingEngineering subjects and the following qualifications have beenprescribed for the post of Lecturer.SubjectsQualificationsENGLISH, MATHEMATICS,PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY ANDCOMMERCEA First class Master's Degree in theappropriate branch of study.(For all other Subjects)A First class Bachelor's Degree in thebranch of Engineering relating to thepost concerned.3.The petitioner, knowing fully well the qualificationprescribed and that she was not eligible, has filed a writ petitionbefore the Madurai Bench of this Court being W.P. (MD) No. 1570 of2006 challenging the notification. In that writ petition, inW.P.M.P. (MD) No. 1749 of 2006, it was directed that the petitionershall be considered for the post if the selection process commencedfor filling up the said post. But, however, if the petitioner isselected, her results should be withheld pending final orders inthat writ petition. Even when that matter is pending before theMadurai Bench, the present writ petition has been filed with theprayer as stated above. 4.When questioned as to how the petitioner can maintain onewrit petition before the Madurai Bench and another petition beforethe Principal Bench, Mr. R. Karuppan, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner, submitted that they will not proceed with the casepending before the Madurai Bench if this matter is taken up first.Only with that premises, the present writ petition was taken up forfinal hearing. 5.Mr. R. Karuppan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submitted that since the petitioner had secured FirstClass in the Master's Degree, that should be sufficient for thequalification prescribed and the fact that she has got II Class inB.E. is not relevant since she has got higher qualification.Since the petitioner got 73/190 marks in the written examination,she was called for certificate verification in the Scheduled Castevacancy on 06.4.2006. It was during the verification, it was foundthat she does not have the minimum qualification for holding thepost. The cut-off marks for Scheduled Caste (General) and ScheduledCaste (Women) were prescribed as 98/190 and 71/190 respectively.The allegation made by the petitioner that in that process, several https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ others, who were less qualified than the petitioner, were selected,was denied. Since the petitioner lacked the minimum qualification,she was not given the posting order as prayed for. This Court, byan order dated 28.4.2006, directed the respondent to keep one postvacant pending final orders. 6.It is from the records produced by the learned GovernmentAdvocate that one K.Anbukkarasi had secured total 104 marks and shewas the first candidate in Scheduled Caste (Women) and oneP.Vijayalakshmi, who had secured 100 marks, was the second candidatein the vacancy for Scheduled Caste (Women). The third candidatewas one S.Jeyabharathi, who had secured 85 marks. The petitionerhad only secured a total of 76 marks and her results were withheld.But, there are two other Scheduled Caste (Women) candidates, viz.,A.Krishnakumari and A.D. Latha, who have also secured 76 marks.While the total vacancies were 44, 92 candidates were called forCertificate Verification and total selected were 22 + 22 = 44 candidates. Because of the Court order, the petitioner wascalled for interview and her results were withheld because of lackof minimum qualification. In fact, in all the selections made,the State Government was consistent in holding that in respect ofEngineering subjects, First Class in B.E. is a must and only in caseof subjects relating to Humanities and Sciences, Master's Degreewith First Class in the appropriate branch of teaching course wassought for. Even when the respondent Recruitment Board sought forclarification, the Government had communicated a D.O. Letter dated04.10.2005 and in paragraph 2 of the said order, it is found asfollows:“As per the existing orders the qualificationprescribed for the post of Lecturer in GovernmentEngineering Colleges is a first class BachelorsDegree in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology or first class Masters Degree of study inthe case of teaching posts in Humanities andScience.”7.Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon thenotice issued by the All India Council for Technical Education [forshort, 'AICTE'] wherein the qualification and experience for thepost of Lecturer is stated as follows:CADREQUALIFICATION & EXPERIENCELecturerFirst Class Bachelor's degree in the appropriatebranch of Engineering / Technology OR First ClassMaster's Degree in the appropriate branch ofEngineering (Engg) / Technology (Tech.)8.Following this, AICTE's notification was notified in theGovernment Gazette dated 22.9.2004 for public information. Based https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on this, the learned counsel contends that the Government cannot dosomething contrary to AICTE and, therefore, the order of theGovernment is invalid and the petitioner is eligible to hold thesaid post.9.An identical contention was raised before this Court inthe case relating to S.Arulselvam v. Government of Tamil Nadu andanother [W.P. No. 2684 of 2006] wherein this Court, by an orderdated 17.02.2006, repelled the said contention and held in paragraph9 as follows:Para 9:“Keeping the above in mind, the challenge to clause 5of the prospectus relating to the educationalqualification shall be considered. So far as thefixation of educational qualification is concerned,there cannot be any dispute that the educationalqualification must be prescribed in conformity withthe educational qualifications prescribed in the AllIndia Council for Technical Education Act. Thenotification relied upon by Mr. K.M. Ramesh, thelearned counsel for the petitioner stipulates a FirstClass Bachelor's Degree in the appropriate branch ofengineering / technology or a First Class Master'sDegree in the appropriate branch of engineering /technology. Regulations relating to theeducational qualification, among other norms, must bemade by the All India Council for Technical Educationin terms of Section 10(1)(i) of the All India Councilfor Technical Education Act. Learned counsel forthe petitioner relied upon Table E-I of Appendix- Erelating to the Minimum Qualification and Experienceprescribed for Teaching Post in Degree LevelTechnical Institutions relating to the Engineeringand Technology disciplines. In this regard, anotification was issued by AICTE for revision of payscales and service conditions and the same are onlyin the form of guidelines and it cannot be construedto be the Regulations made under Section 10(1)(i) ofthe Act. Moreover, as per the said guidelines, thequalification prescribed is a First Class Bachelor'sDegree in the appropriate branch of engineering /technology or aa First Class Master's Degree in theappropriate branch of engineering / technology.Even if the said guideline is applied, it is for therespondents to prescribe the educationalqualification either by stipulating a First ClassBachelor's Degree in the appropriate branch ofengineering / technology or in the alternative, aFirst Class Master's Degree in the appropriate branchof engineering / technology. When such a discretionis vested, it cannot be contended that prescriptionof a First Class Bachelor's Degree for the post of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Lecturers in the engineering subjects would becontrary to the educational qualification prescribedby the All India Council for Technical Education. Itis further contended that inasmuch as the educationalqualification relating to English, Mathematics,Physics, Chemistry and Commerce subjects requires aFirst Class Master's Degree, prescription of only aFirst Class Bachelor's Degree for engineeringsubjects would be discriminatory, arbitrary andunreasonable. This argument is also based onmisreading of the rules relating to the educationalqualification, framed both under Article 309 of theConstitution of India as well as notified by the AllIndia Council for Technical Education. As per thequalification prescribed by the All India Council forTechnical Education inasmuch as a First ClassMaster's Degree in the appropriate branch ofengineering, the said prescription is only optional.Secondly, as per the rules framed under Article 309of the Constitution of India, again it contemplatesthe educational qualification for the post ofLecturers as a First Class Bachelor's Degree in theappropriate branch of engineering / technology or aFirst Class Master's Degree in the appropriate branchof study in the case of teaching posts in Humanitiesand Science. The word “or” has to be read asoptional and is not in addition to the First ClassBachelor's Degree. In my opinion, clause 5 of theprospectus relating to the qualification has beenprescribed in conformity with the rules framed underArticle 309 of the Constitution of India. So longas the rules are not questioned, this Court cannothold that the impugned clause in the prospectus iseither arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.”10.Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counselfor the petitioner is misconceived and devoid of merits.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order alreadygranted by this Court will stand vacated. Connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.gri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToMember Secretary Teachers' Recruitment Board E.V.K. Sampath Maligai, IV Floor, DPI CompoundCollege RoadChennai – 61 cc to Mr.R. Karuppan, Advocate, Sr. 70216W.P. No.12850 of 2006RS (CO)kk 3/12