Dr.R.Uma v. R.Amudha Rani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 05.02.2008C O R A M :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHIW.A.Nos.3779 anf 4115 of 2004Dr.R.Uma... Appellant inWA.3779/04Lakshmi College of Education,rep. by its Secretary,Gandhigram. 624 302... Appellant inWA.4115/04-vs-1. R.Amudha Rani2. The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Dept. Of Education, Chennai.93. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai.204. Madurai Kamaraj University, rep. by its Registrar, Madurai.... Respondents 1-4in both WAs.5. Lakshmi College of Education, rep. by its Secretary, Gandhigram.... 5th Respondent in WA.3779/045. Dr.R.Uma... 5th Respondentin WA.4115/04Appeals against the order of this Court dated 20.9.2004 made inW.P.No.9317 of 1997.This petition presented to this court underArticle 226 of constitution of India to issue a writ of declarationthat the 5th Respondent has no legal right to continue lecturer in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ physical sciences(Education) and appoint the petitioner in her place.For Appellant in:: Mr.R.Thiagarajan, S.C.WA.3779/04 andfor M/s.K.Bhaskar &for R-5 in WA.P.Shankar Narayanan4115/04For Respondent :: Mr.B.Ravi No.1 in both WAsfor R.SubramanianFor appellant in WA.4115/04 andR-5 in WA.3779/04:: Mr.V.Vijayashankar For Respondent No.4 in both Was.:: Mr.S.Sethuraman For Respondents No.2 and 3 in both Was.:: Mr.Jothi Manian, G.A.*****JUDGMENT(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.)The above writ appeals are directed against the order of thelearned single Judge dated 20.09.2004 made in W.P.No.9317 of 1997.W.A.No.3779 of 2004 has been preferred by the fifth respondent inthe writ petition and W.A.No.4115 of 2004 has been preferred by thefourth respondent-College, challenging the appointment of the fifthrespondent in the writ petition namely Dr.Uma, to the post ofLecturer in Physical Sciences (Education) in the fourth respondent-College. 2.For the sake of convenience, the appellant in W.A.No. 3779 of2004 and the appellant in W.A.No.4115 of 2004 will be referred to asappellant/incumbent and appellant/College. 3.The core contention of the first respondent/writ petitioner isthat the appellant/incumbent does not possess the required minimumqualification for being selected and appointed as Lecturer inPhysical Sciences (Education) in the appellant-College. The saidcontention is strongly rebutted by the appellants contending that theappellant/ incumbent possessed the minimum required qualification forbeing selected and appointed as Lecturer in the college. Agreeing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the case of the writ petitioner, and rejecting the case of theappellants, the learned single Judge quashed the appointment of theappellant/incumbent to the post of Lecturer in Physical Sciences(Education) and directed the appellant-College to appoint the firstrespondent/writ petitioner to the post of Lecturer in PhysicalSciences (Education) in the place of the appellant/incumbent. Hence,these appeals.4.It is pertinent to note that even though the third respondentin these appeals, viz. Madurai Kamaraj University, by proceedingsdated 10.2.1997, initially refused to approve the the appointment ofthe appellant/ incumbent, namely, Dr.R.Uma as Lecturer in PhysicalSciences (Education), on a further representation, the University, byproceedings dated 23.4.1998, approved the appointment of theappellant/incumbent to the said post.5.Heard the respective learned counsel appearing for theappellants herein and for the writ petitioner as well as the learnedGovernment Advocate, who reiterated their submissions made before thelearned single Judge.6.There cannot be any dispute that the requirement to satisfythe minimum qualification is mandatory or otherwise the appointmentof any person, who lacks minimum required qualification, is not onlyinvalid but also illegal. 7.1.To decide whether the appellant/incumbent possessed theminimum required qualification at the time of her selection, it isapt to refer what is the required qualification for the post ofLecturer in Physical Sciences (Education). 7.2. As per the proceedings of the third respondent/ Universitydated 15.10.1993, the required qualification for the post of Lecturerin Training College/Lecturer in Education, is"M.A./M.Sc./M.Com with atleast 55% of mark and M.Ed. withatleast 55% Marks"and for the post of Lecturer in Optional Subjects,"M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. in the relevant subject with atleast 55%marks or its equivalent grade and M.Ed with atleast 55%marks or the equivalent grade."The above required qualifaction prescribed by the thirdrespondent/University is in tune with the qualification prescribed bythe University Grants Commission, which reads thus:-"Good academic record with at least 55% of the marksor an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F at Master's degreelevel, in the relevant subject from an Indian University,or, an equivalent degree from a foreign University.Besides fulfilling the above qualifications,candidates should have cleared the eligibility test (NET)for Lecturers conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar testaccredited by the UGC.Note: NET shall remain the compulsory requirement forappointment as Lecturer even for candidates having Ph.D.degree. However, the candidate who have completed M.Phil.Degree or have submitted Ph.D. thesis in the concernedsubject upto 31st December, 1993, are exempted fromappearing in the NET examination."8.For the purpose of clarity, we propose to extract thequalification of the appellant/incumbent and the firstrespondent/writ petitioner as hereunder:- ----------------------------------------------------------Qualification ofQualification ofappellant/incumbentfirst respondent/Writ Petitioner ----------------------------------------------------------1.M.Sc. in Applied ScienceM.Sc. In Physical Science2.M.Ed.M.Ed. in Education3. -M.Phil in Education4. Ph.D. in Chemistry NET in Applied Science &--Rural Development ----------------------------------------------------------9.Of course, the post sought to be filled up is a Lecturer inPhysical Sciences (Education). While the appellant/incumbentpossessed M.Sc. in Applied Science, the first respondent/writpetitioner possessed M.Sc. in Physical Science, which is the relevantsubject. Both the candidates also possessed M.Ed. in Education andwhile the first respondent/writ petitioner possessed M.Phil. inEducation, the appellant/incumbent possessed qualification ofDoctorate, viz., Ph.D. in her parent subject Chemistry, apart frompassing National Educational Test (NET), at Master's level in AppliedScience in Rural Development. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.The main contention of the appellants is that M.Sc. inApplied Sciences is equivalent to M.Sc. in Physical Sciences.However, the learned single Judge rejecting the argument of theappellants and accepting the case of the writ petitioner held thatthe writ petitioner alone possessed the required qualification in therelevant subject, viz. Physical Sciences and hence, refusal to selectand appoint the writ petitioner is arbitrary and therefore, theselection and appointment of the appellant/incumbent is illegal onthe ground that she does not possess the minimum requiredqualification, viz. M.Sc. in Physical Sciences.11.In this connection, we have the benefit of the proceedingsdated 2.6.1988 of the Bharathidasan University, which also comesunder the University Grants Commission. In the said proceedings dated2.6.1988, the recognition granted to M.Sc. Applied Science for RuralDevelopment course offered by the Gandhigram Rural Institute,Gandhigram as equivalent to M.Sc. Chemistry degree course ofBharathidasan University for the purpose of higher studies inBharathidasan University, was ratified. Unfortunately, this aspectof the case of the appellant/incumbent was not appreciated by thelearned single Judge in a proper perspective while holding that theappellant/incumbent does not possess the required minimumqualification.12.Once the doubt, whether M.Sc. in Applied Sciences isequivalent to M.Sc. in Physical Sciences, stands clarified by theproceedings of the Bharathidasan University dated 2.6.1988, we do notsee any reason to disqualify the appellant/incumbent holding that shedoes not possess the minimum required qualification; on the otherhand, she being a Ph.D. graduate in Chemistry and also having passedNET in the Applied Science in Rural Development, in our consideredopinion, she is more qualified than the writ petitioner. Therefore,finding it difficult to sustain the impugned order, we are convincedto allow the writ appeals.13.In the result, the writ appeals stand allowed and the orderof the learned single Judge dated 20.9.2004 made in W.P.No.9317 of1997 is set aside. No costs. However, we give liberty to the firstrespondent/writ petitioner to approach the appellant/College for anysuitable vacancy that may exist or arise in future and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant/College shall consider her case for such suitablevacancies. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarsraTo1. The Secretary Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Education, Chennai.2. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Madurai.3. The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai.+2CC to Mr.V.Vijay shankar, Advocate. SR.No.5420, 5422+2CC to Mr.S.Sethuraman,Advocate. SR.No.5549, 5550+1CC to Govt.Pleader. SR.No.5585+2CC to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate. SR.No.5622W.A.Nos.3779 and 4115 of 2004 akr [co]gkg/21.2