High Court · 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 17.02.2006CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESANW.P.No.2684 of 2006 S.ArulselvanKovilpatti..Petitioner-Vs-1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Education Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 0092. Teachers Recruitment Board Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Chairman 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai DPI Compound, College Road Chennai 600 006..RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India,praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, callingfor the records relating to the Prospectus issued by the 2ndrespondent for Direct Recruitment of Lecturers in GovernmentEngineering Colleges/Polytechnics (2005-06) and to quash Clause 5regarding Qualifications insofar as it excludes First Class Master'sDegree in the branch of Engineering as alternative qualification andto direct the Respondents to include First Class Master's Degree asan alternative qualification for the post of Lecturers in GovernmentEngineering Colleges/Polytechnics (2005-06). For Petitioner::Mr.K.M.RameshFor Respondents::Mr.R.MuthukumaraswamyAddl. Advocate Generalassisted byMr.V.KarthikeyanAddl. Government Pleader(Education)ORDER The petitioner is a B.E.(Mech.Engg.) Degree holder with 57.75%marks. He is also a M.E.(Prod.) Degree holder with 63.66% marks.He has approached this Court questioning Clause 5 of the prospectusissued by the Teachers Recruitment Board for direct recruitment ofLecturers in the Government Engineering Colleges/Polytechnics (2005- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 06), as the said clause excludes the First Class Master's Degree inthe branch of engineering as an alternative qualification.2. I heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, the learned counsel for thepetitioner and Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, the learned AdditionalAdvocate General for the respondents. 3. The Government of Tamil Nadu decided to recruit Lecturersand Senior Lecturers for appointment in Government EngineeringColleges/Polytechnics (2005-06) by direct recruitment through theTeachers' Recruitment Board, Chennai. In the prospectus, amongother eligibility norms, the minimum educational qualification isalso prescribed. Clause 5 of the prospectus reads as follows:-SubjectsQualificationsLECTU-RERSENGLISH, MATHEMATICSPHYSICS, CHEMISTRYand COMMERCEA First Class Master's Degree in theappropriate branch of study.LECTU-RERS(For all othersubjects)A First Class Bachelor's degree inthe branch of Engineering relatingto the post concerned.SENIORLECTU-RERSSPINNING and WEAVING(a) A First Class Bachelor's degreein Textile Technology and(b) 5 years experience inteaching/industry/research at thelevel of Lecturer or equivalentgrade in Spinning & Weaving.SENIORLECTU-RERSTEXTILE CHEMISTRY(a) A First Class Bachelor's degreein Textile Technology and(b) 5 years experience inteaching/industry/research at thelevel of Lecturer or equivalentgrade in Textile Processing.4. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner has submitted that Clause 5 prescribes the minimumeligibility of a First class Master's Degree in the appropriatebranch of study for the post of Lecturers in English, Mathematics,Physics, Chemistry and Commerce, but it has restricted thequalification for the post of Lecturers for all other subjects byfixing the qualification as a First Class Bachelor's Degree in thebranch of engineering relating to the post concerned. Prescriptionof a different educational qualification for the post of Lecturerson the basis of the subjects is discriminatory. He would alsosubmit that inasmuch as the All India Council for TechnicalEducation Notification also prescribes the educational qualificationrequiring a First Class Master's Degree in the appropriate branch ofengineering/technology, the State Government cannot fix anyeducational qualification which are not in tune with the normsprescribed by AICTE. In this context, he would refer to Table E-Iof Appendix-E of the AICTE Notification relating to the MinimumQualification and Experience prescribed for Teaching Post in Degree https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Level Technical Institutions relating to the Engineering andTechnology disciplines, which reads as follows:-SL.NO.CADREQUALIFICATIONEXPERIENCEQUALIFICATION &EXPERIENCE FORCANDIDATES FROMINDUSTRY &PROFESSION1LecturerFirst ClassBachelor's degree inthe appropriatebranch ofengineering/technology orFirst Class Master'sDegree in theappropriate branch ofengineering/technologyNo minimumrequirementHe would submit that if the educational qualification relating tothe mechanical engineering branch to which the petitioner would beeligible to apply, is allowed to stand, he would not be qualified,as he is only a Second Class Bachelor's Degree holder in B.E.(Mech.Engg.). Hence, he is aggrieved by the said clause.5. Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, wouldsubmit that the notification relating to the minimum qualificationrelied upon by the petitioner are only guidelines and the same havenot been issued in terms of Section 10 of the All India Council forTechnical Education Act, 1987. In the absence of the same, thepetitioner cannot rely upon the said notification relating to theeducational qualification. He would also submit that in any eventthe notification basically relates to the scheme for revision of payscales. Even in the guidelines, a discretion is left with the StateGovernment to adopt and implement the scheme and in such event, theState Government shall be provided with financial assistance. Hewould further submit that the Government had issued an amendment tothe Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Educational Service relating tothe post of Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges inG.O.Ms.No.643, Higher Education (B1) Department dated 26.12.1997.The said rules were framed under Article 309 of The Constitution ofIndia. As per the said rule, the following is the prescribedqualification:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SL.NO.CADRE QUALIFICATION1Lectureri. First Class Bachelor's Degree inappropriate branch of Engineering/Technology.orii. First Class Master's Degree inappropriate branch of study in the case ofteaching posts in Humanities and Science.He would therefore submit that inasmuch as the said rule requiresonly a First Class Bachelor's Degree in the appropriate branch ofengineering/technology for the post of Lecturer, the qualificationprescribed in Clause 5 of the prospectus is in conformity with thesaid special rules. 6. I have given my due consideration to the above submissions.It is well settled law that a prospectus is a piece of informationto the candidates stipulating the eligibility norms/restrictionsregarding the educational qualification, etc. The prospectus isbinding not only on the candidates, but also on the Government andas well on the authorities involved in the process of selection.This consistent view had been taken in number of cases. To quote,the following are few of them.(1) "K.Suganthi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretaryand Commissioner to Dept. of Health and Medical Education,Madras-9 & two others (1984 Writ L.R. 249".(2) "Dr.A.Rathnaswamy Vs. Director of Medical Education, Madras& three others (1986 Writ L.R. 207".(3) "Midhuna Nathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by itsSecretary, Department of Health, Fort St.George, Madras & sevenothers (1995 Writ L.R. 851)".7. It is also equally well settled that the norms andprocedures prescribed in the prospectus should be strictly followedand the authorities cannot ignore/deviate from the same, as has beenheld by the Supreme Court in the decisions in "State of UttarPradesh Vs. Chandra Mohan and others (AIR 1977 SC 2411)", in "RamanaDayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India andothers (AIR 1979 SC 1628)", by a Full Bench of this Court in thedecision in "P.A.Manickam Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. bythe Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Madras (1984 Writ L.R. 1)"and as well by a Division Bench of this Court in "G.Sumathi Vs. TheDirector of Medical Education, Madras & four others (1993 WritL.R.344)". 8. The scope of judicial review over the prospectus isrestricted, as the Court has no power to either alter, amend orintroduce a new clause in the prospectus, as has been held in"Miss.Romini Susan Kurian Vs. State of A.P. And others (AIR 1992 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A.P. 380)". It will not be within the jurisdiction of the Courteither to amend, alter or to add something into the prospectus, asit would be the function of the State in exercise of the powersunder Article 162 of The Constitution of India. The eligibilitynorms, age restrictions and educational qualifications areprescribed in the prospectus as per the policy of the Governmentconsistent with the rules in vogue. The scope of review isrestricted only if a clause is contrary to the rules, ex-faciearbitrary, unreasonable and consequently amount to discrimination. 9. Keeping the above in mind, the challenge to clause 5 of theprospectus relating to the educational qualification shall beconsidered. So far as the fixation of educational qualification isconcerned, there cannot be any dispute that the educationalqualification must be prescribed in conformity with the educationalqualifications prescribed in the All India Council for TechnicalEducation Act. The notification relied upon by Mr.K.M.Ramesh, thelearned counsel for the petitioner stipulates a First ClassBachelor's Degree in the appropriate branch ofengineering/technology or a First Class Master's Degree in theappropriate branch of engineering/technology. Regulations relatingto the educational qualification, among other norms, must be made bythe All India Council for Technical Education in terms of Section 10(1)(i) of the All India Council for Technical Education Act.Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Table E-I ofAppendix-E relating to the Minimum Qualification and Experienceprescribed for Teaching Post in Degree Level Technical Institutionsrelating to the Engineering and Technology disciplines. In thisregard, a notification was issued by AICTE for revision of payscales and service conditions and the same are only in the form ofguidelines and it cannot be construed to be the Regulations madeunder Section 10(1)(i) of the Act. Moreover, as per the saidguidelines, the qualification prescribed is a First Class Bachelor'sDegree in the appropriate branch of engineering/technology or aFirst Class Master's Degree in the appropriate branch ofengineering/technology. Even if the said guideline is applied, itis for the respondents to prescribe the educational qualificationeither by stipulating a First Class Bachelor's Degree in theappropriate branch of engineering/technology or in the alternative,a First Class Master's Degree in the appropriate branch ofengineering/technology. When such a discretion is vested, it cannotbe contended that prescription of a First Class Bachelor's Degreefor the post of Lecturers in the engineering subjects would becontrary to the educational qualification prescribed by the AllIndia Council for Technical Education. It is further contended thatinasmuch as the educational qualification relating to English,Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Commerce subjects requires aFirst Class Master's Degree, prescription of only a First ClassBachelor's Degree for engineering subjects would be discriminatory,arbitrary and unreasonable. This argument is also based onmisreading of the rules relating to the educational qualification,framed both under Article 309 of The Constitution of India as wellas notified by the All India Council for Technical Education. Asper the qualification prescribed by the All India Council forTechnical Education inasmuch as a First Class Master's Degree in theappropriate branch of engineering, the said prescription is only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ optional. Secondly, as per the rules framed under Article 309 ofThe Constitution of India, again it contemplates the educationalqualification for the post of Lecturers as a First Class Bachelor'sDegree in the appropriate branch of engineering/technology or aFirst Class Master's Degree in the appropriate branch of study inthe case of teaching posts in Humanities and Science. The word "or"has to be read as optional and is not in addition to the First ClassBachelor's Degree. In my opinion, clause 5 of the prospectusrelating to the qualification has been prescribed in conformity withthe rules framed under Article 309 of The Constitution of India. Solong as the rules are not questioned, this Court cannot hold thatthe impugned clause in the prospectus is either arbitrary,unreasonable and discriminatory. 10. For all the above reasons, I do not find any merit in thewrit petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.2784 & 2785 of 2006 are alsodismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. ssTo1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Education Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 0092. The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 600 0061 cc to Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Advocate, Sr. 7450W.P.No.2684 of 2006VS (CO)kk 2/3