THE HONOURABLE MR v. The State of Tamil Nadurep. by its Secretary to Government

3.University Grants Commission,Rep. by its Chairman,Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,New Delhi 110 022. ..ISt Respondents in W.Ps. 37021, 32958 and 36972/06 3rd Respondent in W.P.40995/06 W.P. 9806 and9454/06, 4th Respondent inW.P.40388/06, W.P.9279/06The State of TamilnaduRep by its SecretaryEducation DepartmentFort St. George,Chennai-9.... ISt Respondent in W.P.Nos. 37022, 41000 and 41001/06Union of India rep by its Secretary to GovernmentMinistry of HumanResources DevelopmentDepartment, New Delhi.... 2nd Respondent in W.Ps. 37021/06, 32958, and 36972/064. M. Prabhakar5. K.S. Ganesh Sundaram6. K.S. Nagarajan7. Y. Joha Ilavarasu8. M. Avinash9. P. Jeevagan10. S. Ramkumar11. P. Devi Sri12. J. Sujatha13. S. Sivakumar(R4 to R13 impleaded asper order of Court dated 25.9.2006in M.P.No.3/06 in W.P.No. 32958/06)... Respondents 4 to 13 in W.P.NO.32958/06 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Director of CollegiateEducation, College Road,D.P.I. Compound,Chennai.... 2nd Respondent in W.P.39366 and W.P.9279/06, 3rd Respondent in 40388/06 and W.P.41000 and 41001/06The Teachers RecruitmentBoard, Rep by its Member SecretaryEVK Sampath BuildingCollege Road,Chennai-6... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No. 39366/06The RegistrarUniversity of MadrasChepauk CampusChepauk,Chennai-5... 4th Respondent in W.P.No.40995/06The SecretaryTeachers Recruitment BoardE.V.K. Sampath Malligai,D.P.I. CompoundChennai-6.... 2nd Respondent in W.P.9454/06Writ Petition No.37000/2006 is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for issuance of writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus 1. calling for the proceedings culminatingin notification issued by the 2nd respondent in Advt.No.4/2006-07dated 18.9.2006 published in Tamil Daily, Dinakaran on 18.9.2006pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.197, Higher Education (F2) Dept, dated5.7.2006 proposing to recruit lecturers for appointment inGovernment Arts and Science colleges and Colleges of Education andthe prospectus prescribing the qualification and the Scheme ofselection and quash the same and direct the respondents to conductwritten examination and select the candidates by giving preferenceto the candidates having PG degree with NET/SLET for the post ofLecturers in Govt.Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges ofEducation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.Writ of Certiorari call for the proceedings of the IStRespondent made in F.No.1-1/2002 (P-S) Exempt dated 14.6.2006 andquash the notification dated 14.6.2006. (W.P.Nos. 37021, 32958 and36972/06)3. to call for the records in connection with the notificationof (2006-2007) issued by the 2nd respondent portion of para 11 andquash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appointthe petitioner as lecturer in (Zoology) in W.P. 37022/06)4. Writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the proceedingsof the ISt respondent issued in G.O.Ms.No. 197 Higher Education(F2) Department dated 5.7.2006 and the consequential notificationissued by the 2nd respondent in Advt. No.4/06-07 dated 18.9.2006published in Tamil Daily Dinakaran on 18.9.06 proposing to recruitLecturer for appointment in Government Arts and Science Collegesand Colleges of Education and the prospectus prescribing thequalification and the scheme of selection and quash the same anddirect the respondents to conduct written Examination and selectthe candidates by giving preference to the candidates having P.G.Decree with NET/SLET for the Post of Lecturer in Government Artsand Science Colleges and Colleges of Education (W.P.40388/06)Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the IStRespondent in G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 issued by the IStrespondent and quash the same. (W.P.No.40995/06)5. Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the IStrespondent pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.197 Higher Education (F2)Department dated 5.7.2006 and quash the clause 6 (e) of the aboveG.O. (W.P.9279/06) and6. Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to theG.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 issued by the Ist Respondent and theProspectus (2006-2007) issued by the 2nd respondent and quash thepara 6 clause (e) in G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 of the IStrespondent and para 11 of the Prospectus of the 2nd respondent(W.P.9454/06) respectively.Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to awardmarks for waiting in the employment exchange after registration ofqualification by the Petitioner as per Rule 7 of Procedures ofselection prescribed by the Government of Tamilnadu the TeachersRecruitment Board in G.O.Ms.No.1223 dated 12.7.88 and G.O.Ms.No.477dated 4.5.89 and add the same immediately after merit lists isevolved and issue a further direction to the respondents to callthe candidates for interview for selection tot he post of Lecturerin Mathematics in Government Colleges at the ratio of 1:3vacancies as per the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in 1994 Supreme Court page 2166 and select and appoint thepetitioner as Lecturer in Government Colleges (W.P.No.39366/06)Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prayingthis Court to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that clause 11of the Prospectus for the direct recruitment of Lecturer forGovernment Arts and Science Colleges of Education 2006-2007 issuedby the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as arbitrary unjust and violating ofArticle 14 of the constitution of India so far as the Petitionersare concerned (W.P.41000/06)Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing theRespondents to give due weightage to the Employment Exchangeregistration Seniority and persons who possessed M. Philqualification prior to 1993 without imposing the condition ofrequirement of National Eligibility Test/State Level Education tothe Post of Lecturer in the Government Arts And Science Collegesand Colleges of Education (W.P.NO.41001/06)Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating toG.O.Ms.No.197 Higher Education (F2) Department dated 5.7.2006issued by the first respondent and quash the same.(W.P.NO.9806/06)Mr.R. Muthukumarasamy (SC) for Mr.R.Bharath Kumar Counsel forPetitioner in W.P.No.37000/2006, 32958/06 , 40388/06Mr.M.V. Krishnan, Counsel for Petitioner in W.P.40995/06Mr.P. Viswanathankakkan for Petitioner in W.P.37021/06, 36972/06Mr.S. Ilamvaludhi for Petitioner in W.P.37022/06Mr.S. Silambannan for M/s. Gladys Daniel in WPs.41000, 41001/06Mr. Saseedharan Counsel for Petitioner in W.P.39366/06 Mr.R. Subramanian, Counsel for Petitioner in W.P.9279/06Mr.D. Saravanan in W.P.9806/06Mr.A. Sankara Subramanian in W.P.9454/06Mr.R. Viduthalai A.G. for Mr.Mohan Spl. G.P. (Edun.) for the Statein each petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.R. Krishnamurthi (SC) for Mr.P.R. Gopinthan for R3 inW.P.37000/06RR1 & 2 in W.P.37021/06, 32958/06, 36972/06R4 in W.P.40388/06R3 in W.P.40995/06, 9806/06, 9454/06R4 in W.P.9279/06COMMON ORDERF.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,J.In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners seek to challengethe prospectus issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board inAdvertisement No.4/2006-07 published in Tamil Daily `Dinakaran'dated 18.9.2006 pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.197, Higher Education (F2)Dept, dated 5.7.2006. Under the above referred to G.O., as well asthe notification the respondents proposed to recruit Lecturers forappointment in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges ofEducation.2.In W.P.No.32958/2006 the petitioner seeks for issuance ofa writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the proceedings ofthe University Grants Commission made in F.No.1-1/2002 (PS) Exempdated 14.6.2006 and quash the said notification dated 14.6.2006.That was a notification by which an amendment was issued by theUniversity Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as `U.G.C.')to the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualificationsrequired for the appointment of Career Advancement of Teachers inUniversities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulation, 2000.The amendment was to the effect,"NET shall remain the compulsory requirement forappointment as Lecturer for those with post-graduatedegree. However, the candidates having Ph.D.degree in theconcerned subject are exempted from NET for PG level andUG level teaching. The candidates having M.Phil degree inthe concerned subject are exempted from NET for UG levelteaching only." It was pursuant to the above amendment to the U.G.C. Regulations,the impugned notification in G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 as wellas the Advt.No.4/2006-07 dated 18.9.2006 for recruitment ofLecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges ofEducation came to be issued by the State Government. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.In W.P.No.32958/2006 the main challenge is that theamendment exempting Ph.D. from NET and SLET for all P.G. and U.G.courses and M.Phil for U.G. courses was irrational and is contraryto the well settled principle set down by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtas regards the possession of NET or SLET as reported in AIR 1995 SC336(UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. RAJ SINGH). In view of the challengemade to the said amendment to the U.G.C.Regulations the petitionersin other writ petitions who seek to challenge the Advt.No.4/2006-07 apart from the basic challenge as regards the exemption grantedto Ph.D. and M.Phil from holding NET or SLET as provided in theamendment to the U.G.C.Regulations have also made the challenge onother grounds, namely, weightage marks awarded to holders of Ph.Dand M.Phil with or without NET or SLET.4.In W.P.No.39366/2006 the challenge is also on the groundthat contrary to the procedure rules prescribed for recruitment tobe made by the Teachers Recruitment Board no weightage forEmployment Exchange registered candidates who were not able tosecure any employment till this date has been provided.5.The main arguments on behalf of the petitioners was madeby Shri R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for thecounsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.32958/2006 and 40388/2006.In the course of his submissions the learned senior counselcontended that as early as in the year 1991 the prescription of NETor SLET as an added qualification for the post of Lecturer came tobe introduced in the U.G.C.Regulations which was the subject matterof challenge before the Delhi High Court and on dismissal by thesaid High Court the matter went before the Hon'ble Supreme Courtand the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Delhi HighCourt in the decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 336(UNIVERSITY OFDELHI V. RAJ SINGH). By referring to paragraph 9 of the decisionof the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned senior counsel contended thatthe prescription of possession of NET or SLET was found to be avery essential eligibility criteria for the post of Lecturer evenin respect of M.Phil and Ph.D.qualified candidates. According tothe learned counsel, by way of amendment to the 1991 Regulations,once in 1995, 1998, 2000 and 2002 some relaxation was shown byU.G.C., itself in respect of holders of M.Phil and Ph.D.candidates. The learned counsel pointed out that in the 1995amendment possession of NET and SLET was exempted for those whopassed M.Phil and Ph.D. prior to 31.12.93, that in the amendment ofthe year 2000 the exemption was modified to the effect that thePh.D. candidates upto the year 2000 were also granted the saidbenefit which was subsequently extended for the year upto 2002insofar as Ph.D. holders alone. By referring to the aboveamendments and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the presentaction of the U.G.C. in once and for all exempting the Ph.D.holdersfrom possessing NET or SLET for P.G. and U.G. courses and theM.Phil candidates for U.G.course was made without any basis andthereby unsettled the settled proposition of law held by theHon'ble Supreme Court. 6.The learned senior counsel by referring to the interimreport of the Committee constituted by the U.G.C., dated 3.4.2006contended that the said report did not contain any reason formaking its recommendations to grant the exemption for Ph.D. andM.Phil. degree holders based on which the amendment came to be madein the U.G.C. regulations on 14.6.2006. The learned senior counseltherefore contended that the amendment dated 14.6.2006 is liable tobe set aside. 7.Alternatively, the learned senior counsel contended thatthe grant of weightage marks in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.197 dated5.7.2006 and the consequential Advt.No.4/2006-07 dated 18.9.2006were irrational, arbitraty and has no nexus to the object to beachieved and therefore, the said notification as well as theadvertisement are liable to be set aside. Elaborating thesubmission the learned senior counsel contended that under theG.O., while seeking for recruitment the State Government wanted toassess the merits of the candidates merely going by thecertificates without holding any written examinations. The learnedsenior counsel after referring to the weightage marks prescribed inthe G.O., as well as the prospectus submitted that by merelygranting marks for holders of Ph.D.degree and M.Phil degree theywould gain a march over all other candidates and thereby all equalswould be treated unequally and thereby, depriving the members ofthe petitioner association who are Post-graduate degree holderswith NET or SLET from getting a fair treatment in the matter ofselection. To demonstrate the absurd results that are likely tooccur based on the weightage marks provided under the G.O., thelearned senior counsel pointed out that in paragraph 6(e) ofG.O.Ms.No.197, dated 5.7.2006 apart from marks provided forexperience, the marks provided for possessing differentqualifications will result in total exclusion of other P.G.candidates who possess NET or SLET. According to the learnedsenior counsel, irrespective of a candidate securing the highestmarks for research contribution, books and articles published aswell as in the interview, having regard to the high level of marksallocated for mere possession of Ph.D. qualification, M.Philqualification and such persons possessing SLET or NET would totallydeprive the P.G. candidates with SLET OR NET outside the scope ofselection. The learned senior counsel also pointed out that thesubsequent notification dated 11.8.2006 in making an amendment topara 6(e) of the earlier notification dated 5.7.2006 would also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ result in similar disadvantage to the P.G.degree holders with NETor SLET and therefore, such amendments also does not cure thematerial defects in the impugned notification by way of executiveorder.8.The learned senior counsel relied upon the decisionsreported in 2006 (10) SCC 1 (RELIANCE AIRPORT DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,v. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS), AIR 1995 SC 336(UNIVERSITY OF DELHI v. RAJ SINGH), 1996 (6) SCC 282 (SECY.(HEALTH)DEPTT. OF HEALTH & F.W. AND ANOTHER v. Dr.ANITA PURI AND OTHERS)and 2003 (5) SCC 341 (SECY., A.P.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN. v.Y.V.V.R.SRINIVASULU) in support of his submissions.9.The sum and substance of the submissions of the learnedsenior counsel is that when possession of P.G.qualification withM.Phil or Ph.D. is the eligibility criteria to apply for the postof Lecturer in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges ofEducation, the provision of weightage marks for possession ofPh.D. and M.Phil alone or with NET or SLET would amount to equalsbeing treated unequally and thereby, calling for interference withthe said impugned proceedings in these writ petitions.10.Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9279/2006 while adopting the arguments ofMr.R.Muthukumarasamy, also contended that when once a basicqualification prescribing the eligibility to apply is prescribedany weightage for additional qualification cannot be made.According to the learned counsel under the U.G.C.Regulations of2000 procedure has been prescribed under para 3.1.0 as to howrecruitment should be made by way of selection for the post ofLecturer in Government Colleges and that as per the said procedurewhen selection committee is constituted the process of selectionshould involve only the assessment of aptitude for teaching andresearch, ability to communicate clearly and effectively andability to analyse and discuss and that the prescription ofweightage marks would be contrary to the U.G.C.Regulations andtherefore, on this ground, as well the impugned notification of theState Government in G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 as well as theAdvt.No.4/2006-07 are liable to be set aside. The learned counselrelied upon the decision reported in 2006 (6) SCC 474(STATE OF U.P.V. OM PRAKASH)in support of his submission.11.Mr.S.Silambanan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioners in W.P.Nos.41000 and 41001 of 2006 submitted thatclause 11 of the prospectus issued, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.197prescribing weightage marks are liable to be set aside inasmuch aswhen once the U.G.C., held that M.Phil holders who secured the saiddegree prior to 31.12.93 need not possess SLET or NET to apply forthe post of Lecturer, the weightage of marks for M.Phil holders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with NET or SLET would cause grave injustice to such M.Philcandidates who do not possess NET or SLET.12.Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner in W.P.No.39366/2006 was aggrieved insofar as thenotification did not provide weightage marks for candidates whoregistered themselves with Employment Exchange and who were notable to secure any employment in the State. According to thelearned counsel, the procedure Rules of Teachers Recruitment Boardprovides for award of weightage marks depending upon the number ofyears of waiting after the registration in the Employment Exchangewith a maximum of 8 marks and the non-provision of such weightagemarks in the G.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 or the Advt.No.4/2006-07and the prospectus relating to the said advertisement beingcontrary to the procedure rules are liable to be interfered with.According to the learned counsel when once by G.O.Ms.No.1357 dated26.9.90 the State Government decided to entrust the task ofselection of candidates for the post of Lecturers with the TeachersRecruitment Board by reconstituting the Board, the procedure rulesrelating to Teachers Recruitment Board would automatically applyand therefore, the prescription of weightage marks for thecandidates registered with the Employment Exchange ought to havebeen made.13.Mr.V.Viswanathan Kakkan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner in W.P.Nos.36972 and 37021/2006 while adopting thearguments of the other learned counsel contended that thepetitioners passed M.Phil with NET which is more or less like adegree conferred by the Universities and therefore, due recognitionshould have been granted for holders of NET or SLET. The learnedcounsel therefore contended that the dilution of the qualificationfor the post of Lecturers for the candidates who do not possess NETor SLET would create serious impact upon the rights of thepetitioners and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable tobe set aside.14.The other learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inthe other writ petitions adopted the arguments ofMr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned senior counsel and other learnedcounsel.15.As against the above submissions, the learned AdvocateGeneral Mr.R.Vidhuthalai, representing the State Government as wellas Teachers Recruitment Board, the second respondent formulated hissubmissions on three aspects, namely, (i)The comparative weightage of marks given tovarious academic qualifications, eligibility criteria,intellectual pursuits and teaching experience is neither https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arbitrary nor discriminatory and do not offend Articles 14or 16.(ii)The challenge to the Notification issued byU.G.C. is liable to be rejected in view of the Judgment ofthe Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court inW.P.No.21345/06 dated 10.07.2006.(iii)The weightage of marks given to Ph.D.qualification is appropriate and commensurate with theacademic excellence attached to such high qualification.16.According to the learned Advocate General, Ph.D.qualification being a higher qualification than M.Phil or P.G.qualification, there is nothing wrong in giving higher weightagemarks for passing of such qualification. It was also contended bythe learned Advocate General that under the U.G.C.Regulations byway of career advancement programme whenever the Lecturer beyondthe Selection Grade would aspire for the post of `Reader', theprescribed qualification being Ph.D., in the interest of thestudents it was desirable to go in for the candidates with Ph.D. asthat would enable the State to organise its educational patternmore effectively in the interest of the students. Therefore, thelearned Advocate General contended that the prescription of highermarks for Ph.D. holders cannot be found fault with. The learnedAdvocate General also contended that even as per theU.G.C.Regulations, 1998 there is no prescription for holding awritten examination and that the selection for the post ofLecturers have to be made only by a duly constituted selectioncommittee and therefore, the non-prescription of the writtenexamination would not vitiate the impugned notification as well asthe prospectus and advertisement. 17.In this context, learned Advocate General relied uponG.O.Ms.No.111 dated 24.3.99 wherein the procedure for recruitmentand the prescription of qualifications have been set out in linewith the U.G.C.Regulations. According to the learned AdvocateGeneral, G.O.Ms.No.1357 dated 26.9.90 is applicable only forrecruitment of school teachers of the Government schools and theschools run by local bodies which is not applicable to a selectionmade for the post of Lecturers in Government Arts and Sciencecolleges and Colleges of Education.18.As far as the challenge made in W.P.No.32958/2006 to theU.G.C. amendment dated 14.6.2006, the learned Advocate Generalcontended that having regard to the judgment of the Division Benchof this Court dated 10.7.2006 passed in W.P.No.21345/2006 upholdingthe said notification the challenge to the very same notificationcannot be made in the present writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.The learned Advocate General therefore submitted that nointerference is called for. 20.Mr.R.Krishnamurthi, learned senior counsel appearing forthe U.G.C. mainly contended that in the light of the earlier orderof this Court dated 10.7.2006 passed in W.P.No.21435/2006 the writpetition challenging the impugned letter of the U.G.C. dated14.6.2006 cannot be maintained.21.Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties andperused the materials.22.At the outset while dealing with the challenge made inW.P.No.32958/2006 we find that the challenge to the very samenotification of the U.G.C. came up for consideration before theFirst Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21435/2006. The writ petitionwas dismissed by the First Bench in its order dated 10.7.2006.After referring to the notification details contained in thenotification dated 14.6.2006 the First Bench has held as under:"As per the above amended regulation, thecandidates having Ph.D. degree in the concerned subjectare exempted from appearing for the National EligibilityTest for appointment to the PG and UG level teachingposts. In our opinion, the writ petition cannot beentertained at the instance of the petitioner, as she isnot a candidate either affected or likely to be affectedby the amended regulation and is not a person aggrievedto maintain a public interest litigation. That apart,the University Grants Commission is the body toprescribe the minimum eligibility norms andqualifications for appointment to the post of teachersat the PG and UG level and the decision taken by such anexpert body cannot be interfered with by the Courts, asthe Courts are not expert in the field. In academicmatters, it will be always desirable for the Courts toleave such decision to the expert body. On facts, it isseen that the decision to exempt the candidates havingPh.D degree in Eligibility Test for appointment to thePG level and UG level teaching posts and the decision toexempt the candidates having M.Phil degree in theconcerned subject from appearing for the NationalEligibility Test for appointment to the UG levelteaching post were taken by the University GrantsCommission in its meeting held on 11.6.2006 on the basisof an interim report of the Committee constituted by theMinistry of Human Resources Development under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chairmanship of Prof. Bhalchandru Munekar, Member,Planning Commission, New Delhi.2. In view of the above, we find absolutely noreason to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, thewrit petition is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 & 2of 2006 are also dismissed." Inasmuch as the Division Bench has taken note of all thecontentions raised while challenging the above notification of theU.G.C. dated 14.6.2006 and has declined to entertain the writpetition, we do not find any scope to grant any relief inW.P.No.32958/2006. Therefore, the challenge made to the saidnotification cannot be examined once over again in the present writpetitions. 23.When we consider the challenge made to G.O.Ms.No.197 aswell as the consequential advertisement and the prospectus the mainthrust of the submissions of the petitioners centers around theprescription of weightage marks provided in paragraph 6(e) ofG.O.Ms.No.197 dated 5.7.2006 as amended by the executive orderdated 11.8.2006 as well as the prospectus issued based on the abovereferred to orders. In view of the correction carried out in theorder dated 11.8.2006 the ultimate prescription of marks asprovided in paragraph 11 of the prospectus can be referred which isto the following effect.`11.Scheme of Selection:Marks will be awarded to all candidates based onthe information given by them in their Applicationforms, as per the criteria given below:1Teaching experience inUniversities/Government/aided colleges/Selffinancing colleges in the approved post(1 mark for each completed year)Maximum15 marks 2Ph.D qualification(obtained before 13.10.2006 12 marks 3M.Phil/Ph.D with SLET/NET qualifications(obtained before 13.10.2006) 6 marks https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1Teaching experience inUniversities/Government/aided colleges/Selffinancing colleges in the approved post(1 mark for each completed year)Maximum15 marks 4Books/Articles published(referred)in the relevant Subject (2 marks per book and 1 mark perArticle) 10 marks 5Interview marks Test of Subject knowledge/Teaching ability 7 marks Total 50 marks 24.Before examining the various submissions made as regardsthe prescription of weightage marks we wish to stear clear of thecontentions, namely, that without written examinations selection ofcandidates ought not to have been attempted by the State. As faras the said contention is concerned even while referring to theU.G.C.Regulations 2000 what we find is that in respect ofrecruitment of Lecturers for Government Colleges, the State shouldconstitute a Selection Committee consisting of three Specialexperts apart from the Principal and Head of the Department in thesaid Selection Committee. It is also mentioned that the process ofselection should involve the assessment for aptitude for teachingand research, ability to communicate clearly and effectively,ability to analyse and discuss. It is provided that ability tocommunicate, to be assessed by requiring the candidate toparticipate in a group discussion or by expertise to as a classroom student wherever it is possible.Nowhere in the regulationsit is even remotely suggested that a written test should bemandatorily prescribed while making a selection for the post ofLecturers. Therefore, in the absence of any such prescription orthe regulations even remotely suggesting any such test to beconducted while making a selection we are unable to appreciate oraccept the contention of the petitioners that there ought to havebeen a written examination while making the selection.25.Moreover, the analysis to be made by the selectioncommittee as stated in the U.G.C.Regulations in the process ofselection, namely, by way of assessment of aptitude for teachingand research, ability to communicate with clarity and effectivenessor ability to analyse and discuss are all areas which can be moreeffectively carried out and assessed in an oral interview of acandidate along with the credentials possessed by such candidate. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In this context it will have to be remembered that for the post ofLecturers the minimum qualification itself is Post-graduate withM.Phil or Ph.D. Therefore, we are unable to hold that only byholding a written examination such an analysis in respect of anycandidate can be made and not otherwise. We therefore reject thesaid contention of the petitioners.26.As far as the prescription of weightage marks areconcerned it consists of 5 different heads. The weightage of marksfor teaching experience was not seriously under challenge by thepetitioners in these writ Petitions. The main challenge was in theaward of higher marks for the holders of Ph.D qualification andcandidates with Ph.D and M.Phil with SLET or NET. At the outset,we are really surprised to note how a Ph.D candidate with SLET orNET can be awarded a lesser mark of 6 as against the award of 12marks for mere Ph.D.degree holders. It was vehemently contended bythe learned counsel for the petitioners and it is also a matter ofcommon knowledge that securing a certificate of NET or SLET aftersuccessfully undergoing the said test is an arduous task. Thestatistics as furnished by the U.G.C. itself in its communicationdated 11.10.2006 furnishing the total number of candidatesregistered for NET who appeared and qualified between December 1989and December 2005 disclose that as against the total registrationof 48,163 in 1989 and 1,35,013 in December 2005, the number ofcandidates appeared was in the order of 37,131 in December 1989 and1,09,873 in December 2005. Out of them, those who qualified were2,343 in December 1989 and a maximum of 8,363 in December 2005.The total percentage of qualified candidates ranged between 2.23per cent to a maximum of 12.29 per cent. The average percentagewas in the order of 5 per cent. Therefore, the above statisticsonly goes to show that for securing NET or SLET one has to undergoa very rigorous exercise inasmuch as in the decision of the Hon'bleSupreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 336 while referring toMehrotra Report the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 9 thatsuch test would have the benefit of removing disparities instandards of examination at the Master's level between differentUniversities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also acknowledged theMehrotra Committee's report that by such a step local influencewould be minimised and the eligibility zone for recruitment wouldbecome wider. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also noted thatthe eligibility test was only to determine the eligibility of theacademically qualified person. When such is the acceptedrecognition for holders of certificate of NET or SLET as approvedof by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it runs beyond one's comprehensionhow Ph.D. with SLET or NET qualification could only be awarded 6marks while candidates with mere Ph.D. alone can be awarded ahigher weightage mark of 12. Therefore, on the face of it such aprescription contained in para 11 of the prospectus is incongruousand therefore, we are not in a position to approve of the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27.One other relevant factor to be considered is that even asper the amended regulations of U.G.C. dated 14.6.2006, a P.G.qualified person with NET or SLET is entitled to compete along witha Ph.D. degree holder or a M.Phil degree holder with SLET or NET.In other words, all the above three categories with the abovequalifications are treated on par while going in for the selectionfor the post of Lecturers. If that be so, if a Ph.D. or for thatmatter a Ph.D. with NET or SLET along with M.Phil with NET or SLETcan be awarded some weightage marks for possessing suchqualifications, there is no reason why a P.G. qualified personpossessing NET or SLET shall be excluded without any specialreason.28.In other words, when as per the U.G.C.Regulations all theabove three categories are basically eligible for being consideredfor the post of Lecturers, a different treatment cannot be metedout to a P.G. qualified person alone even when when possesses NETor SLET in the matter of award of weightage marks. 29.At this juncture it will be appropriate to refer to thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in STATE OF UP. ANDANOTHER v. OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS ( 2006 (6) SCC 474 ). The Hon'bleSupreme Court has referred to an earlier decision of the SupremeCourt reported in 1996 (6) SCC 282 (SECY.(HEALTH) DEPTT.OF HEALTH &F.W. v. Dr.ANITA PURI where in it has been held as under in para17."17.In Secy.(Health), Deptt. of Health & F.W. v.Dr.Anita Puri this Court held that preferentialqualification does not as of right entitle to selection. Inthat case the advertisement inviting applications for theposts of Dental Officer prescribed BDS as the minimumqualification but stipulated preference for higher dentalqualification. This Court held at SCC pp.285-86 para 7 asunder :"7.Admittedly, in the advertisementwhich was published calling for applicationsfrom the candidates for the posts of DentalOfficer it was clearly stipulated that theminimum qualification for the post is BDS. Itwas also stipulated that preference should begiven for higher dental qualification. There isalso no dispute that MDS is a higherqualification than the minimum qualificationrequired for the post and Respondent 1 washaving that degree. The question then arises iswhether a person holding MDS qualification is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entitled to be selected and appointed as ofright by virtue of the aforesaid advertisementconferring preference for higher qualification?The answer to the aforesaid question must be inthe negative. When an advertisement stipulatesa particular qualification as the minimumqualification for the post and furtherstipulates that preference should be given forhigher qualification, the only meaning itconveys is that some additional weightage has tobe given to the higher qualified candidates.But by no stretch of imagination it can beconstrued to mean that a higher qualified personautomatically is entitled to be selected andappointed. In adjudging the suitability ofperson for the post, the expert body like PublicService Commission in the absence of anystatutory criteria has the discretion ofevolving its mode of evaluation of merit andselection of the candidate. The competence andmerit of a candidate is adjudged not on thebasis of the qualification he possesses but alsotaking into account the other necessary factorslike career of the candidate throughout hiseducational curriculum, experience in any fieldin which the selection is going to be held, hisgeneral aptitude for the job to be ascertainedin course of interview, extra-curricularactivities like sports and other alliedsubjects, personality of the candidate asassessed in the interview and all other germanefactors which the expert body evolves forassessing the suitability of the candidate forthe post for which the selection is going to beheld. In this view of the matter, the HighCourt in our considered opinion was wholly inerror in holding that a MDS qualified personlike Respondent 1 was entitled to be selectedand appointed when the Government indicated inthe advertisement that higher qualificationperson would get some preference. The saidconclusion of the High Court, therefore, iswholly unsustainable and must be reversed." Ultimately in para 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down theratio in the following terms:'19.In the instant case, the requisite academicqualification for the post of Medical Officer of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Homeopathy as prescribed in the advertisement was arecognised degree in homeopathy or a recogniseddiploma in homeopathy. A proviso has been added thatpreference will be given to degree-holders. Thiswould mean that a recognised diploma in homeopathyprescribed in the advertisement is also a requiredminimum educational qualification with which they areentitled to compete with those candidates possessingthe degree. The word "preference" would mean thatwhen the claims of all candidates who are eligibleand who possess the requisite educationalqualification prescribed in the advertisement aretaken for consideration and when one or more of themare found equally positioned, then only theadditional qualification may be taken as a tiltingfactor, in favour of candidates vis-a-vis others inthe merit list prepared by the Commission. Butpreference does not mean en bloc preferenceirrespective of inter se merit and suitability." A reading of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court thusdisclose that award of weightage marks for better qualifications isnot a new phenomena. Similarly, in the case on hand, when theState has decided to award weightage marks for holders of Ph.D.qualifications and M.Phil candidates with SLET or NET in order togo in for selection of better qualified persons and when holders ofP.G.Degree with SLET or NET are treated on par with the holders ofPh.D or M.Phil with SLET or NET, in the same line of reasoningthere should be grant of weightage marks for P.G. holders with SLETor NET.30.In fact in the course of the hearing of these writpetitions, the learned Advocate General in his submissions statedthat the State Government is also seriously considering the grantof separate weightage marks for holders of Ph.D. or M.Phil withSLET or NET or P.G. with SLET or NET separately. 31.Therefore, on consideration of the above factors and thearguments advanced by the respective counsel for the parties, weare convinced that grant of weightage marks in the matter ofselection of a Lecturer cannot be held to be wholly illegal oruncalled for. However, we are not able to approve of the wide gapshown as between the holder of a Ph.D and a candidate with P.G.degree with SLET or NET. We are of the view that though there canbe no two opinions that Ph.D. is academically a higherqualification and therefore, there can be a higher weightage marksfor holders of Ph.D. when compared with P.G.degree holders evenwith SLET or NET, but yet the award of such marks as between theabove two categories cannot create a high disparity as between https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ those two categories and thereby providing scope for P.G.degreeholders likely to be totally eliminated irrespective of holding aNET or SLET by virtue of very high weightage marks being granted toPh.D. degree holders. 32.With that view when, we consider the prescription made inparagraph 11 of the prospectus and also the stand of the StateGovernment that it is prepared to consider the grant of weightagemarks for P.G. degree holders with SLET or NET, in our view,marginal adjustment in the grant of marks would serve the purposeand meet the ends of justice which will also not create anyheartburn amongst the persons holding different academicqualifications. In fact, in the proposed variations to be made inthe award of weightage marks it was suggested by the learnedAdvocate General that the weightage marks are likely to be awardedas under:Sl.No.Description of categoryWeightage /Marks1Teaching experience in Government / AidedColleges / Universities / Self FinancingColleges in the approved post152Ph.D. Qualification123M.Phil with SLET/NET64P.G. with SLET/NET55Research Contribution /Books / ArticlesPublished56Interview7 TOTAL50In our considered opinion, there should not be a wide gap asbetween Ph.d. qualified candidate and a P.G. candidate with SLET orNET or M.Phil holder with SLET or NET in the award of weightagemarks. We are of the view that even in the event of the StateGovernment going in for the alteration of the weightage marks, suchalteration and provision of weightage marks for a P.G. candidatewith SLET or NET should harmonize both the channels in the matterof selection and should not result in elimination of one group forthe other. Keeping the above perception in mind, when weconsidered the modification in the award of marks which is statedto be in the anvil, we find that the award of 12 marks to a Ph.Dholder as compared to 6 and 5 marks for M.Phil and P.G. candidateswith SLET or NET will not get the desired result. In fact, in thestatement furnished by the learned Advocate General it was statedthat as against 3,108 Ph.D. Degree holders, amongst whom there are603 candidates with SLET or NET, the P.G. Degree holders with SLET https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ or NET are stated to be 5028 and M.Phil candidates with SLET or NETare stated to be 3,546. Since the total number of posts are statedto be 1000 plus 20, in the interest of justice and in order toensure that proper distinction is maintained among all the eligiblethree categories, it will be appropriate that the award of marksfor Ph.D.Degree holders on the ground that they are in possessionof higher academic qualification should not be doubled but can bemarginal as between one category and the other.33.In this context, it will also be appropriate to note thatthe present selection is for the post of Lecturers which is theentry level post. Though the holders of Ph.D. Degree can claimthemselves to be holding higher academic qualification and suchhigher academic qualification may be the required qualification,vis-a-vis, the higher post like Reader, Professor, etc., ascompared to the post of Lecturers, in our considered opinion, themost appropriate qualification would be P.G. or M.Phil with SLET orNET as the recruitment of Lecturer is merely for teaching such ofthose candidates who would require such trained academicians whowould be able to impart education at that level in a most efficientand better manner while a Ph.D. Degree holder would be able toimpart education effectively to the candidates of P.G. level andstill higher levels befitting the level of uptake of candidates atthat level. We say so because, even though the holder of a Ph.D.Degree is undoubtedly a candidate with a superior qualification,when it comes to the question of recruitment at the entry level forthe post of a Lecturer, applying the ratio of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt, a P.G. or M.Phil candidate with SLET or NET will be able toimpart education to the students undergoing U.G.course in a farbetter manner compared with a student undergoing P.G.course or anyhigher course for whom the holder of a Doctorate may be moreappropriate. It is relevant to note that the uptake of a studentundergoing P.G.course or any other higher course will be farsuperior than a U.G. student for whom a P.G. candidate or an M.Philcandidate with SLET or NET will be better suited. In thiscontext, we refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in 2003 (3)SCC 541(P.M.LATHA AND ANOTHER V. STATE OFKERALA AND OTHERS) and 2003 (3) SCC 548 in the case of YOGESHKUMAR AND OTHERS V. GOVT. OF NCT, DELHI. The Hon'ble Supreme Courthas laid down the ratio in the following terms:"There is no force in the argument that B.Ed.qualification is a higher qualification than TTC andtherefore the B.Ed.candidates should be held to beeligible to compete for the post. On behalf of theappellants it is pointed out that Trained Teacher'sCertificate is given to teachers specially trained toteach small children in primary classes whereas forB.Ed. Degree, the training imparted is to teach https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ students of classes above primary. B.Ed. Degree-holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to beholding qualification suitable for appointment asteachers in primary schools."Therefore, looked at from any angle, we are convinced that theweightage marks to be awarded to P.G.Degree holders with SLET orNET, M.Phil with SLET or NET and Ph.D. cannot be prescribed with avery wide gap. In that respect even if the proposal of the StateGovernment to provide the weightage marks of 5 for P.G. degreeholders with SLET or NET and 6 for M.Phil. candidate with SLET orNET by reducing the weightage marks to the level of 9 for Ph.Ddegree holders from 12 would meet the ends of justice. To the abovewe add that the M.Phil holder of pre 31.12.1993 can also be equatedwith the M.Phil holder with SLET or NET in order to gain theweightage marks of 6 to be prescribed.34.The learned Advocate General in his submissions alsostated that the marks to be awarded under the heading teachingexperience is likely to be lowered as 2 marks for each completedyear subject to the maximum of 15 marks. Such an alteration in theprescription is quite reasonable and therefore, we do not find anything wrong in such a proposal of the State Government. Since inour considered opinion the award of 9 marks for Ph.D. degreeholders would be more appropriate, the excess 3 marks can be addedto the interview marks of 7 by making it as 10 so that theselection committee will be in a better and comfortable position toassess the suitability of candidates based on the relevant criteriaprescribed in the U.G.C.Regulations, namely, aptitude for teachingand research, ability to communicate clearly and effectively andability to analyse the discussion which would be much more relevantcriteria while making the selection from among the eligiblecandidates for the post of Lecturers. 35.With the above modification in the award of marks, namely,the provision of 9 marks for Ph.D degree holders and enhancing theinterview marks from 7 to 10 and also providing 5 marks for theholders of P.G.degree with SLET or NET and 6 marks for M.Philcandidates with SLET or NET with the maximum of 15 marks forexperience and 5 marks for research contribution, books, articlespublished will be more appropriate while going in for the selectionof candidates for the post of Lecturers.36.For all the above reasons, we hold that the prescriptionof marks as prescribed in paragraph 6(e) of G.O.Ms.No.197, dated05.07.2006, as amended in the Letter dated 11.08.2006 as well asparagraph 11 of the prospectus annexed to theAdvertisement.No.4/2006-07 cannot be sustained which areaccordingly set aside with the direction to the first respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State to issue suitable amended notification in the light of themarks as suggested in this order.37.Having regard to our conclusion, as regards the challengemade to the U.G.C notification dated 14.6.2006 which is covered bythe earlier Division Bench decision of this Court inW.P.No.21435/2006 dated 10.7.2006, W.P.Nos. 32958/2006 and36972/2006 are dismissed. Consequently, connected pendingMiscellaneous Petitions in W.P.Nos.32958/2006 and 36972/2006 arealso dismissed. No costs.38.As far as the contention made by the petitioner inW.P.No.39366/2006 as well as 41001/2006 based upon the procedurerules of Teachers Recruitment Board, we hold that merely because inG.O.Ms.No.1357 dated 26.9.1990 the recruitment of the post ofLecturers was also entrusted with the Teachers Recruitment Boardthat by itself will not straightaway make the procedure rulesapplicable to recruitment of School teachers apply ipso facto tothe recruitment of College Lecturers. In fact, Rule 2 of the Rulesof procedure of the Teachers Recruitment Board specificallymentions that the said rule apply to the following categories."2.APPLICATIONThese rules shall apply to the followingcategories of posts :-(i) posts in Government Schools (SchoolEducation Department) which were under thepurview of the Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission and have now been taken out of itspurview.(ii)Out of the posts in Local Body (PanchayatUnion, Municipal and Corporation) schools, postswhich are analogous to the posts mentioned under(i) above."By no stretch of imagination the post of School teacher can beequated to the post of College Lecturer and therefore, theprescription contained in Rule 7 of the said Rules providing forthe weightage marks for the period of waiting for employment afterregistration in the Employment Exchange can have no application tothe selection to be made for the post of Lecturers. Therefore, thegrievance expressed by the petitioners based on the above rules ofprocedure and G.O.Ms.No.1357 dated 26.9.1990 does not merit anyconsideration. Therefore, no relief can be granted based on theabove contention.39.In the result, W.P.Nos. 32958 and 36972 of 2006 and allthe connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. All the other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petitions are partly allowed and while setting aside theprescription of marks as prescribed in paragraph 6(e) ofG.O.Ms.No.197, dated 05.07.2006 as amended in the Letter dated11.08.2006 as well as paragraph 11 of the prospectus annexed to theAdvertisement No.4/2006-07, the First respondent State is directedto issue suitable amended notification as directed in paragraphs 33to 35 of this Order. Consequently connected pending MiscellaneousPetitions are closed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.salTo1.The Secretary to Government,State of Tamil NaduHigher Education Department,Fort St.George,Chennai 600 009.2.The Chairman,Teachers Recruitment Board,E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,D.P.I.Compound, Chennai 600 006.3.The Chairman,University Grants Commission, (UGC)Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,New Delhi 110 022.4.The Secretary to GovernmentUnion of India Ministry of HumanResources Development, New Delhi. 110 0015. The Director,The Directorate of CollegiateEducation, College Road,Chennai.6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.The RegistrarUniversity of MadrasChepauk, Chennai7. The Secretary to GovernmentEducation DepartmentFort St. George, Chennai-9.8.The Member SecretaryTeachers Recruitment Board,E.V.K.Sampath Building,College Road, Chennai 600 0069. The SecretaryTeacher Recruitment Board,EVK Sambath Buildings,College Road, Chennai-6.1 cc to Mr.D. Saravanan, Advocate, SR. 190992 ccs to Mr.R. Subramanian, Advocate, sr. 19119, 191201 cc to Mrs. Gladys Daniel, Advocate, sr. 185401 cc to Mrs. M.V. Krishnan, Advocate, sr. 189401 cc to Mr.R. Sassetharan, Advocate, SR. 188021 cc to Mr.P.R. Gopinathan, Advocate, SR. 193411 cc to the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras, Sr. 186912 ccs to Mr.R. Bharath Kumar, Advocate, sr. 19093, 190942 ccs to Mr.P. Viswanatha Kakkan, Advocate, Sr. 15848, 15849W.P.Nos.37000,37021, 37022,32958, 36972, 39366, 40388,40995, 41000, 41001 W.P.(MD).Nos.9279/2006, 9806/2006 &9454/2006SGL (CO)kk 24/4