The relief sought for in this writ petition is calling for the records in respect of the resolution dated 16.03.2018 of the syndicate meeting of 2nd respondent, disqualifying persons qualified through open university system for promotion and quash the same as far as list of cadre for Assistant Registrar and thereby, directing 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrar for the year April 2018-March 2019.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed in Class IV service from the year 1984 under the second respondent/University of Madras and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was further promoted to the post of Assistant and now, holding the post of Section Officer. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is fully qualified for the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar in the order of seniority. The writ petitioner has possessed M.A. degree qualification through open university scheme and the writ petitioner claims that the said post graduate degree obtained through open university scheme is valid and he is fully qualified for the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar in the order of seniority. The respondent had prepared a panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar for the period from April 2018 to March 2019, and the name of the writ petitioner has been deferred on account of the fact that he possessed the qualification of Master degree obtained through open university scheme and the names of the other similarly placed employees, who secured degree through open university scheme were also deferred.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that there are certain communications and earlier precedent that the candidates, who secured decree from open university were granted promotions. Therefore, the similar consideration should be shown to the writ petitioner also.

5. This court is of an opinion that a wrong precedent even set out by the University cannot be followed by this court. However, this court is bound by the legal principles settled by the Supreme Court of India in respect of the Open University degrees. In respect of the writ petitioner it is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner had secured M.A. degree without undergoing the regular educational pattern, i.e. 10+2+3+2, as prescribed by the University Grants Commission under its regulations. The writ petitioner has not passed the +2 prior to the M.A. degree. Thus, it is an admitted fact, that the writ petitioner secured M.A. degree without undergoing the regular educational pattern i.e. 10+2+3+2 as prescribed by the University Grants Commission under its regulations.

6. The pattern prescribed by the University Grants Commission for admission to M.A. Degree is 10+2+3+2. In this regard, the University issued University Grants Commission Regulations, 1985, regarding the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of the first degree through non formal/distance education. The regulations reads as under:

“No. F1117/83(CP) In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (f) of subsection (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (No. 3 of 1956), the University Grants Commission makes the following regulations, namely:-

1. Short title, application and commencement:-

1. These regulations may be called the University Grants Commission (the minimum standards of Instructions for the grant of the first degree through non-formal/distance education in the faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences) Regulations, 1985.

2. They shall apply to every university established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or of a Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every institute deemed to be University under Section 3 of the said Act.

3. They