Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Mohamed Hasan Refayee - Appellant
Vs.
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep By Its Chairman, Chennai - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 213 of 2018
Decided On : 19-07-2019
Indira Gandhi National Open University Act 1985 - Section 5 - appointment in public services - landlord to terminate the tenancy – Employment and Services - Since the Writ petition was filed to declare the results, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve notice to the learned counsel for the first respondent. Today, the learned counsel for the first respondent produced a communication issued by the first respondent to the second respondent dated 12.07.2010 and requested to clarify as to whether the qualification possessed by the candidate, namely, pre-Foundation Course of Madurai Kamaraj University - Open University be recognized as equivalent to the 10th standard SSLC examinations of the Tamil Nadu Government for the purpose of entry in to service in the State and whether the two years Foundation Course of the Madurai Kamaraj University - Open University be recognized as equivalent to Higher Secondary course of the Tamil Nadu Government for the purpose of entry in public services in the State and whether the persons possessed of the said qualifications may be considered as satisfying the requisites of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department – Held, A similar question had been raised for the decision of this Court in Jivabhai Purshottam v. Chhagan Karson, 1961 AIR(SC) 1491 in regard to the retrospective operation of Section 34(2)(a) of the said amending Act 33 of 1952 and this Court has approved of the decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court on that point in Durlabhai Fakirbhai v. Jhaverbhai Bhikhabhai,1956 (58) BLR 85 [1955 SCC OnLine Bom 183 : ] . It was held in Durlabhai case,1956 (58) BLR 85 [1955 SCC OnLine Bom 183 : ] , that the relevant provision of the amending Act would apply to all proceedings where the period of notice had expired after the amending Act had come into force and that the effect of the amending Act was no more than this that it imposed a new and additional limitation on the right of the landlord to obtain possession from his tenant. It was observed in that judgment that: (Jivabhai Purshottam case - A notice under Section 34(1) is merely a declaration to the tenant of the intention of the landlord to terminate the tenancy; but it is always open to the landlord not to carry out his intention. Therefore, for the application of the restriction under sub-section 2(a) on the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy, the crucial date is not the date of notice but the date on which the right to terminate matures; that is, the date on which the tenancy stands terminated - Similar is the case on facts here. A vested right would arise only if any of the appellants before us had actually been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professors. Till that date, there is no vested right in any of the appellants. At the highest, the appellants could only contend that they have a right to be considered for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. This right is always subject to minimum eligibility conditions, and till such time as the appellants are appointed, different conditions may be laid down at different times. Merely because an additional eligibility condition in the form of a NET test is laid down, it does not mean that any vested right of the appellants is affected, nor does it mean that the regulation laying down such minimum eligibility condition would be retrospective in operation – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Subramonium Prasad, J.
The present Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.09.2017, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.7120 of 2011.
2. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He participated in the examination conducted for the recruitment for posts included in the Combined Subordinate Services Examination. The petitioner was successful in the written examination and appeared for the interview held on 07.10.2009. The petitioner results were withheld. He states that when he verified as to why the results were withheld, he found that the results were withheld on account of his not satisfying the eligibility criteria with regard to his school completion.
3. The petitioner states that, he gave a detailed representation stating that the petitioner had studied up to 10th standard. He could not complete his 11th standard, because he was not well. He stated that, there was change in the system, in as much as, the system of 11+3 had been converted in to 10+2+3, in the year 1978. He states that, he passed a foundation course of Madurai Kamaraj University, which according to the petitioner is equivalent to plus two course, and the same has been recognized by the Tamil Nadu Government order G.O.Ms.No.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P&AR) dated 18.05.1985. He states that after completion of his foundation course, he joined B.Com., which he successfully completed in the year 1989. The petitioner therefore states that he fulfills all the eligibility criteria.
4. The petitioner states that, since the results were not declared, he filed a writ petition No.13574 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by the following order:-
"4. In the light of the clarification sought for by the first respondent from the second respondent as early as on 12.07.2010, the second respondent is directed to consider the said issues and give the clarification as sought for by the first respondent with in a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the clarifications from the second respondent, the first respondent is directed to decide accordingly. The second respondent is also directed to communicate the copy of the clarification to be issued to the petitioner while communicating the same to the first respondent."
5. In compliance of the order, the Government of Tamil Nadu, by an order dated 03.12.2010, passed an order stating that a degree awarded by the Open Universities after passing Pre-foundation Course and two year Foundation Course through Open University cannot be recognized a degree as per University Grants Commission norms for the purpose of employment/promotion in Public Services, since such Pre-Foundation Course
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
