The main legal point established in the judgment is that the degrees obtained by the petitioner during the same academic year were in violation of UGC Regulations and could not be considered as valid for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science).

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide Na.Ka.No.543/A1/2015, dated 23.11.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to join as B.T. Assistant (Science), notionally, with all consequential benefits, on the basis of the order passed by the second respondent vide order in Na.Ka.No.1441/ A4/2014 dated 18.06.2014, in Nallampalli Union.)

The order passed by the third respondent dated 23.11.2015, not permitting the writ petitioner to join as B.T. Assistant (Science), is under challenge in the present writ petition. Further direction is sought for the settlement of all consequential benefits pursuant to the promotion granted to the writ petitioner.

2. The petitioner states that he was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 23.03.2005 based on his Employment Exchange seniority. He was posted at Panchayat Union Primary School, Thirumalvadi, Pallakodu Union. The petitioner states that he studied B.Lit. (Tamil) through Correspondence Course at Annamalai University and passed the said Course in May 2007. Thereafter, he joined First Year B.Sc., (Botany) through Correspondence Course at Periyar University, Salem during the academic year 2008-2009. The petitioner has not appeared for the practical test conducted for B.Sc., (Botany) Course in November 2009 and the same was conducted in May 2010. The petitioner further states that he joined in B.Ed. Course in Indira Gandhi Open University during the academic year 2010-2011 and passed the said B.Ed., Course in December 2011. He rejoined Second Year B.Sc., Course during the academic year 2011-2012 and paid the penalty amount and completed the B.Sc. Course in July 2013. The said educational qualifications were recorded by the third respondent in his Service Records.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that his name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant as on 01.01.2014 and he was promoted to the said post by the District Elementary Education Officer in proceedings dated 18.06.2014. However, the Assistant Elementary Education Officer passed the impugned order in proceedings dated 23.11.2015, not permitting the petitioner to join in the promotional post of B.T. Assistant (Science) on the ground that the petitioner has completed B.Sc., (Botany) Course and B.Ed., Course during the same academic year. Thus the double degree obtained during the same academic year, cannot be considered as a valid degree for the purpose of promotion under the Rules.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the degree possessed by the petitioner cannot fall under the definition of -Double Degree- as he studied B.Sc., First Year Course and discontinued the same and thereafter completed B.Ed., Course and rejoined in B.Sc., (Botany) Course. Thus it is to be treated as different degree for all purposes and the promotion granted is in order. The petitioner must be permitted to join duty and continued in the said post.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.Dharmaraj vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Pudukkottai and Others [In Civil Appeal No.1301 of 2022 judgment pronounced on 18.02.2022].

6. Relying on the said judgment, granting the relief in favour of the employee, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that in the present case also the degree of B.Sc., (Botany) and B.Ed., Degree Courses acquired by the writ petitioner is to be validated for the purpose of grant of promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science).

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents-1 to 3 objected the contentions raised on be