The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments to academic positions must adhere to the prescribed educational qualifications and regulations, and that the equivalence of degrees as determined by the Government order is binding.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the appointment of 3rd and 4th respondent as Assistant Professors in 2nd respondent College as bad in law.)

The Writ of Declaration has been instituted to declare the appointment of the respondents 3 and 4 as Assistant Professors in the Second respondent College as null and void.

2. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent is an Arts and Science College, founded in the year 1955 and affiliated with the 1st respondent/Bharadhidasan University and recognised by the University Grants Commission. Pursuant to the Recruitment notice published on 11.07.2013 for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor for various subjects, the petitioner submitted his application and participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology subject. The number of posts were mentioned as 04, out of which, 2 were reserved for General and 1 was reserved for SC(A) and 1 was reserved for GT(Women).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he completed M.Sc., in First Class in the year 1997 and M.Phil., in Zoology in First Class. Further, he acquired Ph.D., degree in 1st respondent / Bharathidasan University, Trichy in 2009. Though the petitioner attended the interview on 11.10.2013, the Committee examined the credentials of the petitioner, not selected him without any valid reason. The petitioner questioned marks awarded for teaching experience and the Ph.D., degree. The petitioner raised grounds regarding irregularities in the process of selection. Importantly, the petitioner has raised a ground that the respondents 3 and 4 are not qualified as per the University Grants Commission Regulations and they did not possess the requisite qualification in the concerned subject. Thus, the appointment of the respondents 3 and 4 are illegal and in violation of the regulations prescribed regarding the educational qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology.

4. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the Staff profile of the 3rd respondent and 4th respondent, which reads as under:

Staff Profile of the 4th respondent: University Education

Post Doctoral Fellow : CES, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore (2001-02)

Doctor of Philosophy : Zoology/AVCC, Bharathidasan University/Commended (2000)

Master of Philosophy : Zoology/AVCC, Bharathidasan University/1st Class/72% (1990)

Master of Science : Wildlife/AVCC, Bharathidasan University/1st Class/61%(1989)

Bachelor of Science : Zoology/AVCC, Bharathidasan University/1st Class/59% (1987)

5. Perusal of the Staff profile of the respondents 3 and 4 reveals that the third respondent studied Wildlife Biology and Ph.D., in Wildlife Biology. The 4th respondent studied M.Sc., in Wildlife Biology.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that M.Sc., Zoology is the essential qualification for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) and the Post Graduate degree in Wildlife Zoology is not equivalent to M.Sc., Zoology as per the Government orders. Thus, the respondents 3 and 4, who were unqualified, were appointed as Assistant Professors in violation of the University Grants Commission Regulations, more specifically, with reference to the educational qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor.

7. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent made a submission that the petitioner is also an unqualifi