The State's authority to determine the equivalence of degrees for public employment and the importance of adhering to prescribed educational qualifications for teaching posts.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the proceedings of the Third Respondent dated 03.01.2017 in Na.Ka.No.3255/B2/2016 and for the records of the proceedings of the Fourth Respondent dated 14.07.2017, quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to approve the petitioner appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant from 01.07.2011. to reinstate the petitioner to the said post with effect from 14.07.2017 with continuity in service, and to pay salary to her from 01.07.2011 with all attended monetary benefits.)

The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for approval of her appointment as P.G. Assistant (Hindi Pandit) in the 4th respondent Aided School is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner states that she was appointed as P.G. Assistant in the 4th respondent Aided School with effect from 01.07.2011. She has completed Master of Arts in Hindi Literature and also completed B.Ed. and M.Phil. degrees. The petitioner had 11 years of previous work experience. He served as a Teacher in Anjuman Matriculation Higher Secondary School, T.Nagar from 05.06.2000 till 30.06.2011. The petitioner states that she is fully qualified for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant in the 4th respondent Aided School. The petitioner was continuously working in the 4th respondent Aided School from 01.07.2011 onwards and no salary has been paid to her as her appointment was not approved by the competent educational authorities. The repeated representations sent by the writ petitioner also went in vain. The proposal submitted by the 4th respondent School Management was also not considered by the competent authorities and finally, the order impugned was passed, rejecting the approval of appointment of the writ petitioner as P.G. Assistant (Hindi Pandit) in the 4th respondent Aided School. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

3. The impugned order was issued pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.27045 of 2014 dated 30.06.2016.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner acquired the degree qualification of Siksha Visharad issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, Allahabad. The degree is approved by the University Grants Commission as it is found in the Schedule to University Grants Commission Regulations and therefore, it is a valid degree for the purpose of public employment. The petitioner acquired the said degree of Siksha Visharad during the Academic Years 1993-95. Therefore, the question of equivalence would not arise, since during the relevant point of time, the degree was considered as a valid degree for all purposes including public employment. Thus, the issue raised by the respondents at this length of time became unnecessary and the appointment of the writ petitioner in the year 2011 is to be approved for all purposes under the provisions of the Statutes and Rules in force.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner is fully qualified and possessing all requisite educational qualifications. She has served in a Private School at T.Nagar, Chennai for about 11 years and thereafter, joined in the 4th respondent School in a sanctioned post. When the petitioner was appointed in a sanctioned post and the Management verified the qualifications of the writ petitioner and she was selected and appointed, there is no reason for the respondents at this length of time to reject the approval of appointment, despite the fact that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification and therefore, the order impugned is untenable and to be set aside.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 objected the said contention by stating that the department has not questioned the validity of the