Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Collegiate Education & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
R. Suresh - Respondent
W.A. No. 3094 of 2021
Decided On : 26-06-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. D. Ravichander Special Government Pleader (Higher Education).
IMPORTANT POINT
Equivalence orders issued after a selection process cannot retroactively affect the outcomes of that process.
Headnote:
Equivalence - Recruitment - G.O.Ms.No.24 - The court interpreted G.O.Ms.No.24 as applicable only prospectively, emphasizing that equivalence orders cannot retroactively affect completed selection processes, thereby influencing the decision to set aside the writ order.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent applied for a Lecturer position but was not selected due to the lack of an equivalence order for his qualifications at the time of selection. A subsequent government order granted equivalence, but the selection process had already been completed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the equivalence order could not be applied retroactively to affect the completed selection process, as it would lead to unfair claims from other candidates.
Issues: Whether the government order granting equivalence could be applied retrospectively to a completed selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that equivalence orders must be applied prospectively and cannot alter the outcomes of selections that have already been finalized.
Result: The writ order was set aside, and the Writ Appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 01.11.2019 passed in W.P.No.12089 of 2009.]
The intra-court appeal on hand has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 01.11.2019 passed in W.P.No.12089 of 2009. The State preferred the present appeal.
2. Mr. D. Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that the recruitment notification No.04 of 2008-2009 was issued for selection and appointment to the post of Lecturers in Chemistry in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Services for Government Arts and Science Colleges for the academic year 2008-2009. The notification was issued on 14.08.2008. The respondent submitted an application for selection to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry.
3. Admittedly, the respondent passed M.Sc. in Industrial Chemistry and M.Phil in Chemistry. His candidature was not considered by the Teachers Recruitment Board mainly on the ground that the respondent has failed to produce equivalence order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu holding that M.Sc in Industrial Chemistry is equivalent to M.Sc in Chemistry. As per the qualification stipulated, M.Sc in Chemistry and M.Phil in Chemistry are eligible for selection to the post of lecturer in Chemistry. In the event of producing equivalence order, the candidate will be considered for selection. Since the respondent had not produced any equivalence order granted by the Government of Tamil Nadu, he was not selected by the Teachers Recruitment Board.
4. Learned Single Judge in the order impugned has recorded the fact that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Government has issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.24, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 13.02.2013 treating M.Sc in Industrial Chemistry as equivalent to M.Sc in Chemistry offered by Alagappa University, Karaikudi and by virtue of the Government Order, the respondent/writ petitioner is eligible for selection to the post of Lecturer in Chemistry.
5. G.O.Ms.No.24, Higher Education Department dated 13.02.2013 cannot be applied in respect of the selections, which were completed prior to the issuance of the Government Order granting equivalence. At the time of subject selection, the Government has not passed any equivalence order. Therefore, the respondent was not selected. Subsequent Government order granting equivalence cannot be applied for selection, which was completed.
6. At the time of selection process in which the respondent participated, there was no Government Order granting equivalence. The selection process in entirety had been completed prior to the issuance of Government order in G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 13.02.2013. After a lapse of about five years from the date of completion of subject recruitment, the Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.24, cannot retrospectively applied, so as to select the respondent. Such applications, if approved, would result in opening of Pandora's Box and many such candidates possessing M.Sc (Industrial Chemistry) would claim selections in respect of the selection process completed for various posts. However, such equivalence order issued in G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 13.02.2013 is to be applied for the selection notifications, which are all issued after issuance of the Government Order. In other words, the Government Order is to be implemented prospectively and cannot be applied retrospectively to the completed selection processes.
7. Selection per se would not confer any right on the candidates. Participating in the process of selection is a fundamental right of the candidates. The employers are empowered to cancel the selection process, if an administrative decision is taken. In the present case, the selection process was completed. The relief of selection and appointment was granted after 10 years from the date of completion of selection by the writ court by retrospectively applying the equivalence order issued in G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 13.02.20
