Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3443
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
J.Vinoth - Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary Tourism and Culture Department, Government of Tamil Nadu -Respondent
W.P.(MD).Nos.23508 & 23732 of 2024 and WMP(MD).Nos.19895, 19896, 20096, 20097 and 20098 of 2024
Decided on : 21-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.SC.Herold Singh
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Sasikumar, Mr.J.Anandkumar, Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel for M/s.Roy & Roy Associates
Educational qualifications for public service posts must be explicitly defined and equivalent qualifications must be established by prior governmental orders.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Services) Act, 2016 - Section 25(b) - Provisional selection for Tourist Officer challenged - Petitioners contend selected candidates lack required qualifications as per Notification No.3 of 2023 - Court examined equivalence of educational qualifications - Found that selected candidates do not possess the mandatory qualifications - Provisional selection set aside, directing consideration of petitioners. (Paras 2-26)
(B) Educational qualifications - Equivalence of qualifications must be established by a Government Order prior to the notification - Courts do not have the authority to declare equivalency of academic qualifications. (Paras 21, 23-24)
(C) Writ petitions - Grounds for challenging provisional selection must be based on established qualifications - Mere allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient. (Paras 4-8)
(D)
Result: Writ petitions allowed.
ORDER :
These two writ petitions have been filed by two aspirant to the post of Tourist Officers who had applied pursuant to a notification issued by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in Notification No.3 of 2023 dated 25.01.2023 challenging the provisional selection list published TNPSC to the post of Tourist Officer published on 11.09.2024.
(A) Factual Matrix:
2.The petitioner in WP(MD).No.23508 of 2024 had successfully completed M.B.A in Hotel and Tourism Management in the year 2022 and he had applied for the above said post. After clearing the written examination, he had appeared for the interview and he had secured 478 marks in the written examination and 54 marks in the interview. However, he was not selected.
3.The petitioner in WP(MD).No.23732 of 2024 had passed M.A in Tourism and Travel Management with Tourism as one of the subjects and she had applied for the said post. He had secured 453.50 marks in the written examination and 54 marks in the interview. However, she was not selected.
(B).Submission of the counsels:
4.The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the private respondents in their respective writ petitions, who have been provisionally selected do not possess the required educational qualification as per Notification dated 25.01.2023 and in case, if the provisional selected list is cancelled, they would come within the zone of consideration. According to the petitioners, the private respondents after obtaining post graduate degree, have acquired P.G. Diploma in Tourism. However, P.G.Diploma in Tourism is not an educational qualification prescribed for the post of Tourist Officer either under the Service Rules or under the Notification.
5.The private respondents have not obtained any equivalent certificate from Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education prior to the issuance of notification to establish that fact that P.G.Diploma in Tourism Management is equivalent to Diploma in Tourism. Therefore, the private respondents do not possess the required educational qualifications and their appointments have to be quashed.
6.Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents in both the writ petitions had contended that after acquiring P.G.Degree, the selected candidates have obtained P.G.Diploma in Tourism. However, the Diploma in Tourism, is obtained by the candidates who have cleared the higher secondary course. Therefore, P.G.Diploma should always be considered to be a higher qualification than the Diploma in Tourism.
7.Relying upon the syllabus of Annamalai University, the learned Senior Counsel had contended that number of papers and syllabus between two Diplomas are almost the same and therefore, P.G.Diploma Holder should be considered to be having a higher qualification. He had further contended that both the private respondents have secured higher marks than the writ petitioners in their respective category.
8.The learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents further contended that unnecessary allegation which do not pertain to the present writ petitions has been made as against them and therefore, there are no merits in the writ petitions and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. The learned senior counsel had further contended that both P.G.Diploma in Tourism and Diploma in Tourism are one year course and the syllabus and the number of papers are one and the same except the fact that eligibility to pursue P.G.Diploma is having U.G.Degree. The petitioners who were not successful in the selection process have challenged the provisional selection list with ulterior motive and malafide intention only to harass the respective respondents.
9.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for TNPSC has contended that though the writ petitioners were not qualified on the date of application, they were called for certificate verification based upon the equivalence G.O. (Ms).No.130, Higher Education (K1) Department dated 24.07.2024. Based upon the marks obtained by the candidates, the
