Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15295
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
K.Nandhini - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
WP(MD)Nos.13999 to 14008 of 2021 and 10998, 11001, 11002, 11004, 11005, 11006, 11007, 11009 and 11011 of 2021
Decided on : 06-01-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr.Aswin Rajasimhan for M/S.Lajapathiroy Associates
For the Respondent : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, Government Advocate, Mr.Veerakathiravan Assisted by Mr.J.Anandhakumar, Mr.A.Thirumurthy
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Aswin Rajasimhan for M/S.Lajapathiroy Associates
For the Respondent: Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam Mr.Veerakathiravan Mr.J.Anandhakumar Mr.A.Thirumurthy
Accrued rights from educational qualifications cannot be retrospectively altered; equivalence declarations are effective only from their issuance date.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Notification No.24/2019 - Educational qualification for Child Development Project Officer - Petitioners' BSc (Food Nutrition and Dietetics) rejected despite subsequent equivalence declaration - Court held that equivalence effective only from date of issuance, not retroactively - Petitioners not eligible for current vacancies. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 8)
(B) Right to Employment - The principle that an accrued right cannot be taken away retrospectively is affirmed - Validity of degrees must be consistent and not subject to prospective interpretation. (Paras 22-25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners applied for the post of Child Development Project Officer but were rejected due to their degree not being recognized as equivalent to the prescribed qualifications at the time of application. The government later declared the degree equivalent, but this was after the application deadline.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners must pursue their claims in future recruitment processes as the equivalence was not in effect at the time of application.
Issues: The main issues were the timing of the equivalence declaration and the implications for the petitioners' eligibility for the position.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that rights based on educational qualifications must be recognized from the date of their acquisition and cannot be applied retroactively to affect past applications.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of; no costs.
ORDER :
The petitioners are the candidates, who have applied to the post of Child Development Project Officer called for by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [in short 'TNPSC'] by its Notification No.24/2019, dated 13.08.2019. The TNPSC prescribed the educational qualification for the said post as ' a Degree in Nutrition (or) Home Science (or) a Degree with a PG Diploma in Rural Services awarded by the Gandhigram University.
2. The petitioners have completed BSc., (Food Nutrition and Dietetics) conducted by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Madurai. However this qualification has not been considered as the prescribed qualification and their applications were rejected. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners by referring to the government order in G.O(Ms)No.79 Agriculture – Farmers Welfare (AU) Department, dated 15.03.2024 submits that the degree in BSc (Food Nutrition and Dietetics) awarded by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Madurai has been declared as equivalent degree to BSc., Home Science – Nutrition/Nutrition and Dietetics/Food and Nutrition for the purpose of public employment. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the degree obtained by the petitioners is equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the TNPSC for the post of Child Development Project Officer and therefore, they are eligible to be appointed as per the notification.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Principal Secretary, Department of School Education , reported in (2014) 3 CTC (FB), wherein it has been held as follows:
“22. The above observation of the Apex Court clearly answers the doubt raised in this Reference that a right whether inchoate or accrued or acquired right can be held to be protected, provided the right survives. In the light of the said principle, if the case on hand is considered, admittedly, the equivalence committee has considered and approved the equivalent nature of the degree and certificate obtained by the candidates. Similarly, the Government Order issued by the Government also agrees with the validity of the degree, therefore, from the date the degree was obtained by the candidate, the right is accrued, hence the same should be protected. While so, giving a different meaning that the validity of the degree will have prospective effect or retrospective effect is uncalled for. To make it even further clear, we wish to mention at the risk of repetition that when both the equivalence committee and the Government Order issued by the State Government have not chosen to restrict the validity of the degree obtained in any one of their orders, it goes without saying that the validity of the degree from the date of acquisition will stand to benefit the candidates, therefore, the question of introducing the prospective or retrospective ruling will tantamount to violent interpretation against the settled legal position. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Vadera vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1969 SC 118, wherein, the law is well declared that an accrued and acquired right of a person cannot be taken away with retrospective effect.
23. Also, in the present case, neither the Equivalence Committee nor the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.72, dated 30.04.2013 and 117, dated 02.07.2013, confined the validity of the degree obtained by the candidates to operate prospectively, therefore, as per the above judgments, when the vested rights are created from the date of their acquisition of equivalent degrees, the respondents cannot take a stand that the degrees obtained by the petitioners will only have prospective effect from the date of issuance of Equivalence Certificate. When both the Equivalence Committee and the Government Order have consistently not mentioned the
