Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 26268
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J
P.R. Mohamed Rafi – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
W.P.No.23520/2024|W.M.P. Nos.25728, 25730, 25732 & 25735/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Kavitha Rameshwar
For the Respondents: D. Ravichandar, R. Neelakandan, R. Siddharth
Government Orders declaring educational degrees as non-equivalent operate prospectively and cannot retrospectively strip candidates of vested rights or invalidate degrees obtained prior to the order, especially when previous government orders had recognized such equivalence.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Equivalence of Educational Qualifications - Prospective vs Retrospective Effect - A Government Order declaring a degree as non-equivalent cannot operate retrospectively to invalidate degrees obtained prior to its issuance, as it would divest candidates of vested rights recognized at the time of acquisition. (Para 5, 10)
(B) Equivalence Standards - Departmental Compartmentalization - A determination of degree equivalence made by an expert committee for one government department cannot be restricted to that department alone; such equivalence applies across various departments for the same degree to avoid administrative absurdity. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether a Government Order declaring a specific degree as non-equivalent can be applied retrospectively to exclude candidates who obtained the degree prior to the order's issuance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner's challenge to being listed as 'ineligible' based on a new government order despite having a long-recognized degree. (Para 1) |
| 2. equivalence determinations for degrees are universal across government departments and not compartmented by specific departments. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. application of prospective effect to the non-equivalence order to restore eligibility for the petitioner. (Para 10 , 11) |
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.36, Higher Education (K1) Department dated 15.02.2023 insofar as it relates to Item No.37 stating that B.Sc. Physics (with main and subsidiaries 1. Mathematics 2. Chemistry) awarded by University of Calicut is not equivalent to B.Sc. Physics for purpose of employment in public services and consequential proceedings of the second respondent whereby the list of candidates under the 'ineligible list' for the subject Physics dated 22.07.2024 has been issued including the petitioner in the said list, and to quash the same as being illegal and unsustainable in law insofar as the petitioner is concerned and for a consequential direction to treat the petitioner as eligible for the post of B.T. Assistant for the subject Physics for appointment under the recruitment notification dated 25.10.2023 issued by the second respondent.
O R D E R
When this matter was taken up for hearing on 13.08.2024, this Court passed the following order :
“This writ petition has been filed challenging G.O.(Ms.) No.36, Higher Education (K1) Department, dated 15.02.2023, insofar as it related to Item No.37, which states that B.Sc. Physics (with main and subsidiaries 1.Mathematics 2.Chemistry) awarded by the University of Calicut is not equivalent to B.Sc.Physics for the purpose of employment in Public Services. The petitioner also sought for a consequential relief by way of a direction to the second respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the eligible list and to consider the appointment of the petitioner to the post of BT Assistant – Physics.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had completed B.Sc. (Physics) in the year 2006 at Calicut University. Thereafter, he completed B.Ed. course at Calicut University in the year 2009. The petitioner was admitted to M.Sc. (Physics) course at Bharathidasan University and he completed the same in the year 2015.
3. The second respondent published the Notification for direct recruitment of Graduate Teachers/Block Resource Teacher Educators in School Education and other departments. The petitioner applied for the post of Graduate Assistant / BT Assistant since the petitioner possessed all the qualifications. The petitioner also belongs to BC (Muslim) category. The petitioner was permitted to write the examination and scored 98 marks and adding weightage marks, scored 101 marks. The second respondent published the certificate verification list and the name of the petitioner was found at Sl.No.173. The petitioner also participated in the certificate verification and produced all the relevant documents.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent while publishing the provisional selection list, added the name of the petitioner in the ineligible candidates list by citing G.O.(Ms.) No.36, Higher Education (K1) Department, dated 15.02.2023, which stated that the Under Graduate degree obtained by the petitioner is not equivalent. Aggrieved by the same, the Government Order has been put to challenge in the present writ petition and the petitioner has also sought for the consequential reliefs.
5. The issue in hand is squarely covered by the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.166 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024, wherein a similar Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.244, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 07.11.2022, was put to challenge. The issue that arose in that case was as to whether t
