Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
P.Sundharajan – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of qualification equivalence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. equivalence committee's decision regarding qualifications. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's assessment of initial error vs. committee's binding decision. (Para 6) |
| 4. final ruling led to dismissal of the petition. (Para 7) |
ORDER
Heard Mr.B.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for third respondent - Teachers Recruitment Board.
2. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process in response to the notification issued by third respondent Board vide No.01/2012, dated 11.02.2012, for the post of Assistant Professor - Metallurgy, and secured 135 marks in written examination. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent Board, on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, prescribed in the notification. The qualification, that was prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor - Metallurgy, was B.E. or B.Tech. or M.E. or M.Tech., in relevant branch of Engineering or Technology with first class, or its equivalent either in B.E. or B.Tech. or M.E. or M.Tech.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner did no
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
