AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is a Post Graduate in History and at present he had passed NET Test and is teaching in a Private College.
The Government of Tamil Nadu (first respondent herein) issued G.O.Ms. No. 197 dated 05.07.2006 by which they are now going to recruit
about 1,000 Lecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges and Colleges of Education as per UGC Norms and also following the Rules of
Reservation. The qualifications have been prescribed in the said notification and for the purpose of making a fair selection, it was stated in
Paragraph No. 6(e) that weightage will be given to Ph.D/M.Phil/Experience/Publication in the reputed journal. The interview marks were kept very
low so that no allegation of favoritism will be made in the matter and the marks awarded are in conformity with the decisions of the Supreme Court
in this regard.
While implementing the said order, the Government took note of the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.03.2006 made in Writ Appeal
No. 1340 of 2005 and batch of cases. Subsequently the matters were came to be challenged once again by several candidates and in which it was
stated that UGC Regulation 2000 must be taken into account. There are other challenges also have been made in the said batch cases wherein
weightage given to the candidates by categorizing them into teaching experience, weightage in employment-exchange, etc., had also came to be
challenged. The Division Bench of this Court after hearing W.P. No. 37000 of 2006 and batch cases and after going through the Government
Order referred to earlier, in Paragraph 35 and 36 of its common order dated 24.03.2007 had observed as follows:
With the above modification in the award of marks, namely, the provision of 9 marks for Ph.D degree holders and enhancing the interview
marks from 7 to 10 and also providing 5 marks for the holders of P.G. Degree with SLET or NET and 6 marks for M. Phil candidates with SLET
or NET with the maximum of 15 marks for experience and 5 marks for research contribution, books, articles published will be more appropriate
while going in for the selection of candidates for the post of Lecturers.
For all the above reasons, we hold that the prescription of marks as prescribed in paragraph 6(e) of G.O.Ms. No. 197, dated 05.07.2006, as
amended in the letter dated 11.08.2006 as well as paragraph 11 of the prospectus annexed to the Advertisement.No.4/2006-07 cannot be
sustained which are accordingly set aside with the direction to the first respondent State to issue suitable amended notification in the light of the
marks as suggested in this order.
As can be seen from the above passage, paragraph 6(e) of the G.O.Ms.197 dated 05.07.2006 prescribing various marks was set aside and the
Government was directed to redo the exercise. While the Bench did not find anything wrong in giving weightage to various categories including 15
marks for experience, the Bench gave liberty to the Government to amend the paragraph 6 (e). In the light of the said judgment, the State
Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.146 Higher Education dated 01.06.2007, wherein the following revised notification in respect of paragraph 6
(e) in the order quoted above which is as follows:
1 For teaching experience in Universities/ Government/aided 15 marks
colleges/self financing colleges in the approved post
including the teaching experience (In the relevant subject)
of the candidates in Medical /Engineering / Law Colleges.
(2 marks for each year subject to a minimum of 15 marks.
2 For Ph.D qualification 9 marks
3 For M. Phil with SLET/NET (or) persons who have completed
M.Phil degree prior to 31st December 1993. 6 marks
4 PG Degree with SLET/NET 5 marks
5 Research Contribution / Books / Article published 5 marks
6 Interview marks 10 marks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 50 marks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner though qualified to apply for any of the Post which he wants to apply, he is now aggrieved about the grant of 15 marks towards
teaching experience in University/Government/aided college/ self-financing college in the approved post, has come forward to file the present Writ
Petition and contends that this would amount to recognising the experience, during the period in which those candidates would not have got eligible
to get any teaching post during the past as they had not passed either SLET or NET Examinations to their credit. The learned Counsel also says
that these persons are substandard, because they were afraid to write NET/SLET Examinations or they did not pass the said examinations. The
learned Counsel also further states that by giving weightage of 15 marks, they will have advantage over other candidates who are having
NET/SLET Examinations in their favour.
However, it could be seen that the present M.Phil degree with SLET/NET and who completed M.Phil degree before 31.12.1993 are to be
given six marks and those who are having PG decree with SLET/NET are to be given five marks. It is not as if the Government had ignored the
candidates who have written NET/SLET and passed the said examination. But the petitioner''s contention to edge out those candidates who do not
have NET/SLET examination in their favour and the weightage for teaching given to them for the period in which they had no SLET credit in their
favour and if allowed would amount to recognising a substandard qualification which is not contemplated. In essence, the petitioner wants to
restore the preferential treatment to NET/SLET candidates which the third respondent UGC itself had not advocated as of now. Further only with
a SLET/NET examination to the credit alone will bring standardised teaching which is a sweeping statement made at the Bar which has no legal
basis and it is difficult to swallow.
Further the same contention raised by the Counsel was also raised before the Division Bench in the order dated 24.03.2007 in W.P. Nos.
37000 of 2006 and batch cases (cited supra), and therefore the question of re-agitating the said issue does not arise, The Division Bench has taken
note of the various marks to be given to various heads and given power to the Government to prescribe those marks. Having failed in one attempt,
the petitioner cannot reagitate the issue and ask this court to go into it once again, especially when the Division Bench has dealt with it in extenso.
Even otherwise the contention raised by him is only imaginary and is with a view to get himself selected to the exclusion of thousands of teachers
who got employed on temporary basis but they have teaching experience in their favour, which is a prerequisite for a teaching employment. Once
the UGC norms for SLET or NET Test which is prerequisite norms of getting entry in their collegiate service, has been waived by the UGC itself,
the petitioner by a collateral proceedings cannot bring back the same norms which is not contemplated in law.
Therefore, this writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No
costs.