AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chitra Venkataraman, J.—The present writ appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD) No. 16049 of 2012 dated
21.01.2013. It is seen from the certificate issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University that as per the remarks of the Chairman, Board of Studies in
B.Sc. Physics (UG), the B.Sc. (Special) Physics with PC Hardware and Networking course is equal to B.Sc. Physics semester course. The
appellant herein/writ petitioner completed B.Sc. (Special) Physics with PC Hardware and Networking course in Lady Doak College, Madurai,
which is affiliated to Madurai Kamaraj University, in regular course during April 2006. Subsequently, the appellant completed B.Ed. course during
November 2007 and her qualification has been registered in the District Employment Office, Dindigul. It is stated that as per G.O.Ms. No. 181,
School Education (C2) Department, dated 15.11.2011, the second respondent herein fixes the eligibility for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test,
and the description of the qualifications are given thereunder. The appellant evidently had not secured the minimum marks prescribed for the
eligibility test. Thereafter, there was a supplementary test, in which the appellant is stated to have passed and secured 97 marks. While she was
called for certificate verification, awaiting for her appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant (Physics), the results published did not find her name as
a selected candidate, with remarks ""Physics Special with Hardware"".
The appellant''s grievance is that when B.Sc. Special (Physics) with PC Hardware and Networking course is equivalent to B.Sc. Physics for
higher studies and appointment, without considering the same, her claim had been rejected on the ground that B.Sc. Special (Physics) is not
equivalent to B.Sc. Physics. Hence the appellant invoked this Court''s jurisdiction. By order dated 21.01.2013, the learned single Judge pointed
out that the Equivalence Committee had prescribed the qualification based on which the Teachers Recruitment Board had taken a decision, the
extract of which is found in the order of the learned single Judge in paragraph-2. The Teachers Recruitment Board followed the resolution of the
Equivalence Committee indicating that in respect of subjects for which equivalence certificates had already been issued before the last date of
application, the Teachers Recruitment Board followed them and issued appointment orders. As far as the appellant''s qualification is concerned, in
the absence of any Government Order considering the qualification of the appellant as equivalent to B.Sc. Physics, no fault can be found on the
non-selection of the appellant. This Court further observed that however if any Committee is constituted in future, the appellant may claim the
benefit of the same. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed.
It may be of relevance to point out that by order dated 21.01.2013 in W.P.(MD) No. 15888 of 2012, learned single Judge had also considered
similar averments in respect of other discipline. In referring to the Government Orders therein, this Court pointed out that the Equivalence
Committee had not considered whether B.Sc. Maths with Computer Application is equivalent to B.Sc. Maths or not. In that writ petition, this
Court directed that if there are vacancies remaining unfilled, the Teachers Recruitment Board may address a letter to the Government for evaluation
of equivalence of degrees such as the one obtained by the petitioner in the said writ petition, and upon receipt of such a request from the
Recruitment Board, the Government may constitute an Equivalence Committee and take a decision within a period of twelve weeks.
It is seen from the order referred to above that a resolution was passed by the Teachers Recruitment Board which states that the Government
had set up a Committee to examine the courses and degrees offered by various universities for the purpose of appointment in Public Services and
accordingly G.O.Ms. No. 441, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (PER.R) Department, dated 20.12.1993 was issued by the Government and
appointed an Equivalence Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission with the following
members to be constituted for the said purpose:
i) The Vice-Chancellor of the Madras University.
ii)The Vice-Chancellor of the Annamalai University.
iii) The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department.
iv) The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department.
v) The Director of Collegiate Education, Madras.
vi) The Director of Technical Education, Madras.
It is also stated in the resolution as under:
The Chairman will convene the meeting once in a year or as and when its need arises at his chambers and he will send the Committee''s
recommendations to the Government. The Government will then examine the Committee''s recommendation and issue necessary equivalence
orders through a G.O. These G.Os. cannot be followed with retrospective effect.
For the purpose of recruitment, the Teachers Recruitment Board will consider all subjects for which equivalence G.O. has already been issued
before last date for application. Therefore, TRB has strictly followed rules and procedure in vogue and have done justice to many candidates.
Considering the certificate issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University, in fairness to the claim of the appellant herein, we direct the second
respondent herein to address the Government by placing the matter as to whether the degree obtained by the appellant in B.Sc. Special (Physics)
with PC Hardware and Networking Course, is equivalent to B.Sc. Physics, before the Equivalence Committee. On such placing of the matter
before the Equivalence Committee, the Equivalence Committee shall take a decision within a period of two weeks therefrom. The writ appeal is
disposed of accordingly. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2013 is closed. No costs.