AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—The petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 467 of 2009 sought for a direction to the third respondent to give approval for his
appointment as B.T. Assistant (Science) made by the fourth respondent by his letter dated 27.11.2008 and in W.P. (MD) No. 993 of 2009,
sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of cancellation dated 26.01.2009 passed by
the fourth respondent.
Both the writ petitions relate to the appointment and approval of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Science). As pleadings and the question of law
raised in the above writ petitions are common, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
Facts leading to the writ petitions are as follows:
A vacancy for the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) arose in the fourth respondent higher secondary school. Pursuant to the advertisement, dated
24.10.2008, the petitioner submitted his application along with his testimonials. Considering the same, the fourth respondent appointed the
petitioner as B.T. Assistant (Science), under the open category quota, on 27.11.2008 and approval for appointment was forwarded to the District
Educational Officer, Usilampatti, Madurai District. The third respondent purposefully evaded approving the appointment and he was misguided by
the headmaster of the fourth respondent school to issue a proceeding to the Secretary of the fourth respondent school, as to how the petitioner
who possessed a degree B.Sc., Industrial Chemistry which is not equivalent to B.Sc., General Chemistry was appointed to the post of B.T.
Assistant (Science) Stating that the petitioner did not possess the qualification B.Sc. (Chemistry), the proposal sent by the fourth respondent was
returned by the District Educational Officer on 23.12.2008 and the same was communicated to the petitioner by the fourth respondent. Aggrieved
by the refusal, to approve the proposal, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 467 of 2009.
Pursuant to the refusal to approve the appointment of the petitioner and after returning of the proposals, the third respondent, District
Educational Officer, Usilampatti Educational District has written a letter to the petitioner, on 28.12.2008 calling upon him to explain as to how
B.Sc., Industrial Chemistry is equivalent to B.Sc., General Chemistry. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted explanation on 29.12.2008
stating that he was fully qualified to teach chemistry subject on the basis of the eligibility certificate issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University,
dated 11.12.2008. Even after the receipt of explanation, the fourth respondent has failed to take necessary action by giving any reply to the third
respondent, instead by his proceedings in R.C. No. 100/Hr.Sec.Edu./2009, dated 26.01.2009, the fourth respondent has cancelled the
appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 993 of 2009 to quash the
order of cancellation.
The District Educational Officer, the third respondent, has filed a counter affidavit stating that the fourth respondent school is a recognised
Higher Secondary School run by Nadar Uravinmurai of S. Melapatti Village having standards 6 to 12. Higher secondary sections were permitted
on self finance basis. The standards 6 to 10 are fully aided by State Government under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private
Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules 1974 framed thereunder. The following vacancies arose in the fourth respondent school are as follows;
1.OC-BT Assistant (Science)
SC-BT Assistant (Maths)
MBC-BT Assistant (English)
BC-BT Assistant (Science)
OC-BT Assistant (Maths)
Pursuant to advertisement and interview, the fourth respondent by order, dated 27.11.2008 has appointed the petitioner with a condition that
the appointment is subject to the approval of the District Educational Officer, Usilampatti. When the proposals dated 29.12.2008 were examined
with reference to the rules, it was found that the petitioner has been appointed as B.T. Assistant in the place of SGT post as per G.O.Ms. No.
100, School Education Department, dated 27.06.2003. As per the above said G.O., the petitioner has to be appointed as B.T. Assistant
(Science), which consists of Physics (or) Chemistry (or) Botony (or) Zoology. As per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation)
Act, 1973 and Rules 1974, Annexure V and Government G.O.Ms. No. 125, School Education Department, dated 12.11.2008, the educational
qualification prescribed for the post of B.T teachers is having B.Sc. of any university in the State or its equivalent and B.T. or B.Ed., degree. The
petitioner is appointed in the B.T. Science post. As per the Government norms for B.T. Science post the candidate must possess B.Sc., degree in
Physics (or) Chemistry(or) Botony (or) Zoology. But the petitioner does not possess the qualification for BT(Science) Post. It was found that the
degree B.Sc., Industrial Chemistry is not equivalent to B.Sc., Chemistry as per the norms fixed by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai.
According to the third respondent, holders of B.Sc., Industrial Chemistry cannot teach science subjects as per approved syllabus. As the petitioner
was considered as not qualified to be appointed as B.T. Assistant (Science) with reference to the rules prescribed for the said post, the proposals
submitted and the same were returned. The third respondent has denied the contention that the proposals were returned at the instance of the
fourth respondent. It is for the departmental authorities to either approve or reject the approval of appointment after scrutiny of the proposals and
returning the proposals. It is further submitted that as the rules are very clear, there is no need to seek for clarification from any superior authority.
Unqualified persons cannot be appointed to teach students. The third respondent further submitted that the appointment of lecturers in colleges is
different from appointment in Private Schools governed under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act and Rules framed
thereunder and therefore, the same cannot be equated to each other. In these circumstances, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
The fourth respondent in his counter affidavit has submitted that after following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Recognised
Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder, the petitioner was appointed on 27.11.2008 and proposals were forwarded
to the third respondent. He denied the allegation that the third respondent was misguided by the headmaster by asking him to issue a proceeding to
the fourth respondent seeking explanation as to how the petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant (Science) with B.Sc. Industrial Chemistry
which is not equivalent to B.Sc. General Chemistry. The fourth respondent, has denied the contention of the petitioner that he has evaded to give
explanation to the educational authority, regarding the equivalence of the qualification.
The fourth respondent has denied the allegation that the third respondent is in hand in glove with the Headmaster of the fourth respondent school
to appoint some other person in his place. Insofar as the allegations against the headmaster of the school is concerned, it is submitted that as he is
not a party to the writ petition, and therefore, is not necessary to traverse into the same.
The fourth respondent has further submitted that as the third respondent has refused to approve the appointment of the petitioner and returned
the proposals, the fourth respondent has no other alternative except to cancel the appointment of the petitioner taking into consideration of the
interests of the students. It is also submitted that if the appointment is not approved, then the fourth respondent would be constrained to pay the
salary to an unqualified person.
The fourth respondent has further submitted that though the appointment of the petitioner was made as per the procedure, but the same was
found to be contrary to the prescribed qualifications as B.Sc. Industrial Chemistry was found not equivalent to B.Sc.(general Chemistry) as per the
rules and the guidelines of the Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board. As the proposals for approval were returned, the fourth respondent
school was constrained to cancel the appointment for reasons stated supra.
In these circumstances, he has prayed that the allegation of mala fide in not forwarding the equivalence certificate issued by the Madurai
Kamaraj University is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that as the Headmaster of the fourth respondent school, has not been made as a
party respondent to these writ petitions and therefore, the allegations levelled against him need not be traversed. As interests of the students is the
paramount consideration, cancellation of the appointment cannot be termed as arbitrary warranting interference.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner had given an explanation to the fourth respondent on 29.12.2008, he
had failed to forward the same along with the certificate of the Madurai Kamaraj University, to the educational authority. He further submitted that
since the proceedings of the third respondent dated 23.12.2008 is only a communication seeking explanation from the fourth respondent, there
was no occasion for the petitioner to challenge the same. The unilateral decision by the fourth respondent to cancel the appointment on the ground
that the petitioner has not produced any government order to prove equivalency is illegal.
Placing strong reliance on the certificate dated 11.12.2008 issued by Madurai Kamaraj University, certifying that as per the remarks of the
Chairman, Board of Studies in Chemistry (UG), B.Sc., Industrial Chemistry course is equal to B.Sc., Chemistry semester course for the purpose
of employment and teaching, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the University has certified that the above said course is
equivalent to B.Sc., General Chemistry for the purpose of employment and teaching, the District Educational Officer, the third respondent and the
Secretary of the school, are not competent to say that the petitioner is not eligible to hold the post of B.T. Assistant (Science).
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if there was any doubt in the mind of the third respondent as regards equivalence, he
ought to have obtained necessary clarifications from the Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai, as to whether B.Sc., Industrial Chemistry is
equivalent to B.Sc.(General Chemistry) in the lighgt of the certificate of equivalence given by Madurai Kamaraj University. He further submitted
that when the appointment was made, the fourth respondent, had already verified the testimonials submitted by the petitioner and having appointed
him to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science), it is not open to him to contend that the qualification held by the petitioner is not equivalent to B.Sc.
(Chemistry) which is prescribed to the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and
Rules framed thereunder.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that availability of alternative remedy is not bar to entertain the writ petitions, when the rights of
the petitioner to hold the post of B.T.Assistant(Science) is affected by erroneous approach of the educational authorities regarding the equivalence
of the qualification possessed by him and the remedy is not efficacious.
Learned Counsel for the fourth respondent further submitted that as against the cancellation of appointment, statute provides an appeal remedy
and therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable.
Referring to the qualifications prescribed for the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) in the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation)
Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the guidelines issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted
that B.Sc., Industrial Chemistry is not equivalent to B.Sc., Chemistry for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant. He further submitted that the
proposals of the fourth respondent was examined with reference to the statutory rules, and inasmuch as the educational qualification, is not
equivalent and suitable for appointment to the said post, proposals for approval submitted by the school was returned. As the appointment was
found contrary to rules, the action of the third respondent is fully justified. In these circumstances, he prayed for dismissal of the above writ
petitions.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
The dispute is only with reference to qualification prescribed for the post of B.T. Assistant in higher secondary schools. Therefore, it is
necessary to extract the qualification prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation), Act and Rules framed thereunder.
----------------------------------------------------------
Name of the post Qualification
----------------------------------------------------------
B.T. Assistant B.A. or B.Sc. or its
equivalent and B.T. or
B.Ed., or L.T. and Trained
Teachers Certificate to
Collegiate Grade.
----------------------------------------------------------
Prescribing the qualification for a particular post is purely the executive domain of the appointing authority or the Government. The qualification
prescribed for the post of B.T. Assistant (Science) a degree in the following discipline: Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Admittedly, the
petitioner possesses B.Sc., Industrial Chemistry, which is not recognised as equivalent qualification by the Government or the recruitment agency.
In a decision reported in Bihar Public Service Commission and Others Vs. Kamini and Others, , the Supreme Court considered the
correctness of the judgment of the Patna High Court. In the above reported case, the qualification prescribed for the post of District Vigilance
Officer was B.Sc. (Hons) with two years diploma in Fisheries Science from Central Institute of Fisheries Education. The expert committee
constituted by Public Service Commission opined that a person can be said to be Honours in Zoology, if he studies optional subject having two
papers. The respondent obtained degree of B.Sc(Hons.) in Chemistry with Zoology and Botany as subsidiary/optional not eligible for the post and
accordingly the candidature was cancelled. The writ petition filed by the respondent therein was dismissed. But the Division Bench allowed the
appeal holding that the qualification are to be treated as equivalent. While considering the above issue, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 8 of the
judgment held that
it well settled that in the field of education, a court of law cannot act as an expert. Therefore, whether a student/candidate possesses requisite
qualifications, or not should better be left to educational institutions (vide The University of Mysore and Another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and
Another, . This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert Committee.
In yet another case reported in 2008 (6) MLJ 1024 (Dr. Annie D. Ambrose @ J. Rukmani v. State of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Government,
Education Science and Technology Department, Madras and Ors.), wherein it is held that
in today''s educational scenario, hybrid courses and specialised programmes are being offered by Universities with different syllabi, course pattern,
duration etc.,. The system for the courses, degrees, programmes etc., are not uniform and one and the same across the country. Degrees,
Diplomas and Certificates are awarded by various Universities established under the respective enactments and by the deemed Universities.
Applying the said principle, this Court is of the view that if the educational authorities do not accept B.Sc., Industrial Chemistry as equivalent to
B.Sc., (General Chemistry) and of the standard prescribed, the High Court exercising Writ jurisdiction cannot act as a Court of Appeal, sitting
over the decision of the educational authority, who is empowered to approve the appointment subject to satisfaction the qualification prescribed for
the post of B.T. Assistant. It is also evident from the guidelines issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board, the recruiting agency that B.Sc.
(Industrial Chemistry), is not equivalent to B.Sc. (Chemistry).
The opinion offered by the Registrar of Madurai Kamaraj University by in his certificate dated 11.12.2008, is not binding on the educational
authorities, as there is no ambiguity in their mind, as regards its equivalence and suitability for the post of B.T. Assistant (Science). The mere fact
that the Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai the recruiting agency of the Government, does not recognise B.Sc., (Industrial Chemistry) as
equivalent to B.Sc.,(Chemistry) shows that the Government had already issued suitable orders. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel
for the petitioner that the third respondent, District Educational Officer, Usilampatti Educational District ought to have obtained the views of the
Madurai Kamaraj University before examining the proposals cannot be countenanced. As stated supra, each University has a different pattern of
course of study and hybrid courses are offered. It is well settled that Courts do not have the competence to sit over the views of the appointing
authority in the matter of prescription of educational qualification. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the State, in the absence of
impleading the Headmaster of the school as a party respondent, the mala fide raised against the Headmaster of the School is liable to be rejected.
In such view of the matter, I do not find that the petitioner has made out any case of mala fide against the fourth respondent or the Headmaster
of the said school who is not party to the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2
of 2009 are closed.