T. Veerabahu vs The State of Tamil Nadu and The Teachers Recruitment Board

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is a Post Graduate degree holder in Alagappa University. He has done M. Sc., Industrial Chemistry through

the said University during the year 1989. He has also obtained B. Ed., degree in April 1991 and registered himself with appropriate Employment

Exchange during the year 1991.

hen applications are called for by the second Respondent, Teachers Recruitment Board, the Petitioner applied for the post of Post Graduate

Teacher in Chemistry. When he went for certificate verification on 12.03.2010, at Madurai, he was informed that M. Sc., Industrial Chemistry will

not be equivalent to M. Sc., Chemistry and therefore, the Petitioner cannot be considered for the post of P.G. Teacher in Chemistry.

The contention of the Petitioner was that this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 4997 of 2009 dated 23.03.2010 has directed the consideration of M.

Sc., Industrial Chemistry offered by Alagappa University as equivalent to M. Sc., Chemistry. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of

his contention pressed into the service judgment rendered by this Court (K. Chandru, J.) in W.P. No. 12810 of 2009 in K. Shankar v. Teacher

Recruitment Board and Anr., dated 08.02.2010. In that case, this Court directed the Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, which is a

body constituted under the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1992 to go into the equivalence of two degrees and inform this Court by sending their opinion.

After getting opinion from the State Council for Higher Education, this Court directed the authorities to abide by the opinion given by the State

Council for Higher Education, which is a statutory body mandate to advice the Government on academic matters. But that judgment rendered in

the context of the Collegiate Education service and do not deal with School Education. When the same judgment was pressed into service in a

subsequent Writ Petitions filed by Petitioners, in respect of higher secondary education service, this Court in G. Selvam and two Ors. v. The

Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, Chennai and Ors. in W.P. Nos. 12780 of 2010 and etc., batch, by a common judgment, dated

20.08.2010, rejected to follow the said opinion and in paragraph No. 29, it was observed as follows:

The decision of K. Chandru, J, which forms the basis of the third contention of the Petitioners, can not go to the rescue of the Petitioners. The

Statutory Rules as they were issued in 1981, the list of amendments issued there to from time to time, the nature of those amendments and the

effect of those amendments were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge. Therefore, the learned Judge directed the Respondents to

consider M. Sc in Organic Chemistry as equivalent to M.Sc in Chemistry. However it is stated by the learned Government Advocate that the

Respondents have taken a decision to appeal against the said order. Therefore, I am unable to accept even the third contention of the Petitioners.

V. Ramasubramanian. J, has elaborately discussed all the relevant rules and found that the area is covered by statutory rules framed under

Article 309 of the Constitution of India and this Court cannot constitute the opinion formed by the Government and inasmuch as the Government

has not considered the particular subject as no equivalence to the degree that is required for filling up the post. The Court cannot go into the said

issue. It is unnecessary to reproduce the reasoning made by the learned Judge and it is suffice to state that the learned Judge has referred the

relevant statutory rules, which has not been done in the previous case, as there was no occasion for such rules to be considered and the service

that was contemplated in the earlier judgment was totally a different service, namely, the collegiate education service. The present case is covered

by the School Education service and the statutory rules framed there under and the issues squarely covered by the judgment of V.

Ramasubramanian. J.

This Court is unable to countenance the prayer made by the Petitioner. Though the learned Counsel sought for a direction to the State

Government to constitute an expert committee to go into the question of equivalence, there was already a direction found in the paragraph No. 32

of the above said order. It is unnecessary for the Court to give one more direction. It is suffice for the State Government to abide by the direction

issued in paragraph No. 32 of the order passed by V. Ramasubramanian, J. Hence the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to

costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.