https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574687207809773569?t=1spQJI6OKasdEhpTW0TRbg&s=08 [9/27, 14:39] Sekarreporter1: BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 13.04.2022 PRNOUNCED ON : 26.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W. P.(MD)Nos.23360 of 2016 and 3718 of 2017and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16787 of 2016, 2981 and 3054 of 2017

[9/27, 14:38] Sekarreporter1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1574687207809773569?t=1spQJI6OKasdEhpTW0TRbg&s=08
[9/27, 14:39] Sekarreporter1: BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 13.04.2022
PRNOUNCED ON : 26.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W. P.(MD)Nos.23360 of 2016 and 3718 of 2017and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16787 of 2016, 2981 and 3054 of 2017
A.V.Vahitha Begum
1.The Registrar,
Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram.
2.Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education Department, vs. … Petitioner in both cases
Higher Education Department Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009. … Respondents in both cases
(R2 is suo moto impleaded in W.P.(MD) Nos.23360 of 2016 and 3718 of 2017, vide this order, dated 26.09.2022)
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.23360 of 2016: : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent in office memorandum No.C1-9/005/2016, dated 16.11.2016, to quash the same and consequently, to forbear the respondent herein from in any way affecting the service of the petitioner as Special Officer in the respondent University.
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.3718 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the respondent in his proceedings University Order No.125/2017 (C1), dated 27.02.2017 and to quash the same.
In both cases:
For Petitioner : Mr.Radhakrishnan
For R1 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates
*****
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.23360 of 2016, is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings of the respondent in office memorandum No.C1-9/005/2016, dated 16.11.2016 and consequently, to forbear the respondent herein from in any way affecting the service of the petitioner as Special Officer in the respondent University.
2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.3718 of 2017, is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings University Order No.125/2017 (C1), dated 27.02.2017.
3. The brief facts of the cases as stated in the affidavits are that the first respondent is a University which was originally formed under the Annamalai University Act in 1928. Thereafter the State of Tamil Nadu enacted another Act called “Annamalai University Act 2013” in supersession of earlier Act 1928 and the respondent University is governed under the new Act with saving clauses provided under the said Act. The new Act was notified on 24.9.2013. The petitioner had studied Post Graduation in M.A., Political Science through Open University System and completed Degree in November 2003 and the petitioner secured II Class in the said P.G. Programme in Madurai Kamaraj University. Before joining the course, the petitioner has completed +2 during March 1989.
Subsequent to the Degree, he also completed M.Phil., in 2007 with a specialized
Research on Political Science. He completed U.G. Degree in the respondent
University in B.A., Political Science during May 2012.
4. The petitioner was appointed as Special Officer vide Appointment Order No.58/2011 (C1), dated 22.01.2011 and had completed probation. The petitioner was appointment as Special Officer Grade-I in the Distance Education Department of the respondent University at Dindigul Study Centre and at present is working as non-teaching staff / clerks, which are governed by the Service Rules namely the Service Rules for the Clerical Staff & Other Servants Other Than Servants of the University. The post of Special Officer is coming under the said Rule. The post of Special Officer is classified in Sl.No.2 under the sanctioned strength and the prescribed qualification is PG with II Class. The petitioner was appointed as Special Officer on 22.01.2011 and has completed 5 years 10 months of service as on the date of filing the writ petition. On 24.11.2016, the petitioner received a communication from the respondent, dated 16.11.2016, wherein the first respondent has stated that the appointment of Special Officer is coming under the Special Service Rules and the petitioner is not having requisite qualification. As per G.O.Ms. No. 116 P & AR (M) Department, dated 18.08.2010, P.G. Degree holder who have obtained the said Degree in Open University System is disqualified to seek public appointment. The petitioner’s appointment is not in accordance to the said G.O. The petitioner has completed 10th, +2, but has obtained P.G. without going through U.G. but subsequently, has completed U.G. The said show cause notice, dated 16.11.2016, is challenged in the W.P.(MD)No.23360 of 2016 and there is an interim stay, vide order, dated 02.12.2016. Since the batta was not paid, the interim stay was not extended further. The petitioner has filed restoration petition and the same is pending in W.M.P. SR.No.11490 and 11491 of 2017.
5. In the meanwhile, the first respondent has issued the present impugned proceedings in University Order No.125 of 2017 (C1), dated 27.02.2017, thereby, the petitioner’s appointment as Special Officer Grade I had been cancelled and modified as Lab Attender. Further, the pay fixation was also modified and the said order was given effect to from 31.01.2011. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner had filed another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.3718 of 2017.
6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the State
Government of Tamil Nadu had taken over the administration of the Annamalai University, vide Annamalai University Act 2013 and a Senior I.A.S. Officer was appointed as Administrator of the University on 04.04.2013 to streamline the administration of the Annamalai University. Admittedly, at the time of appointment, the petitioner’s educational qualifications were that the petitioner had completed SSLC, HSC, Diploma in Agriculture (2 years), M.A. Political Science, II Class (Open University System) and M.Phil., Political Science. The qualification prescribed for the post of Special Officer (Vide Appendix – C) in Serial No.2 is “PG with II Class”.
7. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamalai’s case in Civil Appeal Nos. 4173, 4189 to 4191 of 2008, dated 25.02.2009, an
Equivalence Committee was constituted for its recommendations, as to whether a Post Graduate Degree obtained through Open University System without obtaining a Bachelor Degree can be considered for appointment. The Equivalence Committee resolved that those who possess P.G. Degree through Open University System without obtaining a basic degree cannot be considered for appointment.
Thereafter, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.116, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.06.2010. The petitioner has possessed M.A., Degree with II Class through Open University System. As per the G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 18.06.2010, the petitioner’s M.A., degree through Open University System cannot be considered as P.G. and the petitioner is not eligible for appointment. Hence, the Show Cause notice has been issued and the same was challenged in W.P.(MD)No. 23360 of 2016. Initially, an interim stay was granted and subsequently, for non-payment of batta, the said interim order was vacated automatically. Thereafter, through Resolution No.16, dated
08.02.2017, it was resolved that the petitioner ought to be down grade as Lab
Attender through an order, dated 27.02.2017. The appointment to the post of Special Officer was cancelled and modified as Lab Attender with effect from the day of joining in the University service, i.e. from 31.01.2011 in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs.1900 as ordered previously in similar cases. The period of service of the petitioner in the post of Special Officer from 31.01.2011 will be taken into account for notional fixation of pay in the post of Lab Attender.
8. The petitioner has continuously worked for more than 6 years, but once an order of appointment itself is bad on the date of appointment, it cannot be rectified at a later stage and hence the appointment itself is not in accordance to law. It was found that out of 591 Special Officers, 85 Special Officers (72 Special
Officers and 13 House Wardens) had been appointed without minimum required educational qualifications. Hence, show cause notices were issued to the said 72 Special Officers and 13 House Wardens and after receiving the explanation from the individuals, without holding any enquiry or issuing charge memo, the University reverted them as Special Officer Grade-II. Aggrieved by the same, a batch of writ petitions were filed before this Court as well as before the Principal Seat of this Court and the same has been dismissed by an order dated 06.06.2016 and 09.06.2016. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any equity and the first respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
9. Heard Mr.Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in both cases and Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for first respondent in both cases.
10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not completed UG degree before she had completed PG degree in open University system. The petitioner had completed 10th in the year 1987, then 12th in the year 1989, and then has undergone Diploma in Agriculture for two years (1991), then, has completed PG degree in M.A. Political Science 2003, then, M.Phil. Political Science 2007.
Thereafter, completed B.A. Political Science during May 2012. There are several judgments wherein it has been held that the pattern that has to be followed is 10+2+3+2. In this case, the petitioner has completed 10th and +2, without completing UG, she has completed Diploma for 2 years, then she has taken up M.A. for 2 years, then M.Phil., thereafter she has completed B.A. In short, the petitioner has done the course in reverse method.
11. The issue of pre-foundation course and foundation course was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Mohamed Hasan Refayee Vs. TNPSC and another in W.A.No.213 of 2018, dated 19.07.2019 wherein it has been held that until the passing of G.O.Ms.No.107 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009, the pre-foundation and foundation is equivalent to 10th and +2 respectively and the Government has also accepted the said view. Subsequently in the G.O.Ms.No.107 only it has been stated that it is not equivalent by accepting the report of the Equivalency Committee. Therefore, by taking into account the date of issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.107, a cut off date was fixed as 18.08.2009 in the Mohamed Hasan Refayee’s case and held any pre foundation and foundation course completed prior to 18.08.2009 is valid.
12. Subsequently another Division Bench while considering the G.O.Ms. No.144 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 20.11.2017 in W.A.(MD)No.497 of 2022 vide order dated 05.07.2022, has held that the cut off date ought to be fixed as 20.11.2017 by taking into account of the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.144 dated 20.11.2017. Since in G.O.Ms.No.144 only the government has declared that the pre foundation and foundation course cannot be recognized as equivalent to 10th and 12th. In other words, the G.O.Ms. No. 107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009, has only accepted the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee, but G.O.Ms.No.
144 only stated that the pre foundation and foundation course is not equivalent to 10th and 12th. Admittedly prior to the said G.O.s the pre foundation and foundation course were considered as equivalent. Therefore the Hon’ble Division Bench has held the pre foundation and foundation course completed prior to 20.11.2017 is valid and but after 20.11.2017 is not valid.
13. The issue of course offered in Open Universities without the basic bachelor degree was considered in the case of Annamalai University represented by Registrar Vs. the Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590. In that case one N. Ramesh was temporarily promoted as Principle which was challenged by Sibi Madan Gabriel stating that the said N. Ramesh without completing bachelor degree has acquired master degree and hence he is not qualified to be promoted as Principle.
While considering the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the said N. Ramesh is not eligible to be promoted, but his order of appointment cannot be quashed for the reason that on the date of completing the M.A. degree, it is possible to acquire the degree without completing the bachelor degree. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the Madras High Court was also on the same view and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has confirmed the said view. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“33. It is also not a case as has been contended by Mr. K. Parasaran as also Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, that we should invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Writ petitioners – respondents has moved the High Court at the earliest possible opportunity. It is a case of promotion. It is not a case of fresh entry in services. Our judgment would not affect the service of appellant Ramesh. He cannot only be promoted to the post of Principal of the Institute. Even in the earlier round of litigation, the Madras High Court opined:
“9. When all these reasons have been given by the Government for appointing the appellant as the Principal, we see no arbitrariness in the appointment and in particular, when the stand of the University Grants Commission is clear that on the date when the appellant obtained his M.A. Degree, it was possible for a person who did not have the basic degree to obtain the M.A. degree, the order appointing the appellant as the principal cannot be quashed.”
In view of a long pending litigation, in our opinion, it will be unjust to deprive the writ petitioner – respondent from his lawful demand. We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that, in the earlier round of litigation, the Hon’ble Division Bench of Madras High Court has opined as stated supra. On perusing the order dated 14.02.2006 passed in the earlier round of litigation in W.A.No.1221 of 2005 and W.A. No. 82 of 2006 and W.P.No.
36307 of 2004, it has been held in para 7 of the judgment that,
“7. We were not sure to what extent we could rely on these letters which are not supported by affidavit. Therefore in order to ascertain the correct position, we issued notice to Mr. Udayakumar, the Learned Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission and Mr. Udaykumar appeared in Court today and submitted that at the relevant point of time when the appellant obtained the M.A. Degree, the degree granted by the Annamalai University was a valid one and that the U.G.C. recognises such degrees.”
After ascertaining from the U.G.C. counsel, thereafter the Hon’ble Division
Bench has held as stated supra i.e.
“9. When all these reasons have been given by the Government for appointing the appellant as the Principal, we see no arbitrariness in the appointment and in particular, when the stand of the University Grants Commission is clear that on the date when the appellant obtained his M.A. Degree, it was possible for a person who did not have the basic degree to obtain the M.A. degree, the order appointing the appellant as the principal cannot be quashed.”
15. A similar case was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the
Madras High Court in the case of K. Sakthi Rani Vs the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2010 (2) Law Weekly 746 and the question for consideration is whether the persons who studied law without basic degree, but obtained Post Graduate degree in Open Universities are entitled to be enrolled as Advocates and the judgment rendered in Annamalai case is relied on.
In K. Sakthi Rani’s case it has been held that, it is after the Annamalai University’s case the Bar Council refused to enrol the advocates who had not qualified bachelor’s degree, but obtained master degree in open universities. In the said Judgment it has been further held as under:
“49. Admittedly, neither the petitioners nor the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Bar Council of India are parties to the above said judgment. The issue involved therein was the promotion of the parties involved therein. Even in the said judgment, the Honourable Apex Court was pleased to hold that the appointment cannot be nullified, but the appellant will not get the promotion based upon the said degree. Therefore, the Honourable Apex Court was applying the law only for future promotion and it did not take away the right which has become accrued and vested.

51. Considering the above said principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court and applying the same to the present case on hand, we are of the considered opinion that the above said judgment of the Honourable Apex Court would be a binding precedent insofar as it holds that a degree obtained under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 from an Open University is not a valid degree in the eye of law. However, the said judgment cannot be construed to hold that a person, who after obtaining the said degree from the Open University and thereafter, completed law course, would be barred from getting himself enrolled. In other words, in a case where, a right has been crystallised and vested, then the same cannot be taken away.
52. Hence, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners herein who have completed the law course even before the said judgment. Hence, we answer Point (iv) in favour of the petitioners on the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Even in the present case the petitioner had completed M.A. degree in the year 2003 i.e. even prior to the judgment rendered in the Annamalai University case.
In such circumstances applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid Hon’ble Division Bench judgment and judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Annamalai’s case, this Court is of the considered opinion the petitioner should succeed.
16. The Hon’ble Division Bench further held in the said K. Sakthi Rani case that it is a well settled principles of law that a rule is to be construed as prospective unless the same is made retrospective. In other words until and unless it is shown that the provisions are enacted with an intention to affect the existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective alone. In the present case there is no material to show that there are provisions or rules or government orders which states that there is retrospective effect. The Annamalai University had allowed such recruitment and the candidates were in service until the university was taken over by the Government. The issue was raised after the government had taken over the university. Moreover after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University case, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 116 P & AR (M) Department, dated 18.08.2010, wherein it is stated that the P.G. Degree holder who have obtained the said Degree in Open University System without qualifying bachelor’s degree is disqualified to seek public appointment. Any government order would come into effect from the date of issuance of the government order, since the G.O.Ms.No.116 is issued on 18.08.2010. Therefore the candidates who have obtained master degree in open university without qualifying bachelor degree is not eligible for public employment from 18.08.2010 and the cut off date is only 18.08.2010. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner and the similarly placed persons ought to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered in Annamalai’s case read with the
G.O.Ms.No.116. It is pertinent to state herein that it is because of the
Annamalai’s case the government has raised this issue, but in Annamalai’s case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proposition laid down in the case is applicable only prospectively and not retrospectively. In the present case the petitioner had completed open university degree in the year 2003 and hence the petitioner is eligible to be considered for the Special Officer post.
17. Now in the above set of facts the principles of promissory estoppel, acquiescence, legitimate expectation, and equity ought to be considered. On this aspect also the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of K. Sakthi Rani has considered and held that the principle of promissory estoppel is not only based on equity, but on honesty, good faith which is the basis of rule of law and that an action which has already been completed by a party, cannot be nullified by the other party when the said action was done based upon the promise. More so a public authority having committed to the rule of law cannot claim immunity to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Hon’ble Division Bench has further held as under:
“75. It is also well settled principles of law that the doctrine of promissory estoppel can even be applied in relation to the statute, more so when it is sought to be invoked against the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and not against University Grants Commission. In the present case on hand, as observed earlier, the facts involved would clearly show that the petitioners are not at fault. On the other hand, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Bar Council of India have allowed the persons who are identically placed like the petitioners to enter into the law course and complete and thereafter, enrol. Even the petitioners have been allowed to the law course and complete. It is also seen that after the judgment of the Division Bench, for the subsequent years, various Law Universities recognised by the Bar Council of India had not permitted the students with Open University degree.”
The Hon’ble Court further held that,
“91. It is said that law and equity operate on distinct and separate fields. It is also a well settled principle of law that when there is a conflict between the law and equity, law would prevail. It is said “two streams have met and now run in the same channel, but their waters do not mix.” However, law has to be understood to mean, the law in accordance with the Act, rules and regulations which can be described as ‘common law’. In other words, equity would only mean ‘natural justice’. In that sense, broadly speaking, equity would also form part of law. However, by applying the facts of the present case as discussed above to the principles of estoppel, legitimate expectation and equity and on a consideration of the hardship and agony that would be caused to the petitioners, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the petitioners are entitled to get the relief based upon the above said principles of law.
92. On consideration of the above said factual and legal issues, the following conclusions are arrived at:

(iii)The Bar Council of India is well within its rights to insist
that a person having a decree from the Open University under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985, cannot be allowed to join a law course in a Law University recognised by it and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Bar Council of India can also refuse to enrol such a person who joins the law course and completes the same. The judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Annamalai University represented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism
Department and others, is binding on the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Bar Council of India insofar as the applicability of the University Grants Commission Act and Regulations, but the said judgment cannot be applied to the petitioners who have already obtained the law degree. The Rules of Legal Education, 2008, cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners who had already completed their law course at the time of coming into force of the Rules;

(v)The petitioners are entitled to succeed on the principles
of promissory estoppel, acquiescence, legitimate expectation and equity;
In the present case on hand, the facts as stated supra would clearly show that the University had recruited based on the degree and appointed the petitioner and the petitioner had put in nearly six years of service in the post of Special Officer. It is thereafter when the Government had taken over the University, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Lab Attender. Moreover the U.G.C. has submitted before the Hon’ble Division Bench that “it was possible for a person who did not have the basic degree to obtain the M.A. degree”, in such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable to the present case.
18. Insofar as the application of legitimate expectation is concerned, this may not be a legal right, but the doctrine can be invoked where there is an irreparable loss to the party. After the judgment in the case of Annamalai
University, no candidate is eligible with the post graduate qualification from the Open University. But in the present case the petitioner had completed the course prior to the said judgment and was recruited into service. In State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], the Constitution Bench referred to the claim of the employees based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation and observed as under:
“46. … The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn.”
19. Similarly, when the decision taken by the authority is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked. In the present case the Annamalai University has offered the Open Universities courses. Several candidates have passed such degrees with legitimate expectation. Thereafter the Annamalai University has called for “walk-in-interview” and appointed such persons. The petitioners and similarly placed persons were appointed and had allowed to continue to work. Thereafter the Government had taken over the University after several allegations of maladministration were reported. After taking over, the Government has held that such appointments are illegal. But the U.G.C. has categorically admitted in Annamalai University case before this Court which has been recorded in the order dated 14.02.2006, that at the relevant point of time such degrees were admissible. The said practice were followed by the Annamalai University until 2013 i.e. until the University was taken over by the Government. Therefore the appointments which were made prior to taking over of the University cannot be disturbed i.e. any appointment prior to 04.04.2013 cannot be disturbed. In the present case, the Annamalai University having recruited more than 571 persons as Special Officer, but only 85 Special Officers (72 Special Officers and 13 House Wardens) were appointed without minimum required educational qualifications as prescribed, those persons have rendered service for more than five years and their service ought to be protected. The petitioner was reverted to the post of Lab Attender and there is a wide difference in the salary. It is stated that the salary to Special Officer is Rs.
30,000/- and the salary to the Lab Assistant is Rs.20,000/- and the revision of pay was given effect to from the date of their original appointment as Special Officer. The petitioner is affected since after allowing the petitioner to undergo the course, by putting so much of time, money and efforts, the petitioner and similarly place persons are prevented from continuing in the post of Special Officer and their salary is revised. The entire exercise done by way of using the infrastructure, giving education, etc., would become waste and futile. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the principle of legitimate expectation is favouring the petitioner.
20. This Court with pain records that such issue arises due to lack of proper policy decision. The Annamalai University while admitting any candidates under Open University system ought to have fixed the qualification for admission to the
P.G. course as, “should have completed U.G. degree”. But the Annamalai University had never fixed such qualification before admitting the students. In fact, such a course ought not to have been established at all. This has given legitimate expectation to the candidates to qualify themselves in the higher education without the basic qualification. If a course is not acceptable for any job, then such course should never been offered at all. When the University is offering such courses, then it gives a legitimate expectation to the candidates to take up the course for their carrier advancement. The Universities, the Government and the job providers should act in a coordinated way, so that there is no hassle for the candidates to compete a course and seek job opportunities.
21. In the new education policy, a scheme has been formulated to recognise the qualification completed every year. If a person has completed first year in under graduation, that would be recognized. If a person has completed second year that can be recognized. Likewise, completion of each and every year of course is recognised. This was formulated since several candidates could not complete the course due to family circumstances and various other reasons. A person spending their life, time and money to qualify themselves for higher studies ought to be recognized, that too in India, any gain of knowledge is given due recognition from our ancient time onwards.
22. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Annamalai University has recruited more than 591 persons as Special Officers without adequate sanctioned post, hence wherever sanctioned posts are available the Special Officers are accommodated and rest of them are accommodated in the Government post deputed to other departments. If the petitioner is retained as Special Officer, then that would affect the government financially. However such plea cannot be entertained for the discussions and reasons stated supra. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Government having taken over the University, is bound to protect the persons already recruited and the Government is bound to accommodate the petitioner and the similarly placed persons in their original position itself with pay protection. Therefore the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to retain the petitioner in the post of Special Officer and disburse the salary as applicable to the post of the Special Officer.
23. With the above said observations, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 26.09.2022 Internet : Yes
Tmg
S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg
To
Principal Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Higher Education Department,
Higher Education Department Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
W.P.(MD)Nos.23360 of 2016 and 3718 of 2017
26.09.2022

You may also like...

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Call Now ButtonCALL ME