Case Note & Summary
This writ appeal was preferred by the Teachers Recruitment Board against the order of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent, who sought selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry. The dispute centered on whether the first respondent's Ph.D in Oceanography could be considered relevant to Chemistry for the purposes of recruitment. The first respondent held a Master's degree in Chemistry and M.Phil, and was working as an Assistant Professor in a private college. He applied pursuant to a notification by the Board but his application was rejected because he did not produce an Equivalency Certificate from the competent committee to treat his Ph.D as equivalent to Chemistry. The single judge directed the authorities to consider the Ph.D as relevant. In appeal, the Board contended that the writ petitioner failed to produce the certificate prior to the notification, the later certificate from Alagappa University in 2018 was not from an Expert Committee for Equivalency as mandated by UGC, and the writ petition was filed with delay. The first respondent argued that his research topic was relevant to Chemistry, the Registrar of Alagappa University had certified so, and a Division Bench had held that such certificates date back to the date of acquisition. The court considered the Government Order G.O.15, Higher Education Department, dated 22.01.2019, which clarified that for M.Phil and Ph.D, the power to give Relevancy Certificate lies with the concerned University, not with the Equivalency Committee. The court noted that the certificate from Alagappa University described research involving analysis of proteins, carbohydrates, chlorophyll, etc., which were related to Chemistry. However, to avoid any injustice, the court decided to have the relevancy verified by an expert committee. Consequently, the writ appeal was partly allowed with directions: the first respondent was to obtain a Relevancy Certificate based on opinion of a field expert from the University; an Expert Committee comprising nominees of the Board, Higher Education Department, and the University was to be constituted within thirty days to test relevancy and submit report within thirty days; the Secretary, Higher Education Department, was to verify vacancy position; the Board was to scrutinize the application, conduct viva-voce if the candidate was otherwise eligible; and if selected, appointment would be prospective without any benefit of retrospective effect. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law – Recruitment – Qualifications – Equivalency/Relevancy of Ph.D – Power to Issue Certificate – Government Order G.O.15, Higher Education Department dated 22.01.2019 – Clarified that for Ph.D and M.Phil, the power to give Relevancy Certificate vests with the concerned University and not with the Equivalency Committee – The court noted that the certificate issued by Alagappa University stating that the research involved analysis of chemical constituents was sufficient to indicate relevancy to Chemistry – However, to ensure correctness, an Expert Committee including nominee of TRB, Higher Education Department, and University was directed to verify the relevancy – Held that the University’s certificate should be considered, but a committee verification would eliminate doubt – (Paras 5-7) B) Service Law – Recruitment – Delay and Laches – Certificate Subsequent to Notification – The writ petitioner obtained Relevancy Certificate from the University in 2018, two years after the notification – The court followed a Division Bench precedent that such certificate dates back to the date of acquisition of qualification, thus lateness not fatal if qualification is genuine – Held that the delay did not disqualify the candidate – (Para 5) C) Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Direction for Expert Committee – The court partly allowed the writ appeal and issued detailed directions for constitution of an Expert Committee within 30 days to examine the relevance of the Ph.D topic to Chemistry, with report within 30 days – Directed the State to verify vacancy position, and TRB to scrutinize application, conduct viva-voce, and if selected, appointment to be prospective without retrospective benefits – Held that the exercise must be completed within three months of receipt of Relevancy Certificate – (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitioner's Ph.D in Oceanography is relevant to the subject of Chemistry for the post of Assistant Professor, and whether the Teachers Recruitment Board's rejection of his application for non-production of equivalency certificate prior to notification was justified.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is partly allowed with directions. The court directed the writ petitioner to obtain a Relevancy Certificate based on the opinion of a field expert from the concerned University; an Expert Committee (nominees of TRB, Higher Education Department, and University) to be constituted within 30 days to test relevancy and submit report within 30 days; the State to verify vacancy position; TRB to scrutinize application, conduct viva-voce if eligible; if selected, appointment to be prospective without retrospective benefits. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Relevancy of Ph.D qualification must be determined by concerned university
- not by Equivalency Committee
- Government Order G.O.15
- Higher Education Department
- dated 22.01.2019 vests power to issue Relevancy Certificate for M.Phil/Ph.D in the university
- Research topic relevance to subject of appointment is factual inquiry
- Expert Committee to be constituted with nominees of TRB
- and university for verification.
