S. Muniyammal v. The Teachers Recruitment
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM S.Muniyammal ... Petitioner vs.
1.The Teachers Recruitment Board rep.by its Chairman College Road Chennai-600 006 2.The Director of School Education College Road Chennai-600 006 ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of non selection published by the 1st respondent dated NIL and quash the same, and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as P.G. Assistant Mathematics under S.C.Catergory for the recruitment year 2012 with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner :
Mr.V.Panneerselvam for M/s.C.S.Associates For Respondents :
Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader for R1 Mrs.S.Srimathy Special Government Pleader for R2
O R D E R
The order of non-selection issued by the first respondent with a remark that the writ petitioner studied P.G. and B.Ed., courses in the same year and accordingly, not eligible for appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant (Mathematics) under the Schedule Caste category for the recruitment of the year 2012, is 1/15
under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The writ petitioner passed 10th standard in April, 1992 and 12th standard in March 1994. The writ petitioner studied B.Sc., Mathematics in the year 1999 and B.Ed., in May 2008. The writ petitioner joined M.Sc., Mathematics in Manonmaniam Sundaranar University in June 2008. The contention of the writ petitioner is that she appeared in the first year examination in November, 2008 and the second year examination in November, 2009. The results were published on 01.03.2010. The writ petitioner passed M.Sc., Mathematics and therefore, claims that she is fully qualified for appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant (Mathematics).
3. The writ petitioner participated in the process of selection for appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant. She was called for certificate verification. She participated in the certificate verification. However, the writ petitioner was not selected on the ground that she has studied Post Graduate Degree of Mathematics and B.Ed., in the same year. The writ petitioner scored 101 marks. Therefore, she is well within the cut off mark and eligible for appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant. However, on the ground that the writ petitioner has studied B.Ed., and P.G.Courses in the same year, her candidature was rejected.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the writ petitioner got admission to M.Sc. Mathematics Course in June, 2008 and the first year examination was conducted in November, 2008 and the second year examination was conducted in November, 2009. Thus, the writ petitioner studied two years of M.Sc. Mathematics and therefore, there was no irregularity in the course of study.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner further made a submission that the pattern of education of M.Sc. Degree was approved by the University and therefore, the respondents now cannot raise any objection in respect of the Post Graduation Degree granted by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University.
6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent opposed the above contentions by stating that two years M.Sc., Degree must be completed in two academic years. However, in the present case, the writ petitioner completed B.Ed., in May, 2008 and completed first year of M.Sc. Mathematics in November, 2008. When the writ petitioner passed B.Ed., in May, 2008 and cleared M.Sc., first year in November, 2008, it falls in the same academic year. Such a pattern of education is in violation of U.G.C.Regulations. Two courses cannot be completed in the same academic year. Thus, it is a double degree of the writ petitioner as she secured P.G.Degree as well as B.Ed. Degree in the same year. 2/15
7. This Court has considered a similar issue by order dated 09.07.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.13488 of 2014 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
"4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that as per the Government Orders in force any candidate, who has acquired simultaneous degrees are not eligible for appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant. Simultaneous degrees are impermissible and therefore, the writ petitioner is not qualified for appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant as per the Government Orders in force.
5.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner referred the judgment of this Court, dated 13.02.2015 passed in W.P.(MD)No.1677 of 2013, he referred Paragraph No.9 of the judgment which reads as under:
"9.Considering the above stated facts, I am of the view that the respondent is not correct in stating that the petitioner studied M.A., and B.Ed., in the same year. As already pointed out, the petitioner after passing the B.Ed., degree in the month of April 2008, joined the M.A., course in the academic year and however, completed the course and became successful only in the month of April 2010, for which, examination was conducted in the month November 2009. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has studied both the B.Ed., and M.A., in the same year."
6.Plain reading of the orders passed by this Court reveals the fact that the petitioner in that writ petition studied B.Ed., degree in the month of April 2008 and joined M.A., course in the very same academic year. Therefore, it is made clear that on completion of B.Ed., degree in the month of April 2008, the writ petitioner joined in M.A., degree in June 2008. The said factual position cannot be compared with the case of the present writ petitioner, as the present writ petitioner studied two courses during the same academic year. Thus, the judgment relied upon by the writ petitioner is of no avail to him as the facts are distinct are different.
7.As far as the case of the writ petitioner is concerned even as per the affidavit filed in support 3/15
of the writ petition, the petitioner joined the B.Ed., course in June 2008 and completed the B.Ed., course in June 2009 in the regular course. When a student is studying B.Ed., regular course in a college cannot seek admission for Post Graduation Course at all. The transfer certificate issued to the writ petitioner was submitted at the time of securing admission to B.Ed., course in the regular college, therefore, a student studying in a regular B.Ed., course cannot undergo the Master degree course in any other University. This being the University Grants Commission Regulation, the writ petitioner secured admission for M.Sc.,(Geography) course during June 2008 itself. The writ petitioner completed the M.Sc.,(Geography) two years course in May 2010.
Therefore, it is apparently clear that during the same academic year in June 2008, the writ petitioner secured admission for B.Ed., course in a regular college and secured admission for M.Sc., (Geography) course from the university. Therefore, during the same academic year of 2008-09, the writ petitioner had undergone one year B.Ed., course as well as first year M.Sc.,(Geography) course. This being the factum of the case, the writ petitioner has acquired the simultaneous degree which is impermissible and not valid for the purpose of securing appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant.
8.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2016 Writ L.R. 844. However, the said judgment was in relation to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission appointment. Therefore, the same cannot be equated with the appointments in the Education Department.
9.The Department of Education has got certain restrictions and therefore, the appointments made to the ministerial posts in other departments cannot be compared with the teaching posts in Education Department.
The teaching posts in Education Department has got a distinct character and requires some specialized education for the purpose of imparting education to the children and students studying in schools and colleges. Therefore, comparison of the ministerial posts, administrative post with teaching post cannot be equated.
10.Teaching is a skill. Teaching is a noble 4/15
profession. A Teacher, who knows the class room alone can handle the students in the class room effectively. A teacher is treated as a noble man for the purpose of building the nation. The respect towards the Teachers in our country or throughout the world are un-comparable with the ministerial staffs or administrative staffs working in other departments. The Teachers are enjoying the special status in the Society by virtue of their position. In view of the fact that they are sharing the knowledge for the upliftment of the children and the students, who are all the nation builders of our great nation in future. Thus, the post of teaching can never be compared with the ministerial posts at all.
11.The recent growing trend is that the quality of teachers and the appointments in teaching posts are not upto the mark and the selections are done in a mechanical and routine manner. Selections to the teaching post must be done by verification of character and antecedents and also the capability of a person to teach the students in the class room. Teaching being a skill, the assessment of skill regarding the teaching of a person is of paramount importance. However, no such scrutiny or interview is conducted in this perspective. Contrarily, merely based on the verification and qualifications teachers were appointed. That is the reason why the Government Schools are facing so many issues and difficulties.
12.In recent years, even in High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools, large scale of sexual harassment allegations are made against the Teachers. Large number of harassment by the Teachers are brought to the notice of the department. Many number of such allegations are in the public domain, Teachers are involved in private business. The Teachers are soliciting the students for tuition. The Teachers, who are taking classes are soliciting the students to attend private tuition classes in their home. They are not only commercializing the education, they are always acting for unlawful enrichment. This being the recent trend being developed in our great nation, it is a high time where the system of selection and appointment to the teaching posts must be reviewed and appropriate policy is to be framed for the purpose of selecting and appointing the teachers in schools, more 5/15
specifically, in the State of Tamil Nadu.
13.Even the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1256 of 1999 dated 25.04.2002, considered the similar issue of entertaining the degree obtained through correspondence courses for appointment to the teaching posts, the Hon'ble Division Bench consist of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Shanmugam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla as he then was and Mr. Lordship P.Shanmugam while speaking for the Bench elaborately considered the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act and the relevant paragraphs are usual to understand the importance of the regular course for appointment to the teaching posts. The degrees obtained through Open University system as well as the correspondence courses were also considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench with reference to the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act. "11.
Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 empowers the university to confer degrees. Sub-section (3) of Section 22 says that degree means any degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette. The Central Government is empowered under Section 25 to define the minimum standards of instructions for the grant of any degree by any university. It is not clear whether M.A. Degree under the Scheme of Open University System has been approved by the Central Government and whether the university has conformed to the minimum standards for grant of the degree. However, it is clear that a mere expression 'degree' does not mean that it is to be treated as equivalent or to be accepted as a degree specified in the rules.
Further, it is open to the Government to consider whether the M.A. Degree obtained from open university can be treated as a degree for the purpose of appointment. Understandably, the Government had passed an order in G.O. Ms. No.216 dated 26.8.1997 to treat the M.A. Degree from open university as equivalent to the Bachelor's Degree for appointment in public service. Therefore, it follows that the Government is entitled to clarify the qualifications prescribed under the rules. But for this clarification, the M.A.
been treated as equivalent to the Bachelor's Degree for public employment. It further follows that the said Government Order can also be modified for reasons set out in the subsequent Government Order. The Government has given reasons to take a different view insofar as the appointment of teachers is concerned.
12. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in SANTRAM SHARMA VS MANU/SC/0330/1967, while repelling the contention that in the absence of any statutory rule governing the promotions to selection grade posts, administrative instructions imposing restrictions not found in the rules already framed cannot be issued, has held that till statutory rules are framed in that behalf, the Government can issue administrative instructions regarding the principles to be followed. Their lordships held as follows :
"It is true that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions. But, if the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed."
The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that while the Government rules did not impose any instructions in the rules already framed, the M.A. Degree cannot be denied as being equivalent to the Bachelor's Degree. But, in the circumstances of the case, it has to be stated that the rule is silent as to the eligibility of M.A.
Degree from open university. The said degree was not thought of at the inception of the rule and therefore, it has to be held that there is a gap or an area requiring instructions to supplement the rules. In CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA VS MANU/SC/0495/1991, the Supreme Court held that administrative orders can be issued to supplement the statutory rules. In KRISHNA CHANDRA SAHU VS MANU/SC/0092/1996, it was held that if the rules are silent on any subject or point in issue, the omissions can be filled up and the rules can be supplemented by executive instructions. In 7/15
STATE OF ORISSA VSMANU/SC/1383/1998, it was held by the Supreme Court that if the rules are silent, administrative instructions can be issued to supplement the rules. The rules cannot be treated to have been abrogated and they continue to govern the recruitment and conditions of service of teachers.
13. A Division Bench of this court in MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM VS. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL STUDIES, has held that the expression "to lay down standards of such education" occurring in Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act is capable of taking in every ingredient which will go to constitute the end or the ultimate level of education that is expected of a candidate who applies for enrolment as an advocate under the Act. The argument that "standards of such education" occurring in Section 7(1) of the Act refer only to the excellence of education aimed at and will not take in other matter, such as whether the course should be a regular one or may be a correspondence or as to how much attendance a candidate has put in, cannot be accepted.
Their lordships also, while holding that the said restriction comes as a reasonable restriction in the interest of general public, held that the Constitution itself provides that any law, relating to the provisional qualification necessary for practising any profession or for carrying on any occupation, trade or business, will have to be followed and it cannot be said to be in any way derogatory to the right of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The prescription made by the Bar Council of India regarding attendance in a regular course in a college or the prescription regarding particular percentage of attendance in such lectures in law are saved by Article 19(6) of the Constitution and they are relevant to the standards of legal education as a qualification.
The courts are not concerned with the wisdom of the competent body, but are concerned only with the competency or the constitutionality. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Government is not empowered to supplement the statutory rule and clarify the qualification required for the post.
8/15
14. The M.A. Degree holders from open university acquire knowledge only in the relevant subjects in which the candidate appears for the graduate course and the course may be either through Tamil or English mediums. But, however, they do not have proficiency of English as a language in the degree level. The M.A. Degree holders from open university who do not study English as a language in degree level cannot have the ability in that language and they could not even have studied the language to the high school level. Since no formal education is required and that these candidates write the concerned subjects directly, they do not have any level of language study and therefore, they cannot be compared with the B.T.
Assistants or Tamil Pandits or B.Ed. Degree holders. Therefore, they cannot be treated as having qualification to teach Standards VI, VII and VIII.
15. The contention that the Tamil Pandits who are considered for promotion by transfer do not have the knowledge in English cannot hold water since in all cases where Tamil Pandits are appointed as Headmasters, B.T. Assistants are appointed to handle the English Language specifically.
16. In JUTHIKA VS MANU/SC/0546/1976, their lordships held that it is well settled that the question whether a provision is directory or mandatory depends upon the object and purpose and not merely on the use of any particular word or phrase and having regard to the object. It has to be seen whether the person possesses the requisite qualification for being appointed as Headmaster of a higher secondary school. As stated earlier, the requisite qualification as prescribed under Rule 13 of the General Rules refers only to a basic qualification. The argument that there is no exclusion of a Post Graduate Degree has to be considered in the context of the object and purpose of the requirement of a degree.
In any event, the M.A. Degree is not the requisite qualification and while considering the equivalent of the said degree, the object and the purpose for which a degree has been insisted upon has to be looked into, and the 9/15
Government, having taken into account the relevant factors, have decided not to consider the M.A. Degree obtained in an open university as equivalent to the Bachelor's Degree.
17. In RAMESH PRASAD VS MANU/SC/0329/1977, their lordships held that as is well known, the process of rule making is a protracted and a complicated one, involving consultation with various authorities and containing manifold formalities. It cannot also be disputed that exigencies of administration, at times, require immediate creation of posts and any procrastination in that behalf will only prove detrimental to the efficient functioning of public departments. In such like situations, the authorities concerned will have the power to appoint or terminate administrative personnel under a general power of administration vested in them. It follows, therefore, that in the absence of rules, the qualifications for a post can validly be laid down in a self-saving executive order.
Therefore, though the impugned Government Order has stated that the service rules have to be amended, it presupposes various procedural formalities to be completed. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, it cannot be stated that the Government has no authority to issue the instructions dealing with the subject and it cannot be stated that the said decision is unreasonable or arbitrary.
18. The contention of the counsel for the contesting respondents that the field is occupied by the existing service rules and that the Government Order is arbitrary, therefore, cannot be sustained. As stated earlier, the scheme of Open University System is of a recent origin, i.e. of the year 1995 or so. In that context, and in the light of the various kinds of degrees and diplomas being conferred by different universities, it cannot be stated that the Government is not empowered to supplement the meaning to the degree or the equivalent of a degree.
Considering the background and the context under which the Government has issued the order, we do not find anything unreasonable in excluding a direct M.A. Degree obtained 10/15
from open university.
19. In A.K.E. SOCIETY VS. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 183, the Supreme Court observed that the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could bring about the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the 'engine' of the educational system. He is the principle instrument in awakening the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with the needed potential to deliver the yeoman service expected of him. His qualities should be such to inspire and to motivate into action of the benefitter. An ill-trained or substandard teacher will be detrimental to the education system, if not a punishment to our children. The Government and the universities were commanded to see that sufficiently qualified teachers are appointed.
20. A candidate who had not attended formal education even a single day is permitted to acquire M.A. Degree and the same is requested to be treated as equivalent to a degree. Unlike other appointments, the qualification of a candidate has got a direct nexus with the job of teaching. The Teachers are meant to teach children of impressionable age. In NAGESHWARAMMA VS . STATE OF A.P. MANU/SC/0100/1986 : AIR1986SC1188 , their lordships held that we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True, they will be required to pass the examination, but that may not be enough.
Training for a certain minimum period "in a properly organised and equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched". Even though their lordships were dealing with the Teachers Training Institute, formal education of a teacher cannot be overemphasised. The qualification required for persons who handle the educational institutions should be necessarily higher than the qualification fixed for other jobs. The course of study and the qualification of a teacher are germane to the maintenance of efficiency and excellence 11/15
in education. The State has got a duty to see that the efficiency and excellence of educational standards are maintained.
21. It is argued that many of the contesting respondents have already studied upto high school level and therefore, technically, they would have gone through the system of formal education. While considering the scope of the equivalence of a M.A. Degree, theoretically it is not possible to contend that a person who has not even gone into the shades of a school even during rain or sunshine would be able to become a headmaster of a middle school in case of direct recruitment. Such a contingency would cause great havoc to the system of education. Therefore, whatever may be the purpose for which the open university provides for M.A. Degree, insofar as the appointment of teachers is concerned, we are of the considered view that such degrees cannot be equated with a degree, which is the minimum qualification required for the post.
In our view, the Government Order is reasonable and has been exercised appropriately as a supplement to the service rules. The Tribunal, in our view, had erred in interfering with the Government Order."
14.In paragraph No.21 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench made an observation that "whatever may be the purpose for which the Open University provides M.A., degree, in so far as the appointment of teachers is concerned, we are of the considered view that such degrees cannot be equated with a degree, which is the minimum qualification required for the post". Therefore, the Hon'ble Division Bench was of the opinion that the teaching post must be filled up from the candidates, who have undergone the regular course by attending the college. The candidates, who studied in Open University system or correspondence courses, cannot be considered as a suitable candidate for appointment to the teaching post.
15.Assessment of suitability is also the criteria to be followed while undertaking the process of selection.
While considering the suitability of a candidate, the manner in which the degrees are obtained by such candidates are also to be scrutinized. The candidates, who had undergone 12/15
the regular classes will be the better persons to handle the classes in schools and colleges. Thus, the candidates, who studied in regular courses in accordance with the pattern of education prescribed by the University Grants Commission alone must be the eligible candidates with reference to the rules for appointment to the teaching post in schools and colleges. This being the principles to be followed this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioner admittedly had secured admission for two courses in the same academic year namely B.Ed., course as well as M.Sc.,(Geography) course. The admission was secured during the academic year 20082009 more specifically, in June 2008. This being the factum, it is made clear that the writ petitioner has secured simultaneous degree which is not a valid qualification for the purpose of securing appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant.
16.Under these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the decision taken by the respondents are in consonance with the legal principles settled and accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
8. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, even the M.Sc., Degree obtained by the writ petitioner was through distance and continuing education system. Even the mark statement of M.Sc. Mathematics denotes that the writ petitioner studied in distance and continuing education mode. Thus, the writ petitioner had not attended the regular College and studied through the Directorate of Distance and Continuing Education of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. When the writ petitioner has not even attended classes for M.Sc., Course and secured degree through distance education mode, undoubtedly, she is not qualified for a teaching profession. Teaching is a noble profession. Teaching is not only a skill, but an art.
The candidates, who studied through distance education without attending the regular classes, cannot be more suitable for teaching profession. The employer is also well within the powers to assess the suitability or otherwise of the candidates considering the job profile. It is reiterated by the Apex Court of India that the employer is well within his powers to ascertain the suitability of the candidates. Thus, the Government has taken a decision not to recognize such degrees obtained in the same year for appointment to the teaching posts.
posts is undoubtedly plausible and a reasoned decision. Thus, a Teacher must be appointed only after ascertaining the suitability and after verifying the nature of degrees and qualifications acquired. The degrees obtained through distance education mode or through correspondence course may be eligible for appointment in ministerial posts. Such degrees obtained through distance education mode cannot be considered as valid degrees for teaching profession. Teaching is considered as a profession, it requires a professional skill. Thus, the decision of the Government in this regard cannot be interfered with.
9. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, she passed B.Ed.Course in May, 2008; she got admission to M.Sc. Mathematics in June, 2008 and completed first year M.Sc. Mathematics in November, 2008. Such a pattern of post graduate education is not approved under U.G.C.Regulations. One year of Post Graduation Degree is to be completed in one full academic year. If a candidate is able to complete first year P.G.Degree course in five months, then such a course cannot be considered as a recognized and approved course under U.G.C.Regulations. U.G.C.Regulations contemplate 10+2+3+2. It means the courses are to be studied in full academic year. For example, three years for Under Graduation course means that three full academic years must be completed for the purpose of conferring degree of Under Graduation.
The duration of the course of study cannot be reduced or minimized by the University. Such a reduction of academic year amounts to violation of U.G.C.Regulations. It is not as if the writ petitioner had studied first year and second year M.Sc. One has to consider whether first year and second year of M.Sc., course are studied by the candidate in two full academic years or not. Only if a candidate studied Post Graduation Course in two full academic years, then alone the University can confer the degree of Post Graduation. All such degrees, which are in violation of U.G.C.Regulations, are granted by the Universities across the country by commercializing the education system.
The Universities are providing such illegal package of degrees to the students and attract them in an illegal manner and conferring invalid degrees, which are all otherwise in violation of U.G.C.Regulations. Stringent actions against all such Universities are highly warranted. University Grants Commission is not initiating any action against such Universities, which are all conferring invalid degrees to the students by receiving a quantum of amount by way of fees and other charges. Some Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu are also committing such illegalities. Various kinds of degrees are granted to the students, without adhering to the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission by converting the education as a commercial venture. Commercialization of education can never be tolerated.
Imparting of education is a constitutional mandate. The State must ensure that proper education system is in force and the Universities across the State are following U.G.C.
with the provisions of the University Grants Commission Act as well as the other statutes enacted by the State and the Rules. Thus, the Universities violating U.G.C.Regulations are to be prosecuted and the students, who all are conferred with such invalid degrees, must be in a position to get adequate compensation. By commercializing the education system, these Universities are introducing various courses by not following U.G.C.Regulations. Under these circumstances, the decision of the Government of Tamil Nadu that the Post Graduation Degree as well as the Under Graduation Degree obtained in separate full academic years alone are to be considered as valid degrees for the purpose of appointment to the post of P.G.Assistant is in consonance with the legal principles and there is no infirmity as such.
In this view of the matter, the writ petitioner has not secured the Post Graduation Degree in two independent academic years, contrarily, she passed B.Ed., in May, 2008 and joined M.Sc. Mathematics in June 2008 and completed the first year in November, 2008 and second year in November, 2009. Thus, the B.Ed., Degree as well as the first year M.Sc. Course in Mathematics fall within the same academic year, which is in violation of U.G.C.Regulations and consequently, the pattern of education undergone by the writ petitioner is in violation of U.G.C.Regulatioins. Therefore, M.Sc., Degree obtained by the writ petitioner through distance education mode is not a valid degree, more specifically for appointment to the teaching posts in Education Department.
10. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Writs) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To:
1.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
+1 CC to M/s.V.PANNEER SELVAM, Advocate ( SR-84250[F] dated 29/08/2019 ) 29.08.2019 krk JMN(17.09.2019) 15P : 4C 15/15