Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed to quash the provisional selection list of candidates published by the Teachers Recruitment Board (‘TRB’) pursuant to TRB notification, and consequently directing TRB to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor against the vacancy in Human Rights department, R.N. Manjula, J. quashed the selection list, and directed TRB to include the petitioner’s name in the selection list. The State was also directed to release the appointment order to the petitioner, giving her retrospective seniority from the date of appointment of candidates who secured fewer marks than her, with notional effect from the date of their appointment.
Background
The petitioner had applied for the post of ‘Assistant Professor’ in response to the notification issued by the TRB for a vacancy under the GT/GT(W) category. After attending the written examination, the petitioner secured the first rank in the Human Rights section by obtaining 133 marks out of 175. Subsequently, she received a call letter from TRB, inviting her for an interview, which she attended. Thereafter, the provisional selection list was published, but the petitioner’s name was conspicuously absent, and candidates with lower marks than the petitioner in the written examination were included in the selection list.
TRB contended that the candidature of the petitioner could not be considered because the petitioner had qualified in LLM degree by doing one-year LLM Programme and the degree required for appointment was two years LLM Programme.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner had secured her LLM degree from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, by enrolling in the one-year LLM Programme. The notification did not specify that the LLM Programme had to be of two years’ duration. It only mentioned the required percentage of marks and the nature of the Indian University, or in the case of a foreign University, it had to be an accredited institution.
The Court said that TRB would have been aware that in many accredited foreign Universities, the LLM degree programme was conducted over a duration of one year.
The Court stated that the petitioner’s notification did not specify that only a two-year LLM programme was required for the purpose of appointment. Since the one-year LLM programme is recognized by the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’) and accepted for admission to Ph.D. programs, the Court found no reason to reject it for the purpose of appointment.
The Court remarked that while the employer has the right to set the educational requirements for a post, the qualifications stipulated by the employer should not lead to arbitrary discrimination between equivalent or similar courses without a valid basis.
Emphasising that one year LLM Programme has been approved by UGC and that has been accepted as qualification to get enrolled in Ph.D. programme in Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University itself, the Court stated that the University in which the petitioner had done her one year LLM course is one of the most reputed Law School in the country and it is needless to state that one year LLM course would have also included the research aspect as well. Under such circumstances, no invalidation can be attached to one-year LLM degree for the purpose of getting appointment in the public departments or Universities.
Emphasizing that the one-year LLM programme has been approved by the UGC and accepted as a qualification for enrollment in Ph.D. programmes, including at the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, the Court stated that the University where the petitioner had completed her one-year LLM course is one of the most reputed law schools in the country. It was further noted that the one-year LLM course would have undoubtedly included research components as well. Under such circumstances, the Court concluded that no invalidation could be attached to the one-year LLM degree for the purpose of obtaining an appointment in public departments or universities.
The Court stated that since the petitioner had proven her eligibility by securing the first rank in the written examination, TRB should have considered her candidature for appointment, particularly after the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suganya Jeba Sarojini v. The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 367. The Court further observed that there was no reason to withhold the petitioner’s appointment, especially considering that one post had been reserved for her through an interim order. As such, the Court deemed it appropriate to issue suitable directions.
Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, and the provisional selection list published on 14-05-2019 by TRB was quashed. Further, TRB was directed to include the petitioner’s name in the selection list. The State was also directed to release the appointment order to the petitioner, giving her retrospective seniority from the date of appointment of candidates who secured fewer marks than her, with notional effect from the date of their appointment. Monetary benefits were to be given from the date of her actual appointment, along with all other attendant service benefits. The order was to be issued within eight weeks from the receipt of a copy of the Court’s order.
[Dr. Sangeetha Sriraam v. Teachers Recruitment Board, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 2080, decided on 26-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Mr. M. Nirmalkumar
For Respondent: Mr. R. Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.Siddharath Standing Counsel, Mr. V. Umakanth, Mr. P.R. Gopinathan
