It is pathetic that State is not having regular pattern of studies in employment: MHC

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court (MHC) has opined that it is a pathetic situation that the State authorities are not accepting those who don't have a regular pattern of studies, as an employer in their domain and directed the Union-State government to relook the issue.

An appellant J Gopikrishna moved the MHC seeking to set aside the single judge order and to direct the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) to recruit him for an assistant professor post.

A division bench comprising Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice G Arul Murugan heard the appeal preferred by Gopikrishna.

Even though the open universities are established by legislation, the State authorities are not accepting the candidates who are awarded degrees from such institutions as employers, it would be a pathetic situation insofar as those candidates are concerned, wrote the bench. "The stakeholders of both Union and State authorities can have a relook in this matter in the larger interest of the Society ''read the judgment. However, the bench rejected the appeal plea considering the legal position.

According to the appellant, TRB issued a notification in 2019 inviting applications for direct recruitment, from eligible candidates, for the post of Assistant Professors in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educational Service. When the appellant moved his application it was rejected by TRB. The appellant submitted that, even though he has an M.phil and cleared the National Eligibility Test his application was rejected as he did not follow the regular pattern of studies.

The appellant completed class 10 in 1996, without taking the class 12 examination, he directly took UG degree in the year 2002, thereafter the PG degree, and M.Phil degree and he also cleared the National Eligibility Test examination, thereafter, he completed the class 12 examination only in the year 2019 through private studies.

Hence his application was rejected citing Clause-6 (v) of the notification issued by TRB. Upholding the notification the single judge also rejected the appellant's plea in November 2019. Challenging the order, Gopikrishna filed an appeal.

Senior counsel V Raghavachari, appeared for the appellant submitted that the qualifications acquired by the appellant cannot be nullified by a prescription of the State government or by the TRB stating that the qualification should have been acquired one by one as per the pattern they fixed not otherwise.

"We may have sympathy for the appellant, but the law does not permit to give any relief to the appellant, the kind of reverse pattern in studies has never been recognized by the court of law," observed the bench.