‘Open univ degree not valid for govt jobs’

The Madras High Court has reiterated that candidates, who have secured degree through Open University System (OUS) without undergoing the regular pattern of education (that is 10+2+3), cannot be considered for public employment and promotion.

Justice Subramaniam made this observation while upholding the order issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, V Kavita, for the post of typist on the ground that she obtained the degree through OUS system from Madurai Kamaraj University.

“This court is of the considered opinion that when the Supreme Court decided the validity of the degree obtained through OUS and when the State government has also implemented the orders of the apex court by issuing necessary Government Orders stating that the candidates, who secured degree through OUS, cannot be considered for public opinion/promotion, the judgement of the Supreme Court is undoubtedly binding on this court,” Justice Subramaniam said while dismissing the petition.

The judge also recorded the submission of the TNPSC that the State Government’s Personal and Administrative Reforms Department has issued a detailed GO dated November 20, 2017, that the pre-foundation courses awarded by the various universities are not considered as equivalent to the higher secondary course (+2 course) conducted by the Board of Examinations Government of Tamil Nadu.

“Thus, the pre-foundation courses and the foundation courses offered by the various universities cannot be considered as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Course conducted by the Board of Examinations,” the submission added.

Based on this, Justice Subramaniam held, “When the GO is relied upon by TNPSC and the same is based on the judgement of the Supreme Court, this court is of the opinion that the same will not provide any benefit to the petitioner as the legal principles in this regard are already settled by the apex court.”

“Thus, the petitioner has not made out any acceptable ground for the purpose of considering the relief sought for in the present petition. This apart, the writ petitioner is now aged about 46 years and under these circumstances, there is no scope for considering her case for appointment to the post of typist,” Justice Subramaniam added.