WP(MD)/28933/2023 of S.Lourdu Mary James Vs The Director of Elementary on 7 August 2026

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings bearing O.Mu.No.2738/A3/2023 dated 09.10.2023, issued by the second respondent, whereby the request made by the petitioner to upgrade the post of Higher Grade Teacher, in which she has been working in the fourth respondent – School, to that of Secondary Grade Teacher, has been negatived.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Higher Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent – Aided Minority School and while working as such, she has completed D.T.Ed., and B.Ed., courses during the academic years 2011-2012 to 2012-2013 and 2010-2011 to 2011-2012 respectively. It was thereafter, the petitioner made a request to the fourth respondent – School for upgrading the post of Higher Grade Teacher existing in the fourth respondent – School to that of Secondary Grade Teacher by placing reliance on a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.347, School Education Department, dated 15.09.1998.

3. The fourth respondent – School, in turn, submitted a proposal to the second respondent for upgrading the post of Higher Grade Teacher to that of a post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The said request is now negatived by the second respondent by issuing the impugned proceedings, on the ground that the petitioner has studied D.T.Ed., and B.Ed., courses simultaneously during the academic year 2011-2012 and therefore, the said diploma qualification cannot be recognized as a valid qualification. It is aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no prohibition for pursuing two academic courses simultaneously one on a regular mode and the other in a distance education mode and in the absence of any such prohibition, the diploma certificate issued by the State Board of School Examinations, Tamil Nadu, cannot be treated as invalid and thus, she contends that the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent is liable to be aside. She further contended that though the petitioner simultaneously studied both the courses during the same academic year i.e., 2011-2012, the periods during which she wrote the examinations are different and therefore the Diploma and Degree obtained by the petitioner cannot be treated as obtained simultaneously. In support of her contention, she also placed reliance on various decisions of this Court as well as the Honourable Apex Court, namely, Judgment dated 20.11.2024 in W.A.No.3102 of 2024 in Teachers Recruitment Board vs. S.Anusya and others; Judgment dated 03.10.2023 in W.A.No.1602 of 2022 in The Teachers Recruitment Board vs. D.Sivaranjani and others; Judgment dated 17.02.2022 in W.A.No.2928 of 2019 in R.Mekala vs. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6 and another; Order dated 02.04.2026 in W.P.No.32124 of 2024 in V.Kirubanandam vs. The Director, Elementary Education Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006 and others; A.Dharmaraj vs. Chief

Educational Officer, Pudukkottai and others, reported in (2022) 11 SCC 692 and Order dated 01.07.2026 in W.P.(MD) No.7582 of 2026 in The Correspondent, Madarasa-E-Mohamedia Middle School, 1/3, Madurai Road, Palakarai, Trichy-620 008, Trichy District vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and others.

5. On the other hand, Mr.C.Jeganathan, learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, contended that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is no more res integra and the said issue has already been decided by the learned Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2807 of 2014 in R.Chitra vs. Member Secretary Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-6, vide Order dated 26.04.2021. He also relied upon an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 05.02.2026 in W.P.(MD) No.3209 of 2026, in P.Priyanka vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 and others.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the entire materials on record.

7. There is no dispute on the facts of the case noted above. Hence, it would be suffice if legal position is examined on the issue involved in the matter. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Judgment dated 20.11.2024 in W.A.No.3102 of 2024 in Teachers Recruitment Board vs. S.Anusya and others; Judgment dated 03.10.2023 in W.A.No.1602 of 2022 in The Teachers Recruitment Board vs. D.Sivaranjani and others and Order dated 02.04.2026 in W.P.No.32124 of 2024 in V.Kirubanandam vs. The Director, Elementary Education Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006 and others are concerned, those are the cases where the Court has come to the conclusion, on the facts of the respective cases, that there was no simultaneous study nor there was any overlapping of the courses. But, in the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner has studied both academic courses during the same academic year i.e. 2011-2012.

8. Insofar as the decision, namely, Judgment dated 17.02.2022 in W.A.No.2928 of 2019 in R.Mekala vs. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6 and another is concerned, the same was also rendered in the facts and circumstances of that case and also on recording a finding at Paragraph No.11 of the said decision that the candidate in the said case has not obtained both the degrees by studying in the same academic year.

9. So also, the decision of the Honourable Apex Court, namely, A.Dharmaraj vs. Chief Educational Officer, Pudukkottai and others, reported in (2022) 11 SCC 692, was also rendered on the facts of the said case and on recording a finding at Paragraph No.10 of the said decision that it cannot be said that the appellant therein obtained the degrees of B.A.English and M.A.Tamil during the same academic year. Therefore, all these decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to advance the case of the petitioner.

10. Insofar as the decision, namely, Order dated 01.07.2026 in W.P.(MD) No.7582 of 2026 in The Correspondent, Madarasa-E-Mohamedia Middle School, 1/3, Madurai Road, Palakarai, Trichy-620 008, Trichy District vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and others, is concerned, no doubt, this Court, having taken note of the decision of the learned Full Bench of this Court in R.Chitra's case, held that the learned Full Bench of this Court was not dealing with the case of one degree obtained by regular mode and the other degree obtained by distance education mode and thus, came to the conclusion that the decision of the learned Full Bench in R.Chitra's case has no application to the facts of the said case.

11. Then, on coming to the decision of the learned Full Bench of this Court in R.Chitra's case, a careful perusal of the said decision makes the following aspects clear.

(a) The reference to the learned Full Bench was made on noticing a conflict between two decisions rendered by two different learned Division Benches of this Court in S.Jagadeesari's case and L.Kavitha's case. In both the cases, the learned Division Benches of this Court have taken a conflicting view while considering the cases where two degrees were obtained simultaneously on regular mode.

(b) The facts of R.Chitra's case, wherein the reference was made to the learned Full Bench, are totally different i.e., the petitioner in the said case obtained one degree by regular mode and the other degree by distance mode. But, the reference was made on noticing a conflict between S.Jagadeesari's case and L.Kavitha's case.

(c) Further, it is evident from the order of the learned Full Bench of this Court that the facts of R.Chitra's case were very much brought to the notice of the learned Full Bench and the same was also taken note of by the learned Full Bench in Paragraph No. 5 of its order and in Paragraph No.21 of the said order, the learned Full Bench has observed as under: “21. Coming to the issue of recognition of simultaneous degrees obtained in the same academic year, indisputably, most of the students obtain their second degree through distance education mode and the students are not permitted to undergo a second degree programme in formal mode in the same academic year. In such circumstances, unless simultaneous degrees obtained are recognized by the UGC with the prior approval of the Central Government, such degrees cannot be considered as

recognized degree as per Section 22 of the UGC Act. As stated supra, as of now, the UGC has not recognized pursuing dual degree courses simultaneously during the same academic year. Therefore, till such time as dual degree courses are recognized by the UGC, such degrees conferred by the universities cannot be construed as degrees recognized as per the provisions of Section 22 of the UGC Act.”

(d) The learned Full Bench was considering the conflict between the cases where two degrees were studied simultaneously in regular mode, unlike the case on hand, where one course being a diploma course as conducted by the State Board of School Examinations and the other course being a degree course, namely, B.Ed., course.

12. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the decision of the learned Full Bench will have application only to the cases where two degree courses are studied simultaneously, for which a recognition under Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (in short, “UGC Act”) is required.

13. In the instant case, the diploma certificate obtained by the petitioner is not the one that would come within the scope of Section 22 of the UGC Act, as the same was conducted by the State Board of School Examinations, which is undoubtedly not coming within the purview of the University Grants Commission. Further, it is also necessary to note that the learned Full Bench, having taken note of the facts and circumstances of S.Jagadeesari's case and L.Kavitha's case, has come to the conclusion that the decision rendered in S.Jagadeesari's case is the correct law and it has not taken into consideration the facts of R.Chitra's case at all.

14. From the above, it is evident that though the learned Full Bench of this Court made a reference to a situation where most of the students obtain their second degree through distance education mode, it has observed that the students are not permitted to undergo the second degree in a formal mode in the same academic year, which presupposes that the first degree also in formal mode, and then proceeded to examine as to whether the two degree programmes pursued in formal mode during the same academic year are valid or not and whether such two degree programmes are recognized by the University Grants Commission or not.

15. Finally, the learned Full Bench came to the conclusion that unless and until the dual degrees or the degrees obtained simultaneously are recognized under Section 22 of the UGC Act, the same cannot be treated as valid degrees / diplomas. In this connection, it would be relevant to note that Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act only mandates that the right to confer degrees is restricted only to the recognized Universities, deemed Universities and specially empowered Parliamentary Enactments and ensures that no unauthorized group or institution can award official academic titles.

16. In the instant case, it is nobody's case that D.T.Ed., diploma obtained by the petitioner is not the one recognized under law. As already noted above, the said diploma has been awarded to the petitioner by the State Board of School Examinations, Tamil Nadu. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the Full Bench decision has no application to the case on hand.

17. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no necessity to any teacher to attend any class or to undergo any course or training, except working as a Teacher in the Elementary Education for two years. Whether such a diploma course for which there were no class conducted nor any training imparted, except appearing for the examinations after having worked as a teacher for two years, can be considered as a study in a particular academic year or not is also a matter that requires to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. But, it is not possible for this Court to examine the same conclusively at this stage. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is factually correct, then the D.T.Ed., diploma obtained by the petitioner cannot be termed as the one obtained simultaneously during the academic year 2010-2011 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner has to be accepted.

18. In the light of the above conclusion arrived at by this Court and taking into consideration the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.347, School Education Department, dated 15.09.1998, in the considered view of this Court, the second respondent is not justified in not recognizing the D.T.Ed., certificate obtained by the petitioner and thereby rejecting the proposal submitted by the fourth respondent – School to upgrade the post of Higher Grade Teacher to that of the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent – School.

19. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings, dated 09.10.2023, issued by the second respondent, is hereby quashed permitting the fourth respondent – School to resubmit the proposal for upgrading the post of Higher Grade Teacher held by the petitioner herein to that of the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and on such resubmission of the said proposal by the fourth respondent – School, the second respondent shall consider the same by verifying whether there was any requirement of attending classes or training to secure D.T.Ed., diploma offered by the State Board of School Examinations duly taking into consideration the observations made herein above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of proposal by the fourth respondent - School.

20. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.

07.08.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking / Non-Speaking Order

krk

To:

1. The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Educational Officer (Elementary), Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

3. The Block Educational Officer, Kayathar, Tuticorin District.

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. krk

ORDER

IN W.P.(MD) No.28933 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD) No.24964 of 2023 07.08.2026