Can’t Discriminate One-Year LLM Obtained From National Law Schools In Public Employment: MHC

In Dr. Sangeetha Sriraam vs Teachers Recruitment Board & Ors., [W.P No. 15473/2019], the Madras High Court has held that a one-year LLM obtained by the Petitioner from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore cannot be invalidated for the purpose of appointment in public departments or Universities and that though the employer is the rightful person to prescribe educational qualification, such prescription should not make any arbitrary discrimination between equivalent or similar course without any valid basis.

CASE SUMMARY

FACTS OF THE CASE:

- The writ petition arose out of a notification issued by the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) in 2018 for the purpose of Recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors in Government Law Colleges.

- According to the notification and the relevant rules in vogue, the requisite educational qualification was a masters in law with not less than 55% from a recognized University and a NET pass.

- The Petitioner possessed LLM in Human Rights from the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore and had a P.hD and NET qualification as on the date of Recruitment notification.

- She applied for the Recruitment and secured the first mark in the written test with 133 out of 175. She was also invited to attend oral interview for 25 marks but the subsequent impugned selection list did not carry her name.

- Even assuming that the candidates who were selected had secured 25/25 marks, the Petitioner could have still comfortably passed the test.

- Though the Petitioner sent a written representation requesting the Teachers Recruitment Board to publish the interview marks, there was no response.

- Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the provisional selection list along with a prayer seeking a direction to consider her candidature for appointment as Assistant Professor in Government Law Colleges.

- For the first time the Respondents conveyed the reason for desisting the Petitioner from appointment only by filing counter affidavit in the writ petition, wherein it was stated that they do not recognize a one-year LLM obtained by the Petitioner from the NLSIU.

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:

- One Year LLM was introduced by the 3rd Respondent (UGC) vide Guidelines of 2012 and directed all Universities to “switch over” to one-year course from the academic year 2013-2014 upon achieving the standards set forth in the guidelines. All the National Law Schools and most other reputed Universities which could achieve the higher standards set forth in the UGC guidelines switched over from two-years to One-year. Therefore, a full time, valid, regular LLM is one degree and cannot be further discriminated as a degree for one-year and two years.

- In Suganya Jeba Sarojini Vs The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, [(2024) SCC ONLINE MAD 367] the division bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court read down the provision of the University’s P.hD Regulations that restricted candidates possessing a one-year LLM from eligibility to apply for P.hD admissions by deleting the expression “two-years” from the regulation.

- In Paranthaman Vs TNPSC, [(2024) SCC ONLINE MAD 2210] the Hon’ble Madras High Court had held that the numerals (10+2+3+2 or 3) mentioned in Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (conditions of service) Act, 2016 cannot be used to invalidate a Master’s degree of one-year for appointment in public employment and such an approach would be pedantic. The intention of the provision is that a Master’s degree should have passed 10th,+2, UGC and then PG and the numerals used are only illustrative in nature which cannot be used to defeat the purpose of the provision.

SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS:

- One-year LLM obtained by the Petitioner from NLSIU is only for a period of one year, which may not be sufficient to test the academic credentials of the Petitioner;

- The State is competent to prescribe educational qualification in the matter of employment;

- The State recognizes only a 10+2+3+2 of 3 educational qualification in terms of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of service) Act, 2016.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

Upon hearing rival submissions and perusal of documents, the Court allowed the writ petition by setting aside the selection list of candidates and directed the TRB to include the Petitioner’s name in the selection list and further directed the State of TN to release the appointment order of the Petitioner with retrospective effect of seniority from the date on which candidates who secured less marks than her were appointed along with all other attendant & service benefits within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

REASONS:

- The one-year LLM is approved by the UGC and is eligible for P.hD in Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University.

- When the division bench of the Court in Suganya Jeba Sarojini Vs The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, [(2024) SCC ONLINE MAD 367] read down discriminatory provision for PhD admission, the Court found no reason why candidates with one-year LLM cannot be eligible for public employment;

- A Co-ordinate bench of the Court had held in Paranthaman Vs TNPSC, [(2024) SCC ONLINE MAD 2210] that the numerals (10+2+3+2 or 3) mentioned in Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (conditions of service) Act, 2016 cannot be used to invalidate a Master’s degree of one-year for appointment in public employment.

- Though the employer is the rightful person to demand educational qualification, such prescription should not make any arbitrary discrimination between equivalent or similar course without any valid basis.

- NLSIU, Bangalore from which the Petitioner obtained her LLM is one of the most reputed law schools in the country and it is needless to state that one-year LLM course included the research aspect as well.

PRECEDENTS RELIED ON BY THE COURT:

Suganya Jeba Sarojini Vs TNDALU [(2024) SCC ONLINE MAD 367]

Paranthaman VS TNPSC [(2024) SCC ONLINE MAD 2210]

Date of the judgment: 26.03.2025

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. M. NIRMALKUMAR;

Counsel For The 1st Respondent (TRB): Mr. R. NEELAKANDAN, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. R. SIDDHARTH, standing counsel;

Counsel For The 2nd Respondent (STATE): Mr. V. UMAKANTH;

Counsel For The 3rd Respondent (UGC): Mr. P.R. GOPINATHAN

[This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.]