An ODL degree cannot satisfy recruitment rules expressly requiring a full-time degree.

The applicant, Dr. S. Kannan, serving as Principal of the Food Craft Institute, Mysore, applied for the post of Principal under Category ‘A’ pursuant to the respondents’ recruitment notification.

The prescribed qualification was postgraduate education from a recognised university along with a full-time degree or three-year diploma in Hotel Administration, Hospitality Management, Hotel Management, Hospitality Administration, Culinary Arts or Culinary Science, with the prescribed marks.

The applicant possessed several qualifications, including a B.Sc. degree in Hotel Management and Tourism from Annamalai University, obtained through the Open and Distance Learning (“ODL”) mode in 2014.

Apprehending that his candidature would be rejected because his hotel-management qualification was obtained through distance education, the applicant earlier instituted OA No. 41/2020. That application was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to pursue fresh proceedings.

In the present OA, he sought a declaration that his ODL degree was equivalent to the full-time qualification prescribed for the post and a direction to the respondents to consider his candidature.

The respondents contended that the recruitment notification and Recruitment Rules expressly required a full-time qualification, that equivalence was within the domain of the recruiting authority, and that the applicant’s qualification was obtained through an unauthorised study-centre arrangement beyond Annamalai University’s territorial jurisdiction.

The UGC stated that Annamalai University had received programme-wise recognition for ODL courses up to the academic session 2014–2015 but could not confirm the status of the applicant’s particular degree.

Whether the applicant’s B.Sc. degree in Hotel Management and Tourism obtained through ODL mode could be treated as equivalent to the full-time degree or diploma prescribed for appointment as Principal under Category ‘A’.

Whether the Tribunal could direct the respondents to consider the applicant’s candidature by treating his ODL qualification as satisfying the express “full-time” requirement in the Recruitment Rules and notification.

Whether the applicant’s degree obtained through the alleged study-centre arrangement outside Annamalai University’s territorial jurisdiction could be relied upon for the claimed equivalence.

The Tribunal applied the principle that prescribing qualifications for recruitment and determining equivalence between qualifications are matters primarily within the domain of the recruiting or expert authority, and courts or tribunals cannot substitute their assessment for that of the employer or academic bodies.

It relied on State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun, (2002) 6 SCC 252, holding that courts should not determine whether one qualification is equivalent to another; Unnikrishnan C.V. v. Union of India, (2023) 18 SCC 546, holding that courts cannot prescribe or declare equivalence unless the applicable rules themselves provide for it; Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, (2009) 1 SCC 610, recognising equivalence as a technical academic matter requiring a specific decision of the competent academic authority; and Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmed, (2019) 2 SCC 404, affirming the employer’s power to prescribe qualifications based on the nature and functional requirements of the post.

The Tribunal further applied Kurmanchal Institute of Degree and Diploma v. Chancellor, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, (2007) 6 SCC 35, and Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2005) 5 SCC 420, on the territorial limits governing university study centres and the impermissibility of institutions operating beyond their statutory jurisdiction.

It also held that general government or UGC recognition of ODL degrees as equivalent to regular degrees cannot override a recruitment rule expressly requiring a “full-time” qualification.

The Tribunal found that the applicant satisfied the postgraduate component but not the independently prescribed requirement of a full-time hotel-management degree or diploma.

It held that “full-time” had substantive significance because hospitality education involved practical training, workshops, laboratories and direct institutional interaction, whereas ODL education did not provide the same mode of training.

Since the employer was entitled to prescribe a full-time qualification based on the functional requirements of the Principal’s post, the Tribunal could not treat the applicant’s ODL degree as equivalent without effectively rewriting the Recruitment Rules.

The applicant’s reliance on the Gazette notification treating recognised ODL qualifications as equivalent to regular qualifications was rejected because that principle could not displace the specific requirement of a full-time qualification in the applicable recruitment framework.

His participation in an earlier interview and the award of marks for additional qualifications did not establish eligibility for the present recruitment, as those proceedings concerned the timeliness of his application and did not adjudicate the equivalence of his ODL degree.

The Tribunal also noted the UGC’s inability to confirm the status of the applicant’s specific degree and the legal objection concerning the operation of the study centre beyond Annamalai University’s territorial jurisdiction.

It further held that directing consideration of the applicant’s candidature on that basis would amount to substituting or modifying the Recruitment Rules, a power not vested in the Tribunal.

The OA was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.