Degree obtained via Open University without 10+2+3 pattern is invalid for public appointment or promotion.

The respondent, S.P. Chandra, was initially appointed as a Helper and eventually promoted to the post of Auditor in 2006.

In 2010, TANGEDCO published a promotion panel for the post of Assistant Audit Officer but excluded the respondent because she obtained her B.Com degree through the Open University System without following the regular 10+2+3 pattern of education.

The respondent challenged this exclusion in W.P.No. 24667 of 2018, which was allowed by the Writ Court on 26.03.2025.

TANGEDCO filed this intra-court appeal to set aside the Writ Court's order.

The respondent retired from service in 2023.

1. Whether a degree obtained through the Open University System without following the 10+2+3 pattern is valid for the purpose of promotion in public service.

2. Whether the respondent is entitled to retrospective promotion to the post of Assistant Audit Officer after superannuation.

The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department (2009), which held that University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations regarding minimum standards of instruction are mandatory and binding on both conventional and Open Universities.

Government Orders G.O.Ms.No.107 (2009) and G.O.Ms.No.116 (2010), adopted by TANGEDCO, which mandate the 10+2+3 pattern for public employment.

The court also applied the ratio from Government of Tamilnadu v. R.J. Gajendrakumar (2023), confirming that eligibility for promotion must be governed by the rules existing at the time of the promotion.

The court reasoned that the respondent’s B.Com degree was invalid for promotion because it bypassed the mandatory 10+2+3 educational sequence established by UGC and adopted by the State and TANGEDCO.

Citing Annamalai University, the court emphasized that Open Universities cannot dilute the standards of higher education set by the UGC Act.

The court observed that since the respondent did not possess a valid degree as per the prescribed pattern, her name was rightly excluded from the 2010 promotion panel.

The court noted that as the respondent had already reached superannuation in 2023, the question of granting a promotion at this stage was moot.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Writ Court. Consequently, the respondent was not entitled to be included in the promotion panel for Assistant Audit Officer. No costs were awarded.