Degrees via Open University without regular 10+2+3 pattern are invalid, but prior appointments remain protected.

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking a writ of quo-warranto to declare the appointment of the 8th respondent (M. Loganathan) as P.G. Assistant Hindi invalid.

The challenge was based on the premise that the 8th respondent obtained his degrees through the Open University System rather than the regular 10+2+3+2 pattern.

The 8th respondent was originally appointed as a B.T. Assistant on 09.06.1997 and subsequently promoted to P.G. Assistant on 14.08.2009.

The Learned Single Judge previously dismissed the writ petition (WP.No. 26313/2024) on 11.09.2024, citing laches and the timing of the appointment.

1. Whether the appointment and promotion of the 8th respondent are invalid due to obtaining degrees through the Open University System.

2. Whether the protections offered by the Supreme Court regarding prior appointments apply to the 8th respondent.

The Court applied the ratio decidendi from the Supreme Court of India in Annamalai University represented by Registrar and another v. Sibi Madan Gabriel and others (2009) 4 SCC 590.

The principle establishes that degrees obtained through the Open University System without following the regular pattern of education (10+2+3+2) as per UGC Regulations are invalid.

The Supreme Court simultaneously established a protective principle for appointments made prior to the date of that judgment.

While acknowledging that Open University degrees are generally invalid under the UGC 10+2+3+2 criteria, the Court observed that the 8th respondent’s initial appointment as B.T. Assistant occurred in 1997, and his promotion to P.G. Assistant occurred on 14.08.2009.

The Court reasoned that since the appointment and promotional processes were initiated/completed prior to or in close proximity to the landmark ruling in Annamalai University, they fall under the category of "protected appointments" as carved out by the Apex Court.

The Court noted the appellant’s significant delay (belated approach) in challenging an appointment made decades prior.

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge; No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.