The Supreme Court has ruled that an employee who obtained educational qualifications under government-recognised norms prevailing at the relevant time cannot subsequently be denied promotional consideration by applying later changes in qualification requirements retrospectively.
The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manoj Misra has observed that a degree obtained through distance education could not be rejected merely because it was not obtained through a regular physical course when the applicable rules did not prescribe such a requirement.
The dispute arose after the employee sought promotion from the post of Tourist Officer to Assistant Director of Tourism. His request was rejected by the Tamil Nadu Government on the ground that he did not possess the prescribed educational qualification for the feeder post of Tourist Officer and, consequently, could not be considered for promotion to the higher post.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
The employee had completed his SSLC in 1982 and subsequently joined the Tourism Department on compassionate grounds following the death of his father. While in service, he was permitted by the Director of Tourism to pursue a foundation course through Madurai Kamaraj Open University. He completed the foundation course in 1984 and later obtained a B.Com degree through distance education in 1987. He subsequently acquired other qualifications, including a postgraduate diploma in Tourism and an M.Com degree.
He was temporarily promoted as Tourist Officer in 2011 and joined the post at New Delhi on August 5, 2011. His service as Tourist Officer was subsequently regularised with effect from August 5, 2011, by a Government Order issued in October 2017. After serving for several years as Tourist Officer, he sought promotion to Assistant Director of Tourism.
The State Government relied upon a series of Government Orders concerning educational qualifications for public employment. In particular, GO Ms No. 107 dated August 18, 2009, prescribed that degrees obtained through open universities would be accepted for employment and promotion only where the candidate had completed the secondary school examination and higher secondary examination before obtaining the degree.
A subsequent clarification issued on December 3, 2010 stated that degrees obtained through open universities after completing pre-foundation and two-year foundation courses could not be recognised under University Grants Commission norms for employment or promotion in public services.
Relying on these provisions, the authorities concluded in July 2020 that the employee did not possess the degree in the required 10+2+3 pattern and therefore was not qualified to hold the post of Tourist Officer. His request for promotion as Assistant Director of Tourism was consequently rejected.
The employee challenged the Government’s decision before the Madras High Court. The Single Judge found that the qualification obtained through the open university system could not be retrospectively questioned.
The Court noted that when the employee was appointed as Tourist Officer in 2011, earlier Government Orders recognising distance and open university qualifications were in force. GO Ms No. 180 dated September 11, 2000 had treated diploma, graduation and postgraduate qualifications obtained through the recognised open university system as equivalent to qualifications obtained through regular courses for public employment. This position was reiterated by GO Ms No. 217 dated September 8, 2007.
The Single Judge accordingly set aside the Government’s rejection order and directed the authorities to place the employee’s name in the panel according to seniority and consider him for promotion to Assistant Director of Tourism if his juniors had already been promoted.
The Bench relied on the requirement of the 10+2+3 educational pattern and held that the foundation course completed through the open university could not be treated as equivalent to the +2 qualification for the purposes of the applicable rules.
The Bench went further and held that the employee had not been eligible to be appointed as Tourist Officer in 2011. However, it did not disturb his existing service in that post. Instead, it concluded that because he did not possess the qualification required for the feeder post, he could not claim promotion to Assistant Director of Tourism.
The Review Bench subsequently took a somewhat different approach. It accepted that the foundation course could be treated as equivalent to +2 but nevertheless held that the employee’s graduation through distance education prevented him from being considered for promotion.
The Supreme Court found that both the Division Bench and the Review Bench had diverted attention from the actual question that arose for consideration.
According to the Supreme Court, the issue before the High Court was whether the employee was eligible to be considered for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Director of Tourism. Instead, the High Court had focused on whether he was originally eligible to hold the post of Tourist Officer.
The Supreme Court emphasised that nobody had challenged the employee’s promotion as Tourist Officer and that he had continued to serve in that post for more than 15 years. The Court held that it was not appropriate, at the stage of considering his promotion to the next higher post, to reopen the question of his eligibility for the feeder post.
The Supreme Court also examined the specific statutory rules governing promotion to Assistant Director of Tourism.
Under the relevant rules, appointment to the post could be made through several modes, including promotion from among Tourist Officers. For promotion, the prescribed qualification was a pass in the accounts test for executive officers. The requirement of a degree and specified practical experience applied to direct recruitment or transfer, rather than the promotional route under consideration.
The Court also referred to the subsequent eligibility criteria, which required a candidate seeking promotion to have passed the accounts test for executive officers and to have served for one year as Tourist Officer in Tourist Offices outside Tamil Nadu.
A significant part of the Supreme Court’s reasoning concerned the employee’s B.Com degree obtained through distance education.
The Court examined Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. While the provision required a degree to be obtained after completion of SSLC and higher secondary education in the 10+2+3 pattern where the relevant Special Rules prescribed a degree, the Supreme Court found that the provision nowhere required the degree to have been obtained through a regular physical course rather than through distance education.
The Court described this as the fundamental flaw in the Review Bench’s reasoning. Once the employee’s educational progression up to graduation was accepted, the mere fact that the graduation degree had been obtained through distance education could not, by itself, render him ineligible for promotion when no such restriction was contained in the applicable provision.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the historical Government Orders governing open university qualifications.
GO Ms No. 528 dated May 18, 1985 recognised the pre-foundation course of Madurai Kamaraj Open University as equivalent to the SSLC qualification and its two-year foundation course as equivalent to the higher secondary (+2) course for entry into public services in Tamil Nadu.
GO Ms No. 180 dated September 11, 2000 subsequently recognised diploma, degree and postgraduate degree courses obtained through the open university system by universities in Tamil Nadu and recognised by the UGC as equivalent to the corresponding regular-stream qualifications for public employment. GO Ms No. 217 dated September 8, 2007 further clarified the treatment of such open university qualifications.
The Court therefore found that the regulatory landscape governing the employee’s qualifications had changed over time and that the later restrictions could not simply be used to invalidate qualifications obtained under the earlier regime.
The Supreme Court placed particular reliance on the Madras High Court’s earlier decision in P. Thavam, which had considered the effect of the various Government Orders concerning pre-foundation and foundation courses.
In that case, the High Court had held that persons who obtained qualifications when the courses were recognised could not be adversely affected by the subsequent change in policy. It had treated November 20, 2017—the date of GO Ms No. 144—as the relevant cut-off date. The Supreme Court noted that the special leave petition challenging that decision had already been dismissed on January 20, 2023.
The Supreme Court expressly approved the reasoning in P. Thavam and held that the Division Bench and Review Bench had erred in failing to follow that coordinate Bench decision.
The Court observed that the numerous Government Orders issued over the years had created considerable confusion for employees who had completed pre-foundation or foundation courses through open universities and subsequently obtained degrees.
The Supreme Court held that the invalidity of those courses could operate only prospectively, with effect from November 20, 2017. A person who obtained the requisite qualification under the norms prevailing at the relevant time could not subsequently be rendered ineligible merely because the Government later altered or clarified the qualification requirements.
The judgment emphasised the need to interpret successive Government Orders reasonably so as to avoid unnecessary hardship to individuals who had no control over subsequent changes in qualification policy.
After examining the applicable rules, the Supreme Court identified three requirements for promotion to Assistant Director of Tourism: a degree from a recognised university, a pass in the accounts test for executive officers, and one year’s experience as a Tourist Officer in other States outside Tamil Nadu.
The Court found that the employee satisfied the applicable criteria and was therefore eligible to be considered for promotion to Assistant Director of Tourism.
The Court consequently held that the Madras High Court Division Bench and Review Bench had committed a grave error in interfering with the Single Judge’s order. Both impugned orders were set aside and the Single Judge’s judgment was restored.
The Supreme Court clarified that it was not itself granting the promotion but holding that the employee was eligible to be considered for it. The authorities were directed to consider his case for promotion in accordance with law.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
