P.V. Balakrishnan, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19108 of 2024, challenging the judgment dated 15.10.2025 dismissing her writ petition.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner entered the service of the first respondent on 01.06.2016, as Assistant Manager. Later, she was promoted as manager in 2019, as per Ext.P9 circular. At the time of her appointment, the appellant had an MSc Degree in Physics, awarded by Mahatma Gandhi University, in 2006. Later, she also obtained an MBA degree with elective group Marketing in 2008, and an MBA Degree (HRM) in 2013, from Alagappa University, through distance education. During 2023, the appellant's name was included in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager. But the appellant was not invited by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for interview, and out of the 14 candidates who attended the interview, 12 of them were promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager w.e.f. 01.07.2023, as per Ext P14 order. Subsequently, on the basis of a representation submitted by the appellant, she was also directed to appear for a DPC interview, on 06.12.2023. But even thereafter, the appellant was not promoted, and instead the 7th respondent was promoted by Ext.P20 order, dated 27.12.2023. The appellant, on making inquiries under the Right of Information Act, obtained Ext.P23 information from the 1st respondent regarding the reasons for denying promotion to her. From it, she understood that her MBA degree obtained through correspondence course was considered as a "lower qualification" and that she was awarded a lesser mark in the interview. She also understood that while the other candidates, who have undergone a full-time MBA course, were granted the minimum 20 marks prescribed, the appellant was granted only 15 marks. According to the appellant, even though as per Ext.P11 Rules/promotion policy, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager is a full-time MBA in the relevant field from a recognized university, the said qualification was relaxed/modified by Ext.P12, making an MBA through distance education equivalent to a full-time MBA course. Even though an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the 1st respondent, the same got rejected as per Ext. P22 letter, dated 30.03.2024. It is in such circumstances, the appellant filed the afore writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:

                  ''I. call for the records leading to Exts.P14, P20 and P22 and quash them to the extent petitioner is denied promotion to the category of Deputy General Manager and respondents 3 to 7 are promoted as such, by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

                  II. declare that petitioner is entitled to be given five more marks for educational qualification and be promoted to the category of Deputy General Manager with retrospective effect from 01.07.2023 with all consequential service and monetary benefits, including back wages.

                  III. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to award the full marks of 20 to the petitioner for her educational qualification (Ext.P2 MBA Degree) in connection with promotion to the category of Deputy General Manager for the year 2023 and accordingly revise the DPC merit list and to grant her promotion as Deputy General Manager with retrospective effect from 01.07.2023, with all consequential service and monetary benefits, including back wages within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.''

3. The learned Single Judge, on an anxious consideration of the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Heard Adv. S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Adv. Antony Makkath, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents and Adv. John Nellimala Sarai, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 7.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though an MBA course through correspondence was not prescribed as a qualification for the promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager as per Ext.P11, the Managing Director, by exercising his residuary powers, has, by Ext.P12 order dated 06.06.2023, ordered the said course be considered as equivalent to a full-time MBA course, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to be considered at par with the candidates who possess an MBA degree obtained through a full-time course. He submitted that the course adopted by the 1st and 2nd respondents to treat the qualification of the appellant as “lower” than the qualification prescribed in Ext.P11 and awarding lesser marks to her is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust. He argued that Ext.P4 notice issued by the UGC substantiates the fact that the degrees at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels obtained through distance learning are equivalent to the corresponding degrees obtained through the conventional mode, and the 1st and 2nd respondents cannot discard this equivalency certificate by stating that the same is issued only for the purpose of higher studies. He further contended that neither Ext.P12 nor the rules stipulate that the certificate obtained by undergoing a correspondence course is not equivalent to the certificate obtained through the regular mode or mandates awarding lesser marks in such cases.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with it. He submitted that Ext.P12 only grants a relaxation to the employees for making them eligible, and this will not entitle them to claim marks in the interview, at par with the candidates who have undergone an MBA course through regular mode. He argued that the distance education/correspondence mode can never be treated as equal to a four-year regular full-time MBA course, and the 1st and 2nd respondents, being the employer, have every right to assign marks to various criteria of qualification. He submitted that the appellant cannot be treated as equivalent to those who possess strictly the qualifications prescribed under the rules, and that even though Ext.P12 grants a concession, it does not modify the required education qualification for promotion. He also contended that Ext.P4 notice issued by the UGC cannot be considered for employment purposes, since the same has been issued for the purpose of higher studies. He further contended that the writ petition is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, since all the persons who have been promoted as per Ext.P14 are not made parties in it.

7. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7 also supported the contentions of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

8. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that as per Ext.P11 recruitment rules/promotion policy, the minimum educational qualification for promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager in the HR/Marketing/Administration Department is an MBA/PG Diploma (2 years) in the relevant field (full-time from a recognized University/Institute). It is also an admitted fact that the appellant has obtained her MBA degree in marketing as well as HRM, from Alagappa University through distance educational mode. It is further not in dispute that as per Ext.P12 OM dated 06.12.2023, the 2nd respondent has issued a clarification regarding considering educational qualifications obtained in distance education/part-time mode for promotions, after considering the representations put in by some of the employees who possess such qualifications. It is the case of the appellant that as per Ext.P12, the MBA degree obtained through correspondence mode has thus been declared equivalent to the MBA degree course obtained by attending a full-time course, and therefore, she has to be treated at par with such candidates. On the other hand, the case of respondents 1 and 2 is that by Ext.P12, only a concession is granted to persons possessing lower qualifications, to consider them for promotion, and it does not equalize the qualification prescribed in Ext.P11, i.e., an MBA obtained through a full-time course. It is also their case that since an MBA obtained through a correspondence course is a “lower qualification” than prescribed by the rules, the DPC is competent to award lesser marks for such candidates.

9. But on a careful scrutiny of Ext.P12 office memorandum, we do not find any material to support the contention of respondents 1 and 2 that the said clarification was issued only for the purpose of granting relaxation/special concession to the employees of the 1st respondent to participate in the promotion process. The recitals in Ext.P12 do not give any inference that the Distance Education/Part-time mode degree certificates will have to be considered as lower qualification, than prescribed in Ext.P11 or that it relaxes the qualification thus prescribed in the rules. A reading of Ext.P12 would clearly show that the same has been issued by taking into consideration the representations of the employees who possess distance education/part-time qualification and who were denied promotion due to the fact that promotion policy only accepts a full-time course as requisite qualification for promotion. It shows that the management has reviewed the position and has, for giving such employees the benefit of their education, issued this clarification. Clause 2 of Ext.P12 clearly states that the employees who have obtained the required qualifications while in service, through the distance education/part-time mode will be considered for promotions upto a particular level, subject to their certificates being recognized/approved by AICTE/UGC. Similarly, Clause 3, which speaks about direct recruitment, also recognizes the educational qualification obtained through distance education/part-time mode and categorizes it as the required educational qualification for promotions. The afore clauses clearly show that the purpose of issuing Ext.P12 is to equalise distance education/part-time mode certificates/course with that of the qualifications which were required at the time of issuance of Ext.P12, as per rules. There is nothing in Ext.P12 which would show that the qualification obtained through distance/part-time mode will be considered as a ''lower qualification'' than the qualification prescribed as per the rules. It also does not mention that such employees who have obtained the qualification through distant education mode will be treated differently from the employees who possess degree certificates obtained through full-time courses or that while considering promotion, the former will be granted lesser marks on that ground.

10. That apart, it is to be taken note that Ext.P4 notice issued by the UGC categorically shows that undergraduate/postgraduate degree certificates obtained through open and distance learning mode by institutions recognized by the UGC, will be treated as equivalent to the corresponding degrees at these levels offered through conventional mode. Even though the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 had contended that Ext.P4 is not applicable for employment purposes and is issued only for the purpose of higher studies, there is no material to support the same. Thus considering all the afore facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition cannot be sustained.

11. Be that as it may, it is to be taken note that the appellant, in the writ petition has not arrayed all the candidates who were promoted as per Ext.P14 office order. There are also no materials before this Court regarding the assessment made by the DPC, marks awarded to each of these persons and their rank in the list. The appellant has only arrayed a selected few from Ext.P14 list as parties in the writ petition and we are of the view that unless all the successful candidates in Ext.P14 are arrayed and heard, the reliefs as sought for by the appellant cannot be granted. Hence, considering all the afore facts, we are of the view that after setting aside the impugned judgment, the writ petition can be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for consideration and disposal, after granting an opportunity to the appellant to implead all the candidates promoted as per Ext.P14 order. It is made clear that all the other questions raised in the writ petition by the parties, except the finding on Ext.P12 as rendered afore by this Court, are left open.

                  In the result, this writ appeal is allowed in part as follows;

                  1. The impugned judgment dated 15.10.2025 in W.P. (C)No.19108 of 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside;

                  2. W.P.(C)No.19108 of 2024 is remanded back for fresh consideration and disposal, in the light of the findings rendered afore, after impleading all the candidates in Ext.P14, in the writ petition;

                  3. All questions raised by the parties, except the finding rendered by this Court on Ext.P12, are left open to be decided by the learned Single Judge.