Court is not prevented from exacting prayer asked for in petition.

NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.

This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 20-4-1990 in W. P. No. 6796 of 1988 and the order of clarification, dated 25th June, 1990 passed in W. M. P. No. 10748 of 1990 in that writ petition. We will presently refer to the import and impact of the orders of the learned single Judge. Before that, we must refer to the array of parties so that we could deal with the controversy in this writ appeal conveniently and appropriately. The first respondent in the writ appeal is the petitioner in the writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 in the writ appeal are respondents 1 and 5 in the writ petition. Respondents 2 to 4 in the writ petition are the appellants in the writ apeal. We are referring to the parties as per their array in the writ petition. The petitioner was in the services of the first respondent as a Physical Director. The qualification prescribed for the said post was a pass in Master of Physical Education, the abbreviation being M. P. Ed. The petitioner lacked it. But there were Government Order granting time to personnel like the petitioner to acquire that qualification. On 2-5-1988 the Government extended the time for acquiring the qualification up to 31-5-1988. On 12-5-1988 the second respondent issued instructions to replace unqualified physical Directors. On 30-5-1988 the third respondent granted permission to the first respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner, who had not been qualified himself. On 31-5-1988 the first respondent, by the order impugned in the writ petition, terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner came to this Court impugning the order of termination passed by the first respondent. While the writ petition was pending, G. O. Ms. No. 1514, Education (HS. 2) Department, dated 23-9-1988 with regard to the period within which the qualification has to be acquired, the concerned rule was amended in the following manner :

"In the said special Rules, in Rule 11, for the expressions" 3lst May 1988"the expressions" 3lst May 1990 shall be substituted.

In August, 1989, the petitioner had acquired the qualification of M. P. Ed. On 27-9-1988 the second respondent issued proceedings of clarification and the relevant portion as found in paragraph 2 thereof is as follows:

The Government order should be communicated immediately to the management of all Aided Higher Secondary Schools and extent authorities of all local body Higher Secondary Schools as the extension of time given to the Government Higher Secondary School teachers in service on 28-4-1981 will apply to the staff handling higher secondary classes on 28-4-1981 in non-government Higher Secondary Schools also. "

A perusal of the above extract shows that the benefit of extension was available to teaching staff who were in service on 28-4-1981. The petitioner was one such staff. On 4-10-1988 the third respondent while communicating the proceedings of the second respondent dated 27-9-1988, directed strict adherence to the said proceedings.

2. The learned single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, found that after the petitioner's service was terminated, the 5th respondent, he being qualified, has been given the post, which the petitioner occupied. The learned single Judge could not find fault with the impugned order of termination, dated 31-5-1988 passed by the first respondent because that was done in tune with the rules, which prevalied then. But the learned single Judge took note of the fact that on 23-9-1988 by G. O. Ms. No. 1514, there has been an amendment to the rule, substituting the expression "31-5-1990" for the expression "31-5-1988" occurring in the concerned rule and also taking note of the statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 4 that the proceedings relating to the extension of the period for acquiring the qualification are applicable to the petitioner also, deemed fit to give the appropriate directio