Qualifications must be decided on the date of notification, and subsequent changes to the rules cannot be applied retrospectively.

Heard both sides. The four writ petitions are filed by four different persons.

2. In W.P.No.28739 of 2007, the petitioner, who was a Law Graduate got enrolled in the roll of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 210. 1995. After getting selected for the post of Audit Inspector, he joined the service on 21. 2003. He has challenged the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short TNPSC) by their advertisement No.122, dated 01.08.2007 calling for applications to the posts of Assistant Commissioner in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (for short HR&CE).

3. With reference to educational qualification, in paragraph 6(B)(2) of the notification, it was stated that a candidate must be actually a practising Advocate or a Pleader in Courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction for a period of not less than three years.

4. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was a Lawyer for seven years. Thereafter, he suspended his practice and went for a Government job. Therefore, he should also be considered for the said post without the condition that he should be a practising lawyer. This writ petition was admitted on 38. 2007. Along with other writ petitions, this Court by an interim order, dated 38. 2007, directed the respondent TNPSC to receive the application forms and also permitted them to appear for the examination. However the results were directed to be withheld.

5. On notice from this court, the respondent TNPSC informed the Standing Counsel by a communication, dated 8. 2009 that the same notification in Advertisement No.122, dated 8. 2007 for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Commissioner was set aside by this court by an order, dated 210. 2007 in W.P.No.28891 of 2007 filed by D.Rathinavel Pandian and 23 others. In view of the same, the writ petition has become infructuous.

6. In that case, the petitioners never challenged the relevant rule framed in the year 1968. But, this Court held that the rule was not followed for several years and the officers in the Department, who are Law graduates, working as Ministerial staff and subordinate Staff were having sufficient experience in conducting the departmental matters. It was also observed in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said order which may be reproduced:

"12....Merely because a person is practicing as an advocate for a period of three years either in civil or criminal law, it cannot be stated that his experience would become more than what the Officers in the administration of the temple are having....

13....Further, the notification says that the person must be a lawyer practicing in civil or criminal law for a period of three years; but the syllabus does not contain any subject in criminal law. As stated above, the notification does not speak about any rule, pursuant to which the notification is issued. In the instant case, for the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notification can be declared as bad."

7. It is not clear as to how the relevant rule came to be quashed without there being any direct challenge. However, the State Government did not go on appeal against the said order. On the contrary, it issued G.O.Ms.No.335, Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and Information Department, dated 011. 2009 and decided to amend the relevant service rule. Accordingly, the rules were amended so as to include not only the candidates who are actually practising Advocates or Pleaders in the Courts of civil or criminal jurisdiction for a period of not less than three years, but also persons who have put in not less than six years service in the post of Executive Officer, Grade I to Grade IV or Inspector or Head Clerk or Manager or Superintendent in the HR&CE Administrative Department to be eligible to apply for the posts of Assistant Commissioners by direct recruitment. The special rules were made to come into effect from 011. 2009.

8. But, the counsel for the petitioner Mr.Rajnish