The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a B.T. Assistant should not be denied based on the alleged lack of higher secondary qualification if the candidate meets the qualifications prescribed by the relevant rules and has obtained higher degrees through recognized educational institutions.

Aruna Jagadeesan, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.46530/2006, dated 05.02.2008, whereby, the impugned order of the District Educational Officer, the fourth appellant herein, refusing approval of the appointment of the first respondent as B.T. Assistant (Junior Grade) was set aside and the fourth Appellant was directed to pay arrears of salary and other benefits from 05.08.2003, the date of her appointment.

2. The first respondent has passed M.A. M.Ed. degree in English and was appointed as B.T. Assistant (Junior Grade) in English in the Government Aided Minority School, the second respondent herein in the vacancy that had arisen on account of the transfer of one Jenoviya to another school of the same management. The second respondent submitted proposal to the District Educational Officer, Villupuram, for approval of the appointment of the first respondent, enclosing all the educational certificates, together with mark-lists. The fourth Appellant had sent communication to the school management on 23.07.2004 stating that the details regarding the first respondents pass in higher secondary were not sufficient and further directed it to produce the particulars of admission given in the college where she was admitted in B.A. Degree. Again on 17.08.2004, the fourth Appellant had returned the proposal of the school management.

3. Though the first respondent took efforts to get details of her admission from Stella Maris College, where-from she passed the degree, she could not get the same, as those records were not preserved beyond ten years. The first respondent had passed B.A. Degree by undertaking the course from June, 1987 to April, 1990 through Stella Maris College and got B.Ed. Degree in Annamalai University through correspondence course and passed the same in 1993 with optional subjects as English and Special English. She also got M.A. Degree from Annamalai University through correspondence course having passed the same in December, 1995 and joined M.Ed. during 1996-97 and passed the examination in May, 1997.

4. Approval was refused on the ground that the first respondent has not passed higher secondary (+2) examination, which is the basic qualification for getting admission for Bachelors Degree. The first respondent challenged the order of said refusal on the ground that Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 prescribed qualification for appointment as B.T. Assistant (Junior Grade) with B.A./B.Sc. with B.Ed./B.T. Degrees and nowhere it prescribed that there should be a pass in Higher Secondary. Further, it was submitted that she was given to understand that one should secure an aggregate of 70 marks out of 200 by adding both English with optional Advanced English paper and she secured admission in the regular college (Stella Maris) without any dissent.

5. The learned Single Judge held that the required qualification as prescribed in Annexure V-A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 and Rule 15(6-A) is only B.A./B.Sc. or its equivalent and B.T. or B.Ed. from any University in the State and therefore, a pass in +2 is not the required qualification as prescribed by the said rules and set aside the impugned Order of the District Education Officer. The learned Judge referred to his decision reported in 2006 (2) MLJ 408 (B.S.Geethabai v. State of Tamil Nadu) which arose on similar facts and held that even if a candidate does not possess +2 qualification and passed B.A. and B.Ed. Degrees through Open University Stream, selection of appointment cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioner studied B.A. (English) and B.Ed. through Open University stream of Madras University and Annamalai University respectively.

6. The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that even if the first respondent had higher Degrees, she having not secured 70% in one subject, which is the minimum marks in the Higher