P.K. Misra, J.

The dispute relates to the question of appointment to the post of Principal in Film and Television Institute of Tamil Nadu, hereinafter referred to as "the Institute" in brief.

2. The two combatants in the on going legal battle are Mr. Sibi Madan Gabriel, petitioner in the Writ Petition No.36307 of 2004 and Mr.N. Ramesh, the Respondent No.4 in such writ petition. The post of the Principal in such Institute, which was lying vacant for a considerable length of time, was filled up by the appointment of fourth respondent as per order dated 12. 2004. Such appointment is being challenged in the writ petition.

3. The factual background is as follows: -

For convenience, the parties are described in the manner they have been arrayed in W.P.No.36307 of 2004.

The petitioner was appointed temporarily as Lecturer in Acting in the Institute by order dated 25. 1982 and his service was regularised retrospectively with effect from the date of joining as per order dated 20.2.1992. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as Head of Section by G.O.Ms.No.236 dated 18. 1993. During the year 2000, the fourth respondent was placed in additional charge to the post of the Principal. At that stage, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5275 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal"). The Tribunal by its order dated 18. 2000, directed the Government to consider the objections with reference to the qualification of the fourth respondent. At that stage, the Government appointed one Mr.K. Loganathan, which came to be challenged by the present fourth respondent by filing O.A.No.2085 of 2003 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 1. 2004. Such order of the Tribunal was challenged by the fourth respondent by filing W.P.No.841 of 2004 which, though still pending, has become infructuous for all practical purposes, as after retirement of the said Mr.K. Loganathan, fourth respondent has been appointed as the Principal by impugned order dated 12. 2004. During pendency of the present W.P.No.36307 of 2004, the petitioner filed W.M.P.No.43649 of 2004 for stay, wherein an order of interim stay was granted. Thereafter, fourth respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.2428 of 2004 for vacating the stay which was rejected by the learned single Judge by order dated 26. 2005. Writ Appeal No.1221 of 2005 was filed by the present fourth respondent and W.A.No.82 of 2006 was filed by the State Government and the Director of Information and Public Relations against such order refusing to vacate the order of stay. While hearing the aforesaid two writ appeals against such interim order relating to stay, the Division Bench also heard the main Writ Petition, namely, W.P.No.36307 of 2004 and while allowing the two writ appeals preferred against the order relating to stay, dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 12. 2006. Such decision of the Division Bench was challenged by the petitioner in the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No.3178 of 2007 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.7783 of 2006). The said Appeal was disposed by order dated 20.7.2007 by remanding the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal. The Supreme Court observed that the University Grants Commission as well as Annamalai University should be impleaded as parties. Thereafter, the University Grants Commission and Annamalai University have been impleaded as Respondent Nos.5 & 6 respectively as per order dated 10. 2007.

4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is to the effect that the fourth respondent, who obtained his M.A. Degree from Annamalai University by simply appearing at such examination without any preceding formal degree is not eligible to be appointed as the Principal as such M.A. Degree cannot be considered as a valid degree.

5. It is not in dispute that Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have been framed. The following qualifications are prescribed in Rule 4:- Method of Recruitment Qualification Promotio