1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the Secretary of Sri Mukthivinayakar Middle School, seeking a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment made by the petitioner/school in favour of one Senthilkumar for the post of B.T. (English) with effect from 22.11.2011 with all benefits.

2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner/school is an aided private school. In their school, the post of Graduate Assistant for English fell vacant due to the resignation of one Satish and they obtained prior approval from the District Elementary Education Officer, Theni for filling up the post. It was claimed that the post, as per the communal roster, comes under Point No.4 and an interview was conducted in respect of persons who are sponsored by employment exchange and through newspaper advertisement. According to the petitioner, the said Senthilkumar was fully qualified both for his ability and merit and hence, the School Committee unanimously decided to appoint him as Graduate Assistant (English). Thereafter, an order of appointment was given to the said teacher stating that he should pass the Teacher Entrance Test within five years as per the NCTE Norms. It was thereafter the petitioner sent a proposal for approving the appointment of the said teacher with a requisition letter dated 19.12.2011.

3. The said request of the petitioner/school was examined by the Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Cumbum and by proceeding dated 5.7.2012, the said authority, namely the fourth respondent, returned the proposal stating that already the High Court had given direction that while verifying the candidature of the candidates appearing for counselling for any post, it has to be seen whether they are having three year degree or double degree with one year course certificate and in case the candidates are having one year degree certificate, they are not entitled to be considered for the said post. It is in that view of the matter the proposal sent by the petitioner was returned. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the return of the proposal. On the contrary, the petitioner/ school sought a direction to approve the appointment of Senthilkumar.

4. It is stated that the said Senthilkumar has studied school in 10+2 pattern and completed his B.Sc. (Science) in regular three year course and B.A. (English) in one sitting. It is also stated that the fourth respondent's return of the proposal is based upon the interim order passed by this Court, whereas the school has already selected him in the year 2011 and hence, the return was illegal. It is further stated that in the light of legitimate expectation and equity, the request of the petitioner will have to be considered.

5. The stand of the petitioner is a misreading of the judgment of this Court rendered in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.19631 of 2011 and batch cases (R. Thirunavukkarasau v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others). In the common order dated 14.8.2012, the learned Judge held as follows:

"82. But a careful study of the history of evolution of Extension Education in the world would reveal that it was conceived with the noble intention of enhancing the skills and improving the knowledge of persons who did not or could not afford to go to Higher Educational Institutions. But unfortunately, after its adoption in India, in the form of Distance Education or Adult and Continuing Education, some of the Universities in the country started perverting the whole objective, by making available all kinds of Degrees, solely with a view to enable the acquirers of such Degrees to claim a right for being considered for appointment in Government Service. Eventually, the Supreme Court took note of such perversions in Annamalai University. A one year Degree, by whatever name called (either dual degree or second degree, if not a duplicate degree), is one another perversion of the system which was evolved more than a century ago as an Extension Programme with