The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the appellant's qualifications and work experience in the context of the relevant government order.

R. Banumathi, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is the Order dated 16.04.2012 made in W.P.No.9894 of 2012, declining to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Ooa.Mu.No.54823/D1/E2/2009 dated 31.03.2011 and declining to issue direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the appellant as B.T. Assistant in the third respondent School from the date of appointment and to confer all consequential benefits.

2. The third respondent is an aided minority school run by R.C. Management and getting 100% aid from the Government of Tamil Nadu. There was a vacancy in B.T. Assistant (Maths) from 03.09.2007 due to promotion of Thiru.A.Francis Rajkumar as Post Graduate Assistant. On application by the third respondent School, the Director of School Education accorded permission to convert the vacant post of Mathematics Assistant into English Assistant. The appellant joined as B.T. Assistant (English) on 03.09.2007. The Management sent the proposal for approval of appointment of the appellant on 14.01.2009. The second respondent returned the proposal to the Management to produce the equivalent certificate for the Foundation Course offered by the Madras University as to whether it is equivalent to + 2 Higher Secondary Course. Thereafter, the appellant appeared for Higher Secondary Examination and completed in June, 2010. The Management again sent the proposal to the second respondent on 07.08.2010 stating that the appellant has completed his Higher Secondary Examination in June, 2010. The said proposal was returned by the second respondent on the ground that the appellant has not studied the pattern of 10+2+3 as per G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009. The School Management appealed to the first respondent - Joint Director of School Education and the first respondent upheld the orders of the second respondent in his proceedings – O.Mu.No.54823/D1/E2/2009 dated 31.03.2011.

3. Challenging the said proceedings, the appellant filed Writ Petition. By the order dated 16.04.2012, the said Writ Petition was dismissed holding that the appellant had not acquired qualifications by following 10+2+3 system of education and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ((2009) 4 SCC 590), the degree obtained through Open University system is not valid for claiming promotion. The learned single Judge also referred to the Government Order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009 to the effect that a person, who passed Degree not through regular stream, is not eligible to be appointed and that the validity of the said Government Order has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in T.L.Muthukumar vs. Registrar General, (2011(2) MLJ 785). Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the appellant had filed this appeal.

4. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant completed his Higher Secondary Examination in June, 2010 and the Degree obtained by the appellant cannot be said to be invalid. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that once a Degree has been obtained by the appellant after undergoing Entrance Test, which is recognised by the University Grants Commission Regulations, by projecting administrative Government Order, the appellant's right cannot be diluted and the Writ Court was not right in referring to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009.

5. Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that once it is proved that the appellant has not studied plus 2 or its equivalent, as per G.O.Ms.No.107 P&AR Department dated 18.08.2009, the prayer of the appellant to approve the appointment on the basis of the earlier G.O.Ms.No.180 P&AR Department dated 11.09.2000 is not applicable. It was further submitted that as per the judgment of t