The judgment establishes the principle that the conditions prescribed in a Government Order for eligibility in public service positions are mandatory and must be adhered to.

Brief facts:-

1. The 1st appellant issued notification through advertisement No.2/2013 dated 9.5.2013 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the vacancies for the post of Post Graduate Assistants/ Physical Education Directors Grade-I for the year 2012-2013 in the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service. The respondent before us was one of the applicant. She attended the written examination held on 21.7.2013. Thereafter, she was called for the Certificate verification and accordingly her services were verified. However, in the provisional selection list published, the name of the respondent was not included. It was done so on the ground that the respondent has not studied plus 2 course before completing the Degree course as required under G.O.(Ms).No.107, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (M) Department dated 18.8.2009. Challenging the publication of the provisional selection list in the Website on 3.1.2014 and seeking consequential prayer to direct the 1st appellant to select and appoint the respondent to the post of Post Graduate Assistant - Tamil for the year 2012-2013, a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.1068 of 2014 before the learned single Judge and the writ petition as filed was allowed on 11.3.2014 by setting aside the provisional selection list published on 3.1.2014 with a direction to consider the case of the respondent for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in Tamil based upon her marks secured. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal before us.

2. Heard Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the appellants and Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for Mr.Dakshayani Reddy for respondents.

3. Submissions of the appellants:

3.1. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that as mandated by the Government Order passed in G.O.(Ms).No.107 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.8.2009, only a candidate, who has cleared the plus 2 course and thereafter did Degree alone can be considered as eligible. The Government Order passed in G.O.(Ms).No.107 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.8.2009 has not been challenged by the respondent. The said G.O has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.18729 of 2010 dated 10.2.2011 (T.L.Muthukumar Vs. The Registrar General, High Court, Madras and another).

3.2. The qualification prescribed is different from a valid degree recognised by the University Grants Commission. Admittedly, the respondent has completed her Degree course without completing the plus 2 course. The decisions relied on by the learned single Judge in allowing the writ petition are not applicable to the case on hand. When it comes to the academic matters, particularly, with respect to the standards required for teachers, the wisdom of the parties cannot be questioned. In support of his contention, reliance was made on the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others, ((2009) 4 SCC 590), Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18729 of 2010 dated 10.2.2011 and Order made by learned single Judge in W.P.No.1843 of 2014 dated 13.3.2014. Learned Special Government Pleader also relied on a Full Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Shanker Lal Verma and 13 others Vs. Rajasthan State Electricity (1993(3) LLJ 796).

4. Submissions of the respondent:

4.1. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent did complete the plus 2 course. Therefore, there is no bar for considering the case of the respondent on merit. The Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.107 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.8.2009 has been satisfied. Even otherwise, the appellant has complied with clause (2) of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 1985 as she had passed in