The court emphasized the importance of considering equivalent qualifications as provided in the Notification and upheld the retrospective effect of the Government Order, affirming the validity of the selection of the fourth respondent.

1. By consent of both sides, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. C.N.G. Niraimathi, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Mr. N. Subramaniyan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the selection of the fourth respondent to the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (Industrial Co-operatives) 2010-2011 and to consequently direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner in the said post.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he has completed M. Phil in Economics and he is eligible to the Notification issued by the TNPSC dated 02.05.2012 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce (hereinafter referred to the said post). The petitioner participated in the written examination conducted on 23.06.2012. The results were published on 05.09.2012 and the name of the fourth respondent was withheld pending acceptance of his educational qualification. One R. Ganapathy was placed in the reserve list on the ground of pending acceptance of his educational qualification. The petitioner would challenge the selection/short listing of the fourth respondent on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification as per the Notification. Therefore, the petitioner would state that the selection of the fourth respondent requires to be set aside and he should be posted in the said post as he is having the requisite qualification.

4. Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for Mr. E.D. Sethupathy, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the relevant date for the purpose of considering the requisite qualification is 02.05.2012 as per the Notification issued by the TNPSC. It is stated that as on the said date the applicants/candidates should possess any one of the qualifications provided under 3(B) of the Notification dated 02.05.2012. It is submitted that the petitioner possessed a Master's Degree in Economics, whereas the fourth respondent did not have a Master's Degree in Commerce with Co-operation as a subject and since he did not possess the requisite qualification as on 02.05.2012, he was ineligible to apply to the said post and consequently, his selection is bad in law. Learned counsel would state that the reply dated 19.12.2012 obtained under the Right to Information Act, one of the petitioner's associates one R. Sivamanikandan was informed that the fourth respondent did not possess a Master's degree in Commerce with Cooperation as a subject. Therefore, it is stated that the selection of the fourth respondent has to be held as illegal.

5. Further, with regard to the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 24, Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises EI (1) Department, dated 22.05.2014 is concerned, it is submitted that by virtue of the Government Order, the decision of the Equivalence Committee in its thirty fifth Meeting held on 06.09.2012 was approved and even such approval was granted, the same should be only prospective and if at all the fourth respondent is eligible, he would be eligible only on or after the date of the said Government Order. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed and this is so because a person who did not apply for certain criterion can make a legitimate grievance if the same is stated to be lowered. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Others, (2009) 4 SCC 555.

6. Ms. C.N.G. Niraimathi, learned Standing Counsel for TNPSC, while seeking to sustain the selection of the fourth respondent, submitted that as per the Notification dat