The government has the power to relax rules in a just and equitable manner, and the appointment of Dr. R. Vimala was found to be valid based on her qualifications and seniority.

1. The 1st respondent/Government have issued G.O. (D) No. 446, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 18.03.2016, approving a regular panel consisting the name of the 3rd respondent/Dr. R. Vimala, Dean, Madras Medical College, Chennai, for the post of Director of Medical Education, by relaxing Rule 8(b)(iv) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Services as proposed by the Director of Medical Education. Challenging the said G.O., the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the same.

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government issued another G.O. (D) No. 447, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 18.03.2016, appointing and posting Dr. R. Vimala, Dean, Madras Medical College, Chennai, as Director of Medical Education, vice Dr. S. Geethalakshmi, retired. In view of the issuance of the subsequent G.O(D)No.447, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 18.03.2016, seeking amendment of the prayer to challenge G.O(D)No.447, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 18.03.2016 also, the petitioner filed WMP (MD) No. 9207 of 2016, contending that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the said G.O was not available. However, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, replying to the said prayer, submitted that the said G.O was also available at the time of filing of this writ petition, therefore, the contention made by the petitioner that it was not available on the date of filing of the writ petition is untenable. But, this Court finding that G.O(D)No.447, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 18.03.2016, being consequential and it is also more relevant for both parties to agitate the matter, allowed WMP(MD)No.9207/16 order dated 27.07.2016.

3. Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, would submit that the petitioner, who joined the Tamil Nadu Government Medical Service in the year 1987, after serving as a Medical Officer in Government Primary Health Centre and other Primary Health Centers, also worked as Assistant Professor from 1992 to 2009. Subsequently, she got promotion as Associate Professor and Professor and worked in Tirunelveli, Theni and Madurai Medical Colleges with dedication and devotion to duty, therefor, she was promoted as a Dean in 2013. As a Dean, she again rendered her service with more dedication in Kanyakumari, Coimbatore and Madurai Medical Colleges from March 2013 to November 2015 and from December 2015 till now, she is working as a Dean/Special Officer at Karur Medical College. While so, the only post in all over the State of Tamil Nadu namely, the Director of Medical Education for the year 2015-16 fell vacant.

4. Adding further, he would submit that the Director of Medical Education is the Head of the Department with a huge responsibility of supervising 20 Government Medical Colleges and 44 tertiary care institutions, apart from dealing with the Medical Council of India, for getting continued recognition for admission of students in UG and PG courses of Medical, Dental, Para-Medical and Nursing Courses. The said post is governed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Medical Services. Rule 8(b) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Services, prescribes the qualifications for the post of Director of Medical Education and unless the candidates who are aspiring to the post of Director of Medical Education, are fully qualified by complying the qualifications prescribed under Rule 8(b), no one will be considered. The said rules are to be complied with in letter and spirit and only in exceptional cases, it can be relaxed. While so, the 3rd respondent/Dr. R. Vimala, who is not qualified as per Rule 8(b)(iv), which says that the candidate should have a minimum of one year left over service prior to the date of retirement, has been wrongly appointed as Director of