M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

By consent, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal.

2. The appellant is the writ petitioner in W.P(MD)No.6790 of 2016 and she made a challenge as to the appointment of the third respondent as the Director of Medical Education and it has ended in failure in the form of dismissal of the writ petition on 01.09.2016 and hence, this writ appeal.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ appeal and briefly narrated, are as follows:

3.1. The appellant/writ petitioner would state that after successfully completing M.B.B.S., Degree, she joined the Tamil Nadu Government Medical Service in the year 1987 and rendered her services as Medical Officer in the Government Primary Health Centre till 1991 and she did her Doctor of Medicine (M.D., Degree) in Obstetrics & Gynecology, in the year 1988-1990 at Madurai Medical College and passed with University Rank in the year 1990 and thereafter, continued as Medical Officer at Poolathur Primary Health Centre, Kodaikkanal, Dindigul District and from June 1990 to December 1990, she worked under the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services Side at Ayakudi Government Hospital, Dindigul District and from December 1990 to April 2002, she worked in Periperal Hospital, Palarengapuram. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, she served in all ranks in the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology at different Medical Colleges from 1992 to 2009 and as an Assistant Professor from 1992 to 2009 and got her promotion as Associate Professor and further as a Professor and worked in that capacity in Tirunelveli, Theni and Madurai Medical Colleges between 2009 and 2013. She had put in honest, sincere, dedicated and blemishless service. In the year 2013, she was promoted as Dean and as on that date, she was working as Dean/Special Officer, Karur Medical College.

3.2. The appellant/writ petitioner would further state that Dr. S. Geethalakshmi, Director of Medical Education, was appointed as Vice Chancellor of Dr. M.G.R. Medical University and joined the said post on 28.12.2015 and it has fallen vacant and if she would have continued as Director of Medical Education, she should retire on 31.01.2016. As the post of Director of Medical Education falls vacant, the third respondent was appointed as In-Charge of Director of Medical Education.

3.3. It is the specific claim of the appellant/writ petitioner that while Dr. S. Geethalakshmi was the Director of Medical Education, she had drawn the panel as per the existing Special Rules, which prescribes, among other things, that a candidate eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Director of Medical Education, shall have a minimum of one year service left prior to the age of retirement and she has also sent the panel to the Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, containing the following names and they are extracted below:

1. Dr. R. Vimala - one year left over service not available. Officer on Special Duty (OSD) can be given.

2. Dr. S. Revathy - senior most Civil Medical List eligible.

3. Dr. AL. Meenakshi Sundaram - Eligible.

4. Dr. Edwin Joe - Eligible.

3.4. The appellant/writ petitioner had also submitted a representation to the first respondent that she fulfils the necessary criteria and therefore, prayed for her appointment as the Director of Medical Education and was expecting favourable response. However, to her shock and surprise, the first respondent has relaxed the qualification as to the minimum of one year left over service and relaxed the Rule 8(b)(iv) of the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Medical Service without assigning any reason and appointed the third respondent as the Director of Medical Education vide G.O.(D)No. 446, Health and Family Welfare (A1) Department, dated 18.03.2016, ignoring her representation dated 04.03.2016.

3.5. The appellant/writ petitioner would contend that in the process, the mandatory guidelines given