1. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was originally appointed as a Pharmacist. He acquired B.Pharm degree in May 2001. He was working at Government Hospital, Kanchipuram. He is a physically challenged individual and his disability is 60%. He filed WP(MD)No.12314 of 2008 for directing the authorities to prepare a panel among eligible Pharmacists to be transferred and appointed to the post of Tutor in Pharmacy as per the Tamil Nadu Medical Service Special Rules based on state wise seniority. The said writ petition was taken up along with similar writ petitions and disposed of on 15.12.2014. The Directorate of Medical Education was directed to prepare a panel and forward the same to the first respondent for approval within a period of four weeks and the Government was directed to approve the said panel within four weeks thereafter.

3. Since the said direction was not complied with, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.1037 of 2015. After the institution of the contempt proceedings, amendments were made to the special rules for the Tamil Nadu Medical Services vide G.O.Ms.No.274, Health and Family Welfare (AA1) Department dated 07.09.2015. The post of Tutor in Pharmacy stood re- designated as Assistant Professor in Pharmacy. The petitioner was not considered for the post of Assistant Professor. Instead, he was made as a Lecturer in Pharmacy vide G.O(3D) No.109, Health and Family Welfare (AA1) Department dated 07.10.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. He followed it up by filing WP(MD)No.2175 of 2016. This Court by order dated 01.02.2016 directed the Directorate of Medical Education to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.11.2015 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the impugned order dated 04.04.2016 came to be passed. The second respondent informed the petitioner that his request could not be complied with. Questioning the same, this writ petition has been filed.

4. The reason set out in the impugned order for not including the petitioner's name in the list of Assistant Professors' of Pharmacy was that the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility norms set out in the relevant recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In G.O.Ms.No.274 dated 07.09.2015, it has been mentioned that the post in question can be filled up by promotion or by direct recruitment. For being promoted to the said post, the candidates must have obtained M.Pharm degree in the appropriate branch of specialization in Pharmacy with first class either in B.Pharm or in M.Pharm. Since the petitioner is not having the first class either in B.Pharm or M.Pharm, he could not be considered.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the stand of the authorities is liable to be rejected. He would point out that the vacancies in this case arose in the year 2008-09. In fact, the selection process started in the year 2009 itself. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court by filing WP(MD)No.12314 of 2008 and a direction had also been issued on 15.12.2014 to prepare a panel. Therefore, the petitioner's eligibility will have to be tested only with reference to the pre-amendment position. He would submit that the amended rules in G.O.Ms.No.274 dated 07.09.2015 would not be applicable to him.

6. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the this Court reported in 2008 (8) MLJ 328 (DB), 2008 WLR 905 (DB) and 2015(4) MLJ 575 (KRBJ). He drew the attention of this Court to the regulations issued by the Pharmacy Council of India vide notification dated 11.11.2014. In the said notification, it has been mentioned that if a class or division is not awarded at Master level, a minimum of 60% marks in aggregate or equivalent cumulative grade point