JUDGMENT :

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 11.12.2017 in W.P. No. 21151 of 2013.

1. The State instituted this intra-Court appeal seeking to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2017 made in W.P. No. 21151 of 2013.

2. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Joint Director of School Education/the second appellant herein, who was the second respondent in the writ petition, dated 29.01.2013 and directed the appellants to treat the writ petitioner’s degree educational qualification valid and consequently appoint her to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) in the vacancies existing in the Government Schools.

3. According to the writ petitioner, she passed S.S.L.C. examination during 1992 and after successfully passing the entrance examination conducted by the Madras University for admission to the B.A. Degree Course, she joined the degree in 1999 and thereafter acquired B.Ed. Degree in 2011. The petitioner appeared for the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and upon successful completion, appeared for counselling on 09.12.2012. Though appointment order was issued in her favour on 10.12.2012, it was cancelled on 29.01.2013 and she was informed that she was not eligible for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant on the ground that she did not pass Higher Secondary Course Examination (HSC) before joining the degree course and thus, she did not fulfill the 10+2+3 study pattern. She questioned the same before the writ Court and the said writ petition was allowed vide the impugned order. Thus, the State is before us with this appeal.

4. It was pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner passed the entrance examination conducted by the University before getting admission in the degree course and as per the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, such a degree is valid one. But the appellants without appreciating the same cancelled the appointment order issued in favour of the writ petitioner holding that she did not pass the HSC examination and the said order is bad in law. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments put forth by either side, by relying upon the earlier judgments of this Court in W.P. No. 13742 of 2010, etc. batch and Dharuman and Others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2015) 1 MLJ 410, allowed the writ petition and issued the consequential directions.

5. The learned State Government Counsel contended that the judgments relied on by the learned Single Judge have been overruled by various Division Benches of this Court and thereby G.O.Ms. No. 107, Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 18.08.2009 was upheld. The appeal filed against the order made in Dharuman’s case is pending before this Court. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition, in view of the settled position of law and seeks to allow this appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner relied upon the UGC Regulations and the letters of the UGC dated 25.11.1985 and 18.10.1995 in Letter Nos. F.1117/83(CP) and F.1-117/83 (CPP-II) respectively to submit that the said guidelines allow the students to join basic degree course, without completing HSC examination, and the only condition that is to be fulfilled is that they have to pass the entrance examination conducted by the respective University before seeking admission in the U.G. Course. But the appellants failed to appreciate the UGC Regulations and issued G.O.Ms. No. 107, dated 18.08.2009 contrary to the said Regulations and thus, the appellants cannot rely upon the said G.O. to cancel the appointment order of the writ petitioner. The learned counsel relied upon the same judgment of the learned Single Judge in Dharuman and Others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu