JUDGMENT :

S. Vaidyanathan, R. Vijayakumar, JJ.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 26.06.2014 made in W.P.No.15545 of 2014 and thereby allow the Writ Appeal.)

The issue involved in this case is trivial in nature.

To be more precise, can an act, done in a reversely order against an established state, be justified or approved?

“A reversal is just anything that is a surprise.

It is a way of keeping the audience interested” -

Tony Gilroy, an American Filmmaker.

The degree of the Writ petitioner can be compared to a Tamil Proverb

“TAMIL”

This Writ Appeal has been filed by the Appellants for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.06.2014 made in W.P.No.15545 of 2014, in and by which, the Respondents were directed to approve the appointment of the 1st Respondent herein as B.T.Assistant in the 2nd Respondent school.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties would be referred to by their original nomenclature found in the Writ Petition as 'the Writ Petitioner', 'Appellants/Respondents 1 and 2' and 'the School/R3'.

3. It was the case of the Writ Petitioner that he came out successful in the 10th Standard during the year 1984 and had completed his graduation in 1991, after due completion of a Foundation Court. Subsequently, he had cleared his B.Ed. Course and secured his B.Ed. Degree in the year 1993 and thereafter, he joined the Higher Secondary Course and passed the exam with flying colours in 2010. It was further case of the Writ Petitioner that pursuant to the vacancy arisen in the school, the Writ Petitioner was selected and appointed in the post of B.T.Assistant in the year 2007. When a proposal was forwarded to the 1st Respondent for approval, the same was rejected on various grounds, more so, on the ground of non possession of educational qualification in an orderly manner, namely, 10+2+3 followed by a B.Ed. Degree. The said rejection was also upheld in the Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.9854 of 2012, but, however, in the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1064 of 2012, the order of the learned Single Judge was reversed, on the ground that the Respondents, having allowed the Writ petitioner to work in the school for so long years, cannot be thrown out from the job.

3.1. It was also the case of the Writ Petitioner that on the basis of the favourable order in the Writ Appeal, a fresh proposal was forwarded to the Respondents by the school, which was against rejected by the 2nd Respondent on 16.04.2014, which resulted in one more round of litigation in W.P.No.15545 of 2014, in which, learned Single Judge, while allowing the Writ Petition impugned herein, observed as follows:

“4. A perusal of the records would go to show that the Division Bench has already declared that the petitioner is entitled for being appointed as B.T. Assistant. When that be so, the same cannot be reopened. However, the impugned order has been passed on the ground tehat the petitioner did not do the courses in order viz., 10th followed by +2, followed by degree and then followed by B.Ed., degree. This issue has already been examined by this Court in V.Kanimozhi vs. Director of School Education, (2014) 3 MLJ 606, wherein this Court has held that it is not a disqualification. In view of the above settled position, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to afresh consider the proposal and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order...”

3.2. According to the Writ Petitioner, his appointment was not approved mainly on the ground that the school has not followed the subject roster. The query raised by the Respondents with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to the post was suitably answered by citing G.O.Ms.No.180, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department dated 11.09.2000, wherein it was made clear that a degree obtained through the corre