The completion of the course prior to the judgment in Annamalai University case made the petitioner eligible for the Special Officer post, and principles of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation, and equity were invoked to protect the petitioner's service and salary.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.23360 of 2016: : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to 1/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)Nos.23360 of 2016 and 3718 of 2017 call for records relating to the impugned proceedings of the respondent in office memorandum No.C1-9/005/2016, dated 16.11.2016, to quash the same and consequently, to forbear the respondent herein from in any way affecting the service of the petitioner as Special Officer in the respondent University.

W.P.(MD)No.3718 of 2017: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the respondent in his proceedings University Order No.125/2017 (C1), dated 27.02.2017 and to quash the same. In both cases:)

Common Order:

The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.23360 of 2016, is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings of the respondent in office memorandum No.C1-9/005/2016, dated 16.11.2016 and consequently, to forbear the respondent herein from in any way affecting the service of the petitioner as Special Officer in the respondent University.

2. The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.3718 of 2017, is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings University Order No.125/2017 (C1), dated 27.02.2017.

3. The brief facts of the cases as stated in the affidavits are that the first respondent is a University which was originally formed under the Annamalai University Act in 1928. Thereafter the State of Tamil Nadu enacted another Act called "Annamalai University Act 2013" in supersession of earlier Act 1928 and the respondent University is governed under the new Act with saving clauses provided under the said Act. The new Act was notified on 24.9.2013. The petitioner had studied Post Graduation in M.A., Political Science through Open University System and completed Degree in November 2003 and the petitioner secured II Class in the said P.G. Programme in Madurai Kamaraj University. Before joining the course, the petitioner has completed +2 during March 1989. Subsequent to the Degree, he also completed M.Phil., in 2007 with a specialized Research on Political Science. He completed U.G. Degree in the respondent University in B.A., Political Science during May 2012.

4. The petitioner was appointed as Special Officer vide Appointment Order No.58/2011 (C1), dated 22.01.2011 and had completed probation. The petitioner was appointment as Special Officer Grade-I in the Distance Education Department of the respondent University at Dindigul Study Centre and at present is working as non-teaching staff / clerks, which are governed by the Service Rules namely the Service Rules for the Clerical Staff & Other Servants Other Than Servants of the University. The post of Special Officer is coming under the said Rule. The post of Special Officer is classified in Sl.No.2 under the sanctioned strength and the prescribed qualification is PG with II Class. The petitioner was appointed as Special Officer on 22.01.2011 and has completed 5 years 10 months of service as on the date of filing the writ petition. On 24.11.2016, the petitioner received a communication from the respondent, dated 16.11.2016, wherein the first respondent has stated that the appointment of Special Officer is coming under the Special Service Rules and the petitioner is not having requisite qualification. As per G.O.Ms. No. 116 P & AR (M) Department, dated 18.08.2010, P.G. Degree holder who have obtained the said Degree in Open University System is disqualified to seek public appointment. The petitioner's appointment is not in accordance to the said G.O. The petitioner has completed 10th, +2, but has obtained P.G. without going through U.G. but subsequently, has completed U.G. The said show cause notice, dated 16.11.2016, is challenged in the W.