The court reinforced that administrative rules cannot override established judicial precedents ensuring fairness in educational employment matters.

O R D E R

The petitioners in the writ petitions are approved Higher Secondary School Teachers working in respective schools shown against their addresses in the Writ Petition. All of them were appointed between 13.2.01 and 12.11.01. The Supreme Court by its judgment in Dollichan’s case [2001(1) SCC 151] imposed a specific ban of three months for making appointments in Aided Higher Secondary School and directed the Government to frame recruitment rules within that period. 13.2.01 is the date on which the period of three months ban expired. The Government did not frame recruitment rules within the time frame set by the Supreme Court and came out with rules only on 12.11.01. All the writ petitioners were having the educational qualifications prescribed by the rules but they did not have SET. They were all appointed on the basis of GO(MS) No.238/2000/G.Edn dt.25.8.2000 which permitted such appointments in the absence of the SET qualified hands. A Division Bench of this Court in WA No.2245/2002 by judgment dt.22.1.03 and connected matters(produced as Ext.P2 in the Writ Petitions) directed the approving authority to clear the appointments made during the above period and further directed that the persons appointed without SET qualification and in the absence of SET qualified hands will not be denied approval provided, those persons are having the other qualifications at the time of their appointments. It was also held in Ext.P2 that GO(MS) No.298/2000/G.Edn dt.25.8.2000 was in force at the time of appointment. The Government went in appeal against Ext.P2 judgment but when the Special Leave Petition [SLP (C) No.7224/2003] came up for consideration, the same was allowed to be withdrawn by the Government on recording the statement of the Government’s counsel that no review will be filed. Ext.P3 produced in the Writ Petition is copy of the order of the Supreme Court in that regard. The petitioners pointed out in the Writ Petitions that Ext.P2 judgment has thus attained finality. Thereafter in compliance of Ext.P2 judgment the Government issued GO(MS)199/2003/G.Edn dt.24.7.03 (Ext.P4 GO). But while issuing Ext.P4 GO the absence clause provided in Ext.P2 judgment regarding SET was ignored by the Government and Clause 6(c) of Ext.P4 GO provided that teachers who do not possess SET till the date of the GO will be terminated. Thereafter persons who were appointed without SET in the absence of SET qualified hands but possessing the other qualifications prescribed but were yet to pass SET approached this Court challenging Clause 6(c) of Ext.P4 on the ground that the same is contrary to Ext.P2 judgment. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.26588/2003 by judgment dt.13.7.04 set- aside Clause 6(c) of Ext.P3 GO and directed approval of the appointments given to the petitioners therein in accordance with Ext.P2 judgment which is to the effect that persons without SET but appointed in the absence of SET qualified hands will not be denied approval. Ext.P4 is that judgment. The Government preferred Writ Appeal against Ext.P4 judgment. The Division Bench considered the above WA No.1927 of 2004 and confirmed Ext.P4 judgment. Ext.P5 is copy of the judgment of the Division Bench. The Division Bench through Ext.P5 judgment has clarified that in Ext.P2 judgment in WA No.2242 of 2002 it was not stipulated that the authorities will be entitled to approve the appointments only after they passed the SET. The petitioners point out that the parties to WA Nos.2242 of 2002 and 1927 of 2004 who were not having SET qualifications at all were all granted approval with effect from the dates of their respective appointments in compliance with the judgment in those two Writ Appeals. The claim of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that they were appointed without SET in the absence of SET qualified hands but possessing all other qualifications at the time of their appointment are similarly situated as the parties in WA No.2245/02 and WA No.1927/04