IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21..04..2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.Nos.13054, 13055, 13742, 14150 and 14151 of 2010 and 12419 of 2011 M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012 in W.P.No.13054 of 2010, M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.No.13742 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2011 and 2 of 2012 in W.P.No.12419 of 2011 W.P.Nos.13054 and 13055 of 2010 and 12419 of 2011 : P.Raman ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 3. The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 4. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents in W.P. Nos.13054&13055 of 2010 1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai 600 006. 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Open University, Directorate of Technical Education Campus, Chennai 600 025. ... Respondents in W.P.

No.12419 of 2011 Prayer in W.P.No.13054 of 2010 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to conform the selection of the petitioner, placed in the withheld list, in the Combined Subordinate Services Examination I, 2008 (Group-II), in order to initiate further selection process for allotting the appropriate notified post to the petitioner, according to the merit as well as in consonance with the rules of reservation and consequently recommending the selection of the petitioner to the appropriate department for the issuance of appointment order in the said CSSE-I-2008. Prayer in W.P.No.13055 of 2010 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to conform the selection of the petitioner, placed in the withheld list, in the Group-I Services Examination 2007-2009, in order to initiate further selection process for allotting appropriate notified post to the petitioner, according to the merit as well as in consonance with the rules of reservation and consequently recommending the selection of the petitioner to the appropriate department for the issuance of appointment order in the said Group-I Services Examination 2007-2009. Prayer in W.P.No.12419 of 2011 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for all relevant records relating to the impugned order published in the official website of the first respondent Service Commission, dated 10.05.2011, rejecting the application of the selected candidates, placed in the withheld list of the Combined Subordinate Services Examination I, 2008 (Group-II), without proper notice, without assigning any reason, against the due

process of law, herein to quash the same as arbitrary, improper, unjust, unconstitutional, as it dehors the pendency of the writ petitions in W.P.No.13054 of 2010 batch, pending on the file of the this Court, in order to provide lawful opportunity to the affected petitioner to plead his case, as prayed for in the said writ petition in W.P.No.13054 of 2010 batch and consequently let the issue be disposed of on merits at the earliest. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel for M/s.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar For RR 1 to 3 in : Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, W.P.Nos.13054 & Additional Advocate General 13055 of 2010 & for Mr.V.Subbiah, R2 in W.P.No.12419 Special Govt. Pleader of 2011 For R4 in W.P. : Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel Nos.13054 & 13055 for Ms.C.N.G.Niraimathi of 2010 and R1 in Standing Counsel for R 4 W.P.No.12419 of 2011 For R3 in W.P. : Mr.A.Arul No.12419 of 2011 W.P.No.13742 of 2010: 1. P.Sarvanan 2. C.Mageswaran 3. K.M.Sakthivel 4. V.Rajini ** 5. M.Marimuthu 6. T.Venkatesan ... Petitioners Vs. 1. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Omandurar Estate, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 2. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary,

Greams Road, Commercial Tax Office Building, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents ** P4 permitted to withdraw as per order dated 07.12.2011 in M.P.No.1 of 2011 in W.P.No.13742 of 2010 Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records from the first respondent relating to G.O.(Permanent)No.107, dated 18.08.2009 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the University Grants Commission and without jurisdiction and consequently, direct the first and second respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioners in the appropriate post of Combined Subordinate Services Examination-I conducted (Advertisement No.176) with effect from the date the candidates selected along them were appointed together with due seniority, wages and other emoluments for that period. For Petitioners in W.P. : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, for M/s.Row and Reddy For Respondents : Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, Additional Advocate General for R1 for Mr.V.Subbiah, Special Govt. Pleader Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Devendran Standing Counsel for R2 W.P.No.14150 of 2010 : 1. V.Kannan 2. A.Ranjith Kumar 3. S.Elango 4. A.Sethuraman 5. K.Selvam 6. D.Durai Mohan 7. V.Shanmugam 8. K.Saravanan

9. S.Senthil Kumar 10. R.Jeyalakshmi 11. R.Sumathi 12. C.Vijayaraghavan 13. S.Bavaji 14. M.Murugan 15. N.Loganathan 16. S.Subramani 17. V.Balamurugan ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 002. 2. The Secretary, Higher Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to confirm the selection of the petitioners, placed in the withheld list, in the Combined Subordinate Services Examination-I-2008 (Group-II), in order to initiate further selection process for allotting the appropriate notified post to the petitioners, according to the merit as well as in consonance with the rules of reservation and consequently recommending the selection of the petitioners to the appropriate department for the issuance of appointment order in the said CSSE-I-2008. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel for M/s.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, Additional Advocate General for Mr.V.Subbiah, Special Govt. Pleader for RR 1 & 2

Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel for Ms.C.N.G.Niraimathi Standing Counsel for R3 W.P.No.14151 of 2010 : 1. E.Venkatesan 2. R.Thamarichelvi 3. M.Ramesh 4. K.Jaya 5. M.Kavitha 6. C.Stella Mary 7. S.Kirubanandam 8. S.Santhanam 9. T.Muniyan 10. I.F.Nazirun 11. J.John Marshal 12. A.Ramesh 13. M.Senthil Kumar 14. D.Paramaeswari 15. M.Muniasamy 16. R.Murugan 17. R.C.Kalai Selvi ... Petitioners Vs. 1. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 002. 2. The Secretary, Higher Educational Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to confirm the selection of the petitioners, placed in the withheld list, in

the Combined Subordinate Services Examination-I-2008 (Group-II), in order to initiate further selection process for allotting the appropriate notified post to the petitioners, according to the merit as well as in consonance with the rules of reservation and consequently recommending the selection of the petitioners to the appropriate department for the issuance of appointment order in the said CSSE-I-2008. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel for M/s.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar For Respondents : Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, Additional Advocate General for Mr.V.Subbiah, Special Govt. Pleader for RR 1 & 2 Mr.N.R.Chandran, Senior Counsel for Ms.C.N.G.Niraimathi Standing Counsel for R3 COMMON ORDER A common question arises in all these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners in all these writ petitions possess the requisite educational qualification for selection to the posts included in Combined Subordinate Services Examination-I, 2008 (Group II) and Group I Services Examination 2007-2009 ? 2.0. The petitioner in W.P.No.13054 of 2010, the petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010 and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.14150 and 14151 of 2010, have applied for the posts included in Combined Subordinate Services Examination I, 2008 (Group-II) (hereinafter referred to as GroupII posts) pursuant to the Advertisement No.176, dated 10.11.2008. They appeared for the written examination. When the results were published, the results in respect of the petitioners were withheld, as the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short TNPSC) felt that the petitioners did not possess the requisite educational qualification.

2.1. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.13054, 14150 and 14151 of 2010, sought for a direction to select them to Group II posts, as according to them, they possess the requisite educational qualification. W.P.No.13742 of 2010 was filed seeking to quash G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009, and for a direction to select the petitioners to Group II posts. 2.2. The petitioner in W.P.Nos.13054 and 13055 of 2010 and 12419 of 2011 is one and the same. While W.P.No.13054 of 2010 is relating to Group II posts, W.P.No.13055 of 2010 is relating Group I posts, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to select him for the respective posts as he possesses requisite educational qualification. As far as W.P.No.12419 of 2011 is concerned, the same was filed questioning the order dated 10.05.2011 rejecting the applications for the Group II posts. 2.3. The notification dated 10.11.2008, issued by the TNPSC for Group II posts, prescribed the educational qualification for various posts included in the Group II services and the same are extracted hereunder : (B) EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION : Candidates should possess the following or its equivalent or higher qualification on the date of this Notification, viz., 10-11-2008: TABLE-I Sl. No. Name of Post Educational Qualification prescribed (As on 10.11.2008) 1 Assistant Section Officer (Other than Law & Finance Department) in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service A Master's Degree or A Bachelor's Degree and BGL Degree or

A Bachelor's Degree with First Class in any one of the parts. Provided that in case of a candidate belonging to SC, ST, MBC/DC, BC (other than BCM), BCM, it shall be sufficient if he/she holds a Bachelor's degree. 2 Assistant Section Officer in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission A Master's Degree or A Bachelor's Degree and BGL Degree or A Bachelor's Degree with First Class in any one of the parts. Provided that in case of a candidate belonging to SC, ST, MBC/DC, BC (other than BCM), BCM, it shall be sufficient if he/she holds a Bachelor's degree. 3 Probation Officer in the Tamil Nadu Social Defence Subordinate Service A degree of B.A., or B.Sc., or B.Com., of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission, or B.O.L., of Annamalai University or B.B.A., of Madurai Kamaraj University or B.Litt., of Madras University or BBM or B.Litt. of Bharathiar University. Provided that other things being equal preference shall be given to candidates who possess a degree in Sociology or Psychology. Provided further that other things being equal preference shall be given to those who have practical experience in having done Social Welfare work or who possess a diploma in social service including experience in social and moral hygiene and aftercare work. 4 Junior Employment Officer in Employment and Training Department Must possess a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or B.O.L. degree of Annamalai University or B.B.A. Degree of Madurai Kamaraj University or B.Litt., degree of Madras University, B.B.M., or B.Litt., degree of Bharathiar University. 5 Junior Employment Officer (Physically Handicapped) in Employment and Training Department

(a) Must possess a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or B.B.A. Degree of Madurai Kamaraj University or B.O.L. degree of Annamalai University or B.Litt., degree of Madras University, B.B.M., or B.Litt., degree of Bharathiar University. and (b) is a physically handicapped person whose physical disability shall not be less than 40%. PH person who applies for appointment to the Post of Junior Employment Officer-PH, should produce with their application a Medical Certificate obtained from a Medical Officer of the rank not lower than that of the Civil Assistant Surgeon showing the nature of degree of his Physical impairment. 6 Sub-Registrar Grade-II Must possess a Bachelor's degree Provided that other things being equal preference shall be given to persons who in additional to the qualification specified above possess a BL degree 7 Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies A degree of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission or other Educational Institution. or A Diploma in Rural Services Awarded by the National Council of Rural Higher Education. or A Diploma of Associate Members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Other things being equal preference shall be given to the candidates possessing such qualification and in such order as specified below: i) M.A.Degree in Co-operation ; or ii) M.Com. Degree with Co-operation as one of the subject; or iii) B.A. Degree in Co-operation; or iv) Higher Diploma in Co-operative Management

awarded by the Natesan Institute of Co-operative Management, Madras; or Institute of Co-operative Management, Madurai. 8 Assistant Inspector of Local Fund Audit and Internal Audit Department B.A., or B.Sc., or B.Com., degree or any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission, or B.O.L., of Annamalai University or B.B.A., of Madurai Kamaraj University or B.Litt., of Madras University or B.B.M. or B.Litt., of Bharathiar University. 9 Supervisor of Agricultural Marketing A Degree. Other things being equal preference shall be given to those who have passed Government Technical Examination in Book keeping by Higher Grade. 10 Junior Co-operative Auditor in the Dept. of Co-operative Audit in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Audit Subordinate Service B.Com., or B.A., (Co-operation) or B.A., (Economics) or B.A., (Corporate Secretaryship) or B.B.M., (Bachelor of Bank Management) of Madras University or Institution from Tamil nadu. 11 Assistant in the Revenue Department B.A., or B.Sc., (Other than in a Professional subject) or B.Com., of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission. or B.O.L. of Annamalai University or B.B.A. of Madurai Kamaraj University or B.Litt of Madras University or B.B.M. or B.Litt., of Bharathiar University. 12 Audit Assistant in the Accounts Branch of Highways Department Any degree of any University or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission. Provided that other things being equal preference shall be given to persons who possess a degree in Commerce.

TABLE-II Posts for which selection is made through written examination alone. Sl. No. Name of Post Educational Qualification prescribed (As on 10.11.2008) 13 Personal Clerk in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (i) A Bachelor's Degree : (ii) ..... (iii) ..... 14 Assistant in the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue Administration in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service B.A., or B.Sc., or B.Com., of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission; or B.O.L. of Annamalai University or B.B.A. of Madurai Kamaraj University or B.Litt of Madras University or B.B.M. or B.Litt., of Bharathiar University. 15 Assistant in Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department B.A., or B.Sc., or B.Com., of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission; or B.O.L. of Annamalai University or B.B.A. of Madurai Kamaraj University or B.Litt of Madras University or B.B.M. or B.Litt., of Bharathiar University. 16 Assistant in the Office of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission A Bachelor's Degree of any University or Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission. 2.4. The qualification for Group I posts, as per Notification dated 15.12.2008 in Advertisement No.179 issued by the TNPSC, is as follows : (B). EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION : Candidates should possess the following or such other qualification as have been declared to be higher than or equivalent to the said qualification by the State Government in consultation with the

Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, for the purpose:- A Degree of any of the Universities incorporated by an Act of the Central or State Legislature in India or any other Educational Institutions established by an Act of Parliament or declared to be deemed as a University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. 2.5. That is, as per the aforesaid notifications, the candidate should possess a degree awarded by a University. 2.6. Most of the petitioners obtained post-graduate degree without obtaining a basic degree through Open University System. Some of the petitioners have obtained degree without passing +2 examination, and however, they appeared for entrance examination before being admitted in the Distance Education Programme for degree course in various Universities. 2.7. The details of the educational qualification of the petitioner in W.P.No.13054 and 13055 of 2010 and 12419 of 2011 are as follows: Name Educational Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date P.Raman SSLC, HSC, ITI Diploma, M.A. (2001) B.Com. (July 2010) 2.8. The details of the educational qualification of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.14150 and 14151 of 2010, as admitted by them, are extracted hereunder : W.P.No.14150 of 2010 Sl. No. Name Thiru/Ms/Mrs (Register No.) Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date 1 V.Kannan (14402182)

SSLC, MA 2 A.Ranjith Kumar (00702021) SSLC, BBA 3 S.Elango (11109091) SSLC, HSC, DIP, MA B.B.A. in 2010 4 A.Sethuraman (01027239) SSLC, HSC, MA 5 K.Selvam (07134190) SSLC, MA 6 D.Durai Mohan (50044084) SSLC, HSC, MA B.A. in 2010 7 V.Shanmugam (00304147) SSLC, HSC, MA 8 K.Saravanan (02909153) SSLC, HSC, MA 9 S.Senthil Kumar (00318209) SSLC, DIP., MA 10 R.Jeyalakshmi (17405240) SSLC, HSC, MA B.Sc., in 2010 11 R.Sumathi (00910038) SSLC, HSC, DIP., MA 12 C.Vijayaraghavan (00313046) SSLC, HSC, MA

13 S.Bavaji (50134058) SSLC, BA, MA 14 M.Murugan (02207219) SSLC, DIP., MA, BL 15 N.Loganathan (00723168) SSLC, HSC, MA 16 S.Subramani (16908083) SSLC, MA 17 V.Balamurugan (02405088) SSLC, MA W.P.No.14151 of 2010 Sl. No. Name Thiru/Ms/Mrs (Register No.) Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date E.Venkatesan (50118063) SSLC, BA 2 R.Thamarichelvi (00226227) SSLC, HSC, M.Com., 3 M.Ramesh (02101272) SSLC, HSC, MA 4 K.Jaya (00712128) SSLC, BA 5 M.Kavitha (12204294) SSLC, HSC, MA 6 C.Stella Mary (01722236)

SSLC, HSC, MA 7 S.Kirubanandam (15005133) SSLC, MA 8 S.Santhanam (10805212) SSLC, DIP., BA 9 T.Muniyan (02203041) SSLC, HSC, MA, BL 10 I.F.Nazirun (01708210) SSLC, DIP., MA 11 J.John Marshal (01005131) SSLC, MA B.A. in March 2010 12 A.Ramesh (00302154) SSLC, MA 13 M.Senthil Kumar (11104210) SSLC, HSC, MA 14 D.Paramaeswari (00707257) SSLC, HSC, MA 15 M.Muniasamy (02908113) SSLC, HSC, MA 16 R.Murugan (11207126) SSLC, HSC, M.Com., 17 R.C.Kalai Selvi (15002234) SSLC, HSC, MA 2.9. The details of the educational qualification of the petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010

are as follows: Sl. No. Name (Register No.) Qualification 1 P.Saravanan SSLC, ITI, BA, MA 2 C.Mageswaran SSLC, BBA 3 K.M.Sakthivel SSLC, BBA 4 .... .... 5 M.Marimuthu SSLC, BBE 6 T.Venkatesan SSLC, ITI, BA 3. The TNPSC as well as the Government of Tamil Nadu filed counter-affidavits refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. 4.0. The crux of their pleasings is that the post-graduate degree without a basic degree is invalid in view of the University Grants Commission (the Minimum Standards of Instruction for the Grant of the First Degree Through Non-formal/Distance Education in the Faculties of Arts, Humanities, Fine Arts, Music, Social Sciences, Commerce and Sciences) Regulations, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 1985 UGC Regulations) framed under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and more particularly Regulation 2 of the 1985 UGC Regulations.

4.1. Further, it is pleaded that the Apex Court has held categorically in Annamalai University V. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, (2009) 4 SCC 590, confirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in N.Ramesh V. Sibi Madan Gabriel, (2008) 3 MLJ 255, holding that a post-graduate degree without a basic degree is not a valid one. 4.2. It is further pleaded that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009 making it clear that a degree obtained without passing +2 examination is not a valid one for direct recruitment or promotion in the Government Services. 5. Heard Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13054, 13055, 14150, 14151 of 2010 and 12419 of 2011, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010, Mr.S.Gomathinayagam, learned Additional Advocate General for the Government and Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the TNPSC. 6.0. Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently contended that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.216, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 26.08.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.180, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 11.09.2000 stating that the degrees and post-graduate degrees obtained through Open University System are equivalent to the degrees and post-graduate degrees awarded in regular stream for the purpose of recruitment in Government Services. Thereafter, persons situated like the petitioners were appointed in Government Services, on selection by TNPSC, before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.107, P & AR Department, dated 18.08.2009. According to him, therefore, there cannot be discrimination as against the petitioners alone in the recruitment in

Government Services. It was further contended that G.O.Ms.No.107, at the most, be prospective and the same was issued only after the commencement of the recruitment process in Group II and Group I posts under consideration. He also invoked the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. 6.1. He also submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court in Annamalai University V. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, (2009) 4 SCC 590 cannot be applied to the case of the petitioners. In any event, even if it could be applied, the same could be applied in future. 6.2. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on various judgments in support of his submissions and those judgments are considered hereunder at the appropriate place. 7.0. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010, submitted that all the petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010 obtained degree through Open University System as provided under Regulation 2 of the 1985 UGC Regulations. He contended that though the petitioners did not pass +2 examination, they passed the entrance examination conducted by the respective Universities before being admitted into the three years degree course in distance education mode. After going through the three years degree course in the distance education mode, they were awarded degree. The same is valid degree as per Regulation 2 of the 1985 UGC Regulations, according to him. 7.1. He pointed out that the persons, who have passed +2 examination, could join degree course in distance education mode and also the persons without passing +2 examination could also join the degree course, but they should pass the entrance test conducted by the University, as per Regulation 2 of the 1985 UGC Regulations. That is, according to him, while a person, who has passed +2 examination, could

straight away join a degree course in distance education mode, but, a person, who does not pass +2 examination, shall appear for the entrance examination conducted by the University for the purpose, as contemplated under Regulation 2 of the 1985 UGC Regulations. He relied on the certificates issued by the respective Universities that the petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010 appeared for the entrance examination before being admitted into the degree course and those certificates are enclosed in the typed-set of papers. 7.2. He relied on the unreported judgment of this Court dated 12.07.2013 in The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai V. S.Mathavan Pillai (W.A.No.1372 of 2013) for this purpose. 8.0. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently contended that the judgment of the Apex Court in Annamalai University V. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, (2009) 4 SCC 590, covers the cases of most of the petitioners. In such cases, the petitioners are in possession of post-graduate degree through Open University System without a basic degree and therefore, the cases of those petitioners have to be rejected at the threshold. Insofar as the others, who are in possession of the degree through distance education mode, without passing +2 examination, they did not have the prescribed educational qualification for the posts, as per G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009. Hence, their cases also have to be rejected. 8.1. He relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in T.L.Muthukumar and Others V. Registrar General, High Court, Madras and Another (2011) 2 MLJ 785 in this regard.

9.0. The learned Senior Counsel for the TNPSC also argued on the similar lines with all his vehemence. He submitted that the TNPSC followed the instructions issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.107, P&AR Department, dated 18.08.2009, which provides that obtaining degree through distance education mode, after passing +2 examination alone, is a recognized one for the purpose of recruitment in Government services. 9.1. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in T.L.Muthukumar and Others V. Registrar General, High Court, Madras and Another (2011) 2 MLJ 785 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Annamalai University V. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, (2009) 4 SCC 590. 9.2. He submitted that the claim of the persons, who obtained post-graduate degree without a degree, has to be rejected outright. 10.0. Both of them submitted that the law declared by the Apex Court in Annamalai University case (cited supra) could be applied as such, unless there was a positive direction that the declaration of law made by the Apex Court would be applied only prospectively. 10.1. Both of them also submitted that the petitioners herein have not even been selected and they do not have any vested right for selection/appointment. They relied on the following judgments of the Apex Court in in this regard: i.State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, (2008) 1 SCC 456, ii.C.Rakhi Ray V. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637; and iii.East Coast Railway V. Appa Rao, (2010) 7 SCC 678. 11. I have considered the submissions made by either side. 12. It is relevant to extract Regulation 2 of the 1985 UGC Regulations, as the same provides for the eligibility criteria for admission to degree course and post-graduate course through nonformal/

distance education. Regulation 2 of the 1985 UGC Regulations is extracted as hereunder: 2. Admission/Students: 1. No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1st Degree Course through non-formal/distance education unless he has successfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by a Board/University. In case there is no previous academic record, he shall be eligible for admission if he has passed an entrance test conducted by the University provided that he is not below the age of 21 years on July 1 of the year of admission. 2. No student shall be eligible for the award of the first degree unless he has successfully completed a three year course; this degree may be called the B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. (General Honours/Special) degree as the case may be. Provided that no student shall be eligible to seek admission to the Master's Course in these faculties, who has not successfully pursued the first Degree Course of three years duration. ..... 13. A Division Bench of this Court in N.Ramesh V. Sibi Madan Gabriel, (2008) 3 MLJ 255, has held that the post-graduate degree obtained through Open University System without a basic degree is not valid. The matter was taken to the Apex Court and the Apex Court has confirmed the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Annamalai University V. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, (2009) 4 SCC 590. It is relevant to extract paragraphs 42, 50, 51 and 58 of the judgment of the Apex Court in (2009) 4 SCC 590 as hereunder: 42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all Universities whether conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-Section (1) of

Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to Open Universities as also to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination of work or facilities in universities must be maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of the UGC are all pervasive in respect of the matters specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12A and clauses (a) and (c) of sub- section (2) thereof. 50. The UGC Act, thus, having been enacted by Parliament in terms of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India would prevail over the Open University Act. 51. With respect, it is difficult to accept the submissions of learned Solicitor General that two Acts operate in different fields, namely, conventional university and Open University. UGC Act, indisputably, governs Open Universities also. In fact, it has been accepted by IGNOU itself. It has also been accepted by the appellant - University. 58. The only point which survives for our consideration is as to whether the purported post facto approval granted to the appellant - University of programmes offered through distance modes is valid. DEC may be an authority under the Act, but its orders ordinarily would only have a prospective effect. It having accepted in its letter dated 5.5.2004 that the appellant - University had no jurisdiction to confer such degrees, in our opinion, could not have validated an invalid act. The degrees become invalidated in terms of

the provisions of UGC ACT. When mandatory requirements have been violated in terms of the provisions of one Act, an authority under another Act could not have validated the same and that too with a retrospective effect. 14. The Apex Court has categorically declared that the post-graduate degree obtained through Open University System without a basic degree is invalid. Therefore, in my view, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel for the TNPSC, the following petitioners, who obtained post-graduate degree without a basic degree, do not possess the requisite educational qualification prescribed in the notification calling for application to Group II and Group I posts : W.P.Nos.13054, 13055 of 2010 and 12419 of 2011: Name Educational Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date P.Raman SSLC, HSC, ITI Diploma, M.A. (2001) B.Com. (July 2010) W.P.No.14150 of 2010 Sl. No. Name Thiru/Ms/Mrs (Register No.) Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date 1 V.Kannan (14402182) SSLC, MA 2 ........ 3 S.Elango (11109091) SSLC, HSC, DIP, MA B.B.A. in 2010

4 A.Sethuraman (01027239) SSLC, HSC, MA 5 K.Selvam (07134190) SSLC, MA 6 D.Durai Mohan (50044084) SSLC, HSC, MA B.A. in 2010 7 V.Shanmugam (00304147) SSLC, HSC, MA 8 K.Saravanan (02909153) SSLC, HSC, MA 9 S.Senthil Kumar (00318209) SSLC, DIP., MA 10 R.Jeyalakshmi (17405240) SSLC, HSC, MA B.Sc., in 2010 11 R.Sumathi (00910038) SSLC, HSC, DIP., MA 12 C.Vijayaraghavan (00313046) SSLC, HSC, MA 13 ..... 14 M.Murugan (02207219) SSLC, DIP., MA, BL 15 N.Loganathan (00723168) SSLC, HSC, MA

16 S.Subramani (16908083) SSLC, MA 17 V.Balamurugan (02405088) SSLC, MA W.P.No.14151 of 2010 Sl. No. Name Thiru/Ms/Mrs (Register No.) Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date 1 ...... 2 R.Thamarichelvi (00226227) SSLC, HSC, M.Com., 3 M.Ramesh (02101272) SSLC, HSC, MA 4 ..... 5 M.Kavitha (12204294) SSLC, HSC, MA 6 C.Stella Mary (01722236) SSLC, HSC, MA 7 S.Kirubanandam (15005133) SSLC, MA 8 ..... 9 T.Muniyan (02203041) SSLC, HSC, MA, BL 10 I.F.Nazirun (01708210)

SSLC, DIP., MA 11 J.John Marshal (01005131) SSLC, MA B.A. in March 2010 12 A.Ramesh (00302154) SSLC, MA 13 M.Senthil Kumar (11104210) SSLC, HSC, MA 14 D.Paramaeswari (00707257) SSLC, HSC, MA 15 M.Muniasamy (02908113) SSLC, HSC, MA 16 R.Murugan (11207126) SSLC, HSC, M.Com., 17 R.C.Kalai Selvi (15002234) SSLC, HSC, MA 15. But Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, heavily relied on G.O.Ms.No.216, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 26.08.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.180, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 11.09.2000 stating that the post-graduate degrees obtained through Open University System was held to be equivalent to the post-graduate degree obtained in regular stream by the Government. 16. I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. The same argument was advanced before the Division Bench of this Court in N.Ramesh V. Sibi

Madan Gabriel, (2008) 3 MLJ 255, and the Division Bench considered the same in paragraph 26.1 of its judgment. The relevant portion from paragraph 26.1 of the Division Bench judgment in (2008) 3 MLJ 255 is extracted hereunder: 26.1. Similarly, the direction issued by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.216 dated 26.8.1997 must be understood in the context in which such order was issued. It can only mean that the degrees obtained through the Open University System are considered equivalent to a traditional degree obtained through regular system, provided that such degrees are in conformity with the relevant statutory provisions including Rules and Regulations holding the field. ..... 17. Therefore, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has no substance, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh's case (cited supra) and the judgment of the Apex Court in Annamalai University's case (cited suprea) confirming the same. 18. The other submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the TNPSC made selection of candidates, who obtained post graduate degree without a basic degree, and the Government issued appointment orders based on such selection before the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 18.08.2009, also has no merit. Those recruitment processes were completed long back and on the basis of the same, selection and appointment were made long back and therefore, those selected and appointed persons constitute a separate class. Therefore, the same cannot be relied on by the petitioners, particularly, when the Apex Court made it clear that the post-graduate degree obtained through Open University System without a basic degree is invalid. Based on the same, the results of the petitioners with post-graduate degree without a

basic degree were withheld and subsequently the applications of such petitioners were rightly rejected. 18.1. It is a different matter, if the petitioners were also selected, as in the earlier recruitments and appointed to various posts pursuant to selection. It is not so. At this stage, the petitioners have no vested right. 19. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract a portion of the paragraph 7 of the counteraffidavit dated 20.09.2011 filed by the TNPSC. The relevant portion from paragraph 7 of the counteraffidavit of the TNPSC is extracted hereunder: 7. It is submitted that, consequently, the applications of the petitioners in both the said W.Ps [except those at Sl.Nos.2, 13 and 15 (W.P.No.14150 of 2010) and Sl.Nos.1, 4 and 8 (W.P.No.14151 of 2010)] were rejected and the individual were informed of the rejection of their application for the reason that they had acquired PG Degree without obtaining a basic degree. ..... 20. Later, the learned counsel for the TNPSC brought to my notice that the applications of the petitioners at Sl.Nos.2 and 13 in W.P.No.14150 of 2010 and at Sl.No.1 in W.P.No.14151 of 2010 were also rejected and the applications of the petitioners at Sl.No.15 in W.P.No.14150 of 2010 and at Sl.No.4 in W.P.No.14151 of 2010 alone are still under consideration. As far as the petitioner at Sl.No.8 in W.P.No.14151 of 2010, his result was released. 21. In any event, as the rejection of the applications is in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in Annamalai University case (cited supra), I do not find any infirmity on the same, as those persons obtained post graduate degree without a basic degree. 22. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel for the TNPSC, they do not acquire any vested right as held by the Apex Court in State of M.P. V.

Sanjay Kumar Pathak, (2008) 1 SCC 456, C.Rakhi Ray V. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637 and East Coast Railway V. Appa Rao, (2010) 7 SCC 678 and therefore, the applications of those petitioners, who possessed the post-graduate degree without a basic degree, were rightly rejected for lack of educational qualification without selecting them. Even if a person is selected, he does not acquire any vested right for appointment and the selection can be reversed based on valid reasons. In this case, there was no selection at all of the petitioners. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. 23. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner Nos.3, 6 and 10 in W.P.No.14150 of 2010 and the 11th petitioner in W.P.No.14151 of 2010 obtained degrees in 2010 and therefore, they are eligible for selection and appointment has no substance. 24. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the crucial date for the purpose of educational qualification as per the Notification. The notification dated 10.11.2008 issued by the TNPSC calling for application for Group II posts makes it very clear that the candidate should possess the prescribed educational qualification as on 10.11.2008, the date of notification. The crucial date for Group I posts is 15.12.2008. Therefore, no qualification acquired subsequent to 10.11.2008/15.12.2008 could be considered. Otherwise, it amounts to discrimination, since the persons, who also acquired the qualification subsequent to 10.11.2008/15.12.2008, were not given a chance to participate in the selection process. 25. The law is well-settled in this regard and the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and others V. Chander Shekhar and Another, (1997) 4 SCC 18 held in categorical terms that the candidates should

possess the prescribed educational qualification on the last date for submission of application as per the notification calling for applications, in the absence of mentioning of the date in the notification calling for application and if a specific date is stated, the qualification should have reference to the notified date. Hence, the cases of the following petitioners shall also fail and I do not find any infirmity in the action of the TNPSC in not considering their educational qualification, that was acquired subsequent to the cut-off date : W.P.Nos.13054, 13055 of 2010 and 12419 of 2011: Name Educational Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date P.Raman SSLC, HSC, ITI Diploma, M.A. (2001) B.Com. (July 2010) W.P.No.14150 of 2010 Sl. No. Name Thiru/Ms/Mrs (Register No.) Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date 3 S.Elango (11109091) SSLC, HSC, DIP, MA B.B.A. in 2010 6 D.Durai Mohan (50044084) SSLC, HSC, MA B.A. in 2010 10 R.Jeyalakshmi (17405240) SSLC, HSC, MA B.Sc., in 2010 W.P.No.14151 of 2010 Sl. No. Name Thiru/Ms/Mrs (Register No.)

Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date 11 J.John Marshal (01005131) SSLC, MA B.A. in March 2010 26.0. The judgments relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners do not render any assistance to him. Let me examine the same one by one : 26.1. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr.M.Vennila V. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, 2006 (3) CTC 449 : (i) This judgment does not relate to the qualification of the candidate. Therefore, the judgment nowhere held that the post-graduate degree without a basic degree, contrary to the 1985 UGC Regulations, is a valid one. (ii) It was a case, wherein the petitioner, who was a Doctor, applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service for the year 2003-2004 and her application was rejected for signing of the application, while the notification required that the candidate should sign the application. The Division Bench upheld the rejection. (iii) I am not able to understand as to how this judgment would advance the case of the petitioners. 26.2. The judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Sohrab Khan V. Aligarh Muslim University, (2009) 4 SCC 555 : (i) In that case, the Aligarh Muslim University advertised for 79 posts of Lecturer, for which essential qualification was first class Master's degree in the appropriate branch in Humanities and Sciences. One such post was Lecturer in Chemistry, for which, the educational qualification was mentioned as first class Master's degree in Chemistry.

(ii) Instead of selecting a person with such a degree, the University selected a person with a Master's degree in Industrial Chemistry. The person, who held First Class Master's degree in Chemistry, approached the Allahabad High Court successfully. When the matter came to the Apex Court, the Apex Court confirmed the same. (iii) The Apex Court in that judgment nowhere considered the question as to whether the post-graduate degree awarded in Open University without a basic degree is valid or not. (iv) This judgment also does not render any assistance to the petitioners. 26.3. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K.Sakthi Rani V. Secretary, Bar Council of T.N., (2010) 4 MLJ 849, also does not render any assistance to the petitioners. (i) In fact, paragraph 51 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in (2010) 4 MLJ 849 is relevant for this case. The relevant portion from paragraph 51 of the judgment in (2010) 4 MLJ 849 is as follows: 51. Considering the above said principles laid down by the Honourable Apex Court and applying the same to the present case on hand, we are of the considered opinion that the above said judgment of the Honourable Apex Court would be a binding precedent insofar as it holds that a degree obtained under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 from an Open University is not a valid degree in the eye of law. ... (ii) That was a batch of cases, wherein, the petitioners were law graduates and they completed the law course based on the post-graduate degree obtained in Open University System without a basic degree. In those circumstances, the Division Bench held that they could be permitted to enroll in the

Bar Council and no fresh admission of the persons with post-graduate degree through Open University without a basic degree shall be made to law course. (iii) The Division Bench of this Court never stated that the post-graduate degree without a basic degree is a valid one for appointment in Government Services in that case, when a degree is prescribed for appointment to Government Services. (iv) Of-course that judgment can be relied on by the 14th petitioner in W.P.No.14150 of 2010 and the 9th petitioner in W.P.No.14151 of 2010, who obtained B.L. degree, for enrollment in Bar Council and not for employment in Government Services. 26.4. The next judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandrakala Trivedi V. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 3 MLJ 717 (SC): (i) This judgment, instead of supporting the case of the petitioners, supports the case of the respondents. (ii) The appellant therein was provisionally selected for appointment to the post of Teacher. Her selection was cancelled subsequently. That was the subject matter of litigation. (iii) The High Court of Rajasthan rejected the claim of the appellant and upheld the cancellation of selection. The appellant approached the Apex Court. (iv) The qualification for the said post was (I) Senior Secondary School Certificate or intermediate or its equivalent ; and (II) Diploma or certificate in elementary teachers training of duration of not less than two years OR Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.E.Ed.) OR Graduate with Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) or its equivalent. (v) The cancellation was made on the ground that the appellant did not pass Senior

Secondary School Certificate, i.e., she did not pass +2 examination. She passed the Secondary Examination, i.e., 10th Standard. Thereafter, she got admission in the higher classes with a preparatory course and completed her graduation from Open University, based on the said preparatory course. The appellant therein also obtained B.Ed., on a regular basis in a University. Thereafter, the appellant got post-graduation degree through Open University. (vi) The Apex Court came to the conclusion and held in paragraph 7 that though the appellant did not possesses Senior Secondary School Certificate, she possesses higher qualification, as the required qualification is Senior Secondary School Certificate or intermediate or its equivalent. The Apex Court opined that the word equivalent must be given a reasonable meaning, since she underwent the preparatory course, though she did not undergo Senior Secondary School Certificate course. (vii) Therefore, it was a case, wherein, the appellant underwent the preparatory course before getting admitted in the graduation course from IGNOU and obtained graduation degree and thereafter, only obtained post-graduate degree. (viii) In view of the same, the Apex Court held that the cancellation of selection of the appellant is bad. (ix) In most of the cases, which are under consideration in this judgment, the petitioners never obtained a graduation degree. They straight away obtained the post-graduate degree without a basic degree. 26.5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt. Ltd. V. U.P. State Electricity Board & Others, (1997) 7 SCC 251, Tamil

Nadu Electricity Board V. Status Spinning Mills Ltd. & Others, (2008) 7 SCC 353, Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer & Others, (2005) 1 SCC 625 and State of Bihar & Others V. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd., (2010) 3 SCC 274 for the proposition that the TNPSC is estopped from withholding the results and he made his submissions based on the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. In my considered view, the judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in this regard cannot be applied to the present cases, since there was no promise made by the TNPSC or by the Government that the petitioners could be selected based on post-graduate degree obtained through Open University without a basic degree. 26.6. The judgment of the Apex Court in P.Mahendran V. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411 : (i) In that case, the Karnataka Public Service Commission in 1983 invited applications for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors as per the Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1962, from holders of Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering and the prescribed educational qualification for the said post is a Diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering. The selection list was published only in 1987 due to certain proceedings in the High Court. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal quashed the select list on the ground that the recruitment rules were amended in 1987 dropping the qualification of Diploma in Mechanical Engineering before the select list was issued. (ii) When the matter was taken before the Apex Court, the Apex Court held that the amendment made to the recruitment rules relating to qualification would operate prospectively and not retrospectively.

(iii) I am unable to understand as to how that judgment would be applied to the present cases. (iv) It is not the case of the petitioners that the qualification was changed after the selection process was commenced and based on such change, the selection of the petitioners is denied. 26.7. The judgment of the Apex Court in Gopal Krushna Rath V. M.A.A. Baig (dead) by Lrs and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 544, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, lays down the same proposition, that is laid down in Mahendran's case [(1990) 1 SCC 411]. Hence, the same would also render no assistance to the petitioners. 26.8. The next judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is the judgment of the Apex Court in Baburam V. C.C.Jacob & Others, (1999) 3 SCC 362: (i) In that case, the Administrative Tribunal, ignoring the directions issued by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in R.K.Sabharwal V. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745, to the effect that that judgment shall be operative prospectively, applied the said judgment to the past acts. In those circumstances, the Apex Court held in Baburam's case that when Apex Court gave a positive direction that the application of Sabharwal's case would be prospective, the Tribunal was not correct in applying it retrospectively. (ii) It is well-settled, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the TNPSC, that unless the Apex Court declared that the law laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court is prospective, nobody can claim that such law laid down by the Apex Court is only prospective. The declaration of law made by the Apex Court would apply as such and the High Courts and other Courts in the country are bound by the declaration of law made by the Apex Court.

(iii) I am not able to understand as to how this case would be applied to these cases, particularly, when the Apex Court does not make a declaration in Annamalai University's case that the proposition laid down therein would be applied only prospectively. (iv) Furthermore, in these cases under consideration, as noted in many places in this judgment, the selection process was not over and the petitioners were not selected and appointed to Group II and Group I posts. 26.9. In Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd., V. State of Haryana, (2006) 3 SCC 620, the next judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the Apex Court held that in the absence of enabling provision in the Parent Act at the relevant time, retrospective amendment of the Rules would attract the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. Hence, I failed to understand as to how this judgment has any relevance to this case. 26.10. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University V. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, (2009) 1 SCC 610 : (i) This judgment was considered by the Apex Court in Annamalai University's case, wherein it was held that the mandatory UGC Regulations were not brought to the notice of the Apex Court and therefore, the judgment rendered in Guru Nanak Dev University's case [(2009) 1 SCC 619] cannot have application in deciding the Annamalai University's case. (ii) Under these circumstances, the petitioners cannot rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University's case particularly, when the same was distinguished by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in Annamalai University's case. 26.11. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the judgments relied on by the

learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners do not render assistance to the petitioners. 27. Then comes the last category, viz., the persons, who obtained degree through nonformal/ distance education mode without passing +2 examination, but they were admitted to the degree course after they passed the entrance examination conducted by the respective universities. The following petitioners comes under this category : W.P.No.14150 of 2010 Sl. No. Name Thiru/Ms/Mrs (Register No.) Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date 2 A.Ranjith Kumar (00702021) SSLC, BBA 13 S.Bavajai (50134058) SSLC, BA, MA W.P.No.14151 of 2010 Sl. No. Name Thiru/Ms/Mrs (Register No.) Qualification Qualification obtained after the cut-off date 1 E.Venkatesan (50118063) SSLC, BA 4 K.Jaya (00712128) SSLC, BA .... All the petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010 and the details are as follows :- W.P.No.13742 of 2010: Sl. No. Name (Register No.) Qualification

1 P.Saravanan SSLC, ITI, BA, MA 2 C.Mageswaran SSLC, BBA 3 K.M.Sakthivel SSLC, BBA 4 .... .... 5 M.Marimuthu SSLC, BBE 6 T.Venkatesan SSLC, ITI, BA 28. As far as the petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010 are concerned, they produced the certificates issued by the respective Universities to the effect that they passed the entrance test before being admitted into the degree course in the distance education mode. The same are enclosed in the typed-set of papers. 29. At this juncture, it is relevant to again re-produce the relevant portion of the Clause 1 of Regulation 2 of 1985 UGC Regulations, as hereunder: 2. Admission/Students: 1. No student shall be eligible for admission to the 1st Degree Course through non-formal/distance education unless he has successfully completed 12 years schooling through an examination conducted by a Board/University. In case there is no previous academic record, he shall be eligible for admission if he has passed an entrance test conducted by the University provided that he is not below the age of 21 years on

July 1 of the year of admission. 30. In view of Clause 1 of Regulation 2 of 1985 UGC Regulations, the relevant portion of which is highlighted above, I am of the view that these petitioners are entitled to be selected for the Group II posts and they should also be given appointment. At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that this Court passed an interim order of status quo on 26.09.2011 in respect of thirty five vacancies lying as on that date in M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 and 1 of 2011 batch in W.P.Nos.14150, 14151, 13054 and 13055 of 2010. 31. I am not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the Government and the learned Senior Counsel for the TNPSC that as per G.O.Ms.No.107, the degree awarded in the non-formal/distance education mode to the candidates, who passed +2 examination alone, shall be considered as a valid one. I am of the considered view that the validity of a degree shall not be tested on the anvil of the Government Order, but the same shall be tested based on the relevant UGC Regulations. The relevant Regulation framed under Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 is 1985 UGC Regulations and Clause 1 of Regulation 2 of 1985 UGC Regulations makes it clear that the Open Universities could admit students to the degree course in the non-formal/distance education mode even if they did not pass +2 examination, but those students should have passed the entrance test for admission to the degree course. The aforesaid clause in Regulation 2 shall be read into G.O.Ms.No.107, P & AR Department, dated 18.08.2009. Therefore, I have no hesitation to reject the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel for the TNPSC. 32. Further, I am fortified in my view due to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in

N.Ramesh V. Sibi Madan Gabriel, (2008) 3 MLJ 255 that has been confirmed by the Aped Court in Annamalai University case (cited supra). Paragraph 14.1 of Ramesh's case is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder: 14.1. In respect of student who had no previous academic record, as per Regulation-2, such person shall be eligible for admission to the first degree course through non-formal/distance education, if he has passed an entrance test conducted by the University. ..... 33. However, in that case, the issue was relating to a person, who possessed post-graduate degree in Open University System without a basic degree. In any event, the aforesaid passage makes it clear that in the case of degree obtained through Open University System either one should have obtained it after passing +2 examination or one should have passed the entrance examination before being admitted into the degree course. 34. I am also fortified by the unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 12.07.2013 in The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai V. S.Mathavan Pillai (W.A.No.1372 of 2013), wherein the petitioner passed SSLC (old system of 11 years) and thereafter he joined the two years foundation course conducted by the Madurai Kamaraj University through correspondence, which is equivalent to +2 course and after passing the same, he completed three years B.Com., Course through correspondence. The same was taken note of by the Division Bench in paragraphs 13 and 14. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12.07.2013 in W.A.No.1372 of 2013 are extracted hereunder: 13. The writ petitioner passed Secondary School Leaving Certificate Course during March

1977 and thereafter, underwent Open University Foundation Course and successfully passed in the year 1984. As per G.O.Ms.No.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel R.) Department, dated 18.05.1985, the recognition of qualification in respect of the persons, who had undergone Pre-Foundation and Foundational Course of Madurai Kamaraj University was considered and the following order was issued:- 3. The Government, after careful consideration direct that the Pre-Foundation Course of the Madurai Kamaraj University-Open University be recognised as equivalent to the 10 years S.S.L.C. of the Tamil Nadu Government for purpose of entry into Public Services in this State. The Government also direct that the two years Foundation Course of the Madurai Kamaraj University-Open University be recognised as equivalent to Higher Secondary (+2) course of the Tamil Nadu Government for purpose of entry into Public Services in this State. 14. The petitioner on the basis of the said qualification, was given regular promotion as Assistant Section Officer and subsequently, promoted to the post of Section Officer also. 35. Further, the judgment of the Apex Court in Chandrakala Trivedi V. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 3 MLJ 717 (SC) also makes it clear that a degree obtained by a candidate in non-formal /distance education mode without a pass in Senior Secondary School Certificate (i.e., without passing +2 examination) is valid one if the candidate underwent the preparatory course conducted by the University before being admitted into the degree course. The narration of facts of that case in paragraph 26.4 of this judgment makes it clear that the degree awarded in the non-formal/distance education mode without passing +2 examination is valid one, if such degree is obtained fulfilling the condition stipulated in Clause 1 of Regulation

2 of the 1985 UGC Regulations. 36. Therefore, the aforesaid two Division Bench judgments and the judgment of the Apex Court in (2012) 3 MLJ 717 make it clear that it is not only the degree awarded by Open University to the candidates, who passed +2 examination, is valid one, but also the degree awarded to the persons, who did not pass +2 examination, but were admitted to degree course after passing the entrance examination conducted by the University, is also a valid one, as per Clause 1 of Regulation 2 of 1985 UGC Regulations. 37. The learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel for the TNPSC relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in T.L.Muthukumar and Others V. Registrar General, High Court, Madras and Another (2011) 2 MLJ 785, wherein, the Division Bench upheld the validity of G.O.Ms.No.107. But the said judgment nowhere held that the degree obtained by a person in the nonformal/ distance mode as per Clause 1 of Regulation 2 of 1985 UGC Regulations that provides for admission to the degree course after passing the entrance examination is invalid. Then it is a different matter. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel for the TNPSC that the Division Bench in that judgment declared that the degree obtained by a person through distance mode after passing the entrance examination as provided in 1985 UGC Regulations is not a valid degree. No such finding was rendered by the Division Bench, as contended by the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel for TNPSC. 38. In view of the same, the petitioner Nos.2 and 13 in W.P.No.14150 of 2010 and the petitioner Nos.1 and 4 in W.P.No.14151 of 2010 and the petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010 are entitled to

be selected for the posts and they should also be given appointment. 39. However, it is made clear that the writ petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010 enclosed the xerox copies of the certificates issued by the respective Universities to the effect they they passed the entrance examination before being admitted into the degree course in distance education mode. The TNPSC is at liberty to insist them to produce the original certificates and also to verify the genuineness of the same with the concerned Universities, if they are so advised, before issuing the orders of selection. In that event, the TNPSC shall direct the petitioners to produce the original certificates within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter, the TNPSC shall verify the genuineness of the certificates within a period of two months from the date of submission of the original certificates by those petitioners and the Universities concerned are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions, if the TNPSC approached them for verification of the genuineness of the certificates issued by them. 40. In the cases of the petitioner Nos.2 and 13 in W.P.No.14150 of 2010 and the petitioner Nos.1 and 4 in W.P.No.14151 of 2010, no certificates were produced by them to the effect that they were admitted in degree course in distance education mode, after passing the entrance examination. Therefore, they shall produce such certificates from the Universities concerned. On production of those certificates, the TNPSC shall act in the same manner as directed above in paragraph 39 in respect of the petitioners in W.P.No.13742 of 2010. Otherwise, they are not entitled to selection to the Group II posts. 41. In the result, (a) W.P.Nos.13054 and 13055 of 2010 and 12419 of 2011 are dismissed. (b) W.P.No.14150 of 2010 is dismissed insofar as the petitioner Nos.1, 3 to 12 and 14 to 17

are concerned. (c) W.P.No.14151 of 2010 is dismissed insofar as the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and 5 to 17 are concerned. (c) In respect of other petitioners, namely, petitioner Nos.2 and 13 in W.P.No.14150 of 2010 and petitioner Nos.1 and 4 in W.P.No.14151 of 2010 are concerned, their writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the directions as contained in paragraph 40 of this judgment. (d) W.P.No.13742 of 2010 is disposed of in terms of the directions as contained in paragraph 39 of this judgment. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 21..04..2014 gg Index : Yes Internet : Yes To 1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 3. The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 4. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-600 006.

5. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Open University, Directorate of Technical Education Campus, Chennai 600 025. D.HARIPARANTHAMAN , J. Pre-Delivery Common Order in W.P.Nos.13054, 13055, 13742, 14150 and 14151 of 2010 and 12419 of 2011 and connected M.Ps. 21..04..2014