Judgment :- In all these writ petitions, the issue involved is the inter se seniority of the Higher Secondary School Teachers who had been appointed over the years from 1978 pursuant to the upgradation of 800 High Schools as Higher Secondary Schools. The Government Order which raised the issue of contention is G.O.Ms.No.1813, Education Department dated 12.12.1988. The Post Graduate Assistants in Academic Subjects/Languages in the various Higher Secondary Schools were appointed temporarily under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules and continued as such for a considerably long time. They had prayed for regularization of their services. The aforesaid G.O. was issued after sympathetic examination of their request and the following order was passed: - "The said posts of teachers have been excluded from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission with reference to the orders issued in the G.O. Ms. Nos.1319 and 1320, Education Department dated 17.8.1987. Recently a separate Teachers Recruitment Board has been constituted for recruitment of teachers to the schools. In the circumstances, the Government direct that the services of the fully qualified P.G. Assistants in Academic Subjects, Languages and Physical Directors who were appointed temporarily under the provisions of the Rule 10(a)(i) and who are in service till date shall be regularised from the date of their temporary appointment and subject to the following conditions: (i) The Candidates regularised by this order will get monetary benefit from the date of issue of this order. (ii) They will be placed below the candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission while ranking their seniority i.e. these candidates will take their seniority below the last candidate selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the year" 2. The Teachers before the Court fall into three main categories. One group consists of the teachers who were appointed between 1.7.1978 and 28.4.1981. The Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service, which governs this category, were introduced by G.O. Ms. No.720, Education Department dated 28.4.1981. The Special Rules provide for the various classes and categories of officers which constitute the service; the manner in which appointments shall be made to the several classes and categories of service referred to above; the appointing authority in respect of these classes and categories; reservation of appointments; appointments specially provided for women; qualifications as to age and other qualification etc. The Annexure to Rule 7(a) of the Special Rules lists the names of the various categories, the method of recruitment under those categories and qualifications for recruitment. 3. Rule 11 is the saving rule and it provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 2 and 6, "The services of these persons who are holding, on the date of issue of these Special Rules, the post of Headmasters and Headmistresses, Teachers in Academic Subjects, Teachers in Languages and Physical Directors and Physical Directresses in Higher Secondary School and who possess the qualifications prescribed for such category in the Annex shall be regularised after obtaining the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (anc.) Regulations, 1954 and in respect of those persons who do not possess the qualifications prescribed for such category in the Annex and who are holding such posts on the date of issue of these Special Rules shall be regularized only after they acquire the said qualifications and after obtaining the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954 provided they acquire the said qualifications within a period of five years from the 1st July, 1978. If they fail to acquire the said qualifications within the specified period, they shall be replaced by suitable and qualified candidates." The crucial feature with regard to the saving rule is that the regularization of the teachers shall be done after obtaining the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Within this category, there may be teachers who had the prescribed qualification on the date of the order and others who did not possess the qualification prescribed on the date of the order, whose services will be regularized after they acquire the said qualification, subject of course to the concurrence referred to above. The Rules further provided that the said qualifications shall be acquired within a period of five years from 1st July, 1978 and if they fail to acquire the qualification within the five year period, they shall be replaced by suitable and qualified candidates. 4. On 14.8.1984, G.O. Ms. No.1049, Education Department was introduced. According to this G.O., all Post Graduate Assistants appointed after the issuance of the G.O. are temporary and must be selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and made permanent. 4. On 14.8.1984, G.O. Ms. No.1049, Education Department was introduced. According to this G.O., all Post Graduate Assistants appointed after the issuance of the G.O. are temporary and must be selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and made permanent. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was requested to conduct a special examination for this purpose. However, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, after considering the proposal, recommended that since the conducting of a special recruitment examination will result in certain difficulties, the temporary Post Graduate Assistants (appointed temporarily from 29.4.1981 onwards) should appear for the open recruitment conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and those who did not do so cannot continue on temporary appointments. The Government accepted the said recommendation and on 11.7.1984, the public was informed by effecting a publication to this effect. 5. This brings us to the second category of teachers who are those appointed after the issuance of G.O. Ms. No.720, i.e., after 28.4.1981. All such appointments were temporary and could be made permanent only after they were selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It is emphasized that this G.O. made it clear that those who did not participate in the selection process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and were not selected would not be permitted to work even temporarily. The notice regarding this had already been given publicity in the newspapers on 11.7.1984. Therefore, the second group of teachers are those who were appointed after 28.4.1981 and who participated in the selection process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and who were selected. 6. The third category consists of those teachers who were appointed after 28.4.1981 and who were not selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, though such non-selection may either be because they did not participate in the selection process or because they failed to get selected. 7. The learned senior counsel as well as the counsel appearing for the teachers who were appointed between 1.7.1978 and 28.4.1981 would submit that those teachers are really not affected by G.O. Ms. No.1049, since G.O. Ms. No.720 made it clear that the teachers appointed between these two dates only had to have the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and they were not bound to undergo the selection process. No.1049, since G.O. Ms. No.720 made it clear that the teachers appointed between these two dates only had to have the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and they were not bound to undergo the selection process. Therefore, all that was required from them for being regularized is to possess the required qualifications and to obtain the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Rules provided them the opportunity to acquire the qualification before the extended period. The position was conceded that their seniority could be reckoned only from the date on which they possess the qualification that is required. 8. The learned counsel who appeared for the teachers, who were originally appointees under Rule 10(a)(i) after 28.4.1981 and who had been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, would submit that their seniority should rank above the teachers who were not selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. They submitted that when the G.O. made it clear that the services of the teachers shall be regularized only after they participated in the selection process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, it was not open to any of the teachers to contend that notwithstanding their non-selection through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, they were entitled to be ranked above the teachers who had successfully participated in the selection process and whose seniority had been fixed by the list published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 9. The learned senior counsel and the counsel appearing for the third category of teachers who were appointed as appointees under Rule 10(a)(i) after 28.4.1981, but had not been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission either because they had been unsuccessful in the test conducted by the Commission or because they had not participated in the test, would contend that these were teachers who, though temporarily appointed, possessed the requisite qualifications right from the first day of their appointment and therefore, there was no justification to rank them below the teachers who acquired the qualifications stage by stage. It was submitted that it was against the legal principles of service law to rank a teacher, who possessed the full qualification and who had been appointed in 1982, albeit temporarily, below a teacher who had been appointed only in 1984 for the sole reason that the latter had been successful in the selection conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 10. Learned senior counsel Mr.R.Gandhi would point to a clarification given by the Director of Tamil Nadu School Education in Na.Ka.No.136188/W 18/02 dated 9.4.2003 with regard to the application of one R. Duraisamy, Post Graduate Assistant, Government Higher Secondary School, Madathukulam. The following is the extract of the said clarification: - Question raised Clarification offered 1. Is the Post Graduate Assistant appointed through the method other than TNPSC on 11.3.83 to be placed behind the Post Graduate Assistant recruited through TNPSC on 21.11.86 in the seniority of service? As per G.O. Ms. No.1813 (Edn.) dt. 12.12.88, when there are Post Graduate Assistants who differ in the mode of recruitment (viz. 1. Post Graduate Assistants recruited through the TNPSC and 2. Post Graduate Assistants appointed through a method other than TNPSC) in a particular year of recruitment, the Post Graduate Assistant recruited through TNPSC is to be placed first and the Post Graduate Assistant appointed through other than TNPSC method is to be placed next to the former i.e. below the former in the order of seniority of service. The two appointments mentioned in the question differ in the year of recruitment. They were appointed in two different years. Therefore, the Post Graduate Assistant appointed through other than TNPSC method is not to be placed below the Post Graduate Assistant recruited through the TNPSC. They are to be arranged to the order basing date of regularization which is declared according to the date and year of recruitment. TNPSC and Non-TNPSC difference cannot be brought between the appointees of 1983 and 1986. Had the two Post Graduate Assistants been appointed in the year of 1983, then in the order of seniority of service, the Non-TNPSC candidate is to be placed behind the TNPSC candidate. 2. Which rule is to be adopted with respect to the Post Graduate Assistant who relinquished the Post of Assistant Headmaster of Higher Secondary School? The Assistant Headmaster post does not come under service rules. 2. Which rule is to be adopted with respect to the Post Graduate Assistant who relinquished the Post of Assistant Headmaster of Higher Secondary School? The Assistant Headmaster post does not come under service rules. However, basing the school administration into account and as this post is a G.O. based one, the general rule in the service rules in relation to the relinquishment of other posts can be followed with respect to the relinquishment of the Assistant Headmaster post also. If the relinquishment is temporary, it should be for three years. If the relinquishment is for more than three years, it should be permanent. 3. Whom are to be considered for the post of Assistant Headmaster in the Municipal Higher Secondary Schools - whether the appointees recruited in the period of Municipal Administration are to be considered or appointees recruited from 1.6.86 through the other than Municipal Administration method are to be considered? Qualified Post Graduate Assistants recruited before 1.6.86 through the Municipal Administration are to be considered for the post of Assistant Headmaster in the Municipal Schools. When, teachers of this kind are not available, the Post Graduate Assistants appointed from 1.6.86 are to be appointed as the Assistant Headmaster on the basis of seniority. 4. In some instances, regularization of the service is done after the date of appointment. Is service seniority to be calculated from the date of appointment in these instances? Service seniority should be calculated on the basis of date of regularization. The period before the date of regularization should not be calculated for the seniority. According to the learned senior counsel, this is the manner in which G.O. Ms. No.1813 can be construed. 11. The learned Special Government Pleader also made his submissions and produced the files to enable the Court to arrive at a decision. 12. Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, submitted that until the Board for recruitment of teachers was formed, the appointment of teachers could be properly made only through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 13. 12. Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, submitted that until the Board for recruitment of teachers was formed, the appointment of teachers could be properly made only through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 13. The Tribunal, whose order has been challenged herein, had held in O.A. Nos.5205 of 1999 and 3638 of 2000 that even though initially the person is appointed without the necessary qualification, once relaxation is granted and his services are regularized from the date of his initial appointment, his appointment cannot be said to be an ad hoc/stop-gap/temporary arrangement. In the order passed in O.A. Nos.2155, 2255, 2262, 2315, 2370, 2396 and 2397 of 2003, the Tribunal had held that the ranking given by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is not relevant to the issue because the first appointment through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was made only in 1984 and 1985. The following is the relevant extracts: - "These applicants and contesting respondents were all appointed between 1981-82 and while the applicants were all appointed even initially with full qualifications, those respondents were appointed initially without necessary qualification and after acquiring qualification their services have been regularized. Therefore, so far as the regularization of such teachers prior to 1985 Government has also obtained concurrence and consent of the TNPSC and now it cannot be reopened. Therefore, these applicants who have been initially appointed between 1981 and 1982 who had all necessary qualification and whose services have been regularized from the date of their initial appointment, have to be placed over and above corresponding P.G. Teachers who have been appointed earlier but without necessary qualification and they were acquired qualification later and thereafter their services have been regularized. They can never claim seniority over and above the applicants. Therefore, there can be no difficulty in granting direction to the respondents Government and Director of School Education that panel dated 18.6.2003 shall be so revised from Sl.No.144 to the rest in such a way that names of these applicants are all included in the appropriate place." According to the Tribunal, the Post Graduate Teachers who were appointed to the service without the necessary qualification and whose services have been regularized on a later date, viz. after they have acquired necessary qualification, cannot steal a march over the regularly appointed Post Graduate Teachers. 14. Several G.Os. after they have acquired necessary qualification, cannot steal a march over the regularly appointed Post Graduate Teachers. 14. Several G.Os. and judgments were cited by the counsel. We would refer only to the crucial ones, apart from the ones already extracted above. 15. In W.M.P. No.13160 of 1985 filed in W.P. No.8758 of 1985, the petitioner sought for an interim injunction to restrain the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission from holding any examination pursuant to the notification dated 18.5.1985. The learned Judge was not inclined to grant injunction and observed, "It is upto the members of the petitioner Association, who are eligible, to appear for the examination." As against this, Writ Appeal No.699 of 1985 was filed. The Division Bench felt that while it was necessary to safeguard the interest of the appellant- teachers, there was no reason to stop the publication of the result. The Division Bench observed that if the writ petition was allowed and this Court were to hold that the appellant-teachers are entitled to regularization without subjecting them to any examination through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, then their seniority and other rights would have to be determined without reference to the examination. This writ appeal was preferred against the interim order passed in the writ petition, as referred to earlier and the main writ petition is W.P. No.8758 of 1985. The interim application was disposed of finally on 9.9.1985 with the following order: - "It is stated that the examinations have already been held on 24 and 25.8.85. Therefore, any appointment or recruitment made would be subject to the ultimate result in the W.P. Hence dismissed." 16. In the meantime, another Association of Post Graduate Teachers filed O.A. No.3617 of 1994 for regularization of their services and for quashing Rule 7 read with Rule 11 of the Special Rules framed under G.O. Ms. No.720, which have already been extracted above. This O.A. Was disposed of with a direction to regularize the services of the Post Graduate Assistants from the date of their initial appointment in spite of the fact that they have acquired the B.T. or B.Ed. Degree qualification later on and grant them all service benefits such as Pension, Increment, Selection Grade, Special Grade etc. except regarding seniority. This O.A. Was disposed of with a direction to regularize the services of the Post Graduate Assistants from the date of their initial appointment in spite of the fact that they have acquired the B.T. or B.Ed. Degree qualification later on and grant them all service benefits such as Pension, Increment, Selection Grade, Special Grade etc. except regarding seniority. However, it was held that they will not be entitled for any arrears prior to the date of this O.A. As against this order, the petitioners filed W.P. Nos.2911 and 3041 of 1998. A Division Bench of this Court modified the order of the Tribunal by issuing the following direction to the State Government or the competent authority exercising powers under the relevant rules: - "To consider the question of relaxation of the relevant rules to enable the regularization of the services of the Post Graduate Assistants in the subject in question from the date of their initial appointment with attendant service benefits, such as for pension, increment, selection grade, special grade, without any claim of right of seniority or any claim for arrears for period prior to the date of relaxation. To the extent indicated above, the order of the Tribunal is modified and the writ petitions are ordered only to that extent and in other respects, shall stand dismissed." 17. Pursuant to this order, the Government passed G.O. Ms. No.276, School Education (HS1) Department dated 9.9.1999, wherein the Government ordered that the representation of the petitioner Association was well considered on the basis of the order of the Division Bench referred to above and it was ordered that for Post Graduate Teachers, B.Ed., qualification is essential and the services of Post Graduate Teachers who have been appointed without this qualification will be regularized after they acquire the qualification as per G.O. Ms. No.720. The Government was of the opinion that relaxation of the qualification rule will cause many administrative difficulties and in any event, whatever may be the nature of duty, a teacher to be regularly appointed must possess the general educational qualification, apart from the special qualification as a teacher. The Government was also of the opinion that if relaxation is made with regard to those teachers to whom G.O. Ms. The Government was also of the opinion that if relaxation is made with regard to those teachers to whom G.O. Ms. No.720 applies, i.e., the teachers appointed between 1.7.1978 and 28.4.1981, other groups of teachers will also make similar such requests for relaxation of rules and this was not in the interest of the administration or the quality of education and therefore, the Government ordered as follows: - This meant that the services of any Post Graduate Teacher who had been appointed as a temporary teacher cannot regularized before he obtains a B.Ed. Degree. However, in consideration of their long pending request and in view of the fact that Post Graduate Teachers had been appointed purely temporarily when 10+2 system was introduced for teaching in the 11th and 12th Standards, the period of service rendered by them as temporary appointees without B.Ed. qualification will be taken into account only for the purpose of pension. It is relevant to note that though the Division Bench directed the Government to consider the period of service of the teachers even for the purpose of Selection Grade, Special Grade etc., as we have seen earlier, the Government restricted it to Pension alone and this remains unchallenged. 18. On 24.8.1998, the Director of Tamil Nadu School Education, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.39470/W1/2/98, examined the request of the Post Graduate Teachers' Welfare Association in view of the order in O.A.No.2783 of 1998. The Government ordered that pursuant to G.O. Ms. No.1671, Education (HS2) Department dated 3.11.1988, the teachers who have been appointed directly or by transfer between 1.7.1978 and 28.4.1981 who possessed the full qualification would be regularized as per Rule 11 of the Special Rules. Subsequently, W.P. No.8758 of 1985, already referred to above, was transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal as T.A. No.85 of 1993. The prayer in this writ petition was to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize all the Post Graduate Teachers in Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service without subjecting them to any examination through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. This writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on the ground that it was represented that all of them have been regularized without Service Commission examination. This regularization has been obviously done vide G.O. Ms. No.1813, already extracted above. 19. The Government, in G.O. Ms. This writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous on the ground that it was represented that all of them have been regularized without Service Commission examination. This regularization has been obviously done vide G.O. Ms. No.1813, already extracted above. 19. The Government, in G.O. Ms. No.1320, Education Department dated 17.8.1987, passed orders for constituting a separate Teachers' Recruitment Board and on 29.2.1988, the Member and Member Secretary were also appointed for the Board. Therefore, the issue of seniority will be only relevant to teachers who had been appointed prior to the establishment of the Teachers' Recruitment Board when the appointment of teachers still came within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 20. G.O.Ms.No.1671, Education (HS.2) Department, which was passed on 3.11.1988, reads as follows:- "According to Rule 11 of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service issued in G.O.Ms.No.720, Education, dated 28.4.1981, the services of the persons who were holding on the date of issue of the Special Rules the posts of teachers in Academic Subjects/Languages and Physical Directors in Higher Secondary Schools and who possess the qualification prescribed for such category shall be regularised after obtaining the concurrence of the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission. In the references read above the Director of School Education has submitted proposals for the regularisation of the temporary appointment of Post Graduate teachers in Academic Subjects/Languages and Physical Directors appointed between 1.7.1978 to 28.4.1981 and requested that their services may be regularised. He has also reported that the relevant rules may be relaxed in favour of certain candidates to enable him to regularise their services. 2. The matter was examined by Government in consultation with Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Orders have been issued in G.O.Ms.No.1319, Education, dt.17.8.1987, excluding the teachers post from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Government therefore decide to accept the proposals of Director of School Education that the services of the teachers who were appointed before the date of issue of the Special Rules be regularised. It has also been decided that the services of the teachers who require relaxation of rules shall be considered separately. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred Under Rule 48 of the Central Rules for the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Services contained in Part I of the Tamilnadu Service Manual Volume-I, 1977. It has also been decided that the services of the teachers who require relaxation of rules shall be considered separately. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred Under Rule 48 of the Central Rules for the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Services contained in Part I of the Tamilnadu Service Manual Volume-I, 1977. The Governor of Tamilnadu hereby relaxes Rule 11 of the Special Rules for the Tamilnadu Higher Secondary Educational Service in favour of the Post Graduate Teachers appointed temporarily before the date of issue of the Special Rules and who are fully qualified to hold the posts from 1.7.1978 to 28.4.1981 so as to enable the Director of School Education to regularise the services of the above mentioned Teachers." It is seen from the files that by Letter No.76718/RB/79-20 dated 5.3.1981, the Commissioner and Secretary to Government had addressed the Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission that, "the Government have decided that these non-Post Graduate Teachers inducted and Post Graduate Teachers without B.T./B.Ed. Training appointed so far need not be reverted or ousted for want of qualifications prescribed and that they may be given time to qualify themselves so as to be absorbed as fully qualified teachers". 21. With regard to the first category of teachers who were appointed between 1.7.1978 and 28.4.1981, they cannot be compared to the teachers who were appointed later. First of all, the Special Rules framed under G.O. Ms. No.720 refer specifically to the manner in which their services can be regularized. Rule 11, as we have already seen, refers to persons who had already been appointed on the date of issuance of the Special Rules, which is 28.4.1981. As regards their services, the teachers who possessed the qualification on the date of the G.O. will be regularized after obtaining the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and as regards those who did not possess the qualification, they shall be regularized after they acquire the said qualification, subject of course, to the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Under these Rules, the teachers were required to acquire the qualifications within a period of five years from 1.7.1978, which means on or before 30.7.1983 and it was also specifically provided that if they fail to acquire the qualification, they will be replaced by suitable and qualified candidates. Under these Rules, the teachers were required to acquire the qualifications within a period of five years from 1.7.1978, which means on or before 30.7.1983 and it was also specifically provided that if they fail to acquire the qualification, they will be replaced by suitable and qualified candidates. It appears that this period within which they had to acquire the said qualification was extended for a further period subsequently. We have also seen already that the Government was strongly of the opinion that relaxation with regard to the condition of acquisition of qualification was not in the interest of the administration and would dilute the quality of education. Therefore, as far as the teachers who were appointed between these two dates, their seniority will depend upon the date on which they acquire the qualification, and the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 22. The learned counsel who appeared for the teachers who had been appointed between these two dates also conceded that their seniority can be reckoned only after they acquire the said qualification. Strong objections were raised on behalf of the teachers who were appointed after this date, but who possessed the qualifications right from the date of their appointments stating that this would mean that teachers who were appointed before 28.4.1981, though they did not possess the required qualifications on that date and may have even acquired the qualification subsequent to the appointment of the teachers under Rule 10(a)(i) who were appointed after 28.4.1981 would be above them in the seniority list. This objection cannot be sustained for the following reasons: - The two categories are separate. - As regards the teachers who were appointed after 28.4.1981 and before the Education Board was constituted, they had to be selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. - Whereas, the teachers who were appointed before 28.4.1981 only required the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission after their appointment. - Further, if the teachers who were appointed after 28.4.1981 had been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on a particular date, then their seniority would depend on the seniority list published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. - Further, if the teachers who were appointed after 28.4.1981 had been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on a particular date, then their seniority would depend on the seniority list published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. - Whereas, if any teacher who was appointed before 28.4.1981 acquired the requisite qualification after, let us say 1985, but within the period of extended time granted by the Government, then that particular teacher will have his seniority reckoned only from the date on which he possessed the full qualification and therefore, the other teachers can have no objection to the same. 23. The second category are teachers who were temporarily appointed after 28.4.1981 and who were selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. On behalf of these teachers, the following decisions were cited: - In 2003 (4) C.T.C. 571 [A.G. Sainath Reddy vs. The Govt. of A.P.], the Supreme Court held as follows: "Constitution of India - Service Law - Andhra Pradesh Deputy Superintendent and Jails Service Rules, 1974, Rule 2(3) and (4) - Seniority - Direct recruitment - Rule providing probationary period starts from the date of actual joining duty - Ad hoc or stop gap appointment cannot be reckoned for the purpose of seniority - Temporary and provisional appointment do not confer any right for continuance in post and to claim preference for future appointments." In 1987 (Supp.) S.C.C. 497 [A.K. Jain vs. Union of India], the Supreme Court issued the following directions: "(1) The services of all doctors appointed either as Assistant Medical Officers or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on ad hoc basis upto October 1, 1984 shall be regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on the evaluation of their work and conduct on the basis of their confidential reports in respect of a period subsequent to October 1, 1982. Such evaluation shall be done by the Union Public Service Commission. The doctors so regularised shall be appointed as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers with effect from the date from which they have been continuously working as Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Officer. The Railway shall be at liberty to terminate the services of those who are not so regularised. Such evaluation shall be done by the Union Public Service Commission. The doctors so regularised shall be appointed as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers with effect from the date from which they have been continuously working as Assistant Medical Officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Officer. The Railway shall be at liberty to terminate the services of those who are not so regularised. If the services of any of the petitioners appointed prior to October 1, 1984 have been terminated except on resignation or on disciplinary grounds, he shall be also considered for regularisation and if found fit his services shall be regularised as if there was no break in the continuity of service but without any back wages. (2) The petitions of the Assistant Medical Officers/Assistant Divisional Medical Officers appointed subsequent to October 1, 1984 are dismissed. But we however direct that the Assistant Divisional Medical Officers who may have been now selected by the Union Public Service Commission shall first be posted to the vacant posts available wherever they may be. If all those selected by the UPSC cannot be accommodated against the available vacant posts they may be posted to the posts now held by the doctors appointed on ad hoc basis subsequent to October 1, 1984 and on such posting the doctor holding the post on ad hoc basis shall vacate the same. While making such postings the principle of 'last come, first go' shall be observed by the Railways on zonal basis. If any doctor who is displaced pursuant to the above direction is willing to serve in any other zone where there is a vacancy he may be accommodated on ad hoc basis in such vacancy." In 1992 Supp. While making such postings the principle of 'last come, first go' shall be observed by the Railways on zonal basis. If any doctor who is displaced pursuant to the above direction is willing to serve in any other zone where there is a vacancy he may be accommodated on ad hoc basis in such vacancy." In 1992 Supp. (1) S.C.C. 420 [State of Tamil Nadu vs. E. Paripoornam], the Supreme Court observed as follows: "Service Law - Seniority - Period of temporary service prior to regular appointment - Regard to - Held, cannot be counted for seniority when regularisation made only for limited purpose of earning increments or commencement of probation and order of regularisation as well as statutory rules deny benefit of temporary service - Junior professors initially appointed temporarily under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of T.N. State and Subordinate Service Rules later appointed as such regularly on the basis of approved list prepared by PSC and their services regularised w.e.f. the dates or original appointments as temporary Junior Professors - Order of regularisation of the services expressly stating that their inter se seniority would be in accordance with the ratings in the approved list without being affected by date of regularisation - Rule 35(a) of the Rules stating that seniority shall be determined by rank obtained in the approved list - Held, seniority has to be reckoned on the basis of ranking in the approved list prepared by PSC notwithstanding the regularisation - T.N. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955, Rules 10(a)(i)(1), 22, 23(a) and 35(a)." In 2001 (5) S.C.C. 384 [Union of India vs. Lalita S. Rao], the Supreme Court held as follows: "1. All doctors appointed either as Assistant Medical Officer or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer on ad hoc basis up to 1-10-1984, who were regularised by the Railway Administration in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on the evaluation of their work and conduct and on the basis of their CRs in respect of a period subsequent to 1.10.1984 (sic 1982), pursuant to the direction of this Court in the case of Dr. A.K. Jain (cited supra) will not be entitled to count the services rendered prior to the regularisation for the purpose of determination of their seniority in the cadre. This has been so hold in the interlocutory application filed by Dr. A.K. Jain (cited supra) will not be entitled to count the services rendered prior to the regularisation for the purpose of determination of their seniority in the cadre. This has been so hold in the interlocutory application filed by Dr. Haque and answered by this Court in its judgment dated 18.2.1993, reported in Dr. Haque vs. Union of India [ 1993 (2) S.C.C. 213 ]. 2. Doctors who had been appointed by the Railway Administration on ad hoc basis or on temporary basis and had got themselves regularised prior to 1.10.1984, by appearing in the selection test held by the Union Public Service Commission then in their case the perior prior to their regularisation could be counted for determining their seniority applying Principle 'B' of Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Assn. vs. State of Maharashtra [ 1990 (2) S.C.C. 715 ] and in fact, the Tribunal decided the case of Dr. Srinivasalu on that basis and this Court upheld the said decision. 3. If any doctor, who had been appointed subsequent to 1.10.1984 and had applied for selection by the Union Public Service Commission on obtaining relaxation of age pursuant to Direction 5 in Dr. Jain's case (cited supra) and got selected thereby finally, in such a case the services rendered prior to such regularisation would not be counted for the purpose of his seniority in the cadre, particularly when the Recruitment Rules did not provide for any ad hoc appointment and only provided for appointment to be made through the Union Public Service Commission. We have taken the date 1.10.1984 as the cut-off date since this Court in Dr. Jain's case had considered the impasse and had directed regularisation of ad hoc doctors appointed up to 1.10.1984. The ad hoc appointees subsequent to 1.10.1984, even if got themselves regularised by appearing in the selection test conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in accordance with the Rules, it will not be in the interest of justice to apply Principle 'B' to their case as the statutory Recruitment Rules do not provide for any other mode of recruitment other than by the process of selection by the Union Public Service Commission." 24. From these judgments, it is clear that the ad hoc appointees who are regularized and who have not been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission shall have to give way to the appointees who have been selected by the Union Public Service Commission (Dr. A.K. Jain's case supra); ad hoc or temporary or provisional appointment does not confer any right for continuance in the post and any arrangement to fill up the posts on officiating basis does not confer any right of promotion on the person appointed as there was no post to which there could be appointment of a promotee after requests were sent to the Commission and any officiating arrangement is really of no consequence (A.J. Sainath Reddy's case supra); the period of temporary service prior to the regular appointment cannot be counted for seniority when regularization is made only for the limited purpose of earning increment and the appointees under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules who are appointed later regularly on the basis of the approved list prepared by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission will have their seniority reckoned on the basis of ranking in the approved list notwithstanding the regularization (E. Paripoornam's case supra). The persons appointed ad hoc and regularized by the administration in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission are not entitled to count the services rendered by them prior to their regularization, whereas the doctors who had been appointed ad hoc, but had got themselves regularized by appearing in the selection test are entitled to have the period prior to their regularization to be counted for determining their seniority (Lalita S. Rao's supra). 25. The teachers who were appointed after 28.4.1981 under Rule 10(a)(i) are aggrieved by Condition No.2 in G.O. Ms. No.1813. This is the third category. They alone are affected by this condition since their seniority is specifically affected by this condition. According to them, the direction of the Director of School Education, already extracted above, should be followed. Perhaps, that is how that particular Director understood the Rule. But, when the matter comes up before us, we are bound to read the Rules and construe them in consonance with the spirit behind the G.O. 26. According to them, the direction of the Director of School Education, already extracted above, should be followed. Perhaps, that is how that particular Director understood the Rule. But, when the matter comes up before us, we are bound to read the Rules and construe them in consonance with the spirit behind the G.O. 26. To the teachers who had either not been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or who had not participated in the selection process conducted by the Commission, G.O.Ms.No.1049 dated 14.8.1984 will apply. It is nobody's case that this G.O. has been quashed. As on date, the G.O. Stands. And according to the said G.O., all temporary appointees from 29.4.1981 must participate in the selection process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission along with applicants from outside and those who did not participate in this recruitment process would not even be permitted to continue temporarily. 27. The letter of the Director of School Education in R.C. No.110565/Menilka(W1)/A3/83 dated 29.3.1983 makes certain positions clear. The following is the relevant extract: - "The Educational Qualifications prescribed for the Teachers in Academic Subjects and Languages for manning Higher Secondary Classes are a P.G. Degree in the particular subject to be handled in Stds. XI and XII and a Degree in Teaching. In certain subjects shortage of fully qualified candidates was experienced and so Government permitted in G.O. Ms. No.2190, Education dt.1.10.81 the appointment of P.Gs. without teaching degree. Consistent with this decision, Government have granted protection to all those holding various posts on 28.4.81 in Higher Secondary Classes including Headmasters, under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service Rules issued in the G.O. dt.28.4.81. Among them the persons without the prescribed qualifications have been given time upto 30.6.84 for securing the required qualification. All are eligible to be regularized after getting the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 2. In the case of those appointed after 28.4.81, there is no such protection. However, considering the continued shortage of fully qualified candidates, Government permitted the appointment of P.G. without teaching degree, giving them time upto July 83 to acquire the teaching degree, vide G.O. Ms. No.2190, Education, dt.1.10.81. 3. But even after acquiring the Degree in Teaching these candidates have to face the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission when direct recruitment is made for regular appointment. No.2190, Education, dt.1.10.81. 3. But even after acquiring the Degree in Teaching these candidates have to face the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission when direct recruitment is made for regular appointment. While these temporary candidates will no doubt apply to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission there is no guarantee that all of them will be selected. There are about 800 candidates P.Gs. with or without B.Ed. Degree, temporarily working in Higher Secondary Schools. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is likely to notify these vacancies soon. Experience has shown that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has its own guidelines for selection which results in some of the serving candidates remaining unselected. ..... 12. I, therefore, request that may be pleased to prescribe that all eligible candidates already in service in one post for which recruitment is made should be given first priority in the matter of selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. This may apply not only to the P.G. Teachers already appointed after 28.4.81 but also to the selection of candidates to the various categories of teaching posts like School Assistants, Language Pandits and Physical Directors falling within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission." However, in spite of this, the Government had chosen to issue G.O. Ms. No.1049 on 14.8.1984, which makes the selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission mandatory. 28. The teachers were put on notice that unless they participated in the selection process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, they will not even be appointed temporarily. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contentions of these teachers that notwithstanding the fact that they did not participate in the selection process, their seniority shall not be affected. 29. Further, it must be remembered that these teachers who had not gone through the selection process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission are all only appointees under Rule 10(a)(i). They had been requesting the Government to regularize their services. The earlier G.O., viz. G.O. Ms. No.1049 dated 14.8.1984 warned the teachers that they would not even be allowed to continue as temporary appointees if they did not participate in the selection process, yet, the Government considered the request of these teachers for regularization sympathetically. And by G.O. Ms. They had been requesting the Government to regularize their services. The earlier G.O., viz. G.O. Ms. No.1049 dated 14.8.1984 warned the teachers that they would not even be allowed to continue as temporary appointees if they did not participate in the selection process, yet, the Government considered the request of these teachers for regularization sympathetically. And by G.O. Ms. No.1813, which is the impugned Government Order, their services were regularized from the date of their temporary appointment, subject to two conditions: (1) Their entitlement to monetary benefits would only be from the date of the said order, i.e., 12.12.1988. (2) They will be placed below the candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission while ranking their seniority. 30. So, but for this order, they stand the risk of having their services terminated. Therefore, the regularization of their service itself depends on this order. When that is so, it is not open to them to say that they will only take the benefit of this order, but the condition subject to which this is granted will not apply to them unless the condition is arbitrary or illegal. But, we know that in spite of G.O. Ms. No.1049 dated 14.8.1984, the teachers did not participate in the selection process conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Whereas, the second category of teachers successfully participated in the selection process. There is every justification to fix the seniority of the second category above the third category. The right to regularization of the third category of teachers itself is a tenuous one, in view of G.O. Ms. No.1049 dated 14.8.1984. Therefore, they can take the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.1813 dated 12.12.1988 only with the condition imposed therein. 31. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission conducted its examination only once during the relevant period, i.e. between 28.4.1981 and the year 1987 when the Board was constituted and G.O. Ms. No.1049 stands unchallenged. Therefore, the construction placed by the Director, which is relied on by the third category of teachers, cannot be accepted. As it stands, G.O. Ms. No.1813 can be construed to mean that the seniority of the third category of teachers would rank below the last candidate selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. No.1049 stands unchallenged. Therefore, the construction placed by the Director, which is relied on by the third category of teachers, cannot be accepted. As it stands, G.O. Ms. No.1813 can be construed to mean that the seniority of the third category of teachers would rank below the last candidate selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. This will depend on the seniority list published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and after the last candidate so selected, the seniority of the teachers whose services have been regularized by G.O. Ms. No.1813 dated 12.12.1988 will be fixed. 32. For the aforesaid reasons, the claim of the third category of teachers that the seniority list should be altered cannot be granted. 33. One of the learned counsel raised the issue that the manner in which the recruitment shall be made as per G.O. Ms. No.720 dated 28.4.1981 has been violated. Rule 2(b) of the Special Rules framed under this G.O. provides that the cycle for appointment by transfer and promotion will be as follows: By Transfer-I By Promotion-I By Transfer-I By Promotion-I By Promotion-I By Promotion-I By Promotion-I 34. W.P. No.9719 of 2004, though listed along with this batch, is delinked and the issues raised in the said writ petition insofar as they relate to this issue, viz., the cycle for appointment by transfer and promotion, as provided above, are specifically not decided in this batch. 35. All the writ petitions are disposed of as follows:- With regard to any teacher, seniority will depend upon his possession of the required qualification. As regards the first category of teachers, those appointed between 1.7.1978 and 28.4.1981, their seniority will be reckoned from the date on which they acquire the required qualification, provided that they do so within such time as extended by the Government and subject to the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. As regards the second category of teachers, those appointed after 28.4.1981 and selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, their seniority will be fixed as per the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission list. As regards the third category of teachers, those appointed after 28.4.1981 and who have not been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and whose services have been regularized by G.O. Ms. No.1813 dated 12.12.1988, their seniority will commence immediately after the last person in the list under the second category. As regards the third category of teachers, those appointed after 28.4.1981 and who have not been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and whose services have been regularized by G.O. Ms. No.1813 dated 12.12.1988, their seniority will commence immediately after the last person in the list under the second category. However, In the circumstances of the case, there will be no orders as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.