Judgment : 1. The petitioners herein K.P. Raman and R.Parasuraman are working as the Headmasters of Elementary Schools. In the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 6811 of 2007, K.P. Raman is challenging the Special Rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution for the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Welfare Subordinate Service Rules, vide G.O. Ms. No. 264, Social Welfare Department dated 26.4.1978 insofar as, it does not provide the Headmaster of an Elementary School as one of the feeder category to the post of Supervisors of Schools coming under category ‘7‘. For the post of Supervisor of School, the following is the method of recruitment provided under the Special Rules: Supervisor of Schools: 1. Direct recruitment 2. Recruitment by transfer from any other service; 3. Promotion from any of the following categories namely: or i. Secondary Grade Teachers; ii. Higher Elementary Grade Teachers, iii. Lower Elementary Grade Teachers; and iv. Scout Organisers. 2. A reading of the same does not show that for the post of Elementary School Headmaster has not been provided as one more source of promotions to the post of Supervisor of the Schools. Therefore, the petitioner challenges the said Rules as ultra vires and the denial of not making the Headmaster of Elementary School as a Feeder category is null and avoid, ultra vires of the Constitution. 3. Thepetitioner in W.P. No. 6848 of 2007, seeks to quash the proceedings dated 7.8.2007 and also to .include his name for the panel, for the year 2006-2007 to be made as a Supervisor of the Schools. In the impugned order dated 7.8.2007, a panel for the post of Supervisor of School had been published for the Range Supervisors and two names have been mentioned in the said panel who are shown as the respondents 4 & 5 in that writ petition. 4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 6846 of 2007, Mr. R. Parasuraman, is once again seeks to challenge the very same order which is impugned in W.P. No. 6845 of 2007. There is one difference between the petitioner in W.P. No. 6845 of 2007 Mr. K.P. Raman and the petitioner in W.P. No. 6846 of 2007, Mr. R. Parasuraman 5. Inthe case of Mr. R. Parasuraman, is once again seeks to challenge the very same order which is impugned in W.P. No. 6845 of 2007. There is one difference between the petitioner in W.P. No. 6845 of 2007 Mr. K.P. Raman and the petitioner in W.P. No. 6846 of 2007, Mr. R. Parasuraman 5. Inthe case of Mr. K.P. Raman (petitioner in W.P. No. 6845 of 2007) on an earlier occasion, he had filed a writ petition, being W. P. No. 721 of 2007, wherein, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Supervisor of the Schools on the ground that the Special Rules applicable to the said, post does not contain the Headmaster of an Elementary School as one of the feeder category. This order was made by the District Revenue Officer, Kallar Reclamation, dated 9.1.2007. Though the said order was challenged on several grounds, for reasons best known to him, the petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition and the same was ordered by this Court on 25.1.2007. No liberty was granted to the petitioner for re-agitating the said matter in that writ petition. However, the petitioner in this writ petition states that he was made to believe by the officers of the Department that he will be given due promotion and as the promotion was not forthcoming, he had chosen to file the second writ petition. 6. Such a contention is misconceived and cannot be entertained. In respect of the same relief, the petitioner cannot seek to come to this Court all over again especially, when he had withdrawn the Writ Petition without any liberty being granted. This Court does not think that there is any change of circumstances for the petitioner to agitate the same issue before this Court. In order to overcome the said technical objection, he had filed the another writ petition in W.P. No. 6811 of 2007 by challenging the vires of the Rule. Only if he succeeds in that writ petition, the question of entertaining the other two writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 6845 and 6846 of 2007 will arise. 7. The ground urged by the petitioner to impugn the statutory Rule is that when the rule was pending, by a letter dated 23.9.1998 the Director of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Tribe, addressed to the Special Tahsildar, Kallar Reclamation, Madurai dated 23.9.1998 he gave certain guidelines with reference to preparation for panel. 6845 and 6846 of 2007 will arise. 7. The ground urged by the petitioner to impugn the statutory Rule is that when the rule was pending, by a letter dated 23.9.1998 the Director of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Tribe, addressed to the Special Tahsildar, Kallar Reclamation, Madurai dated 23.9.1998 he gave certain guidelines with reference to preparation for panel. In para 6 of the said panel, the Director of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Tribe informed that only with effect from 1.6.1998 the Headmasters of the Elementary Schools were given a special scale of pay, the, Head Masters of the Elementary Schools must also be considered for the post of Supervisors of the Schools. 8. According to the Director of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Tribe, before that date, the post of Headmaster in Elementary School did not carry any special Scale-of pay. The Secondary Grade Teacher was allowed to manage the post of Headmaster with only a personal pay attached to the said post. Even though, he had made suggestion to take steps to amend the service Rules so as to include the Headmaster of the Elementary Schools also as a feeder category to the post of Supervisors of the Schools so far no amendments have been made. In fact, on the contrary, the very assertion that the Headmaster of an Elementary Schools have been granted on special scale of pay w. e. f. 1.6.1998 (which is higher than a Secondary Grade Teacher) the said post cannot be comparable to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher merely because before 1.6.1998 there was no distinction between the Headmaster of an Elementary School and the Secondary Grade Teachers. 9. From the very fact that the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and-the Head Master of the Elementary School Teacher have now carry different scales of pay and it is also made as a promoted category from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, the distinction is bound to continue. In any event, such an advise given by the Director of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Tribe, insofar as not been translated into an amendment of the Special Rules, this Court cannot order either inclusion of the said post a feeder category or for the non-inclusion of any other category. The Rules are not ultra vires of the Constitution and are valid. The Rules are not ultra vires of the Constitution and are valid. It must be made clear that a rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is legislative in character. 10. It has been held by the Supreme Court in A. K. Batnagar v. Union of India A. K. Batnagar v. Union of India A. K. Batnagar v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 544 : 1995-III-LLJ (Suppl)-287 that so long as a Rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, is not duly amended, it is binding on the Government and its action. The matter should be covered by the Rules and which must be regulated by Rules. It has also been made clear by the Supreme Court in Bandlal v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 978 that the Rule made in exercise of the power under Provisio to the Article 309 of the Constitution of India, constitute a law within the meaning of the Article 235 of the Constitution, for the same reasons the. Rule may be struck down only on such ground as may be invalidated or legislature measure, e. g., violation Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and not because the Court consider it unreasonable. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in J. Rangasamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh J. Rangasamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh J. Rangasamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1990 SC 535 : (1990) 1 SCC 288 : 1990-I-LLJ-526 that it is for the competent authority to prescribe relevant qualifications for the appointment to the post provided they are not unconstitutional. It is not for the Court to consider and assess and it is “for persons aggrieved to move the appropriate authority for review of the prescribed qualifications. In view of the binding precedents of the Supreme Court, this Court is unable to countenance the arguments advanced by the Mr. A. Thirumoorthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Under these circumstances, the challenge made to the Special Rules in so far as does not provide the Headmaster of an Elementary School also as a feeder category to the post of Supervisors of the Schools is misconceived and will accordingly stand dismissed.