Judgment : As the issue involved in all these writ petitions are common, these writ petitions are disposed off by this common order. 2. The petitioners pray for the issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioners as ‘Lecturers‘ in Physical Education based on the selection list of written examination held on 8.10.2006 in pursuance of the second respondents advertisement in Advt. No. 2-2006-07, dated 19.8.2006. 3. The common facts involved in these writ petitions are that after their graduation, they have secured Masters degree in Physical Education and some of the petitioners have also obtained M.Phil Degree. The second respondent as a recruitment agency of the third respondent caused an advertisement in Advt. No. 2/2006-07 dated 19.8.2006 calling for applications for recruitment to different posts including the post of ‘Lecturers‘ in Physical Education. 16 vacancies were notified in the said advertisement. The advertisement specifically prescribed the qualification for the post of ‘Lecturers‘ as under: “ II. Lecturers: Candidates should possess M.A./M.Sc. with atleast 50% marks, and M.Ed. (M. PEd. for Physical Education) with 55% marks. Provided that holders of M.Ed., Degree with less than 55% marks should have teaching experience of 5 years in Elementary Schools or in handling standards VI to VII in a recognised school. Candidates should have Studied the same subject in Bachelors Degree and Masters Degree both for academic subjects and Languages. All degrees should be from UGC/NCTE recognised Universities only. The candidate should possess knowledge of Tamil of 10th Standard level.” 4. Though the petitioners did not possess M.A./M.Sc, they applied for the post and they were also issued with hall tickets to appear for the written examination. The written examination was held on 8.10.2006. The petitioners were all assigned independent roll numbers. In the written examination, the petitioners came out successful. The petitioners were called upon to appear for certificate verification on 31.10.2006. According to the petitioners, at the time of certificate verification, they were informed that they were all provisionally selected and would receive appointment orders by post, provided they produce the certificate in proof of their Masters degree qualification like M.A./M.Sc. 5. The petitioners claimed that they were shocked by such a direction issued to them and that they made a representation on 1.11.2006. 5. The petitioners claimed that they were shocked by such a direction issued to them and that they made a representation on 1.11.2006. Thereafter, their names have been displayed on the website showing that they were provisionally selected for the post of ‘Lecturers‘. However, once again on 8.11.2006, when the petitioners browsed the website, it was learnt that they were not selected. On verification with the second and third respondents, the petitioners were informed that they were not selected because of non-production of their P.G. Degree Qualification certificates in M.A./M.Sc. It is in the above stated background, the petitioners have come forward with these present writ petitions. 6. On behalf of the second and third respondents, separate counter affidavits have been filed. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that as per the Notification V of the ad hoc rules, the Government directed that the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Service Rules (P.G. Teachers) would apply to the posts of ‘Lecturer in DTERT/DIET, that as per the ad hoc Rules referred to in the Governments letter No. 21249/U2/2001-12, dated 3.2.2006, qualifications have been prescribed, namely, for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in DTERT/DIET, the candidate should possess M.A./M.Sc. Degree with at least 50% marks and M.Ed., with at least 55% marks and for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education, the candidate should possess Masters Degree with M.PEd Degree in Physical Education. The second respondent, therefore, took the stand that the qualification prescribed in 5(11) of the Advt. No. 2/2006-07 was legal and valid. It was, therefore, contended that since the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification, they were not selected and appointed as ‘Lecturers‘. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is pointed out that after the formation of DTERT/DIET by Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 106, School Education (U1) Department, dated 11.3.1997, the State Government issued a G.O. Ms. No. 98, School Education (U1) Department, dated 13.8.1997, wherein the qualifications for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education was specifically prescribed, which was subsequently modified in G.O. Ms. No. 15, School Education (U1) Department, dated 19.1.2000 and ultimately, the rules themselves came to be framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and notified under G.O. Ms. No. 133, School Education Department, dated 14.6.2007. 8. No. 15, School Education (U1) Department, dated 19.1.2000 and ultimately, the rules themselves came to be framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and notified under G.O. Ms. No. 133, School Education Department, dated 14.6.2007. 8. It is, therefore, contended that even as per the existing NCTE norms, the qualification prescribed and applied by the respondents was perfectly in order and therefore, as the petitioners have not satisfied the minimum required qualification, they are not entitled for appointment as ‘Lecturers‘. 9. Ms. Arul Mozhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in her contentions, submitted that in the first place when once the petitioners‘ applications with the qualification of M.PEd., in pursuance of the notification in Advt. No. 2/2006-07 having been accepted and based on which they were also allowed to sit for the written examination as well as certificate verification, the respondents cannot now turn around and reject their candidatures. 10. The learned counsel further contended that even as per the norms and standards prescribed by the National Council For Teacher Education, the qualification for the post of lecturer is only M.PEd/M.PE Degree with 55% marks and therefore, the respondents cannot prescribe a different qualification for the said post. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that even going by the counter affidavit of the second respondent, the Government ordered that the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service Rules (P.G. Teachers) would apply to the posts of ‘Lecturer‘ in DTERT/DIET, that the qualification as prescribed under the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service in respect of the post of Physical Directors and Physical Directresses in Higher Secondary Schools is only a M.P.Ed. Degree of any University in the State or a Degree of equivalent standard or a diploma equivalent to M.P.Ed. Degree. According to the learned counsel since in the said Special Rules no other qualification such as M.A./M.Sc, had been prescribed, the respondents were not justified in not issuing the appointment orders to the petitioners. 12. Degree of any University in the State or a Degree of equivalent standard or a diploma equivalent to M.P.Ed. Degree. According to the learned counsel since in the said Special Rules no other qualification such as M.A./M.Sc, had been prescribed, the respondents were not justified in not issuing the appointment orders to the petitioners. 12. The learned counsel then contended that as per the UGC Notification, the minimum qualification for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education is only good academic record with 55% marks at the Master Degree Level in the relevant subject from a Indian University or a equivalent degree from a foreign University and therefore, the prescription of M.A./M.Sc, for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ Physical Education was wholly irrelevant. 13. As far as the rules which came to be notified under the Notification, dated 14.6.2007 in G.O. Ms. No. 133 is concerned, the learned counsel by relying upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Y. V. Rangaiah and Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others Y. V. Rangaiah and Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others Y. V. Rangaiah and Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others AIR 1983 SC 852 : (1983) 3 SCC 284 , in particular, paragraph 9 of the said judgment would contend that the question of filling vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules should be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules. 14. As against the above submissions, Mr. Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that after the formation of ‘DTERT and ‘DIET by G.O. Ms. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997, the qualifications for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education was prescribed under G.O. (ID) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 which was scrupulously followed right from that date and that the subsequent Notification of the Rules, which prescribed the qualification for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education, under G.O. Ms. 133, dated 14.6.2007 was also made applicable right from 11.3.1997. The learned Special Government Pleader, therefore, contended that on and after 11.3.1997, the question of applying the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service does not arise. 15. 133, dated 14.6.2007 was also made applicable right from 11.3.1997. The learned Special Government Pleader, therefore, contended that on and after 11.3.1997, the question of applying the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service does not arise. 15. The learned Special Government Pleader then pointed out that even the NCTE regulations of 2002 while prescribing the norms and standards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme, it has specifically stated that the qualifications for the academic staff for Physical Education shall be as prescribed by the concerned State Government and in the circumstances, the first respondent having prescribed the qualification under G.O. Ms. No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 which came to be subsequently adopted under the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the qualification prescribed under the said G.O. as well as the rules alone would apply. The learned Special Government Pleader, therefore, contended that the unqualified petitioners are not entitled to seek for appointment merely because their applications came to be wrongly entertained though they did not possess requisite qualifications. 16. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that in respect of Teachers‘ Education, the regulations prescribed by the NCTE alone would apply and the UGC regulations applicable to colleges will have no application to the Teacher Training Institute, which is applicable to ‘DTERT and ‘DIET. 17. The learned Special Government Pleader contended that the petitioners having failed to satisfy the authorities by producing the proof of requisite qualification of M.A./M.Sc, apart from M.PEd Degree, they were not selected for appointment. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I find force in the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader. 19. At the outset, it will have to be stated that even if the petitioners were allowed to sit for the written examination and were also short listed for certificate verification, on that score alone it cannot be held that they should be issued with the orders of appointment. Unless the petitioners satisfy the prescribed educational qualification for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education, the question of applying the principle of estoppel or legitimate expectation for appointing the petitioners to that post does not arisee 20. Admittedly, none of the petitioners possess any P.G. Qualification in M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. The only qualification possessed by them is M.P.Ed with 55% marks. Unless the petitioners satisfy the prescribed educational qualification for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education, the question of applying the principle of estoppel or legitimate expectation for appointing the petitioners to that post does not arisee 20. Admittedly, none of the petitioners possess any P.G. Qualification in M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. The only qualification possessed by them is M.P.Ed with 55% marks. Therefore, the question that remains to be considered is as to what is the prescribed qualification required for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education. 21. As far as the Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training (DTERT) and District Institutes of Education and Training (DIET) are concerned, prior to their formation under G.O. Ms. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997, the functions of the above two institutions were governed by Director of School Education. For the first time, the State Government considering the widespread need and growth of Teacher Training Institute and the demand for teachers at the Elementary School Level, the Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training and District Institutes of Education and Training came to be separately formed under G.O. Ms. No. 106,dated 11.3.1997. In the said G.O. itself, the State Government after referring to the need for the better functioning of the above two institutions expressed its desire for prescribing the appropriate qualifications for the various posts in the said two institutions in order to ensure that such posts are held by persons with the qualifications befitting their status. The Director of ‘DTERT‘ was, therefore, directed to submit its proposals and constitute a High Level Committee for getting necessary advice and opinion, if need be. Thereafter, the ‘DTERT‘ submitted its proposals, dated 24.6.1997 to the State Government. After referring to the G.O. Ms. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997 as well as the proposals of ‘DIET, dated 24.6.1997, G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 came to be issued by the first respondent prescribing the various posts in the ‘DTERT‘ and ‘DIET‘ and the qualifications required for those posts. Insofar as the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in ‘DIET‘ is concerned, it was prescribed therein that the concerned candidate should possess M.A./M.Sc, with M.Ed for other subjects and M.P.Ed in respect of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education. In the said G.O. apart from the above two qualifications, certain other requirements by way of experience were also prescribed, which came to be modified in the subsequent G.O. (1D) No. 15, dated 19.1.2000. In the said G.O. apart from the above two qualifications, certain other requirements by way of experience were also prescribed, which came to be modified in the subsequent G.O. (1D) No. 15, dated 19.1.2000. The only modification was in respect of an experience of three years as a teacher in any one of the recognised schools and there was no modification in respect of educational qualifications. 22. By G.O. Ms. No. 133, dated 14.6.2007 rules came to be notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said rules are deemed to have come into force on and from 11.3.1997 under Notification No. III of the said rules, wherein, the qualification for the post of lecturers has been prescribed. According to which both for direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer, the candidate should possess Masters degree with not less than 50% marks in the relevant subjects and M.Ed for lecturers in languages or other subjects and M.P.Ed for lecturers in Physical Education with not less than 55% marks. 23. When the arguments of the petitioners by relying upon NCTE Regulations, 2002 are tested, as far as the Norms and Standards of Master of Physical Education Programme, in paragraph 5 though the required qualification for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ is stated as good academic record with M.P.Ed/M.P.E with 55% marks, under 5(e) it is stated that apart from the qualifications prescribed at (a), (b) and (c) of para 5, the candidates should be required to have such other qualifications as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies like University Grants Commission etc. Therefore, what is prescribed in the said norms and standards of NCTE cannot be taken to be the last word. The NCTE itself has left it open for other regulatory bodies to prescribe other required qualifications. Therefore, the first respondent had every authority to prescribe any other qualification other than M.P.Ed with 55% marks. A reference to G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 disclose that the qualifications prescribed therein came to be made after due deliberations by the third respondent in pursuance of the directives issued by the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997. As stated earlier, in G.O. Ms. A reference to G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 disclose that the qualifications prescribed therein came to be made after due deliberations by the third respondent in pursuance of the directives issued by the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997. As stated earlier, in G.O. Ms. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997 having noted the enormous demand for seeking qualifications in teacher training, the Government constituted the second respondent and DIET and also expressed its desire to have properly qualified personnel to man those institutions in order to ensure the development of better teaching faculties in the Teacher Training Institutes. In fact, in the said G.O, the State Government directed the third respondent herein to have necessary opinions by constituting a High Level Committee before prescribing the appropriate qualifications and the required posts to man those two institutions. Therefore, the emergence of G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 has its own historical background for notifying the different posts and also prescribing the required qualifications for those posts. 24. The learned Special Government Pleader in his submissions also pointed out that after the issuance of G.O.(1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997, all the posts were filled up only on the basis of the qualifications prescribed therein and so far the respondents have not deviated in the appointment of any person for any of the posts notified in the said Government Order. It was also submitted that such a position continued till the subsequent Notification in G.O. (1D) No. 15, dated 19.1.2000, wherein a slight modification in regard to experience alone is stated to have been made. In fact, a perusal of G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997, as well as the G.O. (1D) No. 15, dated 19.1.2000, would disclose that insofar as ‘Lecturers‘ in Physical Education are concerned the prescribed qualification was consistently M.A./M.Sc, with 50% marks with M.P. Ed. If the respondents have been consistently following the said prescribed qualification for the post of ‘Lecturers‘ in Physical Education, no fault can be found with the Notification made in Advt. No. 2/2006-07, wherein the very same qualifications have been prescribed for the post of ‘Lecturers‘ in Physical Education. If the respondents have been consistently following the said prescribed qualification for the post of ‘Lecturers‘ in Physical Education, no fault can be found with the Notification made in Advt. No. 2/2006-07, wherein the very same qualifications have been prescribed for the post of ‘Lecturers‘ in Physical Education. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, merely because the petitioners‘ applications were allowed to be processed and the petitioners were made to sit for the written examinations and were also called for certificate verification that by itself will not create any right to seek for issuance of appointment orders. Apart from G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 and G.O. (1D) No. 15, dated 19.1.2000, when the rules came to be ultimately notified under G.O. Ms. No. 133, dated 14.6.2007, it can be seen that while notifying the rules under Article 309 of the Constitution, it was specifically provided such rules were deemed to have taken effect right from 11.3.1997 when ‘DTERT‘ and ‘DIET‘ came to be formed under G.O. Ms. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997. When the qualifications which have now been prescribed in the rules notified under G.O. Ms. No. 133, dated 14.6.2007 were the qualifications in G.O. Ms. No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 and G.O. (1D) No. 15, dated 19.1.2000, it is quite understandable that the application of the rules were specifically brought into effect right from the date when these two institutions came to be formed, ultimately, on 11.3.1997. 25. As far as the argument based on the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service is concerned, when reference is made to the NCTE Regulations 2002, which is stated to be the present regulations under paragraph 5(d) of the regulations insofar as the qualifications for academic staff for teaching in Physical Education is concerned, it is specifically left to be prescribed by the concerned State Government. In such circumstances, when the institutions ‘DTERT and ‘DIET‘ came to be formed for the first time on 11.3.1997 under G.O. Ms. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997 and when qualifications came to be prescribed under G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 in pursuance of the directives contained in G.O. Ms. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997, it will have to be held that any such prescriptions, as regards the qualifications, in the later G.O. was in accordance with what has been prescribed in paragraph 5(d) of Appendix of NCTE Regulations, 2002. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997, it will have to be held that any such prescriptions, as regards the qualifications, in the later G.O. was in accordance with what has been prescribed in paragraph 5(d) of Appendix of NCTE Regulations, 2002. If that can be the only conclusion by applying the NCTE Regulations 2002, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that what was prescribed by the State Government is the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu High Secondary Educational Service is applicable cannot be accepted. 26. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent-Teachers Recruitment Board, wherein it is stated in paragraph 5 that as per the Notification V of the Ad hoc Rules, the Government ordered that that the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service Rules (P.G. Teachers) would apply to the post of the ‘Lecturer‘ in ‘DTERT‘/‘DIET‘. When the conclusions as drawn in the earlier part of this order based on NCTE Regulations, 2002 read along with G.O. Ms. No. 106, dated 11.3.1997 and G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 which conclusion is more appropriate and consistent with the NCTE regulations, by merely relying upon the averment contained in the counter affidavit of the second respondent, it cannot be held that the said Special Rules of the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service alone is applicable. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have not pointed out that prior to the present selection made in pursuance of Advt. No. 2/2006-07, the said Special Rules were applied in respect of any selection made to ‘DTERT‘ or ‘DIET‘ for the post of lecturers. On the other hand, according to the respondents, after the emergence of G.O. Ms. 106, dated 11.3.1997 and G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997, the post of lecturer in Physical Education or for that matter, for any other posts, the qualifications prescribed in G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 as modified by G.O. (1D) No. 15, dated 19.1.2000 alone were applied and that no person who did not possess those qualifications was appointed for the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education. Therefore, I am not persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that based on the Special Rules prescribed for Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service, the post of ‘Lecturer‘ in Physical Education was filled up. Therefore, I hold that the qualifications prescribed in G.O. (1D) No. 98, dated 13.8.1997 as modified in G.O. (1D) No. 15, dated 19.1.2000 are in accordance with the directives contained in the NCTE Regulations, 2002 and therefore, the qualifications prescribed in Advt. No. 2/2006-07 was in accordance with the statutory rules and regulations. 27. Having regard to my above conclusion, since the petitioners have not admittedly satisfy the required qualifications as prescribed for the post of ‘Lecturers‘ in Physical Education irrespective of the fact that they were allowed to participate in the written test as well as the certificate verification process, they were not rightly issued with any appointment orders. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners merit acceptance. The writ petitions, therefore, fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.s are also dismissed.