Judgment :- The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 3. 2005 passed by the District Elementary Education Officer, third respondent herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- In 1987, the petitioner joined teacher training course in the State of Karnataka after passing 10th standard which is the basic qualification required for joining the teacher training course. The petitioner completed the course in the year 1990 and was issued teacher training certificate by the Karnataka State Education Department. Thereafter, in the year 1998, the petitioner, on migration to Tamil Nadu, passed the higher secondary course namely +2. In the same year, i.e. 1998, the petitioner thereafter got himself registered with the employment exchange. On 22. 1999, the petitioner was appointed as secondary grade teacher in a panchayat union school in a village which is situated in the border of the State of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. On 3. 1999, the petitioner joined duty in the time scale of pay of Rs.4500 – 125 – 7000/-. On 8. 1999, the first respondent, the Director of Teacher Education Research Training addressed a letter to the third respondent/ District Educational Officer with a copy marked to the petitioner stating that the teacher training certificate issued by Karnataka State is not equivalent to the teacher training certificate of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner submitted a reply on 28. 1999 requesting them to evaluate the certificate on the ground that the petitioner has passed higher secondary course viz., +2 in the year 1998 in Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the petitioner has substantially and actually complied with the requirement prescribed in the State of Tamil Nadu. Thereafter, on 3. 2005, the impugned order came to be passed by the third respondent. According to the third respondent, for undergoing the teacher training course in Tamil Nadu during the year 1987, the minimum educational qualification is pass in higher secondary (+2). The petitioner having undergone the teacher training course in Karnataka with a pass in 10th standard cannot be considered for evaluation as there is no appropriate Government Order in this regard. Therefore, based on the direction of the first respondent, the services of the petitioner was terminated. Such an order is now under challenge before this Court. 3. Pending the writ petition, challenging the order of termination dated 3. Therefore, based on the direction of the first respondent, the services of the petitioner was terminated. Such an order is now under challenge before this Court. 3. Pending the writ petition, challenging the order of termination dated 3. 2005, the petitioner made a representation for considering his claim for evaluation based on the teacher training certificate issued by the State of Karnataka and also for payment of salary. The same was rejected. Hence, for the payment of salary for the period from 22. 1999 to 3. 2005, W.P.No. 26390 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner. 4. The respondents have filed a counter stating that the minimum general educational qualification for admission to the teacher training course in Tamil Nadu is +2 pass. But the eligibility for admission in Karnataka State before 1987 was only SSLC i.e. 10th standard pass. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed based on the teacher training certificate issued by the Karnataka State as it is not equivalent to the teacher training certificate issued in the State of Tamil Nadu. 5. At the time when the petitioner was granted the teacher training certificate in Karnataka State in the year 1987, the minimum basic requirement was that he should have passed the 10th standard and that qualification is not disputed. In 1987, in the State of Tamil Nadu, the minimum prescribed qualification for joining teacher training course is a pass in Higher Secondary course i.e. +2. However,in the year 1988, the minimum qualification for joining the teacher training course in Karnataka was changed to pre university certificate (P.U.C). Instead of 10th standard pass. 6. In this case, the petitioner passed Higher secondary course i.e. +2 in the year 1998 and only thereafter he got himself registered with the employment exchange. He was given appointment by letter dated 22. 1999 and joined duty with effect from 3. 1999. On the date of appointment, the petitioner was fully qualified (i.e.) Higher secondary course +2 pass, which is the requirement in the State of Tamil Nadu. 7. A question may arise as to whether the petitioner, who has passed +2 after obtaining teacher training certificate issued by the Karnataka State, will be disentitled to be considered for evaluation by the respondents authority in the state of Tamil Nadu. 8. 7. A question may arise as to whether the petitioner, who has passed +2 after obtaining teacher training certificate issued by the Karnataka State, will be disentitled to be considered for evaluation by the respondents authority in the state of Tamil Nadu. 8. A similar issue arose with regard to the qualifying marks obtained by teacher training course certificate holders, who migrated to Tamil Nadu from other states. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 23. 2003 permitting such migrant candidates to appear for a special examination in higher secondary (+2) and qualify themselves and to get themselves evaluated based on the teacher training course certificate issued by the neighbouring states. 9. The Government in G.O.Ms.No. 26, dated 23. 2003 permitted the candidates, who had lesser qualifying marks at school level to write the special examination even though they had completed the teacher training course and obtained the certificate. The import of the said Government Order is that wherever there is a shortfall in the basic qualification, the Government showed indulgence and relaxed the condition and permitted such candidates to appear for the special examination. In the present case, the petitioner stands in a better footing. The petitioner has obtained the teacher training certificate in the year 1990 after undergoing the prescribed course at Karnataka State and passed higher secondary (+2) in Tamil Nadu in the year 1998. Thereafter, the petitioner registered himself with the employment exchange. The petitioner was selected and got his appointment in the year only 1999. The requirement of minimum qualification viz., Higher secondary (+2) pass is complied at the time of issuance of appointment order on 22. 1999. The petitioner, in his representation dated 28. 99 clearly states that he is qualified in higher secondary (+2) in Tamil Nadu and therefore, the teacher training certificate issued by the Karnataka State should be evaluated on the basis of the subsequent development. This was not considered by the respondents/authorities stating that there is no specific Government Order for considering the case of the petitioner. 10. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have not shown any specific Rule, Regulation or Government Order, which bars the authorities from considering the case of the petitioner and evaluate his teacher training certificate issued by the State of Karnataka based on the higher secondary marks obtained in the exam conducted in the state of Tamil Nadu in the year 1998. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have not shown any specific Rule, Regulation or Government Order, which bars the authorities from considering the case of the petitioner and evaluate his teacher training certificate issued by the State of Karnataka based on the higher secondary marks obtained in the exam conducted in the state of Tamil Nadu in the year 1998. The only difficulty that is apparent from the counter affidavit is that the petitioner has not produced the transfer certificate for which, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said document has already been produced before the authority and is willing to submit the necessary documents if it is required or not complied. 11. The only issue which stands in the way of evaluation of the petitioners teacher training certificate now is that the certificate issued by the State of Karnataka is not in par with the certificate issued by the State of Tamil Nadu. As stated earlier, several Government Orders have been issued permitting candidates to rectify the defects like lower percentage of marks or lesser aggregate marks at school level by relaxing the condition or allowing them to take special exams so as to comply with the requirements of the State of Tamil Nadu. One such Government order finds place in paragraph 2 of the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.Nos. 1513 to 1515 of 2007, dated 6. 2008. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- “The respondent was appointed as a secondary grade teacher on 8. 1995 and working in the said capacity, subject to evaluation of the certificate issued by the Karnataka Secondary Education Board on 30.7.1993. When the evaluation was refused by the appellants by an order dated 1. 1996 on the ground that the respondent did not obtain 50% marks in each subject in the first year course, she approached the Tribunal and obtained stay, by virtue of which she continued in service. Meanwhile, she appeared for the examination for the second time and secured the required percentage of marks. Accordingly, her certificate was evaluated by the authorities by an order dated 212. 2002. Originally, she filed O.As. And the same were transferred and numbered as W.P.Nos.28463 of 2006, 28940 of 2006 and 38422 of 2005. " 12. Meanwhile, she appeared for the examination for the second time and secured the required percentage of marks. Accordingly, her certificate was evaluated by the authorities by an order dated 212. 2002. Originally, she filed O.As. And the same were transferred and numbered as W.P.Nos.28463 of 2006, 28940 of 2006 and 38422 of 2005. " 12. From the said order, it is clear that the department has accepted the subsequent qualifying marks and evaluated the certificate. In the present case, the petitioner has qualified himself in higher secondary course (+2) prior to appointment. The G.O.Ms.No. 26, dated 23. 2003 grants similar relief. In the present case, there can be no impediment in evaluating the certificate issued by the State of Karnataka as the petitioner has qualified in Higher Secondary Course +2 exam well before appointment. The impugned order dated 3. 2005, therefore, cannot be justified as the respondents have appointed the petitioner as secondary grade teacher accepting the certificate issued by the Karnataka State Educational Department and also on the basis of the higher secondary (+2) pass certificate obtained in the year 1998. The respondents cannot now terminate the petitioner on a plea that there is no specific Government Order for evaluation. There is no misrepresentation or wrong statement by the petitioner. In the present case, there is no requirement for a special Government Order to evaluate the certificate, because the petitioner has already qualified himself in higher secondary course (+2) in the year 1998 well before the appointment. The respondent plea is therefore not tenable. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. The petitioner however will not be entitled to salary for the period not served. However, such period will be taken into consideration for calculating the service benefits and pay protection. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that suitable place should be identified for the petitioner to serve on re-appointment. The respondents are granted four weeks time to give appropriate placement to the petitioner. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. 15. WP No. 26390 of 2005 has been filed for payment of salary for the period from 22. 1999 to 3. 2005. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has served as a teacher during the relevant period and the salary cannot be denied for the work done. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. 15. WP No. 26390 of 2005 has been filed for payment of salary for the period from 22. 1999 to 3. 2005. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has served as a teacher during the relevant period and the salary cannot be denied for the work done. There is no justification for the authorities to deny the salary for the period during which the services was rendered by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed to make the payment to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that petitioner is not entitled to backwages from 3. 2005 till the date of re-instatement. No costs.