Judgment :- Common Order: The Original Applications in O.A.No.385 of 2002 and O.A.No.7247 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") are the present writ petitions. 2. The Original Applications in O.A.No.385 of 2002 (W.P.No.8437 of 2007) and O.A.No.7247 of 2001 (W.P.No.2258 of 2007) are inter-connected and therefore, both the writ petitions are disposed by a common order. 3. The petitioners in the writ petitions are B.E. Graduates in Printing Technology. They obtained B.E. Degree in Anna University. The petitioner in W.P.No.2258 of 2007 passed in first class and the petitioner in W.P.No.8437 of 2007 passed in second class. 4. The grievance of the petitioners was to the notification dated 23.08.2001, issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the second respondent herein, calling for application to the post of Assistant Works Manager, in the Tamil Nadu Stationery and Printing Service. The educational qualification prescribed in the notification, makes ineligible the fresh B.E. Graduates, for the said post. The Assistant Works Manager carries the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13,500 per mensem. According to the petitioners, this is the scale of Assistant Engineers in Departments, such as Public Works Department, Highways Department etc. In those Departments, fresh B.E. Graduates are recruited as Assistant Engineers. Therefore, fresh B.E. Graduates should also be considered for the post of Assistant Works Manager is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Therefore, they sought to quash of the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Stationery and Printing Service, relating to direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Works Manager, since the same does not make eligible the fresh B.E. Graduates, for appointment to the post of Assistant Works Manager. While seeking to quash the Rule, they sought a consequential direction to consider them for appointment to the post of Assistant Works Manager in the Tamil Nadu Stationery and Printing Service, based on the aforesaid notification. 6. While admitting the Original Applications, interim orders were passed, permitting the petitioners to take the written examination as well as the oral examination, if any, to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Works Manager in Tamil Nadu Stationery and Printing Service. However, the result of the petitioners shall be withheld until further orders. The interim order dated 112. 2001 is extracted here under:- "Admit. Mr. However, the result of the petitioners shall be withheld until further orders. The interim order dated 112. 2001 is extracted here under:- "Admit. Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, standing counsel for TNPSC has taken notice on behalf of the second respondent and Mrs. Malarvizhi Udhayakumar, standing counsel has taken notice on behalf of the first respondent. The petitioners shall be permitted to take the written examination as well as the oral examination if any to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant Works Manager in Tamil Nadu Stationery and Printing Service. However, the result of the petitioners shall be withheld until further orders. For counter and disposal, adjourned by two weeks." 7. Based on the interim orders, the second respondent, permitted the petitioners to participate in the written examination. However, the petitioner in W.P.No.8437 of 2007 did not choose to participate in the written examination. The petitioner in W.P.No.2258 of 2007 participated in the written examinations and secured 397 marks out of 570 and she was assigned Serial No.6 in the ranking list, for the post of Assistant Works Managers in the Tamil Nadu Stationery and Printing Service for the year 2001-02. The notification was for the recruitment of nine persons as Assistant Works Manager. While others were appointed, the petitioner was not appointed due to the pendency of the writ petitions. 8. When the writ petitions are pending, the following amendment is effected to the Special Rules for the post of Assistant Works Manager in Tamil Nadu Stationery and Printing Service. Amendment to Special Rules for the post of Assistant Works Manager in Tamil Nadu Stationary and Printing Service. (G.O.(MS.) No.242, Information and Tourism (S&P1), 20th December 2005) No.SRO B-1/2006- In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Stationery and Printing Service (Section 26 in Volume II of the Tamil nadu Services Manual, 1969). 2. The amendment hereby made shall be deemed to have come into force on the 23rd August 2001. 2. The amendment hereby made shall be deemed to have come into force on the 23rd August 2001. Amendment: In the said Special Rules, in Rule 5, in the Table for the entries under the heading "2 Direct Recruitment" in column (2), against the category "4 Assistant Works Manager" in column (1), the following entries shall be substituted, namely: "(i)must possess a B.E. Degree in Printing Technology from a recognized University; or (ii)must possess minimum general education qualification as prescribed in the Schedule to Part II of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and a Diploma in Printing Technology (Letter Press or Offset) with practical experience in Letter Press or offset printing in a reputed printing press for not less than five years, out of which two years must be in a supervisory capacity; and (iii)must not have completed thirty years of age on the 1st day of July of that year in which selection for appointment is made. But this age limit shall not apply to persons who are already employed in the Stationery and Printing Department." 9. The amendment was also given retrospective effect from the date of notification. The effect of amendment is that fresh B.E. Graduates in Printing Technology are also entitled to apply for the post of Assistant Works Manager. The earlier Rule did not give such an opportunity for fresh B.E. Graduates to apply for the said post and it required experience. As already stated, no practical experience was required in other services, where B.E. Graduates are appointed to the post of Assistant Engineers. Now the grievance of the petitioners are redressed. However, since the petitioner in W.P.No.84378 of 2007, did not participate in the selection process, he is not entitled to any relief. Since the petitioner in W.P.No.2258 of 2007 was assigned serial No.6 in the ranking list, she is entitled for appointment. Though no appointment is given to the petitioner in W.P.No.2258 of 2007, in view of the pendency of the writ petition, she is entitled to get appointment as Assistant Works Manager. 10. However, the learned Standing counsel for the second respondent states that the petitioners are not entitled to appointment for the post of Assistant Works Manager. Though no appointment is given to the petitioner in W.P.No.2258 of 2007, in view of the pendency of the writ petition, she is entitled to get appointment as Assistant Works Manager. 10. However, the learned Standing counsel for the second respondent states that the petitioners are not entitled to appointment for the post of Assistant Works Manager. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the petitioners were not eligible to apply for the post at the relevant time, that is on 23.08.2001, when the 2nd respondent issued notification. The learned counsel further submits that as on 23.08.2001, B.E. graduates with practical experience of five years alone, were entitled to apply for the post. Hence, the claim of the petitioners could not be considered. 11. I have heard the arguments made on either side. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the second respondent, deserves to be rejected, because the argument overlooks the fact of amendment made to the Special Rules, with retrospective effect from the date of notification of the second respondent, calling for applications to the post of Assistant Works Manager. Further, from the interim orders passed by the Tribunal, it is made clear that the petitioners made out a prima facie case, to participate in the selection process. The petitioner in W.P.No.2258 of 2007 participated in the selection process and also she was assigned serial No.6 in the ranking list of the second respondent for the post of Assistant Works Manager. Since the petitioner in W.P.No.2258 of 2007 is successful in the selection process, she is entitled for appointment. The results were withheld due to the pendency of the writ petitions. Now the Rules were amended with retrospective effect from 23.08.2001, practically conceding the claims of the petitioners in these writ petitions. 12. The counsel for the second respondent heavily relies on a decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of J. & K. and Others reported in AIR 1993 SC 2638 . 13. I have perused the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent. The judgment does not render any assistance to her. In the said case, the Honourable Apex Court found on facts that the authorities clearly acted on the basis: "show me the man, I will show you the rule" and accommodated respondent No.6. 13. I have perused the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent. The judgment does not render any assistance to her. In the said case, the Honourable Apex Court found on facts that the authorities clearly acted on the basis: "show me the man, I will show you the rule" and accommodated respondent No.6. It is also found that in order to accommodate respondent No.6, "mountaineering" was included as an approved sporting activity for that year alone and that it was promptly deleted in the subsequent year. Based on the inclusion of "mountaineering" as one of the sports activity, respondent No.6 was given admission for a medical course. Certain sports activity were included specifically and notified as approved sports and admittedly "mountaineering" was not included as an approved sports and in order to accommodate respondent No.6, "mountaineering" was included in the approved sports retrospectively. The same was questioned by the appellant therein. However, the appellant lost before the High Court and the matter was taken to the Honourable Apex Court. The following passage found in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the Judgment are usefully extracted hereunder:- "5................only in order to accommodate respondent No.6 a new sporting activity was included and respondent No.6 chosen on that basis. It is also pointed out that "mountaineering" was included an as approved sporting activity for that year alone and that it was promptly deleted in the subsequent year. The appellants contention was that the authorities had clearly acted on the basis: "show me the man, I will show you the rule" 6............. 7. The contention of the appellant, therefore, that the whole exercise was gone through for the benefit of one candidate, namely respondent No.6, is difficult to discount. In all probability, this was the purpose of the whole exercise. From these facts and circumstances, the conclusion becomes irresistible that the whole exercise of the Sports Council in recognising mountaineering as an approved sport on 4th November, 1991 and recommending the candidature of respondent No.6 on 7th November, 1991 was geared up only for achieving the ulterior objective of accommodating respondent No.6. It was, not proper for the selecting authorities to have accepted that recommendation and considered respondent No.6 as eligible under that category." 14. It was, not proper for the selecting authorities to have accepted that recommendation and considered respondent No.6 as eligible under that category." 14. From the aforesaid passage, it is very clear that the judgment was passed due to the findings of the Honourable Apex Court that the authorities acted in a biased manner, in order to accommodate respondent No.6 therein. Furthermore, the action of the respondents, including the mountaineering as one of the sports activities, was questioned by the appellant therein. Here, in these cases, the amendment to the said Rules is not questioned. Further, even according to second respondent, in these cases, the amendment of the Rule was not to accommodate any particular person. In fact, the amendment is made to bring uniformity in the recruitment rules in the similar post. 15. In these circumstances, the writ petition in W.P.No.2258 of 2007 is allowed and a direction is issued to the second respondent to give an order of appointment to the petitioner appointing her as Assistant Works Manager in the Tamil Nadu Stationery and Printing Service, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition in W.P.No.8437 of 2007 is dismissed. No costs.