Judgment The petitioner originally filed O.A.No.7451 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the order dated 21.08.2000 passed by the respondent and for a consequential direction to conduct Drill Test and Written Test to the petitioner separately. 2. Pending the Original Application, the petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.44663 of 2006. 4. The petitioner also took out a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in the writ petition seeking for an interim direction containing the very same prayer in the writ petition, excepting that a direction is sought for to write the written test and to participate in the selection process. 5. The case of the petitioner was that he had applied for the post of Constable in the selection by the Tamil Nadu Prison Department for the year 1999-2000. According to him, he possessed the minimum general educational qualification (MGEQ). He also belonged to the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner had appeared for SSLC Examination in the year 1989 and except in English, he passed in all the subjects. In the October examination, he again wrote his English paper, but he secured only 33%. The case of the petitioner was that he is an eminent sportsman and according to him, those who are eminent in sports were given grace marks. The petitioner because of the alleged grace marks is deemed to have qualified as a SSLC candidate. But however, the petitioners application was rejected by the recruitment Board by the impugned order dated 21.08.2000 stating that he did not possess the minimum general educational qualification. 6. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit dated 20.12.2000. In paragraph 4, it was averred as follows: "4. ...In the said G.O. there was no mention about adding 15 marks to each subject. The applicant has to qualify in each subject with minimum marks. Then only he can get the benefit out of the said G.O. Further the said G.O has not declared the failed candidates as eligible candidates by adding 15% marks on the failed subject. ...In the said G.O. there was no mention about adding 15 marks to each subject. The applicant has to qualify in each subject with minimum marks. Then only he can get the benefit out of the said G.O. Further the said G.O has not declared the failed candidates as eligible candidates by adding 15% marks on the failed subject. The alleged clarification proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer in No.19891 dated 15.09.94 is not correct since it override the said G.O. In this connection, it may be stated that the Government is the only authority to issue clarification to Government orders. In the instant case,the said clarification proceeding has been issued by Chief Educational Officer which is not correct. As the applicant was not having the minimum pass marks as per his mark sheet, issued by Department of Government Examination, Chennai -6, he cannot considered as a eligible person having completed the X standard as per rules. The alleged marks certificate issued by the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu is not in accordance with the G.O. The applicant being without the basic educational qualification cannot claim under S.C. Quota or any other quota prescribed for the recruitment." 7. The petitioner had not obtained SSLC as required under the Tamil Nadu Subordinates Service Rules. In Schedule I prescribed under 12(a)(1), it is required a pass in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination with eligibility for admission to college course as minimum requirement or a pass in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu state. The explanation clearly states that a person who appear for 11 year SSLC public examination and obtained 35 marks in each subject either in one sitting or compartmentally shall be deemed to have passed the public examination. In as much as the petitioner had not obtained such qualification, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.