Judgment The petitioner has passed her S.S.L.C. in State Board and acquired Pulavar (Tamil) Certificate, by undergoing four years course through Annamalai University. She has also acquired Diploma in Teaching Tamil through Annamalai University in 1980, which is stated to be a one year course. After registering her name in the employment exchange in 1982, she has worked in various private schools as Tamil Pandit. It was in the year 1997 that the petitioner was appointed as a Tamil Pandit, on temporary basis, by the third respondent/Management, which is an aided private school governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. 2. Subsequently, when a regular vacancy to the post of Tamil Pandit arose due to the retirement of an incumbent on 5. 2005, the third respondent, after following the procedure and conducting the interview, selected and appointed the petitioner as Tamil Pandit on 30.5.2005 in the third respondent/School and she joined on 6. 2005. The third respondent has sent a proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner to the second respondent. It appears that the second respondent, by order dated 1. 2006, has rejected the proposal, against which the third respondent has preferred an appeal before the Joint Director of School Education on 21. 2006. The first respondent, taking the role of the Joint Director of School Education, has passed the impugned order dated 9. 2006, rejecting the proposal of the third respondent/Management for approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Tamil Pandit in its school. Under the impugned order, it is categorically admitted that the petitioner is having the following qualification: (i) SSLC Pass; (ii) Oriental Title of Annamalai University; (iii) M.A. (Tamil); and (iv) Diploma in Teaching Tamil, which is a one year course. However, the rejection was on the ground that, as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules and the Annexure therein, the petitioner ought to have obtained Pandits Training Course Certificate or Secondary Grade Training Certificate and in the absence of either of these certificates, the petitioner was stated to be not qualified. 3. The case of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned senior counsel, is that while the Pandits Training Certificate course is a six months course, the petitioner has completed Diploma in Teaching Tamil, which is one year course, from Annamalai University. 3. The case of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned senior counsel, is that while the Pandits Training Certificate course is a six months course, the petitioner has completed Diploma in Teaching Tamil, which is one year course, from Annamalai University. He would also bring to the notice of this Court that, in fact, the Government, in the earlier proceedings dated 6. 1964, has given instructions stating that Diploma in Teaching course of the Annamalai University has to be treated as equivalent to the Pandits Training Course certificate awarded by the Commissioner for Government Examination, Madras. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, when the Government itself clarified that Pandits Training Course Certificate is equivalent to Diploma in Teaching course offered by the Annamalai University and inasmuch as the petitioner is having Diploma in Teaching Tamil, the petitioner should be treated as qualified. He would also rely upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19. 2007 made in W.A.No.486 of 2005, wherein, under similar circumstances, the Division Bench has taken note of the said clarification of the Government dated 6. 1964 and concluded that the Diploma in Teaching is equivalent to Pandits Training Course Certificate. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the decision of the Division Bench was in respect of an appointment made in the year 1988 and in the year 2003 there has been an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules and as per the amendment there is change in circumstances and therefore, the judgment of the Division Bench would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 6. While, admittedly, the petitioners qualification, as enumerated in the impugned order itself, shows that the petitioner has undergone Diploma in Teaching Tamil in Annamalai University, which is a one year course, the short question to be considered is as to whether the said Diploma in Teaching Tamil can be treated as equivalent to that of the Pandits Training Course Certificate, as it is required under the relevant Rules. 7. 7. It is true that before the amendment came into effect, the post was called as Tamil Pandit and the qualification required, before the amendment, as per Annexure V framed in accordance with Rule 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules was as follows: "5. Tamil Pandits (1) M.A.(Tamil) or B.A.(Tamil) or M.O.L.(Tamil) or B.O.L. (Tamil); and B.Ex., or B.T., or L.T., or Secondary Grade Training or (2) S.S.L.C. Completed; and Oriental Title of Madras, Madurai or Annamalai University; and Pandits Training Certificate or Secondary Grade Training Certificate. (Provided that persons who have passed Pulavar Panditham Examinations of the Madurai Tamil Sangam to be held up to April 1977 only, with Pandits Training or Secondary Grade Training are also eligible for appointment as Tamil Pandits in Schools). Provided further that persons appointed as Tamil Pandit in any School prior to the 1st April, 1976 shall be eligible for appointment in any other school even after 1st April, 1976." 8. After the amendment, the post is called Junior Grade Tamil Pandit instead of Tamil Pandit and the qualification required is as under: "5. Junior Grade (1) B.A.(Tamil) or B.Litt Tamil Pandits (Tamil) or B.O.L.(Tamil); and B.Ed., or Pandits Training or Secondary Grade Training or its equivalent (2) A pass in S.S.L.C. and Oriental Title of Madras, Madurai or Annamalai University; and Pandits Training Certificate or Secondary Grade Training Certificate. Provided that persons who have passed Pulavar Panditham Examinations of the Madurai Tamil Sangam held up to April 1977 with Pandits Training or Secondary Grade Training are also eligible for appointment as Tamil Pandits in Schools)." 9. A reading of the required qualifications for the Junior Grade Tamil Pandits before and after the amendment makes it clear that the requirement is a pass in S.S.L.C and Oriental Title of Madras, Madurai or Annamalai University and Pandits Training Certificate or Secondary Grade Training Certificate. Even after the amended Rules, the petitioner conforms to the two requirements of passing of S.S.L.C and Oriental Title of Annamalai University, apart from the additional qualification of M.A. in Tamil and instead of Pandits Training Course Certificate, he is having Diploma in Teaching Tamil. Therefore, before and after the amendment of the relevant Rules, there was no much difference to distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 10. Therefore, before and after the amendment of the relevant Rules, there was no much difference to distinguish the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 10. It is also relevant to point out, at this juncture, that the Government in Dir.Rc.No.2062/G2/64, dated 6. 1964, has clearly stated that Diploma in Teaching of the Annamalai University should be treated as equivalent to the Pandits Training Course Certificate awarded by the Commissioner, in the following words: "The Diploma in teaching of the Annamalai University be treated as equivalent to the Pandits Training Course Certificate awarded by the Commissioner for Government Examination, Madras for purposes of appointment to post of Pandits" 11. It is not the case of respondents 1 and 2 that the said directive issued by the Government in 1964 has been superseded by the subsequent amendment to the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, especially in respect of Annexure V-A framed as per Rule 15(6-A) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules. 12. In such view of the matter, there is absolutely no difficulty to conclude that the requirement of Pandits Training Course Certificate should be treated as satisfied if a person is having Diploma in Teaching of the Annamalai University. The clarification given by the Government on 6. 1964 is not only fairly reasonable, but also based on an appreciable reason that the Diploma in Teaching of Annamalai University is a course of one year duration, while the Pandits Training course certificate is of six months duration. The Government has only equated a better qualified candidate with that of the required qualification. 13. A Division Bench of this Court, presided over by P.D.Dinakaran,J. and R.Regupathi,J., by judgment dated 19. 2007 made in W.A.No.486 of 2005 has held that, as per the said clarification of the Government, the Diploma in Teaching should be equated to that of Pandits Training Course Certificate. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: "2. 13. A Division Bench of this Court, presided over by P.D.Dinakaran,J. and R.Regupathi,J., by judgment dated 19. 2007 made in W.A.No.486 of 2005 has held that, as per the said clarification of the Government, the Diploma in Teaching should be equated to that of Pandits Training Course Certificate. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: "2. Even otherwise, the qualifications required to the post of Tamil Pandit has been clearly specified in Annexure V of Rule 15(6) of the Rules and the appellant/writ petitioner fully satisfies the qualification of the Tamil Pandit as provided under Clause-I (5)(2) of Annexure V because on the date of his appointment as Tamil Pandit, he has completed S.S.L.C. and possessed the qualification of Vidwan 2(a) Sanskrit with Tamil from Madurai University in September, 1972, B.Litt. from Madurai Kamaraj University in September, 1980 and Diploma in Teaching Tamil from Annamalai University in January, 1982, in view of the proceedings of the Government in RC.No.2062/G2/64 dated 6. 1964, whereunder it is clarified that the diploma in teaching of the Annamalai University be treated as equivalent to the Pandits Training Course Certificate awarded by the Commissioner for Government Examination, Madras, for the purpose of appointment to post of Pandits. Therefore, the reason that weighed the first respondent, viz., that the appellant/writ petitioner does not even possess the qualification required to the post of Tamil Pandit, is not correct. 3. Once it is concluded that the appellant/writ petitioner fully satisfies the qualifications prescribed to the post of Tamil Pandit, which had already been approved by the educational authorities as early as in 1988, there is no justification to refuse the approval of promotion to the appellant/writ petitioner tot he post of Head master in the third respondent school on the erroneous ground that his appointment to the post of Tamil Pandit itself is not correct." It is, therefore, clear that the issue has been fairly settled by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent dated 9. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent dated 9. 2006 is set aside, with a direction to the first respondent to grant approval to the proposal of appointment of the petitioner as Tamil Pandit in the third respondent/ School with effect from the date of her appointment, with all other benefits, and such order shall be passed by the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 are closed.