Judgment 1. By consent, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. 2. These writ petitions have been filed for a mandamus mainly for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to write the Special Qualifying Examination for appointment to the post of Computer Instructors. 3. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petitions are set out here under:- 1. The rapid advancement and the updating of technology in the area of Computer Science made the Government to issue orders in the year 1999 appointing Computer Instructors to teach Computer Science in the Government / Corporation / Municipal Schools through a contract system. ELCOT Company which is a fully Government owned corporation was the principal contractor appointed by the Government to recruit Computer Instructors for teaching Computer Science in various schools in which Computer Education was introduced during the year 1999-2000. The contract between the Government and ELCOT came to an end in the year 2004. However, the Computer Instructors continued to work in the schools and were paid the consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- per month. 2. During the year 2008, after considering the genuine request and sympathy over the contract employees, the Government of Tamil Nadu has taken a decision to absorb all the contract employees through Teachers Recruitment Board by conducting a special qualifying examination to evaluate equality and uniformity in the recruitment process for selection to the post of Computer Instructors. 3. The petitioners are fully qualified for such examination. The petitioners were given application forms for special recruitment of Computer Instructors conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board and the same have been filled up by them. However, the petitioners have not received their hall tickets and hence, they submitted a representation requesting the authority to permit them to write the special test so as to enable them to participate in the selection for appointment to the post of Computer Instructors. But, however, there was no response on the side of the respondents. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions. 4. But, however, there was no response on the side of the respondents. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions. 4. The main contentions that have been put forth by the learned Senior Counsels and learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners broadly are that -- (i) some of the petitioners were appointed as Computer faculty on contract basis by the ELCOT Company and they are continuing in employment as on date, though in some cases there was break in service for a limited period which has been explained properly by them in their affidavits in support of the writ petitions. Some of them have been appointed through Parents Teachers Association and they were working on the date of notification issued by the Government for recruitment through special qualifying examination. While so, excluding them from writing the examination is totally unjust; (ii) when similarly placed persons have been permitted to appear for the said special qualifying examination conducted by Teachers Recruitment Board, elimination of the petitioners is discriminatory in nature and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (iii) the petitioners are in service for very number of years and their future would be at stake if they are not permitted to appear for the special qualifying examination; (iv) the refusal of hall tickets to the petitioners is against the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. 5. Common counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein the following facts have been set out:- 1. Taking into account the rapid advancement and updating of technology in the area of Computer Science, the Government issued orders in the year 1999 for appointment of Computer Instructors to teach Computer Science in the Government / Corporation / Municipal schools through a contract system. ELCOT Company was authorised to select persons and the selected persons were appointed as Computer Instructors. The period of contract was five years and the first phase has ended in August, 2004 and the second phase expired in August, 2005. However, the Computer Instructors continued to work in Government Higher Secondary Schools and they were paid the consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- per month. 2. The Government has taken a policy decision in the year 2006 to have one post of Computer Instructor in every Government Higher Secondary Schools and accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. However, the Computer Instructors continued to work in Government Higher Secondary Schools and they were paid the consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- per month. 2. The Government has taken a policy decision in the year 2006 to have one post of Computer Instructor in every Government Higher Secondary Schools and accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. 2006 created 1880 posts of Computer Instructors. By the said Government Order, it was directed that all the posts would be filled up temporarily on the basis of the existing rules. Following the said Government Order, the Government issued a letter No.188 dated 010. 2006 providing the method for filling up the aforesaid 1880 posts by conducting a special test for those who are already working as Computer Instructors. Thereupon, the Teachers Recruitment Board had issued notification calling for application from the Computer Instructors working in the Government Higher Secondary Schools to appear for the Special Test to be conducted by the said Board. 3. Questioning the above order, a batch of writ petitions have been filed before this Court and a learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petitions by an order dated 13.03.2007. Aggrieved over the same, the Government filed writ appeals and a Division Bench of this Court had set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. The petitioners are not eligible to write the special qualifying test for the post of Computer Instructors for three grounds viz., (i) Break in service. (ii) Not having the required qualification and (iii) appointment has been made after ELCOT contract. Thus, the counter affidavit reads that the case of the petitioners could not be considered as eligible candidates to appear for the special qualifying examination for the post of Computer Operators for the reasons stated above. Hence, according to the common counter affidavit, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned Senior Counsels as well as learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader assisted by Mrs. Dakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents have made their submissions basing on the pleadings found in the affidavits in support of the writ petitions as well as the common counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 7. Learned Senior Counsels as well as learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader assisted by Mrs. Dakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents have made their submissions basing on the pleadings found in the affidavits in support of the writ petitions as well as the common counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 7. The Government of Tamil Nadu, to update the technology in the area of Computer in Science, thought it fit to appoint Computer Instructors in the year 1999 in various Government / Corporation / Municipal Schools. ELCOT company which is a fully Government owned Corporation was the principal contractor appointed by the Government to recruit Computer Instructors for teaching computer education in various Government Schools. By Phase-I and II, the persons so selected through ELCOT Company have been appointed. The period of contract was for five years and Phase-I expired in August, 2004 and Phase-II expired in August, 2005. 8. By G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. 2006, 1880 posts of Computer Instructors have been created by a letter of the Government of Tamil Nadu dated 010. 2006 to the Director of School Education prescribing certain educational qualifications for attending the special qualifying examination. Thereafter, notification had been issued for the special qualifying examination for the year 2006-07 for the post of Computer Instructors by Teachers Recruitment Board. 9. Challenging the said notification, a batch of writ petitions have been filed before this Court in W.P.No.50371 of 2007, etc. By an order dated 13.03.2007, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed those writ petitions. Challenging the same, the Government had moved writ appeals in W.A.No.1152 of 2007, etc. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 22.08.2008, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge thereby affirming the notification issued for conducting special qualifying examination for the post of Computer Instructors by the Teachers Recruitment Board. Paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 35 and 37 of the said judgment are usefully extracted here under:- "23. There is no dispute regarding the said clause finding place in the contract. But, it is seen that in the welfare of the students, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 21. 2006, agreeing to bear the expenditure involved in providing computer education to the students, including the consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- per each Computer Instructor. There is no dispute regarding the said clause finding place in the contract. But, it is seen that in the welfare of the students, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 21. 2006, agreeing to bear the expenditure involved in providing computer education to the students, including the consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- per each Computer Instructor. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that all along the Computer Instructors are working for a meager salary of Rs.1,500/-, which was thereafter enhanced to Rs.2,000/- and in this manner, they have rendered their services to the school education of the students for all these years. From the particulars furnished by the learned Additional Advocate General, it is seen that for the year 1999 and 2000, all the required 2394 computer instructors were appointed by ELCOT, which also include the persons with B.Ed. (Computer Science) qualification and registered in Employment Exchange and during the years 2001 to 2005, some of the Computer Instructors left their jobs, but, out of the 2394 candidates appointed in two phases in the years 1999 and 2000, a considerable number of 772 Computer Instructors are still working continuously till date, rendering their services to the School Education and by their long service in the same field of imparting computer education to the pupil, by now, they have gained necessary and considerable experience. 24. It is apt to state here that by now, it is a settled law that the want of educational qualification, if any, can be compensated by long experience in the same field and long experience of a candidate in a particular field/post is always considered as a ground for relaxing the required qualifications. For this, we draw inspiration from a catena of judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, like B.N.SAXENA vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [ (1990) 4 SCC 205 ] and GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY vs. RATHOD LABHU BECHAR [ (2001) 3 SCC 574 ]. 25. For this, we draw inspiration from a catena of judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, like B.N.SAXENA vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [ (1990) 4 SCC 205 ] and GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY vs. RATHOD LABHU BECHAR [ (2001) 3 SCC 574 ]. 25. Coming to the other limb of the argument that the Computer Instructors were appointed only by private contractors and hence, they cannot be absorbed into Government sanctioned posts, it is to be stated that though they were appointed through agencies of ELCOT, a Government organisation, they were not under the control of the said agencies and for all practical purposes, they were under the direct control and supervision of the Government and only for this reason, even after the contract period is over, the Government, for the welfare of the students, has accepted to bear the expenditure involved in providing computer education to the students, including the consolidated salary of the instructors. Further more, it has been submitted before us that the Government has imparted the Child Psychology Training to such Computer Instructors and the Director of School Education has also conducted an examination and all those instructors who failed in the said examination were replaced. For all these reasons, we are not able to accept this argument advanced on the part of the B.Ed. graduates. 28. At the cost of repetition, we must held that it is not a process of absorption or regularization as has been termed and commented on the part of the B.Ed. graduates but it is only a special recruitment process intended for the benefit of such employees, who have rendered their valuable services to the field of education, continuously all these years and the Government has restricted this benefit only to those candidates who are in service after termination of the contract, receiving direct payment from the Government. These employees are working all these years and have spent their best part of life in imparting education to the students, probably with a hope that their posts would be regularized or they would be absorbed in future, as in the earlier occasions, about 1000 vocational teachers were absorbed into Government service in regular time scale of pay. But, in spite of their specific request for absorption, the Government has prescribed a special test for them and the candidates who could succeed in the selection, could only be appointed. But, in spite of their specific request for absorption, the Government has prescribed a special test for them and the candidates who could succeed in the selection, could only be appointed. Thus, only a limited benefit has been conferred upon such contract instructors. The State being the Welfare State cannot be find fault with in taking such a decision, having factual regard to the welfare of the students and the long serving contractor instructors. At this juncture, it is also to be pointed out that we are apprised of the fact that as of now, many of the contract Computer Instructors have acquired the qualification of B.Ed. and that they are not less qualified as has been contended on the part of the B.Ed. graduates. 29. At this juncture, it has been argued on the part of the B.Ed. graduates that some of the Computer Instructors were appointed only recently and therefore, they should not be permitted to take the special examination. When, the Government, in its wisdom, has restricted this benefit only to those candidates who are in service after termination of the contract, receiving direct payment from the Government, we see no reason to cause our further interference into the matter, since the Government is completely within its power to fix the norms for such selection and the same cannot be interfered with unless malafides are proved, which is not the case here. 35. From the above discussions, the following conclusions would emerge: 1. The subject computer science is a Vocational Component and therefore, there is every justification on the part of the Government in not insisting the B.Ed. qualification. 2. The proposed action of the Government is only a special drive competitive examination and it is not a matter of pure absorption or regularization, in its true sense, as has been commented and apprehended on the part of the B.Ed. graduates and therefore, it is not the appointment dehors the recruitment rules and the action of the State Government is permissible under the proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution. 3. The impugned action of the Government has not offended Article 16(1) of the Constitution as has been contended on the part of the B.Ed. graduates.35. From the above discussions, the following conclusions would emerge: 4. 3. The impugned action of the Government has not offended Article 16(1) of the Constitution as has been contended on the part of the B.Ed. graduates.35. From the above discussions, the following conclusions would emerge: 4. The subject computer science is a Vocational Component and therefore, there is every justification on the part of the Government in not insisting the B.Ed. qualification. 5. The proposed action of the Government is only a special drive competitive examination and it is not a matter of pure absorption or regularization, in its true sense, as has been commented and apprehended on the part of the B.Ed. graduates and therefore, it is not the appointment dehors the recruitment rules and the action of the State Government is permissible under the proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution. 6. The impugned action of the Government has not offended Article 16(1) of the Constitution as has been contended on the part of the B.Ed. graduates. 37. The above said proposal of the Government appears to be genuine and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we direct the Governmental authorities that the entire process of selection on the basis of special drive examination shall be conducted strictly, as a one time measure, and complete the same within six months from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment and the left over vacancies and the other vacancies if any arose in the meantime shall be filled up within three months thereafter, as has been assured before us, making open the recruitment to all eligible B.Ed. and M.Ed. Candidates on employment seniority basis, without any preference to the already employed Computer Instructors in Government Higher Secondary Schools." Thus, the Division Bench of this Court negativing the contentions raised by the Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed., Graduate Teachers Welfare Society, opposing the action of the Government, has held that the action of the Government is perfectly valid and legal. 10. Now the question that has been posed before this Court is whether the petitioners are eligible to take part in the special qualifying examination. The case of the petitioners is that they are eligible, but, however, they have not been considered and hence, they have to approach this Court. 10. Now the question that has been posed before this Court is whether the petitioners are eligible to take part in the special qualifying examination. The case of the petitioners is that they are eligible, but, however, they have not been considered and hence, they have to approach this Court. On the other hand, it is contended on the side of the respondents that since some of the petitioners do not satisfy the required qualification and in some cases there was break in service and in some cases, appointment was made through the Parents Teachers Association after the ELCOT contract was over, their cases cannot be considered and they cannot be permitted to write the special qualifying examination and since through an interim order they have written the examination, they cannot be appointed as Computer Instructors. 11. Before dealing with the individual cases, it would be more appropriate to deal with the common contentions raised in these writ petitions. 12. On behalf of the respondents, it is stated that broadly on three counts the case of the petitioners could not be considered viz., in some cases, there was break in service and in some cases, the petitioners do not possess the required qualification and in some cases, the appointment had not been made by ELCOT contract but, has been made after the ELCOT contract was over. Break in service: 13. Regarding break in service, the main contention raised by the learned Senior Counsels as well as learned counsels appearing for the petitioners is that the petitioners who are fit in these category have been appointed as Computer Instructors on contract basis by ELCOT company in the Government High Schools, etc., and from the said date they are continuously working in the said capacity. The eligibility conditions prescribed for attending the special qualifying examination for Computer Instructors are-- (i) candidates should have been appointed by the ELCOT company in a Government School; and (ii) candidates should have been presently working in the Government School; Thus, on date of notification, since they are in employment, they should have been considered for applying the special qualifying examination for Computer Instructors and they should have been permitted to write the examination and selected thereon. 11. 11. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Honble Minister for Education had announced in the Assembly on 04.08.2006 that the Government has decided to employ Computer Instructors who are working in various schools on consolidated pay, on regular basis if they possess the required qualifications. The statement made by the Honble Minister for Education and the decision taken thereon were communicated by the Secretary to Government to the Director of School Education in his proceedings dated 010. 2006 prescribing the educational qualifications. In the said communication, it has been stated that the Computer Instructors who are presently employed in the Government schools and who possess the required educational qualification mentioned thereon are eligible to appear for the special examination to be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board. Thereafter, notification has been issued calling for applications for the special qualifying examination. Thus, according to the petitioners, three conditions are essential, viz., (i) they should have been appointed on contract basis by ELCOT or later through Parents Teachers Association; (ii) they should possess the required educational qualification; and (iii) now they should be in employment. 12. However, it is contended on the side of the respondents, by the learned Special Government Pleader as well as learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that those Computer Instructors who were appointed by ELCOT and who were in service on the date when the Government took over the payment of their salary in Government / Corporation / Municipal Schools immediately after the expiry of the period alone will be eligible to appear for the special examination to be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board. Some of the petitioners who have break in service are not eligible candidates as per the Government letter No.188 dated 010. 2006, which was issued by the Secretary to Government, School Education. Basing on that letter, the Teachers Recruitment Board announced the special qualifying examination for the post of Computer Instructors. Thus, it has been contended that when there was break in service even though they were appointed by ELCOT on contract basis, they are not eligible to participate in the written examination. Further, those persons who have not been appointed by ELCOT and who have been appointed through Parents Teachers Association after the contract period of ELCOT was over, are ineligible. 13. Further, those persons who have not been appointed by ELCOT and who have been appointed through Parents Teachers Association after the contract period of ELCOT was over, are ineligible. 13. Before adverting to whether the candidates appointed through Parents Teachers Association are eligible to take part in the said special qualifying examination for the post of Computer Instructors or not, the question whether break in service in respect of the candidates who have been appointed through ELCOT could be considered for special qualifying examination, has to be answered first. 14. It would be useful to extract G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. 2006 creating 1880 posts of Computer Instructors and the same is extracted here under:- TAMIL 1. B.E. Degree in Computer Science / ECE / EEE from a recognised University. 2. B.Sc. Computer Science. 3. M.C.A. 4. B.C.A. 5. Any degree from a recognised University in the State with one year P.G. Diploma course in Computer Application offered by a recognised University. 17. G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. 2006, Government letter No.188 dated 010. 2006 and the notification and rules for the said special qualifying examination for the year 2006-07 of Teachers Recruitment Board would make it clear that the persons who satisfy the following conditions are eligible to take part in the examination. They are:- (i) should have been appointed by ELCOT (ii) should possess the required educational qualification (iii) now should be in employment. Nowhere it speaks about the continuous employment without break in service. The intention of the Government seems to be, which could be gathered from the statement made by the Honble Minister for Education in the Assembly dated 04.08.2006, that the Computer Instructors who have been appointed and who are working on consolidated pay till date have to be accommodated. Thus, the intention of the Government seems to be the in service candidates receiving contract payment from the Government are eligible to be absorbed into Government sanctioned posts. Thus, the intention of the Government seems to be the in service candidates receiving contract payment from the Government are eligible to be absorbed into Government sanctioned posts. In fact, in their counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.50371 of 2007 batch, the respondents have categorically stated that this recruitment is a special recruitment drive to facilitate absorption of all the serving computer instructors as a matter of policy decision of the Government by a regular recruitment process through Teacher Recruitment Board which is a body equivalent to that of the Public Service Commission of the State and the relevant passage is usefully extracted here under:- "As mentioned earlier, this recruitment is a special recruitment drive to facilitate absorption of all the serving computer instructors as a matter of policy decision of the Government by a regular recruitment process through Teacher Recruitment Board which is a body equivalent to that of the Public Service Commission of the State. As this is not a regular recruitment open to all rather restricted to distinct class of persons, the application of rule of reservation is not mandatory. Hence and for the first time the posts of 1880 Computer Instructors were sanctioned for the purpose of absorption of the instructors who were in continuous service till now. The element of direct recruitment is totally lacking in this case and therefore violation of general rule cannot be attributed. Notwithstanding the above and interestingly the Teachers Recruitment Board in this case has received 1724 applications out of which 157 belongs to Scheduled Caste, 433 belongs to Most Backward Classes, 1056 belongs to Backward Classes, 71 belongs to Open Competition and 7 applications without specification of communal particulars. In all probabilities the rule of reservation is otherwise said to have been satisfied, without prejudice to the respondents earlier contention." Nowhere in the Government Order or either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that only those persons who are in continuous employment without break in service would be considered for absorption through special qualifying examination. However, I am hasten to add that it does not automatically mean that if a person so appointed through ELCOT and who was not working for a considerable period viz., there was break in service for a lengthy period, which has not been explained properly, may not be entitled for absorption through special qualifying examination. Otherwise, the intention of the Government to absorb them would be defeated. Thus, while rejecting the contention raised on the side of the respondents that a mere break in service alone is sufficient to dislodge the persons from competing through special qualifying examination for the post of Computer Instructors, I am of the considered view that there is some force in the contentions raised by the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate that a considerable break in service without any reason would dislodge the candidates from competing with others. 18. As regards the appointment made by Parents Teachers Association is concerned, since in W.P.No.24270 of 2008 it is alleged that the writ petitioner was employed through the Parents Teachers Association after expiry of the contract period with ELCOT and hence, he is not entitled to get the benefit of the scheme announced by the Government, the same has been separately dealt with while dealing with the said writ petition and the question posed whether the Parents Teachers Association appointees are to be considered for Special Qualifying Examination, would be dealt with in the other batch. 19. Now, the individual cases have to be taken to decide whether the reason assigned thereon for break in service is justifiable and reasonable. W.P.No.24598 of 2008 11. It is the case of the petitioner that she was initially appointed as Computer Faculty in Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Paradarami on contract basis through ELCOT Company. After completion of five years and seven months of service, she applied for maternity leave from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006. After expiry of her leave period, she appeared before the fourth respondent in this writ petition with all medical reports and fitness certificate and she was permitted to rejoin duty on 01.08.2006 and now she is continuously working as Computer Instructor. 12. The rejection, according to the respondents, is since there was break in service from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006, she is ineligible for the post of Computer Instructor as per the notification of the Teachers Recruitment Board. 12. The rejection, according to the respondents, is since there was break in service from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006, she is ineligible for the post of Computer Instructor as per the notification of the Teachers Recruitment Board. The service certificate given by the Headmaster of GBHSS, Paradarami, Vellore District, discloses that from 112. 2001 to 19.04.2002, the petitioner has taken maternity leave. From 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006, she has taken medical leave without salary. The Headmaster of the said school has given a service certificate stating that she is working as a Computer Instructor in the said school from 09.08.1999 to 26.09.2008 and her work and conduct are found to be good. When the petitioner has taken leave on Medical Certificate and had been permitted to rejoin duty on 01.08.2006 and when she is continuously working as Computer Instructor on the date of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. 2006 and the Government letter No.188 dated 010. 2006 and also the notification and rules for the said special qualifying examination for the year 2006-07 of Teachers Recruitment Board, the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that she has taken leave from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006. It cannot be said that the petitioner after coming to know of the Government order and letter referred to above had rejoined the duty. Hence, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner in this writ petition ought to have been considered by the respondents in proper perspective and they should have allowed the petitioner to write the examination and ought to have absorbed her into the sanctioned post. In fact, by way of interim order, she has written the examination and the mark list of the petitioner along with others which have been produced by the learned Special Government Pleader, would show that the petitioner had got through the examination by getting required marks. Hence, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. W.P.No.24270 of 2008 11. The petitioner herein was appointed as Computer Instructor on contract basis through ELCOT at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Chidambaram for a period of one year from 13.08.1999 to 09.06.2000; thereafter, at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhuvanagiri from 05.07.2000 to 012. 2005 and from 01.06.2006, he is working at Government Higher Secondary School, C.Mudlur. W.P.No.24270 of 2008 11. The petitioner herein was appointed as Computer Instructor on contract basis through ELCOT at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Chidambaram for a period of one year from 13.08.1999 to 09.06.2000; thereafter, at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Bhuvanagiri from 05.07.2000 to 012. 2005 and from 01.06.2006, he is working at Government Higher Secondary School, C.Mudlur. Though the contract between the Government and ELCOT came to an end by February, 2005, the petitioner has averred that in the interest of students, he is allowed to continue to work beyond the contract period. 12. The reasons for rejection as far as the case of this petitioner according to the respondents, are that there was break in service from 012. 2005 to 31.05.2006 for six months and the petitioner was again appointed in G.H.S.S. C.Mudlur on 01.06.2006 through Parents Teachers Association after the contract period. Thus, the case of this petitioner could not be considered. 13. As stated already, the petitioner through ELCOT had been appointed as Computer Instructor on contract basis from 13.08.1999 to 012. 2005 and thereafter, there was break in service from 012. 2005 to 31.05.2006 for six months and again he was appointed on 01.06.2006 through Parents Teachers Association. Since on the crucial time viz., on the date of the decision taken by the Government by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. 2006 and Government Letter No.188 dated 010. 2006 and the notification of the Teachers Recruitment Board, the petitioner was in employment, he is entitled to be considered. Though Phase II contract period ended in August, 2005, the petitioner continued till 012. 2005 and thereafter, from 01.06.2006 through Parents Teachers Association had been continuously in employment. In fact, the notification dated 01.07.2006 of Teachers Recruitment Board enumerates that the persons selected through ELCOT and appointed on consolidated pay in the Government Schools and continued till the contract period was over are eligible to apply. Clause (1) of the said Notification and Rules is extracted here under:- 14. Further, the break in service is not due to the fault of the petitioner. 15. Further, the petitioner even after the contract period in ELCOT was over, was appointed through Parents Teachers Association and in employment on the date of said Government Orders. Hence, his case ought to have been considered by the respondents. 16. Further, the break in service is not due to the fault of the petitioner. 15. Further, the petitioner even after the contract period in ELCOT was over, was appointed through Parents Teachers Association and in employment on the date of said Government Orders. Hence, his case ought to have been considered by the respondents. 16. Considering the consolidated position of the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner should have been considered in proper perspective and the failure to do so is totally unjust. W.P.No24600 of 2008 11. The rejection in respect of the first petitioner is that there was break in service from 01.02.2002 to 04.04.2002, 011. 2003 to 31.05.2004, 01.04.2005 to 010. 2006 and 110. 2007 to 310. 2007. Thus, there was totally 2 years 3 months and 15 days break in service. It has not been explained why there was break in service. Further, on the date when the decision was taken by the Government by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. 2006 and Government Letter No.188 dated 010. 2006 and the notification of the Teachers Recruitment Board, the petitioner was not in employment at all. Hence, I am of the considered view that in respect of the first petitioner is concerned, the break in service has not been explained and since she was not in employment on the said dates, she is not eligible to apply for the post of Computer Instructor. 12. Regarding the second petitioner, there was break in service was from 16.03.2005 to 01.06.2005, 21.06.2005 to 10.08.2005 and 06.09.2005 to 18.06.2006 totalling to 1 year, 1 month and 17 days. Though no reason has been assigned in the writ petition, on the date of the decision taken by the Government by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. 2006 and Government Letter No.188 dated 010. 2006 and the notification of the Teachers Recruitment Board, the petitioner was in employment. Hence, the case of the second petitioner could be considered for absorption. 13. As far as the third petitioner is concerned, there was break in service from 012. 2004 to 12.06.2005, 18.02.2007 to 15.03.2007, 21.03.2007 to 18.04.2007 and 111. 2007 to 15.06.2008 totalling 1 year and 4 months. The petitioner on the date of the decision taken by the Government by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. 2006 and Government Letter No.188 dated 010. As far as the third petitioner is concerned, there was break in service from 012. 2004 to 12.06.2005, 18.02.2007 to 15.03.2007, 21.03.2007 to 18.04.2007 and 111. 2007 to 15.06.2008 totalling 1 year and 4 months. The petitioner on the date of the decision taken by the Government by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 010. 2006 and Government Letter No.188 dated 010. 2006 and the notification of the Teachers Recruitment Board was not in employment and it could be inferred that the petitioner had approached this Court only after she came to know of the above said notification. Hence, the case of the third petitioner could not be considered. Thus, the case of second petitioner alone has to be considered and the case of the other petitioners viz., 1 and 3 needs to be rejected. 17. Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances, W.P.No.24598 of 2008 and W.P.No.24270 of 2008 stand allowed. W.P.No.24600 of 2008 stands allowed in respect of the second petitioner alone and it stands dismissed as against petitioners 1 and 3. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.