Judgment : H.L. GOKHALE, C.J. The first three of these matters are appeals filed by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board and other officers concerned with the School Education in the State of Tamil Nadu, whereas other matters are appeals and petitions filed by some of the teachers, who were in charge of computer education. The Teachers Recruitment Board and the officers of the Government concerned with Education are respondents in the appeals and the writ petitions filed by the Computer Instructors, whereas some of the Computer Instructors are the respondents in the three appeals filed by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board. 2. All these matters relate to the appointment of Computer Instructors in the Government Aided schools and the question of their absorption after participating in the requisite examination for the same. 3. Mr.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) has appeared for the Teachers’ Recruitment Board and the officers concerning education, whereas Mr.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Advocate, Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.T.Sellapandian, Mr.K.Selvaraj, Mr.K.M.Ramesh and Mr.R.Subramanian have appeared for the Computer Instructors. 4. The short facts leading to the present group of matters are as follows:- The Government of Tamil Nadu permitted the Educational Institution to engage Computer Instructors on a consolidated remuneration of about Rs.2,000/- (later revised to 2,600/-) per month. For engaging these Instructors, the Government of Tamil Nadu entered into a contract with Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT for short) to engage such suitable persons. ELCOT made available such Computer Instructors to the State. The Computer Instructors were posted in various educational institutions for a period of five years from 1999 to 2004 and the period was subsequently extended by one more year upto August 2005. The employment was purely on a contract basis. 5. It so happened that although the period of contract and the extended period were over, some of the Computer Instructors were still retained in the institutions and their number was around 772. The Computer Instructors represented to the Government for their absorption. The Government considered the representation and issued G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 04th October 2006 creating some 1880 posts of Computer Instructors for the educational institutions. The Government also decided to conduct a Special Qualifying Examination for absorbing these Instructors as a one time measure. This was because, most of the Instructors were not having the B.Ed.Degree, which is necessary in an educational institution. The Government also decided to conduct a Special Qualifying Examination for absorbing these Instructors as a one time measure. This was because, most of the Instructors were not having the B.Ed.Degree, which is necessary in an educational institution. The Instructors were however having the other qualifications, such as, a Degree in Computer Engineering (B.E.) or a Degree in Bachelor of Computer Science (B.Sc.) or a Degree in Master of Computer Applications (M.C.A). Additionally, they were also having the postgraduate diploma obtained after one year’s course. 6. This decision of the State Government was challenged by the Computer B.Ed. Graduates Association by filing Writ Petition No.50371 of 2007 etc. as a batch. Their main contention was that Computer Instructors were appointed only on a contract basis and they were not having the B.Ed. Degree, which is necessary for a teacher. That group of writ petitions was allowed by a learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 13.3.2007. The State Government challenged that judgment and order by filing W.A.Nos.1152 of 2007 and other appeals. The Division Bench, which heard the matter, found that the Government decision to consider the in-service candidates by way of Special Qualifying Examination was a one time measure to help those Computer Instructors, who had been continued even after the expiry of the original contract. The Division Bench, therefore, upheld the decision of the State Government to consider the case of 772 Computer Instructors, who were not holding the B.Ed. qualification. They were permitted to sit for the Special Qualifying Examination by another Division Bench by a judgment and order dated 22.8.2008. 7. The Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed. Government Teachers’ Welfare Society challenged the order of the Division Bench by filing Civil Appeal No.4187 of 2009 to the Apex Court. During the pendency of that appeal, the examination proposed by the State Government had already been held. The Apex Court upheld the judgment and order of the Division Bench and permitted the exercises undertaken by the State Government only as one time concession and exception. The Court held that those candidates, who had obtained more than 50% qualifying marks shall be treated as qualified and recruited as Computer Instructors and they shall be absorbed and their services will be regularized in accordance with law. The remaining candidates, who had secured less than 50% marks but above 35% will be held to be unsuccessful. The Court held that those candidates, who had obtained more than 50% qualifying marks shall be treated as qualified and recruited as Computer Instructors and they shall be absorbed and their services will be regularized in accordance with law. The remaining candidates, who had secured less than 50% marks but above 35% will be held to be unsuccessful. However, they will be allowed to appear in the next recruitment test to be held for that purpose. That examination is now proposed to be held on 24th January 2010. 8. Some of these candidates, who had not been permitted to appear for this examination for various reasons, filed writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.24270, 24598 and 24600 of 2008. They prayed that they may be permitted to write the Special Qualifying Examination, which was then to be conducted on 12.10.2008 and which is now postponed and which is to be held on 24th January 2010. The learned Single Judge, who heard those matters, allowed the petitions in some cases. Thus W.P.No.24598 of 2008 filed by one V.Kalaivani was allowed in spite of the fact that she was not available for work during 01st March 2005 to 31st July 2006. That is a period of year and five months, which she claimed to have not attended because of maternity. Similarly, W.P.No.24270 of 2008 filed by one M.Somasundaram was allowed though he had a break in service from 03.12.2005 to 31.5.2006, i.e. for about six months. W.P.No.24600 of 2008 was filed by three candidates. The petition was not allowed in the case of the first of the three petitioners, i.e. one Renuka, who was not available for work for a period of about 2 years and 3 months. But the same was allowed in the case of the second and third petitioner, i.e. one S.Mohan Raja and N.Kothai, who were not available for a period of one year and one month and seventeen days, and one year and four months respectively. 9. The State Government is aggrieved by the common judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge in these three matters, dated 20th April 2009 to the extent the learned Judge allowed these candidates to take the examination. 10. As against these three appeals filed by the State Government, the other petitions and appeals are by candidates who were not being allowed by the State Government to appear for the proposed examination. 11. 10. As against these three appeals filed by the State Government, the other petitions and appeals are by candidates who were not being allowed by the State Government to appear for the proposed examination. 11. Mr.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Teachers’ Recruitment Board and the Government Officers, submitted that under the relevant G.O.Ms.No.187 issued by the State Government dated 04.10.2006, the candidates had to be engaged through ELCOT and they had to be in service on the date on which the G.O. was issued. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Government Order, when translated from Tamil, read as follows:- "1.Persons eligible to apply : Persons who have been engaged as Computer Instructors on a contract basis by the contractors selected through ELCOT for working in Government/ Municipality/ Corporation/Adidravidar Welfare/ Kallar Reformation Higher Secondary Schools and who have worked as such till the contract period is over by receiving a remuneration of Rs.2000/- from the Government and are continuing to work as such alone shall apply. 2. Educational Qualifications: The aforesaid eligible persons should possess any one of the following Degrees:- 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. " 12. Mr.Sankaran, therefore, submitted that it was necessary that the candidates concerned ought to have been appointed through ELCOT. They ought to have the qualifications, which are mentioned in paragraph 2 of that Government Order and thirdly they must be in continuous service upto the date of the Government Order. He has submitted to us the list of all the candidates concerned in these appeals and the writ petitions to point out as to how they were not being entertained either for the reason that they were not appointed by ELCOT or they were not having the necessary qualifications or that they are not in continuous service and had the break for quite a large period. These persons are some 33 persons. He however, considered the case in favour of three of the candidates, i.e. one K.Suresh and G.S.Mubarak Ali, who had filed W.P.No.24603 of 2008 along with other candidates. They are fulfilling all the requirements. One K.Sridevi, who has filed W.P.No.27261 of 2008 also fulfills the test. These persons are some 33 persons. He however, considered the case in favour of three of the candidates, i.e. one K.Suresh and G.S.Mubarak Ali, who had filed W.P.No.24603 of 2008 along with other candidates. They are fulfilling all the requirements. One K.Sridevi, who has filed W.P.No.27261 of 2008 also fulfills the test. These candidates were working as Computer Instructors as on the date of the G.O. They had the qualifications and they had been employed through ELCOT and had worked continuously. They had however left the service a little thereafter. He stated that they were eligible to take the examination and if they pass it, were eligible for employment. As far as the remaining 30 persons are concerned, he has pointed out that they were either not having the necessary qualifications or were not appointed by ELCOT or were not in continuous service all throughout. The original list of the 33 candidates submitted by Mr.Sankaran giving reasons for their ineligibility is as follows:- 13. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench which was carried to the Supreme Court and the approach of one time measure was accepted in the judgment. He emphasized that the approach of the Government was to accommodate these persons who were continuously in service for a long time for over six years or so as a one time measure and this approach had been accepted by the Division Bench. We quote paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment of the Division Bench for ready reference, which read as follows :- TABLE ‘Para 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. 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 service 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. Para 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.” 14. Mr.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Advocate, Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.T.Sellapandian, Mr.K.Selvaraj, Mr.K.M.Ramesh and Mr.R.Subramanian, who have appeared for the Computer Instructors, submitted that what was required was only to have the educational qualifications, which the candidates were having and that they should be in the service of the educational institution on the date of the G.O. It was submitted that the G.O. did not require that the person should be continuously in service during that period. We have quoted the relevant provision of the G.O. above and the interpretation thereon placed by the Division Bench in the earlier judgment. We have quoted the relevant provision of the G.O. above and the interpretation thereon placed by the Division Bench in the earlier judgment. The learned counsel for the candidates submitted that the intention of the Government was to accommodate these candidates who had put in long years of service and some break need not be read against them. In this connection, we must note that from the tabular statement given by the Recruitment Board, it is seen that the candidates are rejected only where there are large breaks in their service and not breaks of a few days here and there. 15. We must note herein that the law regarding the employment in the State service has been laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka -vs- Uma Devi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The Apex Court has in terms held that under the scheme of our Constitution, the employment in the State service has to be after a uniform process of recruitment available to all the persons interested. Normally, it will be through some competitive examination and or through Employment Exchange. Any other method of backdoor entry would be unfair to large number of young persons who are waiting for their employment. In paragraph 53 of its judgment, the Apex Court however noted that there are cases where candidates have been employed for number of years without following proper procedure of selection. The Court, therefore, granted liberty to the Government and the public authorities to undertake a one time exercise wherein an opportunity would be given to such candidates to prove their merit. The Court mentioned that such exercise should be available to those candidates, who had put in about 10 years of service and who had been employed by a process otherwise than the normal entry method. In the present case, the State Government resorted to a somewhat similar one time exercise for candidates who had put in a little over six years of service. Thus the State Government had to some extent departed in favour of these candidates though they had put in just over six years of service and not 10 years, as referred in paragraph 53 of the above referred judgment. Thus the State Government had to some extent departed in favour of these candidates though they had put in just over six years of service and not 10 years, as referred in paragraph 53 of the above referred judgment. This approach of the State Government was left undisturbed by the Division Bench of this Court and subsequently by the Apex Court. 16. The observations of the Division Bench as occurring in paragraphs 28 and 29 of its judgment, which were left undisturbed by the Apex Court, have been quoted hereinabove. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench and also by the State Government. In the instant cases, nearly some 1880 posts have been created and a very large number of candidates are allowed to take this examination for regularization. It is only some 33 (and now 30) candidates, who are being objected for participation, basically on the ground that they had not been employed through ELCOT or they did not have the required qualifications or they were not in service on the date of the Government Order. 17. Over and above this, the Government is insisting that by and large the candidates concerned must be in continuous service during this period upto the date of the notification. Those candidates who have not been available for service for months together are excluded from this opportunity to give this examination. As stated above, this opportunity itself is an exception to the general rule of employment through a uniform procedure, which is in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The State Government is giving this opportunity to the candidates, who had put in just over six years or so, as against the yardstick of 10 years referred to in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Uma Devis case (supra). In the circumstances, if the State insists that the candidates ought to have worked by and large continuously throughout this entire period, the State cannot be faulted. The opportunity cannot be given to candidates who were not available continuously for the service. Basically, the representation of the candidates to the Government had been that they had put in long years of service and, therefore, the Government came out with this one time exercise. The opportunity cannot be given to candidates who were not available continuously for the service. Basically, the representation of the candidates to the Government had been that they had put in long years of service and, therefore, the Government came out with this one time exercise. If that was the representation of the Computer Instructors, obviously, it was expected of them that they were available for service during the entire period. 18. For the reasonsstated above, we accept the submissions on behalf of the Teachers’ Recruitment Board. The order of the learned Single Judge, to the extent it allows the candidates, found non-eligible by the Board, to appear for this examination, cannot be sustained. 19. When the arguments were almost complete, Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that some five persons, who were perhaps not eligible for not having been in long continuous service, were allowed to give this examination. They are, 1. Lakshmi 2. P.V.Kumar 3. Sathyanarayanan 4. Dhanalakshmi and 5. Usharani It was submitted that if those persons are given the concession, similar concession should be given to the candidates, who are being represented by the respondents. Mr.Sankaran, firstly objected to the furnishing of this information at late stage, but in any case, he stated that he will look into the matter and if any correctional steps are possible to be taken, the same will be taken. We may, however, add that assuming that any such five persons are allowed to give the examination or appointed contrary to the stand taken by the Government, such wrong action cannot be the basis to seek a direction that similar concession should be given to other persons. One wrong order does not justify seeking another wrong order as held by the Apex Court in Chandigarh Administration -vs- Jagjit Singh reported in AIR 1995 SC 705 . 20. Although the order is being passed, as recorded earlier, the appellant Teachers Recruitment Board will permit the three candidates, viz., K.Suresh, K.Sridevi and G.S.Mubarak Ali to give the concerned examination and if they pass or have passed the same, the Board will offer them the consequent employment. 21. In the result, the three appeals filed by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board are, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent it is against the Board is set aside. 21. In the result, the three appeals filed by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board are, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent it is against the Board is set aside. The other two appeals and the writ petitions filed by the candidates will consequently stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.