Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent, namely the Director of School Education, to permit him to attend the interview in the matter of selection for appointment to the post of Art Master in Secondary and Training Schools for the year 2009-2010 to be conducted by the third respondent, Teachers Recruitment Board. 3. Notice was given to the Government Advocate to get instructions. Accordingly, the learned Government Advocate has also got instructions and submitted to his Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that by G.O.Ms.No.190, Tourism and Culture Department, dated 30.10.2009, the State Government had stated that the Diploma in Fine Arts awarded by the Arts and Crafts College at Kumbakonam was recognized by the State Government by G.O.Ms.No.1326, Education Department, dated 20.9.1989, and likewise, the Bachelor of Fine Arts awarded by the Madras and Bharathidasan Universities can also be accepted for public employment and it has been accepted as an equivalent, as recommended by the Equivalence Committee. Therefore, the petitioner states that since he is having a Degree, he is entitled for consideration to the post of Art Master. 5. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that one Kavin Kalai Pattatharigal Nala Sangam, represented by its President filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.27515 of 2009 seeking for a writ to forbear the respondents from appointing Certificate Holders of three months course in Technical Teacher Certificate to the post of Art Teachers in Schools, except Degree holders in Fine Arts like members of the petitioner/association. That writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 18.2.2010. This Court, after extracting the Special Rules under the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service Rules in Annexure II to Rule 9, found that the post of Art Master can be filled up with several educational qualifications. In paragraph (5), this Court observed as follows: "5. The relief sought by the petitioner Association is two fold. The first portion of the relief is to restrain the official respondents from appointing Certificate Holders as Art Masters. As far as this relief is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, as per the statutory rule, when Certificate Holders are eligible for appointment, their claim cannot be negatived, at the instance of the petitioner. The first portion of the relief is to restrain the official respondents from appointing Certificate Holders as Art Masters. As far as this relief is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader, as per the statutory rule, when Certificate Holders are eligible for appointment, their claim cannot be negatived, at the instance of the petitioner. Consequently, the first portion of the relief sought cannot be granted. The second portion of the relief sought is to give preference to Degree Holders in the matter of appointment to the post of Art Masters. As far as this relief is concerned, even this cannot be granted for the reason that when appointment to a post is governed by the statutory rule, vacancies in the said post can be filled up only as per the statutory rule and not otherwise. There is no whisper in the statutory rule with regard to any preference to be given to the Degree Holders. Consequently, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted." 6. Though the present writ petition is technically not the same, but yet in the earlier writ petition this Court emphasized that any appointment can be made only in terms of the Rules and not dehors the Rules and so far as the Certificate Holders are also eligible to apply for the post, no such direction can be granted. 7. In response to the notice in the present writ petition, the Director of School Education, by his communication dated 4.3.2010, had stated that the appointments are to be made only by the Service Rules as per which the Technical Teacher Certificate is a mandatory requirement for appointment to the post of Art Master. The said training course involves teaching the trainees, including in the subjects like Educational Psychology. 8. Along with the written instruction, the counter affidavit filed by the Director of School Education dated 18.2.2010 in the earlier writ petition was enclosed. In that counter affidavit, the second respondent has made the following averments: "As regards the averments in para 2, it is submitted that for the post of Art Teachers in Schools, T.T.C. of 3 Months Course conducted by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of School Education, Chennai has been requisite qualification from 1985, as per Annexure II referred to in rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service Special Rules. (G.O.Ms.No.753, Education Department dated 16.7.1985). (G.O.Ms.No.753, Education Department dated 16.7.1985). The Subjects taught in 3 months course in Art T.T.C. are 1. Special Methods 2. Educational Psychology 3. School Administration and 4. General Methods. Only those who have acquired General Qualification S.S.L.C. with Free-hand culture and model Drawing Higher Grade with T.T.C. are only appointed as Arts Teachers till date. ..... In the circumstances stated above, at present Degree in Fine Arts and Diploma in Fine Arts 5 years course are not eligible for appointment as Art Teachers without completing T.T.C. 3 months course. It is submitted that the respondent is bounded by the Service Rules which clearly state that Technical Teacher Certificate is a mandatory requirement for appointment. The said Certificate is issued after the individuals have undergone the course, which is one of the subject taught is "Educational Psychology". In Schools, the students are taught the Methodology in teaching. It is submitted that the members of the Petitioner Association have not undergone any course in teaching but have only the academic qualification of Degree as fine arts. It is submitted that in the absence of the basic requisite qualification of Art T.T.C., the members of the Association will not be fit for working posts. Further they are appointed to teach young students, the qualification of teaching methodology i.e. T.T.C. is absolutely essential." 9. Therefore, it is too late for the petitioner to contend that notwithstanding the Technical Teacher Certificate, even though it may be only for three months, the petitioner should be accepted as a candidate for consideration to the post of Art Master. So long as the Service Rules are not amended, the petitioner, merely because he is a Degree holder, will not automatically be considered for the post in question. The relevant Service Rules for the said post, admittedly, require such a certificate. Though the petitioner contended that a graduate studied for more number of years and by the government order there was a direction to consider the same as an equivalent for the public employment, that does not mean that by the said order, the Government has dispensed with the Technical Teacher Certificate as one of the additional requirements for the said post. In fact, it is only an equivalence in respect of the educational qualification, but that has not negatived the Technical Teacher Certificate which is a pre-requisite for any entry into the educational service. 10. In fact, it is only an equivalence in respect of the educational qualification, but that has not negatived the Technical Teacher Certificate which is a pre-requisite for any entry into the educational service. 10. Thereafter, the learned counsel alternatively submitted that when one such candidate made an application to go through the three months Certificate course, that candidate was informed that since he has obtained Degree in Fine Arts, he need not go through the Technical Teacher Certificate course by order dated 29.5.2002. The copy of the said order is enclosed at Page (25) of the original type set. In the absence of any challenge to the stand taken by the respondents, the Court cannot go into the legality or otherwise of the said order. 11. In the present case, this Court is strictly confined only to the Service Rules evolved for filling up the post and the respondents having taken a definite stand that such a Technical Teacher Certificate is required, this Court cannot give any direction contra to the statutory rules. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.