Judgment :- 1. Both writ petitions came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Hon’ble Chief Justice vide order dated 14.3.2012. 2. The petitioner in both writ petitions is one and the same person. In the first writ petition, she sought to challenge an order of the first respondent, i.e., Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Kancheepuram, dated 21.8.2007 and the order of the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training (DTERT), Chennai, dated 31.1.2008 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to accept the petitioner’s Teacher certificate issued on 25.6.1988 by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board as equivalent to that of the Tamil Nadu. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 10.12.2008. Pending the writ petition an interim injunction was granted. Subsequently, a vacate interim injunction application was filed in M.P.No.2 of 2009. On notice from the court, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (February, 2009). The third respondent has also filed a counter affidavit, dated 18.02.2009. In the impugned order, the petitioner though was appointed as a Secondary Grade teacher in Dharga Muslim Primary School coming under the Kancheepuram Municipality and was functioning from the academic year 2006-2007, she was informed that she will get her salary only after her Teacher Training Certificate of Karnataka State was evaluated. In the subsequent impugned order, the petitioner was also informed that she can always write an improvement examination and after getting higher marks, i.e., 50 % of marks in each subjects in the improvement examination, she can ask for her certificate to be evaluated. In the absence of her writing improvement examinations, she has to write the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu State for two years. It was also found that in the first paper in the first year and the first paper in the second year, she had not secured 50% of marks. Therefore, her certificate cannot be evaluated. The petitioner challenging the same filed the first writ petition. 4. It was also found that in the first paper in the first year and the first paper in the second year, she had not secured 50% of marks. Therefore, her certificate cannot be evaluated. The petitioner challenging the same filed the first writ petition. 4. Even while the pendency of the first writ petition, she has come forward to file the second writ petition in W.P.No.8294 of 2010 seeking to challenge an order of the District Elementary Education Officer, Kancheepuram, dated 24.11.2008, wherein he had informed that she is not eligible to be posted as a secondary grade teacher as her teacher training certificate obtained from the Karnataka State was considered not equivalent to that of the Tamil Nadu. 5. When the second writ petition came up for hearing on 22.4.2010, it was directed to be posted along with the first writ petition. It was subsequently admitted on 20.10.2010. Pending the writ petition, no interim orders were granted by this court. 6. It is needless to state that for the purpose of getting appointment of teachers in any of the schools run by the State or recognized private schools, if a person who is likely to be appointed is having a teacher training certificate obtained from the State other than the Tamil Nadu, his certificate is bound to be evaluated and there is no quarrel with the said proposition. At the relevant time, i.e., at the time when the petitioner was appointed, G.O.Ms.No.1236, Education Department, dated 17.09.1984 was very much in force. As per the said order, a person should have obtained 50% of marks in aggregate in his SSLC as in the case of teachers training certificate holders of Tamil Nadu. The case of the petitioner was that by G.O.Ms.No.1196, Education Department, dated 03.12.1992, the certificates of candidates, who passed after 17.9.1984 alone can be evaluated as equivalent to the teacher training certificate issued in Tamil Nadu and granted relaxation in respect of age. 7. As to whether such evaluation is to be done or not came to be considered in respect of a teacher who produced a certificate from the Karnataka State Board, by a division bench of this court in K. Anthony Savarimuthu Vs. 7. As to whether such evaluation is to be done or not came to be considered in respect of a teacher who produced a certificate from the Karnataka State Board, by a division bench of this court in K. Anthony Savarimuthu Vs. The Director of School Education, Madras-6 and another reported in 1985 Writ L.R. 178 and in paragraph 25, it was observed as follows : “25....All that the Rules prescribe is that, a teacher for appointment as a secondary grade teacher must hold two qualifications. He must hold a Secondary School Leaving Certificate and he must hold the T.S.L.C. of Secondary Grade or any other equivalent certificate. This is implicit in the power to equate a certificate which is not T.S.L.C. of Secondary Grade with the certificate which is issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations in Tamil Nadu. Such power by its very nature is executive in character, because once an equivalent has to be determined, that function has to be performed by the executive authorities, though such a decision of treating a certificate issued by an authority other than Tamil Nadu may be open to challenge on permissible grounds. Since it was clearly permissible for the State Government and the educational authorities to decide the question of equivalence, it is not necessary to discuss the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana V. Shamsherjang ( AIR 1972 SC 1546 ) in which the Supreme Court held that by an executive order a rule made by the Governor under Art.309 of the Constitution of India cannot be amended.” 8. Therefore, the petitioner not having obtained marks cannot get any direction from this court to evaluate her certificate. On the other hand, the respondents themselves have informed her that she could write an improvement examination, failing which write a fresh examination under the Tamil Nadu State Board and qualify herself for being appointed as a teacher in the schools run in the Tamil Nadu. 9. In view of the above, there is no case made out by the petitioner. Hence both writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.