Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 29.12.2011, wherein and by which the petitioner's appointment as a Physical Education Teacher was cancelled on the ground that his Karnataka Teacher Training Certificate cannot be evaluated as he had secured only 30% of marks in the SSLC examinations in Karnataka. 2. When the matter came up on 09.01.2012, this court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice and to get instructions. Accordingly, a counter affidavit, dated 02.02.2012 was filed. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dated 16.02.2012. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr. Sajeev Kumar for M/s. Royan Law Associates, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher on a temporary basis and posted to the Government Higher Secondary School, Valasaiyur, Salem District, by an order dated 30.05.2007. The appointment was a direct recruitment based upon the sponsorship made by the employment exchange. In the appointment order, it was indicated that his pay will be disbursed only after evaluation of his SSLC / PUC certificate obtained from the examiners of the Karnataka State. His appointment was only a conditional one. He will be eligible for salary and other service benefits only on fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein. Any appointment to the service under the Education department will come under the Tamil Nadu School Education Subordinate Services and is governed by the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The qualifications prescribed for the post of physical education teacher is a pass in the first year B.A. or its equivalent degree or intermediate or Teachers School Leaving Certificate of higher grade in physical education. A pass in the SSLC (10th standard) examinations requires minimum of 35% of marks in each one of the five subjects, i.e., Tamil, English, Maths, Science, History and Geography. The petitioner wrote the SSLC examination during April, 1984 in the State of Karnataka and had secured marks. Since he had produced the certificate from the Karnataka State, it requires evaluation to be done by the competent authority, i.e., Director of Government Examinations. The petitioner wrote the SSLC examination during April, 1984 in the State of Karnataka and had secured marks. Since he had produced the certificate from the Karnataka State, it requires evaluation to be done by the competent authority, i.e., Director of Government Examinations. The Director of Government Examinations had evaluated the certificate of the petitioner and concluded that the petitioner had passed only in English and Tamil under the Tamil Nady syllabus and had written the examination in the remaining subjects in SSLC in the State of Karnataka. Therefore, it was held that it cannot be equated to have passed the SSLC examination. 5. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.No.7948 of 2009 praying for a direction to the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in the post of physical education teacher with effect from 1.6.2007 with increment and other attendant service benefits. This court by an order dated 02.12.2010 had directed the petitioner's representation dated 02.12.2008 to be considered and to pass appropriate orders. It is pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner's case was considered and the impugned order came to be passed. The contention of the petitioner that similar candidates who had acquired marks similar to that of the petitioner from the State of Karnataka, were still in service cannot be considered to be a ground to continue the services of the petitioner. In essence, there cannot be any equality in the illegality. 6. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner attempted to contend that his father was a retired Tamil Teacher and that he had retired after the service of 35 years in the Tamil medium school. The petitioner also had completed his 7th standard in Tamil medium as the Kollegal Taluk which was a part of the present Coimbatore District in Tamil Nadu was ceded to the Karnataka State. As most of the people living in this area are Tamils, the Karnataka State continued to impart Tamil as a language, which is being continued even now till 7th standard. After 7th standard, Kannada language is a compulsory language till the higher secondary. The petitioner was forced to take Kannda as a language for SSLC and PUC and not by choice. The PUC marks obtained by him can be considered to be equivalent to that of the higher secondary in the State of Tamil Nadu. After 7th standard, Kannada language is a compulsory language till the higher secondary. The petitioner was forced to take Kannda as a language for SSLC and PUC and not by choice. The PUC marks obtained by him can be considered to be equivalent to that of the higher secondary in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner had passed the examination conducted by the Board of Education, Karnataka as per the standard fixed by the Board and the same cannot be questioned by the respondents. The petitioner is not seeking appointment based on the SSLC certificate. He had already worked for more than 4-1/2 years. He also referred to a case of one Meenakshi, who had completed her SSLC in the Karnataka State and thereafter completed her basic degree in Karnataka, was appointed by the third respondent. There are also similar persons. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandrakala Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in and referred to the following passages found in the said judgment, which reads as follows : “....We find that from the qualifications which have been mentioned, it is made clear that the basic qualification is Senior Secondary or Intermediate or its equivalent. We find that the appellant on the basis of her qualification was provisionally selected after she had submitted her requisite testimonials. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has given a finding that the higher qualification is not the substitute for the qualification of Senior Secondary or Intermediate. In the instant case, we fail to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court to the extent that it does not consider higher qualification as equivalent to the qualification of passing Senior Secondary examination even in respect of a candidate who was provisionally selected. The word 'equivalent' must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression, 'equivalent' one means that there are some degrees of flexibility or adjustment which do not lower the stated requirement. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also comes into existence. There has to be some difference between what is equivalent and what is exact. Apart from that after a person is provisionally selected, a certain degree of reasonable expectation of the selection being continued also comes into existence. Considering these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the appellant should be considered reasonably and the provisional appointment which was given to her should not be cancelled. We order accordingly. However, we make it clear that we are passing this order taking in our view the special facts and circumstances of the case.....”(Emphasis added) 8. It is not clear as to how the said judgment will have any application especially when it was stated therein that the Supreme Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution had granted the direction as noted above. Even otherwise, the question of having higher qualification does not arise when the petitioner did not have minimum qualification prescribed therein. This position of law has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 . The Supreme Court held that a mere possession of PG degree without going through the basic education of SSLC cannot be the educational requirement applicable to the services under the Tamil Nadu State. The very same Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. It was clearly stated that a candidate while entering the service should have passed SSLC and must have minimum percentage of marks in the SSLC, i.e., 35 marks in the SSLC plus adequate knowledge of Tamil. The contention raised by the petitioner that he was selected despite his qualification and he continued in the service cannot give any extra mileage to the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, the right to evaluating the certificate of a candidate who came from outside came to be considered 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. 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.” 10. The fact that some other persons were in employment was not only denied, but the details given by the petitioner were considered to be vague as averred in the counter affidavit. In any event, merely because some other persons are holding the post will not enable the petitioner to bypass the statutory rules requiring a minimum qualification for entering into the post. The Supreme Court in Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India and others reported in 2006 (11) SCC 709 has held that merely because the Government had chosen to implement a wrong order which became final, that by itself will not give any cause of action to the other persons without deciding the issue on merit. It is therefore necessary to extract para 26 of the judgment and it reads as follows: "A particular judgment of the High Court may not be challenged by the State where the financial repercussions are negligible or where the appeal is barred by limitation. It is therefore necessary to extract para 26 of the judgment and it reads as follows: "A particular judgment of the High Court may not be challenged by the State where the financial repercussions are negligible or where the appeal is barred by limitation. It may also not be challenged due to negligence or oversight of the dealing officers or on account of wrong legal advice, or on account of the non-comprehension of the seriousness or magnitude of the issue involved. However, when similar matters subsequently crop up and the magnitude of the financial implications is realised, the State is not prevented or barred from challenging the subsequent decisions or resisting subsequent writ petitions, even though judgment in a case involving similar issue was allowed to reach finality in the case of others. Of course, the position would be viewed differently, if petitioners plead and prove that the State had adopted a ‘pick-and-choose’ method only to exclude petitioners on account of mala fides or ulterior motives. Be that as it may. On the facts and circumstances, neither the principle of res judicata nor the principle of estoppel is attracted. The administrative law principles of legitimate expectation or fairness in action are also not attracted. Therefore, the fact that in some cases the validity of the circular dated 29-10-1999 (corresponding to the Defence Ministry circular dated 11-9-2001) has been upheld and that decision has attained finality will not come in the way of the State defending or enforcing its circular dated 11-9-2001.” 11. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.