Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions challenging the common order of revision from the post of Accounts Supervisor to the post of Assistant (Accounts). 2. Heard Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. R. Varalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. 3. The petitioners in these writ petitions passed SSLC and also completed High Secondary Course at various points of time. While the petitioner in the first writ petition was engaged as Helper Trainee in the first instance by the Electricity Board and was later absorbed as Junior Assistant (Accounts) and was then promoted as Assistant (Accounts) in the year 2008, the petitioner in the second writ petition was appointed as Junior Assistant in 2007 and promoted as Assistant later. The petitioner in the third writ petition was appointed as Typist in the first instances and was later promoted as Assistant. 4. All the petitioners herein studied M.Com. under the Open University System of Madurai Kamarajar/Annamalai Universities, with Accountancy as one of the optional subjects. Therefore, by virtue of Board proceedings in B.P.(FB).No.60 dated 02.11.2002, the petitioners were granted exemption from passing the departmental examination in Accountancy, which is one of the essential requirements for promotion to the next higher post of Accounts Supervisor. Based upon the exemption, the names of the petitioners were included in the panel for promotion released on 01.12.2010 and the petitioners were promoted as Accounts Supervisors on 06.12.2010, 04.12.2010 and 09.12.2010 respectively. 5. However, after a year of the grant of such promotion, the second respondent issued show cause notices dated 21.01.2012 to the petitioners as well as a few others, calling upon them to explain as to why they should not be reverted to the post of Assistant (Accounts). The reason stated in the notice was that the Post Graduate Degree in Commerce obtained by them through Open University System did not qualify for exemption, in view of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.107, P&AR Department, dated 18.8.2009, G.O.Ms.No.116, P&AR Department, dated 18.8.2010 and Board Proceedings in B.P. (FB) No.5 dated 08.4.2011. The petitioners gave their replies pointing out that the exemption granted to them and the consequential promotion were perfectly in order. However, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.3.2012, reverting the petitioners from the post of Accounts Supervisor to the post of Assistant (Accounts). The petitioners gave their replies pointing out that the exemption granted to them and the consequential promotion were perfectly in order. However, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 12.3.2012, reverting the petitioners from the post of Accounts Supervisor to the post of Assistant (Accounts). Challenging the order of reversion, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions. 6. The only ground on which the petitioners have been reverted from the post of Accounts Supervisor to the post of Assistant (Accounts) is that the exemption from passing the departmental test in Accountancy for promotion to the post of Accounts Supervisors would be available only to those who had studies B.Com. or M.Com. with Accountancy as an optional subject in the regular stream. According to the respondents, the petitioners did not qualify for exemption, as they obtained a Post Graduate Degree in Commerce through the Open University System, without undergoing a regular Under Graduate Degree. 7. Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the exemption granted to the petitioners from passing a departmental test for promotion was valid or not. 8. Before looking into the facts and the legal issue arising for consideration, a brief prelude is necessary for the purpose of understanding the rationale behind the decision taken by the respondents. Hence, a few facts: (a) By G.O.Ms.No.180, P&AR Department, dated 11.9.2000, the Government of Tamil Nadu directed that Diplomas, Degrees and Post Graduate Degrees secured from the Open Universities within the State of Tamil Nadu, which are recognized by the University Grants Commission, shall be treated as equivalent to those obtained under the regular stream from those Universities, for the purpose of employment in public services; (b) The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited addressed a letter to the Government seeking clarification as to whether those who had directly acquired degrees from Open Universities without even studying SSLC or HSC can be considered for appointment to posts for which the minimum educational qualification was only a pass in SSLC/HSC. On the said query, the Government directed the Educational Qualifications Equivalence Committee to examine the issue and submit its opinion. On the said query, the Government directed the Educational Qualifications Equivalence Committee to examine the issue and submit its opinion. The Committee recommended that those persons who directly secured degrees from Open Universities without even undergoing SSLC/HSC Courses, cannot be considered to be qualified either for appointment or for promotions in public services; (c) Accepting the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.107, P&AR Department, dated 18.8.2009, holding that only those who had passed SSLC and Higher Secondary Course and thereafter, obtained degree from Open Universities may be considered for appointment/promotion in public services; (d) But, even before the said Government Order was passed, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue in Annamalai University v. Information and Tourism Department ( (2009) 4 SCC 590 ). The decision was rendered on 25.2.2009, six months prior to the said Government Order. That case arose out of the promotion granted to a person to the post of Principal in the Film and Television Institute on the basis of a decree obtained through Open University. A Division Bench of this Court held by a judgment dated 14.02.2006 that the Degree/Post Graduate Degrees obtained through Open Universities, without possessing the minimum general educational qualification of a pass in SSLC/HSC cannot be considered as sufficient qualification for appointment. The said decision of the Division Bench of this Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision; (e) Thereafter, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.116, P&AR Department, dated 18.8.2010, holding that those who possess a P.G. Degree through Open University System, without obtaining a basic degree, cannot be considered as possessing a Post Graduate Degree for appointment in public services. 9. Since the above ratio laid down in Annamalai University and the Government Orders issued on 18.8.2009 and 18.8.2010 hold the field, the respondents started denying promotion to persons working as Assistant (Accounts) to the post of Accounts Supervisors, from the year 2011. Therefore, a group of five persons came up with a writ petition in W.P.No.15071 of 2011 seeking promotion. Applying the ratio laid down in Annamalai University and the Government Orders referred to above, a learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions by an order dated 01.8.2011, holding that persons who had secured B.Com. or M.Com. Degree through Open Universities are not entitled to any exemption from passing the departmental test. Applying the ratio laid down in Annamalai University and the Government Orders referred to above, a learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions by an order dated 01.8.2011, holding that persons who had secured B.Com. or M.Com. Degree through Open Universities are not entitled to any exemption from passing the departmental test. The said decision of the learned Judge was also confirmed by a Division Bench by an order dated 10.11.2011 in W.A.No.2073 of 2011 10. But in the meantime, the respondents had also already promoted a few persons like the petitioners herein. Therefore, on the basis of the dismissal of the writ petition W.P.No.15071 of 2011 (which was conformed by the Division Bench), the respondents took steps to revert those already promoted, by issuing show cause notices dated 21.01.2012. The notices eventually culminated in the impugned order of reversion dated 12.3.2012. 11. The above narration of facts would give a prima facie impression as though the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the learned Judge dated 01.08.2011 in W.P.No.15071 of 2011, which was confirmed by the Division Bench by order dated 10.11.2011 in W.A.No.2073 of 2011. In the case decided already by the learned single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench, persons working as Assistants (Accounts) were denied promotion to the post of Accounts Supervisor. In the case on hand, persons who have already been promoted are sought to be reverted. Except this, there would appear to be no distinction between the case already decided and the case on hand, at least superficially. 12. But, Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner attempted to distinguished the decisions rendered in the other case on the ground that two crucial issues were neither raised, nor decided in the other case. They are (i) an amendment to the Regulations made, way back in the year 1999; and (ii) the distinction between recognising a qualification as equivalent to another and recognizing a qualification for the limited purpose of granting exemption from appearing in a departmental examination. 13. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that no such distinction can be sought to be made, in view of the fact that a Degree or Post Graduate Degree obtained through Open University System is no degree in the eye of law. 13. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that no such distinction can be sought to be made, in view of the fact that a Degree or Post Graduate Degree obtained through Open University System is no degree in the eye of law. Therefore, it is contended that any benefit that accrues out of the acquisition of a valid degree cannot be extended to persons who possess such invalid degrees. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioners cannot rely upon the Regulations any more after the law settled by the Supreme Court in Annamalai University case. 14. In the light of the contentions now raised, it is not possible for me to summarily dismiss the writ petitions by holding simply that the issues raised here, are covered by the decision of the learned Judge dated 01.8.2011, which was confirmed by the Division Bench by order dated 10.11.2011. Therefore, let me take up for consideration the two legal issues now sought to be raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. FIRST CONTENTION: 15. The terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Electricity Board are governed by TNEB Service Regulations. Regulation 96(1) (a) prescribes the special tests to be passed or other qualifications to be acquired by the members of about 15 categories of service. While sub-clause (a) of Regulation 96(1) relates to the tests/qualifications to be acquired within the period of probation, sub clause (b) of Regulation 96(1) stipulates the tests to be passed for promotion to various categories of posts. The said Regulation is crucial for a decision in this case. Therefore, Regulation 96(1) (b) is extracted as follows: “(b) No employee shall be eligible for promotion to any of the posts mentioned in column (1) of the table below unless and until he has passed the special tests specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof:- Members in Circle Offices including the construction Branch and Audit Branch who possess the B.Com., Degree of any University recognized by the University Grants Commission shall not be required to pass the Government Technical Examination in Accountancy. Those who have passed Accountancy in Part-III of the Intermediate Examination in Arts and Science of any University recognized by the University Grants Commission shall not be required to pass the Government Technical Examination in Accountancy by the Lower Grade for purpose of promotion as Assistant in Circle Offices (including the Construction Branch and the Accounts Branch).” 16. The above Regulation 96(1)(b) was amended by the Board, by a Board, by a Board Proceeding (Per) B.P. (FB) No.60 dated 2.11.2002. The entire Board Proceedings require to be extracted. Hence, they are extracted as follows:- “Proceedings: In exercise of the power conferred by Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (Central Act 54 of 1948), the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board hereby makes the following amendments to the T.N.E.B. Service Regulations :- AMENDMENTS In the said Regulations, I (a), In ANNEXURE-III (Referred to in Regulation 94) for the existing “Note” relating to qualification for appointment to the post of “Asst. Accounts Officer” by the method of “Recruitment by promotion” the following “Note” shall be substituted, namely: “NOTE” For the purpose of this Regulation, person who have passed M.Com., Degree with Accountancy as an optional subject or Advanced Accountancy (Main/Optional/Elective whatsoever) after obtaining a degree in any branch or directly through Open University System in any of the Universities recognized by the University Grants Commission or B.Com., Degree Examination (with Accountancy as a subject), of any University recognized by the University Grants Commission shall be deemed to have been exempted from passing the Government Technical Examination in Accountancy by the Higher Grade”. (b) Under the heading “Board Office Audit Branch” under the qualification in Column (3), against the post of Asst. Audit Officers” in column (1) and the entry “By Promotion” in column (2) therein and before the existing “Note”, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely, “Provided that those who have passed M.Com., Degree with Accountancy as an optional subject or Advanced Accountancy (Main/Optional/Elective whatsoever) after obtaining a degree in any branch or directly through Open University System in any of the Universities recognized by the University Grants Commission shall be deemed to have been exempted from passing the Government Technical Examination in Accountancy by the Higher Grade”. II. II. In Regulation 96, (a) In clause (b) of Sub-Regulation (1) in the table below the entry “Accountancy Higher Grade” in column (3) against serial number (2) in column (1) and the post “Asst. Accounts Officer” in column (2), thereof the following proviso shall be inserted namely:- “Provided that those who have passed M.Com., Degree with Accountancy as an optional subject or Advanced Accountancy (Main/Optional/Elective whatsoever) after obtaining a degree in any branch or directly through Open University System in any of the Universities recognized by the University Grants Commission shall be deemed to have been exempted from passing the Government Technical Examination in Accountancy by the Higher Grade.” (b) In Sub-Regulation (2) below the Table after “note-2”, the following “note” shall be added, namely, Note-3. An Auditor of Board Office Audit Branch, who has passed M.Com., Degree with Accountancy as an optional subject or Advanced Accountancy (Main/Optional/Elective whatsoever) after obtaining a degree in any branch or directly through Open University System in any of the Universities recognized by the University Grants Commission shall be deemed to have been exempted from passing the Government Technical Examination in Accountancy by the Higher Grade.” 2. The amendment shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 9th December 1998.” 17. A reading of the above Board Proceedings, by which the Regulations were amended would go to show that the following persons were deemed to have been exempted from passing the Government Technical Examination in Accountancy Higher Grade:- (i) Those who had passed M.Com., Degree with Accountancy as an optional subject who had passed M.Com., Degree with Accountancy as an optional subject or Advanced Accountancy after obtaining a Degree in any Branch or (ii) Those who had passed M.Com., Degree with Accountancy as an option subject or Advance Accountancy directly through Open University System in any of the Universities recognized by the University Grants Commission. In other words, the M.Com., Degree obtained either after obtaining a Degree or through Open University System was recognized for a limited purpose, provided the candidates had Accountancy as an optional subject or Advanced Accountancy. 18. To a repeated question, whether the above amendment to the Regulations which came into effect on 9.12.1998 was rescinded or annulled or cancelled by any subsequent amendments, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no necessity to annul them. 18. To a repeated question, whether the above amendment to the Regulations which came into effect on 9.12.1998 was rescinded or annulled or cancelled by any subsequent amendments, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no necessity to annul them. According to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, after the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University and after the issue of the Government Orders G.O.Ms.No.107 and G.O.Ms.No.116, the Regulations have become a dead letter. 19. But the said contention cannot be accepted. As I have pointed out earlier, the Government Orders merely described the Degrees and Post Graduate Degrees obtained through Open University System as invalid, if they had been obtained without even a pass in the S.S.L.C. and Higher Secondary Courses. The effect of the decision of the Supreme Court and the Government Orders, is that the Degrees and the Post Graduate Degrees of Open Universities, cannot be considered as equivalent to Degrees and Post Graduate Degrees obtained under the regular stream. Nowhere the Supreme Court or the Government Orders stated that those Degrees cannot even be recognized for the limited purpose of granting exemption from passing the Departmental Tests. 20. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents attempted to make another distinction. She contended that the respondents are not raising the issue of Open University Degrees, but are raising the issue with regard to persons obtaining a Post Graduate Degree without completing a regular Degree Course. This contention is again a thoroughly misconceived one. Recognizing a Degree or Post Graduate Degree obtained through Open University as equivalent to a Degree or Post Graduate Decree obtained under the regular stream, is impossible after the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Government Orders cited above. But the question here is whether they can or not even be recognized for a limited purpose. 21. So long as the Regulations are in force and have not been suitably amended by the Respondents to de-recognize the Open University Degrees even for the purpose of granting exemption from passing Departmental Tests, the respondents cannot treat the Regulations as a dead letter. Therefore, the petitioners are right in contending that the Regulations have a binding effect upon the respondents. SECOND CONTENTION: 22. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, I think the distinction is very obvious. Therefore, the petitioners are right in contending that the Regulations have a binding effect upon the respondents. SECOND CONTENTION: 22. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, I think the distinction is very obvious. As pointed out by me in the prelude, the Government of Tamil Nadu originally took stand in the year 2000 in G.O.Ms.No.180 that Diplomas, Degrees and Post Graduate Degrees obtained through Open Universities would be considered as equivalent to those obtained in the regular stream, for the purpose of appointment in public services. Thereafter, by G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 18.8.2009, which itself was issued only after the decision in Annamalai University case (but without reference to the decision of the Supreme Court dated 25.02.2009), the Government merely said that those who had obtained Diplomas/Degrees/P.G. Degrees through Open University System would be considered for appointment/promotion in public services, only if they had passed SSLC and High Secondary Course. In other words, the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.107 was not an order of de-recognition of the degree itself. The recommendation was that the Degree/P.G. Degree obtained through Open University System would be held by the Government to be valid, only if the candidate had obtained such Degree/P.G. Degree, after passing SSLC and Higher Secondary Course. 23. The petitioners herein have actually passed SSLC and Higher Secondary Course. This is why they were appointed to various posts, such as Junior Assistants or Typists and later promoted as Assistants. The respondents have no dispute either about the validity of the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Junior Assistants/Typists, or about the validity of their promotion to the post of Assistant (Accounts). Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.107 does not really stand in the way of the petitioners herein. 24. Insofar as G.O.Ms.No.116 is concerned, the same concerned the validity of a P.G. Degree obtained through Open University System, without obtaining a basic degree. In other words, persons holding Post Graduate Degrees from Open Universities, without having undergone a basic degree course, will not be considered as possessing a Post Graduate Degree. 25. But, today, the petitioners herein are not claiming any benefit for appointment or promotion to a post to which the possession of a P.G. Decree is an essential qualification. The petitioners were merely granted the benefit of exemption from passing a departmental examination in Accountancy, on the basis of a Post Graduate Degree obtained by them through Open University. 25. But, today, the petitioners herein are not claiming any benefit for appointment or promotion to a post to which the possession of a P.G. Decree is an essential qualification. The petitioners were merely granted the benefit of exemption from passing a departmental examination in Accountancy, on the basis of a Post Graduate Degree obtained by them through Open University. The distinction between (i) a person claiming appointment or promotion to the post for which a P.G. Degree is essential; and (ii) a person who is merely claiming exemption from passing a departmental test, on the basis of the P.G. Degree obtained through Open University System, is so obvious. 26. Even the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services prescribe that a person who has not studies Tamil as a second language and who is appointed to a public service in the State, is obliged to pass a second class language test in Tamil conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. If the Government chooses to grant exemption to a person from passing such a departmental test in Tamil, on the basis of a Post Graduate Degree in Tamil that he had obtained under the Open University System, the same cannot today be taken to be opposed to the ratio laid down in Annamalai University case. 27. Recognising a Diploma/Degree/Post Graduate Degree obtained through an Open University as equivalent to a Diploma/Degree/Post Graduate Degree obtained under the regular stream stands on a different footing than granting an exemption for an in-service candidate from passing a departmental test on the basis of such a Degree/Post Graduate Degree obtained under the Open University System. What was frowned upon by the Supreme Court in Annamalai University was a recognition granted to the degrees obtained through Open University System to persons who had never ever gone to a School even to take shelter during heavy rains. Therefore, the ratio laid down therein has no application to a case of this nature, where a limited exemption from passing a departmental test is granted, that too by virtue of statutory Regulations. Unfortunately, this distinction as well as the existence of a Specific Regulation were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who decided W.P.No.15071 of 2011. They were also not brought to the notice of the Division Bench when W.A.No.2073 of 2011 was dismissed. 28. Unfortunately, this distinction as well as the existence of a Specific Regulation were not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who decided W.P.No.15071 of 2011. They were also not brought to the notice of the Division Bench when W.A.No.2073 of 2011 was dismissed. 28. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the degrees obtained by the petitioners are not degrees at all even to qualify for exemption, may hold good in a case where the petitioners seek appointment or promotion to a post to which such Degrees and Post Graduate Degrees are prescribed as qualifications. It may even be open to the respondents to amend the Regulations, taking away the proviso incorporated by B.P. (FB).No.60 dated 02.11.2002. If by Regulations the respondents state that there would be no exemption henceforth, for departmental candidates from passing any departmental test on the basis of such Open University Degrees, then the petitioners may not entitled to any relief. But, without even amending the Regulations and allowing the proviso introduced in the Regulations to stand, the respondents cannot contend that the proviso introduced on 02.11.2002 has become a dead letter. 29. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to look into the Regulations, in paragraph 6 of its decision in Annamalai University. The earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University was distinguished by the Supreme Court in Annamalai University, solely on the basis of mandatory regulations issued by the University Grants Commission. Here, we are concerned with the statutory regulations issued by the Electricity Board for the purpose of promotions. 30. Therefore, I am of the view that (i) so long as the Regulations recognize Open University Degrees only for the limited purpose of granting exemption from appearing in departmental tests; and (ii) so long as the Open University Degrees/Post Graduate Degrees are not considered as equivalent to Degrees and Post Graduate Degrees obtained under regular stream, but are admitted only for the purpose of granting a limited exemption from passing a departmental test, the respondents are not justified in reverting the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. 31. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. However, this will not preclude the respondents from bringing any amendment to the service Regulations, if they so choose. There shall be no order as to costs. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. 31. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. However, this will not preclude the respondents from bringing any amendment to the service Regulations, if they so choose. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.2 of 2012 in all the writ petitions are closed.