Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. 2. I have heard Mr.V. Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.R. Varalakshmi, learned standing Counsel for respondents. 3. The petitioner passed S.S.L.C., under the old stream (11 years). While he was undergoing Pre-University Course (one year PUC) he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Electricity Board in the year 1980. Therefore, he discontinued PUC and joined service. Therefore, he passed the Accounts Test conducted by the TNPSC, as a consequence of which, he was promoted as Assistant (Accounts) on 6.9.1995. He also studied B.Com., Degree Course while in service through the Open University system of the Annamalai University. Therefore, he was granted exemption from passing the Technical Examination in Accountancy Junior and Senior Grades and was promoted as Accounts Supervisor on 8.1.2007. Later, he also passed the Departmental Tests for Accounts Officer Part I & If conducted by the TNPSC in the year 2008 and Accountancy Junior Grade in the year 2010 and Accountancy Senior Grade in the year 2011. 4. When a panel was prepared for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer on 21.10.2008, from among those holding the post of Accounts Supervisor, the name of the petitioner was included at Serial No.194. Out of them, only 100 persons were promoted on 11.1.2010. 5. But when his turn came, the petitioner was not promoted. On enquiries, he came to understand that the degree obtained by him from the Open University, was not considered as equivalent to the qualification of a Degree, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Information and Tourism Department { (2009) 4 SCC 590 } and also in view of 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 8.4.2011. Therefore, after giving a representation seeking promotion, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated therein that the particulars of about 251 Accounts Supervisors were collected in the year 2008 for preparing a supplementary panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, with reference to the crucial date 25.3.2008. 6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated therein that the particulars of about 251 Accounts Supervisors were collected in the year 2008 for preparing a supplementary panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, with reference to the crucial date 25.3.2008. But promotions were not made in view of the General Elections to the Lok Sabha that intervened in 2009. The Department Promotion Committee thereafter met on 6.1.2010 and shortlisted the candidates eligible for promotion. Under Regulation 94 of the T.N.E.B. Service Regulations, an Accounts Supervisor ought to have passed the Government Technical Examination in Higher Grade with S.S.L.C., qualification. But those who have passed B.Com., degree of any University, are exempted under the said Regulations from passing the Government Technical Examination in Accountancy Higher Grade. 7. However, after the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University and the issue of the Government orders referred to above, the open University Degrees were held to be not valid and persons holding such degrees were considered not eligible for the exemption. Therefore, according to respondents, the petitioner became ineligible for promotion and was not promoted. 8. The case of the petitioner is not an isolated one. There were other persons who were denied promotion to the post of Accounts Supervisors, from the year 2011. A group of five persons among them 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. 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. 9. Therefore, it is contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondent that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the learned Judge dated 01.8.2011 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 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, a person who was already promoted as Accounts Supervisor is denied promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Except this, there would appear to be no distinction between the case already decided and the case on hand, at least superficially. 10. However, when a group of three persons, who were promoted in the year 2011 by granting exemption from passing Accountancy lower/higher grade, were sought to be reverted, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 18.8.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 18.8.2010, they came up with W.P.Nos.7276 to 7278 of 2012. In those writ petitions, the respondents raised a similar contention based upon the Government Orders cited above and the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University’s case. The respondents placed heavy reliance upon the decision of the learned Judge in W.P.No.15071 of 2011 dated 1.8.2011, which got confirmed by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 10.11.2011 in W.A.No.2073 of 2011. But at that time, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners appearing therein attempted to distinguish the decision of the learned Judge confirmed by the Division Bench on the ground that two crucial issues were neither raised nor decided in W.P.No.15071 of 2011. They are (i) an amendment to the TNEB Service Regulations made way back in the year 2002 in Board Proceedings B.P.(FB) No.60 dated 2.11.2002; and (ii) the distinction between recognising a qualification as equivalent to another and recognising a qualification for the limited purpose of granting exemption from appearing in a departmental examination. 11. After a critical analysis of the decision in Annamalai University’s case, G.O.Ms.No.107 dated 18.8.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 18.8.2010 and the decision in W.P.No.15071 of 2011 dated 1.8.2011 as confirmed by the Division Bench, I came to the conclusion in those three writ petitions W.P.Nos.7276 to 7278 of 2012, that the petitioners deserved to succeed in the writ petitions. It was on the ground that a limited recognition granted to a degree obtained through open university system for the purpose of granting an exemption from appearing in a departmental examination, is not the kind of mischief that the decision in Annamalai University’s case sought to deal with. It was on the ground that a limited recognition granted to a degree obtained through open university system for the purpose of granting an exemption from appearing in a departmental examination, is not the kind of mischief that the decision in Annamalai University’s case sought to deal with. I also held that the Amended Regulations granting a limited recognition to such degrees, have to be followed by the respondents, so long as they are there in the statute book. 12. Therefore, on the basis of my decision dated 27.6.2012 in W.P.Nos.7276 to 7278 of 2012, learned counsel for the petitioner in this case contended that the petitioner herein also deserves a similar treatment. But unfortunately, the case of the petitioner in this writ petition appears to stand on a different footing than the petitioners in W.P.Nos.7276 to 7278 of 2012. This can be seen only if we have a look at the Regulations. 13. 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 recognised 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 recognised 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).” 14. Those who have passed Accountancy in Part-III of the Intermediate Examination in Arts and Science of any University recognised 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).” 14. The above Regulation 96(1) (b) was amended by the 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 powers 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 recognised by the University Grants Commission or B.Com., Degree Examination (with Accountancy as a subject), of any University recognised 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 recognised 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. 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. 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 recognised 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 recognised 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.” 15. 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 or Advanced Accountancy after obtaining a Degree in any Branch or (ii) Those who had passed M.Com., Degree with Accountancy as an optional subject or Advanced Accountancy directly through Open University System in any of the Universities recognised by the University Grants Commission. In other words, the M.Com., Degree obtained either after obtaining a Degree or through Open University System was recognised for a limited purpose, provided the candidates had Accountancy as an optional subject or Advanced Accountancy. 16. Unfortunately, there are two difficulties for the petitioner in this case. One difficulty is that he discontinued pre-university course and did B.Com degree through the Open University. The Amended Service Regulations of the Board include only M.Com degree with Accountancy as an optional subject, obtained from Open University as being eligible for exemption. 16. Unfortunately, there are two difficulties for the petitioner in this case. One difficulty is that he discontinued pre-university course and did B.Com degree through the Open University. The Amended Service Regulations of the Board include only M.Com degree with Accountancy as an optional subject, obtained from Open University as being eligible for exemption. The Amended Service Regulations do not include a B.Com degree with Accountancy as an optional subject, obtained from open University as eligibility criteria for the grant of exemption from passing Accountancy, higher or lower grade. Therefore, the petitioner may not be entitled to the benefit of the exemption and his case stands on a different footing than the batch of cases W.P.Nos.7276 to 7278 of 2012, which I had decided by the common order dated 27.6.2012. 17. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even as per the Original Regulations, a person, who has passed Accountancy in Part – III of the Intermediate Examination himself is eligible for exemption. Therefore, he contended that there is no rationale for leaving out persons, who studied B.Com under the Open University system. He also contended that the Unamended Regulations entitle the holders of B.Com degree of any recognised University to be eligible for exemption. Therefore, he claimed that Annamalai University being a University recognised by the University Grants Commission, the case of the petitioner would fall even within the ambit of Unamended Regulations. 18. But, the above contention cannot be accepted by me. As a matter of fact, the very same contention was raised before the Supreme Court and it was turned down in Annamalai University’s case. I was able to distinguish the decision of another learned Judge dated 1.8.2011 in W.P.No.15071 of 2011, solely on the basis of the Amended Regulations. Therefore, the petitioner has to stand or fall only on the strength of the amendment introduced to the Regulations by B.P. (FB).No.60 dated 2.11.2002. If the case of the petitioner is tested on the strength of the amendment to the Service Regulations dated 2.11.2002, the petitioner goes out. This is in view of the fact that a B.Com degree obtained through Open University is not included in the amendment. If the case of the petitioner is tested on the strength of the amendment to the Service Regulations dated 2.11.2002, the petitioner goes out. This is in view of the fact that a B.Com degree obtained through Open University is not included in the amendment. The correctness or otherwise or the wisdom or lack of wisdom on the part of the respondents in leaving out B.Com degree from the purview of the Amended Regulations is not a matter of concern for me at least in this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner, on the strength of the B.Com degree obtained through the Open University system cannot claim exemption from passing Accountancy Test. 19. It is true he was granted exemption from passing Accountancy lower grade for promotion to the post of Accounts Supervisor. But, that happened in the year 2007 before the Annamalai University decision came. The decision in Annamalai University came in February 2009 and it was followed by two Government Orders; one on 18.8.2009; and another on 18.8.2010. Therefore, the same benefit cannot accrue to the petitioner after the aforesaid decision. 20. Be that as it may, the petitioner has today passed Accountancy higher grade in February 2011. Therefore, the respondents have conceded in paragraph 21 of the counter that after February 2011, the petitioner has become eligible for promotion. 21. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a limited direction to the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in any panel that was prepared subsequent to February 2011 and grant him all the consequential benefits arising out of the same. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is closed.