Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the Secretary of Sri Mukthivinayakar Middle School, seeking a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment made by the petitioner/school in favour of one Senthilkumar for the post of B.T. (English) with effect from 22.11.2011 with all benefits. 2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner/school is an aided private school. In their school, the post of Graduate Assistant for English fell vacant due to the resignation of one Satish and they obtained prior approval from the District Elementary Education Officer, Theni for filling up the post. It was claimed that the post, as per the communal roster, comes under Point No.4 and an interview was conducted in respect of persons who are sponsored by employment exchange and through newspaper advertisement. According to the petitioner, the said Senthilkumar was fully qualified both for his ability and merit and hence, the School Committee unanimously decided to appoint him as Graduate Assistant (English). Thereafter, an order of appointment was given to the said teacher stating that he should pass the Teacher Entrance Test within five years as per the NCTE Norms. It was thereafter the petitioner sent a proposal for approving the appointment of the said teacher with a requisition letter dated 19.12.2011. 3. The said request of the petitioner/school was examined by the Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Cumbum and by proceeding dated 5.7.2012, the said authority, namely the fourth respondent, returned the proposal stating that already the High Court had given direction that while verifying the candidature of the candidates appearing for counselling for any post, it has to be seen whether they are having three year degree or double degree with one year course certificate and in case the candidates are having one year degree certificate, they are not entitled to be considered for the said post. It is in that view of the matter the proposal sent by the petitioner was returned. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the return of the proposal. On the contrary, the petitioner/ school sought a direction to approve the appointment of Senthilkumar. 4. It is stated that the said Senthilkumar has studied school in 10+2 pattern and completed his B.Sc. (Science) in regular three year course and B.A. (English) in one sitting. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the return of the proposal. On the contrary, the petitioner/ school sought a direction to approve the appointment of Senthilkumar. 4. It is stated that the said Senthilkumar has studied school in 10+2 pattern and completed his B.Sc. (Science) in regular three year course and B.A. (English) in one sitting. It is also stated that the fourth respondent's return of the proposal is based upon the interim order passed by this Court, whereas the school has already selected him in the year 2011 and hence, the return was illegal. It is further stated that in the light of legitimate expectation and equity, the request of the petitioner will have to be considered. 5. The stand of the petitioner is a misreading of the judgment of this Court rendered in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.19631 of 2011 and batch cases (R. Thirunavukkarasau v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others). In the common order dated 14.8.2012, the learned Judge held as follows: "82. But a careful study of the history of evolution of Extension Education in the world would reveal that it was conceived with the noble intention of enhancing the skills and improving the knowledge of persons who did not or could not afford to go to Higher Educational Institutions. But unfortunately, after its adoption in India, in the form of Distance Education or Adult and Continuing Education, some of the Universities in the country started perverting the whole objective, by making available all kinds of Degrees, solely with a view to enable the acquirers of such Degrees to claim a right for being considered for appointment in Government Service. Eventually, the Supreme Court took note of such perversions in Annamalai University. A one year Degree, by whatever name called (either dual degree or second degree, if not a duplicate degree), is one another perversion of the system which was evolved more than a century ago as an Extension Programme with a noble objective. It will be interesting to note that persons who acquired such one year degrees or open university degrees, do not get employment in the Private Sector. It is only in Government Service that such persons seek appointments, promotions, incentive increments etc., on the basis of such degrees. Therefore, these degrees are actually specially designed and tailor made by Universities for serving or aspiring Government Servants. 83. It is only in Government Service that such persons seek appointments, promotions, incentive increments etc., on the basis of such degrees. Therefore, these degrees are actually specially designed and tailor made by Universities for serving or aspiring Government Servants. 83. It must be noted that the recruitment of teachers in schools, is being made by the Government, merely on the basis of seniority of registration in the Employment Exchanges, in the past few years. This itself has struck at the root of quality, in the matter of selection. If one year degrees are also recognised as equivalent to 3 year degrees, that would sound the death knell for the schools run by Government. Therefore, the stand taken by the Department in their communication dated 19.7.2012, not to recognise dual degrees, is a correct and appreciable step. 84. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and the official respondents are directed not to recognise, both for appointment as well as for promotion, the dual degrees obtained by candidates after undergoing a Course of a duration of one year, as equivalent to a degree obtained after undergoing a Course of a duration of 3 years. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 6. As can be seen from the above order, there is a clear direction not to recognize the dual degree obtained by candidates undergoing course of one year duration as equivalent to a degree of three year duration. Therefore, the person chosen to be appointed by the petitioner/school as Graduate Assistant (English), certainly is not qualified for the said post, as his basic degree is B.Sc. (Science). 7. It must be noted that since the petitioner/school is a recognized private school covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, they are bound by the terms of the said enactment. Under Section 19 of the Act, it is open to the State Government to make rules even with reference to the qualifications of teachers and under Section 20 of the Act, no person who does not possess the qualification prescribed under Section 19 of the Act can be appointed as a Teacher. Under Section 19 of the Act, it is open to the State Government to make rules even with reference to the qualifications of teachers and under Section 20 of the Act, no person who does not possess the qualification prescribed under Section 19 of the Act can be appointed as a Teacher. Under Rule 15(6) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, a teacher employed in the private school shall possess the qualifications prescribed under Annexure-V. Therefore, for the post of B.T. Assistant, a teacher should have qualification prescribed therein and in respect of the subject for which he is sought to be appointed, he should have obtained degree and as held by this Court, the degree should be of a three year course. The petitioner cannot, by undergoing one year course, claim that he can make use of his double degree claiming a right over whichever subject for which the advertisement has been called for. 8. In the light of the final order passed by this Court, there is no illegality in the fourth respondent returning the proposal sent by the petitioner, as the said Senthilkumar does not have the basic minimum qualification for holding the post of B.T. Assistant (English). Therefore, no mandamus will be issued to the respondents to act contrary to the statute. Accordingly, the writ petition is misconceived. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.