Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 09.05.2012, wherein and by which the petitioner was informed that her qualification is not in commensurate with the qualification prescribed and hence, she cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Maternal and Child Health Officer (MCHO). The said order came to be passed on the petitioner moving this court on an earlier occasion, i.e., in W.P.No.380 of 2009 and batch cases, which was disposed of by a division bench by a common order dated 31.01.2012. 2. The petitioner along with three others filed W.P.No.380 of 2008 seeking to consider their case for promotion to the post of MCHO. The division bench while dismissing the other writ petitions, insofar as the writ petition filed by the petitioner was concerned, in paragraphs 43 and 44 had observed as follows : "43. In W.P.No.380 of 2008, the respondent Corporation has not chosen to file counter affidavit. The petitioners have also not produced the relevant service rules. In these circumstances, we are not able to adjudicate the issue. Furthermore, the prayer in the said writ petition is only to consider the claim of the petitioners. The writ petition in W.P.No.380 of 2008 could, therefore, be disposed of, directing the Chennai Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Maternity Child Health Officer and to pass an appropriate order, and if promotion is declined, the respondent Corporation is directed to give reasons therefor. 44. In the result, (a) W.P.No.380 of 2008 is disposed of directing the Chennai Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Maternity Child Health Officers and pass an appropriate order, and if promotion is declined, the respondent Corporation is directed to give reasons therefor, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs." 3. It is pursuant to the direction, the impugned order came to be passed. As per the bylaws framed to the post of MCHO by the Corporation of the year 2009, the qualification prescribed for promotion reads as follows : Sl.No. Category of Method of Minimum Scale of pay post Recruitment qualification 1.B.Sc., Nursing from recognised University or Diploma in Public Health Nursing in any institution recognized by Government of Tamilnadu. As per the bylaws framed to the post of MCHO by the Corporation of the year 2009, the qualification prescribed for promotion reads as follows : Sl.No. Category of Method of Minimum Scale of pay post Recruitment qualification 1.B.Sc., Nursing from recognised University or Diploma in Public Health Nursing in any institution recognized by Government of Tamilnadu. ii)Must have Re-revised Rs.5900- successfully 200-9900 Maternal & 1.By promotion undergone 10 Child Heal- from the holder of months Diploma Revised 1 th Officer the post of Staff Course in Public Nurse or Lady Health Nursing. Rs.9300-34,800 + GP (MCHO) Health Visitor 4500/- iii)Must have registered with the Nurse and Midwives Council. 1.B.Sc., (Nursing) from recognised University & 2.By direct ii)Must have recruitment registered with the Nurse and Midwives Council. 4. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is erroneous, because so far as the petitioner is concerned, she had already registered with the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council as early as in the year 1989. She had undergone a training in the Government Stanley hospital from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1988 and had passed the examination for nurses conducted by the Board of Examination in General Nursing. She had also obtained a Midwifery Certificate from the Board of Examiners in Midwifery, which qualification was also recorded by the Council as far as the registration for Midwives is concerned. Therefore, it was contended by Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order insofar as stating that she has not registered with the Nurses and Midwives Council was erroneous. 5. With reference to the other contentions, i.e., B.Sc.(Nursing) from the recognised university is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that she had gone through the course under the Open University system with the Indira Gandhi National Open University through correspondence. She was awarded with the degree by the university in B.Sc. (Nursing) vide certificate dated 18.3.2005. It was stated that the said University is recognised by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, she is having twin qualification prescribed. With reference to the qualification obtained from the recognised university, the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bessy Edison and another Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University and others in W.P.(C)No.5604 of 2010, dated 26.10.2010. Therefore, she is having twin qualification prescribed. With reference to the qualification obtained from the recognised university, the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bessy Edison and another Vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University and others in W.P.(C)No.5604 of 2010, dated 26.10.2010. The learned Judge of the Delhi High Court in the said judgment had held that the degree given by the IGNOU is an approved degree and it should be taken as the recognised degree for the purpose of joining the M.Sc.(Nursing) course, which was the subject matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court. 6. Notwithstanding the same, it was contended by Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel that since the UGC has recognised the IGNOU, the degree granted by them should be accepted as a recognised degree and that the State Government cannot go behind the same. 7. In answer to the same, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent Commissioner of Chennai Corporation stating that the degree obtained by the petitioner was not approved by the Government. The registration of the additional qualification has to be done with the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Widwives Council, which is a pre-requisite for promotional post of MCHO. As the State Government has not recognised the degree and even that additional qualification was not registered, the question of the petitioner having required qualification does not arise. It was further stated that the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council are not entitled to register candidates educated through distance mode and they are not entitled to obtain licence for their qualification as per the rules and the Act of the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council. A copy of the communication sent by the Registrar of the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Chennai, dated 15.12.2008 was produced. In that letter, in the last paragraph, it was stated as follows : "However, additional qualification of Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing degree registration in Tamilnadu Nurses and Midwives Council is mandatory to work par with the qualification in accordance with the nomenclature. Those courses which is not recognized by the Tamilnadu Nurses and Midwives Council are not entitled to register under Tamilnadu Nurses and Midwives Council. Subsequently, the candidates educated through distance mode are not eligible to obtain license for their qualification as per the existing Rules and Acts of Tamilnadu Nurses and Midwives Council." 8. Those courses which is not recognized by the Tamilnadu Nurses and Midwives Council are not entitled to register under Tamilnadu Nurses and Midwives Council. Subsequently, the candidates educated through distance mode are not eligible to obtain license for their qualification as per the existing Rules and Acts of Tamilnadu Nurses and Midwives Council." 8. The Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 clearly stipulates that under Section 10(2), the State council alone has power to recognise and if any such qualification is not included in the schedule, then they can apply to the council to have such qualification recognised. It is open to the council to declare that such qualification, only when granted after specified date, shall be recognised as a qualification for the purpose of the Act. The schedule contains two parts. It contains recognised qualification in Part -I and in Part-II, the recognised higher qualification has been prescribed. In the schedule, there is no reference to the qualification obtained by the petitioner. Hence the contention raised by Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel must necessarily fail. 9. The two qualifications prescribed for the post of MCHO cannot be separated. Firstly, the person is concerned, he must have a degree, which must be recognised by the council and that such higher qualification must be registered with the council. In the present case, neither the State Government has recognised the degree nor the petitioner was able to register the additional qualification with the council as the council has already taken a stand that this was not in favour of the recognised degree obtained through correspondence mode. 10. In the light of the factual position and the legal issue involved, this court is in opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case to challenge the impugned order. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.