Judgment :- 1. When Writ Petition No.252 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the proceedings dated 4.3.2010, wherein and by which the respondent Chennai City Corporation granted promotion of the Senior Secondary Grade Teachers working in Urdu Primary Schools to that of Headmistress of Primary/Middle School, as well as the order dated 23.11.2010, wherein once again the Corporation filled up the post of Headmistress of Chennai Urdu Middle School by granting promotion to the Primary School Headmistress/Secondary Grade Teachers. The petitioners challenged the same. It was informed that the petitioner has already filed two other Writ Petitions and therefore those Writ Petitions were directed to be posted along with the Writ Petition. Accordingly, all the three Writ Petitions have been posted. 2. On notice, the respondent Corporation has filed a detailed counter affidavit dated 30.1.2012 in Writ Petition No.252 of 2012. 3. It is seen from the records that in Writ Petition No.6579 of 2010, the challenge is made to the very same order dated 4.3.2010, which is subsequently challenged in Writ Petition No.252 of 2012 on the ground that the promotion made in respect of the contesting respondent Akther Begum and other contesting respondents as violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and after setting aside the same, the petitioner seeks for a direction to issue a fresh seniority list for the purpose of preparing promotion panel and to include the petitioners name in an appropriate place and to promote the petitioner for the post of Head Mistress of the Chennai Corporation Urdhu Schools. That Writ Petition was admitted on 29.4.2010. Pending the Writ Petition, the petitioners prayer for interim direction was rejected by this Court. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.22603 of 2010 seeking for a direction to dispose of her representation dated 07.10.2007 and legal notice dated 10.08.2010 and for consequential direction to the respondents to consider her case to the post of Supervisor of the Chennai Corporation Urdu Schools. That Writ Petition was admitted on 29.3.2011. 5. Even while these two Writ Petitions were pending, the petitioner filed a third Writ Petition, namely Writ Petition No.25593 of 2010 seeking for a direction to pay the difference in time scale of pay for her service as Headmistress (incharge) of Corporation Urdu Girls School with effect from 1.6.2001 to March 2010. That Writ Petition was admitted on 29.3.2011. 5. Even while these two Writ Petitions were pending, the petitioner filed a third Writ Petition, namely Writ Petition No.25593 of 2010 seeking for a direction to pay the difference in time scale of pay for her service as Headmistress (incharge) of Corporation Urdu Girls School with effect from 1.6.2001 to March 2010. That Writ Petition came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 29.4.2011. In that order, in paragraphs 3 and 4, it was observed as follows: "(3.) In order to find out what is the qualification prescribed for holding the post of Headmistress, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to produce the relevant rules and it is now stated that for the post of Headmistress in a Middle School, the required qualification is degree of any University in the State or a degree of equivalent standard and B.T. Or B.Ed degree of an University in the State. The learned counsel stated that the Madras University had earlier given a certificate, in respect of another candidate, for passing ADIB-I-FAZIL wherein it is stated that it is equivalent to B.A.Degree in Branch XII Urdu. But, in the copy of the certificate produced by the petitioner, which is enclosed at page No.7, there is no such equivalence mentioned by the University. (4.) However, as could be seen from the counter, the petitioner has been given promotion as Middle School Headmistress with effect from 23.11.2010 on being identified that she is in possession of the required qualification. But, her request to pay the salary for the period from 1.6.2001 to March, 2010 during which she was acting as Headmistress In-charge cannot be granted by this Court, unless it is officially authorised. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed." 6. Subsequent to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has come forward with the fourth Writ Petition, namely Writ Petition No.252 of 2012 with the relief already set out above. 7. Heard the arguments of Mr.K.Marimuthu, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the three Writ Petitions and Mrs.A.Karthika Ashok, Standing Counsel for Chennai Corporation. 8. It is seen from the records as set out by the petitioner that she was appointed as Urdu Teacher in Corporation Urdu Girls Primary School, Dadasha Makan and she joined duty on 15.4.1997. 7. Heard the arguments of Mr.K.Marimuthu, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the three Writ Petitions and Mrs.A.Karthika Ashok, Standing Counsel for Chennai Corporation. 8. It is seen from the records as set out by the petitioner that she was appointed as Urdu Teacher in Corporation Urdu Girls Primary School, Dadasha Makan and she joined duty on 15.4.1997. Subsequently she is in possession of Diploma in Teacher Education and also passed M.A.Degree in Urdu on 15.10.2004. She had passed Tamil Test as applicable to Government Servants in terms of Rule 12-A of the General Rules framed by the State Government conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 1.9.2009. She also claims that she passed Adib-e-Fazil in Urdu Branch, which is equivalent to B.A.Degree in Urdu for the purpose of appointment. 9. In the Writ Petition No.652 of 2012, when the petitioner was informed that she was not qualified to be promoted to the post of Headmistress as she does not have passed +2 Higher Secondary Course and has straight away got a P.G.Degree which cannot be recognised as equivalent as per the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner in paragraph 34 set out certain names of persons, who had also not passed +2 examination and one such name is Akthar Begum. According to the petitioner, that person also has not passed +2 but she has been promoted. It is in that view, she sought to quash the promotion list dated 4.3.2010 and 23.11.2010. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation, it is clearly stated that the Corporation has also adopted the Rule equivalent to Rule 12-A of the General Rules, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1383, Education (PUS) Department dated 23.8.1988. Since she had not passed the Tamil Proficiency Test, her name was not included in the seniority promotion panel for the post of Primary School Headmistress. As she has passed Language Pandit Grade I, namely "Adib-I-Fazil" only in April 2009, her name could not be included in the panel for the year 2008. Therefore, when the list was released on 3.1.2008, she was not technically having the required qualification and hence her representation could not be considered. Her name was subsequently included in the seniority list at Serial No.4. On the basis of promotion panel dated 3.1.2008, the Teachers were called for counselling to be posted in various vacant posts by the impugned order dated 4.3.2010. Her name was subsequently included in the seniority list at Serial No.4. On the basis of promotion panel dated 3.1.2008, the Teachers were called for counselling to be posted in various vacant posts by the impugned order dated 4.3.2010. At the relevant time, her claim for having passed Language Pandit Grade-I was not available, her name could not be included and her legal notice was also not considered. Due to administrative delay, as per the panel dated 3.1.2008, promotion order could not be issued and finally it was issued only on 4.3.2010. Therefore, there was no panel prepared for the year 2009. 11. Ultimately when a fresh panel was prepared for the year 2010, the petitioners name was included as Headmistress (Urdu) and by this time, the petitioner has passed Tamil Proficiency Test in September 2009 and Adibi-I-Fazil on 31.10.2009. she was promoted and appointed Middle School Headmistress in Urdu on 23.11.2010. Because of this fact was brought to the notice, that Writ Petition No.25593 of 2010 was dismissed on two grounds, one was that subsequent to her qualification, her name was included in the promotion panel and she was also promoted and consequently her claim that she was entitled to get difference in time scale of pay for her service as incharge Headmistress, could not be considered as she was not entitled to get difference in salary as she was lacking minimum qualification for holding the post. It is because of that, Writ Petition No.25593 of 2010 came to be dismissed and that has become final and that is not the subject matter of any appeal. 12. In any event subsequent to the promotion of the petitioner, it transpires that she did not have +2 qualification by passing the Higher Secondary Course and she had passed only 10th Standard when she was promoted on 23.11.2010. 13. The allegation of the petitioner that Mrs.Akthar Begum was a person, who also did not pass +2 course was given promotion, was also dealt with in the counter affidavit. It was stated that subsequent to the promotion of Mrs.Akthar Begum, the Corporation came to know she was lacking minimum educational qualification having not passed +2 examination and therefore by order dated 11.5.2011, her promotion was revoked and she was reverted back to Primary School Headmistress post from the promoted post of Middle School Headmistress. It was stated that subsequent to the promotion of Mrs.Akthar Begum, the Corporation came to know she was lacking minimum educational qualification having not passed +2 examination and therefore by order dated 11.5.2011, her promotion was revoked and she was reverted back to Primary School Headmistress post from the promoted post of Middle School Headmistress. It was also stated that in case of Akthar Begum, she had not only done P.G.Course but also U.G. Course before P.G.Course. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.116, dated 18.8.2010 will not apply to her case. But, however, the Corporation having found that she lacked the minimum educational qualification had issued a show cause notice and issued reversion order to the post of Primary School Headmistress. Hence, it was claimed that there was no violation of G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 18.8.2009 and it does not apply to the case of the said Akthar Begum. In any event, her reversion is the subject matter of another Writ Petition, namely W.P.No.6098 OF 2011 and that case will be dealt with as and when that matter is listed. 14. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the promotion relating to Akthar Begum. It is suffice that the Corporation has explained the circumstances under which she was originally promoted and the reason for reverting her to the lower post is on finding that she does have the minimum general educational qualification. 15. The only question to be considered is whether the petitioners promotion given to her on 23.11.2010 on the basis that she was fit for promotion for the panel of the year 2010 has to be interfered with and she should be given from the earlier date as claimed by her. As explained in the counter affidavit, the petitioner lacked the minimum general educational qualification. Even though in Writ Petition No.25593 of 2007, this fact was recorded and she was informed that she was not eligible for the difference in salary for the incharge post and her subsequent promotion was in terms of the Rules, the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No.252 of 2012 cannot seek to improve her status by contending that unqualified persons have been promoted. As rightly explained by the Corporation, the case of Akthar Begum is no way comparable to the case of the petitioner. 16. As rightly explained by the Corporation, the case of Akthar Begum is no way comparable to the case of the petitioner. 16. Already the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Annamalai University represented by its Registrar vs. Secretary to Government and others reported in 2009 (4) SCC 590 has dealt with the effect of a person having P.G.degree under the distance mode without passing the minimum general educational qualification prescribed under the Rules. 17. This Court do not find that the petitioner has made out any case either for retrospective promotion or that the panel prepared and released on 4.3.2010 and 23.11.2010 suffers from any infirmities. Hence, W.P.No.252 of 2012 will stand dismissed. For the very same reason, the question of considering the petitioners representation dated 7.10.2007 as well as the legal notice dated 10.8.2010 cannot be considered. Hence, Writ Petition No.22603 of 2010 also stands dismissed. 18. In W.P.No.6597 of 2010, the order dated 4.3.2010 is under challenge which is also covered by W.P No.252 of 2012, wherein no relief was granted. Hence, W.P.No.6579 of 2010 also stands dismissed. 19. In the result, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs.