JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard both sides. The petitioners passed S.S.L.C. during the period 1982-1984. Thereafter, they obtained Diploma in Teacher Education, two years course, during the period 1984-1987. They also passed B.A. / B.Lit. in Tamil. They are serving as Secondary Grade Teachers in various Government High Schools. According to them, they are eligible for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistants (Tamil). But, the third respondent issued the impugned proceedings stating that petitioners are ineligible to be promoted as Graduate Assistants as on 1.1.2013. The petitioners have filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid proceedings and have sought for a direction to the respondents to treat the Diploma in Teacher Education course as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Course for promotion as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) and to promote them as B.T. Assistant in Tamil. 3. It is not disputed that the petitioners passed S.S.L.C. and thereafter, they underwent Diploma in Teacher Education course for two years. Based on the said qualification, they were appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers. They also studied B.A./ B.Lit. (Tamil). All these facts are not in dispute. 4. In similar circumstances, this court has passed an order dated 22.02.2013 in W.P.Nos.3622, 25196 and 34622 of 2012 holding that Secondary Grade Teachers, who are holding Diploma in Teacher Education and who are in possession of Diploma in Teacher Education after passing 10th standard and also obtained degree thereafter, shall be treated as equivalent to 10+2+3 stream. This court also held that such teachers are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant. Paragraphs 8 to 10 of the judgment are extracted hereunder: "8. Mr.R.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in these writ petitions is no longer res integra as in a similar circumstances, this Court held that possessing Diploma Course in Teacher Education with Secondary School Leaving Certificate can also be considered as a substitute for higher secondary course. The learned counsel relied on the decision rendered by this Court in E.Ganesan and others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. The learned counsel relied on the decision rendered by this Court in E.Ganesan and others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9 dated 27.11.2011 passed in WP Nos.22484 of 2012 etc., batch wherein, by a common order dated 27.11.2012, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, passed the following order. "3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the issue raised in this writ petition has been clearly answered by K.Suguna, J in M.Valarmathi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai- in WP No.25432 of 2011 dated 02.07.2012. By the aforesaid order, the learned Judge found that the Diploma in Teacher Education obtained by the petitioners therein subsequent to the SSLC Qualification can be considered as 10 + 2 and it cannot be insisted that they should go through the higher secondary course. In paragraphs 19, 20 and 21, the learned Judge observed as follows:- "19. The other contradict argument of the learned Special Government Pleader is that since the petitioners have undergone only +2 course, though they have been given Diploma in Teacher Education, they can be construed only as equivalent to +2 candidates is concerned, just like any other candidates, these three petitioners have also undergone +2 course, but in the Teacher Education. As such, having given them a Diploma in Teacher Education and having accepted that they possess the required qualification for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Assistant, now, after lapse of more than twenty years, the Department cannot be permitted to turn around and say that these petitioners should be treated as +2 candidates. That apart, when one possesses the required qualification as prescribed under the statute, one's claim cannot be overlooked. 20. Yet another aspect to be noted in these cases is that when as per the Government Order referred to above, i.e., G.O.Ms.No.1431, Education Department dated 16.09.1986, the petitioners possess the qualification equivalent to Diploma, which is issued by the Teacher Training Institutes, the Director of Elementary Education, by the impugned proceedings, cannot issue a direction over-riding the said Government Order. 21. 21. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, paragraph No.22 of the proceedings of the Director of Elementary Education dated 13.09.2011 issued in Na.Ka.No.12118/D1/2011 is quashed in so far as it relates to treating those who have undergone Teacher Training Course in the higher Secondary Course as those who have completed only Higher Secondary Course. In view of this, as far as W.P.No.25432 of 2011 is concerned, the impugned order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the third respondent by which the fifth respondent is promoted as Middle School Headmaster, is quashed. Consequently, in W.P.Nos.25432 of 2011 and 23898 of 2011, the official respondents are directed to promote the petitioners as Middle School Headmasters with effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted as Middle School Headmasters and to award consequential benefits to the petitioners." 4. It is fairly submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader that so far, the Department has not gone on appeal but yet they have got their options open. 5. Subsequent to the order passed by K.Suguna, J., S.Nagamuthu, J. in a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.24495 to 24497 of 2012 in K.Chandrasekaran vs. the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, by a common order dated 10.09.2012 agreed with the view taken in the earlier writ petitions and directed the respondents to hold the similarly placed persons as eligible for promotion to the post of Graduate Assistant, if they, satisfied with other requirements. Even in these writ petitions, no writ appeal has been filed till date." 9. No doubt it is true that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.107, P&AR Department dated 10.08.2009 ordering that any degree obtained without passing 10 + 2 + 3 stream cannot be said to be equivalent or it can be recognised for the purpose of employment. The said Government Order cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners who have admittedly possessed the Diploma in Teacher Education long back, which was held to be equivalent to the higher secondary course by this Court in the above said decisions. 10. Therefore, in the light of the above decision of this Court, the petitioners are bound to succeed. 10. Therefore, in the light of the above decision of this Court, the petitioners are bound to succeed. Consequently, the order impugned in the first writ petition namely WP No.3361 of 2012 reverting the petitioner to the lower post and the guidelines issued in para No.22 of the proceedings dated 13.09.2011 of the Director of Elementary Education for not considering the degree after completion of diploma in teacher education, which are impugned in the other two writ petition, is held to be wholly unjustifiable. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 5. In view of the said judgment, the impugned proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned is quashed. This writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the Diploma in Teacher Education course as equivalent to Higher Secondary course for promotion as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) and to promote the petitioners as B.T. Assistant in Tamil at the time when their turn come. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.