JUDGMENT The Petitioner has projected the instant Writ of Declaration praying for passing of an order by this Court in declaring the non-selection of the Petitioner by the First Respondent as per the Proceedings in No.Nil dated Nil for the post of Graduate Assistant [English] on the ground that she studied B.A. English Literature with specialisation in Communicative English Degree Course as null and void. Further, she has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent to declare that she is selected for the post of Graduate Assistant [English] and issue order of appointment to her on the basis of passing of Teachers Eligibility Test held on 14.10.2012. 2. According to the Petitioner, she completed 10th Standard in March, 2006 and enrolled herself in the Employment Exchange on 16.06.2006 in Registration No.TDC2006 F00008055. Later, she had completed her Plus Two in March 2008. She joined her B.A. Degree Course (English Literature) in the year 2008 and completed the same in April, 2011 and Certificate was issued to that effect by the Bharathidasan University on 10.11.2011. Thereafter, she did her B.Ed., Course and a certificate was issued by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University on 27.08.2011 and all the degrees obtained by her were registered in the Employment Exchange Register. 3. She called for certificate verification in Roll No.32250880 for the post of B.T. Assistants under General Turn, since she belongs to OC category on 06.11.2012 at the St. Marys Higher Secondary School, Dindugul. She produced all her testimonials to the concerned authority. The Authority has verified the documents and informed her that the results would be published in the website shortly. The results were published by the Teachers Recruitment Board in the website on 05.12.2012, wherein against her name, it was mentioned that she was not selected on the ground that she had studied Communicative English. She immediately approached the concerned authority, viz., Teachers Recruitment Board and try to inform that she studied only B.A. (English Literature) and one of her ancillary subjects is Communicative English. However, to her shock and surprise, the counselling for the said post had been started from 10.12.2012. As such, she made a representation to the Respondents on 06.12.2012 to allow her to participate in the counselling and consequently, appoint her as B.T. Assistant. However, there is no response from the authority till date. However, to her shock and surprise, the counselling for the said post had been started from 10.12.2012. As such, she made a representation to the Respondents on 06.12.2012 to allow her to participate in the counselling and consequently, appoint her as B.T. Assistant. However, there is no response from the authority till date. In these circumstances, she had filed the present Writ Petition. 4. It is to be pointed out that the Petitioner originally filed the Writ of Mandamus praying for issuance of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to allow her in participating in the Counselling which was to be held from 10.12.2012 and consequently, direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to appoint her to the post of Graduate Assistant (English) with all other consequential benefits. 5. It comes to be known that the Petitioner projected M.P.No.2 of 2012 in W.P.No.33078 of 2012 and sought amendment of the prayer as 'Writ of Declaration, declaring the non-selection of the Petitioner by the First Respondent vide Proceedings in No.Nil dated Nil, for the post of Graduate Assistant [English] on the ground that she studied B.A. English Literature with specialisation in Communicative English Degree Course as null and void, etc., and the same was allowed by this Court on 19.12.2012. 6. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner obtained B.A. Decree in English with Specialisation in Communicative English. It appears that when the result of Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligibility Test Supplementary 2012, was published in the website under the Caption 'Selected', it was mentioned as 'No', as against the name of the Petitioner in Roll No.12TE32250880, in the remarks column, it was mentioned as 'Communicative English'. 7. The requirement for the post of Graduate Assistant (English) is B.A. (English Literature). It appears that the Petitioner had obtained B.A. English Degree with Distinction in 'D' Grade and that too 'with Specialisation in Communicative English'. Only on the ground that the Petitioner obtained her Graduate B.A. Degree in Communicative English, she was not selected in the Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligibility Test-Supplementary 2012. It appears that the Petitioner had obtained B.A. English Degree with Distinction in 'D' Grade and that too 'with Specialisation in Communicative English'. Only on the ground that the Petitioner obtained her Graduate B.A. Degree in Communicative English, she was not selected in the Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligibility Test-Supplementary 2012. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings to the notice of this Court to G.O.(Ms).270, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 31.12.2013, issued by the Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, wherein in Item No.5, it is mentioned as follows: Sl.No. Name of the Course Equivalent/Not Equivalent 5) Public Services - Educational Qualification - Consideration of B.A., English with Speciliazation in Communicative English awarded by Bharathidasan University as Equivalent to B.A. English for the purpose of Employment in Public Services. Equivalent 8. From the above, it is quite clear that the B.A. English Degree with Specialisation in Communicative English awarded by the Bharathidasan University is considered as Equivalent to B.A. English for the purpose of employment in Public Services. By virtue of tenor and spirit of G.O.(Ms).No.270, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 31.12.2013, it is pellucidly clear that the Petitioner's B.A. Degree with Specialisation in Communicative English is considered to be an equivalent of B.A., English Degree. 9. At this juncture, this Court worth recalls and recollects the Full Bench order of this Court dated in 29.11.2013 in W.P. (MD).Nos.W.P.(MD)Nos.16181, 16051, 16052, 15660 & 16780 of 2012 and 18793 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (MD)No.637 of 2013 between Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman.A Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another [where one of us (M.VENUGOPAL,J) was a party)], whereby and whereunder in paragraphs 21 to 25, it is observed and laid down as follows: "21. In yet another judgment of the Apex Court in Udai Singh Dagar vs. Union of India, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 306 , while considering almost a similar issue with regard to protecting the rights and privileges of diploma and certificate holders in Veterinary Science, it was held that not only a vested or accrued right but also inchoate right is protected. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on a decision in Court of Appeal in Chief Adjudication Officer vs. Maguire, reported in (1999) 2 All ER 859 (CA). Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on a decision in Court of Appeal in Chief Adjudication Officer vs. Maguire, reported in (1999) 2 All ER 859 (CA). It is relevant to extract paragraph 71 of the above said judgment:- 71. The expression ‘unless a different intention appears’ contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, thus, in this case, would be clearly attracted. A right, whether inchoate or accrued or acquired right, can be held to be protected provided the right survives. If the right itself does not survive and either expressly or by necessary implication it stands abrogated, the question of applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not arise at all. (See Banisdhar vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 557 and Thyssen Stahlunion GmbH vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. reported in (1999) 9 SCC 334 . 22. The above observation of the Apex Court clearly answers the doubt raised in this Reference that a right whether inchoate or accrued or acquired right can be held to be protected, provided the right survives. In the light of the said principle, if the case on hand is considered, admittedly, the equivalence committee has considered and approved the equivalent nature of the degree and certificate obtained by the candidates. Similarly, the Government Order issued by the Government also agrees with the validity of the degree, therefore, from the date the degree was obtained by the candidate, the right is accrued, hence the same should be protected. While so, giving a different meaning that the validity of the degree will have prospective effect or retrospective effect is uncalled for. To make it even further clear, we wish to mention at the risk of repetition that when both the equivalence committee and the Government Order issued by the State Government have not chosen to restrict the validity of the degree obtained in any one of their orders, it goes without saying that the validity of the degree from the date of acquisition will stand to benefit the candidates, therefore, the question of introducing the prospective or retrospective ruling will tantamount to violent interpretation against the settled legal position. In this context, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Vadera vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1969 SC 118 , wherein, the law is well declared that an accrued and acquired right of a person cannot be taken away with retrospective effect. 23. Also, in the present case, neither the Equivalence Committee nor the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.72, dated 30.04.2013 and 117, dated 02.07.2013, confined the validity of the degree obtained by the candidates to operate prospectively, therefore, as per the above judgments, when the vested rights are created from the date of their acquisition of equivalent degrees, the Respondents cannot take a stand that the degrees obtained by the Petitioners will only have prospective effect from the date of issuance of Equivalence Certificate. When both the Equivalence Committee and the Government Order have consistently not mentioned the effect of the validity of the degree, it is not proper to hold prospective by any one, more so, by the Court. That apart, a degree or a certificate issued by any University or competent educational authorities always have the effect on par with a decree issued by a competent civil court. Besides, it is well settled legal position that even an executing court cannot go behind its decree and this principle will mutatis mutandis undoubtedly apply to the case on hand as well. 24. It must be stressed here that fairness demands that no court can afford to have more than one view on one or the same issue; lest, there will be inconsistency. Consistency and Uniformity are the basic virtues inherent in every court proceedings. The law is meant to protect people from inconsistency bred by any legal confusion and confrontation. When two of the learned single Judges' orders have not been addressed nor over-ruled on the vital point, we are duty-bound to iron out the inconsistency to have uniformity and consistency on the issue involved. To uphold the 'one court-one view' principle, in turn, to restore the consistency and uniformity, we hereby hold that the view taken in Geetha's case is incorrect, therefore, it is over-ruled. 25. To uphold the 'one court-one view' principle, in turn, to restore the consistency and uniformity, we hereby hold that the view taken in Geetha's case is incorrect, therefore, it is over-ruled. 25. In view of the above settled position and for the foregoing reasons, we hold that the equivalence certificate issued by the committee constituted by the Government declaring that the degrees obtained from one University is equivalent to the degrees obtained from yet another University cannot be held to be only prospective in operation but will have its effect and validity right from the date of issuance, therefore, with due respect to the Hon'ble Division Bench, the view taken in N.Geetha's case is incorrect. Accordingly, the reference is answered." 10. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's B.A., English Degree with Specialisation in Communicative English is considered to be an Equivalent of B.A., English in terms of G.O.(Ms).No.270, Higher Education (K2) Department, dated 31.12.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is rightly and legitimately to be considered in regard to the appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant (English). 11. It is to be noted that in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.33078 of 2012, this Court on 19.12.2012 has passed the following order: "Any appointment made pursuant to the notification is subject to the result of the writ petition. Notice." 12. Viewed in that perspective, the publication of results by the Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai-600 006, in regard to the Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligibility Test - Supplementary 2012 (Gradate Assistants) - Departments of School Education (Vide page 12 of the Typeset of papers in this Writ Petition) to the effect that the Petitioner was not selected because of her B.A. Degree with Communicative English, is liable to be set aside and further, this Court holds that the Petitioner's B.A. English Degree with Specialisation with Communicative English is an equivalent one to that of B.A. English Degree in terms of G.O.(Ms).No.270, dated 31.12.2013, Higher Education (K2) Department and also the Full Bench order of this Court dated 29.11.2013 in W.P.(MD)Nos.16181 of 2013 etc. Batch case and accordingly, this Court directs the First Respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Graduate Assistant (English) in a Fair, Just and dispassionate and objective manner and to pass a reasoned speaking order by specifying the outline of reasoning within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. [Of course after providing necessary opportunities to the Petitioner by adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice]. If situation so warrants (based on the attendant facts and circumstances of the case which floats on the surface), this Court directs the First Respondent to place the Petitioner at the appropriate place (in seniority) in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.