Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the first respondent herein in Government Letter No.28127/H1/2013-2 dated 04.10.2013; to quash the same and to direct the respondents herein to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in accordance with her seniority in the panel for promotion to the post of Section Officer for the year 2010-2011 and to promote her as such with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of her immediate junior and to grant her all consequential service and monetary benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as Typist in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 06.04.1998. Thereafter, she was recruited by transfer as Graduate Typist in the Tamil Nadu Secretarial Service on 29.10.1993. According to the petitioner, she was promoted as Assistant in the year 2004 and as Assistant Section Officer on 18.10.2006. According to her, she became fully qualified and eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer and she was expecting her name to be included in the panel prepared for the year 2010-2011. However, to her shock and surprise, her name was not included on the ground that she has not completed her degree course in 10 + 2 + 3 pattern. According to the petitioner, she had completed her old pattern of SSLC, viz., 11 years + one year Foundation Course and obtained B.Com., degree Certificate by completing the three year course through the Correspondence Education. She made a representation to the third respondent regarding her qualification and for inclusion of her name in the panel prepared for promotion as Section Officer in the year 2010-11. However, the same was rejected by the third respondent vide order dated 09.01.2012. She also preferred a revision before the Government and that was also rejected. She made a representation to the third respondent regarding her qualification and for inclusion of her name in the panel prepared for promotion as Section Officer in the year 2010-11. However, the same was rejected by the third respondent vide order dated 09.01.2012. She also preferred a revision before the Government and that was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16982 of 2013 to quash the orders passed by the respondents and this Court vide order dated 25.06.2013 disposed of the said writ petition, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the first respondent enclosing the recommendation dated 04.01.2013 of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Equivalence Committee and the respondent also was directed to consider and pass orders in the light of the said recommendation. Accordingly, as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner made a representation before the first respondent along with the copy of the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee. However, the first respondent vide impugned order dated 04.10.2013 rejected the same. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court wherein one Mrs.R.Lalitha, who was similarly placed as that of the petitioner herein, challenged the G.O.(4D) No.41, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.05.2013 in W.P.No.16723 of 2013 and this Court by order dated 02.07.2013 has quashed the said Government Order. Aggrieved against the same, the Government preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1706 of 2013, wherein this Court vide order dated 20.01.2014 had confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge by stating that 11 + 1 + 3 pattern is equivalent to 10 + 2 + 3 pattern. He would further submit that the said petitioner was also later promoted as Section Officer vide G.O.(4D) No.23, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (H1) Department dated 09.04.2014. He would further submit that at that relevant point of time, the minimum qualification of degree for the eligibility to the next higher post was not available. Accordingly, he would submit that the Division Bench judgment of this Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, he would pray for a similar direction in this writ petition also. 4. Accordingly, he would submit that the Division Bench judgment of this Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, he would pray for a similar direction in this writ petition also. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3, by relying upon the counter affidavit filed would submit that the Government has not accepted the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Hence, even if it is found that 11 + 1 + 3 is equivalent to 10+2+3 as held by the Equivalence Committee, that will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Therefore, the authority after taking into consideration the minimum requirement as per the rule incorporated in 2012, which specifically states that degree has to be obtained with a basic qualification, even though it is through correspondence course, will not entitle the petitioner to get promotion. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is correct. In this connection, he would also submit that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission recommendation was made only on 04.01.2013 whereas the rule has come into force even in the year 2012 and with effect from 25.12.2011. Therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit adopting the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 3. 6. Heard all parties concerned. 7. The short point that arise for consideration in this writ petition is regarding the eligibility criteria of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Section Officer from Assistant Section Officer for the relevant period, viz., 2010-2011? 8. It is seen from the records that the cut off date for the promotion to the post of Section Officer is 01.06.2010 and the rule as it then was that not even a degree is required. The rule has been amended only in the year 2012 with retrospective effect from 25.12.2011; where a degree is mandatorily contemplated. Therefore, if we take the relevant point of time of 01.06.2010, the cut off date, the rule does not prescribe even a degree. Therefore, on this point alone, the petitioner is liable to be promoted. She has got other required qualifications. Therefore, if we take the relevant point of time of 01.06.2010, the cut off date, the rule does not prescribe even a degree. Therefore, on this point alone, the petitioner is liable to be promoted. She has got other required qualifications. This Court, under similar circumstances in the writ petition in W.P.No.14658 of 2011 dated 30.07.2012 in respect of promotion to the post of Under Secretary to the Government have categorically held in para 13 thus: "13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the petitioner had passed S.S.L.C.Examination (11 years) and thereafter, completed the second year foundation course, in the year, 1983-84, which is equivalent to +2 course, as per the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.528, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.R.) Department, dated 18.05.1985. Thereafter, he had completed the three year B.Com., degree course, from Madurai Kamaraj University, during the years 1984-87, through correspondence. While so, he had been appointed, as an Assistant, by transfer, from the post of Personal Clerk, in the year, 1988. Thereafter, his service, in the post of Assistant, had been regularized, treating the same as promotion. As the petitioner was found to be possessing the necessary qualifications he had been promoted, as an Assistant Section Officer, in the year 1993. Thereafter, he had been promoted, as a Section Officer, in the year, 2006. As such, he was eligible to be promoted, to the post of Under Secretary, in the year, 2010, as he had possessed the necessary qualifications, as per the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service Rules prevailing at the relevant point of time. Therefore, it is not open to the respondent to contend that the petitioner had not possessed the necessary education qualifications, for being promoted to the post of Under Secretary, as per the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.92, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (C) Department, dated 20.06.2012, which had come into force, only with effect from 16.12.2011. Therefore, it is not open to the respondent to contend that the petitioner had not possessed the necessary education qualifications, for being promoted to the post of Under Secretary, as per the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.92, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (C) Department, dated 20.06.2012, which had come into force, only with effect from 16.12.2011. As the said Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.92, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (C) Department, dated 20.6.2012, has not prescribed the possession of a Bachelor's Degree, from a regular university, after, 10, + 2 years of study, at the school level, with retrospective effect, the said Government order would not be an impediment for the name of the petitioner being included in the panel for the post of Under Secretary, for the year, 2010-2011. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent cannot be countenanced. As such, this Court is of the considered view that the name of the petitioner ought to have been considered for being included in the panel for promotion, to the post of Under Secretary to Government, for the year 2010-2011, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 9. When that matter was taken on appeal in Writ appeal, in W.A.No.1372 of 2013 by the Government, this Court in its order dated 12.07.2013 discussed all the above points and held thus: "17. On the crucial date, i.e., 01.09.2009, for promotion to the post of Under Secretary, the respondent/writ petitioner, in terms of Annexure to the Tamil Nadu General Service, has fulfilled all the necessary qualifications and therefore, the appellant/official respondent ought to have considered his claim. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would also disclose that he was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Under Secretary and later on only, his name was dropped on the misconception that G.O.Ms.No.107, P & AR (M) Department, dated 18.08.2009, and G.O.Ms.No.92, P & AR (C) Department, dated 20.6.2012, would be applicable to the case on hand. In the considered opinion of the Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly taken into consideration the legal as well as the factual aspects and rightly arrived at a decision that the writ petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary and accordingly, granted the relief. In the considered opinion of the Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly taken into consideration the legal as well as the factual aspects and rightly arrived at a decision that the writ petitioner is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary and accordingly, granted the relief. This Court is of the view that there is no error apparent or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge for allowing the writ petition and finds no merits in this writ appeal. 18. In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2012, made in W.P.No.14658/2011, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed." 10. In the case on hand, the petitioner has completed the B.Com. Degree through correspondence education, after completing the one year Foundation Course. If that be so, the only point to be verified is whether the permission granted to the petitioner to write the degree course was a valid one and naturally, the above ruling is applicable to the facts of this case also. Applying the same formula as per the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the impugned order passed summarily rejecting the petitioner's case is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned for its fresh consideration, in the light of the judgment of this Court cited supra. The authority concerned, shall give necessary opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months, thereafter. 11. With the above observation, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.