Judgment :- V.M. Velumani, J. Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 08.04.2011, made in W.P.(MD).No.12812/2009. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(MD).No.12812/2009 are the appellants herein challenging the order dated 08.4.2011 allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent. 3. The first respondent filed W.P.(MD).No.12812/2009 to quash the audit objections made by second respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.2552/A4/07, dated Nil.7.2007 and to quash the consequential order of the first appellant made in Mu.Mu.No.73447/D2/E1/09 dated 19.10.2009 and confer all the consequential benefits. 4. According to the first respondent, he has studied up to 11th Standard (Old SSLC) failed in 1970 and was appointed as Drawing Master on 01.07.1980. He was appointed in a permanent post, due to the retirement of Drawing Master. The second respondent herein, during the audit raised objection to the payment of salary to the first respondent as Secondary grade teacher. The objection was raised, as to the payment of salary to the first respondent as Secondary Grade Teacher based on G.O.Ms.No.1366 Education Department, dated 05.09.1986, by which the minimum qualification for Drawing Master was SSLC. The first respondent did not complete SSLC and he is not entitled to payment of salary as Secondary Grade Teacher. 5. The first respondent by his representation dated 13.5.2008 requested the authorities to fix his salary. The authorities did not pass any orders on his representation. Therefore, he filed W.P.(MD)No.6226 of 2009 for a direction to the respondents therein to consider his representation. This Court by order dated 15.07.2009 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents therein to consider the representation and pass orders. In compliance of the said order, the first appellant passed the order dated 19.10.2009 rejecting the request of the first respondent to exempt from passing SSLC. This order was passed in view of G.O.Ms.No.1366, Education Department, dated 05.9.1986 as the first respondent failed to complete his SSLC within a prescribed period of 3 years. 6. The first respondent has challenged the said order in this Court by filing W.P.(MD).No.12812/2009. The first respondent relied on the Judgment of this Court reported in 2004 Writ L.R.204 in the case of R.Sankaran V.The Secretary, Education Department, etc & others, wherein it is held at paragraph 2 of the order as follows: “2. 6. The first respondent has challenged the said order in this Court by filing W.P.(MD).No.12812/2009. The first respondent relied on the Judgment of this Court reported in 2004 Writ L.R.204 in the case of R.Sankaran V.The Secretary, Education Department, etc & others, wherein it is held at paragraph 2 of the order as follows: “2. The petitioner who had studied under the old syllabus of 11 years course appeared for the SSLC but failed in the final examination in one subject. Thereafter, he underwent craft training for Weaving Instructor course in the year 1973 and he passed the higher examination in Hand loom Weaving in 1979. Thereafter, he was selected by the Department of Education for Teachers, for Technical Certificate Course and passed the same in 1978. In terms of the qualification, he was considered to possess the minimum general qualification prescribed for entry into the public service or for the appointment of teacher. As a qualified Weaving Instructor, he was working as a full time Selection Grade Craft Instructor in the Panchayath Union Middle School, Ayyampettai in the scale of Rs.1,400-2,600. He was appointed by virtue of the Order dated 18.9.1974 as a full time Instructor. Subsequently, the scale of pay was revised from time to time and he was made eligible to the pay scale of Rs.610-20-730-1075 by letter dated 21.4.1987 with effect from 1.4.1986.” 7. This Court followed the above said Judgment in the order dated 30.07.2010, in W.P.No.9454 of 2010. 8. The appellants in the counter affidavit have contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.1366, Education Department, dated 05.9.1986 that the appointment has not become invalid, but, they have to acquire qualification within 3 years. Having failed to acquire qualification within prescribed time, the first respondent is not entitled to salary of Secondary Grade Teacher. The appellants have further contended in the counter affidavit that the scale of pay wrongly paid to the first respondent was ordered to be stopped and the second respondent had rightly made their objections in this regard and stated that the impugned order is valid and legal. 9. The learned Judge considered all the materials on record and held that G.O.Ms.No.1366, Education Department, dated 05.9.1986 will come into force only with prospective effect. Therefore, there will be no bar for the persons, who were appointed earlier to the said Government Order to get Secondary Grade Teacher pay. 9. The learned Judge considered all the materials on record and held that G.O.Ms.No.1366, Education Department, dated 05.9.1986 will come into force only with prospective effect. Therefore, there will be no bar for the persons, who were appointed earlier to the said Government Order to get Secondary Grade Teacher pay. Against the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. 10. The Special Government Pleader contended that the learned Judge erred in appreciating the G.O.Ms.No.1366, Education Department, dated 05.9.1986. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the said Government Order has categorically fixed the minimum qualification for Drawing Master as SSLC and granted ample opportunity of 3 years for unqualified Drawing Masters to complete their SSLC within the prescribed period. The first respondent failed to qualify by obtaining SSLC. Further, by G.O.Ms.No.152, School Education (D2) Department, dated 05.08.2005, the Government have rejected the request of the first respondent and directed to revise the scale of pay of Drawing Master, like the first respondent. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the learned Judge has considered all the materials on record in proper perspective and the earlier Judgment of this Court with regard to very same Government Order and passed the order against which the present appeal has been filed. It is not correct to state that the learned Judge did not consider G.O.Ms.No.152, School Education (D2) Department, dated 05.08.2005. On the other hand, the learned Judge has taken note of the order of this Court dated 30.7.2010 made in W.P.No.9454 of 2010 wherein it was held that the said Government Order was passed based on G.O.Ms.No.1366, Education Department, dated 05.09.1986 which was held to be prospective by this Court. 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions put forward by either side and perused the materials on record. 13. This issue based on G.O.Ms.No.1366, Education Department, dated 05.9.1986 is no longer res integra. On two occasions, this Court considered G.O.Ms.No.1366, Education Department, dated 05.09.1986 and held that the said Government Order is prospective in nature and persons, who are appointed earlier to the Government Order as per the prescribed educational qualification prevailing at that time will be entitled to salary and fixed earlier. On two occasions, this Court considered G.O.Ms.No.1366, Education Department, dated 05.09.1986 and held that the said Government Order is prospective in nature and persons, who are appointed earlier to the Government Order as per the prescribed educational qualification prevailing at that time will be entitled to salary and fixed earlier. Even in the said Government Order, it has been mentioned that the revision of scale of pay to the Craft Teachers with SSLC qualification will take effect from 01.10.1984 notionally with monetary benefits with effect from 01.04.1986. 14. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is untenable and not acceptable. 15. In the result, writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013 is closed.