Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent rejecting the petitioner's candidature for the post of P.G Assistant (Tamil) on the ground that she studied M.A., B.Ed., in the same year. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- She completed her B.A., (Tamil) regular degree during the academic year 2004-2007. Thereafter, she joined B.Ed., in the academic year 2007-2008, for which, examination was conducted in April 2008. She passed the B.Ed., degree in the month of July 2008. After the result, she joined the M.A., (two years) Tamil in the academic year 2008 November to 2009 November. First year examination of M.A., was conducted in November 2008 and the second year examination was conducted in November 2009. She passed M.A., in November 2009. After obtaining the above degree, she participated in the examination conducted by the respondent in the month of October 2012 for the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil). She was successful in the examination by obtaining 108 marks. However, the respondent declined to give appointment to the petitioner on the ground that she studied M.A., as well as B.Ed., in the same year. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it is stated that at the time of certificate verification, it was found that the petitioner passed B.Ed., degree course in July 2008 and she wrote M.A., (Tamil) in November 2009 and passed M.A., (Tamil). Because the petitioner pursued both B.Ed., course and M.A., (Tamil) course during the same academic year, the petitioner was not selected for appointment. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the reasons stated in the impugned order is factually not correct, since the petitioner has passed the B.Ed., course in April 2008 and joined the M.A., course on 12.06.2008 and passed the same in the examination conducted in the month of November 2009, for which the result was published on 15.04.2010. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner was not selected as she studied M.A., B.Ed., in the same year. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner was not selected as she studied M.A., B.Ed., in the same year. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner has studied both M.A., and B.Ed., in the same academic year as contended by the respondent or not. 8. The B.Ed., degree certificate issued to the petitioner dated 12.11.2008 with Register No.A8400907 would show that the petitioner has passed B.Ed., degree during the month of April 2008. Further, the statement of marks issued by the Madurai Kamaraj University for M.A., (Tamil) course in respect of the petitioner as found in the typed set of papers would show that the examination for the said course was conducted in the month of November 2009 and the date of publication of result was on 15.04.2010. Further the course completion certificate issued by the Madurai Kamarai University dated 11.02.2010 in favour of the petitioner would also show that she completed the course of study in M.A., (Tamil) during January 2008 to December 2009. 9. Considering the above stated facts, I am of the view that the respondent is not correct in stating that the petitioner studied M.A., and B.Ed., in the same year. As already pointed out, the petitioner after passing the B.Ed., degree in the month of April 2008, joined the M.A., course in the academic year and however, completed the course and became successful only in the month of April 2010, for which, examination was conducted in the month November 2009. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has studied both the B.Ed., and M.A., in the same year. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent relied on Division Bench decision of this Court made in W.A.No.845 of 2013 dated 07.01.2014 to contend that the person, who obtained both degrees in the same academic year is not entitled for consideration for appointment. 11. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent relied on Division Bench decision of this Court made in W.A.No.845 of 2013 dated 07.01.2014 to contend that the person, who obtained both degrees in the same academic year is not entitled for consideration for appointment. 11. A perusal of the said order would show that the writ petitioner therein had obtained B.Ed., degree and B.A., degree simultaneously within the same calendar year and consequently, the learned Judge rejected the contention of the petitioner therein and the Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. The facts of the present case are totally different as discussed supra. As I have already pointed out that the petitioner has not obtained both the B.Ed., and M.A., in the same year, I find that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner as P.G. Assistant in Tamil, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.