JUDGMENT : T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. Heard Mr. V. Muruganantham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/respondents and Mr. D. Senthil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner and carefully perused the materials placed on record. 2. This writ appeal by the Director of School Education and three others is directed against the order, dated 29.01.2013, made in W.P. (MD) No. 16069 of 2012. 3. The writ petition, in W.P. (MD) No. 16069 of 2012, was filed by the respondent/writ petitioner to quash the order, dated 05.12.2012, passed by the second appellant/second respondent and to direct the appellants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 to appoint her as a Graduate Teacher (BT Assistant) in the Government School in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test, 2012 conducted by the second appellant/second respondent. 4. The issue, which was raised in the writ petition, was whether the respondent/writ petitioner was in possession of requisite qualification for being considered to be appointed as B.T. Assistant. The reason being that the respondent/writ petitioner, after completion of tenth standard, completed three years Diploma Course and thereafter, completed three years Degree Course (10+3+3). The Writ Court took into consideration the Government Order, in G.O. (Ms) No. 242, Higher Education Department, dated 18.12.2012, wherein the Government accepted the completion of three years regular Diploma Course, instead of two years Higher Secondary Course as an eligible qualification. It was further observed that if a person has completed ten years of schooling, three years of Diploma and thereafter, two years of a Degree Course, he would be eligible. The Writ Court found that the respondent/writ petitioner had studied three years Diploma Course in Civil Engineering, before completing three years Degree Course in B.A. in History. Thus, the writ petition was allowed holding that the case is covered by the said Government Order. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/respondents would contend that the notification for the selection to the said post was issued on 07.03.2012 and the Government Order, in G.O. (Ms) No. 242, was issued on 18.12.2012 and therefore, it cannot have retrospective operation. 6. On perusal of the Government Order, in G.O. (Ms) No. 242, dated 18.12.2012, it is seen that it is not an amendment to the Rule, but it is a clarification to the existing position. 6. On perusal of the Government Order, in G.O. (Ms) No. 242, dated 18.12.2012, it is seen that it is not an amendment to the Rule, but it is a clarification to the existing position. This would be evident by referring to the preamble portion of the said Government Order, which refers to the letter, dated 06.10.2010. The body of the said Government Order reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 7. On perusal of the above, it is seen that the purpose for issuing the said Government Order was itself to consider the cases of the candidates, who were already in service in various Departments and who sought for regularization of their services. Furthermore, the Government took into consideration that the three years Diploma Course pursued by the candidates is a valid Diploma Course, since the eligibility criteria is a pass in tenth standard. Thus, the Government considered all the aspects and held that the candidate possessing 10+3+3 pattern would be equivalent to the candidate, who possesses 10+2+3 pattern. Thus, the Government Order was to cover all the cases, which were pending consideration by the Government and therefore, the Government Order should be treated to be operative prior to the selection notification, dated 07.03.2012. This aspect of the matter was considered by this Court in A. Mangalambihai vs. The Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai and Another, CDJ 2013 MHC 4233. 8. The Division Bench, in Government of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. R. Malarvili, 2015 Writ L.R. 912, while considering the case of the candidate, who passed tenth standard examination and thereafter, passed B.Lit., in Tamil, without Secondary School Education, in 10+2+3 pattern, considered the issue as to whether two years diploma in teacher education can be considered as a valid substitute for a pass in Higher Secondary Course and after taking note of the Government Order in G.O. (Ms) No. 242, Higher Education Department, dated 18.12.2012, and held that holding a regular Diploma of a duration of three years obtained even in unrelated subjects could be considered as equivalent to a pass in the Higher Secondary Course. 9. 9. In the case of Nadar Thanga Shubha Laxman A. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2014 (3) CTC 433, the question, which was referred to the Larger Bench was whether the Equivalence Certificate issued by the Committee constituted by the Government declaring that the Degree obtained from one University is equivalent to the Degree obtained from yet another University is only prospective in operation and whether the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of N. Geetha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, W.A. (MD) No. 312 of 2013, dated 01.07.2013, is correct. The Larger Bench held that any Degree Certificate issued by the University or Educational Institution will have its validity from the date of issuance. 10. Thus, taking note of the above legal position and interpretation we have given, it is evidently clear that the benefit of the Government Order, in G.O. (Ms) No. 242, dated 18.12.2012, will have effect from date on which, the candidate acquired the qualification. Therefore, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is perfectly legal. 11. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the appellants have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court and the appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.