ORDER : A.P. SAHI, J. (Prayer in W.P.No.29688 of 2019 - Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records related to Advertisement No.555/2019, Notification No.25/2019, dated 09.09.2019, issued by the respondents and to quash the same as illegal.) This batch of writ petitions questions the validity of the Notification dated 9th September 2019 inviting applications for the examinations to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge in the Judicial Services of the State. 2. The petitioners, in this batch of writ petitions, are all claiming themselves to be fresh Law graduates, who have acquired their Degree of Law, but are being prevented from appearing in the examinations as the degree/provisional certificates awarded to them are not within the period of three years prior to the date of Notification. Their contention is that they have not yet completed the maximum age bar of 27 years, yet they are being non-suited on the basis of an artificial classification incorporated in the Notification, which in turn is based on Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007, to be more particular, Rule 5(9) there of, which is gainfully extracted herein under: “5.METHOD OF APPOINTMENT, QUALIFICATION AND AGE: Sl. No. Category Method of Appointment Qualification (1) (2) (3) (4) 9. Civil Judge By direct recruitment on the basis of written examination and vivavoce Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in accordance with the rules specified in the Annexure II to these Rules. (1) Must possess a Degree in Law of a University in India established or incorporate by or under a Central Act or a State Act or an institution recognized by the University Grants Commission, or any other equivalent qualification and got enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu; and in the case of candidates enrolled in the Bar Councils of other States, they should submit proof of transfer of their enrollment to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. (and) (2) Must be practicing as an advocate or Pleader in the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto and must have so practiced for not less than 3 years on the date of the Commission’s Notification for recruitment to the post. (and) (2) Must be practicing as an advocate or Pleader in the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto and must have so practiced for not less than 3 years on the date of the Commission’s Notification for recruitment to the post. (or) Must be an Assistant Public Prosecutor having not less than 3 years of experience as an Advocate and/or Assistant Public Prosecutor. (and) Age: Must have attained the age of 25 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years in the case of General Category and 40 years in the case of General Reserved Categories, as on the 1st July of the year in which the vacancies in the posts are notified. (or) (3) Must be a fresh Law Graduate Possessing a degree in law from a recognized University as mentioned in clause (1) above who is eligible to be enrolled or enrolled as an Advocate and who has secured an over all percentage of 50% marks in acquiring such a law degree in case of open categories and 45% marks in respect of other reserved categories. Fresh Law Graduates are those who have obtained the degree of law within a period of three years prior to the date of notification and Age: Must have attained the age of 22 years and must not have completed the age of 27 years as on 1st July of the year in which the selection for appointment is made. Explanation:- Rules 12 (d)(ii), 52 and 53 of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services shall not apply for this recruitment. 3. Arguments have been spearheaded in this batch of writ petitions by Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel, who contends that this issue was neither raised, nor decided in any other previous contests either before this Court or for that matter even on the administrative side and consequently, it is open to challenge on the ground that the Rule is irrational with no object behind it to be achieved, when the maximum age cap of 27 years is already prescribed. 4. 4. With the aid of illustrations and with the aid of observations made by the Apex Court in the case of All India Judges' Association and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 , more particularly paragraph (32), the contention raised is that in view of the aforesaid observations, which are binding on all the respondents in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution read with Article 144 thereof, there is no occasion for the insistence of obtaining the Degree of Law by a fresh graduate within the period of three years prior to the date of Notification. In effect, the judgment of the Apex Court categorically holds that the prescription of three years practice should be done away with, yet the respondents have introduced an indirect way to exclude candidates like the petitioners and therefore, the said Rule is ultra vires the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court. It is urged that all Law Graduates up to the age of 27 years should be treated as eligible as the judgment does not suggest any further reclassification between them. Paragraph 32 of the said judgment is extracted herein under for ready reference: “32. In the All India Judges’s case, 1993 (4) SCC 288 at p. 314, this Court has observed that in order to enter the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three years’ standing. Rules were amended accordingly. With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service. A bright young law graduate after 3 years of practice finds the Judicial Service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an Advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with. After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the Judicial Service to be an Advocate of at least three years’ standing. After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the Judicial Service to be an Advocate of at least three years’ standing. We, accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in All India Judges’ case, direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in even three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the Judicial Service. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the Judicial Service should be imparted with training of not less than one year, preferably two years.” 5. The submissions advanced are based on certain practical illustrations viz., that if a Law graduate who has undertaken his course and has not finally concluded it prior to three years, and then undertakes the final examination within a period of three years prior to the Notification and gets a degree, he would become entitled to appear in the examination, whereas a person who has taken out his examination in sincerity in its entirety immediately preceding three years of the Notification, gets capped as a stale graduate and therefore, such classification creates an anomaly, which attracts Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention therefore is that the impugned Rule and its implementation is resulting in an unreasonable classification which has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved for the purpose of inviting fresh Law Graduates. It is therefore submitted that a Law Graduate who may have completed his degree preceding three years of the Notification does not become a stale graduate inasmuch as he otherwise qualifies for appearing in the examination having not attained the age of 27 years. The contention therefore is that freshness of the candidature which is sought to be coupled with the obtaining of the degree within three years of the Notification has no rationality with the object of the maximum age limit already prescribed which entitles all such Law Graduates who have not completed the age of 27 years to take examinations. The contention therefore is that freshness of the candidature which is sought to be coupled with the obtaining of the degree within three years of the Notification has no rationality with the object of the maximum age limit already prescribed which entitles all such Law Graduates who have not completed the age of 27 years to take examinations. The argument therefore is that there is no purpose or rationality which may in any way allow the impugned Rule and the Notification based thereon to pass the test the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the High Court as well as for the respondent/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission have urged that the Rule was introduced in order to ensure that such of the fresh graduates who have obtained degree within three years of the Notification are only permitted to take examinations and the validity of such Rule has already been tested and upheld by two Division Bench judgments of this Court. 7. In the case of R.Krishnamurthy v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, reported in MANU/TN/0342/2012, decided on 21.02.2012, the Division Bench records the submissions raised therein and has then upheld the maximum age cap limit prescribed. Paragraph 36 of the said judgment is extracted herein under : “36 As far as the above argument is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the reason that the eligibility of a candidate is considered under this heading, based on his talent, ability and merit. Apart from this, the term used therein is "fresh law graduates". When recruitment is made, based on the term "fresh law graduates" and the rule also prescribes that within a period of three years, one should have completed the course to get the eligibility to consider his candidature under this category, if relaxation is given, the purpose of this special category, viz., fresh law graduates, will get defeated. Consequently, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.” 8. To further buttress the said submission, learned counsel for the respondents have invited our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Maruthuseshan and others v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and others in W.P.Nos.11770 of 2018 etc. To further buttress the said submission, learned counsel for the respondents have invited our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Maruthuseshan and others v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and others in W.P.Nos.11770 of 2018 etc. batch., decided on 09.05.2018, where also, it is urged that the issue was raised and decided, for which reliance is placed on paragraph 5, 27 to 29 of the said judgment. The same are gainfully extracted herein under for ready reference: “5. The facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions in brief are as follows: W.P.No.9775 of 2018 (i) The petitioner claims to be a practising Advocate. He was born on 25.02.1992. He completed his decree in B.A., L.L.B. (Hons.) in June 2014. Thereafter, he got enrolled himself as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry [in short, "the Bar Council"] on 09.10.2015. According to him, since the notification requires 3 years of experience for the practising Advocate, the other essential qualification that they should have completed the bachelor's degree of law within the period of three years prior to the date of notification is contrary to each other. Because of such condition, the petitioner is neither eligible to apply for the post under the category of practising Advocate not under the category of fresh law graduate. Hence, the prescription of essential qualification for fresh law graduate that they must have obtained the bachelor's degree of law within a period of three years prior to the date of notification is arbitrary. ........ 27. Earlier when the similar notification issued for appointment of Civil Judges was challenged, a Division Bench of this Court in R.Krishnamurthy v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department (W.P.No.1932 of 2012 etcetera batch dated 21.02.2012), in para 5 has held as follows:- "21. ...... As far as fixing of maximum or minimum age limit is concerned, it is within the domain of the authority concerned and this argument has been advanced based on the Bar Council of India Rules. Admittedly, these Rules relate only to admission to Law Degree Courses and there is no reference at all in the said Rules with regard to age for recruitment to Judicial Service. Admittedly, these Rules relate only to admission to Law Degree Courses and there is no reference at all in the said Rules with regard to age for recruitment to Judicial Service. If this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners has to be accepted, then all the candidates, who have been permitted to join the Law Degree Course must be allowed to writ the examination. As far as admission to Law Degree Course is concerned, it is the first stage and as far as recruitment is concerned, only will get the eligibility subsequent to the completion of the said course alone and complying with the other conditions. Some may complete the course within the prescribed period, while some others may take a number of years to finish the same for so many reasons. But, that does not mean that whenever they complete the course, they should be made eligible to appear for the examination concerned. Further, non only in Judicial Service, but also in other services, for appointment to any post, minimum and maximum age limit is prescribed. When that is the position, Judiciary alone cannot be an exception to this. As far as Judiciary is concerned, a Judge is appointed to decide the issues involved in so many cases coming before him. Under such circumstances, taking note of this, when this is the normal procedure adopted and also in view of the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the High Court, which has been referred to above, fixing the maximum age limit or minimum age limit cannot be said to be an illegal or arbitrary one. Consequently, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in this regard cannot be allowed to stand." Therefore, merely because the cut off date fixed by the respondent Commission caused inconvenience or hardship to few of the candidates, fixation of the cut off date cannot be held as arbitrary, irrational or capricious. Therefore, we are of the considered view that fixation of the cut off date as 01.07.2018 for both categories is not arbitrary and it in no way violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective petitioners in this regard cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts.” 9. Therefore, we are of the considered view that fixation of the cut off date as 01.07.2018 for both categories is not arbitrary and it in no way violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective petitioners in this regard cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts.” 9. It is further submitted that once the validity of the Rules has been tested and upheld, this Co-ordinate Bench cannot take a different view and the matter, in fact, has been put to rest, which does not require any further consideration. 10. It has also been submitted that in the event any reliance is being placed by the petitioners in the case of All India Judges' Association (supra), this issue cannot be entertained by the High Court in view of what has been observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 40 of the said judgment. The same is also re-produced herein under: “40. Any clarification that may be required in respect of any matter arising out of this decision will be sought only from this Court. The proceedings, if any, for implementation of the directions given in this judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other Court shall entertain them.” 11. We have considered the submissions raised and the arguments advanced. 12. On the issue relating to the rationality and the object behind the insistence of the Rule as indicated in the impugned Notification, we find that obtaining of a Degree three years prior to the date of Notification may have a justification, but not to allow such graduates whose degrees are preceding beyond three years even though they have not yet attained the maximum age of 27 years does not justify the restriction of eligibility as prescribed by the respondents themselves. 13. A degree obtained by a candidate preceding three years of the Notification compared with a candidate who has completed Law graduation within three years of the Notification and both being under 27 years of age or the maximum age prescribed is creating a class within a class for which there seems to be no rational justification. One cannot be said to be a stale Graduate or not a fresh Law Graduate so long as the candidate is within the prescribed upper age limit. One cannot be said to be a stale Graduate or not a fresh Law Graduate so long as the candidate is within the prescribed upper age limit. The use of phrase “Fresh Law Graduate” is to be understood in the context as a Law Graduate who after having passed out has not yet joined the profession by getting himself enrolled to practice as an Advocate. The phrase has been used to connote those class of Law Graduates who are fresh from the University, but have not yet joined the profession and are yet to start practicing. The Degree of a Law Graduate, who has not yet adopted the profession by getting himself enrolled, does not get stale at least up to the maximum age of 27 years or as prescribed for appearing in the examination. The Degree of Law obtained by a candidate therefore can be utilized for the purpose of sitting in the Civil Judge's examination and it does not get invalidated so as to make him ineligible for the said purpose merely because it was obtained beyond the period of three years preceding the Notification. Giving an interpretation otherwise would render fixing the upper age limit cap with another restriction, which may not have been the intention of the Rule making authority. 14. We, therefore, find that the said argument on behalf of the petitioners does require consideration and the same does not appear to have been the issue raised or decided in either of the Division Bench judgments. The ratio decidendi of both Division Bench judgments primarily rest on the validity of the Rule relating to the maximum age of 27 years as fixed therein. There is no quarrel that the dispute about the maximum age prescribed has already attained its finality by virtue of the aforesaid two decisions, but the rationality of excluding the candidates who have obtained degree preceding three years of the Notification within the upper age limit has neither been specifically raised, nor decided, nor in our opinion, is the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid two judgments, inasmuch as the ratio of a judgment is what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it. 15. 15. This question therefore may require a consideration, for which the course open to this Court was to refer the issue to a Larger Bench on account of the aforesaid anomaly as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. But we find our hands are tied on this issue as well inasmuch as the issue appears to have been touched in the aforesaid two Division Bench judgments, even though not answered, and consequently for any such clarification or answer to that effect keeping in view paragraph 32 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of All India Judges' Association (supra), the matter may require an adjudication by the Apex Court itself as observed in paragraph 40 of the aforesaid judgment. We therefore are unable to entertain these writ petitions for the foregoing reasons leaving it open to the petitioners to seek any such clarification or appropriate remedy from the Apex Court itself. 16. We may also put on record that when these writ petitions were entertained, interim orders were passed to the following effect: “We are passing this common interim order in the present batch of writ petitions filed by the “Fresh Law Graduates”, who were aspiring to apply for the post of Civil Judge in pursuance of the Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for brevity, “the TNPSC”) vide Notification No.25/2019, dated 9.9.2019, with the last date of giving online applications being 9.10.2019. 2. The Eligibility Criteria stipulated in the said Notification dated 9.9.2019 was given in consonance with the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 (for brevity, “the Rules”), which is quoted below: “4. ELIGIBILITY i. A CANDIDATE FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT TO THE SERVICE (a) Must be a citizen of India; (b) Should possess adequate knowledge to read, write and speak in English and Tamil. Note:- Applicants who do not possess an adequate knowledge in Tamil may also apply. If selected, they should pass the Second Class Language Test in Tamil within the period of probation. ii. CHARACTER AND CONDUCT: (a) The character of a candidate must be such as to make him suitable in all respects for appointment to the Service. Note:- Applicants who do not possess an adequate knowledge in Tamil may also apply. If selected, they should pass the Second Class Language Test in Tamil within the period of probation. ii. CHARACTER AND CONDUCT: (a) The character of a candidate must be such as to make him suitable in all respects for appointment to the Service. He must produce a certificate of character and conduct given after the date of notification from three responsible persons not related to the applicant in the format prescribed in Annexure-A. Out of the three persons certifying, one must be a Senior Advocate or Advocate and the other two shall be responsible persons, not being relatives of the applicants but who are well acquainted with the applicant in his/her personal life. Note: The persons certifying need not be Gazetted Officers or Government Servants or Judicial Officers. (b) No person shall be appointed as a member of the Service unless he is in good mental and physical health and free from any disability, except a person who is claiming reservation under Rule 10 of the Rules. Before appointment, candidates with disability shall be required to appear before a Medical Board constituted for assessment which will examine them and certify that they are fit for appointment to the service and their disability will not affect the effective performance of duty as a member of the service. iii. Must satisfy other conditions prescribed for appointment to the post of Civil Judge.” 3. The schedule of examination as given in paragraph (2) of the said notification dated 9.9.2019 is also quoted below for ready reference: “2. IMPORTANT DATES AND TIME Date of notification 09.09.2019 Last date for submission of application 09.10.2019 Last date for payment of fee through Bank 11.10.2019 Date of Written Examination Preliminary Examination 24.11.2019 10.00 A.M. to 01.00 P.M. Main Examination 28.03.2020 09.00 A.M. to 12.00 Noon. 28.03.2020 02.00 P.M. to 05.00 P.M. 29.03.2020 09.00 AM to 12.00 Noon. 29.03.2020 02.00 P.M. to 05.00 P.M. 4. 28.03.2020 02.00 P.M. to 05.00 P.M. 29.03.2020 09.00 AM to 12.00 Noon. 29.03.2020 02.00 P.M. to 05.00 P.M. 4. The Essential Qualifications as given in paragraph 3(B) of the said Notification are also quoted below for ready reference: (B) ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS (As on 09.09.2019) – The Applicants should possess the following qualification: I. For Practising Advocates/Pleaders and Assistant Public Prosecutors: Must Possess a Degree in Law of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act or a State Act or an Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission, or recognized by Bar Council of India or any other equivalent qualification and enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu or in the Bar Council of any other State in India And (ii)(a) Must be practicing as an Advocate or Pleader in any Court on the date of Notification for recruitment to the post and must have so practiced for a period of not less than 3 years on such date. (Or) (b) Must be an Assistant Public Prosecutor having not less than 3 years of experience as an Advocate and/or Assistant Public Prosecutor. II. For Fresh Law Graduates (i) Must be a fresh Law Graduate possessing a degree in Law from a recognized University a mentioned in a clause-I (i) above, (ii) Must be eligible to be enrolled as an advocate. (iii) Must have secured an overall percentage of marks in acquiring the Bachelors Degree of Law as below:- (a) 45% Marks in case of Reserved Categories (i.e. SCs, SC(A)s, STs, MBCs/DCs, BCs(OBCMs) and BCMs). (b) 50% Marks in case Open Category (i.e. Others). (iv) Must have obtained the Bachelor’s Degree of Law within a period of three years prior to the date of notification. 5. The petitioners before us sought to apply for the said direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge online as required in the said notification, as only online applications were allowed on or before 11.59 PM on 9.10.2019, but their applications could not be uploaded for the following reasons, as contended in the writ petitions filed by these petitioners. 6. The petitioners before us sought to apply for the said direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge online as required in the said notification, as only online applications were allowed on or before 11.59 PM on 9.10.2019, but their applications could not be uploaded for the following reasons, as contended in the writ petitions filed by these petitioners. 6. The petitioners have come with the case that their applications were not accepted online because even though they passed their Final Year Law Examination from the duly approved Universities in the year 2016, but their Provisional Certificates for the Degree of the said B.L. Examination were issued on a date which fell prior to 9.9.2016 and, thus, their Law Degree was not issued “within a period of three years prior to the date of notification”. They contended that their batchmates or the Law Graduates of the year 2016 itself from the same University/Universities similarly situated to them, but by a fortuitous circumstance, because their Provisional Certificate for Law Degree was issued after 9.9.2016, but before 9.9.2019, they were treated as having obtained Law Degree “within three years” prior to the date of Notification dated 9.9.2019 and their applications were entertained online and thus, they became eligible to participate in the said recruitment process as per the Notification dated 9.9.2019. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, has caused invidious discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, without any rational nexus sought to be achieved by the said Notification in accordance with the Rules and, therefore, they prayed for necessary mandamus for directing the respondent TNPSC to entertain their applications also by providing them a one time opportunity in this very recruitment process, as the examinations for the said recruitment are yet to commence on 24.11.2019 and Hall tickets to others are also yet to be issued. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon paragraph (32) of the judgment of Supreme Court in All India Judges Association and others v. Union of India and others, (2002) 4 SCC 247 : AIR 2002 SC 1752 , which is quoted below for ready reference: “32. In All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 this Court has observed that in order to enter the judicial service, an applicant must be an advocate of at least three years’ standing. In All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288 this Court has observed that in order to enter the judicial service, an applicant must be an advocate of at least three years’ standing. Rules were amended accordingly. With the passage of time, experience has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the judicial service. A bright young law graduate after 3 years of practice finds the judicial service not attractive enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an applicant to have been an advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with. After taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned amicus curiae that it should be no longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the judicial service to be an advocate of at least three years’ standing. We, accordingly, in the light of experience gained after the judgment in All India Judges case direct to the High Courts and to the State Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not even have put in three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the judicial service. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the judicial service should be imparted training of not less than one year, preferably two years.” 8. The learned counsel for the respondent TNPSC, Ms.Niraimathi, and the learned counsel for the High Court, Mr.B.Vijay, have, however, submitted that the Notification dated 9.9.2019 has been issued perfectly in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cited above and the Rules of 2007, and since the Provisional Certificate or Law Degree obtained by these fresh Law Graduates were not bearing the date “within three years from the date of Notification dated 9.9.2019”, namely on or after 9.9.2016, the online system of the TNPSC could not accept these applications and the same does not amount to any discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, they have justified the non-acceptance of the online applications of the present petitioners and other similarly situated persons. 9. In other words, they have justified the non-acceptance of the online applications of the present petitioners and other similarly situated persons. 9. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and we pass the following interim order, while admitting all these writ petitions, for final hearing at a later stage: (i). The respondent TNPSC shall provide the facility by opening the online window immediately for submitting the applications by the Fresh Law Graduates of recognized Universities of the year 2016 and those who have obtained their Provisional Law Degree Certificate on any date before the date specified in the Notification bearing No.25/2019, dated 9.9.2019. (ii). The candidates will have to satisfy the other criteria prescribed in the Notification, including the criteria of minimum and maximum age as provided in the said Notification, without any relaxation. (iii). This facility under the present interim order of this Court shall be available only up to 11.59 PM of Tuesday, 29.10.2019 and under no circumstances this date will be further extendable. (iv). The candidates of the aforesaid category or class, namely “Fresh Law Graduates of 2016” will be entitled to apply online in the aforesaid manner irrespective of the fact whether they have approached the Court by way of writ petition or not. We make it clear that no fresh writ petition for the said purpose by the candidates falling in the aforesaid category is required to be filed nor the same will be entertained and irrespective of the filing of writ petitions, such candidates will be entitled to apply online, provided they satisfy the other conditions and criteria, as stipulated hereinabove and in the Notification dated 9.9.2019. (v). These Fresh Law Graduates of the year 2016 shall also be allowed to pay the prescribed fees online for their examination within the aforesaid window period of 21.10.2019 to 29.10.2019. The last date for off-line payment of prescribed fees shall close on 31.10.2019. (vi). The respondent TNPSC shall publish this interim order of the Court on their official website and the High Court shall also publish this interim order of the Court on the official website of the Madras High Court, forthwith. (vii). The last date for off-line payment of prescribed fees shall close on 31.10.2019. (vi). The respondent TNPSC shall publish this interim order of the Court on their official website and the High Court shall also publish this interim order of the Court on the official website of the Madras High Court, forthwith. (vii). The respondent TNPSC shall process these online applications filed between 21.10.2019 and 29.10.2019 in the same manner as has been done for the other candidates, who have already applied online prior to the cut-off date of 9.10.2019 and issue Hall tickets to all the candidates in similar manner and allow them to appear in the examinations, declare their results. This interim order shall remain subject to the final decision of these writ petitions.” 17. The said order was modified by us on 20.11.2019, which is to the following effect: “Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Having gone through the tenor of the interim order, dated 21.10.2019 and 22.10.2019, passed in W.P.Nos.29688, 29987, 28846, 28928, 29059, 30041, 29134, 29314 and 29672 of 2019 and W.P.(MD) Nos.20114, 20669, 21050, 21051, 21085, 21135 and 21406 of 2019 and W.P.No.30025 of 2019, we provide that the directions of the Court, to permit the petitioners to appear in the examinations, shall be carried out, but their results shall not be declared. The interim order, dated 21.10.2019 and 22.10.2019, shall stand modified accordingly. Put up the matter on 03.12.2019 for final arguments.” 18. The petitioners were therefore benefited of an opportunity of appearing in the examination, but we had modified the order as extracted above by restraining the respondents from declaring the results. The respondents shall be now at liberty to declare the results of the entire examination henceforth. 19. The writ petitions are dismissed with the said observations. No costs. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.