JUDGMENT : PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 11.12.2017 in W.P. No. 21151 of 2013. 1. The State instituted this intra-Court appeal seeking to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2017 made in W.P. No. 21151 of 2013. 2. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Joint Director of School Education/the second appellant herein, who was the second respondent in the writ petition, dated 29.01.2013 and directed the appellants to treat the writ petitioner’s degree educational qualification valid and consequently appoint her to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) in the vacancies existing in the Government Schools. 3. According to the writ petitioner, she passed S.S.L.C. examination during 1992 and after successfully passing the entrance examination conducted by the Madras University for admission to the B.A. Degree Course, she joined the degree in 1999 and thereafter acquired B.Ed. Degree in 2011. The petitioner appeared for the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and upon successful completion, appeared for counselling on 09.12.2012. Though appointment order was issued in her favour on 10.12.2012, it was cancelled on 29.01.2013 and she was informed that she was not eligible for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant on the ground that she did not pass Higher Secondary Course Examination (HSC) before joining the degree course and thus, she did not fulfill the 10+2+3 study pattern. She questioned the same before the writ Court and the said writ petition was allowed vide the impugned order. Thus, the State is before us with this appeal. 4. It was pleaded by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner passed the entrance examination conducted by the University before getting admission in the degree course and as per the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, such a degree is valid one. But the appellants without appreciating the same cancelled the appointment order issued in favour of the writ petitioner holding that she did not pass the HSC examination and the said order is bad in law. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments put forth by either side, by relying upon the earlier judgments of this Court in W.P. No. 13742 of 2010, etc. The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments put forth by either side, by relying upon the earlier judgments of this Court in W.P. No. 13742 of 2010, etc. batch and Dharuman and Others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2015) 1 MLJ 410 , allowed the writ petition and issued the consequential directions. 5. The learned State Government Counsel contended that the judgments relied on by the learned Single Judge have been overruled by various Division Benches of this Court and thereby G.O.Ms. No. 107, Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 18.08.2009 was upheld. The appeal filed against the order made in Dharuman’s case is pending before this Court. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition, in view of the settled position of law and seeks to allow this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner relied upon the UGC Regulations and the letters of the UGC dated 25.11.1985 and 18.10.1995 in Letter Nos. F.1117/83(CP) and F.1-117/83 (CPP-II) respectively to submit that the said guidelines allow the students to join basic degree course, without completing HSC examination, and the only condition that is to be fulfilled is that they have to pass the entrance examination conducted by the respective University before seeking admission in the U.G. Course. But the appellants failed to appreciate the UGC Regulations and issued G.O.Ms. No. 107, dated 18.08.2009 contrary to the said Regulations and thus, the appellants cannot rely upon the said G.O. to cancel the appointment order of the writ petitioner. The learned counsel relied upon the same judgment of the learned Single Judge in Dharuman and Others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2015) 1 MLJ 410 , which was relied upon in the impugned order, in support of his contentions, besides circulating a few other judgments. 7. We have heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials placed before us. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner passed S.S.L.C. examination and thereafter, appeared for the entrance examination conducted by the Madras University for admission to the B.A. Degree Course successfully, joined the degree course in 1999 and thereafter obtained B.Ed. Degree in 2011. 7. We have heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials placed before us. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner passed S.S.L.C. examination and thereafter, appeared for the entrance examination conducted by the Madras University for admission to the B.A. Degree Course successfully, joined the degree course in 1999 and thereafter obtained B.Ed. Degree in 2011. After emerging successfully in the TET, the appointment order was issued in her favour on 10.12.2012, but subsequently, it was cancelled on 29.01.2013 on the ground that she did not fulfill the 10+2+3 study pattern and therefore, she was not eligible for appointment to the post of B.T. Assistant, as mandated under G.O.Ms. No. 107, dated 18.08.2009. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to G.O.Ms. No. 107, Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 18.08.2009, which is as follows: “1. In the Government Order, first read above, orders have been issued granting approval for employment in Public Services considering the degrees conferred by Open Universities in Tamil Nadu recognized by the University Grants Commission, in respect of Diploma course, Under-Graduate course and Post-Graduate course as equivalent to that of the Diploma course, Under-Graduate course and Post-Graduate course given by the said universities through Regular stream. 2. The Chief General Manager, BSNL Tamil Nadu Circle, in the letter second read above, has requested for clarification as to whether the persons who have obtained a degree in B.Sc. and B.A. etc. through Open Universities without a pass in higher secondary examination (+2) shall be considered as having passed the higher secondary examination, for the post for which the minimum educational qualification is fixed as a pass in Higher Secondary Education and can be considered for the promotion posts in government departments. 3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was requested to forward the recommendation made by Equivalence Committee on the aforesaid proposal. The Equivalence Committee recommended that the persons who have obtained B.Sc. and B.A. degree in Open Universities without having passed the higher secondary school examination, cannot be considered either for employment or promotion in government service by considering them to have passed the +2 examinations of the State Government. Even when the said proposal was sent again for the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee, it insisted on the decision already taken. 4. Even when the said proposal was sent again for the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee, it insisted on the decision already taken. 4. The Government carefully examined this recommendation and having decided to accept the recommendation of the Equivalence Committee issues an order recognizing the degrees in Diploma/Degree/Post-Graduate degree obtained through Open Universities only after having passed secondary school examination (10th Std.) and higher secondary school examination (+2) alone for appointment/promotion in Public Services.” 9. A reading of the said G.O. makes it abundantly clear that the persons who have obtained under graduate degree in Open Universities without having passed the higher secondary school examination, cannot be considered either for employment or promotion in Government service by considering them to have passed the +2 examinations of the State Government. 10. Further, in the Government Order, it is stated that the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, was requested to forward the recommendation made by Equivalence Committee on the aforesaid proposal, on the basis of the clarification sought for by the Chief General Manager, BSNL Tamil Nadu Circle. The Equivalence Committee’s recommendation was accepted by the Government to recognise the Degree/Diploma/Post Graduate Degree obtained through the Open Universities only after having passed S.S.L.C. and H.S.C. (+2) for the purpose of appointment in public services. 11. The qualification prescribed under the Government Order is for appointment in public services. Such prescription for appointment of teachers with a specialized degree obtained in a regular stream is to enable them to focus into teaching and protect the standards in education. The degrees offered in the open universities without following the regular pattern of qualification is only to enable those who have thirst for knowledge to learn more without an intention of securing a job. Following the above Government Order, which was issued only to protect the standards in public service, stricto sensu, is to protect the standards of education by employing dedicated teachers, which is a sine qua non for its improvement. 12. In fact, this Court had invalidated many appointments of candidates having even a ‘cross degree’ as the focus of the teachers should be to have a specialized knowledge and impart the same. Teachers are arguably the most important members of the Society. The children today are the leaders of tomorrow. The teachers are the ones, who make them ready for the future. Teachers are arguably the most important members of the Society. The children today are the leaders of tomorrow. The teachers are the ones, who make them ready for the future. Whether it is teaching pre-school or college or even extra-curricular, the teachers have the access to educate the students in their most impressionable years. The teachers are accountable for the success or failure of students. The teachers should have the ability to help students form ideas about society, about life and also achieve their personal goals. 13. The teachers are role models for students and teaching is a tough job as a teacher makes most impact in one’s life. Therefore, the teachers, who provide guidance to students should not be appointed only for a pay check, but for their passion. 14. Nowadays, even all the full time teaching jobs, even a pre-school require degrees. Therefore, when the country’s development - socially and economically, depends upon the teachers, the qualification prescribed for appointment becomes mandatory. 15. In this backdrop, the question that arises for consideration is, whether the degree obtained by the writ petitioner before completing the H.S.C is valid and consequently, the cancellation of appointment order is liable to set aside or not? 16. The said question is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board vs. V. Kanimozhi, (2014) 8 MLJ 344 , has considered the very same question and found that the very same G.O. has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in T.L. Muthukumar vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Another, (2011) 2 MLJ 785 . The relevant portions of the judgment of the Division Bench in Kanimozhi’s case (cited supra) reads as follows: “5.3. Even otherwise, the binding nature of the said Government Order is not in dispute. The respondent has not challenged the said Government Order. As the appellants are the competent authorities to fix the qualification, that too, pertaining to the teachers of Higher Secondary schools, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the conditions prescribed are mandatory. In other words, unless and until a candidate satisfy the requirement as envisaged in G.O.Ms. No. 107 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.8.2009, he or she cannot be considered for the post. 5.4. In other words, unless and until a candidate satisfy the requirement as envisaged in G.O.Ms. No. 107 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.8.2009, he or she cannot be considered for the post. 5.4. In the case on hand, admittedly, at the time of completing the degree, the respondent did not complete the plus 2 course. That is exactly the reason why she thereafter completed the plus 2 course. This fact has also been observed by the learned single Judge. While it is absolutely open to the respondent to do the same, the question for consideration is, as to whether the said action would cure the defect. In our respectful submission, the said attempt cannot be substitute to the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms. No. 107 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.8.2009. Any other interpretation would amount to re-writing the provisions of the said Government Order, which is impermissible in law, without there being a challenge. 5.5. Now, coming to the Regulations of the University Grants Commission with reference to admission of a student to a Degree, the said issue is irrelevant insofar as the insistence on the part of the appellants to comply with the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms. No. 107 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.8.2009. The appointment is to the post of Post Graduate Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary School. When the appellants thought it fit to make sure that only those who have completed plus 2 course and thereafter the degree course be eligible to be considered for a particular post of a teacher, then the wisdom and rationale behind the same cannot be questioned. As discussed above, the rationale has not been questioned before us and in any case, we do not find any arbitrariness in the Government Order, which has already been upheld. 5.6. The issue of recognition of a degree is different from a qualification fixed in service matters. An eligibility criteria fixed cannot be said to be an indirect way of derecognising a degree or diploma. To put it differently, such a degree cannot be termed as an eligible qualification for a particular post. 5.6. The issue of recognition of a degree is different from a qualification fixed in service matters. An eligibility criteria fixed cannot be said to be an indirect way of derecognising a degree or diploma. To put it differently, such a degree cannot be termed as an eligible qualification for a particular post. Therefore, we are of the view that though scope and ambit of Regulation 2 of the University Grants Commission has not been considered by the learned single Judge, the same is not required to be considered in favour of the respondent in view of the express terms as provided in the G.O. Passed in G.O.Ms. No. 107 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.8.2009. In this connection, a useful reference can be made to the Full Bench Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Shanker Lal Verma and Others vs. Rajasthan State Electricity, 1993 (3) LLJ 796, wherein the following passage is apposite: “32. It is also to be noted that these are not the cases of derecognition of a degree, diploma or certificate issued by a particular institution because of some fault on the part of the institution awarding the same. The cases of derecognition of particular institutions and consequently derecognition of the degrees, diplomas and certificates issued by such institutions have to be distinguished from service matters in which certain qualifications are deleted from the rules. Removing or deleting a qualification from eligibility criteria cannot be said to be derecognition of that qualification or a degree, diploma or certificate. It only means that the degree, diploma or certificate has ceased to be the eligibility qualification for a particular post. It does not take away from the candidate, the degree, diploma or certificate conferred by the institutions. For example, if the eligibility qualification for a particular post was earlier ‘Graduate’ and by amendment, it is raised to ‘Post graduate’, it does not mean that degree possessed by the candidates are derecognised. What it simply means is that the eligibility qualifications are enhanced and a higher qualification is now required. It is also to be taken into account that purpose behind amendment to the rule was not to derecognise any degree, diploma or certificate, it was only to delete certain qualifications from the eligibility criteria. What it simply means is that the eligibility qualifications are enhanced and a higher qualification is now required. It is also to be taken into account that purpose behind amendment to the rule was not to derecognise any degree, diploma or certificate, it was only to delete certain qualifications from the eligibility criteria. This may be because of the changed situation in which the employer may find that candidates who have passed the Secondary School Examination from the Statutory Boards and Universities are available in sufficient numbers and it was not necessary to consider the candidates having equivalent qualifications. The respondents cannot be forced to accept equivalence of certain qualifications and to accept such equivalence for all times to come.” 5.7. Coming to the other decisions relied on by the respondent as considered by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that they do not have any application to the case on hand. In Writ Appeal No. 1064 of 2012 dated 6.11.2013, the Division Bench of this Court merely directed the authorities to re-consider the matter. On a perusal of the Order passed by the learned single judge, it is seen that the ratio laid down in W.A. No. 1064 of 2012 dated 6.11.2013, Joseph and Others vs. Joint Director of School Education has been wrongly relied upon. The direction was specific to the effect that the entire issue will have to be considered in the light of paragraph No. 4 of G.O.Ms. No. 107 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 18.8.2009. We have already discussed the scope and ambit of paragraph No. 4 of the G.O. Therefore, we are of the view that the said decision does not throw any light on the issue raised before us, that too, in favour of the respondent. Similarly, we are of the view that the decision dated 21.4.2014 relied upon by the respondent as rendered by the single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 13054 of 2010 etc. batch does not have any application to the case before us in view of the discussion made above, wherein, we have already held that fixing qualification is different from recognising a degree.” 17. batch does not have any application to the case before us in view of the discussion made above, wherein, we have already held that fixing qualification is different from recognising a degree.” 17. It is pertinent to note that in the decision rendered in R. Thirunavukkarasau vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2012 (5) CTC 129 , various instances where the persons with lesser qualification or degrees obtained by shortcut methods had attempted to get recruited as teachers and the same has been scuttled by the Teachers Recruitment Board and the Government have been stated and in this regard, it is apt to reproduce the following observations: (i) A student cannot be admitted to a 1st degree course unless he has successfully completed 12 years of schooling. (ii) No student will be eligible for 1st degree unless he has successfully completed a three years course. (iii) The students cannot seek admission to Masters course in any of the faculties unless he has successfully pursued the 1st degree of three years duration. (iv) Wherever a degree course of duration of less than three years was in existence at the time of 1985 regulations these institution can award degrees of a duration of two years only as a transitive measure. However, these persons will be eligible for admission to masters course only if they had undergone a one year bridge course. 18. The following observations were also made with respect to the Universities offering degree and post-graduation degree in distance education mode in the following manner: “80. In 2001, the European Commission issued a communication for making life long learning, a reality in Europe. In October 2006, the European Commission published a communication titled “Adult learning It is never too late to learn.” This communication defined adult learning as “all forms of learning undertaken by adults after having left initial education and training.” The communication pointed out that investment in adult learning has both public and private benefits such as greater employability, increased productivity, better quality employment, reduced expenditure in areas such as unemployment benefits, welfare payments and early retirement pensions, increased social returns in terms of improved civic participation, better health, lower incidents of criminality and greater individual well being and fulfilment. 81. 81. But a careful study of the history of evolution of Extension Education in the world would reveal that it was conceived with the noble intention of enhancing the skills and improving the knowledge of persons who did not or could not afford to go to Higher Educational Institutions. But unfortunately, after its adoption in India, in the form of Distance Education or Adult and Continuing Education, some of the Universities in the country started perverting the whole objective, by making available all kinds of Degrees, solely with a view to enable the acquirers of such Degrees to claim a right for being considered for appointment in Government Service. Eventually, the Supreme Court took note of such perversions in Annamalai University. A one year Degree, by whatever name called (either dual degree or second degree, if not a duplicate degree), is one another perversion of the system which was evolved more than a century ago as an Extension Programme with a noble objective. It will be interesting to note that persons who acquired such one year degrees or open university degrees, do not get employment in the Private Sector. It is only in Government Service that such persons seek appointments, promotions, incentive increments etc. on the basis of such degrees. Therefore, these degrees are actually specially designed and tailor made by Universities for serving or aspiring Government Servants. 82. It must be noted that the recruitment of teachers in schools, is being made by the Government, merely on the basis of seniority of registration in the Employment Exchanges, in the past few years. This itself has struck at the root of quality, in the matter of selection. If one year degrees are also recognised as equivalent to 3 year degrees, that would sound the death knell for the schools run by Government. Therefore, the stand taken by the Department in their communication dated 19.7.2012, not to recognise dual degrees, is a correct and appreciable step. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and the official respondents are directed not to recognise, both for appointment as well as for promotion, the dual degrees obtained by candidates after undergoing a Course of a duration of one year, as equivalent to a degree obtained after undergoing a Course of a duration of 3 years.” 19. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and the official respondents are directed not to recognise, both for appointment as well as for promotion, the dual degrees obtained by candidates after undergoing a Course of a duration of one year, as equivalent to a degree obtained after undergoing a Course of a duration of 3 years.” 19. In S. Jagadeeswari vs. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, W.P. No. 30299 of 2012, it has been held that simultaneous acquisition of degrees or acquisition of a lower qualification after acquiring a higher qualification [reverse degrees] cannot be recognized as a proper qualification for the purpose of appointment as B.T. Assistants and the said judgment was confirmed in Writ Appeal W.A. No. 845 of 2013 by a Co-ordinate Bench. 20. Another Division Bench of this Court in the Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board vs. A. Valarmathi and Others, MANU/TN/4887/2018, relying upon the above judgments in Thirunavukkarasau’s case and S.Jagadeeswari and following the Division Bench judgment in Kanimozhi’s case (cited supra), held as follows: “20. From the qualifications extracted above it could be seen that none of the respondents have satisfied the requirement of the educational qualifications prescribed under the advertisement dated 22.05.2013. The advertisement very clearly states that the respondents should have obtained a bachelor’s degree from a recognized University under 10+2+3 pattern along with a bachelor’s degree in Education. While the respondent in W.A. No. 1498 of 2015 has not even attempted to complete Higher secondary the respondents in W.A. Nos. 1496, 1497 of 2015 have completed higher secondary course after having obtained their bachelor’s degree. 21. Such a reverse qualification has been held to be invalid in R. Tirunavukkarasu case as well as in Kanimozhi case cited supra. We are in agreement with the views of the Division Bench as well as the learned Single Judge in R. Tirunavukkarasu case. We must also point out that the learned Single Judge in the orders impugned in these appeals had only followed the judgment of Justice Hariparandhaman in W.P. No. 13054 of 2010 batch case. The said judgment has been considered by the Division Bench in Kanimozhi case and has been specifically overruled. 22. We must also point out that the learned Single Judge in the orders impugned in these appeals had only followed the judgment of Justice Hariparandhaman in W.P. No. 13054 of 2010 batch case. The said judgment has been considered by the Division Bench in Kanimozhi case and has been specifically overruled. 22. We are therefore of the considered opinion that, the orders of the learned Single Judge made in the Writ Petitions which are impugned in these appeals should be set aside and accordingly the Writ Appeals are allowed setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge made in the Writ Petitions.” 21. The very same issue was dealt with in detail by another Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 28040 of 2018, dated 26.10.2018, T. Karikalan vs. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and it has been held as follows: “38. That apart, section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, is virtually the reproduction of G.O.Ms. No. 107 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 18.08.2009, which has been upheld by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this court. Needless to state decisions of a Coordinate Bench are binding.” 22. From the above, it is clear that G.O.Ms. No. 107, dated 18.08.2009, has been brought into effect, as Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, and the said G.O. has been consistently upheld by the Division Benches of this Court. We have to take a similar view, unless and until some valid ground is made out to take a different view. 23. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following judgments seeking to sustain the order of the writ Court: (1) Abdul Motin vs. Manisankar Maiti, (2018) 16 SCC 533 (2) R. Chitra vs. Member Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Teachers Recruitment Board, 2021 (2) LW 846 (FB) (3) C. Dharuman vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 1 MLJ 410 (4) Sureshpal vs. State of Haryana, (1987) 2 SCC 445 (5) Subramani P. vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2001 (3) LW 385 24.1. The judgment in Abdul Motin vs. Manisankar Maiti, (2018) 16 SCC 533 was relied on by the learned counsel to contend that the degrees awarded by the Open University and Regular University has to be treated at par. The judgment in Abdul Motin vs. Manisankar Maiti, (2018) 16 SCC 533 was relied on by the learned counsel to contend that the degrees awarded by the Open University and Regular University has to be treated at par. We are of the view that there is no quarrel qua the issue, as undoubtedly, the Government recognized the degrees awarded by Open as well as regular Universities as valid, but the only requirement is that the said degree has to be obtained by following 10+2+3 pattern. 24.2. In R. Chitra vs. Member Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Teachers Recruitment Board, 2021 (2) LW 846 (FB), a reference was made to the Full Bench of this Court for authoritative pronouncement as to the validity of the qualification of the candidates, who have obtained dual degrees, during the same academic year, for being selected to the post concerned, under the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service. The Full Bench agreed with the view taken in B. Jagadeeswari vs. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, which was to the effect that unless and until, the UGC recognizes such degree courses, there is no obligation on the part of the university or the employers/recruiting agencies to recognize such degree courses in the absence of any rules in this regard. 24.3. A learned Single Judge of this Court in C. Dharuman vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 1 MLJ 410 , held that the Regulation 2 of UGC Regulations, 1985 and the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution would prevail over G.O.Ms. No. 107. We are of the view that when the Division Bench judgments clearly held that the degree without passing the Higher Secondary Course is not valid, we need not delve into the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner in C. Dharuman’s case need not be taken note of. 24.4. 24.4. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department, (2009) 4 SCC 590 , the earlier judgment delivered as early as in the year 1986, namely, Sureshpal vs. State of Haryana, (1987) 2 SCC 445 , holding that the de-recognization of an institute, which offered a particular course with due recognition and issued certificates, would not deprive the persons of their qualification, who had obtained valid certificates from the institute, when it had a valid recognition. 24.5. Similarly, the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Subramani P. vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2001 (3) LW 385 , wherein, it has been held that subsequent stand taken by the Government cannot non-suit the petitioner, who would be entitled to get the benefit under the Government Health Benefit Scheme, if he had complied with the other conditions, is of no avail to the writ petitioner before us, for the reasons recorded hereinabove. 25. A reading of the order impugned herein shows that the writ Court solely relied on the order of the learned Single Judge in Dharuman vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 1 MLJ 410 , to allow the writ petition. As discussed above, when there are Division Bench judgments denying the very same relief sought for by the teachers, the writ Court, ought not to have proceeded to rely upon the order of the learned Single Judge. 26. It is brought to the notice of this Court that yet another Division Bench of this Court in J. Joseph Irudayaraj vs. Joint Director of School Education (Secondary), Chennai, 2014 (2) LW 1005, reversed the order of the learned Single Judge, refusing to quash the order of denial of approval of the appointment of a teacher, who was appointed in a minority school as B.T. Assistant in English, passed by the Director of School Education. It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench came to such a conclusion on the ground that the writ petitioner therein was appointed prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University’s case, as has been found in paragraph 11 of the said judgment of the Division Bench. It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench came to such a conclusion on the ground that the writ petitioner therein was appointed prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University’s case, as has been found in paragraph 11 of the said judgment of the Division Bench. But, that is not the case of the writ petitioner and therefore, the said judgment of the Division Bench, which was passed purely out of charity, also render no assistance to advance the case of the writ petitioner. 27. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.12.2017 passed in W.P. No. 21151 of 2013 is set aside thereby dismissing the writ petition. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.