JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.02.2022 made in W.P.No.21263 of 2012.) Paresh Upadhyay, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 21.02.2022 recorded on W.P. No.21263 of 2012. This appeal is by the respondent in the writ petition. 2. This Court had on 29.06.2022 passed the following order: “1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 21.02.2022 recorded on W.P.No.21263 of 2012. This appeal is by the sole respondent / Teachers Recruitment Board. 2. Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant has submitted that, non-production of the certificate indicating educational qualification on the cut-off date could not have been condoned and therefore the non-inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner in the select list ought not to have been interfered with by learned Single Judge. It is submitted that, this appeal be entertained. 3. On the other hand, Mrs.A.Arulmozhi, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, by referring to the documents on record submitted that, the last candidate selected was junior to the petitioner so far registration date with employment exchange is concerned and the writ petitioner possessing educational qualification was not only not disputed, even that can also not be disputed that the writ petitioner is possessing higher educational qualification than what was stipulated. For this purpose, attention of this Court is drawn to the educational qualification certificates of the writ petitioner – B.P.Ed., so also Master of Physical Education, in which year the said qualification was obtained, with specific reference to the certificates issued by the University of Madras pertaining to B.P.Ed and Master of Physical Education. It is submitted that, non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the select list is arbitrary and therefore learned single Judge has rightly granted relief and therefore this appeal be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds that, not only no interference is required in the order passed by learned Single Judge, dismissal of this appeal, at this stage, in substance, would not be giving full relief to the writ petitioner, though the case of the petitioner is accepted on merits. It is only under this circumstances, the following order needs to be passed. It is only under this circumstances, the following order needs to be passed. 4.1 Leave to Join, the Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009, as party respondent. 4.2 Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent. 5. The joining of the party respondent has been necessitated under the following circumstances. 5.1 The recruitment pertains to the years 2010 – 2011 and 2011 – 2012. The candidates selected at the relevant time, include,persons junior to the writ petitioner. 5.2 Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, states that the selected candidates were given appointment some where in the year 2013. 5.3 The date of birth of the writ petitioner is indicated to be 09.05.1975. Learned advocate for the appellant further states that, the superannuation age for such employees is 60 years. Keeping this in view, even if the writ petitioner is given appointment (without prejudice to the rights of the State Authorities of challenging the order passed by this Court before appropriate forum), he would attain the age of superannuation in the year 2035. More than 10 years have already passed by this time. Couple of years more, and then if the writ petitioner is given appointment, at the time of his superannuation, it can legitimately be said that he has not put in 10 years of pensionable service, which may dis-entitle him to claim pension from the State, even after superannuation retirement. 5.4 It is this situation which needs to be taken care of. This can not be done only by hearing the sole appellant, who was the sole respondent in the writ petition. The duty would be on the State Authorities as well. Further, the sole respondent is also ultimately an instrumentality of the State. 5.5 Further to avoid further litigation in the matter, with a view to see that, the concerned Department can also put its case before this Court, if it so desires, the second respondent is joined as party respondent. The newly added respondent may file counter, if he so wishes, keeping in view the necessity recorded herein above. 6. List for further appropriate order on 11.07.2022.“ 3. The newly added respondent may file counter, if he so wishes, keeping in view the necessity recorded herein above. 6. List for further appropriate order on 11.07.2022.“ 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the non-production of the certificate indicating educational qualification on the cut off date could not have been condoned and therefore non-inclusion of the name of the writ petitioner in the select list ought not to have been interfered with by learned single Judge. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the original writ petitioner has submitted that as noted in the order dated 29.06.2022, the last candidate selected was junior to the writ petitioner so far registration date with employment exchange is concerned and the writ petitioner possessing educational qualification was not only not disputed, even that can also not be disputed that the writ petitioner is possessing higher educational qualification than what was stipulated. For this purpose, attention of this Court is drawn to the educational qualification certificates of the writ petitioner – B.P.Ed., so also Master of Physical Education, in which year the said qualification was obtained, with specific reference to the certificates issued by the University of Madras pertaining to B.P.Ed and Master of Physical Education. It is submitted that, non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the select list is arbitrary and therefore learned single Judge has rightly granted relief and therefore this appeal be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that learned single Judge has on the basis of material on record recorded satisfaction to the effect that the writ petitioner did possess requisite educational qualification and her possessing educational qualification is not in dispute. Non-production of the original certificate on the cut off date can not be stated to be fatal if otherwise acquiring qualification is not in dispute. 6. We have noted the contents of the contest put forward on behalf of the State Authorities and weighed it vis-a-vis reasons recorded by learned single Judge and the final direction contained in the order under challenge (dated 21.02.2022). 6. We have noted the contents of the contest put forward on behalf of the State Authorities and weighed it vis-a-vis reasons recorded by learned single Judge and the final direction contained in the order under challenge (dated 21.02.2022). We find that the direction given by learned single Judge can not be said to be an error much less any error apparent on the face of record which may call for any interference under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 7. We further note that, the State was joined as party respondent vide order dated 29.06.2022 and that the authority has also filed affidavit which was taken on record as reflected in the order dated 12.07.2022. The administrative difficulties perceived by the State can not be a ground to deprive a citizen of his rights if otherwise he is entitled to. 8. With a view to see that the Government exchequer does not suffer, we do not give any direction in this appeal (of the State) to pay arrears and other benefits to the writ petitioner, however the appointment of the writ petitioner shall be treated along with persons of the same batch and in any case the date on which his immediate junior was appointed. So far consequential benefits is concerned, it is left to the writ petitioner to resort to appropriate remedy and we may not be understood to have rejected that claim in this appeal. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this writ appeal is dismissed with above clarification. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not survive.