JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the orders of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.8208/A4/2010 dated 06.09.2017, confirming the earlier orders passed in Na.Ka.No.8208/A1/08 dated 23.12.2010, quash the same.) 1. Heard Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.H.Ravikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case is as follows: 2.1. The petitioner had completed the degree of B.A (Tamil) in the year 1995-1998 and the Post Graduation of M.A. (Tamil) between the years 1998-2000. He was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) on 14.12.2000 and thereafter transferred to the third respondent Panchayat School on 24.09.2004. Between 2006-2008, he had completed his B.Ed., degree in the month of June 2008. Thereafter, in May 2009, he had completed B.A. (English) [Double Degree Course offered by Annamalai University]. 2.2. On 01.01.2010, a panel for the post of B.T. Assistant (English) was prepared in which the petitioner was placed in the first position and the rival teacher in the second position. Based on the panel, he was promoted as B.T. Assistant (English) on 20.05.2010. The rival teacher had given a complaint on the dual degree obtained by the petitioner, by stating that his B.Ed degree and B.A. (English) degrees were obtained simultaneously. Based on his complaint, the petitioner was reverted to the post of SGT from the post of B.T. Assistant (English) on 23.12.2010. The order of reversion was challenged in W.P.No.30044 of 2010 and by an order dated 24.01.2011, the order of reversion dated 23.12.2010 was set aside on the ground of natural justice and the learned Single Judge had made certain observations on the merits of the matter. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred an intra-court appeal in W.A.No.353 of 2011, which was disposed on 14.06.2017, directing the District Elementary Educational Officer, Salem to consider and dispose of the matter, without being influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge. In this background, the present impugned order dated 06.09.2017 has been passed, whereby the original order of reversion dated 23.12.2010 was restored and the petitioner was once again reverted back to the post of SGT. This order, is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3. In this background, the present impugned order dated 06.09.2017 has been passed, whereby the original order of reversion dated 23.12.2010 was restored and the petitioner was once again reverted back to the post of SGT. This order, is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3. The main ground on which the impugned order has been passed, is on the basis of the decision of this Court in R.Thirunavukarasu and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Chennai and Others reported in 2012 (5) CTC 129 , whereby it was held that the dual degree obtained by candidates after undergoing a course of duration of one year, cannot be recognised equivalent to a degree obtained over three years. On placing reliance on this decision, the respondents had held that since the petitioner had obtained dual degree of B.Ed., between 2006-2009 and completed B.A. English in 2009, which is not recognised as per the decision in R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra), reverted the petitioner to the post of SGT from B.T. Assistant (English). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision in R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra), will not have retrospective effect as on the date when he was promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant, the decision was not available, whereas the circulars of the first respondent herein, permitted dual degree. 4. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand cited the decision of the Hon''ble Full Bench in the case of R. Chitra and others V. Member Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment passed in W.P.2807 of 2014 batch etc., dated 26.04.2021 and the well settled law in R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra), which ratio has also been upheld by the Hon''ble Division Bench in the case of Pramakumari & Others Vs. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennia and others passed in W.A.No. 529 of 2013 batch etc., and submitted that in view of this settled position, the order of reversion would not require interference. 5. The short point that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition, is whether the decision in R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra) could be made applicable to the case of the petitioner? The fact remains that, when the petitioner was originally promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant on 20.05.2010, the said decision was not in existence. 5. The short point that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition, is whether the decision in R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra) could be made applicable to the case of the petitioner? The fact remains that, when the petitioner was originally promoted to the post of B.T. Assistant on 20.05.2010, the said decision was not in existence. On the other hand, the first respondent herein, in his proceedings in G.O.(Ms) No.201, School Education (A1) Department, dated 22.09.2008 had passed an order to the effect that such a dual degrees are valid for the purpose of granting promotions, which was in operation when the petitioner was originally promoted. The relevant portion of the said Government Order reads as follows:- “8.Double Major: Triple Major “ TAMIL” 6. When the proceedings of the first respondent herein dated 22.09.2008 itself recognises dual degrees for the purpose of granting promotions, the order of promotion granted to the petitioner on 20.05.2010, cannot be strictly found fault with. When the rival teacher had complained about dual degree of the petitioner, his promotion came to be cancelled and he was reverted back to the post of SGT. This order of reversion does not place reliance on any Government Orders, disqualifying such a dual degree. 7. In this background, the order of reversion came to be set aside by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 24.01.2011 passed in W.P.30044 of 2010. After such orders were passed, the decision in R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra), came to be passed on 14.08.2012, de-recognising the dual degree. It is only after this order, the issue of dual degree being a disqualification for promotion or appointment, came into operation. Even before that, the petitioner was promoted on regular basis on 20.05.2010 itself. Such order of promotion also cannot be found fault with, in view of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 18.12.2008, referred above. This being the case, the first respondent has now referred to the subsequent decisions in R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra) for the purpose of restoring the original order of reversion dated 23.12.2010 and thereby, reverted the petitioner to the post of SGT. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had raised a specific ground in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the teachers, who were promoted prior to R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra) are now working without any disturbances or reversion orders. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner had raised a specific ground in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the teachers, who were promoted prior to R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra) are now working without any disturbances or reversion orders. To such a statement, the respondents in their own counter affidavit have made a reference to one SGT namely, Mrs.K.Sarathy, who was denied the promotion for having obtained dual degree. However, denial of promotion to Mrs.K.Sarathy happens to have been made after the decision made in R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra). Other than quoting Mrs.K.Sarathy''s case, the respondents have not denied the fact that other teachers promoted prior to R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra), were not disturbed. While that being so, initiating action against the petitioner by reverting him to the lower post, would amount to hostile discrimination and in this ground also, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The judgments relied upon by the learned Government Advocate are all after the decision in R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra) and no way connected with the grounds raised by the petitioner with regard to his original promotion prior to R.Thirunavukarasu''s case (supra), when dual degrees were recognised as a qualification for promotion as per the proceedings of the first respondent dated 18.12.2008. 9. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated 06.09.2017 and 23.12.2010, on the file of the second respondent herein, are quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the first respondent herein to pass appropriate orders, restoring the petitioner to the post of B.T. Assistant (English) from 23.12.2010, on which date he was reverted back to SGT, with all service and monetary benefits. Such orders shall be passed by the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.