IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.1.2010 C O R A M : THE HONOURABLE MR.H.L.GOKHALE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN W.A.Nos.1636 to 1638, 1345 & 1628 of 2009 and W.P.Nos.27203, 24603, 24597, 26037, 25314, 24269, 24587, 26748, 26749, 27181, 25244, 25155, 29649 & 27261 of 2008 and connected MPs. W.A.No.1636 of 2009: 1. The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai-6. 2. The Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary), College Road, Chennai-6. 3. The Chief Educational Officer, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore. ... Appellants/ Respondents -vs- M.Somasundaram ... Respondent / Petitioner W.A.No.1637 of 2009: 1. The Director of School Education, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai-6. 2. The Joint Director of School Education, D.P.I.Compound, College Road, Chennai-6. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Teachers' Recruitment Board, rep.by its Secretary, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-6. 4. The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Vellore, Vellore District. .. Appellants/ Respondents -vs- V.Kalaivani .. Respondent / Petitioner W.A.No.1638 of 2009: 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary,Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep.by its Director, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, D.P.I.Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6. .. Appellants/ Respondents -vs- 1. R.Renuka 2. S.Mohan Raj 3. N.Kothai .. Respondents/ Petitioners W.A.No.1345 of 2009: N.Kothai .. Appellant/ Writ Petitioner No.3 -vs- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Teachers' Recruitment Board, rep.by its Director, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, D.P.I.Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.R.Renuka 4. S.Mohan Raj .. Respondents/ (R3 and R4 are given up) Respondents and Writ Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 W.A.No.1628 of 2009: R.Renuka .. Appellant/ 1st Petitioner in W.P.24600/08 -vs- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep.by its Director, E.V.K.Sampath Maaligai, D.P.I.Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 3. N.Kothai (R3 given up) .. Respondents/Respondents and 3rd Petitioner in W.P.24600/08 W.P.No.27203 of 2008: M.Latha .. Petitioner -vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Chairman, Teachers' Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.24603 of 2008: 1. K.Suresh 2. P.Kumari Ida 3. G.Meenatchi 4. R.Prakash 5. G.S.Mubarak Ali 6. U.Govindaraj 7. C.S.Uma Sankari 8. S.Senthil Nathan 9. G.Shanthi .. Petitioners -vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai – 6. 3. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 4. The Chief Educational Officer, Pudukkottai. 5. The Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil. 6. The Chief Educational Officer, Trivellore. 7. The Chief Educational Officer, Erode. 8. The Chief Educational Officer, Salem. 9. The Chief Educational Officer, Saidapet, Chennai-15. 10.The Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai. 11. The Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore. .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.24597 of 2008: 1. M.Ravichandran 2. P.Amsakala 3. K.Sasikala 4. K.Devika 5. S.Sivasenthil Kumar 6. M.Ramesh 7. P.Chithirai Selvan 8. S.Palaniyandi 9. S.Aravazhi 10. S.Banumathi 11. S.Tamil 12. P.Uma Maheswari 13. R.Jeyanthi 14. T.Saravanan 15. M.Govindarasu 16. M.Bhuvaneshwari 17. V.Jamuna 18. S.Dhanamani 19. R.Lakshmi Prapa 20. R.Kamalaveni 21. D.Sureshbabu 22. P.Suthamalini 23. N.Kamatchi 24. S.Jayalakshmi 25. D.Pushpa Latha 26. L.Kumar 27. A.Thahira Begum 28. D.Vijayakumar 29. K.Mohan 30. P.Shajini 31. G.Saranya 32. B.S.Kavitha 33. P.Ashok Kumar 34. K.Venkatachalam .. Petitioners -vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai – 6. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 4. The Chief Educational Officer, (Central), Chennai.15 5. The Chief Educational Officer, Salem. 6. The Chief Educational Officer, (South), Chennai.15 7. The Chief Educational Officer, Karur. 8. The Chief Educational Officer, Trichy. 9. The Chief Educational Officer, Perambalur. 10. The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore. 11. The Chief Educational Officer, Erode. 12. The Chief Educational Officer, Pudukottai. 13. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. 14. The Chief Educational Officer, (North), Chennai-8. 15. The Chief Educational Officer, Dharmapuri. 16. The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari. .. Respondents W.P.No.26037 of 2008: 1. G.Krishnakumar 2. S.Ramesh 3. Y.Silviya Joice Presilla 4. S.Ganthi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Miss.T.Christilda 6. S.Suryaprabha 7. R.Ramalingam 8. A.Ganesan 9. S.Sumandirar 10.S.Ravindran 11.R.Vijayalakshmi 12.R.Natarajan 13.R.Gopalakrishnan 14.R.Umamageswari 15.S.Ivy Rajakani 16.C.Maheswaran 17.M.Umamaheswari 18.P.Sri Priya 19.R.Senthilkumar 20.R.Kumaravel 21.M.Senthilnathan .. Petitioners -vs- 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. .. Respondents W.P.No.25314 of 2008: M.C.Arulprakasam .. Petitioner -vs- 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Higher Secondary School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Teachers Recruitment Board, rep.by Secretary, EVK Sampath Maligai, 4th Floor, College Road, Chennai-6. .. Respondents W.P.No.24269 of 2008: B.Suresh .. Petitioner -vs- 1.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore. .. Respondents W.P.No.24587 of 2008: 1. P.Arumugam 2. K.Rajeswari 3. L.Srenivasan 4. G.Sampath Kumar 5. G.Kumaresan 6. S.Muraliraj 7. T.K.Saravanan 8. R.Bakiyalakshmi 9. Lakshmi 10.K.Srenivasan ... Petitioners -vs- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep. By its Director, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.Nos.26748 and 26749 of 2008: 1.B.Arangan 2.V.Mirunalini ... Petitioners in WP.26748/08 1.R.Renuka 2.S.Mohan Raj 3.N.Kothai ... Petitioners in WP.26749/08 -vs- 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep.by its Director, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Joint Director of School Education, (Vocational), DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. ...Respondents in both WPs. W.P.No.27181 of 2008: 1.K.Rajeswari 2.R.Bakiyalakshmi 3.T.Lakshmi ... Petitioners -vs- 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep.by its Director, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Joint Director of School Education, (Vocational), DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 4.The Chief Educational Officer, Dharmapuri District. Dharmapuri. 5.The Chief Educational Officer, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. ... Respondents W.P.No.25244 of 2008: T.Sathiyamoorthy ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep.by its Director, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Government Boys' Higher Secondary School, rep.by its Headmaster, Sankari-637 301, Salem District. ... Respondents W.P.No.25155 of 2008: P.Durgadevi ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep.by its Director, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 3. The Government Girls' Higher Secondary School, rep.by its Headmaster, Vennanthur, Alawaipatti, Namakkal District. ... Respondents W.P.No.29649 of 2008: N.Kandasamy ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep.by its Director, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Salem. 4.The Government Higher Secondary School, rep.by its Headmistress, Vembadithalam, Salem-637 504. ... Respondents W.P.No.27261 of 2008: Mrs.K.Sridevi ... Petitioner -vs- 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Higher Secondary School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai. 3.Teachers' Recruitment Board, rep. By its Secretary, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, 4th Floor, College Road, Chennai-6. ... Respondents PRAYER : W.A.No.1636 of 2009 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.4.2009 made in W.P.No.24270 of 2008 on the file of this Court. W.P.No.24270 of 2008:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issu a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to permit the petitioner to write the special qualifying examination to be conducted on 12.10.2008 or any other subsequent dates for appointment to the post the Computer Instructors. W.A.No.1637 of 2009 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.4.2009 made in W.P.No.24598 of 2008 on the file of this Court. W.P.No.24598/2008:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issu a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner in the post of Computer Instructor by allowing her to appear for the selection for Special Recruitment of Computer Instructor for the year 2008 based on the marks obtained by the petitioner in the said selection by considering her educational qualification and earlier services rendered by the petitioner since from the year 1999 on par with the other similarity placed candidates with all attendant benefits. W.A.No.1638 of 2009 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.4.2009 made in W.P.No.24600 of 2008 on the file of this Court. W.A.Nos.1345 and 1628 of 2009 : Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.4.2009 made in W.P.No.24600 of 2008 on the file of this Court. Rev.Application 79 of 2009: Review Application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 114 CPC against order dated 20.4.2009 made in W.P.24600 of 2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioners to write special test to be conducted by the 2nd respondent on 12.10.2008 for selection to the post of Computer Instructors in the Government Higher Secondary Schools. W.P.Nos.27203 and 26037 of 2008: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner by conducting Special Qualifying Examination for the post of Computer Instructors, if necessary, and confer all consequential benefits. W.P.Nos.24603, 24597, 24269, 24587, 25244, 25155 and 29649 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to write the Special Qualifying Examination for the appointment to the post of Computer Instructor to be held on 12.10.2008 or on any subsequent dates and declare the result. W.P.Nos.25314 and 27261 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with Government Ms.Letter No.188, dated 04.10.2006 as upheld in W.A.No.1152 of 2007 dated 22.8.2008 on the file of this Honourable Court along with that of those who have been called for the selection test held on 12.10.2008. W.P.Nos.26748, 26749 and 27181 of 2008: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioners as Computer Instructors. W.A.No.1636 of 2009 : For appellants : Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P (Edn.) For respondents : Mr.J.Raja Mohan W.A.No.1637 of 2009 : For appellants : Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P (Edn.) For respondent : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, SC for Mr.V.Ravi Kumar W.A.No.1638 of 2009 : For appellants : Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P (Edn.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For respondents : Mr.K.Selvaraj for R2 W.A.No.1345 of 2009 : For appellant : Mr.K.Selvaraj For respondents : Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P.(Edn.) for R1 and R2 W.A.No.1628 of 2009 : For appellants : Mr.K.M.Ramesh for Mr.P.Thirunavukkarasu For respondents : Mr. G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P.(Edn.) for R1 and R2 W.P.Nos.27203, 24603, 24597 & 26037 of 2008 : For petitioners : Mr. C.Selvaraju, SC for Mr.T.Sellapandian For respondents : Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P.(Edn.) W.P.Nos.25314 & 27261 of 2008 : For petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian For respondents : Mr. G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P.(Edn.) W.P.No.24269 of 2008 : For petitioner : Mr. J.Rajmohan For respondents : Mr. G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P.(Edn.) W.P.Nos.24587, 26748, 24749, 27181, 25244, 25155, 29649 of 2008 : For petitioners : Mr.K.Selvaraj For respondents : Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P.(Edn.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N T THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE The first three of these matters are appeals filed by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board and other officers concerned with the School Education in the State of Tamil Nadu, whereas other matters are appeals and petitions filed by some of the teachers, who were in charge of computer education. The Teachers Recruitment Board and the officers of the Government concerned with Education are respondents in the appeals and the writ petitions filed by the Computer Instructors, whereas some of the Computer Instructors are the respondents in the three appeals filed by the Teachers’ Recruitment Board. 2. All these matters relate to the appointment of Computer Instructors in the Government Aided schools and the question of their absorption after participating in the requisite examination for the same. 3. Mr.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) has appeared for the Teachers’ Recruitment Board and the officers concerning education, whereas Mr.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Advocate, Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.T.Sellapandian, Mr.K.Selvaraj, Mr.K.M.Ramesh and Mr.R.Subramanian have appeared for the Computer Instructors. 4. The short facts leading to the present group of matters are as follows:- The Government of Tamil Nadu permitted the Educational Institution to engage Computer Instructors on a consolidated remuneration of about Rs.2,000/- (later revised to 2,600/-) per month. For engaging these Instructors, the Government of Tamil Nadu entered into a contract with Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT for short) to engage such suitable persons. ELCOT made available such Computer Instructors to the State. The Computer Instructors were posted in various educational institutions for a period of five years from 1999 to 2004 and the period was subsequently extended by one more year upto August 2005. The employment was purely on a contract basis. 5. It so happened that although the period of contract and the extended period were over, some of the Computer Instructors were still retained in the institutions and their number was around 772. The Computer Instructors represented to the Government for their absorption. The Government considered the representation and issued G.O.Ms.No.187, dated 04th October 2006 creating some 1880 posts of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Computer Instructors for the educational institutions. The Government also decided to conduct a Special Qualifying Examination for absorbing these Instructors as a one time measure. This was because, most of the Instructors were not having the B.Ed.Degree, which is necessary in an educational institution. The Instructors were however having the other qualifications, such as, a Degree in Computer Engineering (B.E.) or a Degree in Bachelor of Computer Science (B.Sc.) or a Degree in Master of Computer Applications (M.C.A). Additionally, they were also having the postgraduate diploma obtained after one year’s course. 6. This decision of the State Government was challenged by the Computer B.Ed. Graduates Association by filing Writ Petition No.50371 of 2007 etc. as a batch. Their main contention was that Computer Instructors were appointed only on a contract basis and they were not having the B.Ed. Degree, which is necessary for a teacher. That group of writ petitions was allowed by a learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 13.3.2007. The State Government challenged that judgment and order by filing W.A.Nos.1152 of 2007 and other appeals. The Division Bench, which heard the matter, found that the Government decision to consider the in-service candidates by way of Special Qualifying Examination was a one time measure to help those Computer Instructors, who had been continued even after the expiry of the original contract. The Division Bench, therefore, upheld the decision of the State Government to consider the case of 772 Computer Instructors, who were not holding the B.Ed. qualification. They were permitted to sit for the Special Qualifying Examination by another Division Bench by a judgment and order dated 22.8.2008. 7. The Tamil Nadu Computer Science B.Ed. Government Teachers’ Welfare Society challenged the order of the Division Bench by filing Civil Appeal No.4187 of 2009 to the Apex Court. During the pendency of that appeal, the examination proposed by the State Government had already been held. The Apex Court upheld the judgment and order of the Division Bench and permitted the exercises undertaken by the State Government only as one time concession and exception. The Court held that those candidates, who had obtained more than 50% qualifying marks shall be treated as qualified and recruited as Computer Instructors and they shall be absorbed and their services will be regularized in accordance with law. The remaining candidates, who had secured less than 50% marks but above 35% will be held to be unsuccessful. However, they will be allowed to appear in the next recruitment test to be held for that purpose. That examination is now proposed to be held on 24th January 2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Some of these candidates, who had not been permitted to appear for this examination for various reasons, filed writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.24270, 24598 and 24600 of 2008. They prayed that they may be permitted to write the Special Qualifying Examination, which was then to be conducted on 12.10.2008 and which is now postponed and which is to be held on 24th January 2010. The learned Single Judge, who heard those matters, allowed the petitions in some cases. Thus W.P.No.24598 of 2008 filed by one V.Kalaivani was allowed in spite of the fact that she was not available for work during 01st March 2005 to 31st July 2006. That is a period of year and five months, which she claimed to have not attended because of maternity. Similarly, W.P.No.24270 of 2008 filed by one M.Somasundaram was allowed though he had a break in service from 03.12.2005 to 31.5.2006, i.e. for about six months. W.P.No.24600 of 2008 was filed by three candidates. The petition was not allowed in the case of the first of the three petitioners, i.e. one Renuka, who was not available for work for a period of about 2 years and 3 months. But the same was allowed in the case of the second and third petitioner, i.e. one S.Mohan Raja and N.Kothai, who were not available for a period of one year and one month and seventeen days, and one year and four months respectively. 9. The State Government is aggrieved by the common judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge in these three matters, dated 20th April 2009 to the extent the learned Judge allowed these candidates to take the examination. 10. As against these three appeals filed by the State Government, the other petitions and appeals are by candidates who were not being allowed by the State Government to appear for the proposed examination. 11. Mr.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Teachers’ Recruitment Board and the Government Officers, submitted that under the relevant G.O.Ms.No.187 issued by the State Government dated 04.10.2006, the candidates had to be engaged through ELCOT and they had to be in service on the date on which the G.O. was issued. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Government Order, when translated from Tamil, read as follows:- 1.Persons eligible to apply : Persons who have been engaged as Computer Instructors on a contract basis by the contractors selected through ELCOT for working in Government/ Municipality/ Corporation/Adidravidar Welfare/ Kallar Reformation Higher Secondary Schools and who have worked as such till the contract period is over by receiving a remuneration of Rs.2000/- from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government and are continuing to work as such alone shall apply. 2.Educational Qualifications: The aforesaid eligible persons should possess any one of the following Degrees:- 1. B.E.Degree in Computer Science/ECE/EEE from a recognised University. 2. B.Sc. Computer Science 3. M.C.A. 4. B.C.A. 5. Any degree from a recognised University in the State with one year P.G.Diploma Course in Computer Application offered by a recognised University. " 12. Mr.Sankaran, therefore, submitted that it was necessary that the candidates concerned ought to have been appointed through ELCOT. They ought to have the qualifications, which are mentioned in paragraph 2 of that Government Order and thirdly they must be in continuous service upto the date of the Government Order. He has submitted to us the list of all the candidates concerned in these appeals and the writ petitions to point out as to how they were not being entertained either for the reason that they were not appointed by ELCOT or they were not having the necessary qualifications or that they are not in continuous service and had the break for quite a large period. These persons are some 33 persons. He however, considered the case in favour of three of the candidates, i.e. one K.Suresh and G.S.Mubarak Ali, who had filed W.P.No.24603 of 2008 along with other candidates. They are fulfilling all the requirements. One K.Sridevi, who has filed W.P.No.27261 of 2008 also fulfills the test. These candidates were working as Computer Instructors as on the date of the G.O. They had the qualifications and they had been employed through ELCOT and had worked continuously. They had however left the service a little thereafter. He stated that they were eligible to take the examination and if they pass it, were eligible for employment. As far as the remaining 30 persons are concerned, he has pointed out that they were either not having the necessary qualifications or were not appointed by ELCOT or were not in continuous service all throughout. The original list of the 33 candidates submitted by Mr.Sankaran giving reasons for their ineligibility is as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. W.P. No. Sl. No. Name of the Petitioner Reason for Ineligible 1 26037 /2008 1 G.Krishnakuma r No Educational Qualification as per the Govt. Letter No.188 Dated 04.12.2006 for the Computer Instructor Post. The petitioner got PGDCA Certificate Course from SISI Computer Centre and the certificate course does not have the mark sheet and convocation. The course is not a university reconized course. 2 S.Ramesh No Educational Qualification as per the Govt. Letter No.188 Dated 04.10.2006 for the Computer Instructor Post. The petitioner got PGDCA Certificate Course from DCL Software Ltd and the certificate course does not have the mark sheet and convocation. The course is not a university recognized course. 3 Y.Silviya joice Presilla Not appointed by ELCOT in Contract Basis. Appointed through PTA after the contract period. 4 S.Gandhi (Petitioner in W.P.666/07 already dismissed in this Hon'ble Court wide Order Dt.13.03.07) Not appointed by ELCOT in Contract Basis. Appointed through PTA on 05.11.05 after the contract period. 5 Miss T.Christilda Not appointed by ELCOT in Contract Basis. Appointed through PTA on 05.12.05 after the contract period. 6 S.Suriyaprabh a Left the service on 04.06.07. Not appointed by ELCOT in Contract Basis. Appointed through PTA on 28.08.08 afte the contract period. 7 R.Ramalingam No Educational Qualification as per the Govt. Letter No.188 Dated 04.10.2006 for the Computer Instructor Post. The petitioner got only DCA private certificate course does not have the mark sheet and convocation. The course is not university recognized course. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl. No. W.P. No. Sl. No. Name of the Petitioner Reason for Ineligible 8 A.Ganesan No Educational Qualification as per the Govt. Letter No.188 Dated 04.10.2006 for the Computer Instructor Post. The petitioner got DNCC Certificate Course from Aptech Computer Centre and the certificate course does not have the mark sheet and convocation. The course is not a university recognized course. 9 S.Sumandirar No Educational Qualification as per the Govt. Letter No.188 Dated 04.10.2006 for the Compute Instructor Post. The petitioner got DCP Certificate Course from S.P.Mandali's and the certificate course does not have the mark sheet and convocation. The course is not a university recognized course. The petitioner not completed the PGDCA Course. 10 C.Ravindran Break Of Service – Left the service from 01/09/2004 to 01/06/2005 and rejoined on 02/06/2005 through PTA. 11 R.Vijayalakshm i Break Of Service – Left the service from 15/10/2003 to 20/11/2006 and rejoined on 21/11/2006 through PTA. 12 R.Natarajan Break Of Service – Left the service from 22/10/2004 to 07/09/2006 and rejoined on 08/09/2006 through PTA. 13 R.Gopalakrishn an Break Of