M. Sarojini, P. Nirmala, R. Santheswari, C. Lakshmi, L. Poongothai, K. Vijaya Lakshmi, A. Sakunthala, R. Nirmala, S. Parama Sivan, D. Rajendran, C. Palanisamy, P. Sadasivam, K. Mohan, B. Senthil Kumar, V. Thangavelu, T. Seetha Devi, K. Shanmugam, B.S. Giriram, A. Balasundaram, K. Sargunan, V. Vijayalakshmi, R. Sadhasivam, S. Perumal, R. Chitra, S.V. Thilagavathy, R. Ravikumar, V. Karthikeyan, R. Vijaya Lakshmi, V. Mugunthan, R. Raghavan, D. Venkatesan, A. Jagadheesan, A. Natarajan, N. Sekar, D. Amudavalli, A. Malliga, A.R. Kuppuraj, N. Muruganantham, I. Shahida Banu, K. Tamilarasi, N. Dhanapaciam, K. Ravi Kumar, S. Arul, K. Selvaraju, K. Subramanian, B. Panneer Selvam, V. Rajendiran, A. Tamilarasu, G. Chinnu, Jegasirpian, M. Krishnamurthy, S. Dhanasekaran, M. Rajendran, N. Thiagarajan, N. Bharathi, D. Mirunalini, D. Usharani, A. Noorjahan, V. Jaishankar, V. Kaliaperumal, K. Babu, S. Anandan, K. Tamilselvan, V. Anuradha, S. Velayutham, P. Palanivel, D. Purushothaman, P. Ramakrishnan, R. Shanthaseelan, D. Shivakumar, K. Murugan, M. Poongavanam, K. Sampath, K. Thirumoorthi, A. Tamizhselvan, G. Ravichandran, K. Rajagopal, R. Kandasamy, T. Bharathi, M. Latha and P. Geetha vs The State of Tamil Nadu and The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—This writ petition is obviously not maintainable for the simple reason that the factual position has now been completely

changed after the order of the Tribunal.

All the petitioners who are B.Ed. Teachers sought their appointments as Secondary Grade Teachers. Relying on the Division Bench judgment

dated 29.6.2001 in W.A.Nos.991 to 998 of 1998 batch, to which one of us (Justice V.S.SIRPURKAR) was a party, the Tribunal held that the

qualification of B.Ed. is not a requisite qualification for being appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher. All the applications were then dismissed

by a common order dated 26.2.2002. The writ petition is purportedly against that order, however on totally different grounds.

The Government has come up with a G.O. No. 79 dated 14.6.2002, wherein the Government has created some new posts of Middle Grade

Graduate Teachers as it came to the conclusion that the classes of 6, 7 and 8 standards should have the advantage of teaching by the B.Ed.

Teachers and not by the Secondary Grade Teachers who had obviously lower qualification. In the writ petition all the petitioners now claim that

they should be considered for the new posts which are being created for the Middle Grade Graduate Teachers.

The claim of the petitioners is solely based on the G.O and the learned Special Government Pleader who has already taken notice has also very

fairly stated that the Government is firm on this G.O. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that the writ petition is beyond the scope of the original

order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners seek to challenge the order of the Tribunal before passing which, G.O dated 14.6.2002 was not

available at all. In short, we are asked in this writ petition to issue a direction that basing on the G.O dated 14.6.2002, the appointments should be

given to the persons like the petitioners in the posts of Middle Grade Graduate Teachers. That we cannot do in our present jurisdiction. That is

totally a different cause of action having nothing to do with correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal.

The learned Special Government Pleader says that for such appointments, there is going to be a competitive examination. The petitioners may, if

they so feel, take the advantage of any such opportunity provided by the Government, however they cannot claim the relief in this petition. The writ

petition is dismissed. No costs. WPMP 62363 of 2002 is closed.