Murugesan v. Tamilnadu State Transport

ORDER: In the Government Orders first and second read above, orders have been Issued that the Pre-foundation Course and the two years Foundation Course of the Madurai Kamaraj University Open University be recognized as equivalent to 10 years of SSLC and Higher Secondary Course (+2) of the Tamil Nadu Government respectively, for the purpose of entry Into Public Services In this State.

¶2In the Government orders third and fourth read above, the Two Years Foundation Course and One Year Foundation Course conducted by the Annamalai University have been considered as equivalent to +2 and 11 years SSLC respectively for the purpose of entry Into Public Services in this State.

¶3In the Government orders fifth and sixth read above, orders have been issued that the degree obtained after passing SSLC and +2 alone will be recognized for the purpose of employment / promotion in Public Services and that those who possess a Post Graduate Degree through Open University System without obtaining a basic degree cannot be considered as possessing a Post Graduate Degree for appointment to Public Services.

¶4Based on the orders Issued in the Government order fifth read above, the recognition of the Pre-foundation and the two year Foundation Courses awarded by various Open Universities were clarified in the letter seventh read above to the effect that- "A degree awarded by the Open Universities after passing Pre-foundation Course and two year Foundation Course through Open University cannot be recognized as degree as per University Grants Commission norms for the purpose of employment/promotion. In Public Services, since such Pre-foundation Course and two year Foundation Course are not contemplated in the University Grants Commission Regulations. Therefore, those who obtained a degree under Open University System after passing the Pre-foundation Course and two year Foundation Course without passing 10th standard and +2 examination do not satisfy the conditions laid in G.O.(Ms).No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated

18.08.2009 which is in consonance with the orders of Supreme Court of India". The above clarification was followed from the date of issue of orders in the Government Order fifth read above.

5.In the meantime, the Equivalence Committee in its recommendations in the letter eighth and ninth read above has also resolved that the Pre-foundation Course and the Foundation / Bridge Courses awarded by various Universities cannot be recognized as equivalent to SSLC and Higher Secondary Course (+2). The recommendations of the Equivalence Committee are in consonance with the clarification issued in the letter seventh read above, hence, the Pre-foundation Course and the Foundation / Bridge Courses awarded by various Universities cannot be recognized as equivalent to SSLC and Higher Secondary Course (+2).

6.As the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee confirms the clarification that the Pre-foundation Course and Foundation Course offered by various Universities in the State are not equivalent to SSLC and Higher Secondary Course (+2) respectively, Government emphasise to follow the clarification issued in the Government letter seventh read above scrupulously."

14.In the case of Managing Director, TNHB and another –vs-N.Nagamuthu, the Division Bench of this Court having set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, held as below:- "7.In the light of the said Government Order, the finding rendered by the learned Writ Court that G.O.Ms.No.528, will continue to aid and assist the candidates like the first respondent, does not lay down the correct legal principle. A pre~foundation course or a foundation course or a bridge course, probably for three to six months, can at no stretch of imagination, be construed to be equivalent to 10+2 of formal school education.

8.Therefore, we do not agree with the view expressed by the learned Single Bench on the effect of various Government Orders. So far as the relief granted to the first respondent is concerned, we do not propose to disturb the relief, because the order of reversion has been quashed for the reason that the first respondent has continued in the promoted post and further promoted and retired as Junior Assistant.

9.Thus while vacating all the findings rendered by the learned Single Bench in the impugned order, dated 21.12.2018, we sustain the ultimate relief granted by the learned Writ Court in quashing the reversion order and making it clear that the pre~foundation course or foundation course or bridge course offered by any University cannot be treated as equivalent to SSLC or Higher Secondary Course (+2)."

15.While the Courts are being consistent in holding after the judgment of the Supreme Court judgement in Annamalai University's case and passing of G.O.(Ms)107, dated 18.08.2009, that one year pre-foundation course and two years foundation course are not equivalent to 10th standard and 12th standard respectively and G.O's and letter dated

03.12.2010 issued clarifying G.O.Ms.No.107 cannot be given restrospective effect. A deviation in the interpretation of G.O.Ms.No. 144, dated 20.11.2017 in Thanvam's case, came to be deliverd. In that judgment, it has been held as follows:

24.This Court is of the considered opinion that the government had recognized the pre-foundation course vide G.O.Ms.No.528, P and AR Department, dated 18.05.1985 and the said G.O. was in existence from 1985 onwards, subsequently there was a challenge to the open university degree and the High Court has held open university degree is not valid and pre-foundation course as not valid. When it was considered valid for the past twenty four years, then it was declared as invalid, the persons who are affected from this shift / change of qualification ought to be protected. As rightly pointed out by the appellants, the Government has taken eight long years after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009, to issue G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 20.11.2017. It is only in G.O.Ms.No. 144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated

20.11.2017 the government has declared that the pre foundation course is not recognized equivalent to the pre-foundation course. The G.O.Ms. No. 107, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.08.2009, has only accepted the recommendations of the Equivalence Committee. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, the government has passed G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated

20.11.2017 wherein it has been categorically held that the pre-foundation course as invalid. If it is so, then the date of issuance of the said G.O. Ms. No. 144 ought to be held as the cutoff date. Moreover, the prefoundation course was closed down in the year 2012. In short the pre-foundation course was recognized in the year 1985, then in the year 2009 it was held by High Court that pre-foundation course is not equivalent, then equivalence committee has reported it is not equivalent, the government accepted the report in 2009 and finally it was declared in the year 2017. Hence, the mischief of invalidity has been eradicated in phased manner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cutoff date, is the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 20.11.2017 i.e. 20.11.2017. .....

26.Since all the appellants had completed the pre-foundation course prior to 20.11.2017, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to promotion. After dismissal of the writ petitions, the respondents have reverted the appellants to their original post of Gang Mazdoor. Since writ appeals are allowed the appellants are entitled to promotion. Therefore, the respondents are directed to confer the promotion to all the appellants. The impugned order challenged in the Writ Appeals are set aside and consequently the impugned orders of de-promotion challenged in the Writ Petitions are set aside. The respondents are directed to implement the judgment within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

16.When this judgment was cited in a review petition, the Division Bench considered it and passed the following order in Rev Application (MD) No: 73/2022 in W.A.(MD) No.1052 of 2020. "3.Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the review petitioners would invite our attention to the order, dated 03.04.2019, wherein the first ground that is taken for rejection of the approval is the absence of a equivalence declaration on the Pre-Foundation Course. The learned Additional Advocate General would also invite our attention to G.O.(Ms).No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated

20.11.2017, wherein it has been made clear that the Pre-Foundation Course and the Foundation Course for two years, conducted by the Universities are not equivalent to S.S.L.C., and Higher Secondary Course respectively. Once the Government had passed an order even in 2017 declaring that these courses are not equivalent to S.S.L.C., and Higher Secondary Course, the said Ignatius is not qualified to be appointed on the date when he was appointed to the Post.

¶4Ms.Amala, learned counsel would however contend that G.O.Ms.No.144, has been held to be prospective. Therefore, any person who had completed the Course prior to passing of G.O.Ms.No.144, would be eligible for appointment.

¶5We are unable to agree with the said contention. If a Course is declared as not equivalent, any person who has completed the said Course will become disqualified from the date of such declaration and the date on which the said person obtained the qualification is wholly irrelevant. She would also rely upon a judgment of the Division Bench wherein it was held that G.O.Ms.No. 144, would be prospective. If the Government Order is prospective, the cut off date would be 20.11.2017. If any person appointed to the Post prior to 20.11.2017, the said appointment would be valid. It will not mean that a person who obtained the qualification prior to

20.11.2017 could be appointed after that, on the ground that his qualification is equivalent to S.S.L.C or Higher Secondary Course. Non consideration of this very vital aspect, in our opinion is an error on the face of the record which would vitiate the entire proceedings. Hence, we find that the review application has to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. Consequentially, the writ appeal will stand allowed and the writ petition will stand dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

17.In short in P.Thavam's case, the Division Bench of this Court, pushed further the cut-off date of validating appointments or promotions gained by persons holding pre-qualification and qualification certificate prior to 20.11.2017. One fact we note is that all the judgements referred above are consistent in holding that, in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University's case the decision of the Government, that pre-foundation and foundation courses offered by the University is not equal to 10th standard and 12th standard examinations conducted by the Board/University,, is valid and no benefit based on the G.O.Ms.No.528 dated 18.05.1985 will enure to the persons in employment or promotions. The divergent view is only regarding the cutoff date from which the said decision will come into effect.

18.According to the Learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Veerakathiravan representing the State, and the learned Counsel Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India comes into effect from the date of the order. In this case, the judgement in Annamalai University's case was delivered on 25.01.2009. In effect, from that day onwards, no benefit can be claimed on the strength of Pre-Foundation and Foundation certificates. Any Under-Graduation degree or Post-Graduation degree obtained without 10th and 12th certificate offered by Board/University under regular schooling system, shall not be considered as valid degree for appointment or further promotions.

19.The Government Orders issued subsequently are consequential to the law declared by the Supreme Court. For sake of clarity, subsequent Government Orders, letters and Circulars were issued, therefore, it is not correct to say that only after issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 144, dated 20.11.2017, they are ineligible.

20.The Special Rules of the Departments in the State, while prescribing 10th standard or 12th standard as qualification for the post, had always stated that a pass in 10th or 12th standard of recognised school and the expression 'recognised school' had been explained as the school approved by the Government of Tamilnadu for which recognisation accorded under the Tamilnadu Education Code.

21.After introduction of Open University System of education, to enable the persons, who had no opportunity of undergoing formal education under regular education system, to acquire academic qualification like Under Graduation degree and Post Graduation degree, some of the Universities offered one year Pre-Foundation course and two years Foundation courses and sought for equalency. The same was granted by teh Government after getting approval of Equalency Committee. In the said perculiar circumstances, G.O.Ms.No.528, dated

18.05.1985 came to be issued in response to the letter from Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai. Any benefit acquired on the strength of this G.O., is protected upto the date of judgement rendered in Annamalai University's case that is till 25.02.2009 and not thereafter. The consequential clarificatory Government Orders by no means can extend the validity of the Pre-Foundation and Foundation Course. The prospect of the persons not possessing 10th or 12th standard certificates from recognised School is not foreclosed. They can write the examinations privately and acquire the certificates. The Education Code provides for such private studies. The expression used in UGC Act, regarding conduct of 'Entrance Examination' before enrolling a candidate in direct UG course or PG course not same or similar to the Pre-Foundation course or Foundation course, which has been held to be invalid by the Supreme Court.

22.The contention that G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 18.08.2009 and subsequent letter of the Secretary, P &AR Department, dated 03.12.2010 will not have the force of law and only after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.144, P &AR Department, dated 20.11.2017, the decision of the Government that Pre-Foundation course and Foundation course are not equivalent to 10th Standard and 12th Standard, can be given effect, is legally unsustainable. The contention that G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 20.11.2017 cannot be given retrospective effect is due to the improper appreciation of spirit of the Government Order. In fact, the said G.O.Ms.No.144 issued to explain the decision by the Hon'be Supreme Court in Annamalai University's case. It is not issued to give retrospective effect of the decision laid by the Supreme Court. The benefits enjoyed by the candidates, based on their possession of Pre-Foundation course and Foundation Course certificates, will not be disturbed in any manner. Only few promotions without acquiring the regular certificate offered by the school Education department after G.O.Ms.No.107, dated 25.02.2007 are now prohibited.

23.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the private individuals referring Para No.24 of the judgment rendered in P.Thavam's case, reiterated that declaring that Pre-Foundation and Foundation course as invalid, never given effect immediately and it was effectuated and reached finality only on issuance of G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 20.11.2017. It was contended that all the candidates, who completed Pre-Foundation and Foundation Course prior to 20.11.2017 must be considered for promotion.

24.To buttress his argument that no retrospective effect should be given to a statue, the learned counsel for the private individuals relied upon the case in Govind Das and others vs. The Income Tax Officer and another [1976 (1) SCC 906], in which it has been held as follows: "11.Now it is a well settled rule of interpretation hallowed by time and sanctified by judicial decisions that unless the terms of a statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. The general rule as stated by Halsbury in Vol. 36 of the Laws of England (3rd Ed.) and reiterated in several decisions of this Court as well as English Courts is that "all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prima facie prospective" and retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to affect, alter or destroy an existing right or create a new liability or obligation unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only.

25.Referring the Full Bench of this Court in Nadar Thanga Shubha Lazman Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu [2014 (3) CTC 433], this Court in the case of The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai and others vs. L.R.Meena [2017 SCC Online Mad 21610], in Para No.9, held as follows: ".......the question, which was referred to the Larger Bench was whether the Equivalence Certificate issued by the Committee constituted by the Government declaring that the Degree obtained from one University Is equivalent to the Degree obtained from yet another University is only prospective in operation and whether the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of N. Geetha v. The State of Tamil Nadu, W.A. (MD) No. 312 of 2013, dated 01.07.2013, is correct. The Larger Bench held that any Degree Certificate issued by the University or Educational Institution will have its validity from the date of issuance."

26.The Full Bench in P.Raji vs. The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamilnadu & Puducherry [CDJ 2018 MHC 3869], considered the question regarding application for enrollment as Advocate in the role of State Bar Council can be declined or kept in abeyance on the ground that the petitioner cleared 10th Higher Secondary and 12th board examination properly without attending regular classes in a recognised school. The Full Bench of this Court, in Raji's case, after discussing the Advocates Act, Bar Council Rules and Legal Education Rules, has held that; "40. A candidate, who may have passed the Higher Secondary Course Certificate Examination (+2) without clearing the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination (+10) or alternatively a candidate, who may have straightaway graduated under the Open University System without clearing the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination and the Higher Secondary Course Certificate Examination, or either, as the case might be, would not be eligible for admission."

27.Considering the two conflicting views of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in S.R.Deepak vs. The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University and another [2016-2-L.W. 64 (Mad) and in Theerthagiri vs. The Director of School Education and others [(2016) 5 L.W. 573 (Mad)], the Full Bench had clarified and held as below: "53. It is reiterated that Rule 5(a) of the Legal Education Rules read with the first proviso and the Explanation makes a graduate degree from a university whose LLB degree is recognized by the Bar Council of India for enrolment upon completion of a regular course, including a course through correspondence or distance mode, a mandatory eligibility criteria for admission to the Three Year LLB course. However, those who obtain graduate degree through an Open University system without having the basic qualification i.e., without obtaining 10 +2 certificates and/or in other words Secondary and/or Senior Secondary certificate or equivalent from a Board authorised to confer such certificates are not eligible for admission to the Three Year Law course. Similarly, a candidate who may have cleared +2 (Senior Secondary course) would not be eligible for admission in the Integrated Degree Program if he has obtained the certificate through an Open University system without having the basic qualification for prosecuting +2 course, which is a Secondary certificate.

¶54With the greatest of respect to the Division Bench deciding S.R.Deepak, supra, we are unable to agree that a candidate who obtains the Secondary Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate without prosecuting a regular course would be ineligible for admission to the Three Year LLB Course, even though the candidate might have obtained a Secondary Certificate and a Higher Secondary Certificate from a recognized Board authorized to issue such certificates and have graduated from a recognized university whose degree in Law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for enrolment by successfully completing a regular course.

¶55There is a difference between open universities and other universities and/or boards, in that some of these open universities enable candidates, who do not have the basic qualifications, to obtain higher qualifications straightaway. By prosecuting studies through open universities, it may be possible for a candidate to obtain a Post Graduate Degree or a Three Year LLB Degree without being a graduate or to obtain a graduate degree without having the Senior Secondary School Certificate. In our view, the Bar Council of India, in its wisdom, framed the Legal Education Rules making a graduate degree upon prosecution of a regular course from a university, whose degree in Law is recognized by the Bar Council of India, a mandatory eligibility criteria." Conclusion:

28.On examination of the above judgments and the relevant Government Orders, Circulars and clarificatory letters, we are of the considered view that G.O.Ms.No.528, (P&AR) Department, dated

15.05.1985 is the reflection and restatement of the TNPSC recognising Pre-Foundation and Foundation courses offered by the respective Universities as equivalent to 10th standard and 12th standard offered by the State Board /Universities.

29.Therefore, the effect of G.O.Ms.No.528, dated 18.05.1985 will hold good only till the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annamalai University's case invalidating degrees obtained by the candidates who have not in possession of regular 10th and 12th standard certificates. Invalidation has come to effect on the date of judgment, since the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. All other subsequent Government Orders, viz., starting from G.O.No.107, dated

18.08.2009 are clarificatory in nature. For convenience sake, the Government has taken a decision that the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 107, will be the cut-off date for freezing the benefits of direction B.A., or M.A., to the candidates, who did not possess 10th and 12th standard certificates issued by the respective Board.

30.Reading of the G.Os and the clarificatory letter makes it clear that never the Government had postponed the implementation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment. If any such interpretation is given, it will be in violation of the Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we hold that the view expressed in P.Thavam's case that the effect of invalidating Pre-Foundation and Foundation course will be only from 20.11.2017, is erroneous. No benefit can be claimed by the candidates based on their Pre-Foundation and Foundation course certificates after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.107, which is a formal declaration and restatement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision.

31.To sum up, from the date of judgment rendered in Annamalai University case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (ie.,

25.02.2009), the persons possessing Pre-Foundation and Foundation certificates as equivalent to 10th and 12th standard, are ineligible for any appointment or promotion.

32.Those, who were already appointed or promoted before the date of this judgment shall not be disturbed. However, they cannot have the advantage of the pre-qualification certificate and qualification certificate for further promotion from that date onwards.

33.Whoever, had subsequently obtained 10th standard and 12th standard certificates through private studies offered by the School Education Board, from that day onwards, they are entitled for promotions.

34.G.O.Ms.No.107, followed by the clarification letter of the P & AR Department, dated 03.12.2010, are clarificatory in nature and therefore, by no means that will extend the date of effect of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land.

35.With the above clarification regarding the cut-off date for implementing the order, the matters are remitted back to the concerned Bench for appropriate decision on merits. [G.J., J.] & [S.S.Y., J] & [K.K.R.K., J.]

27.02.2026

Index :Yes Internet :Yes ta To

1.The Director General, Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.

2.The Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai-600 025.

3.The Superintending Engineer, Highways, Construction and Maintenance, K.Pudur, Madurai.

4.The Divisional Engineer, Highways, Construction and Maintenance, K.Pudur, Madurai. DR.

G. JAYACHANDRAN

, J.

AND

S.SRIMATHY, J. AND

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ta W.A.(MD)Nos.462 of 2014 etc., batch

27.02.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 09.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 27.02.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN W.A.(MD)Nos.462 of 2014, 485 of 2018, 1231of 2019, 919 of 2020, 1420 of 2022, 1249 of 2025 and W.P.(MD)Nos.3773 to 3775 of 2013 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.2904 of 2018, 5004 of 2020 W.A.(MD)No.462 of 2014: Murugesan ... Appellant Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vannarapet, Tirunelveli, Through its Managing Director. 2.The General Manager (HR), Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli Region, Vannarpet, Tirunelveli. 3.P.Muthukrishnan ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 11.12.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.11556 of 2012 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ponramkumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Sathiya Singh (R1 & R2) Standing Counsel W.A.(MD)No.485 of 2018: 1.The Registrar, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai-625 021. 2.Syndicate Committee, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai-625 021. ... Appellants Vs. 1.S.R.Maria Raja 2.The Principal Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 02.02.2017 in W.P.(MD)No.5309 of 2012 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal (A1) Senior Counsel for M/s.Isaac Chambers For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen (R1) Mr.Veera Kathiravan (R2) Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader W.A.(MD)No.919 of 2020: 1.Ayyasamy 2.Selvakumar 3.Muthurasu 4.Kottai Rajan 5.Kannan ... Appellants Vs. 1.G.Karuppasamy 2.The Government of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Secretary, Highways and Minor Ports (Hk3) Department, Fort. St. George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600009. 3.The Chief Engineer (General), Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 4.The Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Reserve Line Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli - 627 002. 5. The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Sivakasi Sub Division, Virudhunagar Division, Virudhunagar District - 626 001. 6. Jothimurugan 7. Duraipandi 8. Sanakaranarayanan 9. Sivaprakash 10. Padmanabhan 11. Haja Mohideen 12. Selvaraj 13. Kesavan 14. Vijayarajan 15. Radhakrishnan 16. Iyyaru 17. Rajagopal 18. Kumaresan 19. Pothiraj 20. Habiyathullah 21. Kumaresan 22. Renganathan 23. Natrajan 24. Murugapandi 25. Rajasekaran 26. Kannan 27. Veerachamy 28. Radhakrishnan 29. Baskaran 30. William Subramani 31. Arumugakani 32. Balamurugan 33. Alagusamy 34. Karthikeyan 35. Muneeswaran 36. Murugan Senthilvel 37. Chinnathurai 38. Gurusamy 39. Muthukumar 40. Devasagayam 41. Karumalai 42. Kumar 43. Muniselvakumar 44. Malaiyarasan 45. Inbasekaran 46. Thiruppathiraj 47. Rengarajan 48. Ramachandran 49. Murugan 50. Kathiravan 51. Jeyapandi 52. Rajesh Kannan 53. Arulraja 54. Gopalakrishnan 55. Ashtarajan 56. Subburaj 57. Rajendran 58. Ravichandaran 59. Vairavan 60. Ramamoorthy 61. Senthilvel 62. Muneeswaran 63. Dhanapal ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 05.02.2020 in W.P.(MD)No.18054 of 2014 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents : Mr.A.Saravanan (R1) Mr.Veera Kathiravan (R2 to R5) Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader W.A.(MD)No.1231 of 2019: 1.The Chief Engineer (General), Highways Department, Chennai-05, Presently Re-designated as The Director General, Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai-25. 2.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Theni. 3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Bodi. ... Appellants Vs. K.Pandian ... Respondent PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 26.09.2019 in W.P.(MD)No.7889 of 2010 on the file