Union of India whereby it was held that the orders of the Administrative Tribunal would be subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view thereof, Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeal granting liberty to the State of Tamil Nadu to approach the High Court. Pursuant thereto, the State filed writ petition in W.P.Nos.27173 and 27174 of 2003, challenging the order of the tribunal dated 23.06.1997. The High Court set aside the order of the tribunal and upheld G.O.Ms.Nos.884 and 133, dated 12.08.1992 and 07.12.1995 respectively. Aggrieved by the above orders, the Promotee Assistants preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the High Court and upheld G.O.Ms.Nos.884 and 133, dated 12.08.1992 and 07.12.1995 respectively vide order dated 08.04.2009, in the case of M. Rathinaswami v. State of T.N. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 625 M. Rathinaswami v. State of T.N., The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the amendment to Rule 5 (g) and Annexure III, Item (ii) of the TNRSS Rules to the extent that it gives preference to the Direct recruit Assistants over the Promotee non-graduate Assistants observing that the very basis for the distinction sought to be drawn is that direct recruits are graduates and hence, intellectually superior to non-graduates. However, the Supreme Court read down the Rule to save it from becoming violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and held that once a promotee becomes a graduate, there cannot be any rational basis for making a distinction visà-vis direct recruits and held that the rule is inapplicable to the promotees who are graduates. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
