- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)What clearly has been a long drawn tussle between under-qualified Computer Instructors appointed on ad-hoc basis (many of them have acquired the requisite qualification i.e. B.Ed. Degree in the meantime) and the B.Ed. qualified candidates who are yet to be appointed but claim to have been waiting for such appointment for long have surfaced once again, albeit, in a different manner. The challenge in these appeals is in respect of the directions of the Madras High Court in the common order under challenge dated 18.09.2013, particularly, direction No. (vi) and (vii) contained in para 53. To better comprehend the dimensions of the challenge para 53 of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow.
"53. Summary of conclusion :-

(i) The Government was correct and justified in terminating the services of failed computer instructors;

(ii) The failed computer instructors have no right to continue after the conclusion of second round of regularization process;

(iii) The writ petitioners have no right to continue even temporarily, pending regular recruitment;

(iv) The failed computer instructors are not eligible or entitled for regularization in view of the finding recorded by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4187 of 2009;

(v) The names of the failed computer instructors (whose names were earlier registered in the Employment Exchange) should be re- entered in the Employment register of the concerned Employment Exchange and their earlier seniority also should be restored;

(vi) The Government shall follow the present policy of recruitment of teachers, while appointing computer instructors viz. recruitment through Teachers Recruitment Board;

(vii) The writ petitioners are eligible to apply along with others pursuant to the notification issued by the Teacher Recruitment Board. The writ petitioners are not entitled for any kind of preference. However, they are at liberty to apply for age relaxation to apply for the recruitment and the request for age relaxation, if any, would be considered on merits."

(3.)The reference to the recurrent dispute between the two warring groups seeking either to retain or obtain employment would necessarily require this Court to traverse the complex factual matrix once again notwithstanding the fact that in each of the challenges before the High Court as well as this Court a sequential narration of the relevant facts has been made. As, unless the same are repeated herein the issues will not crystallize and, therefore, there is no option but once again to recapitulate the events of the past.