IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 4.4.2007 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DHARMA RAO ELIPE and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN W.P.Nos.29636, 31895, 31896 31897 of 2003, 4944, 5028, 5720, 5721, 5722, 8061, 8165, 9147, 20399 of 2004 and 25132 of 2006 P.Perumal ... Petitioner in W.P.29636/03 D.V. Jayasingh Kovil Pillai ... Petitioner in W.P.31895/03 1. S. Enamuthu 2. G. Duraisingh 3. S. Irudhayaraj 4. A. Vinayagamoorthy ... Petitioners in W.P.31896/03 1. G. Anbalagan 2. S. Murugaanathan 3. J. Muralidharan 4. A. Ramesh 5. T. Mohanavelan ... Petitioner in W.P.31897/03 M. Indira ... Petitioner in W.P.4944/04 1. R. Chellappa 2. V. Jothimani 3. R. Narasimhan 4. Jojo Abraham 5. S. Sridharan 6. N. Prasanna Venkatesan 7. D.P. Sri Sankar 8. K. Manohari 9. Sumathi Murliksishmam 10. S. Lakshmanan 11. A. Ramasamy 12. T. Venkatachalam ... Petitioner in W.P.5028/04 M. Jegadeesan ... Petitioner in W.P.5720/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S. Balasubramanian ... Petitioner in W.P.5721/04 B. Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner in W.P.5722/04 J. Muralidharan ... Petitioner in W.P.8061/04 J. Vijayan ... Petitioner in W.P.8165/04 R.J. Prema ... Petitioner in W.P.9147/04 E. Arivuchelvi ... Petitioner in W.P.20399/04 1. R. Chellappa 2. M. Indira 3. S. Balasubramanian 4. S. Sridharan 5. R.J. Prema ... Petitioner in W.P.25132/04 Vs. A.V.Sureshbabu ... ISt Respondent in W.P.29636/03 M. Natarajan ... ISt Respondent in W.P.31895/03 K. Manoharan ... ISt Respondent in W.P.31896/03 V. Bragadambal ... ISt Respondent in W.P.31897/03 P. Manoharan ... ISt Respondent in W.P.4944/04 V. Bragadambal ... ISt Respondent in W.P.5028/04 R. Chandrasekaran ... ISt Respondent in W.P.5720/04 D. Malliga ... ISt Respondent in W.P.5721/04 C. Babu ... ISt Respondent in W.P.5722/04 K.Manoharan ... ISt Respondent in W.P.9147/04 The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Social Welfare Department Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.Nos.29636, 31895, 31896 31897 of 2003, 4944, 5720, 5721, 5722, 9147, /04 & Ist Respondent in W.P.8061/04, 8165 & 20399/04 and 3rd Respondent in W.P.5028/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Director of Social Welfare Department Chepauk Chennai – 600 005 ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.Nos. 29636 31895, 31896, 31897 of 2003,4944, 5720, 5721, 5722, 9147/04 2nd Respondent in W.P.8061/04, 5028/04, 8165 and 20399/04 The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal High Court Building Chennai – 600 104 .. 4th Respondent in W.P.Nos.29636/03, 31895 to 31897/03, 4944, 5028, 5720 to 5722/04 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.8061/04, 8165/04, & 5th Respondent in W.P.9147/04 District Social Welfare Officer Thanjavur ... 4th respondent in W.P.9147/04 1. State of Tamilnadu represented by the Secretary to Governemnt Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.Director of Social Welfare Chepauk, Chennai-5 3. S. Karthikeyan Typist District Project Office WB ICDS Collector Office Campus Kancheepuram Kancheepuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. R. Devaki 5. K. Manogaran 6.M. Jayaselvi Vimalabai 7.A. Bangacham 8.S.Kalavathi 9.N. Kannan 10.G. Padmavathi 11.S. Prema 12.R. Ratnabai 13.V. Rangasamy 14.J. Delsiya Anjalin 15.V.K. Padmini 16.S. Anbuselvi 17.M. Ayyavu 18.A. Sowkath Alikan 19.V. Saratha 20.V. Indrani 21.S. Mugamatha 22.S. Shyamala 23.T. Paramasivam 24.R. Manoranchitham 25.T. Umarani 26.A. Hemayun 27.V. Pragathambal 28.K. Podhumani 29.S. Paul Raj 30.K. Karunakaran 31.R. Chandrasekaran 32.T. Jasmine Prema 33.T. Sundari Bai 34.P. Porselvi 35.S. Nageswari 36.S. Arul Mozhi 37.A. Murugammal 38.P. Manogaran 39.T. Renuka 40.S. Govindaswamy 41.V. Santhi 42.G. Nagalakshmi 43.S. Santhi 44.P. Koppammal 45.M. Natarajam 46.M. Vijaya Lakshmi 47.S. Gururaj 48.M. Manjula 49.M. Mary Victoria https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 50.K. Girija 51.R. Kamala 52.A. Rajendran 53.R. Ganesan 54.V. Subatra 55.S.K. Shakila 56.G.Thangamani 57.S. Rajeswari 58.S. Bappu 59.K.R. Malathi 60.P. Mallika 61.J. Bakyalakshmi 62.P. Arumugam 63.V. Palani Velu 64.T. Punithavathi 65.R. Meenambikai 66.C. Chandra 67.L. Perumal 68.K. Megarunbi 69.N. Chinna Rani 70.H. Parthiban 71.M. Peruyanayagi 72.V. Sivagami 73.A. Sarala 74.V. Sangari 75.A. Albonsa 76.A. Kalavathi 77.S. Baburajendran 78.T. Mallika 79.V. Esakki Ammal 80.G. Susila 81.S. Gnanaprakasam 82.P. Palani 83.K. Premavathi 84.S. Mallika 85.T. Jayadev 86.K.S. Parimala 87.R. Premkumari 88.K. Selvamani 89.P. Siraj Begum 90.P. Selvam 91.N.V. Muralidharan 92.T. Geetha 93.R. Chanra 94.V. Sathyanaranamoorthi 96.A. Balaji https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 97.C. Babu 98.A.V. Suresh Babu 99.R. Amutha 100.M. Saraswathi 101.K. Usha 102.N. Renuka 103.M. Jayachandran 104.K. Muniyamma 105.P. Prema 106.P. Rajeswari 107.P. Indra 108.P.H. Padmavathi 109.G. Manickam 110.R. Alamelu 111.A. Dhanam 112.S. Veeramani 113.V. Kannan 114.R. Sasikala 115.N. Indra 116.V. Sokkar 117.A. Ramachandran 118.S. Sardhar 119.R. Chandra Mohan 120.V. Vijayalakshmi 121.V, Kensi Stephen 122.P. Prema 123.K. Nagarajan 124.R. Thangavelu 125.K. Ponkodi 126.K.P. Prajeswari 127.G. Gunasekaran 128.P. Lalitha 129.A. Chinnappa 130.A. Sayimanogari 131.P.K. Bharathi 132.Sri Pattabiraman 133.S.N. Sundari 134.K. Ariyakkan 135.M. Murugan 135.Aysha Nasi Munisha Begum 137.R. Anandhan 138.S. Chandrasekar 139.C. Surendran 140.K. Kasirajan 141.R. Arunachalam 142.S. Naveedha Krishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 143.S. Chandra Mohan 144.R. Arunachalam 154.M. ramalingam 146.Y. Lalitha 147.P. Subramaniyan 148.R. Chitra 149.K. Lakshminarayana Somaiyaji 150.P. Kannabai 151.R. Subbaiya 152.C. Somasundaram 153.K. Rani 154.P. Thandapani 155.P. Rajendran 156.M. Sivalingam 156.A. Jayakumar 158.V. Jayaseetha 159.A. Gopalakrishna 160.R. Amirthalingam 161.S. Roselin Pushpam 162.S. Vaigundham 163.S. Ravindran 164.M. Mahalakshmi 165.V.K. Saraswathi 166.A. Jayalapatheen 167.R. Dhayanidhi 168.M. Srinivasan 169.R. Baskaran 170.A. Janaki 171.K. Easwari 172.N. Saraswathi 173.P. Rajalakshmi 174.K. Periya Nayagi 175.P. Vijayalakshmi 176.A. Azhagesan 177.A. Rajeswari 178.R. Murthy 179.V. Sankaralingam 180.V.S. Vatchala 181.R. Sankaran 182.A. Amuthavalli 183.R. Balasundaram 184.N. Umadevi 185.P. Mariyappan 186.S. Sriram 187.K. Rangaraj 188.T. Rukmani https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 189.S. Nellaiyadi 190.M. Velu 191.S. Gomathi 192.Georgenodorama 193.S. Revathi 194.S. Marimuthu 195.K. Marimuthu ... Respondent sin W.P.25132/06 W.P.No.29636 of 2003: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal relating to the Order dated 08.09.2003 passed in O.A. No. 3040 of 2003 and quash the same in so far as it pertains to the direction directing respondents 2 and 3 to give promotion to the 1st respondent retrospectively from the date on which his juniors were promoted and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to treat the service of the first respondent as having been regularised from 28.04.2003 being the date of G.O. Ms. No.65 and place the first respondent in the seniority list of junior Assistant and Typists in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu below the petitioner. W.P.No.31895 of 2003: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal relating to the Order dated 08.09.2003 passed in O.A. No. 3043 of 2003 and quash the same in so far as it pertains to the direction directing respondents 2 and 3 to give promotion to the 1st respondent retrospectively from the date on which his juniors were promoted and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to treat the service of the first respondent as having been regularised from 28.04.2003 being the date of G.O. Ms. No.65 and place the first respondent in the seniority list of junior Assistant and Typists in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu below the petitioner. W.P.No.31896 of 2003: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal relating to the Order dated 08.09.2003 passed in O.A. No. 3042 of 2003 and quash the same in so far as it pertains to the direction directing respondents 2 and 3 to give promotion to the 1st respondent retrospectively from the date on which his juniors were promoted and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to treat the service of the first respondent as having been regularised from 28.04.2003 being the date of G.O. Ms. No.65 and place the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent in the seniority list of junior Assistant and Typists in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu below the petitioners. W.P.No.31897 of 2003: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal relating to the Order dated 08.09.2003 passed in O.A. No. 3041 of 2003 and quash the same in so far as it pertains to the direction directing respondents 2 and 3 to give promotion to the 1st respondent retrospectively from the date on which his juniors were promoted and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to treat the service of the first respondent as having been regularised from 28.04.2003 being the date of G.O. Ms. No.65 and place the first respondent in the seniority list of junior Assistant and Typists in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu below the petitioners. W.P.No.4944 of 2004: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3592 of 2003 dated 14.10.2003 and quash the same. W.P.No.5028 of 2004: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. No. 3041 of 2003 dated 08.09.2003 and quash the same. W.P.No.5720 of 2004: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3591 of 2003 dated 04.11.2003 and quash the same. W.P.No.5721 of 2004: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3379 of 2003 dated 14.10.2003 and quash the same. W.P.No.5722 of 2004: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Order passed by the Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3380 of 2003 dated 14.10.2003 and quash the same. W.P.No.8061 of 2004: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order passed by the third respondent Tribunal in O.A. No. 926 of 2004 dated 05.03.2004 and the records relating to the second respondent herein in Proc. No.21275/Admn.II (2)/2001 dated 03.02.2004 and the consequential Order (reversion Order) passed in R.C. No. 8754/ Admn. 4 (3) /2004 dated 25.02.2004 and quash the same in so far as revising the seniority of the petitioner by keeping the personnel absorbed from the Department of Land and Survey above the petitioner is concerned and the consequential reversion order to the lower post of Junior Assistant and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to protect the seniority of petitioners with all benefits. W.P.No.8165 of 2004: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order passed by the third respondent Tribunal in O.A. No. 927 of 2004 dated 05.03.2004 and the records relating to the second respondent herein in Proc. No.21275/Admn.II (2)/2001 dated 03.02.2004 and the consequential Order (reversion Order) passed in R.C. No. 8754/ Admn. 4 (3) /2004 dated 25.02.2004 and quash the same in so far as revising the seniority of the petitioner by keeping the personnel absorbed from the Department of Land and Survey above the petitioner is concerned and the consequential reversion order to the lower post of Junior Assistant and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to protect the seniority of petitioners with all benefits. W.P.No.9147 of 2004: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3042 of 2003 dated 08.09.2003 and quash the same. W.P.No.20399 of 2004: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent herein relating to his proceedings in No.21275/Admn.II (2)/2001 dated 03.02.2004 and the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8754/Admn 4 (3)/ 2004 dated 25.02.2004, quash the same in so far as it relates to the petitioner and direct the second respondent herein to restore the petitioner's seniority at Serial No.832 in the post of Junior Assistant as done in the proceedings of the second respondent herein in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Proc.No.21275/Admn.II (2)/2001 dated 01.11.2001 and grant the petitioner all other consequential and attendant benefits. W.P.No.25132 of 2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the Order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms. No.65, Social Welfare & Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 28.04.2003 and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr. C. Selvaraju, Sr. Counsel for Mr. T. Sella Pandian in WP Nos. 5720 to 5722/2004, 5028/2004, 9147/2004, 4944/2004 and 25132 of 2006 Mr. Ar.L. Sundaresan, Sr. Counsel for Ms. Al. Gandhimathi in WP No. 20399 of 2004 Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Counsel for Mr. R. Venkatavaradhan in WP Nos. 29636/2003 and 31895 to 31897 of 2003 Mr. Anand in WP No. 8061 and 8165 of 2004 For Respondents : Mr. S. Ravi for M/s. Sudha Ravi Associates for R1 in all the writ petitions Mr. Vijayaraghavan. Addl. A.G. Mr. P. Subramani, Govt.Advocate for RR2 & 3 in all the Writ Petitions COMMON ORDER DHARMARAO ELIPE, J. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the writ petitioners are referred to as the petitioners, the persons, who filed the original applications before the Tribunal are referred to as the respondents and the Official Respondents are referred to as per their Designations. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The respondents were originally appointed as Surveyor-cum- Draftsmen, Typist-cum-Junior Assistants on consolidated salary, in the early 1980s, in the Survey and Land Record Department, for execution of updating of land records in two phased manner and they were provided with training at the cost of the Government. The said Scheme, undertaken by the Government for updating the land records, ended by about 1987 or 1988. Pursuant to the representations made by the respondents and taking into consideration the fact that the respondents were provided with training at the cost of the Government, the Government, on sympathetic grounds, had expressed its decision with regard to granting permanent employment to all those appointees under consolidated pay in the Survey Department, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.1092, dated 27.10.1986. Consequently, G.O.278, dated 27.4.1992 was issued, ordering appointment of 272 persons as Junior Assistants-cum-Typists in Social Welfare Department. In this connection, the Director of Social Welfare issued proceedings dated 30.7.1992, 11.8.1992 and 29.3.1993, in reference No.135889/Adm 3 (3)/91, wherein it has been specifically stated that the persons working in the Survey and Land Records Department in consolidated pay are being appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the Social Welfare Department under Rule 10(a)(i) in time scale of pay Rs.975-25-1150-30-1660 and their services will be regularised only after obtaining concurrence from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 3. In the meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission called for applications from eligible candidates for the posts of Junior Assistants and Typists (Group-IV) in the Social Welfare Department in the year 1991 and the petitioners were appointed, after due selection process, between 1993 and 1995 as Junior Assistants and Typists and thereafter, their services were also duly regularised. 4. On 1.11.2001, the Commissioner of Social Welfare had passed orders publishing a combined seniority list of Junior Assistants, Steno-typists/Typists working in the Social Welfare Department, wherein the names of the respondents does not find place. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a batch of Original Applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying for a direction to the Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department and Commissioner, Social Welfare to regularise their employment as Junior Assistant/Typist in the Social Welfare Department. The Tribunal, by its common dated 16.7.2002 in O.A.Nos.1442 of 2002 etc. batch has directed the Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Chennai to pass regularissation orders in respect of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the applicants. Since, the Government has not passed any order within the time stipulated by the Administrative Tribunal, the respondents have filed Contempt Applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and during the pendency of the said contempt proceedings, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.65 Social Welfare Department, dated 28.4.2003, regularising the services of the respondents and others, totalling to 272, with effect from the date of their appointment in the Social Welfare Department, after obtaining concurrence of the Employment cum Administrative Reforms Department in Aa.Sa.Ku.No.52372/B/02-1, dated 25.9.2002. In view of the said G.O. issued by the Government, the Contempt Applications were closed. Thereafter, based on the G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 28.4.2003, the Head of the Department of the Social Welfare Department had issued the consequential orders of regularisation of the respondents on 9.6.2003. 5. In the meanwhile, on 30.4.2003, the petitioners and others, totalling to 115, were promoted as Assistants. Aggrieved, some of the respondents have again approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing O.A.Nos.3041 to 3043 of 2003 for a direction to the Director of Social Welfare and Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department to fix the seniority of the applicants/the respondents herein in the combined seniority list of Junior Assistants, Steno-Typists and Typists of Social Welfare Department with effect from 10.7.1992 with due seniority and in the appropriate place and consequently direct the said officials to promote the respondents herein as Assistants with effect from the date of promotion of their immediate juniors with all consequential monetary and service benefits. 6. The Tribunal, by its order dated 8.9.2003, has allowed all the Original Applications filed by the respondents. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in the original applications filed by the respondents, the Director of Social Welfare Department in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.6440/Admn/2(1)/2004 dated 25.2.2004 temporarily promoted the respondents and others (96 in number) as Assistants. On the same day, by communication dated 25.2.2004 in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8154/Admn/4(3)/2004, the persons who were already promoted as Assistants were reverted to Junior Assistants, Typist/Steno Typists. Aggrieved, the reverted candidates have filed these writ petitions. 7. Mr.C.Selvaraj, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No. 4944, 5028, 5720, 5721, 5722, 9147 of 2004 and WP No. 25132 of 2006, while reiteraing the facts of the cases, has submitted that the the respondents being the candidates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ originally appointed under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, cannot claim seniority over and above the direct recruitees such as the petitioners and that the respondents have obtained ordered froms the Tribunal, behind the back of the affected parties, viz. the petitioners and hence all these writ petitions are entitled to be allowed. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel that in earlier occasion, in order to meet the contingency of this nature, before regularisation, the Government directed them to appear for special qualifying examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and thereafter only their services were regularised but in this case, the Secretary of Social Welfare Department, without conducting any special qualifying examination, forwarded the papers to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for its concurrence under Regulation 16 of Service Commission Regulation and the Commission also erroneously gave its concurrence. The Government, while considering the regularisation, granted age exemption also. Even in G.O.Ms.No.65 dated 28.04.2003, though regularisation was granted, but nothing whispered about fixation of seniority. Immediately after regularisation, some of the respondents herein have filed Original Applications before the Tribunal seeking declaration of probation and promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted. The Tribunal, even without notice to the Government straight away directed the Government to give seniority and promotion to some of the respondents from the date on which their juniors were promoted, without taking note of the fact that the necessary parties like the petitioners are not impleaded. The question of junior and senior would arise only in the event when all the persons were either appointed or promoted or selected alike. The respondents were regularised by G.O. Ms. No.65 dated 28.04.2003. Probation period of two years will commence only after regularisation, that too within a period of two years as per Rule 27 of General Rules. 8. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan and Mrs.Nalilni Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of some of the writ petitioners, and other counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners also argued on the same lines as that of Mr.C.Selvaraj, praying to allow the writ petitions, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal. 9. Mr.P.Subramani, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the Government in GO.(D) 278 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme dated 27.4.1992 have issued orders appointing 272 persons, who were formerly employed on consolidated pay in the Department of Survey and Land Records, as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ junior assistants/typists in the department of Social Welfare and other departments, after taking a policy decision to offer appointment to them. The persons accommodated in the other departments were regularised from the date of appointment, whereas the persons appointed in the Social Welfare Department were not regularised; that pursuant to the Order passed by the Tribunal, the Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department has issued GO.(D).65 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department dated 28.4.2003 regularising the service after obtaining concurrence from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission with retrospective effect from the date of original appointment in the Social Welfare Department; that the writ petition in WP.No.25132/2006 was filed after lapse of three years, challenging the said Government Order. Though G.O.Ms.No.278 was issued on 27.04.1992 appointing the respondents in the social Welfare Department, due to administrative procedure involved in the regularisation of service, GO.No.65 was issued belatedly on 28.4.2003. In and by the said Government Orders, the Government, in exercise of their inherent power, regularised the services of the respondents from the date of their appointment; that GO.Ms.No.278 dated 27.4.1992 as well as the GO.No.65 dated 28.4.2003 were issued after obtaining concurrence from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and age was also relaxed and that this court dismissed the WPMP.No.36158 of 2003 in WP.No.29636 of 2003 on 10.11.2003, holding that the petitioners therein cannot claim seniority over the personnel, who have been appointed much earlier than that of his appointment and hence, the said order is binding on the writ petitioners, who are similarly placed and prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. 10. Mr.S.Ravi, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents were initially appointed on consolidated pay as typist through employment exchange in Survey and Land Records Department; that the respondents worked for over 9 years in that Department; that the respondents were appointed in the Social Welfare Department in the year 1992, but their services were not regularised nearly for 10 years though they were fully qualified for the said post; that OA.No.1442/2002 batch were filed before the Tribunal by the respondents, seeking regularisation, which were allowed by the Tribunal, directing the Government to regularise the service within a period of three months, which was not challenged by the petitioners immediately, but chosen to challenge after lapse of four years; that since the respondents joined in 1992 they are entitled to further promotion over and above the writ petitioners since their services have been regularised from the date of initial appointment in the Social https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Welfare Department; that the appointment of the respondents were made pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Government, which cannot be challenged by the petitioners; that the petitioners were fully aware that the respondents have filed OA before the tribunal, but they were keeping mum all along; that some of the petitioners challenged the said GO.Ms.No.65 dated 28.04.2003 without challenging the order of the Tribunal; that GO.65 dated 28.4.2003 was issued after obtaining consent under Rule 16B of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regularizing the services with retrospective effect; that the Government within its powers under the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules and the Rule of Reservation for appointment, had relaxed the age limit and the impugned orders were passed in accordance with the above said special Rules; that the Government exercised its power conferred under it,