F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

In both these Writ Petitions, the challenge is to G.O.Ms.No.155, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P) Department, dated 19. 2006, passed by the State of Tamil Nadu. By the impugned G.O., the State Government has decided to conduct a Special Competitive Examination in Group-IV standard through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the TNPSC) so as to absorb temporary Assistants/Junior Assistants in Secretariat and various Departments in the Districts who are on contract basis in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service/Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service. In the light of the said decision, the State Government requested the TNPSC to conduct necessary Special Competitive Examination in Group-IV for those persons.

2. W.P.No.36731 of 2006 has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as the PIL) by an individual who is a member of the Bar, while W.P.No.43626 of 2006 has been filed by four unemployed graduates who while seeking for quashing of the impugned G.O., also seek for a consequential direction to the State Government to fill up all the vacancies accrued in all the posts under the State or other authorities including the vacancies occupied by the temporary appointees by regular appointment through the TNPSC or any other recruiting agency by conducting an open competition giving equal opportunities to all the qualified citizens. Though the said W.P.No.43626 of 2006 was filed by those four individuals independently, since the former case (W.P.No.36731 of 2006) was entertained as a PIL, W.P.No.43626 of 2006 was tagged on and posted together for disposal.

3. At the outset, we wish to state that the Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner in W.P.No.36731 of 2006 cannot be entertained, inasmuch as it is by now well settled that a PIL cannot be entertained in respect of service matters, as has been categorically held by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in 1998 (7) SCC 273 (Dr.Duryodhan Sahu vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra) and 2005 (1) SCC 590 (Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra). The Supreme Court in the latter decision (2005 (1) SCC 590) has stated the legal position as under in paragraph 16:

"16. .... Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, the Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilised for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998 (7) SCC 273 : 1998 SCC (L & S) 1802 : AIR 1999 SC 114) this Court held that in service matters, PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. ...."

Again in paragraph 20 in 2005 (1) SCC 590, the Supreme Court has expressed its displeasure in the members of the Bar in either aiding or abetting filing of the frivolous petitions carrying the attractive brand-name of "Public Interest Litigation".

4. In the light of the said categoric pronouncement of the Supreme Court, it will have to be held that W.P.No.36731 of 2006 cannot be entertained at all as a PIL challenging the impugned Government Order. Since the other Writ Petition in W.P.No.43626 of 2006 preferred by unemployed graduates challenging the very same G.O. was tagged along with W.P.No.36731 of 2006, we decided to examine the correctness of the impugned G.O. and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

.5. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that on 7. 2003, the Government servants working in the Secretariat as well as in the District Administration went on a strike en-masse. The State Government therefore passed orders dismissing the striking employees. Clo