The main legal point established in the judgment is that individuals may be entitled to regularisation of their service under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Rules and Rule 48, considering their long service, the policy decision of the State, and the power of exemption.

K. Chandru, J.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 07. 2002 made in O.A. Nos. 423 to 427 of 1997, 1112 of 1997, the State of Tamil Nadu has filed the present writ petitions.

3. In W.P. No. 15177 of 2001, the petitioners, viz., S.Jalajakumari and Mookkaya, are challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal [for short, Tribunal] dated 07. 2001 made in O.A. No. 2031 of 1996. In W.P. Nos. 5031 of 2004 and 23887 of 2004, the petitioner is the same person by name, one Ms. C. Sarasam, challenging the common order of the Tribunal dated 23. 2004 made in O.A. Nos. 1277 of 1997 and 1905 of 1997.

4. The issue raised in all the writ petitions is that the private individuals who have been appointed to the post of Typists under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Rules [for short, Rules], are eligible to be regularised in their service. The following is the details regarding the names of parties, their age, office in which they are working at present along with the dates of joining, numbers of the O.As. filed before the Tribunal, result of the O.As. as well as the status of the interim order in these writ petitions.

5. The admitted facts in these writ petitions are that the petitioners names were initially sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they were appointed by the respective competent authorities. Their services were continued without any break. Subsequently, when similarly placed employees moved the Government, it conducted Special Qualifying Test in consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [for short, TNPSC]. The private individuals in these cases had participated in the Special Qualifying Test but were not successful. Therefore, when their services were sought to be terminated, they moved the Tribunal with various Original Applications. In this group of cases, while in one set of cases, the Tribunal granted relief directing their regularisation, in the other set of cases, the Tribunal refused to grant any relief.

6. Pending the writ petitions, this Court has granted interim orders in favour of the present individuals. By virtue of the same, they are continuing in service and in this process, they had put in nearly two decades of service.

7. When the matter came up for final hearing, we directed the State of Tamil Nadu to consider whether in the case of these individuals the power of exemption under Rule 48 can be invoked by the State. However, the individuals were informed by the concerned Department that it was not permissible for them to invoke the power of exemption.

8. In the light of this backdrop, the matters were heard at length and a common order is being passed.

9. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that though the appointment of the individuals were not through any backdoor and their names were sponsored by respective Employment Exchanges, but nevertheless, their appointments were specifically made under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Rules which clearly states that when a permanent incumbent enters service, they should vacate the post which they were holding. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that having a sympathetic attitude towards such ad hoc appointees, the Government persuaded the TNPSC to conduct a Special Qualifying Test and unfortunately, the individuals before this Court have failed. Therefore, no further relief can be given to them. He had also submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) [2006 (4) SCC 1], any backdoor entrant can have no right to get their services regularised and, therefore, he pleaded for rejecting the claims of the private individuals.

1. Per contra, the learned counsels for the private individuals submitted that in none of the cases, the initial appointment can be said to be a backdoor entry and it is the admitted case of the parties that the names o