The main legal point established in the judgment is that all government employments must adhere to recruitment rules, and the High Court cannot grant direction for the absorption of employees engaged through contractors.

1. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.13001 of 2008), the petitioner is a government employees association, by name Tamilnadu Arasu Paniyalar Sangam, represented by its President. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to respondents 1 to 7 to absorb the services of the outsourced employees in time scales of pay and other attendant benefits.

1.2. When the writ petition came up on 27.5.2008, this Court, after noting that in similar circumstances the Madurai Bench had given a direction to maintain status-quo and also in view of the fact that the members of the petitioner/association are liable to be terminated at any time, granted an order of status-quo. The writ petition was subsequently admitted on 15.7.2008. Pending the writ petition, interim injunction was granted until further orders and liberty was also given to the respondents to file a vacate stay petition. In the petition for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents from making any fresh appointment, only notice was ordered and subsequently, on a vacate stay petition being filed, this Court rejected the vacate stay petition and the petition to restrain the respondents from making fresh appointment was also rejected. It was thereafter respondents 8 to 17 got themselves impleaded by filing a petitions in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009. On notice from this Court, the first respondent/ State has filed a counter affidavit dated 29.8.2008.

1.3. In the meanwhile, the matter was tagged along with W.A.No.426 of 2008 before a Division Bench, but however the Division Bench, by order dated 30.3.2010, directed the matter to be delisted from being heard along with the writ appeal and directed the matter to be dealt with by a Single Judge.

2.1. Even while the said writ petition was pending, the impleaded respondents, viz., L.Vivekanandan (11th respondent), G.Ravichandran (12th respondent), P.Sivaperuman (13th respondent), V.Sankar (14th respondent), V.Baskaran (15th respondent), R.Muthukumaran (16th respondent) and S.Muthuraman (17th respondent), filed W.P.Nos.3742 to 3748 of 2009. In that writ petitions, they have challenged the orders dated 9.3.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Nagapattinam, terminating the service of those petitioners. It was stated that though those petitioners were appointed on being sponsored through the employment exchange as Drivers under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and posted to the office of the Deputy Director and were working in the station, their services were terminated with effect from 9.3.2009, for want of vacancies and due to administrative reasons.

2.2. When those writ petitions came up on 4.7.2011, it was directed to be posted along with W.P.No.13001 of 2008. The writ petitions were admitted subsequently on 17.3.2009 and interim stay was granted of the termination until further orders. This Court passed the following order:

"15. In view of the above, the following order is passed in all the above miscellaneous petitions:

(a) There will be an interim stay of operation of the orders of termination dated 9.3.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Health Services and Family Welfare, Nagappattinam against the petitioners in W.P.No.3742 to 3748 of 2009, until further orders.

(b) The interim injunction granted in M.P.N o.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.13001 of 2008 on 15.7.2008 is modified, to the effect that those appointed as Drivers in the Office of the Deputy Director of Health, Nagappattinam through outside agencies may be accommodated to the extent possible, in posts over and above the posts of Drivers occupied by the Employment Exchange sponsored candidates.

(c) It will be open to the respondents to come up with any application for modification, depending upon any contingency that may arise as a result of implementation of this order."

3. Thus, by the interim order, a peculiar situation was created, wherein in respect of the same post of driver, there were two s