P.JYOTHIMANI,J.

1. These writ appeals appertain to a dispute between the persons appointed as Assistant Engineers in and around the years 1981-1985 in the Highways and Rural Works Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu on temporary basis, who continue in service, and the persons appointed in the said category in 1991-1992 through the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for brevity, "the TNPSC").

2. The writ appeal in W.A.No.1704 of 2010 has been filed against the order dated 27.4.2009 of the learned Judge in W.P.No.21786 of 2004 by the appellants, who are the direct recruits through the TNPSC having passed the competitive examination in the year 1991-1992 and were not parties to the writ petition, but filed the appeal after obtaining leave.

3. The appellants in W.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2011, who are respondents 10 and 25 in W.P.Nos.21127 and 23167 of 2010 and petitioners 6 and 22 in W.P.No.21786 of 2004, are temporary appointees to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1984 and they continued in service.

4. Since all these writ appeals raise a common issue, they were directed to be posted jointly and accordingly, they were heard jointly by us.

W.A.No.1704 of 2010:

5.1. This appeal came to be filed by third parties to W.P.No.21786 of 2004 on obtaining leave. The said writ petition was filed by 28 writ petitioners, who were all appointed as Assistant Engineers in the Highways and Rural Works Department, being Engineering graduates registered under the Professional Employment Exchange. They were all selected by the Chief Engineer, being the appointing authority, between 1981 and 1986 under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1955 (for brevity, "the Rules"). Some of the writ petitioners possess the qualification of M.E./M.Tech. and it is stated that they were all posted in the regular and substantial vacancies and were discharging the normal functions as Assistant Engineers in various projects of the Highways Department.

5.2. It is stated that their services were terminated in 1985-86 without assigning any reason and subsequently they were reappointed in 1987-1988 as per G.O.Ms.No.46, Transport Department, dated 7.1.1987 under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Rules. It is stated that the writ petitioners thus appointed were performing all functions involving planning, investigation, research and computerized know-how and are fully qualified engineers according to the Highway Engineering Service Rules from the time of their first appointment.

5.3. It is their case that at the time of their original appointment through employment exchange, they were made to give an undertaking that they would work at least for one year and all their documents were retained by the Highways Department, thereby depriving them to get employment elsewhere and due to the large number of vacancies in the department, the petitioners were given to understand that their services would be continued and regularized in the course of time, since there was no selection by the TNPSC for the post of Assistant Engineers for a long period of seven years after 1982. It is also stated that they were all made to work on temporary basis without the authorities taking any action to regularize and fix their seniority.

5.4. It is their further case that during 1989-1990, 15 Assistant Engineers, fresh from college, were recruited through the TNPSC and posted in the Public Works Department and they were brought into the Highways Department and were placed above the petitioners and below the persons appointed in the 1982. It is further stated that the petitioners have made representation when the 15 Assistant Engineers of the Public Works Department were placed above them in the seniority and ultimately approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which has taken a decision against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners should have participated in the examination conducted by the TNPSC