1. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners in any one of the Government Departments/Government undertakings in the existing vacancies on the basis of their qualification and experience.

2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners made a submission that the writ petitioners were appointed as Facilitators and Team Leaders by the Tamil Nadu Puthu Vazhvu Society between the year 2006 to 2013. The Government of Tamil Nadu had introduced a project work for reducing the poverty among the rural poor and other vulnerable class, currently outside the reach of most development interventions through directed assistants for productive livelihood activities, in a more enabling village environment using the Community Driven Development Approach. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were appointed in the project. The appointment of the writ petitioners is on contract basis. The consolidated pay was provided to these contract employees. This apart, the project had already been completed and the writ petitioners were already relieved from the project work.

3. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioners states that the District Collector, Vellore also had recommended the case of the writ petitioners for their continuance in the project, on the ground that the writ petitioners have successfully participated and performed their duties and responsibilities in the project in which they serve. Based on the performance of the writ petitioners, the District Collector had recommended the cases of the writ petitioners for further entry. However, this Court is of an opinion that such recommendations are made by the District Collector only to consider the case of the writ petitioners and the same cannot form the basis for grant of regularisation or permanent appointment in any sanctioned posts.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 in all cases opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners by stating that all the writ petitioners were appointed on contract basis and the consolidated pay has been granted to these employees. All these writ petitioners were appointed in a project for a specific period and the terms and conditions of the contract stipulates that on completion of the project they will be relieved from the post. Thus, accepting the terms and conditions, these employees joined in services and on completion of the project all these petitioners were relieved from the post. However, considering the writ petitioners for permanent absorption is certainly not permissible. In view of the fact that all permanent appointments in a sanctioned posts are to be done only by following the recruitment rules in force. This apart, the case of the writ petitioners, if at all can be considered, only, if any other project is implemented by the Government along with all other eligible persons who are submitting applications for such contract appointments.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader is of an opinion that the case of the writ petitioners cannot be considered on individual basis and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that all appointments to the public posts are to be done only under the constitutional schemes and by following the recruitment rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. The competent Authorities, while undertaking the process of selection are bound to follow the rules in force scrupulously. Rules on reservations are also to be followed while undertaking the process of selection to the public posts. The employees who were appointed on contract basis cannot claim permanent absorption or regularisation merely on the ground that they have continued in the project for few years or otherwise. The employees who joined as Contract employees have accepted the terms and conditions and