1. The petitioners are stated to be working as Typists pursuant to the appointment orders dated 30.7.2009, 09.12.2009, 13.04.2010, 27.07.2010 and 31.8.2010 issued by the second respondent. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that they were appointed as Typist on the basis of the interview conducted by the second respondent. The names of the petitioners were duly sponsored by the District Employment Office and the petitioners have been selected properly in accordance with the rules for appointment temporarily in the post of Typists.

2. Mr. T. Muruganantham, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, thereafter, have continued to work uninterruptedly without any break and have discharged their duties satisfactorily and as such, the petitioners are entitled to be regularized. The petitioners rely on G.O. Ms.No.61, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 22.05.2009, wherein, in paragraph 4(2)(c), it is clearly stated that persons appointed temporarily shall be replaced as soon as possible by a member of a service or an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the rules and in any case, he shall not be continued for the period of one year from the date of his temporary appointment. Since no steps were taken to remove the petitioners after completion of one year and they were allowed to continue for more than three years thereafter, the respondents be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners as Typists from the date of appointment with consequential back-wages.

3. On the other hand, Mr. V. Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that continuation in the post of temporary service for more than one year does not confer any right on the petitioners for regularisation. The subsequent Government letter (Ms)No.86/P/2013, Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 8.7.2013 clearly mandates that all temporary Typists, who are continuing in service, have to be disengaged immediately on the afternoon of 10.7.2013 and thereafter, after break, they may be appointed again on temporary basis.

4. The petitioners have referred to several Government Orders which are not relevant to the present controversy.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended to the writ petition.

6. The second respondent, exercising his power under Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules ("the Rules" for short) appointed the petitioners in the post of Typist to meet out the exigency. Rule 16 provides for temporary appointment in public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately, a vacancy in the post and on account of undue delay in making regular appointment in accordance with the rules. Sub-rule (c) of Rule 16 requires that a person appointed under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 16 be replaced as soon as possible, by a member of the service or an approved candidate qualified to hold the post under the Rules. Sub-rule (e) of Rule 16 provides that the services of such a person in the post shall be liable to be terminated by the appointing authority, at any time, without any notice and without any reason being assigned. Thus, it is evident that the appointment of the petitioners was not a regular appointment, in accordance with the Rules. Besides, Rule 13 of the Rules prescribes the method of appointment by direct recruitment as per Annexure II of the said Rules. Annexure II, inter alia, provides that appointment to the posts, including Typists, is to be done by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, after preparing a select list. Thus, it can safely be held that the appointment of the petitioners was temporary, not conferring on them, any right for regularisation and the same was only a stop-gap arrangement till regularly appointed persons by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, are available.

7. The second question that arises for consideration is as to whet