JUDGMENT :

R. Subramanian, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order dated 28.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.32112 of 2018.

Challenge in this intra-court appeal is to the order of the Writ Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants, challenge in which was to the rejection of the request for regularization.

2. The appellants were appointed as Hand Pump Fitting Assistants on a daily wage basis in the 4th respondent Panchayat Union on the following dates i)1st petitioner – 09.01.1999, ii) 2nd petitioner – 01.04.1999 iii) 3rd petitioner – 01.01.2000 iv) 4th petitioner – 01.04.2000. However, the 1st respondent by his proceedings dated 23.08.2000 removed them from service. The said proceeding was challenged by the petitioners in O.A.No.6665 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and an order of interim injunction was granted by the Tribunal restraining the respondents from removing the appellants from service. As such they continued to work as Hand Pump Fitting Assistants. Upon abolition of the Tribunal, the said O.A.No.6665 of 2000 was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.40742 of 2006.

3. A contention was raised on behalf of the 4th respondent herein to the effect that the appellants were disengaged on the basis of the instructions received from the District Collector, Dharmapuri on 22.08.2000. While the counsel for the appellants herein relied upon G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.06.2006, directing regularization of such temporary employees appointed prior to 01.04.1997 and in respect of the contention that they should be regularized, this Court held that G.O.Ms.No.55 dated 15.06.2006 provides for continues employment of persons appointed after 01.04.1997 also.

4. On the said conclusion, this Court while negativing the request for positive direction for regularization directed the Government to consider regularization. Pursuant to this order, the appellants herein made a representation to the 4th respondent, seeking regularization. The District Collector, Dharmapuri by his proceedings dated 18.12.2012 recommended regularization of the service of the appellants, since they had completed 10 years of service as daily wage employees. The Government, however, relying upon G.O.Ms.No.55, rejected their claim on the ground that they were appointed as daily wage employees after 01.04.1997 and therefore, they are not entitled to be regularized. It is this order, which was challenged by the appellants in W.P.No.32112 of 2018. We find that no counter was filed in the Writ Petition.

5. The Writ Court by its order dated 28.03.2019, dismissed the Writ Petition relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1, and the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai Vs. R. Govindaswamy and Others reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769 and the State of Tamil Nadu through Pirncipal Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat and Another Vs. A. Singamuthu reported in 2017 (4) SCC 113. The solitary ground on which, the Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition was that there is no vested right of regularization and persons, who are employed on a temporary basis cannot get into regular service by-passing the claims of those, who are otherwise qualified. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the petitioners have come up with this appeal.

6. We have heard Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abhishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. G. Ameedius, learned Government Advocate for the 4th respondent.

7. Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Writ Court was not justified in dismissing the Writ Petition without adhering to the various Government orders that were passed providing schemes for regularization of these d