ORDER :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by way of this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as workman and the Management.

3. It is the case of the workman that he was appointed as Office Assistant in the Management Society during the year 1999. During December 2006, the Sub-Registrar of the Management recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode District. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode District, also recommended the name of the petitioner for being regularized. According to the workman, he has completed 480 days of continuous working days in a period of two years and therefore, he is entitled to be regularized in the service of the Management. The workman made a series of representations to the Management seeking regularization. Since the Management did not pass any order, the workman approached the Labour Court by raising the Industrial Dispute and the Labour Court, vide its order dated 21.06.2017, accepted the case filed by the workman and directed the Management to regularize the service of the workman with effect from 07.05.2000. However, the Management did not comply with the directions issued by the Labour Court, Erode, despite repeated reminders by the workman. It is the case of the workman that he has acquired several educational qualification. In that, he has obtained Post-Graduate in Commerce Degree and has also completed Diploma in MS Office and obtained Certificate from the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Union. While the matter stood thus, this Court, vide order dated 19.02.2021 in W.P.Nos.21440 of 2015 etc., decided the similar issue raised by the workmen employed in various Co-operative Societies through out the State of Tamil Nadu and the relevant paragraphs of the order passed are as follows:-

“ 34. In the case in hand, the Petitioners satisfied the first criteria, i.e., with respect to the educational qualification and cadre strength. The case of the Petitioners lies with respect to non- compliance of procedure as laid by sub-clause (2) of Rule 149.

Taking cue from the judgment in Kesari’s case (cited supra), when the employees satisfy the mandatory qualifications and cadre strength as prescribed by the authorities and had been in continuous service, but had been selected without being sponsored by the employment exchange, the appointment is only irregular and by no stretch illegal. As stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.N. Nanjundappa (cited supra),only that non-compliance that goes to the root of the appointments made can be termed as illegal. In the present case, the appointment of the Petitioners herein cannot be deemed to be illegal merely on the basis that their appointments were not made through employment exchange.

35. In the view of this Court, the root of appointment herein is the necessary qualifications and sanctioned strength alone that substantially governs the appointments. Once that has been observed, the procedural infirmities can always be cured, the same owing to only an irregularity. The word illegality carries with it a high threshold so as to view something on the face of it as blatant violation or non-observance of which could render the whole process null and void.

36. In fact, the same criteria was applied in the case of 26,000 employees who were earlier regularized by taking into consideration the cut-off date as 12.03.2001. All the Petitioners who satisfy the requirements of paragraph 53 of the judgement in Umadevi’s case (cited supra) will be entitled to get their services regularized. Considering the length of service put in by the Petitioners for decades together, if they are to be sent out unceremoniously without being regularized in service, that would tantamount to depriving their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The Petitioners are not