Judgment :- The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or calling for the proceedings of the second respondent in his order No.A36 of 1989, 20.1.1989 terminating the services of the petitioner and as confirmed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings R.Dis.No.1084 of 1989, dated 11.11.1989 and to quash the same direct the 2nd respondent to include the petitioner’s name in the panel of selection to seniority.....” 2. The petitioner was sponsored by Employment Exchange, Dindigul and was selected appointed as masalchi in the District Munsif’s Court, Periakulam by the District Madurai North by an order dated 14.9.1984. The petitioner joined duty as masalchi District Munsif’s Court, Periakulam on 14.9.1984 and was working there till 8.4.1985 was ousted for want of vacancy on 9.4.1985. Forenoon and again he was reappointed masalchi at District Munsif’s Court, Periakulam with effect from 5.7.1985. It seems service was regularised with effect from 5.7.1985 by the District Judge, Madurai Dindigul. He has also completed the period of one year of probation satisfactorily forenoon of 5.7.1986. However, by a notification issued by the Government on 13.9.1985 the District Munsifs Court, Periakulam came within the jurisdiction of the District Madurai and on and from 15.9.1985 the petitioner happened to be in Madurai Civil Therefore, the petitioner came under the Madurai Civil Unit. Subsequently on petitioner application dated 7.4.1986 he was absorbed as masalchi in Anna District Civil Unit District Judge, Dindigul by proceedings dated 8.8.1986. However in view of the High letter dated 22.5.1987 the Additional District Munsif’s Court, Dindigul with its staff ordered to be disbanded. The result was, the petitioner has been ousted for want of from 8.7.1987. At this point of time, the District Judge, Anna District at Dindigul by dated 3.7.1987 requested the District Judge, Madurai that the petitioner may be absorbed Madurai Civil unit if there is a vacancy. As there was a vacancy for the post of masalchi Sub-Court, Periakulam, the petitioner has been taken temporarily and was reappointed masalchi in the said vacancy in the District Munsif’s Court, Periakulam, which is in Civil Unit of course, subject to the concurrence of the High Court of Madras. As there was a vacancy for the post of masalchi Sub-Court, Periakulam, the petitioner has been taken temporarily and was reappointed masalchi in the said vacancy in the District Munsif’s Court, Periakulam, which is in Civil Unit of course, subject to the concurrence of the High Court of Madras. Under Rule of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules when sanction was asked for on 22.7.1987 series of correspondence, by letter dated 10.1.1989 the High Court on the Administrative Side ordered that the service of the petitioner be terminated as the procedure adopted the District Judge, Anna District and Madurai with regard to the appointment petitioner to the Civil Unit of Madurai is irregular and therefore, the action cannot be In view of that the petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 23.1.1989 District Judge, Madurai. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal High Court and by the impugned order dated 11.11.1989 the appeal was rejected on the ground that this case irregularity in the appointment is made out and when irregularity in appointment is made out, no sympathetic consideration can prevail over the scrupulous adherence of rules and procedure. Against that order the petitioner has come before Court with this writ petition. 3. The petitioner alleged in the affidavit that he was appointed to act temporarily subject the concurrence of the High Court and the first respondent refused to ratify his appointment as masalchi in the Civil Unit of Madurai and directed the Principal District Judge, Madurai terminate his service forthwith. The petitioner alleges that he is an approved probationer the post of masalchi as per G.O.Ms.No.602, Social Welfare Department, dated 16.8.1981 can be considered for appointment under the quota of 3% as reserved for handicapped persons. It is also alleged that some of the juniors have been retained to the post masalchi though he is an approved probationer and a physically handicapped person and termination of service is not correct and that under Rule 17-A of the Tamil Nadu Last Grade Government Servant Service Rules all appointment of the approved probationers as members of the service shall be made by the appointing authority and under Clause (B) approved probationer appointed shall be a full member of the service in the category which he was selected. It is stated by the petitioner that in view of the termination of service he has lost his right of being appointed in the vacancies as and when vacancies arose, if had been retained in the penal of masalchi. The first respondent erred in directing second respondent to terminate his services when a concurrence was sought for from second respondent regarding his temporary appointment, that he was ousted for want vacancy on 21.7.1987. It is stated when he was awaiting re-appointment in Anna District Unit, he was temporarily reappointed as masalchi in Madurai Unit subject to the concurrence of the High Court, and that the first respondent ought to have concurred to the appointment or rejected the appointment but ought not to have directed the second respondent to terminate his services. It is stated his temporary service as masalchi regularised with retrospective effect from 5.7.1985 and his completion of probation was recorded by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 10.12.1986 and as such services have been regularised and he has completed his probation and became Government servant and his termination should be only in accordance with the Rules provided under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules, not by way of the impugned order. It is stated that his service has been recognised and has been granted three increments and his last drawn salary was Rs.480 plus allowances, that the first respondent failed to see that the reappointment made by the second respondent by his order dated 21.7.1987 was only a temporary appointment subject to concurrence of the High Court and as such the first respondent either should have given concurrence or refused it but should not have terminated his services. It is stated that first respondent further failed to see that the order of re-appointment made by the respondent was suo motu not on his application and as such the petitioner’s service should not have been terminated and that is stated that in view of the order of termination he has lost his seniority in the panel of masalchi and his junior one R.Radhakrishnan was also ousted along with the petitioner for want of vacancy is now confirmed and he now working as Office Assistant in Sub-Court, Dindigul. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondents. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondents. Though counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, the entire file has been produced before me by the Government Advocate. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents no doubt, in this case the petitioner has again been appointed in the Civil of Madurai. This has been done at the request of the District Judge, Anna District at Dindigul by his letter dated 3.7.1987 by which the District Judge has requested the District Madurai to absorb the petitioner in the Civil Unit if there is vacancy. As there was a vacancy for the post of masalchi in Periakulam, the petitioner has been taken in subject to concurrence of the High Court under Rule 10-A read with Rule 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Service Rules. At this point of time the District Judge, Madurai has been directed terminate the service of the petitioner. As rightly contended by learned counsel for petitioner the petitioner has not been appointed at Madurai Civil Unit. It is only at the instance of the District Judge of Anna District he been appointed by the District Judge, Madurai. Here is the case where the petitioner services have been regularised on his completion of probation satisfactorily and by appointment made irregularly to another unit his service has been terminated. I do not the impugned order can be sustained on the simple ground that where ratification is asked for no order of termination can be passed. If no ratification has been given he would remained a masalchi at Anna District so that he can get his appointment in his whenever a vacancy arises. The impugned order takes away the opportunity of getting appointment by remaining at the same District Unit and this cannot be done with reference to Rule 10-A read with rule 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules whenever a ratification is asked. It is open to the respondents either to ratify or reject but it cannot terminate service of the petitioner straightaway. Further, I am of the view that the order has passed to appoint the petitioner in the Civil Unit of Madurai by the procedure adopted by District Judge, Anna District and the District Judge, Madurai. The petitioner is not at fault least. Further, I am of the view that the order has passed to appoint the petitioner in the Civil Unit of Madurai by the procedure adopted by District Judge, Anna District and the District Judge, Madurai. The petitioner is not at fault least. As such I am of the view that assuming that the appointment is irregular, for moment, this is a case where taking into consideration that the person is a handicapped person his service should not have been sent back to Anna District so that he will get chance of appointment whenever a vacancy arises. It is true that G.O.Ms.No.3834, Public (SerJ), dated 28.12.1971 provided that even a temporary Government servant ousted want of vacancy can be re-appointed without reference to the Employment Exchange and is also true that the District Judge, Anna District ought not have requested the District Judge, Madurai to absorb the petitioner in the Civil Unit of Madurai. In my view, when District Judges of Anna District and Madurai have overlooked the said G.O. and have an appointment, the petitioner should not be penalised. It is true that the petitioner asked for transfer to Anna District when the appointment was made and he did not ask transfer to Madurai. In my view, this aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the impugned order by the respondents and they have passed the order of termination. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner be taken up in the civil unit of Anna District and the petitioner will be absorbed in a vacancy if arises at the earliest point of time. I am of the view that the petitioner should not be to task for the error committed by the two District Judges and making an irregular appointment assuming it is irregular. Further, it is seen that the petitioner has appointed as early as in 1987 in Madurai Unit and the impugned order of termination been passed to be ratified only in 1989. I am of the view that even on the principle equitable estoppel, the impugned order cannot be sustained when the appointment has made by one District Judge at the request of another District Judge and the petitioner not asked for the same. As I have already said, at any rate, the termination of petitioner’s service in toto cannot be sustained on any ground. As I have already said, at any rate, the termination of petitioner’s service in toto cannot be sustained on any ground. The writ petition will allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.