Judgment :- The petitioner prays for a mandamus to direct the respondent to regularise his service with effect from the date of his joining on 20.04.1993 or on some other date when there was a clear vacancy or when it arises on the basis of service certificate issued on 05.09.2000 by the respondent with all attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner submits that the District Employment Office by its communication dated 29.03.1993 directed him to appear before the Professor and Head of the Department, Animal Bio-technology Madras Veterinary College which is under the control of the respondent university for the post of Casual Labourer on daily wages at Rs.37/- and now he was being paid Rs.107/-. In terms of the directions of the District Employment Exchange, he appeared before the said authority at 10.30 A.M. and was selected for the post of Casual Labourer and joined duty on 20.04.1993. He has passed SSLC in the year 1982. He has been continuing as Casual Labourer from 30.03.1993. There was no fixed period or tenure for the appointment which was being continued year after year. While he was so working, on 20.11.1998, he was called for the interview for a regular post of Attendant/Basic Servant and directed to appear at the Office of the Registrar on 12.12.1998. In terms of the directions, he produced all the original certificates. However, he was not selected to the post of Attendant/Basic Servant. He was again called for an interview on 24.08.2000 to attend the interview on 06.09.2000. Again he was not selected even after the interview. He has also been furnished with a certificate by the Professor and the Head of the Department of Animal Bio-Technology of the College certifying that he was selected through Employment Exchange and was working as Casual Labourer from 20.04.1993 with usual break. He is working from 20.04.1993 without any break except the usual breaks. He has been in continuous service except for the artificial holidays/breaks which was not proper as held by the Supreme Court, in several judgments. 3. The petitioner further states that respondent university is now contemplating to give 'break' in service at the end of the month of December, 2002. In the said circumstances, he has come forward with the above writ petition. 4. 3. The petitioner further states that respondent university is now contemplating to give 'break' in service at the end of the month of December, 2002. In the said circumstances, he has come forward with the above writ petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, respondents have stated that the petitioner and others were employed only pursuant to a funded research scheme in the department of Animal Bio-technology, Madras Veterinary College and the said external funded research scheme was sanctioned only for a particular period, generally for three years, with specific objectives and specific budget allotment. The petitioner was no doubt sponsored by the District Employment Exchange. The petitioner cannot claim any right in the matter of employment and the circular dated 22.12.1997 has no relevance to the claims of the petitioner. The petitioner was one of the candidates called for interview and he was not selected by the committee constituted by the university and mere appearance for the interview does not guarantee any selection for the post. The petitioner was engaged as a Casual Labourer from 20.04.1993 to 10.06.1997 and again from 13.02.1998 to 31.12.2002. In any one month, he was engaged only for less than twenty (20) days and that the usual breaks of holidays on Saturdays, Sundays and National Holidays. The scheme under which he was working was closed on 31.12.2002 as the sanctioned period was over and the petitioner has to be disengaged. He never worked for 240 days continuously as claimed by the petitioner. The engagement of the petitioner had to be dispensed with, in view of the fact that there is no funding from the Agency. 5. When the writ petition was taken up earlier for hearing, I directed the learned counsel for the respondent to ascertain as to whether any person junior to the petitioner as casual labourer had been regularised. An additional affidavit has been filed by the respondent. In the additional affidavit it is stated that there were 274 Casual Labourers working under the various units as on December 1997, out of which 76 individuals who were on the roll upto the year 1992 had been regularized based on performance and merits. The petitioner had joined the university as Casual Labourer only in the year 1993. In the additional affidavit it is stated that there were 274 Casual Labourers working under the various units as on December 1997, out of which 76 individuals who were on the roll upto the year 1992 had been regularized based on performance and merits. The petitioner had joined the university as Casual Labourer only in the year 1993. The University is following 100 point roaster formula formulated by the Government during recruitment and the candidates in the list of casual workers will be taken into account under the roaster system and they will be arranged accordingly and will be regularized as and when their turn comes having regard to the vacancy factor. The university conducted interview in 1998 for filling up of 15 vacancies in the category of Basic Servant and 61 vacancies in the category of attendant. Seventy Six (76) candidates have been selected in the interview held on 23.11.1998 to 26.11.1998 and 10.12.1998 to 14.12.1998. The petitioner attended the interview on 12.12.1998 and out of the 52 candidates who attended the interview, 13 candidates were selected. A list of selected candidates has also been furnished and a perusal of the dates of engagement of each one of them discloses that none of them are juniors to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the attitude of the respondent is not consistent with accepted principles of Labour law and the respondent being a public institution cannot indulge in unfair labour practice of keeping casual labourers as casual labourers for years together and not regularising their services. The contention that no juniors of the petitioner had been appointed cannot be an excuse for the right of the petitioner to be appointed, having rendered more than nine years of service. He was terminated from service with effect from 31.12.2002 only as a result of the writ petition filed by him. 7. Mr.VijayaKumar appearing for the respondent contends that in view of the ban of recruitment there is no recruitment or any fresh appointments of casual labourers. In terms of the G.O.Ms.No.212,Personnel & AR Department dated 29.11.2001, a ban has been imposed on fresh recruitment. He has also emphasised that none of the juniors to the petitioner has been appointed. 7. Mr.VijayaKumar appearing for the respondent contends that in view of the ban of recruitment there is no recruitment or any fresh appointments of casual labourers. In terms of the G.O.Ms.No.212,Personnel & AR Department dated 29.11.2001, a ban has been imposed on fresh recruitment. He has also emphasised that none of the juniors to the petitioner has been appointed. Learned counsel has furnished a list of 274 casual workers and the petitioner is placed on No.112 in terms of the list furnished by the respondent, and only those employees who had been entered into casual workers upto the 1992 were cleared for permanency. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. I have considered the submissions of both sides. The facts of this case reflect the manner in which working conditions prevail in many of the public institutions where employees are kept in prolonged engagement as casual labourers without any justification. The usual reasons which are now stated in this writ petition are that, either their appointment is on the basis of any funded programme or that there is no sanctioned vacancy for their appointment. There is absolutely no proof of the fact of the petitioner having been appointed under any scheme or project. Such defences are taken mechanically without any truth. The contention that there is no sanctioned vacancy is also unsustainable. The said excuse cannot at all be accepted having regard to the usual Modus Operandi which is adopted by the authorities viz., deliberately keeping down the number of permanent vacancies without any relevance to the actual needs and engaging casual labourers regularly for years together. Such practices cannot at all be accepted having regard to the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and High Courts deprecating such practice. It is only to remedy such acts of unfair labour practice, the State Government had enacted the Permanency Act, 1992 whereby any employee who is employed for more than 480 days in two consecutive years, would be entitled for regularisation. Notwithstanding the said statutory recognition, the same practice is continued. In fact such practice is more prevalent in public institutions than private institutions. The respondent should bear in mind that such employees cannot seek employment elsewhere after having served the institution for more than a decade and they are also beyond the minimum age of recruitment in any public institution. Notwithstanding the said statutory recognition, the same practice is continued. In fact such practice is more prevalent in public institutions than private institutions. The respondent should bear in mind that such employees cannot seek employment elsewhere after having served the institution for more than a decade and they are also beyond the minimum age of recruitment in any public institution. Therefore, the methodology adopted by the respondents cannot at all be sustained. Though, in the counter a stand has been taken that the casual employees were employed in a scheme, no further materials has been produced to show as to what was the scheme in which they were employed and when the said scheme came to end. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has not been engaged under any scheme, but only kept as a casual employee from the year 1993 to 2002. In the said background, the attitude of the respondent cannot at all be sustained. 9. At the same time, this Court is required to bear in mind, the limitations of the respondent as a public institution and at this stage there cannot be a direction to regularise the petitioner in service with effect from the date of his joining the duty i.e. on 1993. Considering the fact that Casual employers who had joined upto the year 1992 had been cleared and regularised and that the petitioner had joined on 20.04.1993, I am inclined to direct the respondent to consider the claims of the petitioner for appointment atleast in casual vacancy within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and then to follow up the claims of the petitioner for regularisation and permanency. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.