Judgment :- Common Judgment: D. Murugesan, J. All the Writ Appeals arise out of common order passed in the Writ Petition Nos.3568 to 3572 of 1999 dated 27.9.2002. It is the common grievance of the appellants that they are all graduates and were appointed as Junior Assistants during the middle of March, 1996 after their names were sponsored by the Tamil Nadu Public Sector Sports Control Board, Chennai. They were also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each which they complied with. They were allotted E.D.P. Number and Provident Fund Contributions were also deducted from their salary. They were also paid incentive every month. These benefits/concessions are extended only to permanent employees and hence, they were also asked to surrender their employment cards at the time of appointment. That being so, by orders dated 12.6.1996 their services were dispensed with without any specific reason. Hence, they approached this Court questioning the said order and for a direction to reinstate them as Junior Assistants in the respondent Corporation with all the back wages and attended benefits. 2. By the orders in the Writ Petitions, the learned single Judge has rejected their claim on the ground of laches as the orders of termination were made on 12.7.1996 and the Writ Petitions were filed in the year 1999. Questioning the same, present Writ Appeals have been filed. 3. In our considered view, the Writ Appeals cannot be ordered as the learned Judge has relied on the Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.966 of 1999 (R. Kathiravan Vs. State Express Transport Corporation) dated 8.7.1999. In that case similarly placed persons have filed Writ Petitions questioning similar orders in the year 1997 and the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions. Questioning the same, Writ Appeals have been filed. The Division Bench has dismissed the Writ Appeals by passing the following Judgment. “Heard the learned counsel and perused the materials on record. Similarly placed persons had approached this Court soon after the termination order. But the appellant has filed the Writ Petition at a belated stage. Before us also, the appellant has not been able to place any reasonable explanation for filing the Writ Petition after an abnormal delay. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition on the same ground. Similarly placed persons had approached this Court soon after the termination order. But the appellant has filed the Writ Petition at a belated stage. Before us also, the appellant has not been able to place any reasonable explanation for filing the Writ Petition after an abnormal delay. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition on the same ground. That apart, a perusal of the order dated 29.2.1996 shows that the appellant has been appointed on a temporary basis and as per the terms of that order his services can be terminated any time without assigning any reasons. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and we find no error or illegality in the impugned order as to call for any interference. Moreover, this Court cannot pass any order perpetuating an illegality when prima facie the appellant’s appointment was made only on temporary basis. The Writ Appeal is, therefore, dismissed” 4. We find no interference is called for in the order of the learned single Judge as it was passed based on the Division Bench Judgment. Infact, the appellants have approached this Court nearly after three years and the claims are belated. In the circumstances, we find no merits in these appeals and no interference is called for in the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, all the Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.