Judgment :- The petitioner challenges the order of the respondent made in Na.Ka.No.2478/03 Tho.Ku.Va., dated 38. 2005, by way of filing this writ petition. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor on 6. 1998 in Myladuthurai Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank; that at the time of appointment, he was qualified with Diploma in Co-op. and Plus 2 examinations; that the appointment was made by the then Board of Directors after conducting proper interview and hence, the appointment was within the purview of Rules 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-op. Societies Rules and subsequently, he was not promoted to any post; that he belongs to B.C. Community; that in the year 2001, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.86, Co-op. Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 13. 2001 for giving ratification that the appointments made to the Co-op Societies and authorising the regularisation of their services in respect of condoning the lapse of non-drawal of the candidates from the employment exchange; that in this regard, the Co-op officials have issued show cause notices for the proposed termination to the employees, who do not have possessed educational qualifications, age limit and Cadre strength; that in this regard, a batch of writ petitions have been filed before this court and they were all disposed of with directions to the Co-op officials (reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385 ); that while disposing of the same, some observations were made by this court; that the Coop officials have not fixed the cadre strength by adopting the special bye-law in conformity with sub-Rule (1) of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-op. Societies Rules and also the respondent has not decided whether the recruitment is in conformity with the special bye-law approved by the Registrar; that there is no such approval has been granted by the Registrar till today and only after the special bye-law was approved either by the Government or by the Registrar, the respondent could initiate any proceedings for termination, but in the meantime, without adopting or approving the special bye-law, the respondent has issued show cause notice for termination, whereby it was informed that the petitioner did not possess age limit and educational qualification at the time of appointment; that at the time of appointment, the petitioner was 33 years old and he possessed educational qualification, but he has not been considered so and under these circumstances, it has become necessary to file this writ petition before this court to quash the proceedings. 4. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondent also. 5. At the time of hearing of this writ petition, a Bench decision of this court made in W.P.No.17570 of 2005 etc. batch was placed, wherein it was brought to the notice of the court, the proceedings of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in e/f/128691/2006 bjhntt 1 dated 210. 2006 and the proceedings of the Government Co-operative and Consumer Department fojk; vz; /22322/rp$p/1/2005-7, dated 11. 2006 addressed to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chennai-10. A perusal of the above proceedings of the Registrar/letter of the Government clearly show that the Government is taking interest in considering the grievance of the petitioners as well as others similarly placed. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that based on the above mentioned proceedings, steps are being taken by the appropriate authority. The Division Bench has considered the said circumstances and has also passed the following order, which runs as follows: "4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Government also brought to our notice that based on the above mentioned proceedings, steps are being taken by the appropriate authority. In those circumstances, we are of the view that there is no need to go into the correctness of the impugned orders/proceedings at this juncture. The respondents/Government/ Officers concerned are free to implement the decision of the Government referred above. In those circumstances, we are of the view that there is no need to go into the correctness of the impugned orders/proceedings at this juncture. The respondents/Government/ Officers concerned are free to implement the decision of the Government referred above. It is made clear that any person who is not coming within the guideline/direction of the Government for regularisation/continuation in their service, they are free to approach the appropriate forum/Court to vindicate their grievance. It is also made clear that those persons continuing in office by virtue of interim orders of this Court are permitted to continue until final decision being taken by the authority concerned, viz., Regional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies." The court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner herein is also placed on the similar circumstances and hence, the order of the Division Bench, as referred to above, would equally apply to the petitioner herein. Accordingly, with the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.