Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the official respondents and have perused the records. 2. The petitioners along with 41 persons were appointed temporarily as Junior Inspectors under the Audit Board for Milk Co-operative Societies. The Board was established to audit the accounts of all Milk Co-operative Societies and they were attached to senior Co-operative Auditors. The appointment was made in the year 1985. On 010. 1987, the Audit Board was renamed as Director of Audit for Milk Cooperatives. The designation given to the petitioners was also changed as Junior Cooperative Auditors for Milk Co-operatives. The State Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 271 Co-operation dated 11. 1989 calling for applications form the temporarily appointed Junior Inspectors for the purpose of regularization and for this purpose, a special qualifying examination was held. Subsequent to the special qualifying examination, the persons who passed in the examination got their services regularized whereas the petitioners services were sought to be terminated by an order dated 24. 1991. This was on the ground that the petitioners were not qualified for the said post. As against the order of termination, the petitioners along with other similarly placed persons filed several Original Applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and challenged the order of termination. 3. The Tribunal held that ousting the petitioners from service was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the temporary appointment and since regularly selected persons were to join in the said post, necessarily, the petitioners will have to be vacated from their posts. The Tribunal also held that even though the termination took place in the year 1991 in respect of the petitioners, in view of the interim orders granted, they were restored to service. But since the petitioners have not qualified in the special examination, there is no question of their continuing in service contrary to the terms of appointment. Immediately after the order dated 112. 2002, once again, the petitioners services were terminated on 28.02.2003. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court with the above writ petitions and pending the writ petitions, interim orders were also passed in favour of the petitioners. 4. On behalf of the third respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed justifying the termination of the petitioners. 2002, once again, the petitioners services were terminated on 28.02.2003. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court with the above writ petitions and pending the writ petitions, interim orders were also passed in favour of the petitioners. 4. On behalf of the third respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed justifying the termination of the petitioners. It was stated that candidates for the post of Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Societies were recruited by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission through competitive examination and in spite of the special qualifying examination held in favour of the petitioners, they were not successful and because they had failed, the question of their continuance in service does not arise. 5. In normal circumstances, we would not have found anything wrong with the action initiated by the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners. However, Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the very same Tribunal in respect of similarly placed persons in a batch of cases, by a common order dated 112. 2003, passed the following order: "These applicants have continuously employed from 1984 and therefore in view of the orders passed in the earlier Original Applications and in view of the fact that they have not been ousted and they have been allowed to continue in service for 15 years, the respondents are directed to regularize their appointment. But, they are not entitled to for any arrears. All these applications are allowed and ordered in these terms." 6. The State Government did not challenge the said order. But, on the contrary, passed G.O. Ms. No. 445 Finance (Co-operative Audit) Department dated 20.12.2005 directing regularization in respect of 21 Junior Co-operative Inspectors with effect from the next date of the conduct of the special qualifying examination, ie., 110. 1999. The learned Special Government Pleader is not able to controvert this argument and also could not justify the discrimination between the two sets of employees, who are similarly placed. Since the Government has given effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 112. 2003, which came to be passed after the order was impugned in these writ petitions and has also given the consequential regularization order, we do not think that the petitioners herein should be discriminated especially when their service conditions are identical and the nature of grievance projected are also similar. 7. 2003, which came to be passed after the order was impugned in these writ petitions and has also given the consequential regularization order, we do not think that the petitioners herein should be discriminated especially when their service conditions are identical and the nature of grievance projected are also similar. 7. Therefore, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, we feel that in the interest of justice, the Government cannot make any discrimination between these petitioners and the persons, who are governed by G.O. Ms. No. 445 Finance Co-operative Audit dated 20.12.2005. Under these circumstances, all these writ petitions will stand allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the same benefit as per G.O. Ms. No. 445 Co-operative Audit Department dated 20.12.2005 and regularize the services of the petitioners. However, there will be no order as to costs.