Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.8134 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was recruited as a Road Inspector Grade – II in Namakkal Division in Highways Department and he joined service on 12.08.1981. However, his service was regularised on 01.01.1990, by the third respondent, by an order dated 27.05.1997. Therefore, he made a representation to the Chief Engineer, the second respondent herein, to regularise his service with effect from the date of his initial appointment as done in the case of others. The Chief Engineer also recommended to the Government, the first respondent herein, that the petitioner has to be regularised in service from the date of his initial appointment, since his appointment was made through Employment Exchange. 3. While so, the petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.8134 of 1998 (W.P.No.38445 of 2006) to quash the order dated 27.05.1997 of the third respondent and for a consequential direction to regularise his service from the date of his initial appointment. 4. Heard Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shiva Shanmugam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 5. The learned Government Advocate made his submissions based on instructions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 600 Road Inspector posts were sanctioned and three persons per block were recruited in entire Tamil Nadu. The other persons, who were employed in other divisions, were regularised from the date of their initial appointment. He has produced an additional typed set of papers with numerous orders relating to other divisions, regularising the services of persons, who were recruited along with the petitioner from the date of their initial appointment. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that when other similarly situated persons were regularised in service from the date of their initial appointment, the respondents are not justified in regularising the service of the petitioner from a different date, that too after 9 years of his entry. It is also submitted that the petitioner was recruited through Employment Exchange and is in possession of requisite qualification to hold the post. 8. The learned Government Advocate does not dispute the regularisation of service of others from the date of their initial appointment and the orders produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the additional typed set of papers. 9. 8. The learned Government Advocate does not dispute the regularisation of service of others from the date of their initial appointment and the orders produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the additional typed set of papers. 9. In such circumstances, I have no other option except to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The second respondent is directed to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment as done in the case of others within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.