Judgment : 1. By consent the Writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issue of Writ of Certioarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 18.11.2008 and to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.11.1990 and to pay all monetary and other attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a part time sweeper on 01.11.1990 in the third respondent school on a consolidated pay of Rs.70/- per month, by an order passed by the third respondent dated 20.01.1983. The work assigned to the petitioner was cleaning school and also maintaining toilets in the school, which had about 1500 students during the relevant time. According to the petitioner, he has to report from duty at 8.00 At the time, when the Writ petition was filed, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.3556/- per month. The fourth respondent by proceedings dated 15.07.1992 requested the second respondent to regularise the petitioner’s service and it was specifically stated that there were 1500 students both boys and girls and 28 staff members. Subsequently, a new incumbent, who occupied the post of Headmaster of the School by proceedings dated 21.10.1994 requested the third respondent to regularise the petitioner’s service, which the followed by another request on 25.10.1995. The third respondent by proceedings dated 10.03.1995 called for particulars regarding daily wages/part time employees in the school to be furnished in a particular format and this was complied with on 13.12.1994. 3. Once again by proceedings dated 21.09.2000, the third respondent called for the same details and the Headmaster of the School furnished such particulars on 10.10.2000. The petitioner also submitted a representation on 19.04.2001 requesting for regularisation. The third respondent by proceedings dated 16.12.2002 requested all Headmasters of Government High/Higher Secondary schools to send particulars of part time basic staff, who were appointed prior to 28.02.1993 and subsequent to 01.03.1993 in two different lists in the prescribed format. The particulars were furnished and the petitioner was stated to be working from 01.11.1990 and at that point of time the school strength was 1800 students with 59 teaching and non-teaching staffs. The particulars were furnished and the petitioner was stated to be working from 01.11.1990 and at that point of time the school strength was 1800 students with 59 teaching and non-teaching staffs. According to the petitioner, he registered his name with employment exchange during 1993 and he belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and was working as a part time scavenger for more than 19 years and requested for sympathetic consideration that even in accordance with the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, exempted unskilled category of work from being notified for recruitment. The Government of Tamil Nadu of G.O.Ms, No.2136 dated 31.12.1986, gave an exemption with regard to consultation with the employment exchange. In G.O.Ms. No.107, P & AR Department, dated 05.02.1987, empowered Heads of Departments to create posts to bring the contingent staff to regular establishment and to appoint a contingent staff in the post if no relaxation of rule is involved and if relaxation is involved necessary proposal should be sent to the Government. Further in G.O.Ms. No.22, P & AR, Department, dated 28.02.2006, the service of employees working in various Government Departments on daily wages, who have completed more than 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 were to be regularised. Further in G.O.Ms.(ID) No.37, School Education Department, dated 08.02.2007 empowered 224 posts of sweeper and 96 post scavengers to be filled through outsourcing. 4. The petitioner by placing reliance on all the above Government Orders would contend that his case should have been considered for registration. The petitioner also placed reliance on G.O.Ms. No.35, School Education Department, which regularised 213 temporary part time technical teachers, who are working for more than 10 years. Since the petitioner was not favoured with any orders of regularisation, he approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal and filed Original Application, which was transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P. No.24469./2005. The prayer in the said Writ Petition was to quash and order passed by the third respondent dated 29.05.2001, rejecting the request made by the fourth respondent to regularise the petitioner in service on the ground that the petitioner was not recruited through the Employment Exchange and therefore, the benefit of G.O.MS. No.123, School Education Department, dated 12.05.2000 cannot be extended to the petitioner. This Court considered the matter in detail and disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated 19.03.2008. No.123, School Education Department, dated 12.05.2000 cannot be extended to the petitioner. This Court considered the matter in detail and disposed of the Writ Petition by order dated 19.03.2008. At this stage, it is relevant to extract the findings of this Curt in the order dated 19.03.2008, which is to the following effect. “12. In G.O.Ms. No.528, P & AR Department, dated 10.10.1988, the Government have ordered that person appointed on daily wages to discharge the functions of the posts under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service through the Employment Exchanges initially, be appointed against regular vacancies that might arise in these posts on the scales of pay, under the same appointing authority, as direct recruits without again being sponsored by the Employment Exchange provided they were fully qualified at the time of the initial employment on daily wages, i.e., with reference to age and educational qualification. 13. The above said guideline has been communicated to all the Heads of the Department by the Secretary to the government, by his letter dated 20.01.1995. Accordingly, the Director of School Education, Chennai, by his letter, dated 12.05.1995, has communicated the above Government Order to the Chief Educational Officers/District Educational Officers, for information and necessary action. Paragraph 3 of the proceedings of the Director of School Education, dated 07.03.1985, states that full time appointments should not be made from contingent funds. Similarly, there should not be any appointment on part-time basis also. Even if any employee was appointed on part-time basis, through Employment Exchange and if he has to be accommodated lateron in any one of the posts under the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules, he has to satisfy the age and Educational Qualification prescribed for the said post. 14. The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, was enacted to provide compulsory notification of vacancies through Employment Exchange. As per Section 2(i), “unskilled office work” means, work done in an establishment by any of the following categories of employees, viz.,--- (1) daftri; (2) Jemadar, orderly and peon; (3) dusting man or farash; (4) bundle or record lifter; (5) process server; (6) watchman; (7) sweeper; (8) any other employee doing any routine or unskilled work which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be unskilled office work. 15. 15. Section 3 of the said Act shall not apply in relation to the vacancies, viz.,--- “(a) in any employment in agriculture (including horticulture) in any establishment in private sector other than employment as agricultural or farm machinery operatives; (b) in any employment in domestic service; (c) in any employment the total duration of which is less than three months; (d) in any employment to do unskilled office work; (e) in any employment connected with the staff of Parliament. (2) Unless the Central Government otherwise directs by notification in the Official Gazettee in this behalf, this Court shall not also apply in relation to— (a) vacancies which are propose to be filled through promotion or by absorption of surplus staff of any branch of department of the same establishment or on the result of any examination conducted or interview held by, or on the recommendation of, any independent agency, such as the Union or a State Public Service Commission and the like; (b) vacancies in an employment which carries a remuneration of less than sixty rupees in a month.” 16. Section 4 deals with the notification of vacancies to the employment exchanges and it reads as follows: “(1) after the commencement of this Act in any State or area thereof, the employee in every establishment in public sector in that State or area shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment, in that establishment, notify that vacancy to such employment exchange as may be prescribed. (2) The appropriate Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, require that from such date as may be specified in the notification, the employer in every establishment in private sector or every establishment pertaining to any class or category of establishment in private sector shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify that vacancy to such employment exchanges as may be prescribed, and the employer shall thereupon comply with such requisition. (3) The manner in which the vacancies referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be notified to the employment exchanges and the particulars of employment in which such vacancies have occurred or are about to occur shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) The manner in which the vacancies referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be notified to the employment exchanges and the particulars of employment in which such vacancies have occurred or are about to occur shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) Nothing in sub-section 9(1) and (2) shall be deemed to impose any obligation upon any employer to recruit any person through the employment exchange to fill any vacancy merely because that vacancy has been notified under any of those subsections. 17. Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred in Article 309 of the Constitution of India with effect from 25.06.1971. The said Special Rules form part in Section 19, Volume II of the Service Manual, which consists of 4 Classes and 86 Categories. The post of sweeper falls under Class IV of Category 12 of the Special Rules for Tamil Basic Service, 1962. As per the Rules, the selection of candidates to any of the categories is by direct recruitment and that the manner of appointment is also given in Rule 4, wherein, the appointing authority shall all for the list of candidates from the Employment Exchange. Though the Special Rules for Basic Service has undergone many amendments, but the manner of appointment under Rule 4 has not been modified. It is well settled legal position that Special Rules will prevail over general rules. 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed only as per directions of the concerned District Educational Officer, in his proceedings in Na,Ka, No,27764/A/82, dated 20.01.1983, has not been disputed by the respondent in their counter affidavit. In Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, the respondent has admitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Sweeper and paid a consolidated pay of Rs.70/- per month. Though the respondent in his counter affidavit has stated that the post was not a sanctioned post, it is evident from the appointment order, dated 01.11.1990 enclosed at Page 8 in the typed set of papers, reference has been made to the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, in Na.Ka. No.27764/A/82, dated 20.01.1983. Though the District Educational Officer, Coimbatore, third respondent itself has sworned to the counter affidavit, he has not chosen to dispute the said fact. 19. No.27764/A/82, dated 20.01.1983. Though the District Educational Officer, Coimbatore, third respondent itself has sworned to the counter affidavit, he has not chosen to dispute the said fact. 19. Having regard to the fact that candidates, who have registered themselves in the Employment Exchange do not come forward to take up the work of Scavenging and other incidental work on consolidated pay of Rs.60/- per month and that the Government have granted exemption of the provisions of Employment Exchange Act and permitted the Aided Schools to appoint such persons, without reference to the Employment and even assuming that the post of sweeper falls under Category 12 Class of the Tamil Nadu basic Service Rules, taking into consideration the length of service, put in by the petitioner and the necessity of the post of sweeper in the School having students of more than 1500, both Male and Female and 50 staff members, the Government is directed to consider the applicability of G.O.Ms. No.22, P & AR (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, to the case of the petitioner and pass orders on merits in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While doing so, the Government shall also consider the need for appoint of sweeper in the school, which is evident from the order of the District Educational Officer, dated 20.01.1983. The respondents shall also consider Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.2136, Education (D2) Department, dated 31.12.1986. When the strength of the school and the number of teaching and non-teaching staff are not disputed, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the school requires a sweeper to keep it clean and tidy. 20. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of No costs.” 5. No.2136, Education (D2) Department, dated 31.12.1986. When the strength of the school and the number of teaching and non-teaching staff are not disputed, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the school requires a sweeper to keep it clean and tidy. 20. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of No costs.” 5. Thus, it is seen that this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition took note of the various orders on the subject as well as the contention raised in the counter affidavit and taking note of the fact that candidates, who have registered themselves in the Employment Exchange do not come forward to take up work of scavenging and other incidental works on consolidated pay of Rs.60 per month, the Government granted exemption of the provisions of the Employment Exchange Act and permitted aided schools to appoint such scavenger without reference to the Employment Exchange and taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioner and the necessity of the post of sweeper in the school having more than 1500 male and female students and 50 staff members directed the Government to consider the applicability of the G.O. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 to the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. While passing orders, the Government was directed to take note of the need for appointment of sweeper in a School with such high student strength, the order of appointment issued by the third respondent dated 20.01.1983 and also G.O.Ms. No.2136, dated 31.12.1986, this Court observed that since there is no dispute in the strength of the School and the number of teaching and non-teaching staff, the School requires a sweeper. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the request for regularising the petitioner’s services as sweeper. Two grounds have been stated in the impugned order dated 18.11.2008, that G.O.Ms. No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006 is not applicable to the petitioner, since the petitioner is a part time sweeper receiving consolidated monthly wage and he is not a daily rated employee and G.O.Ms. No.22 has been clarified in Government letter dated 26.04.2007 that employees, whose wages are paid from contingent funds, cannot be brought under regular time scale. The second reason assigned is that G.O.Ms. No.22 has been clarified in Government letter dated 26.04.2007 that employees, whose wages are paid from contingent funds, cannot be brought under regular time scale. The second reason assigned is that G.O.Ms. No.2136, Education Department dated 31.12.1986 has been passed exempting the Government Aided School from approaching the Employment Exchange for appointing part time employees and that that the petitioner has been directly appointed by the Headmaster on 01.11.1990 and the fourth respondent is a Government School and therefore G.O.Ms. No.2136 cannot be made applicable. 6. Mr. Su. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the reasons assigned in the impugned order are ex-facie arbitrary and unreasonable. The second respondent failed to take into consideration the detailed order passed by this Court in W.P. No.24469/2005 dated 19.03.2003 and second respondent has mechanically rejected the petitioner’s claim. That the second respondent failed to take note of the recommendation made by the successive Headmasters of the School for regularising the petitioner’s services, considering the fact that he is working in the post for over 19 years. Further, it is contended that the petitioner is qualified, he has registered himself with the Employment Exchange in 1993 itself and also belongs a Scheduled Caste community and in spite of a positive finding rendered by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition that the School has a large number of students (1800 students at present) and teaching and non-teaching staffs, the School requires a sweeper to keep it clean and tidy. The learned counsel also placed reliance on G.O.Ms. No.505, Law Department, dated 14.10.2009, wherein the Government regularised the services of three incumbents, who were working as part time Masalchee in the Treasury Department and who were also not recruited through the Employment Exchange by relying upon the said Government Order, the learned counsel would contend that the petitioner alone has not been granted the benefit. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents by relying upon the counter affidavit would contend that G.O.Ms. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms. No.2136 dated 31.12.1986 does not apply to the case of the petitioner for regularising his services. The petitioner being a contingent part time worker ever since 01.11.1993 cannot be regularised and he is not a worker on daily wages and that he was not recruited through the Employment Exchange. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 and G.O.Ms. No.2136 dated 31.12.1986 does not apply to the case of the petitioner for regularising his services. The petitioner being a contingent part time worker ever since 01.11.1993 cannot be regularised and he is not a worker on daily wages and that he was not recruited through the Employment Exchange. It is further contended that the impugned order came to be passed after considering are all relevant factors as directed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. As observed earlier two reasons have been assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularisation. The second of the two reasons is that G.O.Ms. No.2136, Education Department, dated 31.12.1986 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. 8. The reason assigned is that the said Government Order is applicable only to Government Aided Schools and the petitioner is a part time contingent worker in a Government School. In my view the interpretation given by the second respondent is wholly untenable. This very issue was considered by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P. No.24469/2005. This Court while disposing of the Writ Petition by order dated 19.03.2008, took note of G.O.Ms. No.2136 in paragraph 8 of the order examined the various guidelines issued by the Government as well as the provision of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vaccines) Act 1959, more particularly Sections 4 and 6 therein and held that candidates, who have registered themselves in the Employment Exchange do not come forward to take up the work of scavenger for a consolidated wage of Rs.60/- per month and this was the reason for exempting Aided Schools from approaching the Employment Exchange to appoint such persons. Even assuming the post of Sweeper falls under category 12 Clause 4 of the Tamil Nadu Basic Services Rules, taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioner and the students strength and the number of staff members in the school directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. 9. Therefore, the purpose for which the matter had been remanded to the respondents is to apply the basis for issuing G.O.Ms. No.2136 dated 31.12.1986, where aided schools were granted exemption from approaching the Employment Exchange for appointing Scavengers/Sweepers and then pass orders on the petitioner’s case. 9. Therefore, the purpose for which the matter had been remanded to the respondents is to apply the basis for issuing G.O.Ms. No.2136 dated 31.12.1986, where aided schools were granted exemption from approaching the Employment Exchange for appointing Scavengers/Sweepers and then pass orders on the petitioner’s case. In my view the second respondent has failed to take note of the observations of this Court and under what circumstances a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner. It appears that the impugned order is a result, mechanical approach by verbatim repetition of the words contained to aided schools. The question is why such benefit granted to aided schools should not be extended to a scavenger working for 19 years in a Government Schools, who was appointed by the Headmaster without reference to the Employment Exchange. This question remain unanswered in the impugned order. In fact this ought to have been considered by the second respondent while passing orders pursuant to direction of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. 10. Therefore, I am of the clear view that the second reason assigned in the impugned order is wholly untenable. Further the purpose of which G.O.Ms. No.2136 was issued for appointments in aided schools could be extended and made the applicable to the case of the petitioner also considering the facts and circumstances and also the fact that persons, who have registered themselves in the Employment Exchange do not come forward to take up the work of Scavenger and other incidental work of consolidated pay of Rs.60/- per month. 11. Coming to the first reason assigned in the impugned order, the second respondent would state that the petitioner is not a daily wager but a person appointed on consolidated pay and the pay is met from contingent expenses. This could hardly be a reason for rejecting the case of the petitioner, the nomenclature by which the petitioner has been called by the fourth respondent or by the department is not the issue, the crux of the issue is a nature of employment and duties and responsibilities discharged by the petitioner. Likewise the test is not from under which head of account the expenses towards the petitioner’s salary has been met, but the real test would be whether there is a need for the post. Likewise the test is not from under which head of account the expenses towards the petitioner’s salary has been met, but the real test would be whether there is a need for the post. It is too late in the day for the respondents to state that there is no need for the post. This has been negatived by their own conduct in employing the petitioner for nearly 20 years. That apart at the level of the petitioner, he is not aware as to whether he is a part timer or a daily wager or a person on consolidate wage or a contingent worker on daily wages all that the petitioner is aware is that he is not a regular employee of the fourth respondent School, which is Government School. 12. Admittedly, all these years, the petitioner’s salary has been paid out of Government funds. Heads of Account or Head of Expenditure are hardly matters, which are within the control of the petitioner. These are all within exclusive domain of the executive to regulate their business and governed by certain set of rules. In my view to reject the case of the petitioner by sighting the nomenclature of the post and the head of expenditure from which the wages are met are irrelevant consideration. The second respondent lost sight of the fact that the claim of the petitioner is for regularisation based on his length of service as a temporary employee and stating that his services are indispensable. Therefore, the second respondent ought to have taken a pragmatic approach to the entire, than to be bogged down by technicalities such as nomenclature and head of expenditure, more so when these factors were not a deterrent while granting exemption to Aided Schools under G.O.2136. 13. In fact the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on a Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.505 dated 14/10/2009, which is regularised the services of three part time Masalchee working in the Treasury Department and they were also not recruited through the Employment Exchange. I find no valid reason as to why such similar benefit should not be granted to the petitioner. 14. No.505 dated 14/10/2009, which is regularised the services of three part time Masalchee working in the Treasury Department and they were also not recruited through the Employment Exchange. I find no valid reason as to why such similar benefit should not be granted to the petitioner. 14. In view of all the above reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner as sweeper in the third respondent-School with effect from 01.11.1990 and pay all monetary and other attendant benefits within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.