Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petitions seeking for declaration declaring that the action taken by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for initiating the process of direct recruitment in terms of the Board's proceedings Per BP (FB) No.22 dated 4.10.2006 inviting applications for the post of Assessor Grade II in preference to the petitioners' claim as illegal and seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders appointing the petitioners as Assessor Grade II. 2. The Writ Petitions were admitted on 12.8.2009. Pending the Writ Petitions, in the applications for grant of interim injunction, only Notice was ordered by this Court. 3. The premise under which the present Writ Petitions were filed was that the petitioners were working in the respondent Board under K2 agreement. They were all involved in the assessment and preparation of bills and card billing and they have several years of experience. Since they are entitled for conferment of permanent status under the Tamil Nadu Conferment of Permanent Status Act, 1981 (Act 46 of 1981), they have filed applications before the Inspector of Labour, Chennai under Rule 6 read with Section 3 of Act 46 of 1981 for grant of permanent status. Since they are likely to get favourable orders, the Board should not be allowed to proceed to make direct recruitment, pursuant to the Board's proceedings dated 4.10.2006. Under the said proceedings, the Board had proposed to call for 600 candidates for the post of Assessor through Employment Exchange by relaxing the ban made earlier. It is stated that the petitioners were working as contract labourers from the year 1983 and have several years of experience. Their claim seeking for permanent status is pending with the Inspector of Labour. However, the Board should not proceed with the process of direct recruitment for the post of Assessor and calling for names from the Employment Exchange will cause irreparable loss to the petitioners. Hence, this Court must grant appropriate declaration. 4. Today, when the matter came up, Mrs.S.Girija, learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that subsequently, the Labour Inspector, Circle III, Chennai 35 in Na.Ka.No.C/3216/2008 dated 28.9.2009 had declared that the petitioners are entitled for grant of permanent status as they have completed 480 days of service within the period of 24 calendar months. 4. Today, when the matter came up, Mrs.S.Girija, learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that subsequently, the Labour Inspector, Circle III, Chennai 35 in Na.Ka.No.C/3216/2008 dated 28.9.2009 had declared that the petitioners are entitled for grant of permanent status as they have completed 480 days of service within the period of 24 calendar months. The date of five petitioners joining the service of the Board is set out in Annexure 1. 5. Though the applications were filed by 15 workers, except the 5 workers, who are the petitioners herein, the other 10 workers have withdrawn their applications filed for conferment of permanent status. It is not clear as to whether the Board has challenged the said order. Even otherwise, assuming that the said order has become final, that does not give locus standi for the petitioners to question the Board proceedings in calling for the candidates through Employment Exchange. 6. Since the petitioners have secured the order under the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 and they have got declaration in terms of Section 3 of the said Act, it is immaterial for the Board to recruit rolls from outside because the legislative policy behind the enactment was that if any worker is allowed to continue beyond 480 days within a period of 24 calendar months, he shall be made permanent. Since the legal fiction of grant of permanency is made under the said enactment, it is immaterial whether the Board recruits anybody from outside. Since the petitioners have got recruited under the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981, it is for them to work out in terms of the orders secured by them. Their challenge to the Board's proceedings in calling the candidates from outside has no relevance to the nature of the statutory claim made by them. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.12690 of 2009 filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board General Employees Union. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 8.9.2009. In that Writ Petition, this Court held that when 147 workers who have got orders in their favour are available, then that much of the post must be kept vacant for their absorption and therefore till the selection process is completed, 174 posts should be kept vacant for the absorption of the members of the petitioner union. In that Writ Petition, this Court held that when 147 workers who have got orders in their favour are available, then that much of the post must be kept vacant for their absorption and therefore till the selection process is completed, 174 posts should be kept vacant for the absorption of the members of the petitioner union. 8. A perusal of the order does not show that the legal fiction created under the Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 was taken note of by the learned Judge. In any event, in the present cases, this Court is not inclined to stall the recruitment process in terms of the Board's Regulations and as the petitioners' claim do not in any way conflict with the exercise made by the Board, all the Writ Petitions are misconceived and bereft of legal reasons. 9. Hence, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Dismissal of the Writ Petitions will not disentitle the petitioners from working out their remedies in terms of the order passed by the Labour Inspector Circle III, Chennai dated 28.9.2009.