JUDGMENT : 1. The 4th respondent appointed the petitioner in O.A.No.4198 of 2002(W.P.No.6963 of 2007) as part time Sweeper cum Water Carrier in the Sub Centre Veterinary Dispensary, Mullangudi, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. 2. The petitioner in O.A.No.4176 of 2002(W.P.No.7493 of 2007) was appointed as part time Sweeper cum Water Carrier in the Sub Centre Veterinary Dispensary, Sundaraperumal Koil, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur Distirct. The petitioners were appointed as part time employees based on the sponsorship from the Employment Exchange and they were paid Rs.60/- per month as their wages. 3. The petitioners claimed regularisation of their service as they rendered more than 10 years of service as full time employees. The request of the petitioner in O.A.No.4198 of 2002(W.P.No.6963 of 2007) was rejected by the third respondent by an order dated 21.04.2001. The request of the petitioner in O.A.No.4176 of 2002(W.P.No.7493 of 2007) was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 12.11.2001. The petitioners filed O.A.No.4198 of 2002 and O.A.No.4176 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to quash the order dated 21.04.2001 and 12.11.2001 respectively. The reasons given in the impugned orders are that no rule provides for regularising the service of part time employees in the full time post. 4. The claim of the petitioners is based on G.O.Ms.No.528 P & AR Department dated 10.10.1988 r/w letter dated 23.01.1989 of the same Department. When the writ petitions were pending before this Court, both the petitioners were terminated from service by separate orders dated 07.05.2010 issued by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the prayer in the writ petitions is amended to quash the orders dated 07.05.2010 and also for a direction to appoint the petitioners as Animal Husbandry Assistant in existing vacancies on regular basis as per the instruction given by the Government in Letter dated 23.01.1989 as referred to above. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. According to the respondents, the part time employees are not eligible for regular appointment to full time post in Tamil Nadu basic service. The casual labour employed for full time alone are entitled to regular employment and such employees were regularised in the respondents Department by G.O.Ms.No.116, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 07.05.1997 and such G.O. is not applicable to part time employees. Hence, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The casual labour employed for full time alone are entitled to regular employment and such employees were regularised in the respondents Department by G.O.Ms.No.116, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, dated 07.05.1997 and such G.O. is not applicable to part time employees. Hence, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The petitioners were appointed as part time employees through employment exchange in the year 1989. They sought for regular employment based on the G.O.Ms.No.528 P & AR Department dated 10.10.1988 r/w letter dated 23.01.1989 of the same Department. 8. The said G.O.Ms.No.528 P & AR Department dated 10.10.1988 provides for appointing the daily wage employees in the regular vacancies in the full time post, if they were fully qualified for such post at the time of their initial appointment on daily wages. 9. The said benefit was extended to the part time employees also by the P & AR Department, Government of Tamil Nadu in their letter dated 23.01.1989. The said letter dated 23.01.1989 is extracted hereunder:- VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED 10. Hence, the orders dated 21.04.2001 and 12.11.2001 of the respondents refusing to appoint the petitioners in the vacancies in full time post is contrary to the above said letter dated 23.01.1989 of the P & AR Department. Without taking note of the said letter, the respondents have passed those impugned orders and those impugned orders are opposed to the policy of the Government to appoint part time employees in the vacancies in full time post in Tamil Nadu basic service. 11. Applying the said letter dated 23.01.1989 of P & AR Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, the 4th respondent could not have passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2010, terminating the service of the petitioners. The reason for terminating the service of the petitioners as shown in the impugned orders is that the centers where the petitioners are employed are upgraded and the requirement is the full time Veterinary Animal Husbandry Assistants. The Veterinary Animal Husbandry Assistant belongs last grade service. Applying the G.O.Ms.No.528 P & AR Department dated 10.10.1988 r/w letter dated 23.01.1989 of the same Department, the petitioners should have been appointed in the vacancies that arose due to the up-gradation of the centres. Instead of appointing those persons in those posts, the petitioners, who have rendered 20 years of service, were terminated. Applying the G.O.Ms.No.528 P & AR Department dated 10.10.1988 r/w letter dated 23.01.1989 of the same Department, the petitioners should have been appointed in the vacancies that arose due to the up-gradation of the centres. Instead of appointing those persons in those posts, the petitioners, who have rendered 20 years of service, were terminated. In my considered view, the impugned order of termination is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. The impugned orders of termination are liable to be quashed. 12. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders of termination dated 07.05.2010 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners in the full time vacancies that arose in the upgrade centres within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.