Judgment :- 1. The petitioners were appointed as Work Assistants (NMR) at Thally Panchayat Union on 01.02.1995, 01.06.1995 and 01.02.1996 respectively. On 09.11.2000, the first respondent called for particulars of the names of the employees, date of birth, educational qualification, date of first appointment, length of service and the details as to whether they were recruited through employment exchange or not for the purpose of regularising the services of NMR workmen. Pursuant to the said letter dated 09.11.2000 of the first respondent, the third respondent sent a reply dated 01.03.2001, as if nobody was employed at Thally Panchayat Union. Later on, realising the mistake, the third respondent sent another letter dated 14.03.2001, wherein the employment particulars of the petitioners were given. According to the petitioners, even the details furnished by the third respondent in the said letter dated 14.03.2001 is not correct, since the same states that the petitioners were not employed after 30.11.1999. Hence, the petitioners filed the Original Applications in O.A.Nos.6453, 6435 and 6455 of 2001 respectively, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking regularisation of their services. 2. The Tribunal admitted the Original Applications on 03.10.2001 and also directed the respondents to continue to engage the petitioners, if the work performed by them is available. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, all the matters stood transferred to this Court and were renumbered as W.P.Nos.32041 of 2005, 13288 of 2006 and 13325 of 2006. 4. According to the petitioners, they were in service at the time of filing of the Original Applications. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were employed even after 30.11.1999. 7. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader representing all the respondents, more particularly, the third respondent, based on instructions, submits that the petitioners were not employed after 30.11.1999 and therefore, they could not seek regularisation of their services. 8. This Court could not go into the disputed questions of fact. If the petitioners were not in employment after 30.11.1999, when they filed the Original Applications, they are not entitled to regularisation. The issue of regularisation would arise only if the employee is in service. In these circumstances, the relief which the petitioners have sought for could not be granted. 9. If the petitioners were not in employment after 30.11.1999, when they filed the Original Applications, they are not entitled to regularisation. The issue of regularisation would arise only if the employee is in service. In these circumstances, the relief which the petitioners have sought for could not be granted. 9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that liberty could be granted to the petitioners to agitate their non-employment before the appropriate forum. 10. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to agitate their non-employment before the appropriate forum, if they are so advised. No costs.