1. The petitioner is a discharged Cholera Mazdoor and was working at Sholingar Panchayat Union prior to his discharge from service. The petitioner was initially appointed by the Commissioner of Sholingar Panchayat Union on 20.06.1990 and posted at the Primary health Centre, Katpadi. The period for which the petitioner worked reads as under: 2. The case of the petitioner is that he worked for more than 240 days continuously from the date of his initial appointment and therefore, was entitled to be regularised. 3. The submission of the petitioner is that failure of the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner is illegal and unfair. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled to regularisation of his service, as he continuously served for more than 7 years, but was not given employment after 18.07.1997. 4. The petitioner filed representation with the respondents for appointment and regularisation of service. On the representation of the petitioner, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, the respondent No.2 asked the respondent No.3 to furnish service particulars of the petitioner. 5. In response to the letter, the service particulars of the petitioner was furnished. The respondents inspite of service particulars, failed to regularise the service of the petitioner, thus he filed O.A.No.7657 of 2000 before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, for directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation filed by the petitioner. 6. The learned Tribunal allowed the application and directed the respondents to pass orders on merit on the representation filed by the petitioner. In compliance with the orders passed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent passed order dated 19.03.2001 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. 7. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was appointed under the specific scheme as Cholera Mazdoor, and was not in regular service, therefore the petitioner could not claim regularisation of service. 8. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on 20.06.1990, and having been served for more than 7 years, was entitled to regularisation of service. Reliance in support is placed on G.O.Ms.No.125 Municipal Administration and Water Supply dated 27.05.1999, stipulating therein that those persons who were employed on daily wages prior to 1996 be included in a panel and be employed in the vacancies commensurate with their qualification on a regular basis. 9. Reliance in support is placed on G.O.Ms.No.125 Municipal Administration and Water Supply dated 27.05.1999, stipulating therein that those persons who were employed on daily wages prior to 1996 be included in a panel and be employed in the vacancies commensurate with their qualification on a regular basis. 9. It is also contended that the reason given for rejecting the representation is unsustainable, as the very fact that the petitioner worked for more than 7 years shows that the nature of work was of permanent nature. 10. On consideration, I find no merit in this writ petition. Once the petitioner was appointed under the scheme, he was governed by the terms of appointment. If there was any violation of industrial law, it was open to the petitioner to move the Labour Court under the Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner cannot claim regularisation of service in absence of any instruction or scheme of the State Government. 11. Nothing has been placed on record to show whether the appointment of the petitioner was as per rule. The person appointed as backdoor entry, cannot claim regularisation of service. 12. The case of the petitioner also does not fall under the Government instruction, as the petitioner was appointed under the scheme, and was not an employee of the department, cannot be directed to be appointed, as on the date of filing the application in the learned Tribunal, he was aged 41 years, therefore, was overage for Government service. Now, the petitioner is aged 52 years, therefore, he cannot claim appointment, in view of the age bar under the service rules for appointment in Government service, which lays down that person above the age of 40 years is not eligible, even in the case of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. No merit, dismissed. No costs.