Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4, to absorb the petitioner in the post of Typist Grade III on par with other candidates who were appointed as Typist or Steno Typist Grade III in pursuance to Special Competitive Examination 2009 conducted by the respondent No.4 for the post of Typist or Steno Typist Grade III. 2. The petitioner belongs to schedule caste community, and passed S.S.L.C. as also the Tamil Typewriting (Higher), English Typewriting (Higher). The petitioner had registered her name with the District Employment Office, Dharmapuri in the year 1987. The petitioner had been working as Typist in the State Government departments on daily wage basis for nearly 10 years. 3. The name of the petitioner was sponsored by the Dharmapuri district Employment office for recruitment to the post of Typist cum Short hand Typist Grade III on temporary basis. The petitioner was called for interview vide call letter dated 10.07.2007 by the respondent No.5. In pursuance to the call letter, the petitioner appeared for interview on 16.07.2007, and thereafter before the selection committee headed by the respondent No.5 on 16.07.2007, but no appointment letter was issued to the petitioner, for the reason that she was overage on the date of issuance of appointment letters to the selected candidates. 4. The petitioner filed representation against non issuance of appointment letter, but her representation was rejected. The petitioner filed W.P.No.13839 of 2008 challenging the orders dated 10.09.2007 and 19.02.2008. The writ petition was allowed and direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner in view of G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 relaxing the age by five years, to enable the unemployed youth affected by the ban on recruitment. 5. In view of the order passed by this Court on 14.08.2009 allowing the W.P.No.13839 of 2008, she was appointed as Typist Grade III vide order dated 5.01.2010. The service of the petitioner was terminated on 30.06.2010, but she was again reappointed on 02.07.2010, but again terminated on 29.06.2011 and reappointed on 01.07.2011 by the respondent No.3. 6. The petitioner was thus subjected to artificial break in her service, with a view to deny the right of regularisation. 7. The service of the petitioner was terminated on 30.06.2010, but she was again reappointed on 02.07.2010, but again terminated on 29.06.2011 and reappointed on 01.07.2011 by the respondent No.3. 6. The petitioner was thus subjected to artificial break in her service, with a view to deny the right of regularisation. 7. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission conducted a Special Competitive Examination in the year 2009 for appointment of the persons who were appointed as Typist or Steno Typist Grade III in various Government departments in Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and Typist in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service as per G.O.Ms.No.205 P-2 A.R.(P) Department, dated 9.11.2006. 8. The petitioner could not appear for the special test as she was wrongly denied appointment by treating her to be overage. The petitioner prays for regularisation of her service from the date of her appointment on temporary basis. 9. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader on the ground that the petitioner was selected on the temporary basis under Rule 10a(i) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules, and therefore, she cannot claim right of regularisation, as she had not appeared in the Special Competitive Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission by taking the posts held by the temporary employees out of purview of T.N.P.S.C. 10. Rule 10a(i) of Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules reads as under: "10 Temporary appointments:- a(i) (1) where it is necessary in the public interest owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with these rules and the Special Rules, the appointing authority may temporarily appoint a person, who possesses the qualifications prescribed for the post otherwise than in accordance with the said rules. Provided that no appointment by direct recruitment under this clause shall be made of any person other than the one sponsored by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission from its regular or reserve list of successful candidates to any of the posts within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission." 11. Provided that no appointment by direct recruitment under this clause shall be made of any person other than the one sponsored by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission from its regular or reserve list of successful candidates to any of the posts within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission." 11. The appointment of persons like the petitioner cannot be said to be under rule 10(a) (i), as the temporary appointment under Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service Rules can only be made to meet emergency situation within a reasonable time and it is the duty of the State Government to make regular appointment within reasonable time. The temporary appointment also can be made only from the persons sponsored by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission out of the regular reserve list of successful candidates for the post falling within the purview of T.N.P.S.C. 12. In this case, the appointments therefore cannot be said to be under Rule 10a(i), as it was by regular process of selection. Furthermore, special test also shows that the posts were taken out of the purview of T.N.P.S.C. 13. The facts also show that the Government had decided to take out the post from the purview of T.N.P.S.C. subject to the temporary employees passing special test. 14. The petitioner admittedly was one of the candidates who was selected along with others for appointment on temporary basis. It was on account of fault of the respondent that she was not given appointment at the right time by ignoring the relaxation in upper age limit, as stipulated vide G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the respondents. 15. The action of the respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for regularisation either by relaxing the condition of passing special test or holding the special test to see her eligibility, therefore, can be safely said to be arbitrary, thus hit Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of her service either by relaxing the condition of passing special test, in view of the fact that the petitioner was not given relaxation of upper age limit by ignoring G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 17.07.2006 or in the alternative to hold special test if so advised. 17. The needful be done within a period of two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. No cost.