Judgment :- 1. These two petitioners claiming to be entitled for absorption under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (renamed as TANGEDCO) are seeking to challenge the Board proceedings in (PER) FB TANGEDCO Proceedings No.22 dated 25.10.2012 and after setting aside the same seeks for a consequential direction to appoint the petitioners as Mazdoors (trainees) with all attendant benefits. 2. The case of the petitioners was that the petitioner and other employees are contract labourers and their name should be included in the Circle list sent for absorption. They obtained information under the Right to Information Act stating that about 657 left out contract workmen are working in terms of the Board's memo dated 20.2.2008. But, however, it is admitted that no orders were obtained by them before any Court including the authority Constituted under the Industrial Establishment (conferment of permanent status) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981). They also admitted that no-exgratio and bonus amounts were paid. However, the respondents have included even those persons who have not got the benefit of any court order and who are not paid bonus as contract labourers. But, when the Board issued the impugned proceedings, they have only identified 4273 contract labourers to be absorbed for the post of Mazdoor (Trainee). Since the petitioners have been left out, they have come forward to challenge the said Board proceedings and after setting aside the same seeks for a consequential relief. 3. The attempt made by the petitioners is misconceived. The Board proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition came to be issued under peculiar circumstances as can be noted in the Board proceedings itself. The order came to be issued without prejudice to the outcome of the various Writ Petitions and writ appeals filed by the Board against the order passed by the Inspector of Labour pending before the High Court as well as before the Supreme Court. Therefore, as one time measure, they have identified the vacancies in various circles (45 Circles) and the total posts identified were 4037. The names of the workmen and the Circle in which vacancies arose have been identified by the said Board proceedings and it is also stated that the Board was forced to pass order as one time measure without prejudice to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Court. The names of the workmen and the Circle in which vacancies arose have been identified by the said Board proceedings and it is also stated that the Board was forced to pass order as one time measure without prejudice to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Court. If the petitioners are otherwise eligible to get absorption, they have to work out their remedy elsewhere and not challenge the Board proceedings, which identified some vacancies in respect of the pending/disposed matters before this Court. It is needless to state that in many of the cases, the orders passed by this Court have become final and the Board officials are facing contempt. Notwithstanding their moving the Supreme Court where so far no interim orders have been granted, forced with the threat of the punishment, the impugned order came to be passed. The impugned order is in relation to the persons who have got various court orders and therefore the petitioners cannot compare themselves with the persons who already secured court orders. If the petitioners have got independent right, they have to establish the same separately and not challenge the Board proceeding, which was issued to accommodate the persons who are covered by court orders. 4. In this context it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India and others reported in 2006 (11) SCC 709 , wherein the Supreme Court in para 26 held as follows: "A particular judgment of the High Court may not be challenged by the State where the financial repercussions are negligible or where the appeal is barred by limitation. It may also not be challenged due to negligence or oversight of the dealing officers or on account of wrong legal advice, or on account of the non-comprehension of the seriousness or magnitude of the issue involved. However, when similar matters subsequently crop up and the magnitude of the financial implications is realised, the State is not prevented or barred from challenging the subsequent decisions or resisting subsequent writ petitions, even though judgment in a case involving similar issue was allowed to reach finality in the case of others. Of course, the position would be viewed differently, if petitioners plead and prove that the State had adopted a “pick-and-choose” method only to exclude petitioners on account of mala fides or ulterior motives. Of course, the position would be viewed differently, if petitioners plead and prove that the State had adopted a “pick-and-choose” method only to exclude petitioners on account of mala fides or ulterior motives. Be that as it may. On the facts and circumstances, neither the principle of res judicata nor the principle of estoppel is attracted. The administrative law principles of legitimate expectation or fairness in action are also not attracted. Therefore, the fact that in some cases the validity of the circular dated 29-10-1999 (corresponding to the Defence Ministry circular dated 11-9-2001) has been upheld and that decision has attained finality will not come in the way of the State defending or enforcing its circular dated 11-9-2001." 5. Under the circumstances, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. However, this will not prevent the petitioners from working out their rights independent of the Board proceedings. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.