Judgment :- 1. The Tamil Nadu Government Co-operative Department Staffs Association has filed this writ petition to challenge the Government Order dated 12.02.2001, vide which the recommendation of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was accepted for appointment of consolidated Supervisors of Industrial Co-operative Society as Senior Inspectors of Co-operative Societies, subject to their consent, as a direct appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the Government Order is contrary to statutory rules, dealing with appointment of Senior Inspector. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the post of Senior Inspectors can be filled by promotion from Junior Inspectors and not by direct recruitment. 4. On consideration, I find that this writ petition is totally misconceived. Tamilnadu Government Co-operative Department Staffs Association have no locus standi to challenge the Government Order. The petitioner has no jurisdiction to file the writ petition in nature of Public Interest Litigation, as no PIL is competent in service matters. 5. The petitioner, as a registered Association, is not competent to maintain this writ petition, in view of the law laid down by this Court in W.P.No.41633 of 2006 decided on 23.11.2011 (Tamil Nadu Public Works Dept. and Highways Employees Union vs. State of Tamil Nadu & others) 6. This writ petition also suffers from vice of non joinder of necessary parties, as none of the selected persons has been made party. The petitioner further has also not come to the Court with clean hands, as did not place on record rules, which show that the Government has power to relax any rules. 7. The reading of impugned order shows that 40 persons were duly selected by due process of law for appointment as Supervisors. It was only due to change of constitution of the cadres, after their selection, by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, that they were offered the post of Senior Inspectors, by relaxing the rules. The appointment, therefore, cannot be said to be by back door entry. 8. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to the service rules, nor the petitioner has any locus standi to file this writ petition. 9. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.