Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 05.12.2006 and consequently, seeking for a direction to regularize his service in the cadre of Laboratory Assistant with effect from 31.12.1979 with all monetary benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he completed Pre-University Course and obtained the Diploma in Laboratory Technician at Madras Veterinary College during the year 1975-76. He was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Laboratory Attender. Accordingly, he was appointed as a Laboratory Attender by the Regional Director of Animal Husbandry, Ramanathapuram, and he also joined duty on 11.06.1978. Though the petitioner was fully qualified to the post of Laboratory Assistant, for want of vacancy, he was appointed only as Laboratory Attender. Subsequently, one post of Laboratory Assistant was created in the Clinical Laboratory, Government Veterinary Hospital, Aruppukkottai. Considering the petitioner's technical qualification, the Regional Director of Animal Husbandry, Ramanathapuram, appointed the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant by direct recruitment, through his proceedings dated 18.12.1979. After appointing the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant, proposals were sent to the second respondent for regularizing his service in the cadre of Laboratory Assistant. In turn, the second respondent forwarded the said proposal to the Government. The first respondent raised a doubt, as if, the petitioner's appointment was made by way of promotion and consequently, the petitioner having not completed 10 years of service in the cadre of Laboratory Attender, his promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant cannot be made. The Regional Director of Animal Husbandry submitted a detailed report stating that the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant only through the method of direct recruitment and not by the method of promotion and therefore, the question of having 10 years experience does not arise. However, the second respondent taking note of the Government's objection reverted the petitioner through his proceedings dated 02.05.1986 to the post of Laboratory Attender. Against the said order, the petitioner filed original application in O.A.No.10336 of 1988 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. The said application was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.26202 of 2005. By an order dated 06.02.2006, the learned Judge directed the appeal preferred by the petitioner to be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, the present impugned order came to be passed on 05.12.2006, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The said application was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.26202 of 2005. By an order dated 06.02.2006, the learned Judge directed the appeal preferred by the petitioner to be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, the present impugned order came to be passed on 05.12.2006, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed before this Court. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Attender through Employment Exchange on 11.06.1978. He is eligible for further promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant only on completion of 10 years of service in the Laboratory Attender post. However, the petitioner was posted as Laboratory Assistant by the Regional Joint Director on 31.12.1979 contrary to the procedure. The petitioner cannot be posted as Laboratory Assistant by way of direct recruitment. The petitioner was reverted to the post of Laboratory Attender on 02.05.1986 and he was promoted as Laboratory Assistant regularly on completion of his eligible service on 28.02.1992. The petitioner is not entitled for regularization of his service as Laboratory Assistant from the date of his original appointment. It is erroneously given by the Regional Joint director, Ramanathapuram. The appointment made by the said official by way of direct appointment without getting sponsorship from Employment Exchange is against the procedure. The petitioner cannot claim the post of Laboratory Assistant as a matter of right based on the proposal sent by the Regional Joint Director. Further, G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.04.1988 relied on the petitioner is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, since the said order came into effect only in the year 1988, whereas his erroneous appointment was made in the year 1979. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's appointment as Laboratory Assistant is not by way of promotion. But on the other hand, it is by way of direct recruitment. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.04.1988. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's appointment as Laboratory Assistant is not by way of promotion. But on the other hand, it is by way of direct recruitment. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.04.1988. It is also further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is having requisite qualification to the post of Laboratory Assistant and his initial entry into the department was only through the Employment Exchange and therefore, the said Government Order is applicable to the case of the petitioner in all force. He further submitted that in the said G.O., it is specifically stated that past cases of appointment can also be regularized as per the said G.O. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the very appointment of the petitioner as Laboratory Assistant was against the rules and therefore, such erroneous appointment cannot be taken as valid appointment and consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. He further submitted that G.O.Ms.No.241 came to be passed on 18.04.1988. Therefore, the same is only having a prospective application and consequently, the petitioner cannot rely on the said G.O. 7. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Attender on 11.06.1978 by the competent authority, namely, the Regional Joint Director, Ramanathapuram. It is also an admitted case that such appointment was made only by following due procedure, more particularly by getting the name of the petitioner duly sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Therefore, when the initial entry of the petitioner to the department as Laboratory Attender, sponsored through Employment Exchange having not been disputed, the only question that arises for this Court's consideration is as to whether the subsequent appointment made as Laboratory Assistant on 08.12.1979 is valid and whether the petitioner is entitled to get benefit out of such appointment and seek regularization of his service as Laboratory Assistant with effect from the said date of appointment. At this juncture, the Government Order relied on by the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.04.1988, is relevant to be quoted. At paragraph 3 of the said order, it is stated as follows:- “3. At this juncture, the Government Order relied on by the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.04.1988, is relevant to be quoted. At paragraph 3 of the said order, it is stated as follows:- “3. After careful consideration, the Government direct that persons appointed to discharge the functions of the posts in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service by way of recruitment through Employment Exchange initially can be appointed against the regular vacancies that may arise in these posts under the same appointing authority as direct recruits without their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange once again, provided they satisfy all the qualifications prescribed for the posts under the Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service including educational and age qualifications as on the date of appointment against regular vacancies. Past cases of appointment if any made can also be regularized accordingly. 8. A perusal of the said G.O. issued on 18.04.1988 makes it clear that if the initial appointment was made through Employment Exchange, such appointees are entitled to be considered for regular vacancies as direct recruitees without their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange once again, provided they satisfy all the qualification prescribed for the post. It is also made clear therein that the past cases of appointments if any made can also be regularized accordingly. Therefore, by considering the said G.O., I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is entitled to get the appointment of Laboratory Assistant, regularized with effect from his date of original appointment, namely, 18.12.1979. 9. When the order of appointment dated 18.12.1979 is perused, it only shows that the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant and not promoted as contended by the respondents. The said order of appointment makes one to understand without any difficulty that it is only an order of appointment made by direct recruitment and not by way of promotion. When the said appointment having been made on 18.12.1979 and when it is also not disputed about the petitioner's qualification to the said post the respondents cannot deny the benefit to the petitioner. The only reason stated in the impugned order is that the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore, his appointment as Laboratory Assistant cannot be regularized from the date of the original appointment. Only in the case of promotion the question of 10 years service is required. The only reason stated in the impugned order is that the petitioner was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore, his appointment as Laboratory Assistant cannot be regularized from the date of the original appointment. Only in the case of promotion the question of 10 years service is required. When the appointment was not made as a promotional one but as a direct recruitment and when such appointments are also protected by G.O.Ms.No.241, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.04.1988, I find every justification in accepting the case of the petitioner and consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to regularize the service of the petitioner in the cadre of Laboratory Assistant with effect from 31.12.1979 with all monetary benefits, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.