JUDGMENT 1. Two writ petitions have been filed seeking absorption in the regular time scale of pay. W.P.No.3749 of 2008 has been filed by one Mrs.G.Gandhimathi seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the proceedings of the second respondent, the Director, Directorate of Non-Formal and Adult Education, Chennai in Na.Ka.No.2440/A-2/07 dated 21.11.2007, to quash the same. W.P.No.29474 of 2004 has been filed by five petitioners viz., Mr.M.Parimalanathan, Mr.R.Nandhakumar, Mr.R.Balaji, Mrs.P.Sheela and Mrs.G.Kanthimathi seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the third respondent, the Director, Directorate of Non-Formal and Adult Education, Chennai in Na.Ka.No.1013/A1/2004 dated 10.8.2004, to quash the same. 2. Since the issue raised is common in both the writ petitions, the facts as pleaded in W.P.No.29474 of 2004 are referred to in this order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all these petitioners were working as part-time Instructors in 'Shramik Vidyapeeth', which was established under the aegis of Department of Education, Government of Tamil Nadu during 1982, between 5 years and 19 years. After some time, the scheme of 'Shramik Vidyapeeth' was revised and the nomenclature was changed to 'Jan Shikshan Sansthan' as per the revised parameters approved by the Government of India on 30.11.99, particularly with regard to Madras centre with effect from August, 2000. The services of the petitioners were utilised to impart training in the vocational subjects like typewriting, shorthand, tailoring, computer science, etc. However, it was stated before this Court by the learned counsel that the first petitioner, who was training the students in typewriting and shorthand from 4.7.88, was appointed as Typist five years ago in the State service through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The second petitioner has been teaching the students in Electronics, Radio and Television mechanism from 25.2.92, the third petitioner has been teaching Electrical and Home Appliances and Motor Rewinding from 20.1.97, the fourth petitioner has been teaching Computer Science from 7.6.99 and the fifth petitioner has been teaching tailoring from 2.5.85 in the said institution. It was also pleaded that when all these petitioners are specialised to impart training in different subjects, they have trained students ranging from 150 to 200 per batch. However, they have been paid only with the honorarium by the Jan Shikshan Sansthan. It was also pleaded that when all these petitioners are specialised to impart training in different subjects, they have trained students ranging from 150 to 200 per batch. However, they have been paid only with the honorarium by the Jan Shikshan Sansthan. In spite of the fact that several hundreds of students were benefited by the vocational stream under the petitioners guidance, the sansthan has not come forward to regularise their service. Therefore, though they made representations to the Secretary to Government, most of the representations were not even considered by the first and third respondents. Therefore, the petitioners were compelled to file O.A.Nos.1721, 1722, 1837 of 2000, 420 and 421 of 2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. It was also indicated before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on abolition of the Tribunal, when all the aforesaid Original Applications were transferred to this Court, two of the O.A.Nos.1721 and 1722 of 2000, since re-numbered as W.P.Nos.8727 & 8717 of 2006, filed by Mrs.G.Gandhimathi and Mr.M.Parimalanathan were dismissed by this Court by orders dated 13.7.2010 on the ground that they had crossed the prescribed age limit and hence their prayer for absorption cannot be considered. However, the learned counsel was not able to inform about the status of the other petitioners. Even though the request of the above petitioners was rejected by this Court in W.P.Nos.8727 & 8717 of 2006 dated 13.7.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioners are still entitled to press for appointment on regular basis. 3. This Court is not able to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners for more than one reason. When the very same petitioners including Mr.M.Parimalanathan and Mrs.G.Gandhimathi had filed original applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nso.1721, 1722, 1837 of 2000, 420 and 421 of 2002, on being transferred to this Court and renumbered as writ petitions, two of the writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.8727 & 8717 of 2006 filed by Mr.M.Parimalanathan and Mrs.G.Gandhimathi were dismissed by this Court by order dated 13.7.2010. Having been unsuccessful before this Court on an earlier occasion, it is not open to the petitioners to again renew the same request by way of challenging the impugned orders, since their prayer for regular appointment came to be rejected. Having been unsuccessful before this Court on an earlier occasion, it is not open to the petitioners to again renew the same request by way of challenging the impugned orders, since their prayer for regular appointment came to be rejected. Secondly, the institution in which they were appointed on honorarium basis were de-linked by the proceedings dated 17.4.2002 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Elementary Education and Literacy and the relevant portion of the said notification mentioned in paragraph-2 thereof reads as under:- "2. As per the provisions contained in the revised Guidelines of the scheme, the 3 JSSs at Chennai, Madurai and Tiruchirappalli were delinked from the State Government and were registered independently under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. Accordingly, all the 3 JSSs at Chennai, Madurai and Tiruchirappalli have become independent institutes under the control of Govt. of India." 4. In view of the notification dated 17.4.2002 delinking all the three institutions from the control of the State Government, they have become independent institutions under the control of the Government of India. Moreover, when the functions of all these institutions have been entrusted with the Board of Management in which the Government of India is only an ex-officio member, this Court cannot accept the grievance of the petitioners. Finally, the petitioners were appointed only on honorarium basis to impart special training to the students coming to the Jan Shikshan Sansthan for vocational training in typewriting, shorthand, tailoring, etc. When the petitioners had accepted the appointment on honorarium basis, it is not possible for them to ask for either regularisation or any direction for permanent appointment in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramakrishna Kamat and others v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2003 SC 1530 , wherein the Apex Court, while considering a similar prayer, has categorically held that the persons who were appointed on honorarium basis cannot claim for regularisation in service on completion of few years of service. Therefore, this Court is not able to consider the prayer of the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.35797 of 2004 is also dismissed. No costs.