JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. T.Dharani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Temporary Junior Assistants on a monthly consolidated pay of Rs.4,000/- during the general strike of Government Employees in July 2003 in Vellore and Tiruvannamalai Districts by an order dated 7.7.2003 and 8.7.2003 respectively. 3.The petitioner in W.P.No.17950 of 2013 was transferred to TASMAC, Vellore by an order dated 10.3.2004. He served in TASMAC from 11.3.2004 to 21.4.2004. Thereafter, he was transferred to Special Tahsildar's Office, Land Acquisition, Vellore by an order dated 22.4.2004. He served therein upto 25.5.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner served in the office of the Special Tahsildar, ADW, Vellore from 26.5.2005 to 3.5.2012. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No.17951 of 2013 was appointed in the office of the Panchayat Union, Pudupalayam (Rural Development Department), on 9.7.2003. He served therein upto 19.3.2012. 5. While so, the Government conducted Special Competitive Examination 2007 for Group IV Services through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for recruitment of persons, who were appointed on consolidated basis during the strike period. The petitioners were selected as Junior Assistants and were allotted to Ex-Servicemen's Welfare Department by order dated 8.3.2012 and 26.4.2012 respectively. The petitioners are working in the said department. 6. The petitioners made representation dated 23.4.2013 to the first respondent to transfer them to the Revenue Department, Vellore Unit and the Rural Development Department, Vellore Unit respectively. 7. Similar issue came before this court earlier and this court has categorically held that the employees cannot choose the Department and the petitioners having been allotted to Ex-Servicemen's Welfare Department, they have to serve in the said Department. They have no right to ask for transfer in a particular department. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract paragraph No.11 of the judgment dated 27.07.2010 made in W.A.(MD) No.242 of 2010 & M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010, which reads as follows:- "11. Besides, a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to accommodate the private respondents/writ petitioners in the Registration Department in the vacancies available on the date of passing the order. Besides, a direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to accommodate the private respondents/writ petitioners in the Registration Department in the vacancies available on the date of passing the order. As far as this portion of the order of the learned Single Judge is concerned, when the learned counsel for the private respondents/writ petitioners himself admits that as a matter of right, they cannot claim appointment in any particular department and when the allotment is depending upon so many factors, as referred to above, whether they are eligible for this relief as per the rules and when their name has been examined, is the point to be decided. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Service Commission, even the top rankers could not be accommodated as per the option exercised by them in the particular department and as far as the Registration Department is concerned, no vacancies were notified for Registration Department in the said notification and as far as the subsequent vacancies are concerned, recruitment was not done; under such circumstances, the question of accommodating the private respondents/writ petitioners in the Registration Department does not arise and that request is also un-sustainable. This argument is prima facie sustainable. One other factor to be noted in this case is that if the selected candidates have to be allotted each of the departments according to their whims and fancies, it will lead to a hazardous situation and while getting appointment also, it will give a right to them or it will give rise to a situation wherein a new recruit, as a matter of right, can claim any department. If this has to be given effect to, then, matters relating to rule of reservation, vacancy position and marks secured by the candidates have to be given a go-by." 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.