Judgment : 1. The petitioner seeks to quash the order of the first respondent dated 10.06.2008 and consequently, seeks a direction to the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as Clerk in the third respondent bank. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the third respondent bank on 26.02.1997. However, in the Minutes Book, the erstwhile Board of Directors had written that the petitioner was terminated from service on 29.12.1997. No separate order was issued to the petitioner in this regard. Subsequently, on 30.12.1997, the next day, the very same erstwhile Board of Directors had passed another resolution informing that the petitioner's termination was cancelled. Once again, the erstwhile Board of Directors passed a resolution on 02.02.1998 informing that the petitioner was terminated from service on 31.01.1998. But no separate order was issued to the petitioner in respect of the same. However, he was reinstated in service from 14.07.1998. Since then he has been working in the third respondent bank without any interruption. However, the petitioner and three others viz., G.Sampath, P.Murugan and S.Raghu were temporarily appointed by a common proceeding dated 28.12.1998 as Clerks in the third respondent bank. Since then, the petitioner and the other persons are working in the third respondent bank. However, the third respondent bank, while regularizing the services of two persons viz., P.Murugan and G.Sampath in the post of Clerk, has not considered the case of the petitioner for regularization. ii) The petitioner has filed W.P.No.6751 of 2008 before this Court seeking a direction to regularize his service based on his representation dated 19.10.2007 and by order dated 18.03.2008, this Court has directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.10.2007 and to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In the light of the order passed by this Court, the first respondent has passed the impugned order denying the petitioner, the benefit of regularization on the ground that he was younger in age when compared to other persons. It was further stated that there was only two vacancies available in the third respondent bank and the cadre strength did not permit the respondents to appoint all the four persons. It was further stated that there was only two vacancies available in the third respondent bank and the cadre strength did not permit the respondents to appoint all the four persons. Therefore, it was stated that the service of the petitioner and one S.Raghu could not be regularized. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been working in the third respondent bank much prior to the appointment of P.Murugan and G.Sampath. Though his service was terminated, he was reinstated on 14.07.1998. Therefore, it is not open to the first respondent to deny the petitioner the benefit of regularisation on the ground that he was younger than other persons. Further, it is also submitted that if at all the respondents want to regularize persons depending upon the availability of cadre strength, priority should have been given to the petitioner, since he was working from 1997, much prior to the appointment of other three persons. Submitting as above, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned order. 4. Objecting the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate submitted that though the petitioner was appointed much prior to other persons, his appointment was not in accordance with the rules and regulations. He was appointed as a Clerk only through a common order dated 28.12.1998 under time scale of pay. Therefore, his service should be counted from 28.12.1998 only. In view of the said reasons, the third respondent bank has, while regularizing the service of the other two persons viz., P.Murugan and G.Sampath on the basis of cadre strength, not regularised the service of the petitioner and one S.Raghu. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that his service should be regularized along with P.Murugan and G.Sampath, when the cadre strength of the third respondent bank did not permit to accommodate four persons. 5. This Court finds merit in the submissions of the learned Government Advocate. The respondents have appointed the petitioner and three other persons by a common order dated 29.12.1998 in accordance with the rules and regulations and placed all the four persons in the time scale of pay. However, based on the cadre strength, the respondents have regularized only the service of P.Murugan and G.Sampath. The respondents have appointed the petitioner and three other persons by a common order dated 29.12.1998 in accordance with the rules and regulations and placed all the four persons in the time scale of pay. However, based on the cadre strength, the respondents have regularized only the service of P.Murugan and G.Sampath. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a proceeding dated 26.02.1997 signed by the President of the third respondent bank appointing the petitioner as a Clerk, the same cannot be treated as an appointment order since the same was not issued in accordance with law. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no direction could be issued to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner. However, since the petitioner has been working from 1998 regularly without any interruption, it is open to the third respondent bank to consider the case of the petitioner and pass orders regularizing the service of the petitioner as and when the cadre strength of the third respondent bank is increased. 6. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.