Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition, seeking to quash the impugned order of rejection passed by the 1st respondent in Letter No.23078/Pa.Aa.7/2010-5, dated 08.02.2011, as illegal and arbitrary, and to consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner's service in the post of Typist, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 as well as in the light of the order passed in W.A. (MD).No.380 of 2006 and pay all service and monetary benefits within a stipulate time. 2. Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was appointed as typist on NMR basis in Melapuram Panchayat Union, Kanyakumari District and the petitioner is continuously working as typist in the Panchayat till date and she has completed 19 years of service as on today. It is contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, the persons, who have completed more than 10 years of service on daily wage basis, are entitled to be regularised. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the completion of 19 years of service, she is entitled to be regularised as per the said G.O. But, ignoring the said fact, the first respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate his contention, would also place reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD).No.380 of 2006, dated 14.11.2006. 3. Per contra, Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner is not working continuously and she was not a regular employee. It is further submitted that the petitioner is doing only job work. Therefore, it is contended that she is not entitled to the benefit of regularisation. 4. This Court considered the rival contentions raised by either side and perused the materials available on record, including the impugned order. 5. At the outset, it is to be stated that the petitioner completed her service for a period of 19 years in the 4th respondent Panchayat. It is seen that she was working as typist in the 4th respondent Panchayat and she was appointed initially as NMR typist. 5. At the outset, it is to be stated that the petitioner completed her service for a period of 19 years in the 4th respondent Panchayat. It is seen that she was working as typist in the 4th respondent Panchayat and she was appointed initially as NMR typist. However, in view of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, she has sought for the relief of regularisation, but the said claim was rejected by the first respondent herein. It is pertinent to note, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in a similar matter, a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 21.02.2011, in Writ Appeal No.151 of 2011, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as hereunder: "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka & Ors Vs. M.L.Kesari & others reported in AIR 2010 SC 2587 by referring to the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court inState of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 held as follows: 5. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10-4-2006. In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and the courts cannot direct their absorption, regularisation or re-engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularisation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 6. This Court in Umadevi further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: (SCC p.42, para 53) “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below: (SCC p.42, para 53) “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date.” (emphasis in original) 7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against “regularisation” enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006). 9. A reading of the above decision would show that the employees who are irregularly appointed and who had served for more than 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the Courts or of Tribunals, are entitled for regularisation. 10. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge." 6. It is also relevant to note that another Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (MD).No.380 of 2006, dated 14.11.2006, has taken similar view as that of the decision cited supra. 7. It is pertinent to note that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that in paragraph No.2 as hereunder: "2.With regard to the averments made in paragraphs 2 & 3 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, is applicable only to the daily wages employees in all Government Departments who have rendered 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. The above Government order is not applicable to the petitioner in the instant case, since she was not working as a daily wage employee. In G.O.(2D).No.30, RD & PR Department, dated 25.06.2009, the services of Tmt.S.Selvi in the post of Typist was regularized as a special case based on the orders of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.A.(MD).No.380 of 2006, dated 14.11.2006, wherein it has been clearly stated that this order should not be taken as a precedent in future. In G.O.(2D).No.30, RD & PR Department, dated 25.06.2009, the services of Tmt.S.Selvi in the post of Typist was regularized as a special case based on the orders of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.A.(MD).No.380 of 2006, dated 14.11.2006, wherein it has been clearly stated that this order should not be taken as a precedent in future. Hence, the request of the petitioner to regularize her service on the lines of the case of Tmt.S.Selvi, Typist is not acceptable." 8. The fact remains that the petitioner was admittedly appointed as NMR and she is also continuously paid remuneration on daily wage basis. Considering the specific statement made by the respondents in the counter to the effect that a similarly placed person viz., one Selvi was given the benefit of regularisation, on the basis of the orders of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.380 of 2006, dated 14.11.2006 and the petitioner herein has also come forward with this petition, seeking for the similar relief, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is also entitled to seek the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, as she has completed more than ten years of service. It is stated in paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit, as incorporated above, the said G.O. is applicable only to the daily wage employees. Such averment having been made, the petitioner, who has also been appointed on NMR basis and also receiving the remuneration on daily wage basis, cannot be denied the similar benefits. 9. In view of the aforesaid factors, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned order, dated 08.02.2011 and accordingly, it is set aside and consequently, the second respondent is directed to regularise the petitioner's service in the post of Typist, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 as well as in the light of the order, dated 14.11.2006 passed in W.A. (MD).No.380 of 2006 and pay all service and monetary benefits. It is made clear that the above said exercises shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the above said exercises shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further made clear that the 4th respondent shall sent proposal for regularisation of service of the petitioner to the second respondent forthwith and the second respondent shall consider the same and complete the exercises, as stated above, within the above said stipulated period. 10. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.