JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that this Court had passed an order, dated 22.7.2009, in W.P.Nos.4772 of 2004 etc. batch. Paragraph No.8 of the said order reads as follows:- "8. Mr. S. Ramasamy, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the third respondent in all the writ petitions states that the claim of the other petitioners who did not get the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 10.7.2009, will be considered on merit if they possess the required eligibility criteria for regularization as in the case of other persons. So far as the other 16 persons, who are not given the benefit of the G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 10.7.2009, they will not be terminated from service pending consideration of their claim by the Government." 3. In view of the said observation made by this Court, in paragraph No.8 of the order, dated 22.7.2009, the petitioner had made a representation, dated 25.9.2009, to the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein. Since the said representation was not considered by the authorities concerned, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.3472 of 2010, and this Court, by an order, dated 23.3.2011, had directed the 2nd respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.9.2009, and dispose of the same, in the light of the order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.4772 of 2004 etc. batch. However, the General Manager, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Chennai, the 3rd respondent herein, had passed the impugned order, dated 21.6.2011, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, for the regularisation of her service, contrary to the direction issued this Court, in its order, dated 23.3.2011, made in W.P.No.3472 of 2010. In such circumstances, it has been prayed that the impugned order of the 3rd respondent, dated 21.6.2011, is to be set aside, and the 2nd respondent is to be directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.9.2009, on merits and in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have no serious objection for this Court passing such an order. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, dated 21.6.2011, is set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have no serious objection for this Court passing such an order. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent, dated 21.6.2011, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 25.9.2009, to the 2nd respondent herein, along with a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as directed by this Court, in its order, dated 23.3.2011, in W.P.No.3472 of 2010, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. M.P.No.1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.