Judgment : 1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the order passed by the respondent in Memorandum No.35/SECY/PA/LAS/2012 dated 20.11.2012 and to quash the same. 2. Heard Mr. K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions and Mr. A.Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent herein called for applications to fill up 60 daily rated employees and 10 part time employees in the Puducherry Legislative Assembly Secretariat through the Employment Exchange. According to the petitioners, their names have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they have been duly approved, called for interview and selected and appointed after medical examination, on daily wages. The petitioners state that they are working from 1.8.2007 onwards and that the respondent have appointed totally 60 daily rated employees and 10 part time employees as per G.O.Ms.No.47 dated 8.7.2005. The petitioners are one amongst the 60 daily rated employees appointed as per the Government Order. 4. It is noteworthy that the abovesaid Government Order was passed based on the request of the respondent to fill up the available vacancies totalling to 70 vacancies viz., 60 daily rated and 10 part time. The petitioners submit that they were discharging their duties in the establishment section of the Legislative Assembly. The petitioners have been working for years together and when the seniority list was drawn, all the 60 daily rated employees, including the names of the petitioners, have been omitted in the common seniority list. They made representations to regularise their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment. 5. The petitioners state that their names were recommended by the respondent herein to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to include their names in the seniority list. But unfortunately the petitioners did not enjoy the fruits. All the 60 employees have made representations to regularise their services but instead of getting their services regularised, they received a Memorandum dated 20.11.2012, directing the petitioners to report for duty before the Special Secretary to Government (Personnel), Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing), Puducherry. 6. But unfortunately the petitioners did not enjoy the fruits. All the 60 employees have made representations to regularise their services but instead of getting their services regularised, they received a Memorandum dated 20.11.2012, directing the petitioners to report for duty before the Special Secretary to Government (Personnel), Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing), Puducherry. 6. The case of the petitioners is that in order to engage somebody else in the place of the petitioners and to deprive them of the benefits of regularisation, they have been posted to the Office attached to the Special Secretary to Government (Personnel). The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 20.11.2012 and to restrain from posting them from Secretariat Legislative Assembly to the Office of the Special Secretary to Government, Personnel Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Puducherry. 7. Mr. K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that transferring the services of the petitioners from one department to another department is baseless and illegal and it amounts to victimisation. If the daily rated employees are transferred and posted to some other department, their services would not be taken into account to the place where they are posted and transferred and that they are entitled to regularisation only in the Legislative Assembly where they were actually posted and not in the place where they have been transferred and the action of the respondent in issuing the impugned order is illegal. 8. Per contra, Mr. A.Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent submitted that the stage of regularisation has not arisen and that for want of vacancy in the place only, the petitioners have been asked to work in the place where they have been ordered to work as per the impugned order. Since they are daily rated employees, the Government will consider their case and may regularise their services, but it is depending upon the situation prevalent at the relevant point of time. Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry), the question of regularisation does not arise at all. The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) also pointed out that the names of petitioners were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) submitted that it is true that the petitioners have a right to get information through Right to Information Act, 2002. The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) also pointed out that the names of petitioners were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) submitted that it is true that the petitioners have a right to get information through Right to Information Act, 2002. According to the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) as of now, there is no vacancy and the post for the vacancy has to be created. It is true that they have identified 70 vacancies (i.e., 60 daily rated wages and 10 part time). But only daily rated employees are working and no permanancy has been given to any person, including the petitioners. The learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) further submitted that this writ petition is premature and that the petitioners herein are not seeking for their regularisation, but seeking to quash the transfer proceedings and the petitioners have to work at the place where they are posted and it is for the respondents to draw the salary for the petitioners and pay to the employees who are working as daily rated employees. 10. On the other hand, Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are employed in permanent posts as it could be seen from G.O.Ms.No.47, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Wing) dated 8.7.2005 and that the benefits of seniority and regularisation should not be affected, if they are asked to work in some other place by means of the impugned order. Since the parties have agreed that the stage of regularisation has not been taken into account and since the posts are not of permanent nature, this Court feels that the petitioners will have to work only at the place where they have been asked to work as per the impugned order. But in case of regularisation, the case of the petitioners should be considered along with others while filling up the vacancies. Till such time, both parties are bound by the statutory rules and regulations and also the terms of the transfer order issued to the petitioners. 11. With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.