Judgment 1. These writ appeals are posted before this Court pursuant to the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10167-10168 of 2013 (SLP Nos.27103-27104 of 2012) and 10171-10172 of 2013 (SLP Nos.34876-34877 of 2012) dated 11.11.2013, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Division Bench dated 26.4.2012 and 2.7.2012 and remitted the matters to this Court to hear the writ appeals afresh on merits and pass orders within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the orders. The writ petitions are also tagged with the writ appeals as the issue involved therein are also connected with the writ appeals and heard together. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of these writ appeals by the State Government are as follows: (a) The Government of Tamil Nadu through G.O.Ms.No.496 Rural Development Department dated 2.9.1989 announced a scheme with the object of providing employment to the educated youth in rural areas under the designation "Village Level Workers", which is called in Tamil as "Makkal Nala Paniyalargal" (hereinafter referred to as 'MNP'). According to the said Government Order 25,234 candidates, i.e., two MNP in each Village Panchayat (one male and one female) were to be appointed. The academic qualification, age, method of selection and their nature of duties were also mentioned in the said Government Order. (b) Recruitments were ordered to be made by inviting applications through newspaper advertisements. The persons selected and appointed were ordered to be paid a monthly honorarium of Rs.200/- with condition that they should reside in the Village Panchayat allotted to him/her. A Selection Committee was constituted for each Block, consisting of District Collector as Chairman, Personal Assistant (Panchayat Development) to the Collector as Member, and the Block Development Officer of the concerned Block as the Member-Secretary. The qualifications are that the age of the candidate should be between 18 and 30 years; they should have completed 10th standard and in respect of Hill and Tribal areas, the educational qualification can be relaxed to 8th Standard; and he/she should be a resident of the concerned Village Panchayat. (c) Open advertisement in the local area was ordered to be issued and the Commissioner of Rural Development was instructed to ensure publication of advertisement in all the leading Dailies in order to receive applications by the respective District Collectors from 15th of September, 1989. (c) Open advertisement in the local area was ordered to be issued and the Commissioner of Rural Development was instructed to ensure publication of advertisement in all the leading Dailies in order to receive applications by the respective District Collectors from 15th of September, 1989. (d) A High Level Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to oversee the implementation of the scheme. The High Level Committee consist The Secretary, Rural Development; The Secretary, Education Department; The Secretary, Social Welfare Department; The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department; The Secretary, Finance Department; and The Secretary, Planning and Development Department, as Members; and the Commissioner of Rural Development Department as the Member-Secretary. (e) The Commissioner of Rural Development Department was directed to issue detailed instructions regarding working of the scheme. The expenditure under the scheme was shown as "New Service" with the approval of the Legislature. (f) By following the said procedure 25,234 MNP were appointed and male and female workers in each Village Panchayat were assigned responsibilities as per annexure to the Government Order. The selected persons continued as MNP till the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.256 Rural Development Department, dated 13.7.1991. The said Government Order dated 13.7.1991 was issued to cancel the earlier Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.496, dated 2.9.1989 stating that the Commissioner of Rural Development has reported that the MNP are in no way helpful for execution of various programmes at village level, and are causing additional expenditure of nearly Rs.6 crores per annum and he had recommended to cancel the programme/scheme. (g) Again by G.O.Ms.No.50 Rural Development Department, dated 24.2.1997 MNP programme was restored stating that in the budget for the year 1996-97 it was announced that for providing appointment to 25,000 youths with an honorarium of Rs.500/-per month for two MNP in each Village Panchayat to assist the maintenance of Village assets and Libraries and to implement Adult Literacy Programme in Villages are rejuvenated. In the said G.O., it is further stated that 10,000 youths were appointed through G.O.Ms.No.257 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meals Programme Department, dated 30.10.1996 exclusively to assist campaign regarding evils of liquor in the State. In the said G.O., it is further stated that 10,000 youths were appointed through G.O.Ms.No.257 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meals Programme Department, dated 30.10.1996 exclusively to assist campaign regarding evils of liquor in the State. The GO dated 30.10.1996 was cancelled and the MNP were inducted with further direction that they are to be treated as Part Time employees, appointed on contract basis for one year (1997) and those who have already worked in the scheme during 1989-91 will be considered for appointment with certain other conditions. The duties and responsibilities of male and female Village level workers were again stated in the said Government Order. (h) Again through G.O.Ms.No.149 Rural Development Department, dated 1.6.2001 the Government disbanded the post of MNP with immediate effect and the persons in service were ousted. (i) In G.O.Ms.No.51 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 12.6.2006 the Government again revived the services of MNP and increased the honorarium from Rs.500/-per month to Rs.750/- per month. In addition Rs.50/-per month was provided as travelling allowance to 13,394 MNPs. A further direction was issued to the Officers to appoint all those who were in service as on 31.5.2001 and it was ordered that the persons appointed are not entitled to get any payment from 1.6.2001 to 31.5.2006 as they were not in service. The expenditure was directed to be treated as "New Service". (j) The Government again issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.175 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 5.12.2006 and stated that Panchayat Assistants and Part time Clerks working in Village Panchayat will be switched over to scale of pay with effect from 1.9.2006, instead of consolidated pay and the scale of pay of Full-time Panchayat Assistants will be 1300-20-1500-25-2000 and those of Part-time Clerks will be Rs.625-10-725-20-925 and the said order will benefit 12,618 Village Assistants/Part time Clerks. (k) G.O.Ms.No.179 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 27.11.2008 was issued stating that the Government will consider filling up of 50% of vacant posts arising in the cadre of Record Clerk/Office Assistant/Night Watchman and equivalent post from MNP. The District Collectors were directed to prepare the estimated vacancies in the post of Office Assistants and Night Watchmen every year on 1st December and seniority list of MNP should be prepared every year on 30th November. The District Collectors were directed to prepare the estimated vacancies in the post of Office Assistants and Night Watchmen every year on 1st December and seniority list of MNP should be prepared every year on 30th November. It is further ordered that the MNP should have rendered minimum of 2 years of service for appointment in the posts of Office Assistant and Night Watchman and appointments are to be made based on seniority. Appointment to the post of Office Assistant shall be made based on seniority and 50% Night Watchmen shall be filled up by rest of Senior members and according to the petitioners/appellants above 600 MNP were absorbed as Office Assistants/Night Watchmen in the State of Tamil Nadu in various Village Panchayats. (l) By G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 1.6.2009, the Government ordered that MNP who were receiving consolidated pay of Rs.750 + 50 are brought under Special Time Scale of Pay of Rs.2500-5000 + Grade Pay of Rs.500 with effect from 1.6.2009. (m) In G.O.(1D)No.255 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 21.5.2010 an order was passed to continue the post of MNP for two years from 1.6.2010 till 31.5.2012. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.86 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 8.11.2011 and ordered to disband MNP with immediate effect by stating reason that the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj in his letter dated 6.9.2011 stated that there are enough staff in Panchayat Units at Village Panchayat level to look after the works presently being looked after by MNP and therefore the post of MNP be disbanded and by such process about Rs.73 crores can be saved. (n) The said G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 8.11.2011 was challeged before this Court by the association with a prayer for direction to reinstate MNP and extend all benefits both service and monetary by raising various grounds. 3. During pendency of the writ petitions interim stay was also granted. As against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the Government as well as the Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchyat Raj Department have filed writ appeals in W.A.Nos.696 and 697 of 2012. W.P.Nos.11936, 11937, 22969 of 2012, 18163 of 2013 and 18048 of 2014 were filed by individuals/Association seeking to quash the G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 8.11.2011 and the engage the MNP in any one of the suitable posts or to frame a scheme for absorption of MNP. 4. W.P.Nos.11936, 11937, 22969 of 2012, 18163 of 2013 and 18048 of 2014 were filed by individuals/Association seeking to quash the G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 8.11.2011 and the engage the MNP in any one of the suitable posts or to frame a scheme for absorption of MNP. 4. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.26104 and 26144 of 2011 by common order dated 23.1.2012. 5. Against the said order of the learned Single Judge, these writ appeals were preferred and while hearing the writ appeals an offer was made to pay five months salary to MNP workers before 31.5.2012 as one time payment and recording the same the writ appeals were disposed of on 26.4.2012, against which the Association filed Review Application No.103 of 2012 and the same was dismissed on 9.7.2012. Having aggrieved over the order passed by the Division Bench as stated supra, SLP Nos.27103 and 27104 of 2012 were preferred and after granting leave, Civil Appeal Nos.10167-10168 of 2013 were numbered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Division Bench as well as the order in Review Application No.103 of 2012 and directed the Division Bench to hear the matter afresh on merits. 6. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government argued that the MNP workers having been appointed under a Scheme initially by a Government Order without following sponsorship through Employment Exchange and also by not following the reservation for appointments to Government Services, the persons appointed as MNP cannot get any right to continue in the said post. The post created by G.O.Ms.No.496 dated 20.9.1989 was disbanded by G.O.Ms.No.256 dated 13.7.1991 and the said disbandment was not challenged. The learned Advocate General further submitted that even though the erstwhile MNP workers were taken back by G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 24.2.1997, the posts were treated as part-time with consolidated pay/honorarium and the said restored posts were again disbanded by G.O.Ms.No.149 dated 1.6.2001 and the said GO was also not challenged. The posts were again revived and allowed to be restored as part-time posts under the scheme and in G.O(1D)No.255 dated 21.5.2010 the posts were allowed to be continued for two years that was upto 31.5.2012. The posts were again revived and allowed to be restored as part-time posts under the scheme and in G.O(1D)No.255 dated 21.5.2010 the posts were allowed to be continued for two years that was upto 31.5.2012. The Government considering the performance of duties assigned to the MNP in the Rural Welfare Offices and other Employees of the Village Panchayat, and also considering the financial aspect, took a decision not to continue MNP post by G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 8.11.2011. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the learned single Judge was not justified in quashing the said Government order by holding that the action of the Government was mala fide. It is also submitted that as MNP were appointed under a Scheme, it is open to the Government to abandon the scheme at any time as it is well settled in law that creation and abolition of post is the prerogative of the Government and as such the MNP have no right to insist that they should be allowed to continue in service. In support of the said contention the learned Advocate General relied on the following decisions: State of U.P. and another v. Dr. Prem Behari Lal Saxena [AIR 1969 Allahabad 449 (V.56 C 83) FB)] M. Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kerala and Another [ (1973) 2 SCC 650 ] Dr. In support of the said contention the learned Advocate General relied on the following decisions: State of U.P. and another v. Dr. Prem Behari Lal Saxena [AIR 1969 Allahabad 449 (V.56 C 83) FB)] M. Ramanatha Pillai v. The State of Kerala and Another [ (1973) 2 SCC 650 ] Dr. N.C. Singhal v. Union of India and Others [ (1980) 3 SCC 29 ] K. Rajendran and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [ (1982) 2 SCC 273 ] Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Others [ (1992) 4 SCC 99 ] Shri Maheshwari Senior Higher Secondary School and Another v. Bhikha Ram Sharma and Others [ (1996) 8 SCC 22 ] State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Others [ (2006) 1 SCC 667 ] Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Another v. Chander Hass and Another [ (2008) 1 SCC 683 ] State of Haryana and Others v. Navneet Verma [(2008) 2 SCC 65] Adhikesavan and Muniyandi v. The Executive Officer, Mammallapuram Town Panchayat, Kancheepuram District and another Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Another [ (2011) 9 SCC 438 ] State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Sandhya Tomar and Another [ (2013) 11 SCC 357 ] Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy and Others [ (2011) 9 SCC 286 ] Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and Another v. State of Assam and Others [ (2013) 2 SCC 516 ] Renu and Ors. v. District and Sessions Judge, Tiz Hazari and Another [2014 (2) Scale 262] The following propositions emerge from the judgments relied on by the learned Advocate General: (a) Creation and abolition of posts rests with the Government and is also a matter of government policy, which can be exercised in the interest and necessity of internal administration and the Court would be the least competent in the face of scanty material to decide whether the Government acted honestly in creating a post or refusing to create a post or its decision suffers from malafieds, legal or factual and as long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith and in the absence of material, interference by the Court is not warranted. (b) The decision to create or abolish a post is to be taken in good faith and the action to abolish a post should not be just a pretence taken to get rid of an inconvenient incumbent and any such action, legislative or executive, taken pursuant to the power to abolish a post is always subject to judicial review. (c) In the matter of the Government of a State, the succeeding Government is duty-bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job of the previous Government, for the reason that the action is that of the ‘State’, which continues to subsist and therefore, it is not required that the new Government can plead contrary to the State action taken by the previous Government in respect of a particular subject and unless the act done by the previous Government is found to be contrary to the statutory provisions, unreasonable or against policy, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power and the Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interest and nepotism etc., as the principles of governance have to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play and must be taken in good faith and must be legitimate. (d) The services of employees must not be exploited over a period of time, without giving permanent status to them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nihal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [(2013) 5 SCC 718] held that the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 44 ] cannot be used as a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities. (e) The abolition of post is not a personal penalty against the Government servant and is an executive policy decision. A general rule, the Doctrine of Estoppel will not be applied against the State in its Governmental, public or sovereign capacity and the only exception is that where it is necessary to prevent fraud and manifest injustice. The operation of Doctrine of Estoppel can be excluded when it is found that the authority against whom estoppel is pleaded, has owed a duty to the public against whom, estoppel cannot fairly operate. The operation of Doctrine of Estoppel can be excluded when it is found that the authority against whom estoppel is pleaded, has owed a duty to the public against whom, estoppel cannot fairly operate. (f) Where the recruitment of service is regulated by the statutory rules, the recruitment must be made in accordance with those rules and if any appointment is made in breach of the rules, the same would be illegal and the persons so appointed have to be put in a different class and cannot claim seniority. When appointment is made without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules, the appointees are not entitled to have the seniority fixed on the basis of the total strength of service. Whenever there has to be relaxation about the operation of any of the rules, regard has to be given to the test of accusation of under hardship in any particular case and the authority is required to record satisfaction while dispensing or relaxing the requirements of any rule to such and extend and subject to such conditions as he may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner and it cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner so as to dispense with the procedure of selection in entirety in respect of a particular class, for it has to be strictly construed and there has to be apposite foundation for exercise of such power. (g) Considering candidature of persons by mere calling of names from employment exchange does not meet requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (h) Even if a person is appointed on regular basis and the service conditions are not governed by any statutory rules, he/she shall be bound by the terms and conditions that have been incorporated in the appointment order. Therefore, they cannot claim any benefit with respect to the said post. 7. Mr. P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Munnettra Sangam, writ petitioner in W.P.No.18048 of 2014 contended that the MNP post having been created by framing a policy of the Government with an object to remove unemployment of the rural youth by G.O.Ms.No.496 dated 20.9.1989 and the persons having been selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee by inviting applications through News Paper advertisement, the requirements of constitutional mandate viz., Article 14 and 16 are satisfied. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted, onlyl because the persons were appointed as MNP by the Government formed by D.M.K. party in 1989, after the change of regime in the year 1991 the posts were disbanded, which were again revived after the change of regime in February 1997, which was again disbanded in the year 2001 due to change of regime and lastly revived in June, 2006 due to change of regime and in the year 2011 due to regime change, the Government disbanded the MNP posts arbitrarily without considering the long number of years of service rendered by the MNP as well as the necessity to continue the post, by stating reason to prevent wastage of expenditure based on the letter written by the Commissioner of Rural Development. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even assuming that the post was extended only upto 31.5.2012, the Government order having been issued in November, 2011, i.e., before expiry of the term the order is illegal and therefore the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the order and allowing the writ petitions. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that after the MNP were selected they were given training and in the year 2009 they were given time scale of pay. Pongal bonus and other privileges were also given. Service registers were also opened for them and even if the post is to be abolished for some reasons or the other, no alternative employment was considered by the Government and therefore the decision of the Government without considering the relevant factors is an arbitrary exercise of power, which was rightly set aside by the learned single Judge. He also added that about 600 MNP were absorbed in Village Panchayats as Office Assistant and Night Watchman and the remaining persons are discriminated. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: (i) In T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of T.N. and Others [ (2003) 6 SCC 581 ], where the issue involved was dismissal of 2 lakh employees by the State Government, it has been held that to meet the unprecedented extraordinary situation having no parallel, the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dehors availability of alternative remedy. (ii) In Kumari Shrilekha Vidhyarthi and Others v. State of U.P. & Others [ (1991) 1 SCC 212 ], the scope of judicial review is limited to oversee the State action for the purpose of satisfying that it is not violated by the vice of arbitrariness and no more and in the case of arbitrariness, the defect of irrationality is obvious. (iii) In Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another [ (1978) 1 SCC 248 ], in respect of administrative action which entails evil consequently, rules however flexible enough to permit modifications and variations required by the situation and hearing may be given after conducting action and the Principle of Audi Alteram Partem even if not specifically mentioned, may be applicable by implication. (iv) In Jarnail Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [ (1986) 3 SCC 277 ], it has been held that the Court can go behind an ex facie innocuous order of termination to find out real basis of termination and it is the substance of the order i.e., the attending circumstances as well as the basis of the order that have to be taken into consideration. It is further held that when an allegation is made by the employee assailing the order of termination as one based on misconduct, though couched in innocuous terms, it is incumbent on the Court to lift the veil and to see the real circumstances as well as the basis and foundation of the order complained of in order to determine whether the order was made on ground of misconduct and inefficiency or not. (v) In The Manager, Government Branch Press and Another v. D.B. Belliappa [ (1979) 1 SCC 477 ], it has been held that if the services of a temporary Government servant are terminated arbitrarily, and not on the ground of his un-sustainability, unsatisfactory conduct or the like which would put him in a class apart from his juniors in the same service, a question of unfair discrimination may arise, notwithstanding the fact that in terminating his service, the appointing authority was purporting to act in accordance with the terms of employment. Where a charge of unfair discrimination is levelled with specificity, or improper motives are imputed to the authority making the impugned order of termination of service, it is the duty of the authority to dispel that charge by disclosing to the Court the reason or motive which impelled it to take the impugned action and fairness, founded on reason is the essence of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. (vi) In Ajit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [ (1983) 2 SCC 217 ], reference has been made to the judgment in The Manager, Government Branch Press and Another v. D.B. Belliappa [ (1979) 1 SCC 477 ] and it has been held that the action taken was thoroughly arbitrary and in that event, it smacks of discrimination and a discriminatory treatment in the matter of public employment cannot be overlooked. (vii) In State of Haryana v. Shri Des Raj Sangar and Another [ (1976) 2 SCC 844 ], it has been held that whether a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter for the Government to decide and as long as such decision of the Government is taken in good faith, the same cannot be set aside by the Court and such a decision must be taken in good faith and be not used as a cloak or pretence to terminate the services of a person holding that post. In case it is found on consideration of the facts of a case that the abolition of the post would suffer from a serious infirmity, then it is liable to be set aside. (viii) In Civil Appeal No.3338 of 2014 [Malathi Das (Retd.) P.B. Mahishy and Others v. Suresh and Others], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if similarly placed persons having been regularized by the State and in case of some of them, such regularization came into being after the decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], they are entitled to regularization as they are identically placed/situated, based on the principle of parity. (ix) In State of Haryana v. State of Punjab [ (2002) 2 SCC 507 ], it has been held that decisions taken at the governmental level should not be so easily nullified by a change of Government and by some other political party assuming power, particularly when such a decision affects some other State and the interest of the nation as a whole. It cannot be disputed that so far as the policy is concerned, a political party assuming power is entitled to engraft the political philosophy behind the party, since that must be held to be the will of the people. However, at the same time, in the matter of governance of a State or in the matter of execution of a decision taken by a previous Government, on the basis of a consensus arrived at, which does not involve any political philosophy, the succeeding Government must be held duty-bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop to the same. (x) In Southern Railway License Porters Union, represented by General Secretary and Others v. Union of India and another, the issue pertains to floating of tender for provide self-held trolleys for the use of passengers and a Division Bench of this Court, taking into consideration the various decisions, observed that (a) quality of life of the weakest in society is the true measure of social justice; (b) it is the bounden duty of the Government to safeguard the economic interests of weaker sections of the society. (xi) In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd., v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Others [ (2005) 7 SCC 627 ], when a decision is required to be taken after giving an opportunity of hearing to a person who may suffer civil or evil consequences by reason thereof, the same would mean an effective hearing. 8. Mr. (xi) In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd., v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Others [ (2005) 7 SCC 627 ], when a decision is required to be taken after giving an opportunity of hearing to a person who may suffer civil or evil consequences by reason thereof, the same would mean an effective hearing. 8. Mr. N. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent in W.A.No.697 of 2012/Dindugal Matatta Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Nala Sangam, submitted that MNP having been appointed by following the due procedures of selection after inviting applications through newspaper advertisement, their initial selection cannot be termed as illegal and the said persons having rendered more than 11 years of service, though with interruption, and they cannot go for any other job at this distance of time as they are over-aged for fresh recruitment and having conferred with the benefits of Time Scale of Pay, opening of Service Register, and other benefits, they had the legitimate expectation of permanent absorption/regularisation and the impugned order came like bolt from the Blue. Consequently, they as well as their family are suffering very much and in fact during pendency of the writ petitions, some of them had also died leaving their family in lurch. It is further submitted that non-consideration of the said issues while passing the impugned Government Order is unsustainable, hence the said decision is arbitrary. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that even if the post was restored/revived for a limited period having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly with regard to the service rendered by them for number of years, the Government should have framed a scheme to accommodate the persons in some other equivalent post as they have altered their position with their disadvantage by accepting the employment as MNP. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that it is the usual practice of the Government of Tamil Nadu to appoint persons temporarily and after extracting services for some years, they are ousted and after the intervention of the Court on several occasions, the ousted persons are being restored to service or accommodated in some other capacity in different departments, either by conducting screening test or formal interview if their induction was not in compliance of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel has also quoted some instances, i.e., abolition of part-time Village Officers; Gang Mazdoors (road workers); Plot watchers in Forest Department; Contract Labourers in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; Census staff; etc, and by following the past practice, this Court may direct the Government to evolve a scheme to absorb the MNP in the Village Panchayat or in any other department of the Government according to their qualification as none of the ousted MNP are now in a position to go for any other employment after rendering more than 11 years of hard, sincere and blemishless service as MNP due to over-age and all of them had genuine and legitimate expectation that they will be absorbed in service permanently. In support of his contentions the learned Senior Counsel relied on certain decisions. 9. Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in W.A.No.696 of 2012/Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Munnettra Sangam prayed for accommodating ousted MNP in future vacancies as prayed in writ petitions and adopted the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. N. Vijay Narayan. 10. Mrs. G. Thilakavathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.18163 of 2013 contended that MGNREG Act having been enlarged almost in all the Districts to give employment to rural people for minimum of 100 days of work in a year for supervision of works undertaken, Supervisors or Mates are required and therefore the Government was not justified in ousting MNP after long number of years of service, without providing alternate employment. 11. Mr. Ilangovan, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in W.P.Nos.11936 and 11937 of 2012 submitted that MNP are entitled to get permanency under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 as the Village Panchayats are performing duties as defined under section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the ousted persons having rendered more than 11 years of actual service within a period of 22 years as per the orders of the Government, the Government is bound to make them permanent on completion of 480 days of service in 24 calendar months. 12. 12. In reply to the said submissions, the learned Advocate General submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.179 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 27.11.2008, totally 379 persons served as MNP were absorbed as Office Assistants/Night Watchmen in Village Panchayats and to implement MGNREG Act, 2005, persons (Mates) were already appointed and as such there is no need to accommodate the MNP as contended by the learned counsels. The learned Advocate General further contended that the MNP post having been created for a specified period under the Scheme and they having performed miscellaneous works doing no substantive work in the department, they cannot be ordered to be appointed in any other department and the Government having taken the decision to abolish the post, the counsels for MNP are not justified in seeking to revive the post through writ petitions. The learned Advocate General also stated that even permanent posts can be abolished for valid reasons. He also submitted that MNP are not coming within the definition of "workman" and Village Panchayats are not coming under the definition of "industry" for applying the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and he has distinguished the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Gang Mazdoor case reported in (2004) 4 MLJ 335 (Tamil Nadu Highways Roadways Employees' Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu). The learned Advocate General further submitted that in any event after 31.5.2012, MNP are not entitled to insist that they should be allowed to continue and taking note of the said fact, while hearing the writ appeal earlier Division Bench thought fit to order salary for five months as compensation instead of restoring MNP in service and prayed for dismissing the writ petitions and allowing the writ appeals. 13. Mr. S.T.S. Murthy, learned Government Pleader supported the arguments of the learned Advocate General and contended that the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.52 RD & PR Department, dated 29.8.2011, relating to Panchayat Secretary/Clerk/Assistants is different and the writ petitioners are not entitled to compare the appointment of Panchayat Secretary/Clerk/Assistants for seeking employment/appointment/restoration of MNP workers, particularly when MNP workers were assisting the Panchayats, when they were in employment. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that MGNREG Act, 2005 guarantees employment for 100 days a year and the entire work is carried on by the funds allocated by the Central Government and it is not possible to appoint MNP as Mates. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that MGNREG Act, 2005 guarantees employment for 100 days a year and the entire work is carried on by the funds allocated by the Central Government and it is not possible to appoint MNP as Mates. The learned Government Pleader also stated that the files relating to G.O.Ms.No.86 Rural Development Department, dated 8.11.2011 will be circulated and accordingly circulated the said file. 14. We have considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsel; decisions relevant for these cases; perused the file and various Government Orders. 15. The following issues arise for consideration in these cases are: (1) Whether the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.86 Rural Development Department, dated 8.11.2011 which was quashed by the learned single Judge is justified ? (2) Whether the MNP are entitled to seek regularisation based on their services rendered for about 11 years ? (3) Whether MNP are entitled to restoration in service/absorbed in any other post on facts ? Issue No.1: Whether the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.86 Rural Development Department, dated 8.11.2011 which was quashed by the learned single Judge is justified ? 16. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.496 Rural Development Department dated 20.9.1989 framing a scheme to provide employment to educated youth in rural areas, who have completed 10th Standard by taking a policy decision and identified various items of work in the Village Panchayats that can be entrusted to such persons. For implementing the said decision, the Government directed two Village Level workers, one male and one female to be employed in each Village Panchayat throughout the State and a total of 25,234 workers were ordered to be put in position throughout the State and the said workers were ordered to be called "Makkal Nala Paniyalargal (MNP)". The Government further ordered that they are to be paid a monthly honorarium of Rs.200/- on condition that they should reside in the Village Panchayat allotted. MNP were ordered to be selected by the Selection Committee constituted for each Block consisting of the District Collector as Chairman, P.A. (Panchayat Department) to the Collector as Member, and the Block Development Officer (BDO) of the concerned Block as the Member-Secretary. The qualifications were also prescribed for such appointment which reads thus, (i) Age should be between 18 and 30 years. (ii) Educational qualification should be 10th Standard completed. The qualifications were also prescribed for such appointment which reads thus, (i) Age should be between 18 and 30 years. (ii) Educational qualification should be 10th Standard completed. Provided that in respect of Hill and tribal areas, the educational qualification can be relaxed to 8th Std., completed. (iii) He/She should belong to the concerned village panchayat and should be resident there. In the said Government Order it is further stated that the workers will have to be recruited through open advertisement in the local area and the advertisements shall be published in the leading dailies sufficiently in advance, so as to receive the applications by the respective Collectors from 15th September, 1989. A High Level Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary was also constituted to oversee the implementation of the scheme with other high level Officers of the State as its Members. The expenditure was sanctioned under the head "New Service". The duties and responsibilities are also assigned to male and female workers, which are as follows: "MNP (Male) 1. Maintenance of all basic data relates to the Village Panchayat; 2. Maintenance of Village assets like Parks, Social Forest & Ponds; 3. Extension of services from nearest District Library to Rural Local Library; 4. Duty of Additional Watchman in the rural water supply wing; 5. Small Saving Agent shall be eligible for getting Agent Commission separately; 6. Liaisoning with TNEB in the maintenance of Street Lights 7. Other works determined by Director of Rural Development; 8. Creating awareness among people by making Anti Liquor Campaign MNP (Female) 1. Adult Education - Non formal education 2. To act as guide in Rural sanitation 3. Intensive activities in Family Welfare & Vaccination 4. NMP activities 5. Maternity & child Health Services 6. Small Saving Agent shall be eligible for getting Agent Commission separately; 7. Other works determined by Director or Rural Development; 8. Creating awareness among people by making Anti Liquor Campaign." 17. In terms of the Government Order, which was issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, MNP (one male and one female) in each Village Panchayat were recruited by inviting open advertisement through leading Newspapers and selection was conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee, by verifying the educational qualification, age, place of residence, etc. In terms of the Government Order, which was issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, MNP (one male and one female) in each Village Panchayat were recruited by inviting open advertisement through leading Newspapers and selection was conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee, by verifying the educational qualification, age, place of residence, etc. The said procedure followed for appointment of MNP is in compliance with the Constitutional provision viz., Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 18. The contention of the learned Advocate General that MNP were appointed without sponsorship through Employment Exchange and therefore their appointments are illegal/irregular cannot be accepted. In the decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 261 (Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ashok Kumar) in paragraph 19 it is held thus, "19. A statutory authority is obligated to make recruitments only upon compliance with the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any appointment in violation of the said constitutional scheme as also the statutory recruitment rules, if any, would be void. ......." In the decision reported in 2014 (2) SCALE 262 (Renu & Others v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari) calling for applications through newspapers having wide publication was held mandatory. 19. It is also to be noted at this juncture that according to the Government, MNP are not given any specific skilled work to perform. Section 3 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 clearly states that Sponsorship through Employment Exchange is not mandatory while filling up unskilled posts. Having regard to the Judgments of the Supreme Court cited supra, which clearly states that sponsorship through Employment Exchange may be a source and not the exclusive source, the contention of the learned Advocate General is rejected as calling for applications through open advertisement for selection to public employment is perfectly valid. The Government is selecting various persons in public employment by adopting the said mode through (i) Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (ii) Teachers Recruitment Board, (iii) Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (Police Recruitment), (iv) Tamil Nadu Medical Recruitment Board, etc. Those recruiting agencies are inviting applications only through open advertisement for appointment in permanent posts and sponsorship through Employment Exchange is not resorted. 20. Those recruiting agencies are inviting applications only through open advertisement for appointment in permanent posts and sponsorship through Employment Exchange is not resorted. 20. The MNP selected and appointed have joined in the posts in the respective Village Panchayats in the year 1989 and they were also given training with regard to performance of specific duties assigned to them as stated supra. The change of party in power occurred in the Tamil Nadu Assembly Election held in 1991 and thereafter the new Government issued G.O.Ms.No.256 Rural Development Department, dated 13.7.1991 and disbanded MNP post in Village Panchayats. 21. The reason stated was that the Commissioner of Rural Development addressed a letter dated 12.7.1991 to the Government stating that the duties performed by MNP are being attended by the Rural Welfare Officers at village level and Extension Officers appointed at Block level and the Government is unnecessarily spending a sum of Rs.6 crores per annum towards paying honorarium/salary to MNP and recommended termination of MNP. The said letter was accepted by the Government and by G.O.Ms.No.256 Rural Development Department, dated 13.7.1991 the appointment made through G.O.Ms.No.496 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 20.9.1989 were cancelled with immediate effect. 22. In the year 1996 after the General Election to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, ruling party of the Government changed and the new Government again issued G.O.Ms.No.50 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 24.2.1997 and decided to revive the MNP scheme and stated that they are not covered under the establishment of State and Local Body or Contingent Establishment and they are only part-time employees appointed on contract basis for one year period and those already worked under the Scheme in 1989-91 on their specific option will have to be considered for appointment under the Scheme. Certain further instructions were also issued regarding the restoration of MNP with a direction to the District Collectors to put the notification in local dailies and the honorarium payable was fixed at Rs.500/- per month, which shall be paid by the respective Village Panchayat and the Government will give financial assistance to Village Panchayats through the District Collectors. It was further ordered that the expenditure shall constitute a new instrument of service and approval of the Legislature will be obtained in due course. It was further ordered that the expenditure shall constitute a new instrument of service and approval of the Legislature will be obtained in due course. New head of account was also created with the concurrence of the Finance Department under the head ''Payment to Professional and Special Services (DPC 251500 800 JQ 3308). In the said order also duties of MNP male and female were mentioned as in the previous GO. 23. After the new Government took over after the Assembly elections held in 2001, again the post of MNP were disbanded by stating very same reason that there are enough staff in Panchayats and Village Panchayat level to look after the works presently being looked after by MNP. 24. It is relevant to note at this juncture that in the year 2005 the MGNREG Act was enacted by the Parliament to provide employment guarantee to rural people for not less than 100 days in a year and the said programme was ordered to be implemented through the concerned State Government. Guidelines were also issued regarding sanctioning of works, work execution, posting of Mates (Supervisors), their selection, training, duties, etc., and according to MNP, even though the said posts were ordered to be created, the MNP were not selected/utilised/accommodated and their claims were not considered by the Government from the year 2006. 25. Again, after the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections held in the year 2006 there was change in the ruling party and the new Government gave rebirth to MNP post and the honorarium paid at the rate of Rs.500/- per month in the year 1997 was increased to Rs.750/- per month and in addition Rs.50/- per month was ordered to be paid as travelling allowance, with a condition that all those who were in service as on 31.5.2000 may be appointed again and 12,618 posts were created in Village Panchayats with effect from 1.6.2006 for a period of one year at the rate of one MNP for each Village Panchayat. As per the said Government Order, notifications were published in the dailies by the District Collectors inviting applications from those who were willing to join. After selection, MNP workers were directed to do the same works as they were doing previously, apart from the works assigned by the District Collectors, Project Officers, BDOs/Panchayat Presidents. The expenditure was treated as "New Service" with the concurrence of Finance Department. After selection, MNP workers were directed to do the same works as they were doing previously, apart from the works assigned by the District Collectors, Project Officers, BDOs/Panchayat Presidents. The expenditure was treated as "New Service" with the concurrence of Finance Department. Those who joined were specifically informed that they are not entitled to claim any amount of honorarium for the period 1.6.2001 to 31.5.2006, i.e., during the period they were not in service/ employment. 26. The Government issued Orders in G.O.Ms.No.179 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 27.11.2008 and ordered that the Government will consider filling up of 50% of the vacant posts in the cadre of Office Assistant and Night Watchmen and equivalent posts in Village Panchayats by accommodating MNP by relaxing Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Basic Servants Service Rules (mode of recruitment), Rule 3A (communal rotation), Rule 5 (age), and Rule 5(3) relating to Panchayat Union Establishment Rules, and the District Collectors were directed to prepare an estimate of vacancies in the above said cadres every year as on first December and seniority of MNP was ordered to be prepared every year as on 30th November. It was further ordered that the MNP should have rendered minimum of 2 years of service for appointment and seniors shall be appointed in the cadre of Office Assistant i.e., 50% vacancies and the remaining 50% posts as Night Watchman and the post of Night Watchmen will be the feeder category for the post of Office Assistant for next year and the resultant vacancies in the cadre of Night Watchman shall be filled up by MNP according to seniority. The operative portion of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.179 RD & PR Department, dated 27.11.2008 reads thus, "3. The operative portion of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.179 RD & PR Department, dated 27.11.2008 reads thus, "3. After examining the proposal of the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, the Government have decided to filling up of the 50% of vacancies arising in the cadre of Office Assistant/Night Watchman and equivalent post by the Makkal Nalapaniyalargal by relaxing Tamil Nadu Basis Servant Service Rule 3 (mode of recruitment), Rule 3A (communal rotation), Rule 5 (Age) and rule 5, rule 3 relating to Panchayat Union Establishment Rules and be ordered accordingly on the following conditions: i) The District Collector should prepare the estimate of vacancy for the post of office Assistant and Nightwatchman for every year on 1st December and the seniority list of Makkal Nalapaniyalargal should be prepared every year on 30th November. ii) 50% of the estimated vacancy should be filed up by eligible Makkal Nalapaniyalargal according to due seniority. iii) The Makkal Nalapaniyalargal should render minimum two years of service for appointment to the post of Office Assistant and Night Watchman. iv) The 50% of vacant posts in the cadre of Office Assistant shall be filled up by the senior-most Makkal Nalapaniyalargal. 50% of Night Watchman shall be filled up by the rest of the senior members. v) The post of Nightwatchman appointed will be the feeder category for the post of Office Assistant for the next year. The vacancies arising in the post of Nightwatchman by promoting them as Office Assistant and actual vacancies in the post of Nightwatchman shall be filled up by the Makkal Nalapaniyalargal according to seniority." Based on the said Government Order about 379 MNP out of 12618 were absorbed in various Panchayats with time scale of pay as stated supra and they are continuing in service, which is not in dispute. 27. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (Pay Cell) Department on 1.6.2009 and it was ordered that MNP, who were receiving consolidated pay were brought under special time scale of pay of Rs.2,500-5000+Grade pay of Rs.500 with effect from 1.6.2009. Thus, it is evident that MNP workers, who were not absorbed in Village Panchayats as Office Assistant/Night watchman also were given the time scale of pay. For easy reference, the relevant portion of the Government order is extracted hereunder: "....... Thus, it is evident that MNP workers, who were not absorbed in Village Panchayats as Office Assistant/Night watchman also were given the time scale of pay. For easy reference, the relevant portion of the Government order is extracted hereunder: "....... The Makkal Nala Paniyalargal who are at present drawing a consolidated pay of Rs.950 + 50 Conveyance Allowance per month shall be brought to Special time Scale of pay of Rs.2500-5000 + Grade Pay of Rs.500/- with effect from the date of issue of these orders (i.e.) 1.6.2009." Service registers were also opened for them from 1.6.2009 and the said fact is also not in dispute. The letter in Ms.No.72 dated 16.07.2010, sent by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Rural Development Department addressed to the Director of Rural Development would also disclose that MNPs, who are brought under Special Time scale of pay with effect from 01.06.2009, shall be granted increment after completion of one year with effect from 01.04.2010 and in respect of the said persons, the Block Development Officer shall open and maintain a Service Register with effect from 01.06.2009. It is also not under serious dispute that "pongal bonus" were given to MNPs and they were also given periodical training to update their skills for their effective performance and discharge of duties. 28. The Government through GO(1D)No.683 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 17.9.2008 extended the period of service of MNP from 1.6.2008 to 31.5.2010. The said period was again extended by two years by G.O(1D)No.255 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 21.5.2010 from 1.6.2010 to 31.5.2012. Thus, it is manifest that MNP were continuing in their employment till the issuance of impugned G.O.Ms.No.86 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 8.11.2011. 29. It is also to be noted that the impugned G.O.Ms.NO.86 dated 8.11.2011 was issued before expiry of the period for which the posts were created that was upto 31.5.2012, on the basis of the letter addressed by the second respondent/Commissioner of Rural Development on 6.9.2011. The letter of the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, in Letter No.61881/2011/E1, dated 6.9.2011, which was the basis for issuing the impugned Government Order reads as follows: "From To Dr. S. Vijayakumar, IAS, The Principal Secretary Commissioner, to Government, Rural Development and Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panchayat Raj Panagal Building, Department, Secretariat, Chennai-15 Chennai-9. The letter of the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, in Letter No.61881/2011/E1, dated 6.9.2011, which was the basis for issuing the impugned Government Order reads as follows: "From To Dr. S. Vijayakumar, IAS, The Principal Secretary Commissioner, to Government, Rural Development and Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panchayat Raj Panagal Building, Department, Secretariat, Chennai-15 Chennai-9. Lr.No.61881/2011/E1, dated 06.09.2011 Sir, Sub: Establishment - Post of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal - proposal for disbandment - sent - Regarding. Ref: 1.G.O.(Ms)No.51, RD&PR Department, dt.12.6.2006 2. G.O.(Ms)No.176, RD&PR(E5) Department, dt.5.12.2006 3. G.O.(1D)No.255, RD&PR(E5) Department, dt.21.5.2010. Kind reference is invited to the G.Os. cited. Government in the reference 1st cited created 12,618 posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal at the rate of 1 Makkal Nala Paniyalar for each Village Panchayat. Government in the reference 2nd cited created additional 482 vanishing posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal for 13 districts. Out of the 482 vanishing posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, 442 posts were adjusted in the vacancies that arose later and also due to promotions, resignation and death of some of the Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, and there are now 40 Makkal Nala Paniyalargal working as on date from this category in Trichy (4 MNPs), Madurai (24 MNPs) and Dindigul (12 MNPs). Government in the G.O. 3rd cited ordered continuance of the posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal from 1.6.2010 to 31.5.2012. There are 12,658 Makkal Nala Paniyalargal working in the districts as on date including the 40 Makkal Nala Paniyalargal working in the 40 vanishing posts. The Makkal Nala Paniyalargal are now getting a monthly salary of around Rs.4800/-in the special time scale of Rs.2500-5000 + Grade Pay of Rs.500 and as such the expenditure in this regard comes to around Rs.73 crores (12,658 x Rs.4,800 x 12 = Rs.72,91,00,800/- per year). As there are enough staff in the Panchayat Union and Village Panchayat level to look after the works presently being looked after by Makkal Nala Paniyalargal, it is proposed to disband all the posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal. If all the posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal are disbanded, around Rs.73 crores can be savings to the Government. Hence orders are requested to disband all the posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal. If all the posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal are disbanded, around Rs.73 crores can be savings to the Government. Hence orders are requested to disband all the posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal. Sd/- xxxxxxxxxxx Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj" The said letter was accepted and the impugned G.O.Ms.No.86 Rural Development Department, dated 8.11.2011 was issued and the said Government Order reads thus, "ABSTRACT Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department -Scheme for Educated Unemployed Youth in Rural areas - Post of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal - Disbanded - Orders - Issued. RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ (E5) DEPARTMENT G.O.(Ms)No.86 Dated: 08.11.2011 Read : 1. G.O.(Ms)No.51 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 12.06.2006 2. G.O.(Ms)No.147 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 12.10.2006 3. G.O.(Ms)No.176 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 5.12.2006 4. G.O.(D)No.415 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 31.07.2007 5. G.O.(D)No.683 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 17.09.2008 6. G.O.(D)No.255 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 21.05.2010 7. From the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Letter No.61881/2011/E1, dated 06.09.2011. ORDER: In the Government order first read above, Government have issued orders for appointment of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal to each Village Panchayat to look after the maintenance of basic details of the Panchayat, safeguard the assets of the Panchayats, encouraging the people in small savings and the duties assigned by the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj. In the Government Orders second to fifth read above their appointment was continued from time to time and lastly it has been ordered to be continued up to 31.05.2012 in the Government order sixth read above. 2. The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj in his letter seventh read above has stated that there are enough staff in the Panchayat Union and Village Panchayat level to look after the works presently being looked after by Makkal Nala Paniyalargel and therefore, he has requested orders to disband all the post of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal. 3. The Government after careful examination of the proposal of the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj order that the post of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal created in the Government order first read above and last continued in the Government Order sixth read above be disbanded with immediate effect. 3. The Government after careful examination of the proposal of the Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj order that the post of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal created in the Government order first read above and last continued in the Government Order sixth read above be disbanded with immediate effect. The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and Collectors are directed to ensure that all the posts of Makkal Nala Paniyalargal are disbanded immediately. 4. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its U.O.No.2331/FS/P/2011, Dated 07.09.2011. (BY ODER OF THE GOVERNOR) Sd/- xxxxxxxxxxx N.S. Palaniappan Principal Secretary to Government" 30. As stated supra, the said Government Order was challenged before this Court in W.P.Nos.26104 and 26155 of 2011. An interim stay was granted by this Court on 11.11.2011, against which writ appeals were preferred before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.2216 & 2217 of 2011 and the same were dismissed on 23.11.2011. Subsequently final orders were passed in the writ petitions by the learned single Judge on 23.1.2012, wherein it is observed that the decision of the Government without sufficient material is a hasty decision and it is a mala fide action. Learned single Judge heavily relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1985 (Supp) SCC 432 (B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh) paragraph 29, which reads thus, "29. These petitions involved serious human problem. Employees of the State with limited resources, who have been planning their future with a secure feeling that they could work till the age of 58 years, have as though overnight, been robbed of their tenure, their aspirations and future. They have become the helpless victims of certain swift moves on the political chessboard. These swift moves, perhaps taken in a hurry, without serious application of mind have resulted in arbitrariness that has been forcefully projected by the petitioners. This plea cannot be light-heartedly thrown overboard. Justice demands that the petitioners should be saved of their predicament." The learned single Judge also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 2 SCC 507 (State of Haryana v. State of Punjab) para 16, which reads thus, "16........... What really bothers us most is the functioning of the political parties, who assume power to do whatever that suits them and whatever would catch the vote bank. What really bothers us most is the functioning of the political parties, who assume power to do whatever that suits them and whatever would catch the vote bank. They forget for a moment that the Constitution conceives of a Government to be manned by the representatives of the people, who get themselves elected in an election. The decisions taken at the governmental level should not be so easily nullified by a change of Government and by some other political party assuming power, particularly when such a decision affects some other State and the interest of the nation as a whole. It cannot be disputed that so far as the policy is concerned, a political party assuming power is entitled to engraft the political philosophy behind the party, since that must be held to be the will of the people. But in the matter of governance of a State or in the matter of execution of a decision taken by a previous Government, on the basis of a consensus arrived at, which does not involve any political philosophy, the succeeding Government must be held duty-bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop to the same." 31. The finding recorded by the learned single Judge regarding mala fide action on the part of the Government cannot be upheld as the MNP were allowed to continue in the posts, without creating permanent posts by the Government in 1996 and 2006. The Government can create or abolish the posts for valid and sufficient reasons. The contention of the learned Advocate General that while appointing 12,618 MNP communal rotation was not followed is unsustainable for the reason that when the posts were revived in the year 2006 only one post in each Village Panchayat was ordered to be filled up. It is well settled in law that while filling up single post in a Unit, reservation need not be followed. Further, no affected person has chosen to challenge the action of the Government in the years 1989, 1996 and 2006 and even today. It is well settled in law that while filling up single post in a Unit, reservation need not be followed. Further, no affected person has chosen to challenge the action of the Government in the years 1989, 1996 and 2006 and even today. However, it is to be noted, more than 12000 MNP workers, who were selected by due process of selection by the competent Selection Committee and served from 1989 to 1991, 1997 to 2001 and 2006 to 2011 for about 11 years, though with break in service, and without considering their plight and hardships, the Government disbanded the post even before expiry of the term, for which they were ordered to be engaged, mainly on the ground that a sum of Rs.73 crores could be saved by the Government. 32. The said decision taken by the Government are without noticing the real and relevant facts such as the duties performed by the MNP namely, focussing on adult education, encouraging small savings, creating awareness among people about the evils of drinking by making anti-liquor campaign, propagating maternity and child health scheme, guiding rural sanitation, etc. It is not in dispute that the Government has not achieved 100% rural sanitation; 100% adult education; small savings; and reduction of consumption of liquor. The Government is earning more than Rs.21,600 Crores through liquor sales by employing more than 29,000 persons. 33. Further, the decision was taken by the Government solely on the basis of the letter of the Commissioner of Rural Development bearing in mind the expenditure spent towards payment of salary, without considering other vital aspects as stated supra, is definitely an arbitrary and erroneous action and therefore the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the impugned Government order in G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 8.11.2011, though the finding given by the learned single Judge regarding mala fide action is not justified. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1994) 6 SCC 205 (N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh) held that the Executive cannot be permitted to play with the people of its country and held thus, "....... No civilized system can permit an executive to play with the people of its country and claim that it is entitled to act in any manner as it is sovereign. v. State of Andhra Pradesh) held that the Executive cannot be permitted to play with the people of its country and held thus, "....... No civilized system can permit an executive to play with the people of its country and claim that it is entitled to act in any manner as it is sovereign. Needs of the State, duty of its officials and rights of the citizens are required to be reconciled so that the Rule of law in a welfare state is not shaken. ...." Hence the action of the Government in not absorbing other MNP, who are similarly placed like 379 persons, and ousting them by an executive order without considering its consequences, cannot be approved by this Court. 34. The learned single Judge passed the order on 23.1.2012 and at that time the period for which the posts were created was still available that was upto 31.5.2012 and therefore the learned Single Judge directed to reinstate the MNP and extend benefits to them. The said direction given by the learned single Judge at that point of time cannot be found fault with and we confirm the said direction issued. It is also a fact that pursuant to the said order five months salary payable upto 31.5.2012 were paid to MNP through G.O.Ms.No.36 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 22.5.2012 and if any one of them are not paid the salary so far for the said period, the State is bound to pay the same to such persons. Thus, the first issue raised in these cases are decided against the appellants/State Government. Issue No.2: Whether the MNP are entitled to seek regularisation based on their services rendered for about 11 years ? 35. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel and other Counsels appearing for the Sangam as well as Writ Petitioners/MNP that they having been appointed by virtue of a scheme and salary having been paid by the Village Panchayats from the funds received from the Government, they should be treated as "Workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and without paying any retrenchment compensation, which is payable to the workers, their ousting based on G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 8.11.2011 is illegal and the Panchayats having been vested with non-sovereign functions of the State, the MNP are to be treated as "Workmen" and the Village Panchayats can be treated as "Industry/Factory". The learned Senior counsels as well as other counsels heavily relied on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (2004) 4 MLJ 335 (Tamil Nadu Highways Roadways Employees' Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu) in support of their contention. The issue raised was regarding ousting of about 9728 Gang Mazdoors (Road Workers) due to abolition of the said post by G.O.Ms.No.160 Highways Department dated 5.9.2002, who were recruited in the year 1997 by G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 29.5.1997 and regularised by G.O.Ms.No.371 dated 19.8.1997. The Division Bench considering the regularisation already granted, gave a finding with regard to the nature of the work performed by the Road Workers held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will apply and the beneficial provisions, particularly Sections 25F and 25G and 25N having not been complied with and considering the fact that large number of Gang Mazdoors having been ousted by abolition of posts, an extraordinary situation had arisen to exercise the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and held that the Road Workers having been assigned fixed duty for the maintenance of the roads/site, the Highways Department is doing manufacturing activity by relying the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 3 SCC 224 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll)) and held that construction work undertaken or roads are laid or repaired or trenches dug would fall within the definition of "industry" and the employees are coming within the definition of "workman" under section 2(j) and 2(s) of the Act respectively. The Division Bench relied on the earlier Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1988) 2 SCC 537 (Des Raj v. State of Punjab) in respect of the matter relating to Irrigation Department of the State of Punjab and applied "Dominent test" and held that Irrigation Department of the State would fall within the definition of "industry". In the decision reported in (2000) 8 SCC 61 (Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Ashok Harikuni) the Supreme Court dealt with a question as to what activity of the State can be considered as sovereign and non-sovereign functions and in paragraph 21 the Supreme Court held thus, "21. In other words, it all depends on the nature of power and the manner of its exercise. In other words, it all depends on the nature of power and the manner of its exercise. What is approved to be ‘sovereign’ is defence of the country, raising armed forces, 'aking peace or war, foreign affairs, power to acquire and retain territory. These are not amenable to the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts. The other functions of the State including welfare activity of State could not be construed as ‘sovereign’ exercise of power. Hence, every governmental function need not be ‘sovereign’. State activities are multifarious, from the primal sovereign power, which exclusively inalienably could be exercised by the sovereign alone, which is not subject to challenge in any civil court to all the welfare activities, which would be undertaken by any private person. So merely if one is an employee of statutory bodies would not take it outside the Central Act. If that be so then Section 2(a) of the Central Act read with Schedule I gives large number of statutory bodies which should have been excluded, which is not. Even if a statute confers on any statutory body, any function which could be construed to be ‘sovereign’ in nature would not mean every other functions under the same statute to be also sovereign. The court should examine the statute to sever one from the other by comprehensively examining various provisions of that statute. In interpreting any statute to find if it is ‘industry’ or not we have to find its pith and substance. The Central Act is enacted to maintain harmony between employer and employee which brings peace and amity in its functioning. This peace and amity should be the objective in the functioning of all enterprises. This is to the benefit of both the employer and employee. Misuse of rights and obligations by either or stretching it beyond permissible limits have to be dealt with within the framework of the law but endeavour should not be in all circumstances to exclude any enterprise from its ambit. That is why courts have been defining “industry” in the widest permissible limits and “sovereign” functioning within its limited orbit." Considering the issue in such a manner, the Division Bench in (2004) 4 MLJ 335 (supra) quashed the order and allowed the writ petition preferred by the Gang Mazdoors, wherein Gang Mazdoors challenged the order of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal denying reinstatement, but only ordering compensation. The State Government also challenged the order of the Tribunal insofar as ordering compensation. Writ petitions filed by the State were dismissed and a direction was issued to the State Government to reinstate all the Gang Mazdoors with continuity of service with six months backwages. 36. The Division Bench in the said judgment repelled the contentions of the State Government that the decision to abolish the post having been taken in good faith, it is not open to the Court to go behind the wisdom and hold that the decision was arbitrary due to non-compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The factum of Financial constraints pleaded, which having not been established with acceptable materials was rejected as the same was not genuine/really factual in resorting to wholesale dismissal. 37. Insofar as the applicability of the said decision to the facts of this case is concerned there is a slight distinction viz., the Gang Mazdoors in those cases were appointed initially in the year 1997 by G.O.Ms.No.184 Highways Department, dated 29.5.1997. In G.O.Ms.No.371 Highways Department, dated 19.8.1997 their services were regularised on completion of one year of service with time scale of pay with basic pay of Rs.550/-. The confirmation of probation and regularisation of the employees gives a presumption that the persons appointed are in permanently sanctioned post. 38. In these cases, as stated supra, even though in the G.O issued in G.O.Ms.No.496 dated 20.9.1989 the posts were created under a scheme for providing employment to educated youth in rural areas with honorarium of Rs.200/- per month the said Government Order was cancelled by subsequent order of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.256 dated 13.7.1991 and the said order was not challenged by MNP. It is also relevant to note that though G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 24.2.1997 was issued to implement MNP scheme in the year 1996-1997 and permission was granted to appoint erstwhile MNP, and the appointment was ordered to be given on contract basis for one year period with honorarium of Rs.500/-per month. Though the said period was extended and continued upto 31.5.2001, the posts were not sanctioned permanently and G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 24.2.1997 was again cancelled by the Government through G.O.Ms.NO.149 dated 1.6.2001. The said order was also allowed to become final. Though the said period was extended and continued upto 31.5.2001, the posts were not sanctioned permanently and G.O.Ms.No.50 dated 24.2.1997 was again cancelled by the Government through G.O.Ms.NO.149 dated 1.6.2001. The said order was also allowed to become final. 12,618 posts of MNP were again created through G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 12.6.2006 and the posts created were ordered to be treated as part-time, though honorarium was increased to Rs.750+50 as travelling allowance. In the said order it is stated that the MNP post may be given rebirth which means, posts were created afresh. The aid G.O also restricted the period for which posts were created ie., for one year, which was subsequently extended for one more year from 1.6.2007 to 31.5.2008 by G.O.Ms.No.415 dated 31.7.2007, which was extended for further period of two years from 1.6.2008 to 31.5.2010 through G.O.Ms.No.683 dated 17.9.2008. Finally by G.O.Ms.No.255 dated 21.5.2010 sanction was accorded for continuance of the post for further period of two years from 1.6.2010 to 31.5.2012. In the meanwhile, scale of pay was ordered to MNP, which is not in dispute. 39. The fact remains that the successive Governments which were in Office from 1996 to 2001 and 2006 to 2011 also failed to create/sanction permanent posts in the cadre of MNP. Permanent post having not been sanctioned, even though induction of MNP into their service in the year 1989 is valid, due to non-availability of permanent posts, MNP are not entitled to seek regularisation. It is a well settled principle of law that for seeking regularisation of service, there must be a sanctioned post. It is the contention of the State Government that even the post created upto 31.5.2012 could be abolished which we have already held that the same is an arbitrary decision and set aside the said GO. It is an admitted fact that on or after 1.6.2012, no post is available to accommodate the MNP and this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the State Government to create posts. 40. Hence the claim of MNP seeking regularisation of their services on restoration by the order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and the said prayer is rejected as restoration could be only upto 31.5.2012. Issue No.3: Whether MNP are entitled to restoration in service/absorbed in any other post on facts ? 41. 40. Hence the claim of MNP seeking regularisation of their services on restoration by the order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and the said prayer is rejected as restoration could be only upto 31.5.2012. Issue No.3: Whether MNP are entitled to restoration in service/absorbed in any other post on facts ? 41. Some of the learned Counsels appearing for MNP as well as the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the Associations finally submitted that the MNP having been inducted legally in Government Service, even though through a scheme with monthly honorarium, and they having been allowed to serve for 11 years out of the total 22 years and the policy of the Government while introducing the scheme was to provide employment to educated youth in rural areas, and the unemployment of the educated youth is on the higher side even as on date, and considering the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court, and this Court as in several similar/identical circumstances, this Court may mould the relief by giving appropriate directions to accommodate MNP numbering about 12,618, particularly when about 379 persons initially employed as MNP were absorbed in Village Panchayat as OA/Night Watchman and there cannot be any discrimination in treating similarly placed persons by complying with the right guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, that is to treat the similarly placed persons equally even in employment. Learned counsels submitted that the Government may be directed to accommodate the MNP either by creation of posts as the duties and responsibilities assigned to MNP are not fulfilled, and the said duties are required to be performed even now with more vigor due to increase in liquor sale. 42. When such a submission was made on behalf of the MNP this Court requested the learned Advocate General who argued on behalf of the State Government to get instructions as to whether erstwhile MNP can be accommodated in some form or other and to get instructions. In spite of granting time till this date no response was received from the State Government through the Advocate General. Therefore this Court is of the view that it is imperative on the part of this Court to consider this issue. 43. In spite of granting time till this date no response was received from the State Government through the Advocate General. Therefore this Court is of the view that it is imperative on the part of this Court to consider this issue. 43. A question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1982) 2 SCC 273 (K.Rajendran v. State of tamil Nadu) as to whether the Act passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislature (Tamil Nadu Act 3 of 1981) regarding the validity of abolition of the post of Part-time Village Officers in the State. In the said judgment the Honourable Supreme Court held that creation or abolition of posts, though is the prerogative of the Government, it is always subject to judicial review. In the said case, on the suggestion made by the Supreme Court the learned Advocate General at that time filed a memorandum to grant relief to the persons affected by the abolition of the post of Part-time Village Officers. In paragraphs 45 to 52 can be usefully quoted to decide the cases on hand, which are extracted hereunder: "45. In the course of the hearing on a suggestion made by the Court, the learned Attorney-General filed a memorandum which reads as follows: “All the erstwhile Village Officers who possess the minimum general educational qualification as required under the Abolition Act and irrespective of their age (but subject to the rule of retirement framed under the Abolition Act and the rules framed thereunder) will be screened by a Committee to be appointed by the Government. They need not make any application and they need not also appear for any test conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Village Administrative Officer. Guidelines to the Committee will be as follows: (1) Punishment (2) Physical condition All the persons selected by the Committee will be appointed by the competent authorities and relaxation in respect of age will be given. They will be new appointees under the Abolition Act and will be governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Compensation will not be available to those who are so appointed. The remaining vacancies will be filled up from among the candidates already selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 46. They will be new appointees under the Abolition Act and will be governed by the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Compensation will not be available to those who are so appointed. The remaining vacancies will be filled up from among the candidates already selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 46. After the above petitions were filed under the interim orders passed in these cases all the officials involved in these cases are being paid the honorarium by the State Government. Those who fail in these petitions would have become liable to repay the amount which they have thus drawn in excess of the compensation, if any, they may be entitled to. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu that the State Government will not take steps to recover such excess amount. The above statement is recorded. 47. The attitude displayed by the State Government in filing the memorandum referred to above and in making a statement to the effect that the amount paid pursuant to the interim orders in excess of the compensation payable to the village officials concerned will not be recovered is a highly commendable one and we record our deep appreciation for the laudable stand taken by the Government. 48. It was, however, strenuously urged by Shri R.K. Garg that those who have to vacate the posts would be without any work and some of them have large families and that compensation, if any, payable to them is very inadequate. He urged that it was the duty of the State Government to make adequate provision pursuant to Article 38 and Article 43 of the Constitution. These Articles are in Part IV of the Constitution. They are not enforceable by the courts but they are still fundamental in the governance of the country. 49. The nature of the relationship that exists or ought to exist between the Government and the people in India is different from the relationship between the ruler and his subjects in the West. A study of the history of the fight for liberty that has been going on in the West shows that it has been a continuous agitation of the subjects for more and more freedom from a king or the ruler who had once acquired complete control over the destinies of his subjects. A study of the history of the fight for liberty that has been going on in the West shows that it has been a continuous agitation of the subjects for more and more freedom from a king or the ruler who had once acquired complete control over the destinies of his subjects. The Indian tradition or history is entirely different. The attitude of an Indian ruler is depicted in the statement of Sri Rama in the Balmiki Ramayana thus: “............................... (Balmiki Ramayana, III-10-3) [Kshatriyas (the kings) bear the bow (wield the power) in order to see that there is no cry of distress (from any quarter).] 50. The duty of the administrator, therefore, is that he should promptly take all necessary steps to alleviate the sufferings of the people even without being asked to do so. While attending to his duties an administrator should always remember the great saying of the Tamil saint Tiruvalluvar: “* * * Do nought that soul repenting must deplore, If thou hast sinned, “its well if thou dost sin no more”.” [Let a minister never do acts of which he would have to grieve saying, “what is this I have done”, (but) should he do (them), it were good that he grieved not.]. [No. 655 in Tirukkural: Translation by Rev. Dr G.U. Pope and others (Reprint 1970), p. 175] 51. An administrators actions should be such as he is not driven to repent for the mistakes he may have committed. But if he has committed any mistakes in the past he should try to avoid a repetition of such mistakes. It is significant that in Tamil language the equivalent of the word ‘people’ is ‘Makkal’ which is also sometimes used as the equivalent of ‘children’. It is for the State Government to consider what can be done to those who fail in the petitions. This observation is made particularly in regard to those who were recruited after December 16, 1970 under the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in view of the fact that their recruitment was not made on the hereditary principle. Those who have passed S.S.L.C. Examination amongst them come within the scope of the statement made by the learned Attorney General. Those who have passed S.S.L.C. Examination amongst them come within the scope of the statement made by the learned Attorney General. But those who have merely completed S.S.L.C. Examination but not passed it fall outside the scope of that statement even though they have gained experience while they were in office. We hope and trust that the State Government will look into this matter purely from a humanitarian point of view. This is only a suggestion and not a direction. 52. In the result the petitions are dismissed subject to the following: “(i) The State Government will give effect to the memorandum filed on its behalf which is incorporated in this judgment in the case of those who possess the minimum general qualifications prescribed under the Act and the Rules made thereunder and who were holding the posts of part-time Village Officers immediately before the Act came into force. The State Government shall reemploy all such persons who have not crossed the age of superannuation and who are selected as per the memorandum in the new cadre within four months from today. Until they are so selected, they will not be paid any remuneration. Even if they are reemployed, the amount paid to them pursuant to the interim orders will not be recovered from them. (ii) The compensation, if any, payable by the State Government under Section 5 of the Act to those who cease to be Village Officers shall be adjusted against the amount paid pursuant to the interim orders passed in these cases. The State Government will not recover from them any amount paid to them pursuant to the interim orders passed in these cases in excess of the compensation, if any, payable to them. (iii) The interim orders stand vacated with effect from April 15, 1982.” (iv) No costs." (Emphasis Supplied) On a perusal of the above judgment of the Supreme Court it is evident that even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the Act passed by the Legislative Assembly of the State in abolishing the post of Part-time Village Officers, the Honourable Supreme Court was of the view that the affected persons should be granted relief and gave suggestion, which was promptly accepted by the State Government through the learned Advocate General with grace. 44. 44. The Honourable Supreme Court, considered the issue of moulding the relief by exercise of equity jurisdiction in the decision reported in (2014) 6 SCC 537 (K. Madhava Reddy v. State of A.P.) In the said case having regard to the setting aside of the Rule providing interdepartmental transfer by promotion noticing the plight of the persons already promoted based on the Rule, who faced reversion directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to get instruction as to whether the State was ready to create supernumerary posts to accommodate the persons, who were facing reversion after rendering service in the promoted post of Assistant Labour Officers, subsequently promoted as Assistant Labour Commissioner or Deputy Labour Commissioners. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, having refused to accept the suggestion, the Court ordered thus, "22. Suffice it to say that the respondent-State has not expressed its willingness to create supernumerary positions. We have, therefore, no option but to examine the question of invoking the doctrine of prospective overruling on the merits of the case having regard to the facts and circumstances in which the question arises. While doing so we must at the threshold point out that the respondents are not correct in suggesting as though the petitioners had taken any deliberate or calculated risk by opting for promotion outside their cadres. The respondents have while making that assertion ignored the fact that promotions were ordered by the State and not snatched by the petitioners. That apart on the date the promotions were made there was no element of risk nor were the promotions made subject to the determination of any legal controversy as to the entitlement of the incumbents to such promotion. Not only that, the incumbents who had been sent out on promotion as Assistant Labour Officers had subsequently been promoted as Assistant Labour Commissioners or Deputy Labour Commissioners. Such being the position reverting these officers at this distant point of time, to the posts of Senior Stenographers in their parent cadre does not appear to us to be either just, fair or equitable especially when upon reversion the State does not propose to promote them to the higher positions within their zone/cadre because such higher posts are occupied by other officers, most if not all of whom are junior to the petitioners and who may have to be reverted to make room for the petitioners to hold those higher posts. Reversion of the petitioners to their parent cadre is therefore bound to have a cascading effect, prejudicing even those who are not parties before us." (Emphasis Supplied) The said judgment was rendered on the basis of the jurisdiction vested with the Honourable Supreme Court under Articles 136, 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690 : (2013) 3 MLJ 635 (Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar) in paragraphs 16 (in SCC) held thus, "16...... The power of the court to mould the relief, according to the demands of the situation, was never the subject-matter of dispute in those cases. That power is well recognised and is available to a writ court to do complete justice between the parties. ......." The Full Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in AIR 1992 Orissa 261 (Krishna Chandra Pallai v. Union of India) held that the High Court being the Court of plenary jurisdiction, has inherent power to do complete justice between the parties, and the said decision was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 (B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India). 45. In these cases, though a suggestion was made to the State Government by this Court on 2.7.2014, no reply from the State Government through the learned Advocate General is received in spite of granting time upto 25.7.2013 on which date these cases were reserved for orders, or till this date. Hence we are bound to consider the plight of 12,618 MNP as a Court of Justice, Equity and Good Conscious and the said power is available to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as stated supra. It is a settled position of law that if Justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, Justice should be rendered and bearing the said principle in mind number of persons were granted relief in the past. The following may be cited as instances: 1. Absorption of thousands of erstwhile Contract Labourers in TNEB in the lower level posts after being identified by Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission, appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (1995 Supp (3) SCC 164 (T.N. Electricity Employees & Contract Labour Union v. T.N. Electricity Board)). 2. The following may be cited as instances: 1. Absorption of thousands of erstwhile Contract Labourers in TNEB in the lower level posts after being identified by Hon'ble Justice Khalid Commission, appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (1995 Supp (3) SCC 164 (T.N. Electricity Employees & Contract Labour Union v. T.N. Electricity Board)). 2. Absorption of thousands of Plot Watchers in the Forest Department at the instance of this Court through G.O.Ms.No.64 Environment and Forest Department, dated 8.3.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.95 Environment and Forest Department, dated 7.8.2009. 3. Absorption of hundreds of Census Workers at the instances of this Court. 4. Absorption of temporarily appointed persons in various departments of the Government, viz., School Education, PWD, Panchayats, Municipalities, by issuing various Government Orders under Article 162 of the Constitution of India as per G.O.Ms.No.22 P&AR Department dated 29.2.2006 and clarified in G.O.Ms.No.74 P&AR Department dated 27.6.2013. 5. Absorption of persons appointed temporarily in Panchayats by issuing G.O.Ms.No.125 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.5.1999. It is to be observed at this juncture that it is not as if the State Government has not at all regularized the services of temporary employees. The facts narrated in the earlier paragraphs would clearly reveal that the State Government has acted in a most benevolent manner and regularized the services of temporary employees similarly placed like that of private respondents/members of Associations, who remained in service for quite long time and in the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is very much optimistic that the State Government would definitely exhibit the same benevolent attitude by absorbing/accommodating the services of MNPs, who have put in more than a decade of service and performed and discharged the duties to the benefit of the public especially in respect of people residing in rural areas. 46. For moulding the relief and for giving suitable directions in these cases, the following facts are necessarily to be re-stated. The reason behind creation of the scheme in the year 1989-90 was to provide employment to educated youth in the rural areas, namely Village Panchayats. It is not in dispute that employment opportunity to educated youth in rural areas have not improved now, when compared to the year 1989-90 to 2013-14. The reason behind creation of the scheme in the year 1989-90 was to provide employment to educated youth in the rural areas, namely Village Panchayats. It is not in dispute that employment opportunity to educated youth in rural areas have not improved now, when compared to the year 1989-90 to 2013-14. It is an admitted fact that more than 95 lakhs educated persons are waiting for employment in the State as per the information announced by the concerned Minister in the State Government on the floor of the House (Assembly) during Budged discussion 2014. Thus, the necessity to continue the posts of MNP, cannot be disputed by the State Government as unemployment among educated persons in 2013-14 is more than the persons waited for employment in the year 1989-90. Though 25,239 persons were initially appointed, about 12,618 alone were ordered to be re-appointed in the year 2001. Even among the 12,618, some of them were appointed/absorbed as Office Assistant/Night Watchmen in Village Panchayats as stated supra. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that a group of erstwhile MNP were able to get absorption in Village Panchayat service either as Office Assistant or Night Watchman and others were denied the said chance, even though they are similarly placed. It is well settled proposition of law that eqully placed persons are to be treated equally and the following decisions can be cited on this aspect: (i) In Premchand Somchand Shah vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 2 SCC 48 in paragraph 8 it is held thus: “8. As regards the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 the position is well settled that the said right ensures equality amongst equals and its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. It means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Conversely discrimination may result if persons dissimilarly situate are treated equally. Even amongst persons similarly situate differential treatment would be permissible between one class and the other. In that event it is necessary that the differential treatment should be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In that event it is necessary that the differential treatment should be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. (ii) In Radhy Sham vs. State of U.P., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 552, it is held that policy of pick and choose in some parcel of the land and leaving many other parcels of the land under the Land Acquisition Act is discriminatory and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iii) In Sham Lal vs. State of Punjab reported in 2013 (10) Scale 67, the aforesaid position is reiterated in this case. (iv) In State of U.P., vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty reported in (2013) 7 SCC 595 , it is held that there cannot be any discrimination in treating equally placed persons on same footing for all purposes. The above decisions were followed by the Division Bench, of which one of us (N.Paul Vasanthakumar,J.) is a member in the decision in the case of Union of India & Anr., vs. S.Subramani reported in 2013 WLR L.R., 1010. 47. The object of employing MNP as stated earlier are to discharge the duties and responsibilities assigned to them. The primary duty of the MNP were to promote adult education, non-formal education; to act as guide in Rural sanitation, for female MNP maternity and child health services, promote small savings by propagating that agents will get commission, creating awareness among people by promoting anti-liquor campaign. 48. Propagating the evils of liquor is a constitutional obligation on the part of the State Government under Article 47 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows: "47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.” The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health. In compliance with the said constitutional duty cast upon the State, MNP posts were created and appointed to promote anti-liquor campaign. In compliance with the said constitutional duty cast upon the State, MNP posts were created and appointed to promote anti-liquor campaign. It cannot be pleaded by the State that it has achieved prohibition, as the State in policy level has not implemented prohibition and through its agency (TASMAC) it is selling liquor by framing Rules. Rule 10(5) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 contemplates propagation of evils of consumption of liquor. The said rule reads thus, "10(5) Every shop shall have a signboard in Tamil in front of the shop showing the number of the shop and details regarding authorisation issued by the Corporation for the shop, the price of liquor in different sizes of bottles sold in the shop shall also be displayed. There shall also be displayed on the signboard the following slogans in bold letters about the evils of drinking and such other slogans as may be approved by the Commissioner. "kJ-ehl;Lf;F. tPl;Lf;F. capUf;F nfL" "Liquor - ruins country, family and life"." Liquor ruins the life of a person, who consumes it, which is medically proved. People consuming liquor are spending their huge income to buy liquor, which was intended for the use of himself, wife and children as well as dependants. Many accidents are occurring due to drunken driving. Crime against women is happening due to drunkenness. People in the locality, i.e, near TASMAC shops/Bars are not able to move freely and women and children are put to embarrassment by persons, who consume liquor. Thus, drunken person's family and Society are affected, though the Government is getting highest revenue through liquor sale/trade. Hence, propagating the evils of liquor is mandatory to inform and educate people from the childhood. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1978) 3 SCC 558 (P.N. Kaushal v. Union of India.) explained how the liquor trade is affecting the health of the public. In paragraph 49 the Supreme Court held thus, "...... The trade is instinct with injury to individual and community and has serious side-effects recognized everywhere in every age. Not to control alcohol business is to abdicate the right to rule for the good of the people. ....." 49. In paragraph 49 the Supreme Court held thus, "...... The trade is instinct with injury to individual and community and has serious side-effects recognized everywhere in every age. Not to control alcohol business is to abdicate the right to rule for the good of the people. ....." 49. Whether the said constitutional mandate to enforce prohibition and the statutory duty viz., propagating the evils of drinking is effectively made in the State or not can be verified from the following facts and figures of liquor sale year-wise. Annual Revenue of TASMAC Fiscal Year Revenue in Crores % change 2002-03 2,828.09 - 2003-04 3,639 ^28.67% 2004-05 4,872 ^33.88% 2005-06 6,086.95 ^24.94% 2006-07 7,300 ^19.93% 2007-08 8.822 ^20.85% 2008-09 10,601.5 ^20.17% 2009-10 12,491 ^17.82% 2010-11 14,965.42 ^19.80% 2011-12 18,081.16 ^20.82% 2012-13 21,680.67 ^19.91% 2013-14 21,641.00 ...... For the year 2014-15, with an object of getting about Rs.2,000 Crores more revenue, the proposal to increase the price and tax of liquor was approved by the State Legislature on the last day of its business and at any time the price increase may be implemented. Different brand of liquor is manufactured and stored in 41 depots and totally more than 29,000 persons are employed in connection with liquor trade (wholesale and retail). Through the liquor trade, the Government of Tamil Nadu is earning more revenue than any other source. Increase of sale year after year establishes an undisputed fact about the increase of consumption of liquor among the people reside in Villages/Towns/Cities. 50. It is also relevant to note at this juncture that even though more than Rs.21,600 crores have been earned by the State Government through liquor sale from 2011, only a paltry sum of Rs.1 crores is spent for propagating the evils of consumption of liquor, which is roughly about 0.004% of income earned from liquor sale. Thus, it is very clear that propagating anti-liquor campaign is not effective in the State, which has to be carried out with more vigor for which manpower is absolutely necessary, especially in rural areas among the poor, illiterate, women, students, who are not aware of the evils of consumption of liquor. The said duty is cast not only under the constitutional provision, but also a statutory duty as per Rule 10(5) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. 51. The said duty is cast not only under the constitutional provision, but also a statutory duty as per Rule 10(5) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. 51. It is also not in dispute that State Government has announced several policy decision viz., opening of Subsidised rate Hotels (Unavagangal), Medical Shops, Seed Farms, Sale of bottled water, Salt, Provision Stores, Vegetable vending, etc., under the name and style of "Amma Schemes" in different heads by making budgetary allocations to the tune of thousands of crores, and for implementing the new schemes additional manpower is definitely required. It is also to be noted that more or less 3 lakhs persons are employed in the State Government and in its Undertakings and various posts including the cadre of Office Assistants, Watchmen, and number of such lower level posts are vacant in Government Schools, Village Panchayats, town Panchayats, Municipalities, Corporations, Village Offices, Taluk Offices and Collector Offices and in various other Government Offices and Undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. Hence, it may not be difficult for the State Government to accommodate MNP, who are yet to be given regular appointment in vacant posts, as it was given to about 379 persons, who were absorbed as Office Assistants and Nightwatchmen in Village Panchayats. This aspect is bound to be considered by the State Government and the same is possible, particularly when MNP were inducted into the service strictly following the constitutional provisions viz. Art.14 and 16, viz., calling for application through paper advertisement and selected by duly constituted Selection Committee, provided Training, fixation of time scale of pay, etc. Hence, we are inclined to issue the following directions in respect of Issue No.3: (i) The state Government is directed to consider creation of posts either in the name of MNP or in any other name to propagate the evils of consumption of liquor as contemplated under Article 47 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 10(5) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 for accommodating MNP. (ii) If the same is not possible on any account, the State Government shall accommodate the persons who were on the rolls of MNP on the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 8.11.2011 in any one of the vacant post in Government Schools, Village Panchayats, town Panchayats, Municipalities, Corporations, Village Offices, Taluk Offices and Collector Offices and in various other Government Offices and Undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, or in any post as may be created for implementing the new schemes introduced in 2014-2015 Budget and accommodate the MNP, according to the qualification possessed by each candidate, without reference to age in their native Taluk or Revenue District. (iii) The said exercise shall be commenced immediately and completed on or before 31.10.2014. (iv) If any one of the MNP who could not be accommodated within the said period as stated supra, though they are eligible to be accommodated, the State Government shall pay last drawn salary, which they have lastly received, from 1.11.2014 till they are accommodated in any of the vacant or newly created post. 52. In fine, we sum up our decision as follows: (i) Issue No.1 viz., Whether the G.O.Ms.No.86 Rural Development Department, dated 8.11.2011 which was quashed by the learned single Judge is justified, is answered against the State Government, except the finding in respect of mala fide. (ii) Issue No.2 viz., Whether the MNP are entitled to seek regularisation based on their services rendered, is answered against the writ petitioners/MNP as restoration could only be upto 31.5.2012. (iii) Issue No.3 viz., Whether MNP are entitled to restoration in their service/absorbed in any other posts on facts, is answered in favour of MNP as per the directions given in para 51(i) to (iv) above. (iv) The writ appeals filed by the State Government are dismissed, except the finding of the learned single Judge regarding mala fide. (v) The writ petitions filed by the Sangam/individuals are disposed of as per the answer given to Issue No.3. (vi) There is no order as to costs. (vii) Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.