JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed to quash the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 16.03.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioner to appoint him in the Supernumerary post of Plot Watcher and for a direction to the respondents to regularise his services as Forest Watcher from the date on which his immediate junior was extended with such benefits, both service and monetary. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Watcher on daily wages in 1981 and based on the said employment, a State-wide seniority list was prepared and Sl.No.1460 was assigned to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of the said seniority list, he is entitled to be regularised in service. He made a representation stating that his juniors were regularised and, therefore, his case may also be considered. Since the representation was not disposed of, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.33692 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.11.2003, with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on the said representation within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Thereafter, by order dated 10.01.2006, the petitioner's claim was rejected. Challenging the said order dated 10.01.2006, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.19189 of 2006, wherein he also sought a direction that his service should be regularised as Forest Watcher from the date on which his immediate junior was given such benefits, including monetary benefits. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the said writ petition that though the respondents would contend in their counter affidavit that the petitioner's name was inadvertently included in the seniority list dated 30.06.1995, it is not disputed that there is a record to show that even on 27.11.2003, his name was included in the list of Plot Watchers and Village Social Forestry Workers, who were regularised as regular Watchers in the existing vacancy, wherein the petitioner's name finds place in Sl.No.3 and, therefore, at least subsequent to such date, his case could be considered for regularisation, by applying the principles laid down in G.O.Ms.No.95, Environment and Forests (FR2) Department, dated 07.08.2009. However, this Court, by order dated 10.12.2011, while declining the relief sought by the petitioner, granted liberty to him to submit a representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, to the Divisional Forest Officer, Afforestation Division, Thiruvannamalai, 3rd respondent herein, enclosing all the relevant documents in support of his stand that he is working continuously from 1998, and on verifying the genuineness of the claim, 3rd respondent's comments were directed to be forwarded to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent, within a period of four weeks and on receipt of such proposal, the 1st respondent was directed to take a decision, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and while doing so, the 1st respondent was directed to take into account G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 07.08.2009. Pursuant to the said order, by the impugned order dated 16.03.2012, on the ground that though the petitioner's name finds place in the State wide seniority list under Sl.No.1460, since he is not working from 01.04.2002, his claim of for appointment in the Supernumerary post of Plot Watcher as per G.O.Ms.No.95, E & F Department, dated 07.08.2009 was rejected. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.No.19189 of 2006 and contended that the rejection order is not in conformity with the order dated 10.12.2011 passed in W.P.No.19189 of 2006, as G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 07.08.2009 has not been considered by the respondents. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents would have taken into account the similarly situated persons who were regularised, after taking into account, 10 years of total service and the petitioner should have been appointed, but, the respondents failed to adhere to the directions given in the said G.O., which resulted in arbitrary exercise of power and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Apart from this, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the said G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 07.08.2009, since the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service, his services ought to have been regularised. 4. Apart from this, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the said G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 07.08.2009, since the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service, his services ought to have been regularised. That apart, according to him, since the petitioner was discharging his duties from 1981 to 1986 and thereafter from 1998 onwards, rejection of the petitioner's claim, reveals total non application of mind on the part of the respondents, since in the proceedings of the authority dated 27.11.2003, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.3 in the post of Forest Watcher with the State-wide seniority list in 2003 at Sl.No.1460. 5. Besides, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has contended that the petitioner has been working for more than 10 years between 1981 and 1986 and from 1988 to 2003 and even though there is a specific provision for creation of supernumerary posts, this has not been actually done by the respondents, hence, their action is bad in law. Further, according to him, there is total non application of mind on the part of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that he has failed to discharge his duties between 1981 and 1986, when the fact remains that by proceedings dated 27.11.2003, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.3 in the post of Forest Watcher with State wide seniority at Sl.No.1460, and further juniors to the petitioner being continued in the said post would amount to discrimination and the said action would amount to arbitrariness. 6. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by proceedings dated 24.02.2005, similarly situated persons were re-allotted to other circles and came to be appointed as Forest Watchers and continued as on date and when that being the position, and when the authority has chosen to intimate by proceedings dated 27.11.2003 with reference to G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 8.3.1999 and that of the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.8191 of 1999, wherein the petitioner's name finds place at Sl.No.3 with a specific mention "Present working Division AF, Thiruvannamalai", the reasoning given by the respondents that the petitioner's appointment was irregular on or after 31.12.1986 is without any basis. Based on the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 16.03.2012 and for the consequential relief. 7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents by placing reliance on the detailed counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent on behalf of the 1st respondent also, has contended that in the counter it is stated that in order to absorb the Plot Watchers and Village Social Forestry Workers from among those working at that time and from those sent to DRDA in the regular posts of Forest Watchers and Mails, the Government ordered preparation of state seniority list covering all the aforesaid workers by G.O.Ms.No.64, E & F Department, dated 08.03.1999 and in the seniority list prepared, the petitioner's name found place under Sl.No.1460. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests by order dated 27.11.2003 issued orders to absorb certain Plot Watchers and Village Social Forestry Workers as regular Watchers in the existing vacancies and in this reference also, the petitioner's name found place under Sl.No.3 and he has also given a specific instruction to serve the orders only to those who are working at that time. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that though the respondents had admitted that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent Department on 01.09.1991, they have stated that the petitioner was stopped from duty from 01.01.1987 to 30.04.1998. He further contended that pursuant to the orders dated 18.03.2004 made in W.P.No.33692 of 2005 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks, a communication was sent to the writ petitioner, who also filed W.P.No.19189 of 2006 and an order was passed on 10.12.2011 and he has also filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.11543 of 2012. Relying on page 3 of the counter affidavit, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that there was no selection to absorb Plot Watchers as Forest Watchers and the absorption was made based on the seniority list and the petitioner was allotted seniority No.1460. However, the petitioner was absented himself from duty between 01.01.1987 and 30.04.1998. Since the petitioner has not put in continuous service, his name could not be recommended for inclusion in the said seniority list. However, the petitioner was absented himself from duty between 01.01.1987 and 30.04.1998. Since the petitioner has not put in continuous service, his name could not be recommended for inclusion in the said seniority list. Inadvertently, he has been assigned a rank in the seniority list, but actually, he is not entitled for the said seniority number. Further, he contended that it is stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit that in the writ petition in W.P.No.19189 of 2006, this Court had passed an order directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, taking into account G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 07.08.2009. The 1st respondent has passed a speaking order dated 16.03.2012 stating that as per G.O.Ms.No.95, the Government directed to regularise the services of Plot Watchers and Village Social Forestry Workers, whose names are found in the said seniority list of Plot Watchers and Village Social Forestry Workers prepared as per G.O.Ms.No.64 dated 08.03.1999 and working for more than 10 years and even though the petitioner's name finds a place in the State-wide Seniority list, under Sl.No.1460, he has not worked from 01.04.2002 and hence he is not entitled for appointment in the supernumerary post of Plot Watcher, as per G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 07.08.2009 and hence the petitioners request for appointment in the supernumerary post cannot be considered and in any event the prayer itself cannot be granted as it is misconceived and the impugned order is perfectly in order. Based on these, the learned Government Pleader has sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and I have gone through the materials available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working from 01.09.1981 to 31.12.1986 and thereafter from 01.05.1998 to 31.03.2002. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has not been working from 01.04.2002. In the impugned order, in paragraph NO.4 it is stated as follows:- "4. The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.95 E & F Department dated 7.8.2009 to regularize the services of the Plot Watchers/Village Social Forestry Workers whose names are found in the Statewide Seniority List of Plot Watcher/Village Social Forestry Workers prepared as per G.O.(Ms)No.64 E & F Department dated 8.3.99 and working for more than 10 years of service. The Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.95 E & F Department dated 7.8.2009 to regularize the services of the Plot Watchers/Village Social Forestry Workers whose names are found in the Statewide Seniority List of Plot Watcher/Village Social Forestry Workers prepared as per G.O.(Ms)No.64 E & F Department dated 8.3.99 and working for more than 10 years of service. Though the name of the petitioner Thiru.P.Saminathan find place in the statewide Seniority list under Sl.No.1460, he is not working from 01.04.2002. Hence, he is not entitled for appointment in the Supernumerary post of Plot Watcher as per G.O.Ms.No.95, E & F Department dated 7.8.2009". 10. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of G.O.Ms.No.95 E & F Department dated 07.08.2009 and the same are extracted below:- "5. In order to remove the difficulties in this subject matter and keeping in view of the long pending demands of the Plot Watchers and Village Social Forestry workers who are suffering without getting any benefit of a regular permanent job even after working for several years on daily wage basis, the Government examined the proposals of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests actively and carefully. Based on this, on Chief Conservator of Forests actively and carefully. Based on this, on 17.7.2009 when the budget demand of the Department of Environment and Forests for the year 2009-2010 was presented to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the Hon'ble Minister for Forests announced in the Assembly that those remaining 3058 Plot Watchers/Village Social Forestry Workers included in the state wide seniority list and who are working on daily wage basis for more than 10 years will be appointed in a new post of "Plot Watchers" carrying a special pay scale of Rs.2500-5000 with Grade pay Rs.500/- per month and their services will be regularized. 6. Accordingly the Government hereby order that, out of the remaining 3058 persons available in the statewide seniority list, those who have rendered a service of more than 10 years, be appointed as Plot Watchers in the supernumerary post created with a special scale of pay of Rs.2500-5000 with grade pay of Rs.500 and their services be regularized from the date of issue of this order. 11. 11. From a reading of the above extracted portion, it is clear that nowhere in the G.O. it has been mentioned that a person should be employed continuously for a period of 10 years. The reason given in the impugned order that the petitioner cannot be appointed as a Plot Watcher since he has not worked from 01.04.2002 cannot be justified as G.O.Ms.No.95, E & F Department, has not fixed any cut off date and no direction has been given that the said G.O. will be followed only for a particular period. What is stated in paragraph No.8 of the said G.O. is as follows:- "8. The present practice of absorbing them as Forest Watchers, Mali, Office Assistants, Office Watchman, Bungalow Watchman and Drivers on the basis of their eligibility and seniority in the State Wide Seniority List in the posts remaining vacant at present and in future vacancies have to be followed in future also. The vacant posts should not be filled up by any other methods. All the newly created supernumerary posts will automatically cease to exist as and when those in service are promoted, retired or leave the posts for other reasons." 12. The respondents have admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has joined the service on 01.09.1981and he stopped from service on his own from 01.01.1987 to 30.04.1998 and thereafter, he re-joined duty on 01.05.1998 and did not attend work on his own from 01.04.2002. The petitioner in his representation dated 18.03.2004 has clearly admitted in paragraph No.1 that he has not completed 10 years of service, even though there is an averment in ground No.(D) that he was employed between 1981 and 1986 and between 1988 and 2003. Since the petitioner has put in only 9 years and 3 months of service, he has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.95, E & F Department, dated 07.08.2009. Further, in the said G.O., it is stated that remaining 3058 Plot Watchers/Village Social Forestry Workers included in the state wide seniority list and who are working on daily wage basis for more than 10 years will be appointed in a new post of "Plot Watchers" carrying a special pay scale of Rs.2500-5000 with Grade pay Rs.500/- per month and their services will be regularized. When that being the position, even though continuous service is not required, the petitioner has not put in 10 years of service even by taking into account the break in service. Hence, the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner to appoint him in supernumerary post of Plot Watcher is perfectly justified. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.