ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the orders passed by the 1st respondent in No.M-3/7/2008-Estt.10747 dated 02.04.2012, in and by which the petitioner was terminated from service as also the order of the 3rd respondent in No.M-3/7/2008-Estt./D.802 dated 30.04.2012, vide which, the petitioner was directed to hand over the photo identity card, medical identity card and other instruments given to him. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in the post of Pilot Officer in V.O.Chidambarnar Port Trust, Tuticorin with consequential benefits, including continuity of service, back wages and all other consequential and monetary benefits. 2. The case put forth by the petitioner in the writ petition is as follows: i) The petitioner has submitted that after completion of his school studies, he underwent pre-sea training course in Bombay Institute of Advanced Maritime Studies approved by the Directorate General of Shipping. Thereafter, he underwent training-on-board in ships for nearly 31 months as in the rank of Deck Cadet (Trainee Officer). Subsequently, he obtained his Second Mate Certificate of competency by studying in Singapore Polytechnic College at Singapore and the same is recognized and approved by Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, which issued him a license. He also served training-on-board in the rank of 3rd officer, 2nd officer in ships for several months. ii) The petitioner has further submitted that he has completed Advanced Diploma in Maritime Transportation from Singapore Polytechnic College at Singapore and the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore had issued Chief Officer's license and Captain License, i.e., Master Mariner (Deck Officer Class-I) License in his favour and also Deck Officer- Class I in 2003. Apart from Maritime studies, he has also completed B.A. in Sociology as well as Master of Human Resource Management course from Annamalai University, besides completing MBA course in Shipping and Porrt Management from Karaikudi Alagappa University. iii) The petitioner has also submitted that he is in possession of additional degree in M.S.(Psychotherapy and Counseling) as well as M.Sc., (Psychotherapy and Counseling) obtained from the Institute of Psychotherapy and Counseling at Mumbai. iii) The petitioner has also submitted that he is in possession of additional degree in M.S.(Psychotherapy and Counseling) as well as M.Sc., (Psychotherapy and Counseling) obtained from the Institute of Psychotherapy and Counseling at Mumbai. It is stated that he is a full member of the Institute of Chartered Ship Brokers in United Kingdom and that he also obtained certifications in Advanced Tanker safety, Advanced chemical Tanker Safety and Advanced Gas Tanker Safety and thus, he is qualified and certified to sail any vessel as a master. It is also stated that he was serving in several merchant navy vessels as a master. iv) The submission of the petitioner is that pursuant to an advertisement by the Tuticorin Port calling for applications for appointment to the post of Pilot Officer, he applied to the said post on 12.02.2008, which is an approved sanctioned post provided in the schedule as formed under Section 23 of Major Port Trusts Act, specifically provided in the schedule of board staff prepared and approved by Central Government for Tuticorin Port now called as V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust. Inver view was conducted on 19.03.2008 and he came out successful in the interview. v) It is the submission of the petitioner that by proceedings dated 08.04.2008 in No.S4/10/2007/E-I/D-1112, the 1st respondent appointed him to the post of Pilot in Tuticorin Port in the pay scale of Rs. 14,500-350-18,700 and that he was placed on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining duty, pursuant to which, he joined duty on 11.04.2008. However, the Port authorities had their own doubts about the eligibility of the Certifications and licenses issued in his favour by Singapore Maritime and Port Authorities. vi) The petitioner has submitted that in the meantime, on 02.04.2012, I was issued with a notice of termination stating that he is likely to be terminated under Regulation 5(1)(a)(b) of Tuticorin Port Employees (Temporary Service Regulation of 1979) and the said notice was received by him under protest with a specific endorsement to that effect. The appeal preferred against such notice to Chairman on 21.04.2012 has not been considered till date. Subsequently, by an order dated 30.04.2012, the petitioner was terminated from service, which order was also received by the petitioner on 02.05.2012 by specifically referring to the inapplicability of the regulation and also the pendency of his appeal to the Chairman. The appeal preferred against such notice to Chairman on 21.04.2012 has not been considered till date. Subsequently, by an order dated 30.04.2012, the petitioner was terminated from service, which order was also received by the petitioner on 02.05.2012 by specifically referring to the inapplicability of the regulation and also the pendency of his appeal to the Chairman. However, based on the impugned order, he was discharged from duty. vii) The petitioner has assailed the impugned order stating that the impugned order is illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary and passed in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was treated as a temporary employee and a combined reading of the Tuticorin Port Employees (Temporary Service) Regulation of 1979 and Tuticorin Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations of 1979 and the statutes made thereunder reveals that his appointment to the regular establishment is against an approved sanctioned post and at no stretch of imagination, it can be termed as temporary and that he was employed only as a permanent employee. He has stated that the services of pilots are governed under the Tuticorin Port (Authorization of Pilots) Regulations of 1979 and having satisfied with his qualification and eligibility, he was appointed to the said post and after utilizing his services for the past 4 years, the act of the respondents in terminating his services cannot be sustained. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned orders of the respondents. 3. The respondents have filed a counter, wherein it has been stated as under: i) It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Pilor Offficer on 08.04.2008, subject to the condition in 2(ii) that the appointment is temporary, but is likely to continue indefinitely with further condition that he should qualify in the examination for issue of Pilor licence to perform the duties of Pilot in V.O.Chidambarnar Port Trust as per Tuticorin Port (Authorization of Pilots) Regulations, 1979. Since he was not issued with a licence by the Ministry of Shipping for piloting the vessels stating that the Certificate of Competency issued by the Port Authority of Singapore is not a valid document for issuing Pilotage Licence in India, he was not allowed to do the pilotage work as a Pilot Officer. Since he was not issued with a licence by the Ministry of Shipping for piloting the vessels stating that the Certificate of Competency issued by the Port Authority of Singapore is not a valid document for issuing Pilotage Licence in India, he was not allowed to do the pilotage work as a Pilot Officer. According to the recruitment rules for the post of Pilot as notified by the Government in the Official Gazette dated 21.08.2008, one should possess a Certificate of Competency as Master of Foreign Going Ship issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India or its equivalent qualification, recognized by the Ministry of Shipping with one year post qualification experience as Master/Chief Officer of a Foreign Going Ship, which is the prescribed essential qualification. Apart from the above, the certificate of competency issued by Board of Trade, U.K. or any other Commonwealth country with three years experience as Chief Officer at a Foreign Going Ship has also been prescribed as essential qualification. ii) It is further stated that since the petitioner is in possession of Certificate of Competency as Deck Officer Class-I (Master Mariner) issued by the Maritime Authority of Singapore, a clarification was sought from the Directorate General of Shipping, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Mumbai, regarding the validity of the certificate possessed by him. After prolonged correspondence, the Directorate General of Shipping, Mumbai, vide their fax message dated 07.08.2008, intimated that Singapore Certificate is not accepted by Indian Administration under Regulation 1/10 of STCW 95. The concerned Ministry was also approached to issue Pilotage Licence in respect of the petitioner with the approval of the Board, which in turn requested the Port authorities to clarify the position as to whether the Certificate of Competency as Master (FG) issued by Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, possessed by the petitioner is a valid qualification for undertaking pilotage duties at Tuticoron Port. Based on the direction of the Ministry, the matter was once again taken up with DG (Shipping), Mumbai for further clarification on 19.02.2011 and email dated 14.03.2011, in response to which, the Deputy Nautical Adviser, DG Shipping in his email message dated 15.03.2011, has clarified the position as follows: “i) Singapore is a white list country with IMO which means that it has been recognised by IMO to have given full compliance to STCW Convention 1978 (as amended); ii) Certificate of Competency as Deck Officer Class I (Master Mariners) issued by Maritime & Port Authority of Singapore is not recognised under the provisions of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (as amended) as well as STCW 78/95.” Due to the delay in clarification and further clarification sought from the Ministry of Shipping, his services were continued till 01.05.2012, but however, his services were not utilised for the purpose of piloting the vessels in the Port independently from the date of his joining the Trust. iii) The stand taken in the counter is that though the petitioner had submitted an appeal to the Chairman, the same was not entertained by the competent authority, as he had not brought out any facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the termination of the petitioner is based on clarification of the Deputy Nautical Adviser dated 15.03.2011 that he does not come under the norms of appointment to the particular post. It is stated that just because a person was allowed to continue in service without noticing the illegality by the employer, it will not give the employee a permanent status, as certain norms have been fixed by the Central Government and the Port is also bound by Section 111 of the Major Port Trust Act. It is further stated that the petitioner has drawn a salary of Rs.70,000/- illegally till the date of termination for a period of five years and the same has to be ordered to be refunded. It is further stated that the petitioner has drawn a salary of Rs.70,000/- illegally till the date of termination for a period of five years and the same has to be ordered to be refunded. The work involved is a sensitive work within the port basin, where the ships are piloted in and piloted out of the Port and if there is any mishandling and if any collision takes place or if the vessel is sunk in the basis, it will cause crores of rupees as loss, besides the Port becoming unusable. The stand taken in the additional counter is that No Work No Pay is the normal rule and just because the mistake was detected as a later date, it cannot be said that the petitioner can take advantage of the same. It is further stated that ever after the orders of this Court dated 03.10.2012, the petitioner did not turn up and report to the Controlling Officer. 5. In the 2nd additional counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that as per the Circular No.2 of 2014 dated 27.05.2014, in order to address the shortage of sailing staff in the Management level Officers on Board Indian Flag Vessels, M/s.INSA requested Indian Administration to permit Australia, Singapore, Ireland and New Zealand COC holders of Indian Nationality to sail on Indian flag vessels, which does not specify anything about Pilots. In the said Circulation, it is stated that the partial relaxation to MS Act is a temporary measure to address the problem reported by M/s.INSA. The Management level Officers of Indian Nationality having COC of relevant grades from any of the following countries, i.e., Australia, Singapore, Ireland and New Zealand may be considered to be eligible for issuance of certificate of endorsement to work on Indian Flalg Vessels, subject to their having minimum eighteen months of satisfactory rank experience, of which, service on board is to be for at least a period of 12 months. Since the petitioner was a temporary employee of VOC Port Trust and not a sailing member on Board Indian Flag Vessels, the circular cannot be made applicable to his case. Since the petitioner was a temporary employee of VOC Port Trust and not a sailing member on Board Indian Flag Vessels, the circular cannot be made applicable to his case. It is the stand taken in the counter that suspension of the petitioner is mainly on the ground of non possession of COC as per the provisions of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Pilot in terms of Tuticorin Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2008. Therefore, the termination is legally valid one as per the norms of the Government of India's policy matters and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any rights over the post with his unqualified Singapore foreign certificate. Therefore, it is finally stated that the termination notice issued to the petitioner is legally correct in terms of Regulation 9(1) of TPTE (Temporary Service) Regulations, 1979. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 7. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition discloses that the petitioner was appointed as Pilot Officer in V.O.Chidambarnar Port Trust, Tuticorin after conducting due interview on 19.03.2008. The petitioner is in possession of a Certificate of Competency as Deck Officer Class-I (Master Mariner) issued by the Maritime Authority of Singapore. Subsequently, his services were directed to be terminated by invoking Regulation 5(1)(a)(b) of Tuticorin Port Employees (Temporary Service) Regulations, 1979, which is extracted below: “5. Termination of services of temporary employees:- (1)(a) The service of a temporary employee, shall be liable to termination at any time by notice in writing given either by the employee to the appointing authority, or by the appointing authority to the employee. (1)(b) The period of such notice shall be one month unless otherwise agreed to by the appointing authority and by the employee.” 8. A glance at the appointment order dated 08.04.2008 is very clear that the petitioner has been offered appointment as Pilot on regular basis in V.O.Chidambarnar Port Trust, Tuticorin and he was appointed based on the Regulation, viz., Tuticorin Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, which is published in the Gazette of India dated 16.03.1979 and the relevant Regulations are as follows: “3(k). “permanent employee” in relation to any grade or post means any employee who has been substantially appointed to a permanent vacancy in that grade or post; 3(q). “permanent employee” in relation to any grade or post means any employee who has been substantially appointed to a permanent vacancy in that grade or post; 3(q). “temporary employee” in relation to any grade or post means an employee holding a temporary or officiating appointment in that grade or post.” 8(2) The period of probation may, if the appointing authority deems fit, be extended for a specific period at a time, but the total period of such extension shall not, save where any extension is necessary by reason of any departmental or legal proceedings pending against the employee, exceed one year. Provided that an employee may prefer an appeal against on order of extension of probation to the authority immediately superior to the appointing authority.” 9. The above regulations cast upon no doubt in the minds of this Court that the petitioner was appointed as permanent employee only. The contention of the respondents that in the appointment order, it has been specifically mentioned that his appointment is temporary, but is likely to continue indefinitely, cannot be acceptable, because the appointment order issued is subject to the Regulations applicable to the permanent employees, as any appointment order contrary to the Regulations will be null and void. Admittedly, probation period is two years, which can be extended to one more year and pursuant to completion of more than two years, he is deemed to have attained permanent status. It is also worthwhile to note the provisions of Tuticorin Port (Authorisation of Pilots) Regulations, 1979 and for the sake of convenience, Regulations 4, 5, 6 and 9 are extracted below: 4. Pilots to be licensed,- (1) Every pilot shall hold a licence to perform the duties of a pilot for the Port of Tuticorin and such licence, subject to the sanction of the Central Government, may be issued and be revocable by the Board. (2) (2) A pilot severing his connection with the Board shall forthwith deliver his licence to the Board. 5. (2) (2) A pilot severing his connection with the Board shall forthwith deliver his licence to the Board. 5. Conditions for joining the Pilot Service.- A person shall not be licensed as a pilot unless and until he satisfies the Board that he fulfils the following conditions:- (a) The conditions of eligibility laid down in regulations 15 (1) and 15 (2) of the Tuticorin Port Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations,1979; (b) that on the date of appointment as a Probationer Pilot, he is of an age not below 24 and not exceeding 35 years; " Provided that prescribed upper age- limit may be relaxed by the Board. (i) in the case of a candidate who is an ex-serviceman, i.e ex- employee of India's Defence Forces, and who has put in not less than six months continuous service in the Defence Forces to the extent of the service rendered by him in the Defence Forces plus three years where the vacancy to be filled in a vacancy reserved for such ex-servicemen and dependants of those killed in action and to the extent of the service rendered by him in the Defence Forces where the vacancy is to be filled in an unreserved vacancy. (ii) In the case of a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, inn accordance with such orders of the Central Government as may be issued from time to time for appointments to services or posts under it in favours of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes: (c) and that the possesses the qualifications detailed in regulation 6 below. 6. Qualifications of Candidates – (1) A candidate for a Pilotage Lincence shall: (a) be in possession of a certificate of competency as Master (Foreign- going) granted by the Government of India or its equivalent and should have, preferably, experience of at least six months as First Mate on a foreign-going ship; (b) obtain a certificate of physical fitness from such medical authority as may be prescribed by the Board for the purpose; (c) produce certificates of good character and sobriety; (d) unless the Board otherwise determines, serve a period of probationary training of not less than 6 months; and completion of the training the probationer may if recommended by the Harbour Master and subject to the approval of the Deputy Conservator , apply to be examined as to his qualifications to pilot ships. 10. In this case, the temporary regulation shall not be applicable to the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner cannot be termed as a temporary employee, who is officiating service in a temporary or in a permanent post under the Board consisting of period of duty and leave. The next contention of the respondents that the petitioner does not possess valid document or equivalent certificate for issuing Pilotage Licence in India, cannot be gone into in this writ petition, as the main issue to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether the termination order is legally sustainable or not. The reading of impugned order is very perceptible to the effect that it has been issued by invoking the temporary regulation, whereas the petitioner has attained permanent status and his probation has been deemed to have been declared. Therefore, the action of the respondents in divesting of the services of the petitioner is bad in law. 11. According to the petitioner, the Certificate of Competency as Master (FG) issued by Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore has to be accepted and that he has also got sufficient experience in the relevant field to hold the post. However, the respondents have stated that Ministry of Shipping has not recognized the said certificate and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. A perusal of the fax message dated 06.08.2008 would go to show that the Deputy Conservator sought a clarification with the DG of Shipping, Mumbai to confirm as to whether the certificate issued to the petitioner by the Maritime Authority of Singapore has the Commonwealth Validity or not, as Singapore is a Common Wealth Country. In response to the same, it was communicated that Singapore Certificate is not accepted by Indian Administration under Regulation 1/10 of STCW 95. The question as to whether the certificate can be accepted or not is a matter to be decided by the respondents, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in view of the fact the petitioner is a permanent employee. 12. The question as to whether the certificate can be accepted or not is a matter to be decided by the respondents, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in view of the fact the petitioner is a permanent employee. 12. The petitioner has stated that even for the sake of argument that he has no valid certificate, the reason for termination is not on account of the certificate of competency issued by the Maritime Authority of Singapore, but on the ground that he was a temporary employee and having appointed him in the temporary post and allowed him to attain permanent status, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be sustained. 13. Finding force in the contention raised by the petitioner, the impugned orders dated 02.04.2012 and 30.04.2012 are set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Pilot Officer in V.O.Chidambarnar Port Trust, Tuticorin with continuity of service. The petitioner is also directed to resume duty on or before 17th of August, 2015 and the respondents shall allow him to join duty. From the date of interim order till the date of his reporting duty, the arrears of back wages should be calculated and paid to him within a period of two months from the date of his joining duty, subject to the observation made in the next Paragraph No.14. 14. At this juncture, it was represented by the respondents that ever after obtaining an interim order in his favour, the petitioner has refused to join duty. In reply, the petitioner has submitted that when he reported for work, he was not allowed to join duty. Whether the petitioner has been allowed to join duty or not during the period of operation of stay is the matter to be proved before the appropriate forum, when the petitioner claims back wages and at that time, it is open to the respondents to put forth their defense available to them. 15. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from examining the validity of the certificate, possessed by the petitioner, as the certificate of competency issued by the Maritime Authority of Singapore has not been approved by the Indian Administration. 15. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from examining the validity of the certificate, possessed by the petitioner, as the certificate of competency issued by the Maritime Authority of Singapore has not been approved by the Indian Administration. Liberty is also granted to the respondents to pass appropriate orders based on the instructions given by the Indian Administration with regard to the certificate of competency issued by the Maritime Authority of Singapore, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. S.VAIDYANATHAN,J. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.