ORDER : S.S. Sundar, J. 1. W.P. (MD). No. 9086 of 2014 is filed for issuing a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent, dated 27.02.2014 and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct Direct Recruitment for appointment to the post of Lab Technician Grade - III by inviting applications from open market pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 27.02.2014. 2. W.P. (MD). No. 9199 of 2014 is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the notification, dated 25.02.2014 and the consequential call letter issued by the second respondent and to direct the respondent to fill up the post of Lab Technician Grade III in conformity with G.O. Ms. No. 36, Health and Family Welfare (C2) Department, dated 12.02.2014. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows: 3.1. The petitioners have stated that they have required qualification for the post of Lab Technician Grade - III. Earlier, the respondents estimated the vacancies for direct recruitment for filling up the vacant posts of Lab Technician Grade - III in the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. Though several vacancies were notified and the Employment Exchange sponsored candidates for filling up the post in 1:5 ratio, it is contended by the petitioners that there was no recruitment for a long time. 3.2. It is admitted by the petitioners that more than 300 Senior Tuberculosis Laboratory Supervisor and Laboratory Technicians who are working in the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP) on contract basis submitted representations to the first respondent to absorb them in the existing post of Lab Technicians Grade - III, taking into account their service rendered for more than 8 years in RNTCP programme. Considering the representations of those who were working on contract basis, Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 335, Health and Family Welfare (EAP 1/2) Department, dated 15.10.2008. Vide G.O. Ms. No. 335, a direction was issued to absorb Lab Technicians/Lab Supervisors who were engaged on contract basis and working for more than 5 years of service in the existing regular vacancies of Lab Technician Grade - III in the public Health Department. The Government actually took a decision to accommodate the qualified contract Senior Tuberculosis Supervisors/Lab Technicians as Lab Technician Grade-III in the existing vacancies. The Government actually took a decision to accommodate the qualified contract Senior Tuberculosis Supervisors/Lab Technicians as Lab Technician Grade-III in the existing vacancies. Challenging the said Government order, several other persons including the petitioners have filed writ petitions earlier in W.P.(MD) Nos. 10442, 10495, 11018 to 11023, 11474 to 11478 & 11411 to 11413 of 2008. This Court after considering the issue in the perspective of validity of such irregular or illegal appointment, quashed the Government order in the following lines: "31. However, in the present case on hand, the question of illegal or irregular appointment does not arise. When the Service Rules have been amended by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 115, Health and Family Welfare (C2) Department, dated 03.04.2007 amending the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Public Health Subordinate Service creating a post of Laboratory Technician Grade III by fixing the following qualifications namely:- (i) must have passed plus two examination (ii) must possess certificate in Medical Lab Technology (one year duration course) (iii) must have a good physique, good vision and capacity to do outdoor work. Whether the Government by way of G.O. without amending the Rules could direct the appointment of Lab Technicians and Lab Supervisors working in RNTCP on contract basis to the said post. The only answer that could be given is that such Notification by the Government without amending the Special Rules especially in the background of G.O. Ms. No. 115, Health and Family Welfare (C2) Department, referred to above prescribing qualifications for the said post, is totally erroneous. The various pronouncement referred to above would indicate that such appointment is bad in law and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 32. In fine, G.O. Ms. No. 335, Health and Family Welfare (EAP 1/2) Department, dated 15/10/2008 issued by the first respondent seeking to appoint contract Laboratory Technicians/Laboratory Supervisors working in RNTCP programme in the existing Lab Technician/Grade III vacancies is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. 33. These writ petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 3.3. Though some of the Lab Technicians who were engaged on contract basis impleaded themselves in the said writ petitions, no issue relating to the individual contract employees or the rights of petitioners, were not focussed in the writ petition. 33. These writ petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 3.3. Though some of the Lab Technicians who were engaged on contract basis impleaded themselves in the said writ petitions, no issue relating to the individual contract employees or the rights of petitioners, were not focussed in the writ petition. The judgment of learned Single Judge in a batch of cases above referred to in W.P. (MD). No. 10442 of 2008 dated 11.02.2009 was challenged by the Government in writ appeals in W.A. Nos. 446 to 461 of 2009 and W.A. No. 224 of 2009 was filed by contract employees. The Honourable Division Bench, while dismissing the writ appeals, considered the grievance of the employees who were engaged on contract basis and observed as follows: "12 Drawing support from the said judgment, the learned counsel would submit that while making selection, at least preference may be given to the appellants in W.A. (MD). No. 224 of 2009 by the Department over the fresh candidates, since they have rendered more than five years of continuous service in the department, that too, by having been appointed on merit basis. 13. In this regard, we would like to clarify that we have only concurred with the findings of the learned single Judge to quash the impugned Government Order, because the same runs counter to the Service Rules and it grossly violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the impugned Government Order creates a reservation of certain number of vacancies for the candidates, who are likely in service. But, it cannot be construed that this Court has expressed any opinion that the candidates, who have been in service, should not be given any preference. 14. It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the selection was sought to be made on the basis of interview. If that is the case, while conducting interview, for assessing merit, the department can evolve its own procedure and guidelines for allotting marks under the various heads. While doing so, the Government it is liberty to award marks for previous experience, as the same would be an added qualification for the candidates, who have been already working. Similarly, for these service candidates, the Government may relax the age qualification also. While doing so, the Government it is liberty to award marks for previous experience, as the same would be an added qualification for the candidates, who have been already working. Similarly, for these service candidates, the Government may relax the age qualification also. We would like to say that by adopting such a procedure of selection, which is fair, the meritorious candidates should alone be selected and appointed." 3.4. It is, thereafter, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 242, Health and Family Welfare (G) Department, dated 27.07.2012 to implement the direction of this Court in the writ petitions and writ appeals above referred to. 3.5. The Government directed to revert back the existing Lab Technician Grade III appointed in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 335, Health and Family Welfare (EAP1/2) Department, dated 15.10.2008 and the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine was further directed to fill up the vacancy caused in the Public Health Department due to the quashing of G.O. Ms. No. 335, by following usual formalities for recruitment. It was also observed that the possibility of accommodating the terminated employees under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme would be examined separately. G.O. Ms. No. 242, Health and Family Welfare (G) Department, dated 27.07.2012 though was an order purported to be one implementing the direction of this Court earlier in the writ petitions and writ appeals, the same was challenged by several persons. About 75 persons, who are in the post of Lab Technician Grade - III on contract basis, filed batch of writ petitions in W.P. No. 21514 of 2012 and the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court by the learned Single Judge is as follows: "27. In view of all the above, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- (i) the impugned Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 242, Health and Family Welfare (G) Department, dated 27.02.2012 is confirmed. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court by the learned Single Judge is as follows: "27. In view of all the above, the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- (i) the impugned Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 242, Health and Family Welfare (G) Department, dated 27.02.2012 is confirmed. (ii) The respondents shall within a period of six months from today comply with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court referred to above evolving its own procedure and guideline to conduct special drive exclusively for the petitioners herein for appointing them as directed by the Division Bench of Madurai Bench of this Court provided the individual concerned does not suffer any disqualification. (iii) Until the above said exercise is completed the petitioners shall be permitted to continue as contract employees in the RNTC Programme and that there shall be no appointment to the posts of Lab Technicians/Lab Supervisors in the department through any other source." 3.6. The petitioner in W.P. (MD). No. 9199 of 2014 preferred an appeal in W.A. No. 2727 of 2012, challenging the order of this Court in W.P. No. 21514 of 2012, dated 05.09.2012. The Honourable Division Bench considered the issue and dismissed the appeal subject to modification of the operative portion of the judgment in the following lines: "6. In the earlier round of litigation the Division Bench of this Court disposed of W.A. No. 446 of 2009 etc., dated 10.12.2009 and the operative portion of the order is extracted in the earlier portion of this judgment. Special Leave Petition preferred against the said order before the Honourable Supreme Court was also dismissed. Thereafter G.O. Ms. No. 242 Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 27.07.2012 was issued to restore the Lab Technicians/Lab Supervisors from the department to their original position of contract Lab Technician/Lab Supervisors under the RNTC Programme. The said order was passed based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court. The private respondents also have completed more than or about ten years of service and the learned single Judge relied on G.O. Ms. No. 22 P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006 while passing final order in the writ petition. 7. The said order was passed based on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court. The private respondents also have completed more than or about ten years of service and the learned single Judge relied on G.O. Ms. No. 22 P & AR Department, dated 28.02.2006 while passing final order in the writ petition. 7. The learned single Judge also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari and Others (2010) 9 SCC 247 wherein a direction was issued by the Supreme Court relying on the judgment rendered in Umadevi's case (2006) 4 SCC 1 that such of those persons, who have put in more than 27 years of continuous service without protection of interim order of courts of Tribunals, the Department must undertake and exercise regularization of such of those employees. Thus, the private respondents, who are the writ petitioners, have established their right to be considered for regularization. 8. The learned single Judge directed the Government to consider the claim of the private respondents by evolving its own procedure and guidelines as directed by the Division Bench and there is no illegality in the said direction issued. However, the learned Judge, further directed that no appointment to the post of Lab Technician/Lab Supervisor in the Department through any other source be resorted to till the private respondents' claim is considered and decided. The said direction is unwarranted and the appellants are aggrieved about the said direction on the ground that unless direct recruitment is resorted to, their right to be considered for fresh appointing will be affected, which is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. In such circumstances, we are inclined to modify the order of the learned single Judge holding that till the department finalises the absorption of private respondents on regular basis, 46 posts of Lab Technician Grade - III are to be kept vacant and the remaining posts can be filled up by direct recruitment, by the Department." 3.7. Thereafter, petitioners in W.P. No. 23106 of 2012 filed contempt petition in Contempt Petition No. 1413 of 2013 against the Secretary to Government and the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine alleging willful non-compliance of common order dated 05.09.2012 in the batch of Writ Petitions. Thereafter, petitioners in W.P. No. 23106 of 2012 filed contempt petition in Contempt Petition No. 1413 of 2013 against the Secretary to Government and the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine alleging willful non-compliance of common order dated 05.09.2012 in the batch of Writ Petitions. Since Writ Appeal was filed in W.A. No. 2727 of 2012 only against W.P. No. 21514 of 2012, the respondents in the contempt petition, filed an affidavit in the following lines: "While upholding the directions regarding evolving a common procedure, the Hon'ble First Bench directed that it is sufficient to keep 46 vacancies and remove the bar placed in direction No. 3 of the learned Single Judge, i.e., no recruitment can be made until completion of the process for the 188 persons. However, it is to be noted that the order dated 8.4.2013 of the Hon'ble First Bench is only against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the two Writ Petitions and all other writ petitions referred to in the Single Judge's Order dated 5.9.2012 have reached finality and hence, 142 persons (188-46) still continue to be governed by the directions of the learned Single Judge and hence approached this Court by way of contempt petition. To avoid any conflict in regard to the orders dated 5.9.2012 of the learned Single Judge and 8.4.2013 of the Hon'ble First Bench, it would still be proper to keep the 188 vacancies for completion of the special drive by evolving some procedure as per policy to be framed by the Government. In the meantime, by virtue of the bar of no recruitment to be made being set aside in relation to the two writ petitions by the Hon'ble First Bench by order dated 8.4.2013, it has also been decided simultaneously to commence the said process. The policy to be framed in regard to such procedure and the recruitment process shall not be delayed to ensure that the direction of the learned Single Judge otherwise reaching finality, including direction No. 3 to the extent of the Writ Petitioners and the contempt petitioners. The exercise being carried out would ensure that at the completion, the candidates successful through the above special drive would be recruited prior to the completion of the remaining vacancies being filled up so as to avoid violation of both the orders of the Hon'ble High Court i.e., 5.9.2012 and 8.4.2013. The exercise being carried out would ensure that at the completion, the candidates successful through the above special drive would be recruited prior to the completion of the remaining vacancies being filled up so as to avoid violation of both the orders of the Hon'ble High Court i.e., 5.9.2012 and 8.4.2013. The above compliance would ensure a smooth completion of the recruitment of vacancies by harmoniously reading both the orders together. The proposed special drive being a variation from the existing policy of the Government requires a policy decision on the same to be taken by the Government which would further involve inter-deparmental consultation for the purposes of relaxing age, communal rotation etc. In view of this, not less than six months time is required for this purpose." 3.8. By order dated 30.08.2013, the Contempt Petition was closed with an observation that the respondents shall not violate the undertaking given in the affidavit. 3.9. It was thereafter impugned notification dated 25.02.2014 to conduct a special qualifying examination exclusively for 188 reverted back contract employees of Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme was issued. This notification and the Hall ticket issued to a candidate is challenged in W.P. (MD) No. 9199 of 2014 and the communication dated 27.02.2014 issued by the second respondent is challenged in W.P. (MD) No. 9086 of 2014. 4. The petitioner has raised an issue regarding the validity of the notification dated 25.02.2014 referring to the earlier judgment of learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in a batch of cases wherein the absorption of contract Laboratory Technicians/Laboratory Supervisors vide G.O. (Ms) No. 335, dated 15.10.2008 was quashed. It is contended by the petitioners that it is a constitutional mandate in the matter of public employment to ensure recruitment through public advertisement as per recruitment rules and that the impugned notification is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners further submitted that the Government order in G.O. Ms. It is contended by the petitioners that it is a constitutional mandate in the matter of public employment to ensure recruitment through public advertisement as per recruitment rules and that the impugned notification is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners further submitted that the Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 335 which was quashed by this Court earlier has now been reintroduced by the impugned recruitment notification to regularize the contract employees contrary to several judgments of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court and particularly contrary to the decision of this Court in the earlier batch of writ petitions and the judgment of Honourable Division Bench, which is also in Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai and Others v. Josuva Jebakumar and Others (supra) LNIND 2009 BMM 1429 : (2010) 2 MLJ 306 . 5. Earlier Tuberculosis Laboratory Supervisors and Laboratory Technicians who were engaged in the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP) on contract basis submitted a representation to the first respondent to absorb them in the existing Laboratory Technicians Grade III taking into account of their service for more than eight years in RNTCP. The Government took a policy decision to absorb the contract employees and issued Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 335, Health and Family Welfare (EAP2) Department, dated 15.10.2008. Thus, as per G.O. Ms. No. 335, Health and Family Welfare (EAP2) Department, dated 15.10.2008, the lab technicians/laboratory supervisors who have got more than five years of services as on that date in the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme and who satisfy the educational qualifications prescribed in the rules for the post of Lab Technicians Grade III were sought to be absorbed in the existing regular vacancy in the Laboratory Technicians Grade III in the Public Health department. It is also admitted that the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine issued orders appointing 194 fully qualified Senior Tuberculosis Laboratory Supervisors/Laboratory Technicians on contract basis as regular Laboratory Technicians Grade III. It was also stated that remaining persons who are qualified would be absorbed in the remaining vacancies. 6. However, G.O. Ms. No. 335, Health and Family Welfare (EAP1/2) Department, dated 15.10.2008 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 10442 of 2014 and others in a batch of Writ Petitions. It was also stated that remaining persons who are qualified would be absorbed in the remaining vacancies. 6. However, G.O. Ms. No. 335, Health and Family Welfare (EAP1/2) Department, dated 15.10.2008 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 10442 of 2014 and others in a batch of Writ Petitions. After referring to several precedents and principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petition mainly on the ground that the appointment of persons on contract basis in the regular vacancy is contrary to the recruitment rules and that the Government by way of Government Order without amending the rules cannot regularise the Laboratory Technicians and Laboratory Supervisors working in RNTCP on contract basis. 7. It is important to note that the said judgment of the learned Single judge was taken on appeal in a batch of cases and the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai and Others v. Josuva Jebakumar and Others (supra) dismissed the Writ Appeal with the finding that the impugned Government Order is against Articles 14 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India and that all the available vacancies should be kept open for all the eligible candidates to compete. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court also considered the submissions of few candidates who got the benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 335, Health and Family Welfare (EAP1/2) Department, dated 15.10.2008. The Hon'ble Division Bench observed that by quashing G.O. No. 335, dated 15.10.2008, it cannot be considered that the Court has expressed any opinion that the candidates, who have been in service should not be given any preference. It was further held that the department can evolve its own procedure and guidelines for allotting marks under various heads and to add marks for previous experience to ensure selection of only meritorious candidates. 8. Based on the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions and subsequently in the Writ Appeal, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 242, Health and Family Welfare (G) Department, dated 27.07.2012 by way of implementing the order of this Court in the Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals. In G.O. Ms. 8. Based on the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions and subsequently in the Writ Appeal, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 242, Health and Family Welfare (G) Department, dated 27.07.2012 by way of implementing the order of this Court in the Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals. In G.O. Ms. No. 242, Health and Family Welfare (G) Department, dated 27.07.2012, the Government issued the following directions: "i) the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine is directed to revert back the existing incumbents of Lab. Technician Grade - III appointed vide G.O. 1st read above to the RNTC Programme since the said G.O. has been quashed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court which has been upheld by the Division Bench Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and the Supreme Court of India. (ii) the State TB Officer is directed to give termination order to the existing contract employees in the RNTCP and take back the Lab Technician Grade Ill/Lab Supervisor in the vacancies caused due to the termination of contract employees. (iii) the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine is directed to fill up the vacancy caused in the Public Health Department due to the quashing of G.O. 1st read above by addressing the Medical Services Recruitment Board by following usual formalities for recruitment. (iv) the original seniority in the Employment Exchange of the personnel who have been reverted back to the RNTC Programme due to the quashing G.O. 1st read above by the order of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 11.02.2009 in WP. (MD) No. 10442/2008, 10495/2008 and batch cases is restored as a special case and the Direction of Public Health and Preventive Medicine is directed to issue a certificate to the employees so as to enable them to register their name in the Employment Exchange with original seniority and the seniors may be eligible to get recruited." 9. This Government Order which was issued by way of complying with the direction of this Court in the previous round of litigation is challenged in a batch of Writ Petitions by 76 persons who were appointed as contract employees earlier as Laboratory Technicians/Laboratory Supervisors in the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme. This Government Order which was issued by way of complying with the direction of this Court in the previous round of litigation is challenged in a batch of Writ Petitions by 76 persons who were appointed as contract employees earlier as Laboratory Technicians/Laboratory Supervisors in the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme. The argument of the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner in different Writ Petitions before the learned Single Jude was that the respondents have not followed the directions issued in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals which was earlier extracted in this judgment. In the course of arguments, G.O. Ms. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 was also relied upon by the petitioners in the writ petitions. It was projected that the Government itself has taken a policy decision to regularise services of the employees who were appointed on temporary basis upon completion of 10 years of service. Though G.O. Ms. No. 242 was upheld, accepting the contention of the petitioners in the Writ Petitions the learned Single Judge of this Court issued further directions to the respondents to evolve their own procedure and guidelines to conduct special drive exclusively for the petitioners therein for appointing them. There was a further direction that the petitioners therein shall be permitted to continue as contract employees in Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme and that there shall not be any appointment to the post of Laboratory Technicians/Laboratory Supervisors through any other source. 10. Thereafter, the petitioners herein who are not parties in the Writ Petitions filed Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 2727 of 2012. The Hon'ble Division Bench by judgment dated 08.04.2013 dismissed the appeal with certain modifications. Paragraphs 6 to 9 of the judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court is relevant and they are extracted earlier in this judgment. The modification is only to direct the respondents to keep only 46 posts vacant and to fill up the remaining posts by direct recruitment. 11. It is also admitted that vide G.O. Ms. No. 36, Health and Family Welfare (C2) Department, dated 12.02.2014, the Government approved the rules of procedure for Medical Recruitment Board. The modification is only to direct the respondents to keep only 46 posts vacant and to fill up the remaining posts by direct recruitment. 11. It is also admitted that vide G.O. Ms. No. 36, Health and Family Welfare (C2) Department, dated 12.02.2014, the Government approved the rules of procedure for Medical Recruitment Board. The rules framed by the Government was titled as "the Rules of Procedure of the Medical Services Recruitment Board, 2013." The significance of this rule is that the Medical Services Recruitment Board can recruit the candidates through open advertisement by conducting written examination in those cases where adequate candidates are not available in the employment exchange. Thereafter, the special notification dated 25.02.2014 for conducting special qualifying examination for the post of Laboratory Technicians Grade III, exclusively for the contract employees of RNTCP who were reverted back earlier was issued. Challenging the said notification, WP. (MD) No. 9199 of 2014 is preferred. Connected Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 9086 of 2014 is also for the similar relief wherein the impugned communication of the second respondent dated 27.02.2014 was challenged. The impugned order dated 27.02.2014 issued by the second respondent is nothing but instructions given to the applicants who are eligible to apply under the special notification dated 25.02.2014 which is challenged in W.P. (MD) No. 9199 of 2014. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 9199 of 2014 and the deponent of the affidavit in W.P. (MD) No. 9086 of 2014 are the appellants in W.A. No. 2727 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 08.04.2013. 12. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 9199 of 2014 submitted that the special notification for conducting special qualifying examination for the above 188 reverted back contract employees of RNTCP is quite contrary to the directions of this Court by a learned Single Judge in the first round of litigation and the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the batch of Writ Appeals which was disposed of on 10.12.2009. 13. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out meticulously the legal issues decided in the earlier round and submitted that the judgment of this Court in the first round of litigation while quashing G.O. Ms. No. 335 has now been set at naught in a crafty manner. 13. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out meticulously the legal issues decided in the earlier round and submitted that the judgment of this Court in the first round of litigation while quashing G.O. Ms. No. 335 has now been set at naught in a crafty manner. Since the Medical Services Recruitment Board has to follow the procedures contemplated as per the recruitment procedure of the Medical Services Recruitment Board - 2013, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the impugned notification for conducting special qualifying examination for the contract employees of RNTCP who were reverted earlier pursuant to the direction of this Court is unconstitutional and opposed to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further contented that in the matter of any public employment, there cannot be a procedure de hors the rule and the proposed recruitment by special examination cannot be justified. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted further that the respondents ought to have commenced regular recruitment process in accordance with the rules and procedures of the Medical Services Recruitment Board, 2013 which is applicable to the posts. It is pointed out that the subsequent Division Bench was also directed the respondents to resort to regular recruitment process to fill up the vacancies. 14. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the subsequent order of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is not contrary to the earlier view expressed by this Court in the case between the same parties as the subject matter is different and that the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in the second round of litigation has taken into account several factors subsequent to the earlier order and the policy decision of Government. The learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents questioned the locus standi of the petitioners and the bona fides of the petitioners in prosecuting the present Writ Petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that the petitioners are bound by the earlier direction of this Court and that they are estopped from questioning the special examination conducted by the respondents to accommodate the contract employees of the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme. 15. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that the petitioners are bound by the earlier direction of this Court and that they are estopped from questioning the special examination conducted by the respondents to accommodate the contract employees of the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme. 15. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court confirming the order of the learned Single Judge in a batch of cases and submitted that the petitioners who challenged unsuccessfully the order passed by the Division Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come forward with the present Writ Petitions ignoring the specific directions of this Court by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 05.09.2012 and the order of the Division Bench dated 08.04.2013 in W.A. (MD) No. 2727 of 2014. 16. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 9086 of 2014 adopted the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. M. Ajmal Khan who was appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 9199 of 2014. 17. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by this Court in the second round of litigation is quite contrary to the principles and conclusions reached in the earlier round of litigation, he admitted the factual position that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.09.2012 in the batch of Writ Petitions in W.P. (MD) No. 21514 of 2012 etc., confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 08.04.2013 in W.A. (MD) No. 2727 of 2012 has become final. It is admitted that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. 18. It is not in dispute that the impugned notification dated 25.02.2014 is in accordance with the direction of this Court in the order of the learned Single judge in the batch of Writ Petitions dated 05.09.2012 and the order in the Writ Appeal (MD) No. 2727 of 2013 dated 08.04.2013. In such circumstances, the prime submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances, the prime submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. It is also admitted that the learned Single Judge and the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the second round have considered the orders passed by the learned Single judge and the order of the Hon'ble Division bench in the earlier round of litigation. It is pertinent to mention that the learned Single Judge who passed the order dated 05.09.2012 in the batch of Writ Petitions is a party to the Hon'ble Division Bench and the learned Single judge in the subsequent judgment has spoken for the Hon'ble Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation. Except some embarrassing feature, this Court is unable to rely upon the order of this Court dated 11.02.2009 and 10.12.2009 in the earlier round of litigations in view of the binding judgments pronounced later. 19. In the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 9199 of 2014 the third respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is contented that the petitioners are bound by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Hon'ble Division Bench in the second round of litigation and that the petitioners are estopped from raising the issue once again. This Court has no hesitation to accept the contention of the respondents relying upon the orders of this Court in the second round of litigation. That apart, the respondents have questioned the locus standi and bona fides of the petitioner in the present writ petitions. It is stated that the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 9199 of 2014 and the deponent of the affidavit in W.P. (MD) No. 9086 of 2014 were also appointed as Laboratory Supervisor on contract basis in Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme along with others. It is further stated that the petitioners were terminated for their misconduct. It is to be noted that the Writ Petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 9086 of 2014 is also seeking age relaxation. The petitioner in both cases who were terminated from service earlier may not be appointed even in a regular recruitment. Hence, this Court doubts their bona fide. The contention that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition has not been elaborated. The petitioner in both cases who were terminated from service earlier may not be appointed even in a regular recruitment. Hence, this Court doubts their bona fide. The contention that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition has not been elaborated. However, the petitioners, who are parties to the previous round of litigation, is bound by the judgment and hence, they are estopped from filing the present Writ Petition, after the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the appeal preferred by the petitioners. 20. Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Counsel appearing for the newly impleaded parties produced before this Court a typed set containing the order passed in the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners earlier challenging the order of termination. It is evident that the petitioners in both the cases were terminated from service alleging misconduct. However, this Court in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners to set aside the order refusing to extend the contract in the case of petitioners, remitted the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the petitioners were once again removed from service after following the procedure and adhering to the principles of natural justice. In the cases of both the petitioners, the respondents decided not to renew the contract of employment after providing sufficient opportunity to both the petitioners. Though it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the order is challenged in batch of Writ Petitions the particulars are not provided. Be that as it may, the fact that the petitioners were originally appointed on contract basis and that their contract employment was not renewed for certain misconduct shows that they have not approached the Court with clean hands and this Court find no bona fide in these Writ Petitions. 21. Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Counsel appearing for the newly impleaded parties submitted further that the petitioners did not get selection even though they participated in the process of recruitment to the post of Laboratory Technician Grade III, conducted as per recruitment rules. The petitioners themselves filed in W.P. (MD) No. 3387 of 2004 and 3388 of 2004 before this Court praying to regularise their services and that this Court dismissed the Writ Petitions on the ground that they were appointed only on contractual basis for a fixed period. The petitioners themselves filed in W.P. (MD) No. 3387 of 2004 and 3388 of 2004 before this Court praying to regularise their services and that this Court dismissed the Writ Petitions on the ground that they were appointed only on contractual basis for a fixed period. The petitioners were earlier agitating the cause of persons who were employees on contract basis in the project. Only when the petitioners were terminated from services for their misconduct, they started challenging the special drive to accommodate the Laboratory Technicians who were appointed earlier on contract basis. However, the petitioners have taken a stand quite contrary to their plea in the earlier Writ Petitions out of frustration. When it is pointed out that the petitioners did not get selection pursuant to the regular selection process, this gives rise to a genuine doubt as to the bona fide of the petitioners in approaching this Court. The petitioner who could not get absorption in the regular selection and lost his opportunity of regularization by special drive appears to be frustrated, and approached this Court without any bona fides. 22. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner finally submitted that the State is bound to oversee the appointments made illegally or irregularly and that the State cannot adopt novel methods to encourage by engaging the services of contract employees by adopting such special drive. This Court is unable to decide the issue on first principle in view of the binding judgment of the learned Single judge and the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P. (MD) No. 21514 of 2012 and W.A. (MD) No. 2727 of 2012. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Another v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 : LNIND 2011 SC 162 : (2011) 4 MLJ 692 wherein it has been held as follows: "19. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc., that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc., that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment, mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit." 23. It is to be pointed out that the decision between the same parties on an issue which was finally decided will operate as res judicata. The principle of res judicata can be applied in Writ Petitions. In view of the earlier judgment which will operate as res judicata in the present case, the petitioners are estopped from raising issues, which have been held against the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation. Considering the legal position that the judicial decision inter parties cannot be set at naught in collateral proceedings, the Writ Petitions are bound to fail. The Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 9086 of 2014 is filed by an association represented by Mr. S. Balamurugan who claims to be the State President of the Association. The association has been registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and its name is Medical Lab Technicians Development Sangam. The society has been registered in January, 2008. The President is no more in Medical Service. The objects of the society is not disclosed in the papers circulated before this Court. The petitioner who filed the Writ Petition in WP. (MD) No. 9199 of 2013 has challenged only the communication dated 27.02.2015 which is just a memo of instruction given to the candidates who seek employment by participating in the Special Examination conducted by the third respondent. As pointed out earlier, filing of the Writ Petition in the name of the Association without disclosing the objects of the society gives room for certain doubts regarding the bona fides of the petitioner. As pointed out earlier, filing of the Writ Petition in the name of the Association without disclosing the objects of the society gives room for certain doubts regarding the bona fides of the petitioner. The petitioner is no more an employee in medical service under the Public Health and Preventive Medicine Department. When the petitioners are no more in service, this Court is unable to find any averments in the affidavit regarding their common interest as members of the petitioner association in the present litigation. This Court cannot entertain the Writ Petitions filed either in the name of unregistered association or by a registered association with members who have no common cause or interest. 24. As a result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.