ORDER : (Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order made in Ref.No.SP1/E2/2008 dated 09.01.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from terminating the petitioners from service.) 1. Heard Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Government Advocate for R1 to R3. 2. All the three writ petitioners challenge communication dated 09.01.2009. The background of the matter is as follows: (i) The petitioners had completed their plus two and thereafter have enrolled themselves in the District Employment Exchange. Pending consideration of their applications by the Employment Exchange they had qualified as pharmacists. (ii) With the issuance of G.O.(Ms.)No.630, Health and Family Welfare (L1) Department dated 22.12.1997 and subsequent G.O.(Ms).No.191 dated 14.06.2000, a direction was issued by the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services in proceedings bearing reference No.91319/E5/2/08 dated 12.12.2008 to all Joint Directors of Health Services in the State to fill up the posts of pharmacist in the various districts on or before 31.12.2018. Out of a total number of 105 posts of pharmacists in the State, 3 enured to the Nilgiris District. (iii) The third respondent i.e. The Joint Director of Health Services called the petitioners for interviews held on 29.12.2008 and temporarily appointed the petitioners for a period of two years under a scale of pay Rs.4500-125-7000 as pharmacists in the Government Hospital, Kothagiri, Nilgiris District. The petitioners have joined duty thereafter and are presently serving there. 3. While this is so, W.P.(MD).Nos.11674 and 11408 of 2008 came to be filed by the Thoothukudi Mavatta Velaivaipatra Marunthalunargal Sangam challenging G.O.(Ms).No.630 dated 22.12.1997 and G.O.(Ms)No.191 dated 14.06.2000, benefit of which had enured to the petitioners in obtaining their employment. It is consequent upon the filing of the above writ petitions, the impugned communication has been issued to the petitioners stating as follows: 'In W.P.(MD).No.11674 & 11408 of 2008 The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court have issued orders regarding appointments for the post of Pharmacists, as per the reference cited. The copy of the orders of the Madurai Bench is awaited from the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai-6. The candidates appointed as Pharmacists in this office appointment order dt. The copy of the orders of the Madurai Bench is awaited from the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai-6. The candidates appointed as Pharmacists in this office appointment order dt. 30.12.2008 are hereby informed that their appointment is subject to the directions and judgment of the High Court (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court) and that the orders of the High Court will be implemented immediately on receipt. The candidates are also informed that their appointments is likely to be cancelled and/or the temporary services are liable to be terminated at any time. 4. Apprehending disturbence of the petitioners employment, present writ petitions have come to be filed. 5. Pending this writ petition, the two writ petitions filed by the Sangam have come to be closed as infructuous on 27.10.2009 and with the closure of the aforesaid writ petitions, the threat posed by filing of the same ceases to exist and the cause of action in this writ petition evaporates. The petitioners are thus not prejudiced in any event from 27.10.2009. 6. M.P.Nos.2,2 and 2 of 2009 in W.P.Nos.831 to 833 of 2009 had come to be filed by one Mr.B.Babu, who had sought to implead himself in the present case. The implead applicaions have come to be dismissed in W.P.Nos.831 & 832 of 2009. However, Mr.Babu was impleaded as the 4th respondent in W.P.No.833 of 2009 and though the name of M/s.Lenin & Bhagya is printed in the cause list as representing him, he is unrepresented. 7. The petitioners have been favoured with an interim injunction protecting their employment for all the intervening years and the interim injunction granted originally has also been made absolute on 06.01.2010, this Court stating as follows: M.P Nos.1, 1 and 1 of 2009 in W.P. Nos.831 to 833 of 2009 are filed seeking injuction restraining the respondents from terminating the service of the petitioners who are working as pharmascists in Government hospitals. 2. Writ Petitions are filed challenging the order dated 09.01.2009 wherein it is stated that with regard to filling the vacancies in the post of pharmacists, W.P. Nos.11674 and 11408 of 2008 are pending before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and the appointment of the petitioners as Pharmacists depends upon the result of the said writ petitions. 2. Writ Petitions are filed challenging the order dated 09.01.2009 wherein it is stated that with regard to filling the vacancies in the post of pharmacists, W.P. Nos.11674 and 11408 of 2008 are pending before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and the appointment of the petitioners as Pharmacists depends upon the result of the said writ petitions. It is further stated in the impugned order that the appointment of the petitioners is likely to be cancelled or the petitioners are liable to be terminated. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 3. According to the learned Government Advocate, in spite of the pendency of the issue before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the petitioners were appointed. 4. But, the order passed by the Madurai Bench is enclosed at page no.29 of the typed set of papers. The date of the order is 06.01.2009. But, the petitioners were appointed by the order dated 30.12.2008 i.e. Prior to the interim orders granted by the Madurai Bench of this Court. Consequently, this argument of the learned Government Advocate will not hold good. 5. Besides, according to the learned Government Advocate, the appointment of the petitioners as Pharmacists is prima facie wrong. But, a perusal of G.O. (Ms.) No. 328, Health and Family Welfare (C1) Department dated 08.10.2009 reveals that based on the orders passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in filling the vacancies in the post of Secondary Grade Assistants, a decision has been taken by the Government to follow the State seniority in filling the vacancies in the post of pharmacists. But, as far as this Government is concerned, the date of the same is 08.10.2009. But, long prior to this, the petitioners were appointed as Pharmacists. 6. As far as the impleaded fourth respondent is concerned, according to him, he is senior to the petitioners in registration in employment exchange; in spite of it, overlooking his claim, the petitioners were appointed. If the fourth respondent is having any grievance with regard to the appointment of the petitioners, he should have challenged that order. But, unfortunately, their appointment is not challenged by the fourth respondent before any Court. If the fourth respondent is having any grievance with regard to the appointment of the petitioners, he should have challenged that order. But, unfortunately, their appointment is not challenged by the fourth respondent before any Court. Since the petitioners are holding the post from 2008 and since the impugned orders have been passed based on the orders which were passed subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought in these Miscellaneous Petitions. Hence, the interim order already granted is made absolute. 8. In the light of the narration as above, I reiterate the position that there is no threat posed to the employment of the petitioners as pharmacists by reason of the impuned communication dated 09.01.2009 and thus nothing survives in these writ petitions and the same are closed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also raise some issues in regard to the regularisation of the employment of the petitioners. He would state that it is high time that the services of the petitioner were regularised seeing as they have been in service since the year 2008. The petitioners may well raise this issue before the respondents, who will consider the requests, if and when made, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the length of service put in by the petitioners.