JUDGMENT (Prayer in W.P. No. 1740 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's application dated 14.09.2018 under the Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulations) Rules, 2018. Prayer in W.P. No. 1743 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's application dated 03.03.2019 under the Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulations) Rules, 2018. Prayer in W.P. No. 1746 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's application dated 27.05.2019 under the Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulations) Rules, 2018.) Common Order 1. These writ petitions have been filed for a mandamus seeking for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to consider and pass orders on the applications submitted by the petitioners therein on 14.09.2018, 03.03.2019 and 27.05.2019, respectively, under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulations) Rules, 2018 (for brevity “the Rules, 2018”). 2. Since the relief sought for in these writ petitions are one and the same, they are considered and disposed of by this common order. 3. According to the respective petitioners, even though they have applied for recognition under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2018, in the year 2018 and 2019 itself, their applications have not been considered till date. It is also the contention of the petitioners that as per Rule 8 of the Rules, 2018, their applications have to be disposed of within 180 days from the date of the application. Since the applications have not been considered till date, the respective petitioners have filed these writ petitions. 4. Heard Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Vijay, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. The respondents have already filed their counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the certificates produced for registration by the petitioners are not genuine and therefore, they do not have any legal right to get recognition. The degree certificates produced by the respective petitioners are not from any recognised university. 5. The respondents have already filed their counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the certificates produced for registration by the petitioners are not genuine and therefore, they do not have any legal right to get recognition. The degree certificates produced by the respective petitioners are not from any recognised university. Hence, the petitioners cannot be permitted to practice and cannot be permitted to plead to register and permit to practice with the above certificates. According to them, under the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioners applications has not been considered by the respondents. 6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have produced only genuine certificates and he would further submit that unless and until a final decision is taken rejecting the petitioners applications, they will also not be in a position to file a statutory appeal, if aggrieved by the rejection order. 7. Admittedly, no final orders have been passed with regard to the respective petitioners applications submitted under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2018, till date. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon Rule 8 of the Rules, 2018, which mandates the respondents to pass orders within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of the application. 8. This being the case, this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioners applications are considered on merits in accordance with law, after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting them the right of personal hearing. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the 3rd respondent in these writ petitions to pass final orders on the applications submitted by the respective petitioners filed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 2018, seeking recognition, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording them the right of personal hearing. With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.