JUDGMENT : (Prayer in W.P.No.27099 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent culminated in Na.Ka.No.1587/2013/SAT-A dated 23.04.2015 and communicated to the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner and bring him under time scale of pay and also to pay all other service benefits including the pensionary benefits. W.P.No.27100 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent culminated in Na.Ka.No.1587/2013/SAT-A dated 23.04.2015 and communicated to the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner's mother and bring her under time scale of pay and also to pay all other service benefits including the pensionary benefits to the petitioner being the only surviving legal heir of the deceased Visalakshi. W.P.No.27101 of 2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent culminated in Na.Ka.No.1587/2013/SAT-A dated 23.04.2015 and communicated to the 4th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner and bring him under time scale of pay and also to pay all other service benefits including the pensionary benefits.) 1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of regularization and permanent absorption issued in proceedings dated 23.04.2015 is under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. The petitioners state that the Thanjavur Raja Chatram has been established by the Maratha Kings who ruled Thanjavur 200 years back. The Chatram Administration was established and administered by the Royal Family of Maratha Kings. Thereafter, the Chatram Administration was administered by the District Collector under the Revenue Department. Subsequently, it was transferred to the District Council. The District Council was abolished in the year 1961 and the Chatram Administration was brought under the Revenue Department and now it is administered under the Land Administration Department by the District Collector, Thanjavur. 3. Thereafter, the Chatram Administration was administered by the District Collector under the Revenue Department. Subsequently, it was transferred to the District Council. The District Council was abolished in the year 1961 and the Chatram Administration was brought under the Revenue Department and now it is administered under the Land Administration Department by the District Collector, Thanjavur. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.27099 of 2015 states that he was employed by the Raja Chatram administration on 19.08.1992 as contingency staff and he retired from service on 30.06.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner in W.P.No.27100 of 2015 states that his mother R.Visalakshi (deceased) was employed by the Raja Chatram administration on 18.08.1975 as contingency staff and she retired from service on 30.06.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner in W.P.No.27101 of 2015 states that he was employed by the Raja Chatram administration on 01.03.1974 as contingency staff and he retired from service on 31.08.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the claim of similarly placed persons was considered by the District Collector and they got the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption. However, the said benefit has not been granted to the petitioners, despite the fact that they had submitted several representations. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even in W.P.No.12308 of 2005, this Court, by an order dated 30.04.2010, had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein, namely C.Palanisamy, for grant of regularization. Thereafter, the District Collector had also passed an order granting the benefit or regularization. Thus, the said benefit is to be granted to the petitioners herein also. He further submitted that the order of rejection is perverse, in view of the fact that the terms and conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No74, Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 27.06.2013 has not been complied with. When the grievance of the similarly placed persons were redressed, the said Government Order cannot be cited as a reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioners herein. 6. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents states that the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 27099 and 27101 of 2015 and the petitioner's mother, namely Visalakshi, in W.P.No.27100 of 2015 were not appointed through District Employment Exchange. Thus, their initial appointments were irregular and not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. 6. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents states that the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 27099 and 27101 of 2015 and the petitioner's mother, namely Visalakshi, in W.P.No.27100 of 2015 were not appointed through District Employment Exchange. Thus, their initial appointments were irregular and not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. It is contended that the Chatram Administration is not a Government Department and thus, the Government Order referred by the petitioners is not applicable and there is no separate order passed for grant of regularization to the contingency staff working in Chatram Administration. G.O.Ms.No.62, dated 20.03.1987 was issued to bring all the contingency staff under the regular establishment of time scale of pay. Since the Chatram Department is not coming under the category, the petitioners are not entitled to get the regular employment and other benefits. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, made a submission that in the Government Order issued in G.O.RT.No.349, dated 07.04.1987, it was stated that the benefits extended to the Government servants are to be extended to the Chatram staff also. Therefore, the statement made in the counter affidavit is incorrect. 8. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have filed these writ petitions after attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners seek the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption, which cannot be granted in a routine manner. Regularization is to be granted in accordance with the Rules in force. Irregular and illegal appointments cannot be regularized and the High Court cannot issue any directions to the authorities to regularize the irregular or illegal appointments, by exercising the power under judicial review. 9. Equal opportunity in public employment is the Constitutional mandate and the candidates, who are aspiring to secure public employment, are to be provided with an opportunity to participate in the process of selection. In the event of back door entry, the rights of eligible candidates, who all are aspiring to secure employment, are infringed. 10. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , settled the principles in the matter of regularization and permanent absorption. 10. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , settled the principles in the matter of regularization and permanent absorption. Even subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. R.Govindaswamy and others reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769 , has issued a direction that the High Courts are not empowered to issue a direction to regularize the services of employees who were not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. 11. In the present case, the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 27099 and 27101 of 2015 and the petitioner's mother, namely Visalakshi, in W.P.No.27100 of 2015 were not appointed through District Employment Exchange and thus, their appointments were irregular. More so, they have filed these writ petitions after attaining the age of superannuation and that too only for the purpose of family pension, which cannot be considered at this length of time. That apart, the regularization cannot be granted in violation of the Rules by the High Court in a writ proceedings. 12. Thus, in view of the fact that the petitioners have not established any acceptable reason for the purpose of granting regularisation, this Court is not inclined to consider the case of the writ petitioners. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.