JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his Proceedings R.No.35967/E5/A3/2012 dated 13.06.2012 and the consequential order passed by the 4th respondent in Memorandum No.1156/OTD-C3/2007 dated 27.10.2014 and quash the same, and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Surgeon on the basis of the Special Qualifying Examination held in 2009 for the temporarily appointed Assistant Surgeons and confer all the consequential benefits.) 1. The order of termination issued under Rule 10(a) (i) Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and another order passed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in proceedings dated 27.10.2014, rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner for selection to the post of Assistant Surgeon are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. Though, the orders passed by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and by the Chairman of Tamil Nadu Public Service commission are different, the petitioner has chosen to file a single writ petition in respect of two different orders passed by the two different authorities. 3. The petitioner states that he passed M.B.B.S. in the year 2006 and registered his name in the employment exchange. He was appointed as Assistant Surgeon temporarily under Rule 10(a) (i) and posted as Medical Officer at Government Primary Health Centre, Thirunavalur on 19.02.2007. The petitioner was serving continuously and all of a sudden, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine terminated the services of the writ petitioner by invoking the Rule 10(a)(v) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. 4. Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules contemplates temporary appointments. Accordingly, the authorities competent are empowered to appoint temporary employees in the public interest and such appointments are made under Rule 10(a)(i) is liable to be terminated at any point of time without any reason. Rule 10(a) (v) stipulates that “A person appointed under clause (i), (ii) or (iv) shall not be regarded as a probationer in such service, class or category or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to further appointment to such service, class or category. Rule 10(a) (v) stipulates that “A person appointed under clause (i), (ii) or (iv) shall not be regarded as a probationer in such service, class or category or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to further appointment to such service, class or category. The services of a person appointed under clause (i), (ii) or (iv) shall be liable to be terminated by the appointing authority at any time without any reason being assigned”. Therefore, the holders of the Rule 10(a) appointment have no right to seek regularisation or continuance of their service. It is an emergency provision provided for appointing candidates for temporarily by considering the obligations. Therefore, the termination of the services of the writ petitioner cannot be construed as infirm. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised a ground that a Criminal Case was registered against the writ petitioner and on that ground, the petitioner was terminated from service, which resulted in stigma and thus, resulted in impugned order, which is liable to be set aside. Pendency of a Criminal case may be a reason for issuing an order of termination from the services. However, the respondents have not terminated the services of the writ petitioner based on the pendency of the Criminal Case, but the authorities competent invoked Rule 10(a) (v) of the Tami Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Thus, the order does not contemplate any stigma or otherwise. 6. Contrarily, the authorities have invoked the provisions of the Rule 10(a) (v) of the General Rules and accordingly terminated the writ petitioner. Therefore, the ground raised in this regard deserves no further consideration, since the authorities have not issued the impugned order based on the Criminal Case registered against the writ petitioner. 7. As far as the rejection of candidature of the writ petitioner for recruitment to the post of Assistant Surgeon is concerned, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission relied on the order of termination issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. That apart, the Criminal Case was pending against the writ petitioner, during the relevant point of time, when the selection was undertaken. As per the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rules, the candidates, against whom, the criminal charges are pending, are not eligible for selection. 8. That apart, the Criminal Case was pending against the writ petitioner, during the relevant point of time, when the selection was undertaken. As per the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rules, the candidates, against whom, the criminal charges are pending, are not eligible for selection. 8. This being the factum established, the appointment made under Rule 10(a) (i) is temporary and there is no infirmity in respect of invocation of Rule 10(a) (v) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules by the competent authority and as far as the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is concerned, the order of termination passed by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine is relied upon and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.