ORDER : Shamim Ahmed, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed, under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India , to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2 nd Respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.AE2/22243/2020 dated 15.02.2021 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioners in the post of Seasonal Bill Clerk with back wages and all attendant and other benefits. 2. The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Writ Petition and necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:- (a)The 3 rd Respondent invited applications from eligible candidates through a public notice dated 23.11.2018 in the newspaper for appointment to the posts of Seasonal Bill Clerk, Seasonal Helper, and Seasonal Watchman. Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted an application and selected to the post of Seasonal Bill Clerk and joined the service for the season 2018-2019, as per the order issued by the 3 rd Respondent dated 29.01.2019. Since the season for the year 2018-2019 had ended, the 3 rd Respondent, through proceedings dated 15.04.2019, relieved the Petitioner from service due to the stoppage of paddy inflow. (b)As per the terms of settlement between the Respondent Corporation and the trade union, arrived at before the Labour Commissioner, Chennai dated 30.01.1997, it was agreed that the qualified seasonal employees who are initially recruited through employment change will be given preference relaxing only age qualification without relaxing any other qualification. The said settlement is still in force and the seasonal employees recruited to the respondent Corporation are given preference in employment during the next season. The Petitioner was under the bonafide impression that during the next season that is 2019-2020, their services would be utilized by the respondent Corporation based on the order dated 29.01.2019. (c)In the meanwhile, the 1 st Respondent by his order dated 31.01.2020 had directed the Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi Zonal Office of the Respondent Corporation to relieve as many as 20 and 17 Seasonal Bill Clerk to the Office of the 3 rd Respondent as the Seasonal Bill Clerks are not available at Madurai region for the purchase season 2019-2020. (c)In the meanwhile, the 1 st Respondent by his order dated 31.01.2020 had directed the Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi Zonal Office of the Respondent Corporation to relieve as many as 20 and 17 Seasonal Bill Clerk to the Office of the 3 rd Respondent as the Seasonal Bill Clerks are not available at Madurai region for the purchase season 2019-2020. The fact remains that already the Seasonal Bill Clerks were appointed when the Petitioner was recruited pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 23.11.2018 and for the reasons best known to the Respondents, the Petitioner's service in the post of Seasonal Bill Clerk was not utilized by the Respondent Corporation and the reasons for the same was also not intimated to the Petitioner. (d)The 2 nd Respondent, through the impugned order dated 15.02.2021, terminated the Petitioner's services, stating that the Petitioner's appointment as a Seasonal Employee vide proceedings No. E2/7529/2018 dated 29.01.2019 was made without following the guidelines and due procedure. Consequently, the Respondents cancelled the appointments and proposed to conduct a fresh selection process, making new appointments in accordance with the relevant guidelines. Aggrieved by the Respondents' actions, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.D.Kirubakaran, learned counsel for M/s.B.Saravanan Associates, appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.G.Mohankumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed in the open market and had worked in the said post for the season 2018-2019. According to the Petitioner, once an employee is selected and appointed as Seasonal Employee, they will be engaged during the successive seasons also. However, during the next season, the Petitioners were not engaged and Seasonal Bill Clerks were deployed from other zones to Madurai Region. He further submits that even if the Petitioner's appointment was to be cancelled for any reason, the respondent corporation could not have done so unilaterally without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without conducting an enquiry. Since the Petitioner was employed through the open market, his appointment could not be cancelled, as he had accrued the right to continue with that employment. Therefore, the learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow the Writ Petition. He further submits that the Petitioner's appointment was terminated on grounds of non-compliance with guidelines. However, the Petitioner was not at fault. Therefore, the learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow the Writ Petition. He further submits that the Petitioner's appointment was terminated on grounds of non-compliance with guidelines. However, the Petitioner was not at fault. The responsibility for the irregularities lies with the selection authorities, who have committed errors in the recruitment process for the year 2018-2019. Consequently, departmental proceedings have been initiated against the concerned officials. 5. Per contra, Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner was engaged as temporary Seasonal employees such as Bill Clerk on consolidated payment, to do the seasonal work of purchased paddy from the farmers in the Direct Purchase Centers. After the orders passed by the 2 nd Respondent dated 15.03.2021, the petitioner has not opted to challenge the said order. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner was engaged as a temporary seasonal employee for a particular season. After the season was over, the Petitioner was ousted from service through the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the 2 nd Respondent, However, the same was not put to challenge. Therefore, there is no question of reinstating the Petitioner in service that too with back wages and attendance benefits, as they are not permanent employees. He further submits that the Petitioner herein participated in the 2019 seasonal employee's selection process by submitting his application under open competition and his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange. Similarly placed persons filed a batch of writ petitions which were disposed by a common order dated 22.12.2021, with an observation that the seasonal employees can be selected only through oral and written examinations. However, this Court had directed the authorities to grant age relaxation wherever required. For better appreciation, it is relevant to extract the order dated 22.12.2021 passed in W.P.(MD)No.21167 of 2021, which is as follows: “12.According to the respondent Corporation, the selection committee of the year 2018-2019 without following the guidelines issued in the Manual on Paddy Procurement, have made appointments. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against three persons of the selection committee and they were imposed with punishment and as against others enquiry is pending. Since it is a recruitment for a particular season, they have been discharged from services by the orders impugned in the writ petitions. However, the petitioners have been provided with training for few days during their employment. Since it is a recruitment for a particular season, they have been discharged from services by the orders impugned in the writ petitions. However, the petitioners have been provided with training for few days during their employment. The petitioners have worked in four seasons. The learned standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that there is no impediment for the petitioners to take part in the ongoing recruitment process. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: i.Since it is submitted that the petitioners have not made any application in view of the pendency of these writ petitions, the respondents shall permit the petitioners to take part in the ongoing recruitment process by accepting the applications to be submitted by them on or before 28.12.2021 and the petitioners shall submit their applications as above; ii.The petitioners shall be considered independently without being influenced with regard to the selection process of the year 2018 – 2019; iii.As it is submitted that the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.21167 and 22836 of 2021 have crossed the prescribed age limit, their cases may also be considered by relaxing the age limit, since they have experience of working in four seasons and had undergone training for some days;” 6. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the entire materials available on record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was recruited as Seasonal Bill Clerk for the purpose of paddy procurement by the Civil Supplies Corporation. According to the Respondent Corporation, the selection committee of the year 2018-2019 without following the guidelines have made appointments. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the erring officials who have committed errors in the recruitment process for the year 2018-2019. Since it is a recruitment for a particular season, the Petitioner has been discharged from service by the order impugned in the writ petition. 8. Notwithstanding the cancellation of the initial appointment, the petitioner has the right to participate in future recruitment process. The termination order does not preclude the Petitioner from applying for new positions or being considered in future recruitment process. The Respondent acknowledges that the Petitioner's appointment was made in violation of the established recruitment procedure and the guidelines. The aforementioned irregularity resulted in the termination of the Petitioner's employment. The termination order does not preclude the Petitioner from applying for new positions or being considered in future recruitment process. The Respondent acknowledges that the Petitioner's appointment was made in violation of the established recruitment procedure and the guidelines. The aforementioned irregularity resulted in the termination of the Petitioner's employment. However, it is evident that the Petitioner is not at fault for the irregularities in the selection process and should not be penalized for the errors made by the selection committee. The termination should not adversely affect the Petitioner's reputation, as the responsibility for the irregularities lies with the authorities. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner should be allowed to participate in the forthcoming recruitment process for selection as a seasonal employee, if any. Considering the petitioner's prior experience as a seasonal employee, it is reasonable to grant an age relaxation for the forthcoming selection process. The experience acquired by the petitioner during his previous tenure as a seasonal employee be taken into consideration while deciding the relaxation of age limit. This Court hereby directs the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to participate in the future recruitment process, with the possibility of relaxing the age limit in view of the Petitioner's prior experience and service during the previous season. 10. In view of the above, the Petitioner is hereby granted an opportunity to apply for the forthcoming recruitment process and shall be considered independently, with due regard to his previous experience and eligibility for age relaxation. The Respondents are directed to conduct the future recruitment process in a fair, transparent manner, and in accordance with the guidelines, rules and regulations. It is further clarified that, as a seasonal worker, the Petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any arrears of monetary benefits. 11. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.