ORDER : RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J. The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the second respondent, whereby he was terminated from service on 06.02.2017, and further prays for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to reinstate him in a regular vacancy and permit him to continue his regularized service with effect from 16.05.1990 to 21.08.2007 by relaxing the rules, as has been done in the case of other Government Departments. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above case are as follows: (i) On 26.04.1990, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking appointment. Subsequently, on 16.05.1990, he was appointed as a Night Watchman on a daily wage basis. On 05.07.2002, this Court, in W.P. No. 24107 of 2002, passed an order directing the second respondent/CEO to consider the petitioner’s representation. Further, the Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s service until the disposal of the representation. (ii) On 17.08.2007, the second respondent passed an order rejecting the representation. On 21.08.2007, the petitioner was relieved from service. On 04.12.2007, challenging the relieving order, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 28231 of 2007, which was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court. On 29.09.2008, the Division Bench, in W.A. No. 765 of 2008, confirmed the said order. (iii) On 21.11.2009, due to continuous financial losses incurred by the second respondent Khadi Board, the first respondent issued G.O.(Ms) No. 154 redeploying 378 regular employees/surplus staff of the Board to other Government Departments/Corporations. On 15.04.2010, the petitioner approached the Labour Court. However, no settlement was reached between the petitioner and the respondents, and a failure report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was forwarded by the Conciliation Officer. On 02.09.2010, the first respondent issued G.O.(Ms) No. 125, banning the second respondent Board from making any fresh direct recruitment of employees, which ban remains in force to date. On 20.01.2011, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 74 of 2011 before this Court, which was disposed of with a direction to the Labour Court to dispose of the industrial dispute within one year. (iv) On 27.02.2012, the Labour Court passed an award in I.D. No. 622 of 2010, dismissing the petitioner’s claim. On 27.06.2012, challenging the said award, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 16515 of 2012. (iv) On 27.02.2012, the Labour Court passed an award in I.D. No. 622 of 2010, dismissing the petitioner’s claim. On 27.06.2012, challenging the said award, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 16515 of 2012. On 30.01.2013, following the dismissal of the industrial dispute, the petitioner once again submitted a representation to the second respondent seeking regularization of his service. (v) Subsequently, the petitioner appears to have filed W.P. No. 6377 of 2013, which was dismissed as infructuous on 11.08.2016. Another writ petition, W.P. No. 25819 of 2016, seeking a direction to dispose of the representation, was ordered on 11.08.2016. The writ petition challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 622 of 2010 was the subject matter of W.P. No. 16515 of 2012. In that case, this Court, by order dated 02.09.2016, directed the Department to dispose of the appeal and dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to prosecute the appeal pending before the Department. (vi) In other words, the order of dismissal passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 622 of 2010 was confirmed in the writ proceedings. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had worked from 16.05.1990 to August 2017, thereby completing 17 years of service. It was contended that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for regular employment upon completion of 10 years of service, in light of the Government Orders cited by the petitioner, namely, G.O. No. 22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, and G.O. No. 74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.06.2013. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The second and third respondents have filed a separate counter. 5. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The second and third respondents have filed a separate counter. 5. Based on the counter affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel for the Khadi Board drew my attention to "Regulation 6" of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Service Regulations, which is reproduced below: (i) The Staff Selection Committee constituted by the Board shall make the selection of candidates by direct recruitment for all the posts included in Groups A, B, C, and D. (ii) In the case of direct recruitment, the vacancies shall be notified to the concerned District Employment Exchange and/or the Central Employment Exchange in the State, as the case may be, and appointments shall be made by the Selection Committee from among the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and/or the Central Employment Exchange. No other candidates shall be appointed unless a non-availability certificate has been obtained from the concerned District and/or Central Employment Exchange. (iii) It is evident from the above regulation, which was approved by the Government vide G.O. No. 147, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi (F.1) Department, dated 03.06.1989 and issued through Khadi Board Proceedings No. 180, dated 15.07.1989, that no appointment can be made without adhering to the recruitment procedures prescribed in the regulations approved by the Government. 6. Hence, upon perusal of the above regulation, I find that, as per "Regulation 6" of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board's Service Regulations, any appointment to the Board must be made by sponsoring candidates through the Employment Exchange. The eligible list of candidates shall be placed before the Staff Selection Committee, which will conduct personal interviews. Based on the candidates' qualifications and performance in the interview, appointments shall be made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, with the approval of the Staff Selection Committee. 7. With regard to the service matrix of the petitioner, the Department has submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wage worker and appointed as a Night Watchman on an ad hoc basis with effect from 05.05.1990, as per the memo issued by the Assistant Director (Khadi and Village Industries), Kancheepuram, vide Memo No. 90/E dated 26.04.1990. He was engaged on a daily wage basis as a Night Watchman in the office of the Assistant Director (Khadi and Village Industries), Kancheepuram, as and when required. He was engaged on a daily wage basis as a Night Watchman in the office of the Assistant Director (Khadi and Village Industries), Kancheepuram, as and when required. The petitioner served in this capacity from 05.05.1990 to 30.06.2006. However, during this period of 16 years and 27 days, it is stated that he did not render continuous service. 8 . Furthermore, it is stated that the petitioner’s services were utilized only when required and not on a continuous basis. The post held by the petitioner was not a permanent one, as per the regulations of the Board. He was not recruited through the Employment Exchange, as mandated by the Board's Service Regulations, nor was he selected by the Staff Selection Committee. His appointment as a Night Watchman on a daily wage and ad hoc basis was made by the Assistant Director (Khadi and Village Industries), Kancheepuram. However, the said Assistant Director is not a competent authority to make appointments to the Board’s service. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim entitlement to regular appointment within the Board's service. It is also noticed that various writ petitions filed by the petitioner in this regard have been dismissed. 9. As per the direction of this Court in W.P. No. 28231 of 2007, dated 04.12.2007, it appears that the petitioner moved the Labour Court in Sriperumbudur. The Labour Officer called both parties for a settlement, but as no smooth settlement was reached, a "failure report" was issued under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 15.04.2010. The petitioner subsequently filed a case in the Labour Court, I.D. No. 622 of 2010. While the matter was pending in the Labour Court, he filed another case in the High Court of Madras, in CRP (PD) No. 74 of 2011. The judgment in this case was delivered on 20.01.2011, directing that the case pending in I.D. No. 622 of 2010 in the Labour Court be disposed of within one year. 10. I.D.622 of 2010 is dismissed, by observing that, 11. Aggrieved by the finding of the Labour Court, it appears that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16515 of 2012. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.09.2016, with a further direction to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 12. 10. I.D.622 of 2010 is dismissed, by observing that, 11. Aggrieved by the finding of the Labour Court, it appears that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16515 of 2012. The same was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.09.2016, with a further direction to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. 12. In short, the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the Government Order, since he was not appointed through the Employment Exchange and the mode of appointment was improper as per Regulation 6, is legally flawed. However, this finding has been upheld by the Labour Court. A categorical finding was rendered, and the same was confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 16515 of 2012. 13. It remains to be stated that the various Government Orders cited by the petitioner cannot be applied to him, as these Government Orders pertain solely to Government departments and not to the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board. The Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board is governed by its own service regulations, which have been approved by the Government. Therefore, any Government Order cannot be directly applied to the Board. 14. On perusal of Regulation 6, this Court finds that the appointment procedure outlined in Regulation 6 of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Service Regulations clearly states that any appointment must be made only by sponsoring candidates from the Employment Exchange. After an interview before the Staff Selection Committee, which is formed to select candidates for appointment, eligible candidates will be appointed to the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board. The petitioner, having failed to satisfy any of these regulations and having worked solely on a daily wage basis, cannot be considered for regularization into the regular scale. 15. Hence, both on the factual matrix and on the question of law, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as the writ petition itself is misconceived. The Labour Court passed an award in I.D. No. 622 of 2010, rejecting the petitioner’s claim that he is entitled to the benefits of various Government Orders. This award was confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 16515 of 2012. Furthermore, the recruitment process violated Regulation 6 of the Board, and the petitioner has not been placed on regular service. The Labour Court passed an award in I.D. No. 622 of 2010, rejecting the petitioner’s claim that he is entitled to the benefits of various Government Orders. This award was confirmed by this Court in W.P. No. 16515 of 2012. Furthermore, the recruitment process violated Regulation 6 of the Board, and the petitioner has not been placed on regular service. Additionally, the appointment was not approved by the second respondent. The appointment was made without the required permission from the second respondent, as stipulated under the regulations, which further highlights the significance of the procedural violation. 16. Furthermore, he worked as a substitute for another temporary employee. In other words, it was a stop-gap arrangement for the other employee. Therefore, from any perspective, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 17 .Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed . No costs.