7.Perusal of the impugned order would show that the petitioners' names are not finding a place in the proposal submitted by the Commissioner of Municipal Administration for regularizing the services of those persons as per G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 23.02.2006. Even according to the petitioners, they were in service only from 01.01.1996 to 01.07.1997. If that is their case, the admitted position is that they are not in service from 01.07.1997 onwards. Therefore, if at all, the petitioners are aggrieved against ousting they should have approached the appropriate forum challenging the ousting then and there. In this case, no such attempt has been made by the petitioners at any point of time and on the other hand, they seek to rely on an order passed in respect of an another person namely, V.Venkatraman made in W.P.No.14676 of 2002 dated 19.07.2007. I am of the view that the petitioners cannot take shelter under the said order especially under the circumstances that they are not in service from 01.07.1997 and not challenged the ousting so far. Therefore, considering their claim for regularization does not arise as per G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 23.02.2006 as the said G.O is not for making appointment and on the other hand, it is for regularizing the services of the persons who are already in employment. Accordingly, I find no merits in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
