5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that the only reason cited by the second respondent for having terminated the services of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner was not initially sponsored by the Employment Exchange, since Rule 149(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules specifies appointments has to be made based on the sponsorship of the employment exchange and if any appointment is made without sponsoring from employment exchange, then certainly it would violate the said Rule 149 of the Rules and therefore, the service was terminated. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the reason given by the first respondent in his order dated 18.02.2013, wherein the first respondent has stated that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court dated 24.10.2002 made in W.A.No.2501 of 2001 ie., those who had been appointed on and after 11.03.2001 without their name being sponsored by employment exchange their service can be dispensed with immediately and those incumbent can be removed from service. According to the respondents since the petitioner had been working after the cut of date ie., 11.03.2001 and the name of the petitioner has not been sponsored by the employment exchange his service is liable to be terminated and accordingly, it was terminated. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the very same impugned order, the first respondent has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the said Writ Appeal referred to above, whereby it has been specifically stated that those who had been appointed after 11.03.2001 without following the norms as per Rule 149 can be terminated, provided if the said appointment is not in consonance with the required sponsorship from the employment exchange. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, those who have been appointed prior to 11.03.2001 or upto 11.03.2001 without their name being sponsored by the employment exchange, for this reason only, their services need not be dispensed with. By relying on the said judgment of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner had been initially appointed in August, 1997 and had been working subsequently for four years continuously and only for want of cadre strength his service has been terminated and subsequently has been reappointed/reemployed, the original date of appointment insofar as the petitioner is concerned should be assessed as August, 1997 and not from the reemployment date. Therefore, if initial appointment is taken into account, certainly appointment of the petitioner would be within the cut of date and his service need not be terminated for want of his name being sponsored by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ employment exchange. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the only reason assigned in the impugned orders is non-sponsorship of the petitioner from the
