JUDGMENT : N.SENTHILKUMAR, J. These intra court appeals have been filed challenging the common order passed by the Writ Court in WP.No.2636 of 2025, WP.No.2690 of 2025, WP.No.2656 of 2025, WP.No.2649 of 2025, WP.No.2696 of 2025, WP.No.2692 of 2025 and WP.No.2645 of 2025 dated 11.11.2025. 2.The subject Writ Petitions were filed challenging the orders passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioners to absorb them in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and also to regularise their service from the date of their initial appointment in the Dharmapuri District Development Corporation Limited. 3.The case of the Appellants herein/writ petitioners in the writ Petition was that the Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.672, Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 15.04.1975, whereby a company designated as the Dharmapuri District Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “DDDCL”) was constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 . After constitution of DDDCL, the Appellants were temporarily appointed in various posts from the year 1975. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Junior Engineer and then as Assistant Executive Engineer and they have retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, in the year of 2014 itself. In the meantime, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.14, Rural Development (SGSY) Department dated 21.01.2000 and directed the 2 nd respondent to wind up the DDDCL and to establish District Rural Development Agency in its place. 4.It is the further case of the Appellants that a proposal was sent by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to the 1 st respondent seeking to absorb the staff of the DDDCL as Government servants with protection of pay and continuity of service for pensionary and other benefits. In this regard, the 1 st respondent issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.61 Rural Development (E1) Department dated 26.02.2001, permitting the 2 nd respondent to take three Assistant Executive Engineers, one Assistant Engineer and twelve Junior Engineers of the DDDCL on deputation basis in the panchayat development unit till their absorption. 5.Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent had also sent proposals for absorption of the staff in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and other agencies. 5.Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent had also sent proposals for absorption of the staff in the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and other agencies. Pending proposals, the 1 st respondent passed another order in G.O.Ms.No.61 Rural Development (SGSY) Department, dated 06.06.2003 ordering the formation of Dharmapuri District Socio Economic Development Society and directing that the absorption of the employees of the erstwhile DDDCL either in the newly formed society or in the Rural Development Department would be decided by the 3 rd respondent in consultation with the 2 nd respondent. 6.The proposal of the absorption of the employees of the DDDCL sent by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents was thereafter scrutinised by the 1 st respondent, who classified the employees under two categories viz., the employees who come under the purview of Tamil Nade Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “TNPSC”) and the employees who do not. Based on such classification, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.57, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department dated 20.08.2013, absorbing only those employees who do not come under the purview of TNPSC and who were in service as on the date of the said Government Order. Accordingly, certain categories such as Office Assistants, Drivers and Watchman were absorbed and their services were regularised from the date of their initial appointment in the erstwhile corporation. However, the posts held by the appellants come under the purview of TNPSC and moreover they had already retired from their service. 7.Aggrieved by the non-absorption, the appellants had earlier filed a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.14734 of 2015 &etc., and this Court, by order dated 19.02.2020, directed consideration of their representations. As the same were not considered, they filed another batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.34047 of 2023 & etc. and by order dated 11.01.2024, this Court again directed the first respondent to pass orders on merits. Pursuant to the same, the 1 st respondent rejected the request of the appellants, which led to the filing of the Writ Petitions and the same came to be dismissed by the Writ Court. 8.The Writ Court, after taking into consideration the entire facts held that the proposals sent by the respondents were only recommendatory in nature and that acceptance or rejection of such proposals lies within the discretion of the Government. 8.The Writ Court, after taking into consideration the entire facts held that the proposals sent by the respondents were only recommendatory in nature and that acceptance or rejection of such proposals lies within the discretion of the Government. The Writ Court further held that since the appellants fall under the category governed by TNPSC and had already attained superannuation, the question of absorption as Government servants and regularisation of their services from the date of initial appointment does not arise, and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petitions, against which the present Appeals have been preferred. 9.Heard the learned counsel for the Appellants, the learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4 and the learned standing counsel for the 5 th respondent. 10.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is no impediment for absorbing the appellants and for regularising their service from the date of their initial appointment in the erstwhile corporation and that the proposals forwarded by the authorities ought to have been acted upon. 11.However, the proposals forwarded by the respondents were only proposals and not binding orders. Accepting or rejecting the proposal is the sole discretion of the Government. Taking into consideration that the appellants fall under the purview of TNPSC and that they had already retired from service even prior to the filing of the Writ Petitions, the question of absorption and regularisation of their service cannot be taken into consideration. 12.Though the learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the proposals could be acted upon and could be given retrospective effect for the purpose of notional promotion, regularisation and consequential retirement benefits, we are not impressed on such submissions as the writ Court rightly observed that it is only a proposal and there is no mandate for the Government to accept the same. Apart from that, the writ Court has also taken into consideration of the fact that at the time of filing of the writ petition itself, the appellants got superannuated. Therefore, the claim made by the appellants cannot be acted upon. In view of the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the writ Court and the present Appeals are devoid of merits. 13.Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are dismissed. No costs.