IMPORTANT POINT
No person who was temporarily or casually employed could be directed to be continued permanently.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellants are before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21st July 2003 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam affirming an order dated 07th November 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court dismissing the writ petition filed by them seeking a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Kerala Water Authority to reinstate and regularise them in service purported to be in terms of a judgment and order of this Court in the case of Jacob M. Puthuparambil & Ors. etc. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors. etc.1 (1991) 1 SCC 28.

3. Appellants were said to have been appointed by the Kerala Water and Sewerage Authority (for short, ‘the Authority’) on daily wages in connection with carrying out of some projects. Their services were terminated in the year 1987. A writ petition before the Kerala High Court was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 22nd May 1987 directing :

“4. The petitioner shall make representations before the Kerala Water Authority detailing their claims within two weeks from this date. Such representations, if any, shall be considered and disposed of by the Authority and the Government after giving the petitioners opportunity of being heard as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of the representation. There shall be further direction to allow the petitioners to continue in service till such disposal of the representation.”

4. Indisputably, the question in regard to right of the employees of the Authority for regularisation in service was considered by this Court in the case of Jacob (supra). Upon taking into consideration the provisions of Section 69 of Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the 1986 Act’) and Rule 9(a)(i) of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (for short, ‘the Rules’), it was opined :

“.... Therefore, if we interpret Rule 9(a)(i) consistently with the spirit and philosophy of the Constitution, which it is permissible to do without doing violence to the said rule, it follows that employees who are serving on the establishment for long spells and have the requisite qualifications for the job, should not be thrown out but their services should be regularised as far as possible. Since workers belonging to this batch have worked on their posts for reasonably long spells they are entitled to regularisation in service.”

5. Indisputably, the appellants were not parties in the said matter before this Court. The judgment of this Court was rendered on 19th September 1990. Appellants made representations to the Authority on or about 19th November 1991 purporting to seek compliance of the judgment of this Court in the case of Jacob (supra) in their favour. Some of the employees who are said to be similarly situated filed a writ petition. Indisputably, the said writ petition was allowed. Certain observations were made therein. An intra-court appeal against the said judgment was filed by the Authority. Before the Division Bench of the said Court, an undertaking was allegedly given by the appellant-Authority that the said writ petitioners would be appointed on regular basis considering their respective qualifications. In the 0light of the said undertaking, the writ appeal was disposed of directing the writ petitioners to file representations in terms thereof. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said directions, seven persons were appointed in ‘regular posts as unskilled workers upon creation of supernumerary posts to satisfy the judgment of the High Court’.

6. Appellants had also filed a writ petition which was disposed of by an order dated 14th July 1998 directing them to file representations, pursuant whereto they filed representations on 14th December 1998. However, their representations were rejected by an order dated 16th December 1998 by the Authority.

7. Appellants challenged the order o