A.R. Lakshmanan, J.

Heard Mr. K.M. Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Antony Dominic, learned counsel for the second respondent-company.

2, The Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment in O.P. 15404 of 1997 of a learned single judge dated 25.9.1997 rejecting the Original Petition filed by the appellant. Appellant filed the OP for a mandamus directing the second respondent-management to appoint him and to quash Ext. P5 dated 17.2. 1997 under which the representation dated 9.10.1996 submitted by the appellant before the Honourable Minister for Industries and Social Welfare, rejecting the same on the ground that the appellant's appointment as temporary helper was not by virtue of his being a handicapped person.

3. Appellant's case is that he is a physically handicapped person and his 45% disability was assessed and found by a duly constituted medical board. He has enrolled for the ITI course and passed the same in Electrician trade. He registered himself with the Employment Exchange in 1990 as a physically handicapped person. In 1992, he was recruited as a temporary helper under the second respondent. He was originally appointed as a helper on 21.5.1992 and continued till 20.11.1992. Thereafter, he again worked from 23.11.1992 to 22.1.1993,16.8.1993 to 15.2.1994 and his last in it was from 18.2.94 to 22.8.1996. Contending that he is entitled for regularisation on account of the employment being in respect of a permanent post, appellant, along with several other employees, had approached this Court by filing O.P. 10357/94. An order was passed prohibiting termination dated 3.8.1994 of the appellant along with others. The said Original Petition was ultimately dismissed. Against the same, he has filed WA 1698 of 1996 and the same is pending. While so, the State of Kerala brought out Ext. P2 Government Order dated 30.3.1995 and directed regularisation of all physically handicapped provisional temporary employees. In pursuance of the same, the appellant, who admittedly worked during the period in question, made a representation to the second respondent dated 14.8.1995, which did not evoke any response. His representation was also rejected by the Government. Therefore, the appellant filed the present Original Petition with the prayers mentioned supra.

"4. The learned single judge dismissed the O.P. on the ground that the appellant was ousted from service on completion of 180 days of service or on account of abolition of his post. As pointed out in Ext. P5, the appellant was not appointed temporarily on account of the fact that he was a handicapped person. The learned judge also held that only persons who were appointed provisionally from among the physically handicapped persons can avail themselves of the benefit of Ext. P2 Government Order.

5. Before us, it is now contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the fact that the appellant is a handicapped person and that he has registered his name in the Employment Exchange as a handicapped person and in the event of there being no dispute about his having worked during the relevant period, the second respondent ought to have continued his employment and the action of respondents 1 and 2 in not appointing the appellant is arbitrary, illegal and against the tenor of Ext. P2. According to the learned counsel, the reasoning of the learned judge that only persons appointed provisionally from among the physically handicapped persons can avail the benefit of Ext. P2 is correct if it is understood as meaning that the person who is appointed to be a physically handicapped person within the meaning of the Government Order. Our attention was drawn to Ext. P2. The said Government Order was in respect of considering the question of regularisation of the services of the physically handicapped provisional (temporary) employees who were engaged in service during the SAARC year of the handicapped. Pending final decision and orders in the matter, the