1. The fate of these writ petitions depends upon the impact of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others v. Umadevi (3) & others reported in [(2006) 4 SCC 1], commonly referred to as Umadevi (3) case, on their factual matrices and contextual situations. Depending upon its answer, the question whether the orders canceling regularisation of the petitioners in service call for interference in the light of Umadevi (3) case, on account of violation of the principles of natural justice also crops up for consideration in W.P.(C) Nos.20687 and 22014 of 2011. In WP(C).Nos.18036 and 22810 of 2011 the question whether the petitioners are legally entitled to claim for reengagement and regularisation in service in the light of Umadevi (3) decision also would arise. Narration of facts, shorn of details, is required for deciding the aforesaid questions.

WP(C).No.20687/2011

2. The Institute of Parliamentary Affairs (for short ‘Institute’) was established by the Government as per GO(Ms.)No.3/203 dated 29.8.2003. In fact, it was registered as a Society under the Travancore-Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 and its entire affairs are controlled by the Department of Parliamentary Affairs of the Government of Kerala. The administrative head of the Institute is its Director General. The first petitioner was appointed as Security Guard in the Institute on contract basis on 25.8.2008 as per Ext.R2(a) and the second petitioner was appointed as Part-time Sweeper based on Ext.R2(c) request made by her on a white paper. She was appointed on contract basis as Part-time Sweeper as per Ext.R2 (e). Pursuant to their appointments they executed agreements with the Institute, viz., Exts.R2(b) and R2(d), respectively. Ext.R2(e) was produced by the respondents to refute the contention of the second petitioner, raised in the writ petition, that she was appointed through Employment Exchange. Subsequently, a reply-affidavit was filed stating that such a statement regarding appointment through Employment Exchange happened to be made due to oversight and inadvertence and an unconditional apology was also made for having made such a statement. I do not propose to go into that issue any further for any other purpose in the said circumstances. The period of their appointments were extended from time to time with the same conditions as originally fixed. While so, Ext.P1 bearing No.GO(Ms.)No.09/2010/PAD dated 03.08.2010 was issued creating the posts of DTP Operator/Typist, Security Guard and Part-time Sweeper in the Institute and prescribing the method of appointment to the said posts as hereunder:-

“MALAYALAM”

3. Subsequently, as per Ext.P2 Government Order viz., GO(Ms.)No.1/11/PAD dated 9.5.2011 the services of the petitioners were regularised respectively as Security Guards and Part-Time Sweeper in the Institute. Soon thereafter, as per Ext.P3 viz., GO (Ms)No.5/11/PAD dated 23.7.2011, Ext.P2 Order of regularization was cancelled pursuant to a decision of the Government to review the appointments and controversial decisions made by the Government after 1.1.2011. Based on Ext.P3, the second respondent issued Ext.P4 order dated 26.7.2011 cancelling the appointment of the petitioners. It is challenging Exts.P3 and P4 and also seeking for a declaration that they are entitled to continue in service under the Institute that this writ petition has been filed.

4. Considering the contention that’s Exts.P3 and P4 cancelling their regularization effected as per Ext.P2 without putting them on notice and without affording an opportunity of being heard, this Court passed an interim order on 28.7.2011 requiring the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue in their respective posts. The said order was extended from time to time and on the strength of the said order they are still continuing in service. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in State of Haryana v. State of