The main legal point established is the requirement to adhere to the guidelines in Ext.P3 order and Section 224 of the Municipalities Act, and the need for appointments to be made from the seniority list of substitute workers engaged through employment exchange.

Both these writ petitions relate to absorption of substitute workers as Sanitation workers in the contingent service of Muvatupuzha Municipality. The issue raised in these cases is in respect of the preference to employment exchange hands, over others in the matter of regular appointment. The parties and documents referred to in the judgment are as described in W.P. (C) No. 37079 of 2015 unless otherwise specified.

2. The petitioners in W.P(c).No.37079 of 2015 are substitute workers (sanitation) appointed on being sponsored by the employment exchange, as per Ext.P2 letter dated 08.08.2008. They were engaged in the Municipality w.e.f 13.4.2010 as per Ext.P1 minutes. The petitioners are challenging the appointment of respondents 5 to 11 and seeking directions to the Municipality to give them permanent appointment to the post of Sanitation Workers in preference to the party respondents in accordance with Ext.P3 Government Order and Ext.P5(b) direction and to ensure implementation of Ext.P6 order. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the writ petition, 2 of the petitioners got appointment, but it was only after the regular appointment of the party respondents. Petitioners seek appointment in preference to the party respondents.

3. There are a total number of 45 permanent contingent posts in the Municipality. The case of the petitioners is that despite the direction in Ext.P3 order- G.O(Ms).No.14/82/LBR dated 22.04.1982, the respondent Municipality is not giving due preference to the substitute workers like them appointed through the employment exchange and they appointed the party respondents contrary to the Government orders.

4. At the same time, it is the case of the party respondents that they started working in the Municipality even before the year 1997-98 and there is a direction from the Government to the Municipality, to maintain 2 lists i.e. one containing the names of employment exchange hands and the other containing the names of those engaged otherwise than through employment exchange. The petitioners joined the Municipality only in the year 2010.

5. Regular appointments were made in the Municipality only in the year 2012 when both sets of substitute workers like petitioners as well as those like respondents 5 to 11 are available. According to the petitioners, Ext.P5 as well as Ext.P5 (b) and Ext.P6 do not provide for any ambiguity in the matter of preference to be given to the candidates sponsored through employment exchange.

6. The petitioners in W.P(C).No.37079 of 2015 point out that they were sponsored for appointment by the employment exchange as per Ext.P2 letter dated 8.8.2008. The substitute workers get engaged in the absence of permanent workers in the Municipality. The petitioners submit that the usual practice followed in the Municipality is to absorb the workers sponsored by the employment exchange as and when vacancies of permanent sanitation workers arise. By Ext.P3 order dated 22.04.1982, the Government issued guidelines for the selection and preparation of a reserve list for appointment of substitute workers in contingent wing. Those guidelines were issued on the basis of the recommendations made in the report of a committee constituted for examining the revision of pay and allied matters in respect of contingent workers in Municipality/ Corporations. The committee reported that there was no uniformity in the selection of substitute workers for appointment and they were not recruited through employment exchange. After examining that report the Government observed as follows:

"I. A list of substitute workers who had served in each category in the Corporations/ Municipalities concerned and who are still available for regular appointment will be prepared. The list so prepared will be brought to notice of the workers and the same published in the Notice Board of the Corporations/Municipalities concerned. When regular vacancies arise in the contingent establishment, these substitute workers will