THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Writ petitioners are the appellants. While regularising their service as Leprosy Inspectors in the Health Service Department, Government ordered that such regularisation can only be prospective and that their past service would not be counted for any service benefits, including pension. Their challenge against such restrictions imposed as per Ext.P1 Government Order was turned down by the learned single Judge. Hence, this appeal.

2. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the conditions imposed in the impugned Ext.P1 that regularisation will have only perspective effect and that past service would not be counted for any service benefits including pension, are arbitrary and unreasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case. He criticized such restrictions as amounting to indignation of the appellants, who are marginalised people; their pathetic situation being reflected even in the Government Orders which have ultimately been issued on ‘humanitarian’ consideration.

3. Per contra, Sri. Noble Mathew, the learned Senior Government Pleader, referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (AIR 1992 SC 2130) and argued that the creation and abolition of post is the prerogative of the executive and the materials disclose that the writ petitioners and others had joined as provisional recruits being fully aware of the situation in which they would be placed. He also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in K. Madalaimuthu v. State of T.N. ((2006) 6 SCC 558) to point out that period of temporary service prior to regularisation is irrelevant even to determine the seniority.

4. Apart from the materials on record before the learned single Judge, three additional documents have been admitted in evidence in the Writ Appeal. They are two Government Orders and a judgment of this Court in W.A.No.513 of 2014. That apart, we had the opportunity to peruse the Training Manual for Medical Officers issued by the National Leprosy Eradication Programme under the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India which, among other things, discloses, to a great extent, the efforts taken by India towards leprosy eradication. We also called for the Judges Papers and judgment in W.P.(C) No.12751 of 2004 decided by the Division Bench on 4th January, 2007 along with two Writ Appeals since it was seen that they would be profitable for reference in view of the relevant issues and because this is a Court of Record.

5. G.O.(Rt)No.874/2003/H&FWD dated 21.3.2003 evidences that the National Leprosy Eradication Programme was implemented for the first time in 1987, in Alappuzha district and later the programme was implemented in all districts in a phased manner and that as per the guidelines of the Government of India at the time of implementation of the Multi Drug Therapy programme, the required number of field staff had to be recruited by the State Government. At that time, the State Health Department faced dearth of Leprosy Inspectors and there was no live list of candidates with the Kerala Public Service Commission, ‘PSC’, for short. It was in those circumstances that it was decided to recruit persons on temporary basis through employment exchange. This factual position stands corroborated by the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Kerala to the Writ Petition. It says, among other things, that Government of India implemented National Leprosy Eradication Programme, a 100% centrally sponsored programme, all over the States with an object of “leprosy free nation”. It proceeds to say that in Kerala, the staff for that programme was to be appointed through Public Service Commission on condition that they would be integrated with General Health staff as and when the Government of India winds up the programme. Hence, only because a live list of Leprosy Health