Unequal treatment of employees regarding regularization violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, leading to a mandate for authorities to consider valid claims based on established qualifications.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

W.P.(C)No.4620 of 2021

It is averred that the petitioners 1 to 5 were appointed as Junior Project Assistants and the 6^th petitioner as Junior Assistant in the 2^nd respondent Corporation. They have been working in the Corporation ever since its formation in 1995. Immediately on the formation of the Corporation, Rules were framed for the appointment of the Managing Director of the Corporation as per G.O.(MS)No. 19/95/SCSTDD dated 07.06.1995, and accordingly, the Managing Director was appointed in 1995. After due process of selection, the petitioners were appointed in 1995 by the then Managing Director. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O. (MS)No.23/96/SCSTDD dated 29.03.1996 prescribing the method of appointment of the executive staff of the Corporation. Thereafter, the special rules were amended as per Ext.P1 Government Order dated 29.09.1997. As per Ext.P1 special rules, fresh applications were invited, and the petitioners applied for various posts based on their qualifications. Accordingly, an interview board was constituted, and the board interviewed all the applicants and the petitioners who were found to be more suitable were selected and appointed. By Ext.P1 Special Rules, category No.13 is Junior Assistant/Clerk, and the method of appointment is direct recruitment. The qualification prescribed is a Degree in Arts/Science/Commerce recognised by the Universities in Kerala. Category No.14 is Junior Project Assistant, and the method of appointment is direct recruitment. The qualification is the completion of pre-degree course. As petitioners had qualification for appointment to the said post, they were granted appointment strictly in compliance with Ext.P1 special rules. Along with the petitioners, a larger number of other workers were also appointed on a daily wage basis during the year 1995-1996. While so, the petitioners were terminated in 2000. Thereupon, an industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal as ID.No.54/2003, and as per Ext.P2, ID No.54/2003 was allowed, holding that the termination of service of the petitioners is illegal and therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement with 50% of the backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. But the 2^nd respondent Corporation did not take any steps to implement the same, and they challenged the Award before this Court, filing W.P.(C)No.29529 of 2012, which was ultimately dismissed as per Ext.P3 judgment. Thereafter, appeals were preferred by the Management as W.A.Nos.1941 of 2014 and 1922 of 2014, and as per the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners were re-engaged from 2014, but on daily wages. The appeals were also dismissed as per Ext.P5 judgment. Hence, further aggrieved, the 2^nd respondent approached the Apex Court, filing S.L.P.No.6533 of 2017, which was also dismissed as per Ext.P6. Only on filing of a Contempt of Court Case that the directions in Ext.P2 Award of the Industrial Tribunal was complied. The petitioners would submit that while so 56 daily wage employees engaged along with the petitioners in 1995-96 were regularised as per Ext.P7 Government Order, and later two other employees, who were also appointed along with the petitioners on a daily wage basis as Clerk/Cashier from 1995 onwards, were also regularised by Ext.P8 order. Thereupon, the petitioners approached this Court filing W.P.(C)No.4393 of 2019, seeking regulari