The denial of regularization to the Writ Petitioners was found to be a violation of the Constitutional requirement of equality before the law, and the cut off date for regularization was not strictly followed by the Appellants/State.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: These Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 10.04.2018 made in W.P.Nos.27825 and 27826 of 2011.)

Common Order:

Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Order of Writ Court, both these Appeals had been filed by the Government seeking to set aside the Order passed in W.P.Nos.27825 and 27826 of 2011, dated 10.04.2018.

2. The Respondents/Writ Petitioners were working as Technical Assistants in the Town Panchayat, Salem. Writ Petitions were filed by the Respondents herein.

3. The Respondents/Writ Petitioners were appointed as Technical Assistants with the Director of Town Panchayat, Kuralagam in 2009. They are qualified in Diploma in Civil Engineering. On being appointed in 2009, they had been continuously working without any interruption. The post of Technical Assistant is a work charged post and the salary to the said post, is paid out of common fund created for the said purpose. They were never treated as regular Government servants. Since the Writ Petitioners were working in the post of Technical Assistant for long years and in response to the repeated representations, the Government took a policy decision to sanction regular posts, called ''Work Inspectors'' to accommodate such all those Technical Assistants, who had fulfilled certain criteria as permanent employees. The Government passed a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.93 dated 28.5.1998 creating several categories of posts in the Engineering Wing in addition to the existing engineering posts. The date on which, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.211, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 29.11.2001 imposing general ban on recruitment and 5 sanctioned posts of Work Inspectors were brought on regular time pay scale at Rs.3050-4590 and all the Technical Assistants who were initially regularized, were granted necessary relaxation of the rules and all other were allotted the same District where they were originally employed. Some of the Technical Assistants like the Petitioners herein who were appointed after 2001 had approached this Court by way of Writ Petitions, which came to be dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. However, as against dismissal of the Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals were filed and Appellants therein had withdrawn the Writ Appeals and submitted a representation to the Director of Town Panchayat, the second Appellant herein to consider their claim for absorbing them as Work Inspectors. The second Appellant in consideration of the said representation, has recommended for their absorption by proceedings dated 15.01.2011. In a batch of Writ Appeals, viz., W.A.No.1507 to 1516 of 2010, wherein, the Government is the Appellant and while recording the subsequent development, the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court had disposed of the Appeals as follows:

"7. Aggrieved, the Government has come forward with these appeals. Though the learned Government Pleader raised many contentions with regard to the claim of the respondents for appointment as Work Inspectors, we do not want to delve into the same for, it appears that in respect of certain candidates/incumbents, who had joined in the post after 2001, the learned single Judge declined to grant relief and their writ petitions were dismissed. Those writ petitioners preferred Writ Appeals against the said judgment. Subsequently, those appellants withdrew the writ appeals and submitted representation to the second respondent to consider their cases for absorption as Work Inspectors. The second respondent appears to have favourably considered those representations and by proceedings Na.Ka.No.22943/2009 A2, dated 15.01.2011 recommended them to be considered for absorption. Copy of such proceedings was produced before us by the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the case of the present respondents shall also be considered along with others for their absorption. Learned counsel a