J U D G M E N T

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The writ petitioner was appointed as a substitute Contingent Sanitation Worker under the appellant Municipality. When regular vacancies arise in the post of Contingent Sanitation Worker, such substitute workers are regularized according to their seniority. On finding that there are regular vacancies, the first respondent/petitioner submitted a representation before the appellant Municipality. The Municipality replied by Ext.P4 stating that owing to financial difficulties, the vacancies cannot be filled up on a regular basis. Challenging Ext.P4, the petitioner approached this court, by filing W.P.(C) No.17184/06. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment, it was ordered as follows :-

“The writ petition is disposed of with a direction that

the case of the petitioner for regularization shall be considered as and when representation in that behalf is filed before the

WA NO.15/2010 2 Director of Urban Affairs with sufficient particulars in suppor