Selection for public employment must consider existing daily wage workers alongside candidates from Employment Exchange, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to interim court directives.

JUDGMENT

Syam Kumar V.M, J

1. W.A.No.435 of 2022 and W.P(C)No. 33533 of 2022 are tagged together as they raise common questions for consideration. They are finally heard and disposed of together vide this judgment.

2. The Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 09.03.2021 in W.P.(C)No.9892 of 2020 of the learned Single Judge. Appellants were the petitioners in the said W.P.(C). The said W.P(C) was filed by the workers included in the Daily Labour Roll (DLR) maintained by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation seeking a direction to the respondent Corporation to grant them an opportunity to participate in the interview for selection and appointment as sanitation workers in the contingent service of the 3^rd respondent Municipal Corporation, along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Pursuant to an interim order dated 12.05.2020 passed in the W.P.(C), the respondent Municipal Corporation was directed to provisionally consider the candidature of the appellants along with other candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Thereafter, the W.P(C) was disposed of by the learned Single Judge along with the connected cases, inter alia directing the Municipal Corporation to evaluate the credentials of all persons presently in their DLR roll, which include the appellants as also persons who were earlier included in the list of 310 DLR workers, along with those who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange and to then prepare a list of all those candidates found eligible as per the criteria laid down for being regularised to the post of CLT workers.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, since it had directed consideration of all 310 persons included in the list of regularisation during 2017 and forwarded to the Government along with candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the preparation of lists for appointment towards contingent sanitation workers and contending that the consideration of DLR workers ought to have been confined to the appellants/petitioners in W.P(C)No. 9892/2020, this Writ Appeal has been preferred.

4. W.P.(C) No.33533 of 2022 has been filed by petitioners who are contingent workers in the Municipal Corporation who are included in the list of 310 daily waged contingent employees as approved by the Municipal Corporation. They seek to quash Exts.P4 and P8 orders dated 25.04.2019 and 03.10.2022 issued by the respondents leading to the regularisation of 87 persons selected from the Employment Exchange alone without considering existing daily wage workers in the list and for ancillary reliefs.

5. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, Advocate for the appellants, Sri.K.P.Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. Santhosh Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation. Smt.T.B. Mini, Advocate appeared for the petitioners in the Writ Petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge had rendered the impugned judgment without fully discerning the factual scenario as well as the prayers sought. Relying on the dictum laid down in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N.Visweshwara Rao and others ( 1996 KHC 1527 ), it is contended that selection to public employment shall be done giving room to other candidates pursuant to public advertisement, along