Employment candidates sponsored by an exchange must be considered in selection processes without prejudice despite administrative delays.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioners, who are applicants for appointment to the post of Contingent Workers in Varkala Municipality, seek to direct the respondents to continue to allow the petitioner to work as Contingent Workers in the available vacancies.

2. The petitioners state that the Varkala Municipality sought for sponsoring candidates from the Employment Exchange, Attingal for appointment to the post of Contingent Workers in the Municipality. The petitioners were interviewed for appointment to the post. When persons, who have been appointed on daily wage basis as Contingent Workers, filed W.P.(C) No.17022/2019, the Municipality submitted before this Court that they have already prepared a rank list of Sanitation Workers. The writ petition was closed as per Ext.P2 judgment.

3. The petitioners state that no action was taken by the Municipality to appoint the petitioners who were the rank holders in the select list. The 1^st petitioner hence filed W.P.(C) No.22142/2021. This Court, as per Ext.P4 judgment, directed the Varkala Municipality to take a final decision in the next Municipal Council meeting. The Municipality, however, decided not to appoint anybody from Ext.P1 rank list and decided to cancel Ext.P1 rank list.

4. The 4^th respondent-Secretary to Municipality did not agree with the decision of the Municipality. The 4^th respondent referred the matter to the Municipal Director as per Ext.P5 letter. The petitioners submit that meritorious rank holders are denied appointment solely for accommodating daily wage workers.

5. The 1^st petitioner filed W.P.(C)

No.9397/2022 challenging the decision of the Municipal Council to cancel Ext.P1 rank list. The 1^st petitioner also filed W.P.(C) No.13580/2022 challenging Ext.P6 decision of the Municipal Council. By Ext.P7 common judgment dated 12.10.2022, this Court directed the Government to take a decision on the reference made by the Secretary of the Municipality. The Government has not passed any order on the reference made by the 4^th respondent. In the meanwhile, the 1^st petitioner has been accommodated in one of the existing vacancies as Contingent Worker. However, petitioners 2 to 4 were not granted such temporary appointments. Pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No.2862/2023, petitioners 2 to 4 were granted appointment and the writ petition was closed.

6. On 05.07.2025, as per Ext.P10 order, the

2^nd respondent-Under Secretary rejected the reference made by the Secretary. The petitioners submit that Ext.P10 was passed without hearing the petitioners. Ext.P10 order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind. The decision of the Varkala Municipality to cancel Ext.P1 is unlawful, contended the petitioners.

7. Respondents 3 and 4 filed counter affidavit.

Respondents 3 and 4 submitted that there were 10 vacancies of Contingent Workers and hence Secretary requested for a list of persons eligible for appointment, from the Employment Exchange, in November, 2018. The Employment Exchange provided a list of 87 candidates. The Municipality decided to constitute an Interview Board.

8. The workers in the CLR list in the Municipality then filed W.P.(C) No.17022/2019. Consequent to the interim order in the said writ petition, 24 CLR workers were also included in the selection process. Interview was conducted on 26.06.2019. On 20.11.2020, a draft ranked list was prepared. In the meanwhile, a new Municipal Council took charge on 04.01.2021. There was difference of opinion in the Steering Committee meeting regarding approval of the draft rank list. By a majority decision on 23.12.2021, the Municipal Council decided to cancel the rank list and to initiate fresh selection process, as per Ext.P6.

9. The Secretary sent Ext.P5 letter to the 5^th respondent-Director of Urban Affairs seeking clarification in the matter. This Court directed the Government to consider and dispose of the i