J U D G M E N T

The writ petitioners are before this Court praying to direct the respondents to allow them to continue on the same post, and not to engage any other persons, except the petitioners, in the post where the petitioners have worked so far.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, Sri. Pathros Mathai, and the 3rd respondent is represented by the Senior Government Pleader, Sri.P.N.Santhosh. I heard the arguments advanced by all concerned.

3. The complaint of the writ petitioners is that without allowing them to work as casual labourers under the first respondent, they are employing other persons from the open market, which is against the law, and, therefore, the prayer is to allow them to continue to do the work, under the first respondent, till the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench in Manoj and Others v. State of Kerala & others, in O.P.No.21971/2002 and connected cases, are implemented.

4. The directions contained in the Division Bench judgment dated 31.8.2006, are as follows:- “(1) All regular posts vacant should be notified for appointment. All regular posts now held by temporary hands shall be reported in accordance with the rules.

(