IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1929 WP(C).No. 27781 of 2007(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. MANOJ S., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT MUNDAIKKAL PUTHIYA VEEDU,PARAKKODE P.O ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SHINA ANTONY, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SANTIKAYIL, NEYYATTINKARA, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ABILAL G.O., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT CITY LUTHERAN CHURCH,PANAVILA JUNCTION THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SREELETHA S., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT RUGMINI VILASOM, KOOVALASHERY P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. 5. BRILLA VARGHESE U., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT V.U.SADANAM, MULLUVILA, MULLUVILA P.O. NEYYATTINKARA. 6. BAIJU S. JOSEPH, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT BEZLEL KALAYIL,OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C) NO: 27781/2007 7. ANILA C., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SAJINI, LOURDUPURAM,KANJIRAMKULAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. CHITHRA S.S., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SARAS, EZHAKODE, MALAYINKIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. MADHURI M.NAIR R., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT MADHURI, H.NO.720, SANKAR NAGAR, NEERAMANKARA, KAIMANAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. SUMALEKSHMI P.S., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT NANDHANAM,MYLODU, KOLLODU P.O., MALAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. RESHMI R.C., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT ANIL BHAVAN,S.N.PURAM,NETHAJIPURAM P.O POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. DEEPA S.S., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT NANDANAM, GNRA-89, ELLUVILA,MANKUZHY, PANGAPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. DEEPA V., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT R.T.MANDIRAM, KUNNATHOOR WEST, KUNNATHOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 14. GEETHA GOVINDAN K.M., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT VISHNU VIHAR, TC.68/873, KUMALY LANE, PACHALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C) NO: 27781/2007 15. DIJI PRESSA S.S., JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SAROVARAM, NEAR ARIYOTTUKONAM TEMPLE, ANDOORKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 16. B. KRISHNAKUMAR, OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT DHANYA NIVAS, MANGAD, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 17. SUBHASH BABU S., OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.64/477, VASANTHALAYAM, EDAGRAMOM, KARUMAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. 18. SAJI V.Y., OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT POOVAMCODE PUTHEN VEEDU, CHEMBOOR, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 19. PREMA KUMARI P., OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT TC.NO.6/440(2),"SREEDHAR", MULAMOODU LANE, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13. 20. LALU C., OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT "SANGEETHA", CHEMBOOR, OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 125. 21. GYANEESH N.N.PILLAI, OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT PALAPPALLIL VEEDU,CHENGAMANADU POST, KOTTARAKKARA-691 557. 22. DIDI THOMAS, OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT T.N.BUNGALOW, MANNANKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C) NO: 27781/2007 23. BINOY VISWAM, OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT VISHWAMANGALAM, T.C.NO.43/209(2), THOTTAM, MANACAUD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009. 24. BINDU S., OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT BINDU BHAVAN, PAKALOOR,PALLICHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 25. BINDU O.G., OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MELAMCODE, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020. 26. ALEX D., OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT THULASI BHAVAN, KIZHAKKECHARUVILA, ARUVAKKODU, PAPPANAMCODE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 27. BAIJU RAJ R., OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT NELLIYODU VEEDU, THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027. 28. MOHAMMED NASIF A., PEON, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT KANCHIROLY THAZHEKUNIYIL KADAVE ROAD,ATHOLY (PO), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 315. 29. VINEESH BABU K., PEON, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT KANCHAKODU HOUSE, KANNAMMOOLA, KANNUR POST. 30. ARUN S., PEON, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT MEKKATHIL VEEDU, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 31. RAJAN K., PEON, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT AKKARAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C) NO: 27781/2007 32. SUDEEP KUMAR N., PEON, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT NEELIYATH HOUSE, NANMANDA POST, KOZHIKODE-673 613. 33. M. PADMAJAM, PEON, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT ERATHIKKARA VEEDU, KOTTUKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 34. MAJUSAM S.A., PEON, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT BINDU NIVAS, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 35. JAYALEKSHMI M., PEON, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT ARCADIA HOUSE NO.642, DARSHAN NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 36. B. CHANDRAN, PEON, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,RESIDING AT MOONLIGHT, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 37. M. VINOD KUMAR, PEON, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., KOZHIKODU, RESIDING AT "SURABHI" P.O. THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 317. 38. N. SASIKUMAR, DRIVER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT LALITHA BHAVAN, VATTIYOORKAVU,MANIKANTESWARAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 39. GIREESH KUMAR S., DRIVER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SREEMANDIRAM, BAPUKI NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 40. BIJUKUTTAN NAIR R., DRIVER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT LATHA BHAVAN, JUBILEE NAGAR, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C) NO: 27781/2007 41. SAJIKUMAR N., DRIVER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT ARUVILAKAM, VAKADETHIL PUTHEN VEEDU,THIRUPURAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 42. RATHEESH KUMAR B., DRIVER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT PADMALAYAM, KULAMKASAKONAM, MACHAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 43. SREEKUMAR K., DRIVER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SREEVIHAR, T.C.NO.6/1720, VETTAMUKKU,THIRUMALA P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 44. RAJEEV T.S., MESSENGER, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT RAJI BHAVAN, VENGAPOTTA, KAZHIVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 526. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.) SRI.S.M.ALTHAF RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023. WP(C) NO: 27781/2007 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA TRANSPORT DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., TRANSPORT BHAVAN FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD BY ADVS. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SC FOR KTDFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2007 ALONG WITH WPC NOS. 28840/2007, 27877/2007 AND 27782/2007, THE COURT ON 07/11/2007 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 27781/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE KTDFC LTD. DATED NIL. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE SERVICE RULES OF THE KTDFC LTD. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE CORPORATION TO THE GOVT. DT. 4/10/2005. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE GO MS NO. 13/2006,D T. 22/2/2006. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE GO MS NO. 15/06 DT. 22/2/2006. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE GO MS NO. 14/06 DT. 22/2/2006. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE GO MS NO. 4/2007/TRAN DT. 12/2/2007. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 5003/2007 DT. 13/07/2007. EXT.P8A. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 5139/2007 DT. 13/07/2007. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND OTHERS BY THE GOVT. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE GOVT. DT. 14/08/2007. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE GO MS NO. 3/2007 DT. 5/1/2007. EX.T.P12. COPY OF THE GO MS NO. 36/2007 DT. 10/09/2007. EXT.P13. COPY OF THE INDIVIDUAL ORDERS BY THE GOVT. DIRECTING THE CORPORATION TO TERMINATE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS DT. 10/09/2007. EXT.P14. COPY OF THE INDIVIDUAL ORDERS BY THE CORPORATION TERMINATING THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 12/09/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27781, 27782, 27877 & 28840 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2007. JUDGMENT The petitioners in all these cases were employees of the Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”), having been appointed on casual basis in the first instance and regularized in the respective posts pursuant to orders issued by the Government. Their services were subsequently terminated by orders passed by the Government followed by consequential orders issued by the Corporation. Those orders are under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. Most of the contentions taken up by the petitioners are common. Common issues are also involved. Therefore, the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(C)No.27782/07 is taken as the leading case for the purpose of convenience. W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 2 :: 3. Petitioners 1 to 33 were working as Junior Assistants in the service of the Corporation. Petitioners 34 and 35 were working as Record Keepers and petitioners 36 to 38 were working as sweepers. The 2nd respondent Corporation is a Government company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act. As per Ext.P1 Memorandum and Articles of Association, the Board of Directors of the Corporation is empowered to appoint provisionally, technical and skilled employees in the company. Prior approval of the Governor is necessary for appointment to posts carrying a basic pay of Rs.2,500/- or more per month. 4. During 2005, pursuant to the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the Accountant General, the Corporation decided to make regular appointments to various posts. It seems that the Board of Directors of the Corporation in its meeting held on 18.2.2005 approved the service rules and staff pattern of W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 3 :: the Corporation and on 10.5.2005, it was forwarded to the Government for approval. Ext.P2 service Rules, inter alia, provides that all first appointments in the Corporation shall be made on the advice of the Public Service Commission as per the provisions of the KPSC (Additional Functions as Respects certain Corporations and Companies) Act, 1979. The service Rules also provide for temporary appointments for periods not exceeding 180 days. The principles of communal rotation as contained in Articles 14 to 17 of the Constitution are also made applicable to the appointments in different categories of posts in the Corporation. As noted above, Ext.P2 service Rules were framed by the Corporation and was forwarded to the Government and on 10.5.2005 for its approval. In the meanwhile, the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 30.8.2005 decided to seek the regularisation of one person working as a concurrent auditor (contract W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 4 :: basis), one person working as Assistant Manager (on contract basis), 66 persons working as Assistants, 15 persons working as Office Assistants, 7 persons working as drivers, 3 persons working as Record Keepers, 13 persons working as Peons/Messengers and 5 persons working as sweepers. The petitioners in these writ petitions are included in this list. All the petitioners were working in their respective categories on casual basis or daily wages basis, some of them from the year 2000, most of them since 2003 and 2004. Few persons have been working in the Corporation since 1997. The Corporation sought for orders from the Government sanctioning regularisation of the services of the contract and daily wages personnel, who were, then in the service of the Corporation. The request in this regard has been made on 4.10.2005 as evidenced by Ext.P3. 5. By Ext.P4 G.O.(MS)No.13/06/transport dated 22.2.2006, Government accorded sanction W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 5 :: for creation of 143 posts in various categories with the scales of pay as shown in the Annexure to the said order. By Ext.P5 order passed on the same day, the Government accorded sanction for regularisation of 106 contract/daily wages employees working in the Corporation and absorption of such persons to the regular service of the Corporation against the newly created posts counting their previous casual service, by giving retrospective effect to the order of regularisation, without any monetary benefits. 6. In other words, on 22.2.2006, the Government passed an order sanctioning 143 posts in different categories and on the same day the Government accorded sanction for regularisation of the services of 106 persons working on contract/daily wages basis from a date prior to the date on which the posts in question were sanctioned. Pursuant to Ext.P5 all the petitioners were regularized in service with W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 6 :: effect from the date on which they had been engaged in the Corporation on casual/daily wages basis. 7. By a separate order Ext.P6 passed on the same day i.e. 22.2.2006, the Government approved Ext.P2 service Rules of the Corporation, subject to certain amendments regarding leave rules as mentioned in the Annexure thereto. 8. While the petitioners, therefore, continued in service, the Government, on 12.2.2007 passed an order holding that the Government have reviewed the entire exercise, which took place as per Ext.P5 order of regularisation of 106 employees, who were appointed on contract/daily wages. This exercise was undertaken because it was found that the daily wages/contract appointments were not made through any competitive examinations/interview, by inviting applications or by advertising the vacancies through dailies. Communal reservation W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 7 :: was not followed, while regularizing the appointments. Nor was there any representative of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities among the ministerial staff. Government, therefore, proceeded to cancel Ext.P5 with immediate effect. 9. Ext.P7 order passed by the Government so cancelling the regularisation was challenged in a batch of writ petitions before this court. By Ext.P8 judgment dated 13.7.2007, the writ petitions were allowed on the ground that Ext.P7 order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. This court made it clear that the court is not expressing any opinion on the other contentions raised by the petitioners. The Government was given liberty to pass fresh orders in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the affected persons. 10. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P9 notice was issued by the Government to all the petitioners W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 8 :: requiring them to show cause why the order by which their services were regularized should not be cancelled. The reason given in the show cause notice was that the engagement of 106 persons was irregular, inasmuch as that it was done without following any recruitment procedure and without observance of the principles of communal rotation. Objections were filed by the petitioners to the said notice. Government passed Ext.P12 order rejecting the objections and held that the sanction for regularisation issued as per Ext.P5 is wholly unjustified and illegal. The said order was, therefore, revoked. Almost identical orders were issued as Ext.P13 series to each one of the employees and their services stood terminated pursuant to Ext.P14 orders issued by the Corporation. The petitioners challenge Exts.P12, P13 and P14 orders of the Corporation. They also seek a mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate them with continuity of service, back wages and W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 9 :: other benefits arising from the date of their termination. Petitioners contend that the Government acted illegally and without jurisdiction in revoking Ext.P5 order by which the Government had sanctioned regularisation of 106 employees, working in different categories in the Corporation. Ext.P5 order, assuming that the same is administrative, cannot be revoked. The appointment of the petitioners cannot be construed as illegal. Significantly, all the petitioners are qualified in terms of Ext.P2 service Rules. They have been in service for several years. They have continued in service for almost an year since Ext.P5 order, when the same was cancelled without any justification. None of the reasons given by the Government for cancelling its own order is either tenable or reasonable. Apparently, extraneous reasons have influenced the Government in revoking Ext.P5 order. W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 10 :: 11. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the Government and the Corporation. The orders by which the earlier order of regularisation is cancelled is sought to be upheld by the Government and the Corporation. It is contended that Ext.P5 order of regularisation was per se illegal. All the persons who have been regularized including the petitioners were originally appointed on daily wages basis. No method of appointment was adopted. Regularisation was ordered without any justification. The employment in question is public employment. Thus vacancies should have been notified, applications invited and all eligible persons should have been given an opportunity to participate in the selection. Ext.P5 order is therefore violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Government, therefore, was entitled to revoke it. 12. It is further contended that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 11 :: decision reported in Secretary of State, State of Karnataka v. Uma devi {2006(4) SCC 1} held that regularisation of the services of persons appointed on a provisional or on daily wages basis is unconstitutional. Ext.P5 order should, therefore, be treated as void going by the principles laid down in Umadevi. The Government in passing Ext.P12 order had, therefore, only corrected a clear error of jurisdiction committed by the Government. 13. Going by the contentions raised by either side, in my opinion, the following issues may be formulated for consideration: (a) Whether Ext.P12 order passed by the Government revoking its earlier order of regularisation of services of 106 employees is hit by the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of its judgment in Umadevi. W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 12 :: (b) Whether Ext.P5 order of regularisation of services of 106 persons falls into the category of irrevocable decision of an administrative authority and consequently whether Ext.P12 order is without jurisdiction? (c) Whether the reasons given by the Government in Ext.P12 order, for justifying its revocation of Ext.P5 order are tenable or otherwise adequate? (d) Whether the action of the Government and the consequential action taken by the Corporation terminating the services of persons who are in the services of the Corporation for several years albeit on daily wages basis is violative of Articles W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 13 :: 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution? (e) Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularisation of their services in the light of the fact that the Government have passed orders similar to Ext.P5 in other cases involving other Government corporations? 14. I heard learned Senior counsel Sri.T.P.K.Nambiar, assisted by Sri.S.M.Althaf, Shri.P.B.Suresh Kumar and Sri.T.Krishnanunni on behalf of the petitioners, Advocate General Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad assisted by Sri.P.Nandakumar on behalf of the State and Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Unnikrishna Kaimal, on behalf of the Corporation. Regarding question (a) 15. Sri.Kelu Nambiar, learned Senior counsel, submits that the order passed by the W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 14 :: Government revoking Ext.P5 and directing the termination of the services of the petitioners is hit by the observations made by the Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case. Reference in this regard is made to paragraph 53 of Umadevi in particular. For the sake of appreciating this argument, para 53 is extracted hereunder: “One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V.Narayanappa (AIR 1967 SC 1071), R.N.Nanjudappa (1972 (1) SCC 409) and B.N.Nagarajan (1979 (4) SCC 507) and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 15 :: have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 16. The contention is that though in Umadevi the Supreme Court held that appointments on provisional basis and regularisation of such appointments were found to be unconstitutional, the court itself had carved out an exception in relation to cases of regularisation already made, provided they were not sub judice. Reference in this regard is made to the following sentence: W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 16 :: “We also clarify that regularisation, if any, already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment.” 17. Mr.Nambiar contends that Ext.P5 order which directed regularisation of the services of the petitioners is dated 22.2.2006 and Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.06, that there is an interdiction in para 53 of the judgment against reopening of any order of regularisation which had been passed prior to the date of the judgment. 18. I am unable to accept this contention for more than one reason. Firstly, the law laid down in Umadevi is in clear and categoric terms. Public employment should be informed by adherence to the constitutional mandate under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. All appointments which are generally described as “back door appointments” are anathema to the constitutional framework, within which public employment as such should be effected. W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 17 :: Government and public authorities should not regularize appointments or services which were made on a provisional basis or on ad hoc basis, casual or daily wages, inasmuch as such appointments were obviously an exception to regular recruitment to any sanctioned post in the Government or a public authority. To regularize such ad hoc appointments, which may be resorted to by the Government or the public authority in exigencies of service will be, not only doing violence to statutory rules or rules having the force of law, governing such appointments in public service, but more importantly would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In other words, the Supreme Court categorically held that regularisation of ad hoc service/casual service or service on daily wages basis would be plainly unconstitutional. After having so held, the limited exception carved out by the Supreme Court in the case of regularisation already made W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 18 :: cannot be construed as to mean a positive mandate by the court to the Government or public authority to refrain from revoking any orders of regularisation, if they are otherwise unconstitutional and therefore, void. That is to say, the Government is entitled to take note of the law laid down by the Apex Court and then, as a responsible constitutional functionary, if it decides to mend its own errors and revoke its earlier decisions, which are otherwise unconstitutional, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court has interdicted any such legitimate action on the part of the Government or a public authority. In my view, all that the words “need not be reopened based on this judgment” meant is that in cases referred in para 53 of the judgment, it need not be understood by a Government or a public functionary that all orders of regularisation which were passed prior to the judgment should be necessarily reopened. In other words, where W.P.(C).NO.27781/07 & Con.cases :: 19 :: regularisation has been effected prior to the judgment, there is no mandate to the Government or any other public authority to necessarily reopen such orders. It is left to the wisdom of the Government or other public authority, as the case may be. This is obviously different from saying that there is an interdiction against a Government or a public authority, on its own revoking any unconstitutional decision taken by it. Of course, in doing so, if a declaration by a Constitution Bench has triggered any lethargic functionary into motion, it cannot be said that the rectification of an error, even at a belated stage, should otherwise be condemned or should be treated as interdicted. In