Judgment :- Ramachandran, J. Petitioner herein describes himself as an unemployed person. After completing Pre-degree Course, he has not been able to secure any job. He had registered his name in the Employment Exchange on 01-07-1991, and though the name is in the live register, no opportunity has come for him so far. The writ petition is filed pointing out that whatever opportunities might have been there are spoilt by deliberate default. As an example, he points out that appointments are being made by the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation (for short the Corporation) without inviting for applications from eligible hands or through the agency of the Employment Exchange. It is submitted that the Corporation is a statutory body established under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 and its functioning is governed by the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Regulations 1963, which obliges them to follow a selection method, fair, transparent and equitable. 2. Regulation No.6 provides that appointments to various posts could be by direct recruitment, promotion or by method of deputation as the Board of Directors may lay down from time to time. There is also power to appoint persons on contract basis. Appointment to the post of Class IV is to be made by the Managing Director and to posts in Class I, II and III it is to be made by the Executive Committee. It is mandatory that selection is to be made by drawing of a panel of names. Counsel submits that the power of appointment is further regulated by Regulation No.7, which could be extracted herein below: “7. Manner of selection and publicity for posts available for direct recruitment: (i) In respect of posts under Class I, II and III an advertisement incorporating the necessary minimum qualifications and experience may be inserted in such of the leading newspapers as the Managing Director may consider necessary; (ii) Posts under Class IV shall be filled up through Employment Exchange.” Subclause (iii) of Regulation No.7 also prescribes for reservation of appointments to SC/ST candidates and other backward classes. Petitioner points out that the Board of Directors of the Corporation had decided, by its meeting held on 12-02-1990, to approve the qualification, experience and method of appointment and it was published by Circular dated 30th of March, 1991. Petitioner points out that the Board of Directors of the Corporation had decided, by its meeting held on 12-02-1990, to approve the qualification, experience and method of appointment and it was published by Circular dated 30th of March, 1991. Minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant is S.S.L.C. and a person should have passed 7th Standard for appointment to Class IV post. The petitioner could be considered against a Class III or Class IV post on the basis of his qualification. However, consistently policy is practiced, whereunder available vacancies are filled up in a most arbitrary manner. The beneficiaries are hand picked personnel. As an example, Ext.P2 is relied on to show that one Maneesha was engaged as Assistant on daily wages at the State Warehouse, Alappuzha on Rs.140/- per day as remuneration, in the year 2002. She is even now continuing. Although the selection is to be held by a Committee the Managing Director has taken over the power for engagement, to his favourities or nominees of his henchmen. 3. Appointment of Maneesha, who is impleaded as additional 4th respondent, according to the petitioner, is not an isolated instance. Reference had been made to a newspaper report. It shows that there was as much as 125 such appointments to Class III and Class IV posts. Further details have been presented by the petitioner, by Ext.P5, and the petitioner refers to 46 specific cases, where employment is given to the categories of Assistant, Typist, Computer Operator etc. 4. It is submitted that when a statutory body is obliged to adhere to the regulations in the matter of appointments, the system is subjected to misuse and favourities are directly employed without the intervention of any authorized agency. This is a misuse of power and rights of a citizen for public employment is denied and his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 are violated. 5. The petitioner had taken out notice by way of publication, as the beneficiaries were situated far and wide under the various offices of the Corporation. A few of such persons have entered appearance. One such person, viz., additional 5th respondent has sworn to an affidavit wherein it is practically admitted that she and others are getting engagement on daily wage basis. It is claimed that such engagement is for meeting the “emergent and urgent requirements and administrative exigencies. A few of such persons have entered appearance. One such person, viz., additional 5th respondent has sworn to an affidavit wherein it is practically admitted that she and others are getting engagement on daily wage basis. It is claimed that such engagement is for meeting the “emergent and urgent requirements and administrative exigencies. The wages are paid on weekly basis and her appointment was from 23-09-2002. It is therefore contended that the appointment does not come within the purview of Staff Regulations and the writ petition is misconceived. 6. Affidavit has been filed by additional Respondents 6 and 7. They had got themselves impleaded to the proceedings as there was a proposal to terminate their services in view of the interim order from the Court. According to them: “Since there is no regular appointment at all, there is no question of following the procedure under any of the regulations. The Corporation is within its rights to engage workmen on temporary basis to meet exigencies of work. The appointment of neither of these respondents is regular appointment needing interferences by this Hon’ble Court. To make such engagement on daily wage basis no newspaper publication or invitation of application is necessary. It all depends on the exigencies of work required to be done immediately. This being the fact of the case, all the averments made in the Writ Petition are untenable.” 7. An interim order in fact had been passed by a learned single judge on 06-08-2003, whereunder there was a direction that the Corporation is to make appointments only after issuing public notification in accordance with the rules, whether it is on daily wages, contracts, casual or on temporary basis. 8. A writ appeal had been filed by the corporation challenging the order pointing out that the order was unworkable. A Division Bench of this Court, taking notice of the arguments presented before them, in Writ Appeal No.1864 of 2003, by judgment dated 14-11-2003, had held that the direction given by the learned Single Judge is not to cover purely casual employment. It would only be applicable in cases where the vacancy is likely to last for a period of three months or more. Pointing out that even after the above order there was uninterrupted engagement, a Contempt of Court Case has been filed, which of course could be dealt with separately. 9. It would only be applicable in cases where the vacancy is likely to last for a period of three months or more. Pointing out that even after the above order there was uninterrupted engagement, a Contempt of Court Case has been filed, which of course could be dealt with separately. 9. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, Shri. N.D. Premachandran, asserts that the engagement referred to by the petitioner is thoroughly distinct from employment, either temporary or regular. Regulations relied on by the petitioner can have relevance only in a situation where there is regular recruitment. In the first counter affidavit filed by the corporation, it is submitted that the Corporation had not made any appointment to Class IV category and therefore none of the rights of the petitioner in respect of such claims were tenable. The Corporation is a loss making organization and its Godowns are almost always lying vacant. Therefore, there was no scope for any regular employment. The objectionable appointments referred to in respect of Class III posts were not regular appointments in respect of existing vacancies. Engagement on daily wage is resorted to taking notice of requirement and exigencies of administration. There was no filling up of vacancies with favoured persons without giving publicity and therefore there was no discrimination. In short, the effort appears to be to canvass for a position that rights of third parties, including the petitioner, could be agitated only when there was regular recruitment, and if at such times the procedure was overlooked. It could not be understood that they had any legal claims, and the Original Petition therefore is misconceived. 10. Mr. Asok M. Cherian, counsel for the petitioner, had brought our attention to judgments in two Original Petitions, namely O.P.No.10298 of 1982 as well as O.P.No.4636 of 1986. These in fact pertained to the self same organization. Counsel submits that irregular appointments were being specialized in and continued to be adopted notwithstanding the strictures that had been passed on more than one occasion. Ext.P4 is the judgment in O.P.No.4636 of 1986. The learned Judge had referred to the earlier judgment in O.P.No.10298 of 1982 and highlighted the observations, whereunder the dubious proceedings had been condemned in very strong terms. Ext.P4 is the judgment in O.P.No.4636 of 1986. The learned Judge had referred to the earlier judgment in O.P.No.10298 of 1982 and highlighted the observations, whereunder the dubious proceedings had been condemned in very strong terms. A procedure for selection, according to the learned Judge, was necessary not only to ensure that best talents are attracted but also to see that favouritism or nepotism did not creep in. But the advice apparently had fallen on deaf ears. It had been found in the later judgment that notwithstanding the strictures and observations, the practice was being followed. Once again it was directed that the Corporation should give equal chance for all eligible and qualified job seekers for Class III and Class IV posts to apply for appointment under the Corporation and their merits were to be adjudged on the basis of ascertainable standards. The Court had observed that the employment opportunities under the Corporation were not scarce, as pleaded. It had also been observed as following: “Call the employment casual, temporary, provisional, regular substantive or permanent, the nomenclature does not matter. In respect of each such employment, the eligibles are entitled to be treated equally.” This appears to be the corner stone and the principle on which the judgment was founded. But we are distressed to notice that engagement of persons for months and years are unabashedly being practiced even now, without giving the aspirants an opportunity to compete. The successor Director Board obviously had continued the pattern, perhaps enamored by the returns. When persons had been stepping into the establishment through the back door and without undergoing a due process of selection, it was termed by this Court as a restrictive practice. It is strange that in spite of the orders, even at present, the system is continuing. 11. The contention raised by the respondent-Corporation by way of additional counter affidavit, that the work is of sporadic nature and there is no proposal for regular recruitment does not at all impresses us. Such a contention could have been raised only by ignoring the binding judgments. The circumstances indicate that preferential treatment had been given to persons overlooking thousands of others waiting perhaps only for the reason that they had direct access to the management. Being public appointment, even such casual employment, which gave opportunity for them to continue there indefinitely naturally has attracted resentment. 12. The circumstances indicate that preferential treatment had been given to persons overlooking thousands of others waiting perhaps only for the reason that they had direct access to the management. Being public appointment, even such casual employment, which gave opportunity for them to continue there indefinitely naturally has attracted resentment. 12. This issue alone is the subject matter of the writ petition. The management has not been able to convincingly meet the ‘changes’. The petitioner’s rights figuratively at least have been overlooked. In the aforesaid circumstances, the reliefs prayed for are liable to be granted to the extent to which it might be admissible. The respondents should ensure that hence forth appointments are to be carried out in corporation strictly adhering to Regulations 6 and 7 of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Regulations, 1963. Persons who have secured employment/engagement otherwise than through such recognized methods, have no right to continue and appropriate steps are to be taken by the Corporation to relieve them. Only persons, who come out successful in a process of selection, are to be accommodated in any posts, including Class III and Class IV posts, in line with the judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.1864 of 2003. So as to plug loopholes in the matter of casual engagement, we direct that no person will have the right to continue in engagement beyond a total of 90 working days under the Corporation, who have come to be employed by the said method. The casual, daily wages or temporary appointees presently engaged also will have to be relieved forthwith, if their engagement period is in excess of ninety days in total. A due process of selection of candidates, preferably as sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, should be a pre-requirement, and from them casuals could be engaged. A minimum gap of sixty days should be there for a person to be re-engaged, after he render a spell of a total of ninety days, continuously or otherwise. 13. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. The first respondent is directed to pay Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as costs to the petitioner.