JUDGMENT : A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J. Exts. P4, P5 and P6 orders issued by the respondent are under challenge in this Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that the orders under challenge were issued by the respondent resiling from its undertaking recorded in Ext. P7 judgment. 2. The first petitioner was appointed as L.D. Clerk in L.B.S. College of Engineering, Kasargod on 25.9.1995. The second and third petitioners were working as L.D. Typist from 7.12.1995 and 5.10.1994 respectively. The appointments were on temporary basis. 3. The petitioners allege that there was an undertaking by the respondent in Ext. P7 judgment that the service of temporary hands would be regularised and the respondent is bound by the same. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent deviated from the undertaking and terminated the service of the petitioners with effect from 31.5.2003. 5. The respondent filed a counter affidavit. The stand taken by the respondent is that the undertaking given by it in the batch cases covered by Ext. P7 was concerning only temporary staff working in the Headquarters/Regional Centres/Sub Centres of L.B.S. centre and not relating to the staff of L.B.S. College of Engineering, Kasargod. According to them, the Centre is a separate entity and having its own rules of appointment and therefore, the staff working in the Centre cannot be equated with the staff working in the colleges run by the Centre. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Earlier, the petitioners have filed O.P. Nos. 14343 of 2003, 14341 of 2003 and 14344 of 2003 respectively which were disposed of by this Court by Exts. P1, P2 and P3 respectively. 8. In Ext. P1 judgment, this Court passed the following direction: I am satisfied that the direction can be issued to the respondent to consider Ext. P4 representation on its merits and especially after taking into view the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the cases covered by Ext. P2 judgment. I have no reason to assume that the respondent will not consider the matter in its true perspective. Therefore, the Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider Ext. P4 representation with expedition and after giving due regard to the undertaking given by the respondent before this Court in the cases covered by Ext. P2 judgment. Therefore, the Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider Ext. P4 representation with expedition and after giving due regard to the undertaking given by the respondent before this Court in the cases covered by Ext. P2 judgment. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard by the respondent before passing any orders on Ext. P4. Appropriate orders shall be passed on Ext. P4 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (Ext. P2 referred to in the aforesaid decision is Ext. P7 in this case). 9. Subsequently, Exts. P4, P5 and P6 orders were passed rejecting the claim of the petitioners for the reason that the undertaking given by the Centre in the aforesaid batch of cases was concerning only temporary staffs working in the Head Quarters, Regional Centres and Sub Centres of L.B.S. Centre. This stand, according to the petitioners, is not maintainable. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out two illustrative cases where there has been interchange of staffs between L.B.S. Centre and the college working under the L.B.S. Centre. It was argued that one Jabbar who was working as a regular peon in L.B.S. College, Kasargod was transferred to Kannur Regional Centre of L.B.S. and one Mathai who was a member of regular staff in Kasargod L.B.S. College was transferred to L.B.S. Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. Similarly one Bhuvanendran Nair who was a regular driver in L.B.S. College, Kasargod was transferred to the post of driver of the L.B.S. Centre, Thiruvananthapuram; it was pointed out. These are not denied by the respondent. 10. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would argue that those postings were on working arrangement basis, the same cannot be accepted These interchanges would indicate that the respondent was treating the colleges under the L.B.S. Centre as part of the Centre itself. 11. It is also relevant to note that while the respondent had given undertaking in Ext. P7 judgment, it did not try to make a distinction like the one which is now made. 12. Inviting my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, , it was argued strenuously by the learned counsel for the respondent that the claim for regularisation by a daily wage earner cannot be considered. 13. 12. Inviting my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, , it was argued strenuously by the learned counsel for the respondent that the claim for regularisation by a daily wage earner cannot be considered. 13. The case in hand can be distinguished from Umadevi's case as there was a clear undertaking by the respondent before this Court in Ext. P7 that those temporary employees who are working on contract basis and having long and continuous service would be considered for appointment on regular basis. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Kailash Chander Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others, . In that case, the learned standing counsel for the State had given an unequivocal undertaking that if any vacancies arise within one year from the date of judgment, the candidates selected and recommended by the Public Service Commission would be appointed to those posts in the order of merit. In that case the Apex Court found that it would not permit the State to avoid implementation of the order made by it on any technical or unjustified stand. In this case, the respondent was fully aware of the situation when they made an undertaking in Ext. P7 which was referred to as Ext. P2 in Ext. P1 judgment. But belying the hope of the petitioners, the respondent took a different stand. The technical stand taken by the respondent that the LBS Centre and the colleges working under them are two distinct entities cannot be accepted as there is convincing evidence to show that these two were treated as part of a single unit by interchange of staff between these two. Therefore, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. In the result this Writ Petition is allowed. Exts. P4 to P6 are hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in the light of the undertaking given in Ext. P7 and to pass orders reinstating them in service within a period of three months from today. To avoid delay, the petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of Ext. P7 judgment before the respondent within a period of one month from today.