JUDGMENT : V. Chitambaresh, J. It needs no common sense to hold that a 'painter' falls within the category of mechanical staff in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short). Even their own publications show that a painter as well as a mechanic are brought under the category of mechanical staff. The publications are:- i. Report on Regionalisation of KSRTC authored by the Joint General Manager, KSRTC. ii. A booklet on the Consolidation of the Rules of KSRTC published by its Chairman and the Managing Director. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a painter on daily basis in the KSRTC and has put in more than 10 years of service. Ext. P2 order enabling regularisation of service of those provisional employees falling within 'mechanical staff' would enure to the benefit of the petitioner as well. The entitlement of similar employees to have regularisation is concluded by Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala [ 2013 (2) KLT 258 ]. 3. Ext. P10 order shows that services of one provisional welder similarly placed was regularised in the KSRTC. The petitioner adds that services of yet another provisional blacksmith was similarly regularised pursuant to Ext. P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 335/2013. There is no reason why a painter is not treated as a mechanical staff even though a blacksmith is so treated. 4. The one and only reason for negativing the claim of the petitioner is that he is a provisional painter and does not fall in the category of mechanical staff. I am unable to accept that contention since I have already held that a painter will fall in the category of mechanical staff. Ext. P5 order negativing the claim for regularisation of the petitioner cannot therefore stand scrutiny in the eye of law. 5. Ext. P5 order is quashed and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner in the KSRTC. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.