JUDGMENT : Both these writ petitions relate to absorption of substitute workers as Sanitation workers in the contingent service of Muvatupuzha Municipality. The issue raised in these cases is in respect of the preference to employment exchange hands, over others in the matter of regular appointment. The parties and documents referred to in the judgment are as described in W.P. (C) No. 37079 of 2015 unless otherwise specified. 2. The petitioners in W.P(c).No.37079 of 2015 are substitute workers (sanitation) appointed on being sponsored by the employment exchange, as per Ext.P2 letter dated 08.08.2008. They were engaged in the Municipality w.e.f 13.4.2010 as per Ext.P1 minutes. The petitioners are challenging the appointment of respondents 5 to 11 and seeking directions to the Municipality to give them permanent appointment to the post of Sanitation Workers in preference to the party respondents in accordance with Ext.P3 Government Order and Ext.P5(b) direction and to ensure implementation of Ext.P6 order. It is pointed out that during the pendency of the writ petition, 2 of the petitioners got appointment, but it was only after the regular appointment of the party respondents. Petitioners seek appointment in preference to the party respondents. 3. There are a total number of 45 permanent contingent posts in the Municipality. The case of the petitioners is that despite the direction in Ext.P3 order- G.O(Ms).No.14/82/LBR dated 22.04.1982, the respondent Municipality is not giving due preference to the substitute workers like them appointed through the employment exchange and they appointed the party respondents contrary to the Government orders. 4. At the same time, it is the case of the party respondents that they started working in the Municipality even before the year 1997-98 and there is a direction from the Government to the Municipality, to maintain 2 lists i.e. one containing the names of employment exchange hands and the other containing the names of those engaged otherwise than through employment exchange. The petitioners joined the Municipality only in the year 2010. 5. Regular appointments were made in the Municipality only in the year 2012 when both sets of substitute workers like petitioners as well as those like respondents 5 to 11 are available. According to the petitioners, Ext.P5 as well as Ext.P5 (b) and Ext.P6 do not provide for any ambiguity in the matter of preference to be given to the candidates sponsored through employment exchange. 6. According to the petitioners, Ext.P5 as well as Ext.P5 (b) and Ext.P6 do not provide for any ambiguity in the matter of preference to be given to the candidates sponsored through employment exchange. 6. The petitioners in W.P(C).No.37079 of 2015 point out that they were sponsored for appointment by the employment exchange as per Ext.P2 letter dated 8.8.2008. The substitute workers get engaged in the absence of permanent workers in the Municipality. The petitioners submit that the usual practice followed in the Municipality is to absorb the workers sponsored by the employment exchange as and when vacancies of permanent sanitation workers arise. By Ext.P3 order dated 22.04.1982, the Government issued guidelines for the selection and preparation of a reserve list for appointment of substitute workers in contingent wing. Those guidelines were issued on the basis of the recommendations made in the report of a committee constituted for examining the revision of pay and allied matters in respect of contingent workers in Municipality/ Corporations. The committee reported that there was no uniformity in the selection of substitute workers for appointment and they were not recruited through employment exchange. After examining that report the Government observed as follows: "I. A list of substitute workers who had served in each category in the Corporations/ Municipalities concerned and who are still available for regular appointment will be prepared. The list so prepared will be brought to notice of the workers and the same published in the Notice Board of the Corporations/Municipalities concerned. When regular vacancies arise in the contingent establishment, these substitute workers will be appointed in each category based on the rank assigned to them in the seniority list. II. If and when the above list is exhausted substitute workers to be appointed in regular vacancies will be selected through Employment Exchange of the region concerned. The Corporation/Municipal Commissioner will report to the Employment Officer concerned the number of favancies in each category that is expected to arise in the ensuing year alone with details in respect of the nature of work. The Employment Officer in consultation with the local bodies of the area will prepare the reserve list of substitute workers, the selection being made after interviewing local candidates registered with Employment Exchanges concerned adn based on the aptitude, physical fitness, willingness to undertake the particular work etc., of the candidates. The list will be valid for one year. The Employment Officer in consultation with the local bodies of the area will prepare the reserve list of substitute workers, the selection being made after interviewing local candidates registered with Employment Exchanges concerned adn based on the aptitude, physical fitness, willingness to undertake the particular work etc., of the candidates. The list will be valid for one year. The number of candidates so selected will correspond to the number of vacancies that are expected to arise in the ensuing year. III. Once the list is prepared the candidates included in the list will not re-register with the Employment Exchange but wait their chance for appointment in the contingent establishment. IV. The Employment Officers will be free to submit local candidates against contingent posts irrespective of the emolument attached to the posts. V. For purpose of this G.O, ‘local candidates’ will mean candidates residing within the limits of the Municipal/Corporation Councils/Township concerned for which the list is prepared." 7. The petitioners submit that Ext.P4 list was issued thereafter including 50 CLR/substitute workers in terms of Ext.P3 order which was placed for approval of the Municipal council. Ext.P4 list was stated to have been prepared on the basis of direction issued by this court on 14.09.2010 in I.A.No.12332 of 2010. Thereafter, regular appointments were made as per Ext.P5 order dated 1.10.2012 appointing respondents 5 to 7 as Sanitation Workers against the 3 vacancies from the list maintained by the Municipality. Subsequently, by Ext.P5(a) dated 20.12.2012 the 8th respondent was appointed. The petitioners point out that the orders Exts.P5 and P5(a) were issued in violation of the directions issued by the Government and the Director of Urban Development. As per Ext.P5(b) letter dated 3.8.2011, the Director had already informed the Secretary of the Municipality that appropriate action should be taken to give regular appointment to the candidates in the list of substitute workers appointed through employment exchange. As there was no positive action, the petitioners approached the Government and the Government thereafter issued Ext.P6 order, after hearing the petitioners as well as the Municipality. Government found that all appointments to the contingent posts in Municipalities are to be made in accordance with Section 224 of the Municipalities Act. However, the Municipality has to make appointments in accordance with the Government order dated 22.4.1982 i.e. Ext.P3 order. Government found that all appointments to the contingent posts in Municipalities are to be made in accordance with Section 224 of the Municipalities Act. However, the Municipality has to make appointments in accordance with the Government order dated 22.4.1982 i.e. Ext.P3 order. In other words, the appointments are to be made from the seniority list of substitute workers from among those engaged through employment exchange. But the Municipality issued orders appointing the party respondents on the basis of the Government order dated 29.3.2001 - Ext.R5(a) order. Government found that Ext.R5(a) Government Order dated 29.03.2001 has not varied any of the guidelines in Ext.P3 order. The Government had allowed only a concession in peculiar circumstances. Even in that order it was directed that whenever permanent appointment is made those appointed through employment exchange shall be given preference. Therefore, it was found that the action of the municipality in making appointment of the substitute workers appointed otherwise than through employment exchange, despite the objection of a group of counsellors, was in misinterpretation of the Government orders. Since the said proceedings were found to be contrary to law, those orders were kept in abeyance and the matter was remitted to the decision of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions under Section 57(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act. 8. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had filed W.P(c). No. 29176 of 2011 in which an interim order was passed directing that the appointment of the substitute workers will be subject to the result of the writ petition. 9. On the basis of the reference made in Ext.P6 order, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions considered the matter and passed Ext.P7 order. Seeing that the W.P(c). No. 29176 of 2011 filed by employment exchange hands and W.P(c). No.20810/2008 filed by others were pending before this court and interim orders were in force in both the cases, and writ petition in respect of the appointments was pending, the Tribunal did not take any action. Therefore, the Tribunal found that it would not be proper to answer the reference at a time when the matter is pending consideration of this court. The W.P (c).No.29176 of 2011 filed by the petitioners challenging the appointment of the party respondents was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment dated 23.09.2015. Therefore, the Tribunal found that it would not be proper to answer the reference at a time when the matter is pending consideration of this court. The W.P (c).No.29176 of 2011 filed by the petitioners challenging the appointment of the party respondents was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment dated 23.09.2015. On the basis of the assurance made on behalf of the Municipality that appointments to the vacancies arising in the contingent establishment would be made only in accordance with the seniority list of substitute workers maintained by the Municipality, the writ petition was closed. Subsequently the petitioners approached the respondents with Ext.P9 representation requesting to give them permanent appointment in accordance with the order Ext.P3. 10. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners were sponsored through employment exchange only in 2010. At the same time, respondents 5 and 7 to 11 have been working in the Municipality since 1997 and 1998. According to them, the petitioners cannot have any claim or right over the party respondents who have been working in the Municipality right from 1997-98 onwards. According to them, Ext.P3 has already been modified by Ext.R5(a). At the same time, it is the case of the party respondents that all sanitation workers appointed on daily wages till 31.12.2000 were to be appointed as substitute workers and they were to be considered for permanent vacancies as and when vacancies arise in accordance with the seniority list. It is stated that the Respondents 8 to 11 filed Writ Petition No.20810 of 2008 when the Municipality made an attempt to make appointment of employment exchange hands overlooking Ext.R5(a) order of Government and this court passed interim orders allowing them to continue. According to them, the case of the petitioners can be considered for regular appointment only after exhausting both the lists directed to be maintained in Ext.R5(a) i.e. after appointing those who were working in the contingent wing at the time when the petitioners were appointed. According to the respondents, the direction of the Director of Municipalities issued on 3.8.2011 is contrary to the Government Order Ext.R5(a). According to Ext.R5(a) the appointments on daily wages can be permitted against permanent vacancies as a one time relaxation and their regular appointment will not affect the opportunity of the petitioners for getting permanent employment. 11. According to the respondents, the direction of the Director of Municipalities issued on 3.8.2011 is contrary to the Government Order Ext.R5(a). According to Ext.R5(a) the appointments on daily wages can be permitted against permanent vacancies as a one time relaxation and their regular appointment will not affect the opportunity of the petitioners for getting permanent employment. 11. The Municipality has filed a statement stating that there are 45 permanent contingent posts in the municipality and there are 2 categories of employees working on daily wages, i.e. those sponsored by the employment exchange and others engaged on daily wages. According to the Municipality, it had appointed 9 persons for the purpose of sanitation work due to paucity of workers. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext.R5(a) order dated 29.03.2001 directing to maintain a seniority list of substitute workers and to make appointment from the seniority list as and when vacancy arises in the contingent establishment. Therefore, in accordance with the said order the Municipality appointed 22 temporary employees from the employment exchange. Those 22 persons were included in the seniority list after the names of 9 persons who were engaged otherwise. The Municipality had already considered 10 persons from the seniority list for appointment to the regular post in the contingent establishment and accordingly respondents 5 to 11 who were appointed otherwise than through employment exchange as daily wage workers prior to 31.12.2000, were appointed in regular posts. According to the Municipality, respondents 5 to 11 were eligible to be included in the seniority list in accordance with Ext.R5(b) order. At the same time, since the petitioners were appointed only in the year 2010, they were not included in that seniority list. According to the Municipality, the seniority list of substitute workers was prepared in terms of Ext.R5(b) Government Order and the vacancies arising in the contingent establishment were to be filled in accordance with seniority list and this was recorded in Ext.P8 judgment also. 12. In W.P(c).No.20810 of 2008 the petitioners claim that they are entitled to continue as contingent employees and are entitled to be absorbed in permanent vacancies in accordance with the order Ext.P1 therein, which is Ext.R5(a) in W.P(c). No.37079 of 2015. 13. The question to be considered is whether there is any amendment to Ext.P3 order issued in 1982 effected by Ext.R5(a) order. In this case the petitioners commenced their service only in the year 2010. No.37079 of 2015. 13. The question to be considered is whether there is any amendment to Ext.P3 order issued in 1982 effected by Ext.R5(a) order. In this case the petitioners commenced their service only in the year 2010. At the same time, the party respondents have been working from 1997-98 onwards. They were appointed at a time when Ext.P3 order was in force. Ext.R5(a) order provided for a relaxation. Petitioners are claiming implementation of Ext.P6. It is therefore necessary to examine whether the right of petitioners are determined in Ext.P6. In Ext.P6 order, the decision of the Municipality to appoint the party respondents was set aside provisionally and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions for consideration under Section 57(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act. In Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal found that it was not proper for it to consider the same when the matter was pending before this court. Therefore, Ext.P6 order has not become final, in the absence of a decision under Section 57(2) of the Act. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the relevance of Section 57(2) also. 14. Chapter V of the Kerala Municipality Act deals with the functions of the Government in respect of Municipalities. Section 56 provides for the power of the Government for purposes of control. Section 57, which deals with power to suspend and cancel the resolution, provides that the Government may, suo motu or on a reference by the Chairperson the Secretary, or a Councillor of the Municipality, or on a petition received from a citizen, cancel or amend a resolution passed or a decision taken by the council, which in their opinion, has not been legally passed or taken, is in excess of or abuse of the powers conferred by this Act or any other law or is likely to endanger human life, health safety, communal harmony or public peace, or is likely to lead to a riot or quarrel or has violated the guidelines issued by the Government in the matter of implementation of plans, schemes or programmes or the conditions of grants. Sub section 2 provides that before cancelling or amending a resolution or decision under sub-section (l), the Government shall refer the matter for the consideration of the Ombudsman constituted under Section 271 G of the "Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) or to the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Section 271 S of the said Act and the Tribunal shall, after giving the Municipality an opportunity of being heard, furnish a report to the Government with its finding based on which the Government may cancel, amend or approve that resolution or decision. 15. Therefore, it is clear that the cancellation of the appointments of the party respondents in Ext.P6 was not final when the Government referred the matter to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal did not pass orders in view of the pendency of the writ petition before this court. Section 57 of the Kerala Municipalities Act reads as follows: "57: (1) The Government may, suo-motu or on a reference by the Chairperson the Secretary, or a Councillor of the Municipality or on a petition received from a citizen, cancel or amend a resolution passed or a decision taken by the council, which in their opinion,- (a) has not been legally passed or taken; or (b) is in excess or abuse of the powers conferred by this Act or any other law; or (c) is likely to endanger human life, health safety, communal harmony or public peace, or is likely to lead to a riot or quarrel; or (d) has violated the guidelines issued by the Government in the matter of implementation of plans, schemes or programmes or the conditions of grants. (2) Before cancelling or amending a resolution or decision under sub-section (l), the Government shall refer the matter for the consideration of the Ombudsman constituted under Section 271 G of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994(13 of 1994) or to the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Section 271 S of the said Act and the Tribunal shall, after giving the Municipality an opportunity of being heard, furnish a report to the Government with its finding based on which the Government may cancel, amend or approve that resolution or decision. (3) The Government shall not entertain any petition for cancellation or amendment of any resolution or decision of the council if an alternate redressal is available to the petitioner through the Tribunal under Section 509. (4) Where the Government are of opinion that a resolution or a decision of the Council shall be cancelled or amended under sub-section (1), they may temporarily stay the implementation of Such resolution or decision and may direct the council to keep its implementation in abeyance till it is finally disposed of by completing the procedure under sub-section (2)]." In the above circumstances, as the petitioners are seeking implementation of Ext.P6, which is yet to be finalised, in view of Ext.P7 order of the LSGT, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions for appropriate decision in accordance with law. The petitioners as well as party respondents and the Municipality would be free to furnish additional statements if any before the Tribunal, with copy to the other side, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, in which case the Tribunal shall consider those statements also, before issuing orders based on the reference in Ext.P6. The claim of either parties shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the Government on the basis of the report of the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall take earnest efforts to pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The Government shall thereafter take a decision based on the report, within a further period of two months. The registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.