JUDGMENT : The petitioners in all these cases – which are being heard together and disposed of through this judgment in the backdrop of the analogous factual circumstances pleaded and reliefs sought – are stated to be workers included in the 'Daily Labour Roll' (DLR) list maintained by the Thrissur Corporation. 2. The petitioners say that they were recruited into service much more than a decade ago, through a valid selection process which was in vogue at the relevant time; but that they were never considered for regularization subsequently. They admit that the Government Orders, which relates to the absorption of DLR workers as 'Casual Labour Roll' (CLR) workers, mandate that only persons who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange for such purpose can be considered; but they assert that their case will have to be considered as a special one by the Thrissur Corporation on account of the fact that they have all been serving it for the last more than a decade continuously and without any break. 3. The petitioners add that in the case of the Kochi Corporation such an exercise was permitted by the Government and that a list of 770 persons were prepared, with all of them ordered to be regularized in the arising vacancies. They assert that as far as the petitioners are concerned, the only difference between them and the persons in the Kochi Corporation is that they are working in a different Corporation and nothing else. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the Government Orders impugned in these cases, which deny them the benefit of regularization, be set aside. 4. The various learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases point out that, in fact, the Thrissur Corporation had prepared a list of 310 persons included in their DLR Register and had forwarded the same to the Government, through a letter dated 17.08.2017, seeking that they be permitted to regularize them and for creation of additional posts, because consequent to the amalgamation of the various Panchayats into the Corporation, larger number of posts had become necessary. 5. The petitioners allege that, however, the Government, without considering any of the aspects in its proper perspective, issued orders rejecting the said request of the Corporation and thus rendered it impossible for them to be regularised in service. 5. The petitioners allege that, however, the Government, without considering any of the aspects in its proper perspective, issued orders rejecting the said request of the Corporation and thus rendered it impossible for them to be regularised in service. They predicate that this is wholly illegal and rely on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India & Others [ (1996) 7 SCC 113 ] and State of Haryana and Others v. Piara Singh and Others [ (1992) 4 SCC 118 ] (cited by Shri.G.Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P(C)No.1225 of 2020). They thus reiteratingly pray that the orders impugned in these writ petitions, issued by the Government denying them their regularization, be set aside. 6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Thrissur Corporation, Shri.Santhosh P.Poduval, in refutation of the above, submitted that the Thrissur Corporation was always interested in regularizing the services of the DLR Workers and affirmed that a list of 310 persons had been prepared on 17.08.2017 and forwarded to the Government. He submitted that the request in the forwarding letter of the Corporation was to regularize all those persons by creation of additional posts; but that since this was rejected, the Corporation appointed 48 persons from the Employment Exchange in January 2020 and thus that the balance vacancies now available is only 87. He then submitted that the Thrissur Corporation is willing to abide by any directions that this Court may issue with respect to these vacancies and prayed that no further orders be issued against his client. 7. I notice from the files on record that when these matters were considered by another learned Judge of this Court, an interim order was issued in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020 in the following tenor: “The Municipality has filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 for modifying the interim order passed by this Court on 12.05.2020 directing that appointments shall be made only after getting permission from this Court. It is stated that the petitioners in the writ petition were considered for the post of Contingent Sanitation Workers as directed by this Court along with other candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is stated that the petitioners in the writ petition were considered for the post of Contingent Sanitation Workers as directed by this Court along with other candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. As the executive orders governing the appointment of sanitation workers provide that appointment shall be made through employment exchanges and the petitioners seek consideration along with those sponsored by the employment exchange, I am of the view that those who are within the age limit for being sponsored by employment exchange alone need be considered for appointment. Therefore, the Municipality shall prepare a list of candidates who are within the upper age limit of 50 years and make appointments. The Municipality shall also furnish a list of such candidates before this Court” 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Thrissur Corporation, Shri.Santhosh P.Poduval, submits that in obedience to the afore directions, his client has prepared another list of eligible persons and that the same has been produced on record as Ext.R3(d) along with the counter affidavit in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020. He then prayed that the Corporation be permitted to appoint these persons as CLR Workers forthwith. 9. I have examined Ext.R3(d) list produced in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020 and notice that the said list has been prepared confining opportunity for selection solely to the petitioners in the said writ petition and not to the petitioners in any other case. This is presumably because, the afore extracted interim order was issued only in the said writ petition. 10. However, when one examines the interim order, it is clear that the intent of this Court was to grant benefits to all those DLR Workers who are still below 50 years in age, taking note of the fact that the applicable Government Orders permitting regularization of CLR Workers in the Corporation -had fixed an upper age limit of 50, which is the one applicable for being sponsored from the Employment Exchange. 11. Obviously, therefore, the opportunity which was given to the petitioners in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020 was not intended to be confined only to them, since the last portion of the interim order afore extracted clearly say that the 'Municipality shall prepare a list of candidates who are within the age limit of 50 years.' 12. 11. Obviously, therefore, the opportunity which was given to the petitioners in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020 was not intended to be confined only to them, since the last portion of the interim order afore extracted clearly say that the 'Municipality shall prepare a list of candidates who are within the age limit of 50 years.' 12. Therefore, to construe this interim order as being applicable only to the petitioners in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020 and not to any other similarly placed persons, especially those who were included in the earlier list prepared by the Corporation, would be to cause violence to the principles of equal justice and would be contrary to the concepts of fairness and fairplay. I am, therefore of the view that the afore extracted interim order in W.P.(C)No.9892 of 2020 should apply to all cases and also to all persons who were earlier included in the list of 310 DLR Workers prepared by the Thrissur Corporation. 13. The learned Government Pleader, Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, made submissions virtually affirming my views as afore and he added that the resolve of the Government is also that all those people who were earlier included by the Thrissur Corporation in the list of 310 DLR Workers ought to be considered for being regularized in the manner as has been ordered by the learned Judge in the afore extracted interim order; and that it was not proper on the part of the Corporation to have confined such opportunity only to the petitioners in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020. He submitted that if the Thrissur Corporation prepares a proper list, after interviewing and selecting all those persons who were included in the earlier list of 310, subject to the upper age limit of 50; and forwards such a proposal to the Director of Urban Affairs appropriately, the said Authority will consider the same and then transmit it to the Government for approval. The learned Government Pleader, therefore, prayed that these writ petitions be ordered only on such terms. 14. Before I go forward, I must record certain corollary submissions made by some of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 15. The learned Government Pleader, therefore, prayed that these writ petitions be ordered only on such terms. 14. Before I go forward, I must record certain corollary submissions made by some of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 15. Shri.G.Krishna Kumar, Shri.Ajeesh K.Sasi, Shri.C.R.Rakesh Sharma, Shri.Arun Ashok Iyyani and Smt.T.B.Mini, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases, submitted that some of their clients have now crossed the age of fifty, but that they have been continuing in the services of the Corporation for the last more than 10 to 20 years. They submitted that all of them were appointed through a process well within the contours of law and on the basis of notifications and invitations that were made by the concerned Authorities at the relevant time; and therefore, that, going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supeme Court in Yashwant Hari Katakkar (Supra) and Piara Singh (Supra) it would not be permissible to deny them the benefit of regularization, merely because they have crossed the age of fifty. 16. The learned counsel contended that the age limit of fifty has been fixed by this Court in the afore extracted interim order in W.P(C)No.9892 of 2020, only because it had been submitted by the Standing Counsel for the Corporation that the upper age limit for being sponsored by the Employment Exchange is that, and for no other reason. They, therefore, prayed that the case of those DLR Workers who were validly recruited into the services of the Corporation more than a decade or two ago, also be directed to be considered, along with the other candidates, particularly because, as per the ratio in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], only those persons who were illegally appointed can be denied the benefits of regularization and not those who were recruited through a process of law. They thus prayed that all the petitioners in these cases be granted the opportunity of being subjected to the process for regularization at the hands of the Corporation. 17. I find some force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as afore, because it is without doubt that in Umadevi (Supra), what has been proscribed is the regularization of those candidates who entered services through the back door and without going through any valid or legally sustainable process. 18. 17. I find some force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as afore, because it is without doubt that in Umadevi (Supra), what has been proscribed is the regularization of those candidates who entered services through the back door and without going through any valid or legally sustainable process. 18. In the cases at hand, the petitioners contend that they were all inducted into the services of the Thrissur Corporation as DLR Workers several years ago, on the strength of a valid invitation and notification and that they were appointed only after a proper selection process had been conducted by the concerned Authorities. 19. That said, there is no doubt that the Government Orders, that stood at that relevant time, maintained that only candidates from the Employment Exchange could have been invited for being so appointed. But if, as a matter of fact, the Authorities had not followed the same, but still conducted a proper selection procedure, after inviting applications through a valid notification, then certainly, I find no reason why those candidates should be denied the benefit merely because they have crossed the age of fifty. 20. I am guided in this view by the affirmative declarations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (Supra); Yashwant Hari Katakkar (Supra) and Piara Singh (Supra). 21. Discerning my mind as afore, the learned Standing Counsel for the Thrissur Corporation, Shri.Santhosh P.Poduval, prayed that liberty may be granted to his client to verify the case of the individual persons, who were earlier included in the list of 310 DLR Workers prepared by them and to verify if any of them had been appointed as such through a valid process sanctioned in law; and that if such appointments were so made, then they be permitted to consider such persons also for the benefit of the interim order afore extracted. 22. I must record that the learned Government Pleader, Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose did not oppose this, but only said that the evaluation of the initial appointments of the petitioners through other streams than the Employment Exchange will have to be carefully done by the Corporation before a list is drawn up; and that liberty may be reserved to the Director of Urban Affairs and the Government to verify this through reliable and cogent methods. 23. 23. The sum total of the afore makes it clear that the list prepared by the Corporation earlier-which included 310 DLR Workers-was one which contained the names and details of all persons who were working in the Corporation until then. All of them cannot be considered for regularization, since it is stated that only 87 vacancies are now available. As has been already directed by this Court in the afore extracted interim order, the Corporation ought to have made an assessment of all the 310 DLR Workers, who are now in their rolls -including the petitioners herein, and ought to have verified whether they were appointed through a process known to law and whether they have crossed the age of fifty. 24. These criteria are relevant because, the extant Government Orders make it clear that only persons who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange can be appointed as a DLR worker; but if in spite of this, the Authorities had made a proper notification and had conducted a valid selection process, which was approved by the competent Authorities, then I see no reason why such persons also should not be considered for regularization in terms of law. In the afore circumstances, I order these writ petitions and set aside the Government Orders impugned; and consequentially, direct the Corporation to evaluate the credentials of all persons presently on their DLR Roll, which includes the petitioners, as also all the persons who were earlier included in the list of 310 DLR Workers, along with those who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange; and to then prepare a list of all those candidates found eligible, as per the criteria above, for being regularized to the post of CLR workers. Needless to say, in the case of those candidates who have crossed the age of fifty, the Corporation will have to carefully verify whether they were appointed initially through a process known to law and after a proper selection; and if it is found so, such persons will also be eligible to be included as per the ratio in Umadevi (Supra), with specific remarks shown against them that they have been so included on account of the fact that they have gone through a valid process initially. On such a list being prepared, the Corporation will forward the same to the Director of Urban Affairs appositely, along with their proposal and request, which shall then be forwarded by the said Authority to the Government for their concurrence, after proper verification -including as to whether the persons who are above the age of fifty were properly included, having undergone a valid selection process initially. The afore exercise shall be completed by the Thrissur Corporation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the list shall then be processed by the Director of Urban Affairs within a period of two months after it is received by him from the Corporation. Once the Director of Urban Affairs completes his verification and forwards the same to the Government, the Government will pass appropriate orders on it without any avoidable delay, but not later than two months from the date of which it is received by them. I make it clear that these directions are confined to the benefit of the petitioners herein and to those who were included in the list of 310 DLR Workers earlier and not to any other person; and that all future appointments to be made by the Thrissur Corporation will scrupulously abide by the Government Orders which mandate that the candidates must be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. After I dictated this part of the judgment, Shri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader, submitted that if the Corporation intends to seek creation of additional posts, then they must make a specific and independent proposal for the same and forward it to the Director of Urban Affairs, along with the list, as ordered by this Court. It goes without saying that this will be the process to be followed by the Corporation if they require additional posts to be created; and I direct them to do so if they are so interested.