JUDGMENT : Mohammed Nias C.P., J. The writ petition is filed seeking appointment of the petitioner to the post of Worker in the Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited, Chavara, Kollam (for short 'the company') under the preferential category, taking into consideration Exts.P1 to P3, P5, P6, P8 and P10 to P14. 2. For the formation of the company, during the period from 1978 to 1982, the Government acquired land. Pursuant to the said acquisition, the company had taken a policy decision, with the concurrence of the Government, to provide preference to one person from each family whose land was acquired, for appointment in the worker category in the company. However, preferential category employees were also required to participate in open selection and were entitled to selection only if all criteria were found to be equal. 3. While so, on 16.03.2020, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of the Minister for Industries, wherein, it was decided that the persons who were originally employed in the company through LAPA (Land Acquired People's Association), the fourth respondent, would be engaged as Direct Contract Workers (DCW) of the company. A total of 743 workers engaged by LAPA were identified, and a decision was taken that all those workers would be engaged on a contract basis directly by the company for a minimum period of 18 days per month. It is submitted that on the basis of the said list, 733 persons were appointed on 01.06.2020 and 02.06.2020. 4. The petitioner in the instant case claims to be a member of LAPA and that his mother's property was acquired for the formation of the company. The petitioner relies on Ext.P12 for the same purpose. The petitioner contends that after initially working for the company, since there was no further engagement, he had to eke out his livelihood elsewhere. On finding that he was not included in the live list prepared by LAPA, he was not considered for engagement, which led to the filing of this writ petition. 5. Earlier, by judgment dated 30.09.2021, this court found that though the petitioner was eligible, he was not given engagement. This court recorded the contention of the management then that the names of the petitioner and Mr.Vinodkumar were forwarded in accordance with law. However, the LAPA has recommended the name of Vinodkumar only. No explanation was forthcoming from LAPA as to why the petitioner herein was excluded. This court recorded the contention of the management then that the names of the petitioner and Mr.Vinodkumar were forwarded in accordance with law. However, the LAPA has recommended the name of Vinodkumar only. No explanation was forthcoming from LAPA as to why the petitioner herein was excluded. Taking note of the fact that LAPA had not entered appearance despite notice, the writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be engaged within one month, deeming that the petitioner was a person recommended by LAPA. 6. Writ Appeal No.1591/2021 was filed by the company against the said judgment, wherein it was found that the petitioner was engaged by the company pursuant to the directions issued by the Court from 12.11.2021, but was disengaged immediately thereafter. The petitioner was again re-engaged on 10.12.2021 and continued as such till 09.05.2022. In the writ appeal, it was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the workmen therein that the company had terminated his services contrary to the undertaking given to the court, and therefore there was a direction in the writ appeal to re-engage the petitioner with immediate effect, which was also done. The Division Bench noticed the fact that the minutes of the discussion between the union representing the LAPA workers and the management, dated 16.03.2020, were not produced in the writ petition. The Division Bench, noting the fact that the petitioner was being engaged by the company, remitted the matter for the Single Judge to consider the writ petition afresh. 7. In the meantime, Vinodkumar, who was similarly situated as that of the petitioner, had preferred Writ Petition No.27871 of 2021, which was allowed through judgment dated 14.12.2023. The Division Bench dismissed Writ Appeal No.167/2024 preferred by the company on 10.06.2024, rejecting the arguments of the company that the petitioner was earlier engaged only on account of the recommendation made by LAPA and for no other reason. The company took note of the contention of the workmen therein that the fact that the petitioner therein was an evictee and that the bye-laws of LAPA do not contain any condition of waiver of the membership in case of employment for a limited purpose and time. It is also to be noted that pursuant to the directions of this court, Sri. Vinodkumar was given employment, and he is continuing. The Special Leave Petition filed against the Ext.P27 judgment was also dismissed. It is also to be noted that pursuant to the directions of this court, Sri. Vinodkumar was given employment, and he is continuing. The Special Leave Petition filed against the Ext.P27 judgment was also dismissed. 8. In the instant case, also, the company is not denying the fact that the petitioner's mother's property was acquired and that he had worked for the company during the period 2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the company had admitted that the petitioner had worked for four years in Ext.P10. It has to be seen from the documents referred to above that the petitioner was an evictee entitled to preference, and there is no case for the company that the petitioner was disqualified in any aspect. It is also to be noted, as rightly held by the Division Bench earlier, that the bye-laws of LAPA did not contain any condition of waiver of membership in case of employment for a limited purpose and time. It is relevant to note that Ext.P12 letter issued by the company recommended considering the name of the petitioner. 9. Under such circumstances, I do not think that the case of the petitioner is any different from the case considered by this court in the judgments mentioned above, more so, given the recommendation by LAPA themselves that an appropriate decision can be taken, taking note of the fact that he was employed by the company earlier and that he was a member of the society. Resultantly, the stand of the company that the case of the petitioner is different from the petitioner in the cases referred to above cannot be accepted. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed holding that the petitioner is eligible to be engaged by respondents 2 and 3 as a worker as stipulated in the decision dated 16.03.2020 and is entitled to be included as a Direct Contract Worker in terms of the decision taken in the meeting held on 16.03.2020. Orders in this regard should be passed by respondents 2 and 3 within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above.