- - JUDGMENT : Syam Kumar V.M., J. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 27.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2568 of 2024.Appellants were the petitioners in the W.P.(C). 2. Appellants who are DLR workers in the 3 rd respondent Municipality had filed the W.P. inter alia, contending that while recruitment of candidates through the employment exchange is a legally envisaged method of recruitment to public employment, restricting consideration solely to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange is contrary to the principles of fairness and denies others to participate in the selection process. Contending that publication by way of advertisements is imperative to a fair recruitment process and challenging Ext.P7 order of the Ombudsman to the extent the said aspect is overlooked, the appellants had filed the Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs : “(1) To call for records leading to Ext.P7 order and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order in the interest of justice ; - (2) To call for records leading to Ext.P2 and Ext.P3and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, in the interest of justice ; (3) To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction, directing respondents No.3 and 4 to conduct fresh selection process towards the 23 sanctioned posts of contingent sanitation workers in tune with the direction contained in Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N.Visweswara Rao (1996) 6 SSC 216, expeditiously within a time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court ; (4) Declare that the selection to the contingent sanitation workers in the 3 rd respondent Municipality without following the directions in Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweswara Rao (1996) 6 SSC 216 is illegal and unsustainable being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India ; (5) Declare that the Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 Government orders are quashed to extent of limiting selection and appointment of cleaning/sanitation workers in contingent service of Local Self Government Institutions to candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange alone being violative of directions in Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N.Visweswara Rao (1996) 6 SSC 216. (6) Dispense with the filing of English translation of exhibits in vernacular ; and (7) Such other writ, orders or directions deem fit on facts and in the interest of justice.” 3. (6) Dispense with the filing of English translation of exhibits in vernacular ; and (7) Such other writ, orders or directions deem fit on facts and in the interest of justice.” 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition inter alia holding that the case of the appellants squarely fall within the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others [2006 KHC 507] in so far as the appellants do not have a case that they had been appointed through a valid selection process. This it was held disentitles them from seeking the prayers. Further, holding that a long period of employment in any Municipality, Corporation, or Panchayat does not by itself give a vested right to appellants to continue, and seek regularisation, the learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C). Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Appeal is filed. - 4. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, Advocate for the appellants, Sri.Sunil Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent, Sri.A.Haroon Rasheed, learned Standing Counsel for R3 & R4 - Pattambi Municipality, Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Advocate for party respondents R6, R16 to 24, 27 & 28 and Sri.K.Shaj, Advocate for respondents R7 to R12 and R14 & R15. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge had rendered the impugned judgment, overlooking the legal contentions and precedents relating to the subject matter. He submits that Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders were not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, and this had led to the rendering of the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge ought to have weighed the impact of Section 4 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 , (Act of 1959) which does not mandate that Employment Exchange hands alone shall be considered for employment or that they shall be compulsorily appointed after the list is called from the Employment Exchange. The learned Single Judge ought to have weighed the impact of Section 4 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 , (Act of 1959) which does not mandate that Employment Exchange hands alone shall be considered for employment or that they shall be compulsorily appointed after the list is called from the Employment Exchange. The learned Judge had also overlooked the impact of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. KBN Visweswara Rao and others [ (1996) 6 SCC 216 ], which held that equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates, when over and above the requisitioning authority/establishment intimating the employment exchange and the employment exchange sponsoring names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments, due publication is also effected in newspapers and other media, having wider circulation and then considering the cases of all candidates who have responded to the same. Reliance is also placed on Union of India and others v. Pritilata Nanda (2010 KHC 4489), wherein it was held that nothing in the said Act of 1959 obligates the employer to appoint only those who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in Arun Kumar Nayak v. Union of India and others [ (2006) 8 SCC 111 ] has held that in addition to and consistent with the principle of fair play, justice and equal opportunity, the appropriate department or establishment should also call for the names by publication in newspapers, having wider circulation, announcement on radio, television and employment news bulletins and consider all the candidates who have applied. This it was noted will afford equal opportunity to all eligible candidates in the matter of employment. It is submitted that the rationale behind such direction is also consistent with the sound public policy that, wider the opportunity of notice of vacancy, by wider publication in the newspapers, radio, television and employment news bulletin, the better candidates with better qualifications are attracted, so that adequate choices are made available and the best candidates would be selected and appointed to subserve the public interest better. However, the said dictum was overlooked in the case at hand. However, the said dictum was overlooked in the case at hand. Referring to the dictum laid down in Renu and others v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and another [2014 KHC 4089] it is contended that the term opportunity, as used in Article 16 of the Constitution, means chance of employment and what is guaranteed is that this opportunity of employment would be equally available to all. The judgments of this Court in Hemeshdas K.H. and others v. State of Kerala and others ( 2021 KHC 295 ); Kerala State Municipal Workers Federation and another v. Kozhikode Corporation and others [ 2007 (1) KHC 760 ]; are also relied on to buttress the contentions put forth. The learned counsel thus contends that the direction in Ext.P7 order dated 28.11.2023, interfering with the decision/discretion of the Municipality as the appointing authority of contingent employees, is illegal and ought to have been quashed. The learned Single Judge erred in declining to do the same, and hence the impugned judgment is fit to be set aside. - - - 6. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not merit any interference, insofar as the same has been rendered, after taking note of all the legal precepts and precedents. The appointment of the contingent staff in any Municipality is to be done by the respective Municipality as per the stipulations in the relevant GOs. As per the said orders, the contingent employees in the Municipalities have to be selected from the list furnished by the local Employment Exchange. The respondent Municipality, being the appointing authority under Section 224 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 had the authority and competence to prepare a select list and the same was carried out in accordance with law, in strict compliance with the relevant G.Os. The appellants had not been selected/registered with the Employment Exchange, offering their availability to be selected for appointment and hence they are not eligible to be selected for the post of sanitation workers in the 4 th respondent Municipality. On the other hand, the party respondents are fully eligible to get appointed as they have been selected on merit. The appellants had not been selected/registered with the Employment Exchange, offering their availability to be selected for appointment and hence they are not eligible to be selected for the post of sanitation workers in the 4 th respondent Municipality. On the other hand, the party respondents are fully eligible to get appointed as they have been selected on merit. The 4 th respondent Municipality had reported 23 vacancies to the Employment Exchange, and a list of 197 candidates had been forwarded to the 4 th respondent Municipality for consideration of employment. Based on the interviews and physical test conducted by the Municipality, the Employment Exchange officer had forwarded a list of 23 candidates to the Municipality following the communal rotation roster for appointment to the post of sanitation workers. Out of the said 23, the Municipality had appointed 8 candidates. Respondents 6, 13, 17 to 28 are persons who had declared their availability to be appointed as sanitation workers years before by registering their names with the Employment Exchange and had been renewing their names without failure, anticipating an appointment through the Employment Exchange. The reliance placed on the dictum in Visweswara Rao (supra) is misplaced since the same was rendered in the peculiar context of two co-existing and competing selection lists both under consideration for the same set of vacancies. It is in the said context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the employer was required to consider candidates from both lists in the interest of fairness and equal opportunity. Such a fact situation is absent in the case at hand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Visweswara Rao (supra) has not laid down any binding legal principle that the selection exclusively through the employment exchange is illegal, nor did it declare that such a process violates Section 4 (4) of the Act of 1959. Appellants are persons who secured employment through back-door entry without due eligibility and without offering their availability for employment through registration in the Employment Exchange. They were never part of the notified process, never applied under the recruitment notification and were not subjected to the same selection standards. The appellant attempts to substitute and supersede those who were duly selected. Thus, it is prayed by the learned counsel that the WA is devoid of merits and may be dismissed. - - - 7. They were never part of the notified process, never applied under the recruitment notification and were not subjected to the same selection standards. The appellant attempts to substitute and supersede those who were duly selected. Thus, it is prayed by the learned counsel that the WA is devoid of merits and may be dismissed. - - - 7. The learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel for the Municipality made submissions defending the judgment of the learned Single Judge and made submissions in line with their respective counter-affidavits filed in the W.P.(C). 8. We have heard the parties in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. At the very outset, we note that appellants who are continuing in the service have not substantiated that they have been appointed through a valid selection or that they had undergone a selection process at all. The finding of the learned Single Judge that, in such a context, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka (supra) is attracted is valid and proper. The appellants had not registered their names in the Employment Exchange and they do not have a case that they were appointed through a selection process. Reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the said aspects too cannot be faulted. As regards the contention put forth based on Sec. 4 of the Act of 1959, that the employer ought to have issued a notification calling for applications to the post of contingent workers, we find merit in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge that Section 4 (4) only gives liberty to the Municipality to simultaneously issue a notification calling for application from the open market, and there is no directive in the said Section or in the scheme mandatorily stipulating that the Municipality shall issue notifications simultaneously. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants do not apply to the facts of the case at hand is correct. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the challenge in the said precedent was regarding the non-selection of candidates who had been given appointments and whose names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the challenge in the said precedent was regarding the non-selection of candidates who had been given appointments and whose names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. On the other hand, in the case at hand the Municipality had sought a list of candidates to be selected by conducting an interview and a physical test. The respondent Municipality had consciously taken a decision not to call for notification through newspapers to the post as they are not legally bound by the relevant provision to do so. It is in this context that the contention put forth that Section 4 (4) of the Act gives liberty to the Municipality to simultaneously issue a notification calling for application from the open market, and there is no directive in the said Section or in the scheme mandatorily stipulating that the Municipality shall issue notifications simultaneously assumes relevance. It is the prerogative and discretion of the employer to go for either from the Employment Exchange or issue a fresh notification for selection from the open market. The fact that no notifications have been issued in this case will not vitiate the proceedings initiated by the Municipality for recruitment from the Employment Exchange. The appellants, though they are DLR workers working in the Municipality for so many years on daily wages, have no right to contend that they should be appointed other than by a due selection process. That no open market selection had been conducted is no reason to say that the respondents who have been sponsored through the Employment Exchange in compliance with Exts.P4 and P5 orders cannot be appointed in the Municipality. - - - We find no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.