JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. These writ petitions relate to recruitment to the posts of Substitute Sanitation Workers (CLR) in the Manjeri and Thrippunithura Municipalities. Hence, they are heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. In this judgment, parties and exhibits are referred to as they are described/marked in W.P.(C) No.15142/2023. 2. W.P.(C) Nos.15142/2013 and 15146/2023 are filed by the petitioners, who are working as daily wage Sanitation Workers in the Manjeri Municipality. The petitioners are working as such since the year 2013 onwards. They are appointed by the Municipality, paid from the own fund of the Municipality and are enrolled in the Employees Provident Fund. 3. They have been working for several years without any break. Now, the respondents are taking steps to replace them by another set of employees through Employment Exchange. Ext.P10 letter dated 18.04.2023 has been issued by the Municipality requesting the Employment Exchange hands to appear for interview on 10.05.2023. The petitioners state that they are entitled for continued employment and regularisation. There are several vacancies to accommodate the petitioners. The only livelihood of the petitioners is the income derived from the job. Their families are wholly dependent on the petitioners and their employment as daily wage Sanitation Workers. 4. When these writ petitions came up for admission in the year 2023, this Court directed the respondents to provisionally permit the petitioners to participate in the interview for appointment to the post of Substitute Sanitation Workers pending disposal of the writ petition. The petitioners seek to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners as Substitute Sanitation Workers within a time frame. 5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.37605/2024 is a CLR worker who is working in the Thrippunithura Municipality since the year 2003. The petitioner seeks to declare that he is entitled to be regularised in the contingent service under the Municipality. He seeks to direct the Municipality to include him while filling the existing two vacancies as per Ext.P2 resolution. 6. W.P.(C) Nos.15500/2023 and 20483/2025 are filed by candidates who were nominated by the Employment Exchange for appointment to the available vacancies of Substitute Sanitation Workers in Manjeri Municipality. The petitioners in these writ petitions submit that they are registered with the Employment Exchange. The Manjeri Municipality, as per resolution dated 13.04.2023, resolved to appoint sanitation workers from a list furnished by the Employment Exchange. 7. The petitioners in these writ petitions submit that they are registered with the Employment Exchange. The Manjeri Municipality, as per resolution dated 13.04.2023, resolved to appoint sanitation workers from a list furnished by the Employment Exchange. 7. The petitioners state that in Government Order dated 22.04.1982, the Government has directed the Municipalities to engage contingent workers only through the Employment Exchange. The Manjeri Municipality, however, appointed daily wage Sanitation Workers without following the Government Order dated 22.04.1982. In W.P.(C) No.1024/2022 filed by Employment Exchange candidates, the Manjeri Municipality undertook to fill up the available vacancies through Employment Exchange. 8. The Manjeri Municipality appointed many political workers having allegiance to the ruling party as daily wage Sanitation Workers. The Municipality has the habit of regularising such candidates clandestinely. The Employment Exchange on 13.12.2022 forwarded a list of candidates suitable for appointment as Substitute Sanitation Workers. The petitioners were included in the Employment Exchange list. They were required to appear before the Municipality along with Employment Exchange registration card. 9. The Municipality appointed 13 Employment Exchange candidates and 9 non-Employment Exchange candidates as Substitute Sanitation Workers. The appointment of the non Employment Exchange candidates is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Uma Devi and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], contended the petitioners. The petitioners therefore prayed to direct the Municipality to refrain from appointing anyone else other than the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as Substitute Sanitation Workers. 10. The counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.15142/2023 and 15146/2023, who are working as daily wage Sanitation Workers in the Manjeri Municipality since the year 2013 onwards, contended that they are eligible to be considered for regularisation of service as Substitute Sanitation Workers taking into account the long years of service rendered by them as daily wage Sanitation Workers. 11. The counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.15142/2023 and 15146/2023, who are working as daily wage Sanitation Workers in the Manjeri Municipality since the year 2013 onwards, contended that they are eligible to be considered for regularisation of service as Substitute Sanitation Workers taking into account the long years of service rendered by them as daily wage Sanitation Workers. 11. The counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others [ (1996) 6 SCC 216 ] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or waiting to be registered in the Employment Exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. 12. The counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Miss. Pritilata Nanda [ (2010) 11 SCC 674 ] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that by denying appointment to a candidate despite selection and placement in the merit list, would violate right to equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India . 13. The counsel for the petitioners further relied on a judgment of this Court in Hameshdas K.H. and others v. State of Kerala and others [ILR 2021 (3) Ker. 456] wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court observed that even though the extant Government Orders make it clear that only persons who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange can be appointed as DLR workers; but if in spite of this, the authorities had made a proper notification and had conducted valid selection process, which was approved by the competent authorities, there is no reason why such persons also should not be considered for regularisation in terms of law. 14. 14. The counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.15500/2023 and 20483/2025, who are candidates nominated by the Employment Exchange, relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No.811/2024 wherein the Division Bench has held that though the appellants therein are DLR workers working in the Municipality for many years on daily wages, they have no right to contend that they should be appointed other than by a due selection process. The counsel for the petitioners also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No.2398/2018 wherein the Division Bench has held that Municipality was given the power to engage candidates who were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange only in case of additional work. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader representing the State of Kerala and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipalities. 16. It is not disputed that the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos.15142/2023 and 15146/2023 have been working as daily wage Sanitation Workers on temporary basis from various dates since the year 2010. They were enrolled in the Employment Provident Fund Scheme. The Manjeri Municipal Council initiated proceedings for regular appointment of Substitute Sanitation Workers and invited nominations from the Employment Exchange. When the Employment Exchange candidates were called for interview, the daily wage Sanitation Workers approached this Court seeking regularisation of their services. 17. By interim order dated 05.05.2023 in W.P.(C) Nos.15142/2023 and 15146/2023, this Court directed that the petitioners may also be permitted to participate in the interview for appointment to the post of Substitute Sanitation Workers. Pursuant to the said interim order, the petitioners participated in the selection proceedings. The Municipality interviewed them also along with Employment Exchange sponsored candidates and the petitioners have been found eligible for regular appointment. 18. The candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment as Substitute Sanitation Workers in the same Manjeri Municipality are the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.15500/2023 and 20483/2025. The candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange would contend that the Government Order dated 22.04.1982 mandates that the Municipality shall appoint Substitute Sanitation Workers only from the list furnished by the Employment Exchange. This Court in Ext.P2 judgment has also held that the Municipality cannot appoint anyone else other than from the list provided by the Employment Exchange. The candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange would contend that the Government Order dated 22.04.1982 mandates that the Municipality shall appoint Substitute Sanitation Workers only from the list furnished by the Employment Exchange. This Court in Ext.P2 judgment has also held that the Municipality cannot appoint anyone else other than from the list provided by the Employment Exchange. As the petitioners are candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, selection should be confined from among the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, urged the petitioners. 19. It is true that the temporary adhoc workers working under the State or under an instrumentality of the State cannot seek regularisation of their services as a matter of right. In W.P.(C) Nos.15142 and 15146 of 2023, the petitioners are daily wage Sanitation Workers engaged by the Municipality for long years. When these writ petitions came up for admission, this Court directed the Municipality to consider their candidature also in the selection process. In the selection process, the petitioners in the writ petitions have come out successful. 20. It is true that this Court in W.A. No.811/2024 has held that the DLR workers working in a Municipality for long years on daily wages have no right to contend that they should be appointed other than by a due selection process. The petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.15142 and 15146 of 2023, however, have been subjected to due selection process pursuant to the interim orders of this Court along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the judgment in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam (supra) that it is common knowledge that many a candidate are unable to have the names sponsored by the Employment Exchange, though their names are either registered or awaiting registration. In such cases, the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority / establishment to intimate the Employment Exchange and Employment Exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning Departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority / establishment to intimate the Employment Exchange and Employment Exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning Departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation. In addition, the appropriate Department or Undertaking or Establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, TV and Employment News Bulletins and then consider the names of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates. 22. In this case, selection proceedings were initiated by reporting the vacancies to Employment Exchange. The Employment Exchange sponsored certain candidates, all of whom were subjected to a selection proceedings. It is in the meanwhile that the adhoc sanitation workers, who have rendered long years of service in the Municipality, approached this Court. Taking note of their long years of service, this Court passed interim orders and directed that those candidates may also be subjected to selection process. All adhoc sanitation workers of the Manjeri Municipality were also thus subjected to the same selection process. 23. The Municipality has made available the select list of candidates who are successful in the selection process, which contains their eligibility conditions and educational qualifications. The selection has been made by the Municipality strictly on the basis of merit. There is no allegation that any of the daily wage Sanitation Workers working under the Municipality were excluded from the zone of consideration. The selection was thus made from a wider zone of consideration inclusive of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the daily wage Sanitation Workers working in the Municipality. The selection is thus after a due selection process, following uniform criteria and on the basis of merit. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the said selection process. W.P.(C) Nos.15142 and 15146 of 2023 are allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners who are selected in the selection proceedings to the post of Substitute Sanitation Workers. W.P.(C) Nos.15500/2023 and 20483/2025 are dismissed. Those among the petitioners who are selected in the selection proceedings will, however, be entitled to regular appointment. W.P.(C) Nos.15142 and 15146 of 2023 are allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners who are selected in the selection proceedings to the post of Substitute Sanitation Workers. W.P.(C) Nos.15500/2023 and 20483/2025 are dismissed. Those among the petitioners who are selected in the selection proceedings will, however, be entitled to regular appointment. As regards W.P.(C) No.37605/2024, as and when selection proceedings are initiated by the Thrippunithura Municipality for regular appointment of Substitute Sanitation Workers, all the CLR / daily wage Sanitation Workers including the petitioners working in the Municipality and having more than 10 years of service, shall also be subjected to selection process along with the candidates who may be sponsored by the Employment Exchange.