-
by Admin
05 December 2025 4:19 PM
“When daily wage workers have participated in the same selection process as Employment Exchange nominees and succeeded, their appointment cannot be denied”, Kerala High Court held that long-serving daily wage sanitation workers (also referred to as Contingent Labour Register or CLR workers) in Manjeri and Thrippunithura Municipalities are eligible for regular appointment if they have been subjected to the same merit-based selection process as candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, and emerged successful.
Justice N. Nagaresh, who authored the judgment, clarified that while employment through the Employment Exchange remains the standard rule under the Government Order dated 22.04.1982, it cannot be treated as the exclusive channel of recruitment in cases where wider public notification or court-directed inclusion has led to a broader field of eligible candidates.
This judgment not only upheld the appointment of CLR workers but dismissed challenges from Employment Exchange nominees, reinforcing the principle that equal opportunity in public employment cannot be mechanically limited by executive orders, especially when selection was conducted fairly and inclusively.
“Wider Zone of Consideration is Not Illegal When Selection is Based on Merit” – High Court Validates CLR Workers’ Inclusion
The litigation arose out of the recruitment process to the posts of Substitute Sanitation Workers in Manjeri and Thrippunithura Municipalities. Petitioners in WP(C) 15142/2023 and WP(C) 15146/2023 were daily wage CLR sanitation workers, many employed since 2010 or earlier, claiming a right to continued employment and regularisation, given their long-standing service and dependence on the job for livelihood.
When the Manjeri Municipality initiated steps in 2023 to fill the posts by inviting Employment Exchange nominees (pursuant to G.O. dated 22.04.1982), the petitioners approached the High Court, which granted an interim order permitting their participation in the selection process.
On the other side, petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 15500/2023 and 20483/2025, representing the Employment Exchange candidates, challenged the inclusion of CLR workers, contending that the 1982 Government Order required exclusive consideration of Exchange-sponsored candidates.
The case turned on the following central legal questions:
The High Court acknowledged that regularisation as a matter of right is impermissible under Uma Devi, but distinguished the current case on the ground that there was no automatic regularisation—instead, a due selection process was conducted in which both groups of candidates competed.
The Court held:
"It is true that temporary adhoc workers... cannot seek regularisation as a matter of right. However, in this case, the petitioners were subjected to due selection pursuant to interim orders of this Court... The selection was on merit and through uniform criteria." [Para 19-20]
Further, invoking the principle from Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao (1996) 6 SCC 216, the Court ruled:
"Many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered... when selection is restricted only to those sponsored by Employment Exchange. Wider publicity and broader inclusion are consistent with fair play and Article 16." [Para 21]
The Court thus recognised that Employment Exchange sponsorship is not the exclusive pathway and that procedural fairness and opportunity for all eligible candidates must guide recruitment.
The Court reiterated:
"The better view appears to be... that in addition to Employment Exchange, the authority should also call for names by wider notification... then consider all candidates who applied." [Para 21]
The High Court examined the selection list, which included both Employment Exchange candidates and CLR workers, and found no procedural irregularities, mala fides, or bias. All candidates were interviewed on 10.05.2023, under the same eligibility conditions, and appointments were based on merit and objective assessment.
The Court rejected the argument that such inclusion violated the 1982 Government Order, noting:
"The selection was made from a wider zone of consideration... The Court had, through interim orders, permitted inclusion of long-serving sanitation workers... There is no illegality in the selection process." [Para 23]
The Writ Petitions of CLR workers (WP(C) 15142/2023 and 15146/2023) were allowed, and the respondent Municipalities were directed to appoint those CLR workers who were selected.
In contrast, the Employment Exchange nominees (WP(C) 15500/2023 and 20483/2025) were dismissed, except to the extent that any among them who were selected in the same process would also be entitled to appointment.
As for WP(C) 37605/2024, which related to Thrippunithura Municipality, the Court directed that:
"All CLR/daily wage workers with more than 10 years of service shall be included in future selection processes alongside Employment Exchange candidates."
The Kerala High Court's decision establishes a progressive interpretation of service law, wherein procedural fairness, merit-based selection, and judicial directives prevail over rigid administrative stipulations. The judgment navigates the delicate balance between the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 and the practical realities of long-serving contingent workers.
This ruling will likely influence future employment policies in local bodies across the state, compelling them to adopt fairer and more inclusive recruitment practices, especially in the public utility and sanitation sectors where informal labour is rampant.
Date of Decision: 14 November 2025
