Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner, having secured her employment as a Data Entry Operator on daily wage basis in the second respondent organization, has been working for more than 13 years. Though employees working prior to 18.11.1998 had been considered for regularization in terms of Exhibit P2, the further implementation of the process of regularization got delayed. Under those circumstances, certain temporary employees filed W.P. (C) No.7586 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court through judgment dated 14.08.2014. To the similar effect is WP (C) No.25310 of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 01.10.2014 through Ext.P2 judgment.
3. Later, having come to know of the directions of this Court to consider the case of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 7586 of 2010 and W.P.
(C) No.25310 of 2014 for regularization, on the premise that the petitioner too is similarly situated, she, along with others, filed Exhibit P1 representation on 04.11.2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that their Exhibit P1 representation has not been considered expeditiously.
4. The record reveals that in compliance with the direction of this Court in the judgment, dt.14.08.2014 in W.P. (C) No.7586 of 2010, concerning the petitioners therein, the first respondent put those persons on notice directing them to appear before the said authority for a personal hearing on 07.10.2014. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the petitioner is equally entitled to have a hearing based on Exhibit P1 representation along with other employees who were asked to appear before the authority. The singular contention of the petitioner is that merely on the ground that the petitioner has not approached this Court at the earliest point of time, her rights cannot be defeated and that no primacy should be given to the other persons during the process of hearing before the case of the petitioner could be considered.
5. As could be seen, while disposing of W.P. (C) No. 7586 of 2010 filed by 11 petitioners, who were also said to be working as Data Entry Operators, this Court simply directed the authority concerned to consider their representation and pass appropriate orders thereon. In that context all those persons were asked to appear before the authority on 07.10.2014. It is evident that the representation to be considered by the first respondent in terms of the judgment, dt. 14.08.2014 was filed by those petitioners on 03.02.2014.
6. Taking advantage of the direction in the said judgment, another person filed W.P. (C) No.25310 of 2014 and invited Ext.P2 judgment. While rendering Ext.P2 judgment, I queried whether any interview was being conducted, the learned counsel for the petitioner therein made it clear that it was not an interview that was slated to be conducted on 07.10.2014, but only a hearing on the representation dated 03.02.2014. Under those circumstances, this Court disposed of the writ petition with an ‘innocuous’ direction. That seems to have opened floodgates. Now the present petitioner has come before the Court, having filed Ext.P1 representation on 04.11.2014.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it will suffice if the present writ petition is also disposed of with a direction to the first respondent authority to consider Exhibit P1 representation of the petitioner as early as possible. Yet, at the same time, this Court cannot conclude that there is any delay in the authorities disposing of Exhibit P1 representation, which was filed very recently by the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the first respondent, while making it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits, to consider Exhibit P1 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible.
jes DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE