Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a Contingent worker, was recruited through due process after having his name sponsored by employment exchange. Though the petitioner joined the service in October 2013, so far his services have not been regularized. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is said to have filed Exhibit P8 representation before the third respondent, which is yet to consider it. Complaining of delay in that regard, the petitioner filed the present writ W.P.(c) No. 29326 of 2014 2 petition.
3. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent corporation, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to consider Exhibit P8 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-