Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, 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 is said to be an Empanelled Conductor of the respondent Corporation, having more than ten years of service as on 22.12.2011. The petitioner has produced Exhibit P3 certificates in support of his claim.
3. As could be seen from the record, the Government issued Exhibit P2 Order extending the benefit of regularisation to the Empanelled Drivers and Conductors subject to certain conditions. It is the case of the petitioner that he fulfills all the eligibility criteria and that the respondent authorities ought to have considered his representation positively.
W.P.(C) No. 30361/2014 -2-
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for regularisation in the light of Exhibit P2 Government Order and also other statutory regulations, as well as the ratio laid down in Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2013 (2) KLT 258) and W.P.(C) No.30691/2014, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE jjj