Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, apart from perusing the records. 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, an Empanelled driver, having secured entry into service in 1993, claims that he has already completed more than 10 years of service as on 22/12/2011 in terms of Ext.P2 Government Order. Thus, requesting to be regularised, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 1st respondent. Complaining of its non disposal, he filed W.P.(c).No.26798 of 2014 : 2 :
present the writ petition.
3. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that Ext.P2 order has undergone subsequent statutory changes. At any rate, the Standing Counsel has submitted that the respondents authorities will be making every effort to dispose of Ext.P3 representation at the earliest.
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 respondents, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents authorities to consider Ext.P3 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, especially by taking into account the ratio laid down in the decision in Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala {2013 (2) KLT 258} and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an W.P.(c).No.26798 of 2014 : 3 :
opportunity of being heard in person to the petitioner.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.
dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge.