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 10 years of service as on 22.12.2011. Claiming regularisation, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation to the authorities. Complaining of its non disposal, he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. As could be seen from the record, the Government issued Ext.P2 Government Order extending the benefit of regularisation to the Empanelled Drivers and Conductors subject to certain conditions. It is the case of the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 31150/2014 -2-
that he fulfills all the eligibility criteria and that the respondent authorities ought to have considered his Ext.P3 representation positively.
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 petitioner's Ext.P3 representation in the light of Ext.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 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. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C) No. 31150/2014 -3-