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 Driver of the respondent Corporation, having more than ten years of service as on 22.12.2011. He claimed regularisation in the light of Exhibit P2 Government Order. When his services were not regularised, he has filed W.P.(C)No.9504/2014 and invited Exhibit P4 judgment.
WPC 31511/14 2 Thereafter, the respondent Corporation passed Exhibit P5 order rejecting his claim. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
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. He places reliance on Exhibits P1, P1B and P1D attendance details.
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 quashing Exhibit P5 order and directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's claim 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 WPC 31511/14 3 (2) KLT 258) and W.P.(C)No.30691/2014, and pass appropriate orders thereon, 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.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv