The petitioner is an empanelled conductor working in the 1st respondent Corporation since the year 2000 onwards. The petitioner had raised claim for regularisation in the service of the Corporation based on the Government order GO(MS) 78/2011 dt.22.12.2011. When the claim of the petitioner was not considered, he had approached this court along with other similarly situated persons in WP(C).12470/2012. In Ext.P1 judgment this court directed the 1st respondent to consider their claim and to take an appropriate decision. Ext. P2 is the consequential order issued. Claim of the petitioner for regularisation was rejected stating the reason that he had not completed 10 years of service with 120 duties per year and hence not satisfied the eligibility criteria stipulated under GO MS 78/2011. It is challenging Ext.P2 this writ petition is filed. 2. The legal position now remains settled through the decision of this court in Suresh Kumar vs. State of Kerala (2013 (2) KLT 258). This court had categorically held that GO (MS) 78/11 does not insist upon completion of 120 duties per year as eligibility for regularisation of a provisional employee working on temporary basis. The above position stands confirmed through judgment rendered by Division Bench of this court in WA. No. 763/2013, dt 28.5.2013.
2. Therefore rejection of the claim for regularisation, stating that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service with 120 duties per year, cannot be sustained. The petitioner had produced Ext.P3 certificate issued by the 2nd respondent which will clearly indicate that he had worked as empanelled conductor for the period from 23.8.2000 to 22.12.2011. Therefore it is evident that the petitioner had completed 10 years of service as an empanelled conductor. Therefore it is held that the petitioner is eligible to be regularised in the service of the 1st respondent Corporation on the basis of GO (MS).No.78/2011.
3. The writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to issue appropriate proceedings regularising the petitioner in the service of the 1st respondent Corporation, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE pmn/