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, an empanelled mechanic attached to the Poovar Depot of the respondent Corporation, worked from 10.04.2000 to 30.07.2007. Later, owing to chronic cervical spondylosis, the petitioner is said to have absented himself. Now being fit, he seeks re-induction as empanelled mechanic. In that regard, he is said to have submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 1st respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
W.P.(C.) No.32090/2014 -2-
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has strenuously contended that empanelled mechanics, like all other categories of empanelled workers, would not have any indefeasible right to insist on re-induction after prolonged absence.
Be that as it may, it will suffice if a direction is given for the disposal of Ext.P4 representation of the petitioner. 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, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's Ext.P4 representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No.32090/2014 -3-