Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners, five in number, initially joined the service of the first respondent Municipality as Scavengers (City Cleaning Workers). The petitioners stated that they were engaged by the first respondent only after following the due process of selection and after imparting the necessary training required for discharging the functions attached to their position. Ventilating grievance that their services have not been regularized even after about 8 years, despite what is said to be an express promise on the part of the first respondent to regularize their services in course of time, the petitioners submitted Exhibit P1 representation to the second and third respondents. Complaining of the non-disposal of Exhibit P1 representation, the petitioners' have approached this Court.
3. Apart from addressing the issue on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that to this day the petitioners have been in continuous service without any break. He has further submitted that there have been many previous instances when the services of the similarly situated persons have been regularized. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pending consideration of Exhibit P1, there is every possibility that the respondents may dispense with the petitioners' services. Under those circumstances, the learned counsel has urged this Court to issue a suitable direction to the respondents to consider Exhibit P1 representation favourably.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, however, contends that the petitioners have been appointed on temporary basis and that they cannot insist on reguarlization. At any rate, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the respondent authorities do not have any objection to consider Exhibit P1 representation, said to have been submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that in the light of the pendency of Exhibit P1, it may not be necessary for this Court to adjudicate the issue on merits.
5. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 second respondent to consider Exhibit P1 representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that until the disposal of Exhibit P1 representation, the respondents shall maintain status quo vis-a-vis the petitioners' position in the respondent Municipality.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-