Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, 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, who joined the service of the respondent Board on 29.09.2003 as Sub Engineer (Electrical), has been continuing on daily wage basis to this day. Seeking regularization, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibits P5 to P9 representations before the second respondent. Seeking their expeditious disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibits P5 to P9 W.P.(c) No. 34488 of 2014 2 representations of the petitioner in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE